Peer and self-reports of victimization and bullying: Their differential association with internalizing problems and social adjustment

Bouman, Thijs; Meulen, Matty Van der; Goossens, F.A.; Olthof, Tjeert; Vermande, Marjolijn M.; Aleva, Elisabeth A.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.08.004

Cited by 122 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with earlier studies in which aggregated peer reports and self-reports were compared (e.g., Bouman et al, 2012;Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004;Graham & Juvonen, 1998;Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002;Österman et al, 1994), the results of the current study highlighted discrepancies between peer and self-reported victimization. That is, self-reports identified substantially more victims per classroom than peer reports.…”

Section: Discrepancies Between Peer Reports and Self-reportssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…However, it is also possible that the discrepancies between peer and self-reported victimization may be due to receivers reporting that they had been victimized whereas they actually had not (i.e., 'paranoid' receivers, Graham & Juvonen, 1998). In the current design, as in nearly all studies on this topic, it was impossible to disentangle why peer and self-reports were discrepant (Bouman et al, 2012;Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004;Graham & Juvonen, 1998;Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002;Österman et al, 1994). Given that there is no consensus on an objective method for determining whether a student is actually victimized, a rational guideline for identifying victims would be to take students who have reported being victimized seriously, even though others do not perceive these students as victimized.…”

Section: Discrepancies Between Peer Reports and Self-reportsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Over the years, researchers have used different methods, instruments, and informants to identify victims of school bullying (Bouman et al, 2012;Graham & Juvonen, 1998;Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). Students' self-reports are the most commonly used and accepted measurement of victimization (Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies using peer reports typically aggregate these reports in such a way that they reflect the proportion of classmates who nominated a certain student as a victim. An advantage of this procedure is that multiple observers are used to identify victims (Bouman et al, 2012;Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). A disadvantage of using peer reports to measure victimization is that perhaps not all students are equally competent in reporting the victimization of their classmates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies generally found that the correlations between the two measurements were moderate at best (e.g., Bouman et al, 2012;Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004;Graham & Juvonen, 1998;Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002;Österman et al, 1994). Ladd and KochenderferLadd (2002), for example, found that correlations between peer and self-reported victimization varied from .14 to .42 depending on the age of the respondents.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Peer and self-reported victimization: Do non-victimized students give victimization nominations to classmates who are self-reported victims?

Oldenburg¹,

Barrera

Olthof

et al. 2015

Journal of School Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using data from 2413 Dutch first-year secondary school students (M age = 13.27, SD age = 0.51, 49.0% boys), this study investigated as to what extent students who according to their self-reports had not been victimized (referred to as reporters) gave victimization nominations to classmates who according to their self-reports had been victimized (referred to as receivers). Using a dyadic approach, characteristics of the reporter-receiver dyad (i.e., gender similarity) and of the reporter (i.e., reporters' behavior during bullying episodes) that were possibly associated with reporter-receiver agreement were investigated. Descriptive analyses suggested that numerous students who were self-reported victims were not perceived as victimized by their non-victimized classmates. Three-level logistic regression models (reporter-receiver dyads nested in reporters within classrooms) demonstrated greater reporter-receiver agreement in same-gender dyads, especially when the reporter and the receiver were boys. Furthermore, reporters who behaved as outsiders during bullying episodes (i.e., reporters who actively shied away from the bullying) were less likely to agree on the receiver's self-reported victimization, and in contrast, reporters who behaved as defenders (i.e., reporters who helped and supported victims) were more likely to agree on the victimization. Moreover, the results demonstrated that reporters gave fewer victimization nominations to receivers who reported they had been victimized sometimes than to receivers who reported they had been victimized often/very often. Finally, this study suggested that reporterreceiver agreement may not only depend on characteristics of the reporter-receiver dyad and of the reporter, but on classroom characteristics as well (e.g., the number of students in the classroom).

show abstract

Section: Discrepancies Between Peer Reports and Self-reportssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discrepancies Between Peer Reports and Self-reportsmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peer and self-reported victimization: Do non-victimized students give victimization nominations to classmates who are self-reported victims?

Oldenburg¹,

Barrera

Olthof

et al. 2015

Journal of School Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A meta‐analysis of the relationship between moral disengagement and bullying roles in youth

Killer

Bussey

Hawes

et al. 2019

Aggressive Behavior

134

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last several years, researchers have become increasingly interested in the influence of moral factors on bullying behaviors. This is the first meta‐analytic review to exclusively examine the relationship between moral disengagement (MD) and the key bullying roles of bully, victim, defender, and bystander. Forty‐seven independent samples examining a total of 43,809 children/adolescents (aged 7–19) were included in this meta‐analysis. Results indicated a positive relationship between MD and bullying (r = 0.31; 95% CI [0.27, 0.34]), MD and victimization (r = 0.08; 95% CI [0.05, 0.12]), and a negative relationship between MD and defending (r = −0.11; 95% CI [−0.17, −0.04]). No significant relationship was found for MD and bystanding behavior. Moderators of bullying type (traditional vs. cyberbullying), reporting type (self vs. peer report), age, and gender were included in the analyses. The results are discussed in the context of relevant literature with particular emphasis on the importance of distinguishing between guilty and unconcerned bystanders, and the significant overlap between bullying and victimization in the cyber context.

show abstract

Associations between peer stress in early adolescence and multiple event‐related potentials elicited during social feedback processing

Wong

Ethridge

Farrell‐Reeves

et al. 2022

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpersonal stress in adolescence has been associated with alterations in neural responses to peer feedback, and increased vulnerability to psychopathology. However, it is unclear whether the associations of interpersonal problems with neural responses are global across event‐related potentials (ERPs) or might result in alterations only in specific ERPs. We examined associations between multiple informants of peer stress (self‐reported, parent‐reported, and peer‐reported) and multiple ERPs (N1, P2, RewP, and LPP) to social feedback in a sample of 46 early adolescents (aged 12–13 years). Reports of peer stress were only moderately correlated with one another, indicating different informants capture different aspects of peer stress. Regressions using informant reports to predict ERPs revealed greater parent‐reported peer stress was associated with a smaller RewP, whereas self‐reported stress was associated with a smaller P2, to acceptance. In contrast, greater peer‐reported stress was associated with larger P2, RewP, and LPP to acceptance. Findings suggest that different sources of stress measurement are differentially associated with ERPs. Future research using social feedback‐related ERPs should consider multiple sources of information as well as multiple ERP components across the time‐course of feedback processing, to gain a clearer understanding of the effects of peer stress on neural responses to feedback.

show abstract

Peer and self-reports of victimization and bullying: Their differential association with internalizing problems and social adjustment

Cited by 122 publications

References 52 publications

Peer and self-reported victimization: Do non-victimized students give victimization nominations to classmates who are self-reported victims?

Peer and self-reported victimization: Do non-victimized students give victimization nominations to classmates who are self-reported victims?

A meta‐analysis of the relationship between moral disengagement and bullying roles in youth

Associations between peer stress in early adolescence and multiple event‐related potentials elicited during social feedback processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About