The Social Cognitions of Victims of Bullying: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The nature of the relation between victimization of bullying and social information processing is unclear. The prevention hypothesis predicts that victims focus more on negative social cues to prevent further escalation. In contrast, the reaffiliation hypothesis predicts that victims focus more on positive social cues to restore the social situation. Alternatively, the desensitization hypothesis predicts that victims become increasingly insensitive to social cues because of a numbing effect. This systematic review examines evidence for these three hypotheses on the relation between victimization and social information processing. The focus is on two phases of social information processing: encoding of social information (attending to and registration of social cues) and interpreting social information (making sense of multiple social cues simultaneously). These phases are important prerequisites for behavioral responses. The systematic search led to the inclusion of 142 articles, which were published between 1998 and 2021 and received quality assessment. The studies included on average about 1600 participants (range: 14–25,684), who were on average 11.4 years old (range: 4.1–17.0). The topics covered in the literature included attention to and accurate registration of social cues, peer perception, attribution of situations, empathy, and theory of mind. The results were most often in line with the prevention hypothesis and suggested that victimization is related to a negative social-cognitive style, as shown by a more negative perception of peers in general and more negative situational attribution. Victimization seemed unrelated to abilities to empathize or understand others, which contradicted the desensitization hypothesis. However, desensitization may only occur after prolonged and persistent victimization, which to date has been sparsely studied. The reaffiliation hypothesis could not be thoroughly examined, because most studies did not include positive social cues. In bullying prevention, it is important to consider the negative social information processing style related to victimization, because this style may impede the development of positive social interactions.

Are there negative cycles of peer victimization and rejection sensitivity? Testing ri-CLPMs in two longitudinal samples of young adolescents

“…In SIP theory, such a combination of expectation and emotion is considered to be more likely among individuals who report a more extensive history of negative interpersonal experiences, such as being victimized by peers. Supporting this view, individuals who have a history of victimization report greater vigilance to social rejection cues, and thus, they are more rejection sensitive (Kellij et al, 2022).…”

Neural Underpinnings of Peer Experiences and Interactions: A Review of Social Neuroscience Research

“…Other studies have employed a wide range of tasks (e.g., decision-making tasks, face processing, or reward processing), but the conclusion points to heightened affective sensitivity (Casement et al, 2014;Swartz et al, 2020;Telzer et al, 2015;Will et al, 2016a) along with difficulties in emotion regulation (as evidenced by enhanced PFC activation in safe or prosocial choices) in youth with negative peer experiences (Telzer et al, 2015(Telzer et al, , 2018Will et al, 2016a). These findings contribute to our understanding of stability in negative peer experiences, such as rejected peer-status stability over time, for example through hostile attribution biases (Perren et al, 2013;Reijntjes et al, 2011) that might be related to a neural basis of social information processing (Kellij et al, 2022;Mayeux et al, 2007). Considering the link between positive and negative peer experiences, in childhood and adolescence, and adult adjustment and wellbeing (Bagwell et al, 1998), social neuroscientific studies have the potential to contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms of these links.…”

Polygenic risk score and peer victimisation independently predict depressive symptoms in adolescence: results from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Children Development

“…Lastly, one possible explanation for the inconsistent pattern of association between self‐reported versus teacher‐reported peer victimisation and PRS‐depression may be that self‐reports of peer victimisation may more readily capture a perception bias towards social relationships, which may co‐occur with a genetic vulnerability to depression. In other words, individuals with a genetic vulnerability to depression may perceive more acutely or be more inclined to interpret behaviours by peers as victimisation (Kellij, Lodder, van den Bedem, Güroğlu, & Veenstra, 2022; Lopez & DuBois, 2005; Orth, Robins, & Roberts, 2008). Alternatively, teacher‐reports could be more limited in scope compared to self‐reports of peer victimisation as it included only three items.…”