This article was downloaded by: [Austin Peay St University]On: 06 June 2014, At: 07:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap20

Targeted Peer Victimization and the Construction ofPositive and Negative Self-Cognitions: Connections toDepressive Symptoms in ChildrenDavid A. Cole a , Melissa A. Maxwell a , Tammy L. Dukewich a & Rachel Yosick ba Department of Psychology and Human Development , Peabody College, VanderbiltUniversity ,b Department of Psychology , Lipscomb University ,Published online: 23 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: David A. Cole , Melissa A. Maxwell , Tammy L. Dukewich & Rachel Yosick (2010) Targeted PeerVictimization and the Construction of Positive and Negative Self-Cognitions: Connections to Depressive Symptoms in Children,Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39:3, 421-435, DOI: 10.1080/15374411003691776

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374411003691776

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Targeted Peer Victimization and the Construction ofPositive and Negative Self-Cognitions: Connections

to Depressive Symptoms in Children

David A. Cole, Melissa A. Maxwell, and Tammy L. Dukewich

Department of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College,Vanderbilt University

Rachel Yosick

Department of Psychology, Lipscomb University

The goal was to examine the relation of covert=relational and overt=physical targeted peervictimization (TPV) to each other, to positive and negative self-cognitions, and to symp-toms of depression. In a sample of elementary and middle school children, TPV wasassessed by self-report, peer-nomination, and parent report in a multitrait–multimethodstudy. Positive and negative self-cognitions and depressive symptoms were assessed byself-report. Confirmatory factor analytic results support the convergent and discriminantvalidity of these two types of TPV. Both kinds of TPV were significantly related to positiveand negative self-cognitions as well as self-reported depressive symptoms; however, struc-tural equation modeling revealed that the effects of covert=relational TPV accounted forthe effects of overt=physical TPV. In exploratory analyses, positive and negativeself-cognitions explained the relation between TPV and depressive symptoms.

The likelihood of being bullied or victimized by one’speers is high during middle childhood, a key timefor the active construction of positive and negativeself-cognitions (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992;G. W. Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Pellegrini &Bartini, 2000; Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001). Such victi-mization may contribute to the emergence of negativeschemas that, in turn, generate risk for problems suchas depression (see Roth, Coles, &Heimberg, 2002; Storch& Ledley, 2005). Peer victimization researchers and the-orists describe at least two broad types of victimization:overt=physical victimization and covert=relational victi-mization (Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999; Crick & Grotpeter,1995). Although research has focused on these constructsfor more than 20 years, empirical support for their discri-minant and convergent validity and information about

their relation to self-cognitions and depression is justbeginning to emerge (Crick, Casas, & Nelson, 2002;Hoglund & Leadbeater, 2007). Three primary goals andhypotheses guided the current study. First, using aMulti-trait–Multimethod (MTMM) design and confirmatoryfactor analysis, we sought to add support for the conver-gent and discriminant validity of overt=physical and cov-ert=relational victimization. Second, we hypothesizedthat both kinds of victimization would be positivelyrelated to negative self-cognitions and negatively relatedto positive self-cognitions in the victims. However, giventhe more insidious and psychological nature of covert=relational victimization, we expected it to be morestrongly associated with self-cognitions. Third, we exam-ined gender differences in peer victimization and its rela-tions to other constructs. Fourth, we conducted apreliminary test of the hypothesis that positive and nega-tive self-cognitions account for the relation between vic-timization and depressive symptoms.

Targeted peer victimization (TPV) is defined as‘‘the experience among children of being a target of

Correspondence should be addressed to David A. Cole, Depart-

ment of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College

#512, 230 Appleton Place, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

37203-5721. E-mail: david.cole@vanderbilt.edu

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(3), 421–435, 2010

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1537-4416 print=1537-4424 online

DOI: 10.1080/15374411003691776

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

the aggressive behavior of other children, who are notsiblings and not necessarily age-mates’’ (Hawker &Boulton, 2000, p. 441). Historically, studies ofTPV have focused on overt=physical victimization,often highlighting the behavior of boys. Since then,studies have expanded their focus to include covert=relational victimization, perhaps more completelycapturing the range of TPV experiences of both girlsand boys (Crick et al., 1999). Overt=physical victimiza-tion occurs when a child is harmed or controlled byphysical threats or damage (Crick & Bigbee, 1998).Covert=relational victimization consists of behaviorintended to damage peer relationships, friendships,and acceptance often by excluding the victim frompeer activities, withdrawing friendship, and spreadingrumors (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Grotpeter & Crick,1996; Hawker & Boulton, 2000).

The preponderance of research on TPV anddepression has relied on self-reports of both constructs.Such mono-methodism can inflate estimates of associ-ation (Cole, 1987; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Hawkerand Boulton’s (2000) meta-analysis of two decades ofresearch on TPV supports this possibility. When victimi-zation was assessed by peer-report and depression wasassessed by self-report, their correlation averaged .29(with a range of .24 to .36). In contrast, when depressionand victimization were both assessed by self-report, theircorrelation averaged .45 (with a range of .23 to .81).Card and Hodges (2008) noted that every source ofinformation about victimization (e.g., self, peers, par-ents) has its liabilities. Self-reports are subject to bothunderreporting (due to fear of negative consequencesand unawareness of certain kinds of victimization) andoverreporting (due to biased perceptions; Cillessen &Bellmore, 1999; De Los Reyes & Prinstein, 2004). Peernominations represent the extent to which victimizationis known, not necessarily the frequency or intensity ofthe problem. Parent-reports may underrepresent theproblem, as parents may simply be unaware of manyvictimization events. To avoid these potential confoundsin the current study, we followed advice of Card andHodges (2008) and G. W. Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd(2002) by obtaining multiple measures (peer nomina-tions, parent-reports, and self-reports) of both overt=physical and covert=relational TPV.

Both kinds of TPV convey poignant, negativeself-relevant feedback to the victim. Such social feed-back can jeopardize children’s construction of healthyself-cognitions (Harter, 2003b). During middle child-hood, various subtypes of self-cognition become increas-ingly differentiated (Harter, 1990) and integrated(LaGrange & Cole, 2008). Individual differences inself-cognition become increasingly stable (Abela &Hankin, 2008; Clark, Beck, & Alford, 1999; Cole,Martin, Peeke, Seroczynski, & Fier, 1999; Hankin,

2008; D. T. Rose & Abramson, 1992) and serve eitherto protect children from or predispose children forproblems such as depressive symptoms (Cole & Jordan,1995; Cole & Turner, 1993; Jacquez, Cole, & Searle,2004). Elsewhere, we have speculated that during middlechildhood and early adolescence, children internalizethe feedback to which they are exposed as they constructfor themselves a sense of their relative competenceand incompetence in different domains (Cole, 1991).When such feedback is generally positive, children con-struct a sense of self as broadly competent. However,when such feedback is poignant, harsh, chronic, andtargeted, children emerge with self-perceptions ofincompetence, feelings of hopelessness, and a broadlypessimistic view of the future (Graham & Juvonen,1998; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd, 2001). In the currentstudy, we focused on overt=physical and covert=relational TPV as two broad classes of behaviors thatprovide children with competence-related feedback,disrupt the construction of positive self-cognitions, andfoster the construction of negative self-perceptions.

More specifically, we hypothesize that children whoexperience high levels of overt=physical or covert=relational victimization would score low on measures ofpositive self-cognitions and high on measures of negativeself-cognitions. Preliminary support for this hypothesisderives from studies showing that peer victimization issignificantly related to global self-worth, several domainsof self-perceived competence, fear of negative evaluation,and a depressive attributional style (e.g., Andreou, 2001;Boulton & Smith, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Gibb,Abramson, & Alloy, 2004; Prinstein, Cheah, & Guyer,2005; cf. Kaukiainen et al., 2002; Salmivalli & Isaacs,2005; Storch, Nock, Masia-Warner, & Barlas, 2003).Caldwell, Rudolph, Troop-Gordon, and Kim (2004)found a similar relation between peer stress and ‘‘rela-tional self-view’’ (a combination of social self-worth, socialself-competence, and perceived control).

These studies generally provide initial evidence of alink between peer victimization and self-cognitions, butthey also suggest at least four important avenues forfurther research. First, relatively little work on the originsof depressive cognitions has distinguished between overt=physical and covert=relational victimization. Hunter andBoyle (2002) speculated that covert=relational victimiza-tion, being potentially isolating as well as harder todefend against, may be the more pernicious of the two.Others hypothesize that being subjected to both overt=physical and covert=relational victimization will resultin more serious consequences than being subjected toonly one form of TPV (B. J. Ladd & Ladd, 2001; Prin-stein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). The current studyexamined both of these possibilities.

Second is the linkage between TPV and depressivesymptoms in young people. Hawker and Boulton’s

422 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

(2000) review suggests that both overt=physical andcovert=relational victimization are more strongly relatedto depressive symptoms than any other disorder. Asconsistent as this literature appears to be, many studiesrely only on a single measure of victimization, typically achild self-report (for exceptions, see Hodges, Boivin,Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Hodges & Perry, 1999;G. W. Ladd, 2006). In the current study, we assessedTPV from multiple perspectives. We then estimatedthe relation of depressive symptoms to both overt=physical and covert=relational victimization using latentvariable modeling.

The third issue pertains to gender differences in TPVand its relation to depressive symptoms. Although boysare more likely than girls to experience overt=physicalvictimization, gender differences in covert=relationalvictimization are less consistent (Crick, 1996; Crick &Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; French, Jansen,& Pidada, 2002; Galen & Underwood, 1997). Several stu-dies suggest that male and female adolescents experiencesimilar prevalence rates of covert=relational victimization(e.g., Prinstein et al., 2001; Storch, Brassard, &Masia-Warner, 2003; Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006).A review byA. J. Rose and Rudolph (2006) suggested thatevidence of a gender difference in covert=relational TPVmay depend on age or informant. Studies that have exam-ined gender differences the strength of relation betweendepressive symptoms and covert=relational TPV thisrelationship have generated mixed results. Prinstein et al.(2001) found that relational victimization was uniquelyassociated with depressive symptoms for boys but notfor girls. Conversely, Storch, Nock, et al. (2003) reportedthat the same relationship was significant for girls butnot for boys. In the current study, we used threeinformants (self, peer, and parent) to examine two kindsof gender differences: (a) mean differences in the incidenceof overt=physical and covert=relational victimization and(b) differences in the relation of victimization to depressivesymptoms and related self-cognitions.

Our final goal was to provide a preliminary test ofwhether the relation between TPV and depressive symp-toms is a function of individual differences in positiveand negative self-cognitions. To our knowledge, onlyfive studies have begun to examine this question. First,in a retrospective study of young adults, Gibb, Benas,Crossett, and Uhrlass (2007) found that high levels ofnegative cognitions and low levels of positive cognitionsexplained a significant portion of the relation betweenreports of peer victimization and current depressivesymptoms. The generalizability of these findings to chil-dren and adolescents remains unclear. Second, Hoglundand Leadbeater (2007) found that negative cognitionsabout others were related to TPV but not depressivesymptoms=anxiety in sixth and seventh graders. Forthe current study, we hypothesized that cognitions

about oneself (not about others) would be more stronglyrelated to both TPV and depressive symptoms. Third,G. W. Ladd and Troop-Gordon (2003) reported thatsocial self-acceptance partially mediated the relationbetween victimization and internalizing problems in asample of 5- to 10-year-olds. Fourth, a similar study(Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005) reported that change insocial self-acceptance explained the relation betweenvictimization and internalizing symptoms over thecourse of Grades 4 through 6. Fifth, focusing on 12-to 17-year-olds in the National Longitudinal Surveyfor Children and Youth, Adams, and Bukowski (2008)found that self-concept mediated the relation betweenvictimization and depressive symptoms but only forobese girls (not for obese boys, nonobese boys, or non-obese girls). None of these studies distinguished betweensubtypes of victimization.

METHOD

Participants

We recruited participants from two rural=suburbanelementary schools and one middle school in centralTennessee. We distributed Institutional Review Board–approved consent forms to parents of 826 studentsGrades 3 through 6. More than half the parents(N¼ 421) gave permission for their child to participate.Of the students for whom we had parental consent, 403(96%) were present on the day of data collection andgave their assent to participate. One parent or guardianfor each child was also invited to participate. Compari-sons of participants to nonparticipants on ethnicity, sex,and grade level revealed only small, nonsignificantdifferences (ps> .20).

Children were in third (n¼ 100), fourth (n¼ 98), fifth(n¼ 101), and sixth (n¼ 104) grades. Ages ranged from8 to 14 (M¼ 10.9, SD¼ 1.2). Overall, the sample evenlyrepresented boys (49%) and girls (51%). The studentsample included Caucasian (92.2%), African American(1.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), Asian (.5%), and other (3.0%)children. Family size (i.e., the number of children livingat home) ranged from 1 to 9 (Mdn¼ 3).

Measures

Victimization by peers. We measured overt=physi-cal and covert=relational TPV using self-reports, peernominations, and parent reports. Utilization of multiplesources of information is crucial insofar as every sourceof information has unique strengths and weaknesses (DeLos Reyes & Prinstein, 2004). Our self-report measurewas a six-item questionnaire designed to assess rela-tional and physical victimization (RV-SR and PV-SR,respectively), expanding on the items used by

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 423

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

G. W. Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd (2002), whichconverged with peer reports and peer nominations andcorrelated well with peer rejection measures in thirdand fourth grade. We modified items to reflect a broaderrange of physical and relational victimization, slightlyreworded for somewhat older children. The questionstem was, ‘‘Does anyone in your class ever. . . .’’ Thethree relational items were (a) Tell others to stop beingyour friend, (b) Say you can’t play with them, and(c) Say mean things to other kids about you. The threephysical items were (d) Kick you, (e) Hit you, and(f) Push you. Each item was rated on a 4-pointscale, ranging 1 (never), 2 (rarely), 3 (sometimes), and4 (a lot). Cronbach’s alphas were .72 for relationalvictimization and .81 for physical victimization. Prin-ciple axis factor analysis revealed a two-factor structurewith primary factor loadings above .58 and no crossloadings greater than .25 (see Table 1). The two factorscorrelated .44. We summed the items within factor toform two subscales.

Our parent report was a nine-item questionnairedesigned to assess parental perceptions of the frequencywith which their child was the victim of relationaland physical victimization (RV-PR and PV-PR, respec-tively). Again, we modified the items from the G. W.Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd’s (2002) parent reportto reflect a broader range of physical and relationalvictimization, with wording changed to make the itemsmore appropriate for older children. The original mea-sure showed moderate long-term stability and significantconvergent validity with self- and peer-reports inGrade 4. Parents rated how many days in a typical week(0 to 7) their child experienced various kinds of peervictimization. In the current study, Cronbach’s alphaswere .93 for relational victimization and .71 for physicalvictimization. Principle axis factor analysis revealed atwo-factor structure with all primary factor loadingsgreater than .40 and no cross loadings above .34(see Table 2). The two factors correlated r¼ .21. Wesummed the items within factor to form two subscales.

Our peer nomination measure followed a formatsimilar to that used in studies of children’s social status(e.g., Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Each childreceived a list of 20 names of students. Names weremostly from the respondent’s home room. If there werenot 20 consented participants from that roster, nameswere added from adjacent classrooms. Every student’sname appeared on 20 other students’ peer nominationforms. Separate forms were used to obtain peer nomina-tions of relational and physical victimization (RV-PNand PV-PN, respectively). For example, the physicalvictimization item was

Some kids get picked on or hurt by other kids at school.They might get pushed around. They might get bulliedby others. They might even get beat up. Who getstreated like this? Who gets pushed or bullied by others?

Instructions ask respondents to mark all the names ofclassmates who fit a particular question. Scores for eachstudent were the proportion of 20 students who indi-cated that the child was either physically or relationallyvictimized.

Self-cognition measures. Harter’s (1985) Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) is a self-reportinventory with 36 items reflecting developmentallyappropriate specific domains (i.e., scholastic com-petence, social acceptance, behavioral conduct, physicalattractiveness, and sports competence) plus a globalself-worth scale. For each item, children select one of

TABLE 1

Factor Loadings for Child Self-Reported Peer Victimization

Questionnaire

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

Relational Victimization Items

Tell Others to Stop Being Your Friend .70 �.08

Say You Can’t Play With Them .68 .03

Say Mean Things to Others Kids About You .65 .09

Physical Victimization Items

Kick You �.03 .79

Hit You �.06 .87

Push You .25 .58

Note. Factor correlation was .44.

TABLE 2

Factor Loadings for Parent-Reported Peer Victimization

Questionnaire

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

Relational Victimization Items

A kid tries to get other kids to ignore your

child

.92 �.06

Others try to keep your child out of their

group

.86 .04

Say they won’t be friends with your child if

your child doesn’t do what they say

.79 �.09

Say mean things about your child ‘‘behind

his=her back’’

.77 .14

Someone at school tries to get others to stop

being friends with your child

.92 .02

Physical Victimization Items

Your child is picked on or hurt by kids at

school

.34 .57

Other kids beat up your child �.13 .40

Your child gets pushed around or bullied

by other kids

.04 .78

Your child gets hit or kicked at school when

the teachers aren’t looking

.14 .69

Note. Factor correlation¼ .21.

424 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

two statements to indicate whether they are more like achild who is good or a child who is not so good at aparticular activity. Then they select statements indicat-ing whether the selected statement is ‘‘sort of true’’ or‘‘really true’’ about themselves. Responses are convertedto 4-point rating scales with high scores reflecting betterself-perceptions. The SPPC has a highly interpretablefactor structure and all subscales have good internalconsistency (Harter, 1982, 1985). In our sample, theCronbach’s alphas for the SPPC scales ranged from.75 to .85.

The Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children (CTI-C;Kaslow, Stark, Printz, Livingston, & Tsai, 1992) is a36-item self-report questionnaire assessing children’sviews of themselves (e.g., ‘‘I am a failure’’), their world(e.g., ‘‘The world is a very mean place’’), and their future(e.g., ‘‘Nothing is likely to work out for me’’). Childrenindicate having had specific thoughts using a yes=maybe=no response format, scored on 3-point scales.Scores range from 0 to 72 with higher scores indicatingmore negative views. Despite the word ‘‘triad’’ in thetitle, recent factor analysis of the measure reveals thata two-factor solution emerges over the course of middlechildhood (LaGrange & Cole, 2008). One is a positivecognitions factor; the other is a negative cognitionsfactor. The measure has high internal consistency andgood construct validity, correlating with measures ofself-perception, self-worth, self-control, perceived con-tingency, and attributional style (Kaslow et al., 1992;LaGrange & Cole, 2008).

The Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale (CATS;Schniering & Rapee, 2002) is a self-report questionnaireassessing negative self-cognitions in young people. Thequestionnaire asks children to rate the frequency withwhich they have had 56 different negative thoughts inthe previous week. Ratings are made on a 5-point scaleranging 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). The CATS yieldsa full scale score as well as scores on four subscales:Physical Threat (e.g., ‘‘I’m going to get hurt’’), SocialThreat (e.g., ‘‘I’m afraid I will make a fool of myself’’),Personal Failure (e.g., ‘‘It’s my fault that things havegone wrong’’), and Hostility (e.g., ‘‘I won’t let anyoneget away with picking on me’’). Cronbach’s alphas rangefrom .85 to .92 for the subscales and .95 for the fullscale. Test–retest reliability is .79 at 1 month and .76at 3 months; Schniering & Rapee, 2002).

Depressive symptoms. The Children’s DepressionInventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985) is a 27-item self-reportmeasure that assesses cognitive, affective, and beha-vioral symptoms in children. Each item consists ofthree statements graded in order of increasing severity,scored from 0 to 2. Children select one sentence fromeach group that best describes themselves for the past2 weeks (e.g., ‘‘I am sad once in a while,’’ ‘‘I am sad

many times,’’ or ‘‘I am sad all the time’’). In nonclinicpopulations, the CDI has relatively high levels of inter-nal consistency, test–retest reliability, predictive, conver-gent, discriminant, and construct validity (Cole &Jordan, 1995; Craighead, Smucker, Craighead, & Ilardi,1998; Smucker, Craighead, Craighead, & Green, 1986;Timbremont, Braet, & Dreesson, 2004). The suicideitem was deleted due to concerns by the public schooladministration.

Procedures

Prior to data collection, informed-consent statementswere distributed to all children in each participatingclassroom. We offered a $100 donation to each class-room if 90% of children returned consent forms signedby a parent or guardian, either granting or denying per-mission for their child’s participation. Parent question-naires (assessing parental perceptions of TPV) weredistributed with the consents. Parents returned theirconsents to the university in preaddressed, stampedenvelopes. More than 90% of the parents who grantedconsent for their child’s participation also returned theparent questionnaire. Whether parents returned theparent questionnaire was unrelated to any of the datacollected from the child participants (ps> .20). Psy-chology graduate students administered the question-naires to students during regular school hours. Inkeeping with the developmental level of the participants,we implemented slightly different data collection proce-dures at different grade levels. For third and fourth gra-ders, one research assistant read the questionnairesaloud to a group of students. For students in the fifthand sixth grades, a research assistant introduced the bat-tery questionnaires and allowed students to completethem at their own pace. At all grade levels, researchassistants circulated among students to answer questionsbefore, during, and after questionnaire administration.At the end of the administration, the students were givensnacks and a decorated pencil for their participation.

RESULTS

Preliminary Statistics

Examination of the items on our self-cognition, depres-sive symptoms, and victimization measures revealed adegree of content overlap. As a precaution, we con-structed two sets of measures: One set consisted of fullversions of the original measures; the second set con-sisted of the same measures after deleting selected items.From the CTI-C, we eliminated three items (‘‘The thingsI do every day are fun,’’ ‘‘Bad things happen to me alot,’’ and ‘‘I feel guilty for a lot of things’’) because of

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 425

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

item overlap with the CDI. After item deletion,Cronbach’s alphas were .87 for both the positive andnegative cognition subscales. From the CATS, wedropped two items because of item overlap with theCDI (‘‘Nobody really loves me’’ and ‘‘It’s my fault thatthings have gone wrong’’) and three items because ofitem overlap with our victimization self-report (‘‘I’mworried that I’m going to get teased,’’ ‘‘I’m always theone that gets picked on,’’ and ‘‘Other kids are makingfun of me’’). After item deletion, Cronbach’s alpha forwas .97. From the CDI, we eliminated five items becauseof item overlap with either the CTI and CATS(‘‘Nothing will ever work out for me,’’ ‘‘I do everythingwrong,’’ ‘‘I hate myself,’’ ‘‘I do very badly in subjects Iused to be good in,’’ and ‘‘I can never be as good as otherkids’’). After item deletion, Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

We conducted all major analyses twice: once with theoriginal measures, and again with the reduced measures.The results were very similar. The pattern of significanceand nonsignificance remained entirely unchanged. Spe-cific parameter estimates changed only slightly. In ourfigures, we report both sets of estimates, putting thosefor the reduced measures in parentheses. As the resultswere so similar, we focus the text on the nonparentheticalmeasures. Table 3 contains means, standard deviations,and correlations for the measures without deleted items.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To test hypotheses about discriminant and convergentvalidity, we conducted a MTMM confirmatory factoranalysis. As depicted in the upper model in Figure 1,

we extracted two latent variables (overt=physical andcovert=relational TPV) from six manifest variables.Three of the manifest variables loaded onto overt=physical TPV, and the other three loaded onto covert=relational TPV. All cross-loadings were fixed to zero.

TABLE 3

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for All Measures

Correlations Boys Girls

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD M SD

RV

1. RV-SR��� – 5.36 2.04 6.38 2.79

2. RV-PR�� .57 – 3.11 5.19 7.24 8.47

3. RV-PN .32 .50 – .05 .11 .06 .11

PV

4. PV-SR�� .37 .48 .26 – 4.96 2.35 4.24 1.93

5. PV-PR .38 .44 .55 .41 – 1.00 1.93 1.29 2.36

6. PV-PN�� .26 .34 .59 .29 .43 – .07 .13 .04 .10

Self-cognition

7. CTI-C (Negative Factor) .50 .42 .31 .34 .27 .31 – 22.83 5.52 23.48 6.53

8. CATS�� .66 .53 .31 .43 .32 .28 .73 – 84.52 29.31 94.76 41.73

9. CTI-C (Positive Factor)�� .51 .41 .26 .28 .24 .32 .75 .66 – 22.84 4.86 24.19 6.32

10. SPPC-Global Self-Worth �.43 �.43 �.25 �.29 �.19 �.24 �.63 �.62 �.59 – 18.72 3.12 18.06 3.64

Depression

11. CDI .53 .65 .33 .39 .34 .36 .74 .84 .69 �.64 27.17 6.65 28.16 7.44

Note. RV¼ relational victimization; SR¼ self-report; PR¼ parent-report; PN¼peer nomination; PV¼physical victimization;

CTI-C¼Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children; CATS¼Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale; SPPC¼Self-Perception Profile for Children;

CDI¼Children’s Depression Inventory.

Significance of gender mean differences: ��p< .01. ���p< .001.

FIGURE 1 Path diagram of multitrait–multimethod confirmatory

factor analytic model. Note: Self-report (SR), parent report (PR),

and peer nomination (PN) measures of covert=relational (C=R) and

overt=physical (O=P) targeted peer victimization (TPV). Statistical

significance is denoted: �p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001.

426 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

Following Kenny and Kashy’s (1992) recommendations,we allowed the disturbances to correlate for the twopeer nominations, the two self-reports, and the twoparent reports. We fit the model and estimated modelparameters using full information maximum likelihood.The model provided a good fit to the data: v2(5, N¼403)¼ 10.58, p> .060; normed fit index (NFI)¼ 0.98,incremental fit index (IFI)¼ 0.99, comparative fitindex¼ 0.99, and root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA)¼ .037 (with a 90% confidence inter-val [CI] of 0–.068). Examination of the standardizedpath coefficients revealed three key findings.

First, the correlation between the two latent variableswas .82 (SE¼ .06; CI¼ .70–.93). Controlling for poten-tial shared method variance, this correlation is not sub-ject to the inflation effects of mono-method bias (or tothe deflation effects of measurement error). Althoughthis correlation is significantly less than unity (andreveals approximately 66% shared variance betweenthese constructs), it is still quite large, raising some con-cern about discriminant validity of the constructs.Consequently, we examined the nature of this relationmore completely. First, we categorized all participantson overt=physical TPV. If any of our (parent, peer,and self-report) measures indicated non-zero amountsof overt=physical TPV, it was regarded as present.Otherwise overt=physical TPV was regarded as absent.Second, using analogous criteria, we categorized allparticipants on covert=relational TPV. Finally, weexamined the bivariate distribution of these two indices(see Table 4). Overall, 34.0% of the participants evincedno history of either type of TPV, and 37.3% were cate-gorized as experiencing both (at least to some degree).More interesting, however, 19.9% were categorized ashaving covert=relational TPV only, whereas only 8.8%were categorized as having overt=physical TPV only(p< .001).1 In other words, if students experiencedovert=physical TPV, they had a higher probability(80.9%) of experiencing covert=relational TPV than viceversa (65.3%).

Second, all factor loadings were statistically signifi-cant (ps< .001), providing evidence of convergentvalidity. Pairwise comparisons via a series of nestedmodel comparisons revealed that the factor loading forthe parent report of covert=relational TPV was largerthan that for the parent report of overt=physical TPV,Dv2(1, N¼ 403)¼ 23.74, p< .001. However, the differ-ence between the two loadings was relatively small (.76vs. .81). Similar comparisons for the peer nominationand the self-report measures were not significant

(ps> .10). Third, we detected significant shared methodvariance for the two peer nomination measures (r¼ .49,p< .001) but not for the other two methods.

In the context of this model, we tested the effects ofsex and grade level by adding these variables as exogen-ous predictors of covert=relational and overt=physicalTPV (see lower model in Figure 1). This model fit thedata well by most criteria. The chi-square test was sig-nificant, v2(13, N¼ 403)¼ 35.12, p< .001. However,with large sample sizes, statistically significant resultsdo not always correspond to large effects. Examinationof alternative indices revealed that the model explainedthe preponderance of the observed covariances andthat discrepancies between the model and the datawere small: NFI¼ 0.95, IFI¼ 0.97, CFI¼ 0.97, andRMSEA¼ .045 (with a 90% CI of .028–.064). Examin-ation of the path coefficients revealed that grade was sig-nificantly negatively related to both covert=relationalTPV (b¼�0.27, z¼�4.08, p< .001) and overt=physicalTPV (b¼�0.21, z¼�3.09, p< .05). Lower levels ofboth kinds of TPV were associated with higher gradelevels. Sex was also significantly related to both kindsof TPV but in opposite directions. Boys were more likelyto experience overt=physical TPV (b¼�0.25, z¼�3.68,p< .001), whereas girls were more likely to experiencecovert=relational TPV (b¼ 0.24, z¼ 3.82, p< .001).2

Relation of TPV to Self-Cognition

To test hypotheses about the relation of overt=physicaland covert=relational TPV to positive and negativeself-cognitions, we used latent variable structural

TABLE 4

Joint and Conditional Probabilities for Overt=Physical and

Covert=Relational Victimization

Covert=Relational TPV

Overt=Physical TPV No (%) Yes (%) Total (%)

Joint Probabilities

No 34.0 19.9 53.9

Yes 8.8 37.3 46.1

Total 42.9 57.1 100.0

Conditional Probabilities (Overt=Covert)

No 63.1 36.9 100.0

Yes 19.1 80.9 100.0

Total — — —

Conditional Probabilities (Covert=Overt)

No 79.3 34.9 —

Yes 20.5 65.3 —

Total 100.0 100.0 —

1We also tried other categorization criteria. Using more conserva-

tive criteria (naturally) diminished the overall rates of both kinds of

TPV. However, the ratio of overt=physical to covert relational TPV

remained very stable across a wide range of cutoffs.

2We also tested a model with Sex�Grade interaction term. How-

ever, this effect was not significant for either covert=relational or

overt=physical TPV (ps> .20).

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 427

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

equation modeling. The top panel of Figure 2 representsa model in which overt=physical and covert=relationalTPV predict two new latent variables, positive and nega-tive cognition. Positive self-cognition was representedby the global self-worth scale from the SPPC and thepositive cognition subscale of the CTI-C. Negativeself-cognition was represented by the CATS and thenegative cognition subscale of the CTI-C. Becausethe two CTI-C scales derived from the same measure,we allowed their error terms to correlate. Themodel provided a good fit to the data by most criteria.The chi-square test was again significant, v2(25,N¼ 403)¼ 77.63, p< .001. However, the alternativeindices revealed that the discrepancies between themodel and the data were quite small: NFI¼ 0.96,IFI¼ 0.97, CFI¼ 0.97, and RMSEA¼ .051 (with a90% CI of .036–.065). Cross-group comparisons ofmeasurement and structural path coefficients revealedno significant gender differences.

Three results were noteworthy. First, the loadings ofthe positive and negative self-cognition measures ontotheir respective factors were large, significant, and inthe expected direction (given the scaling of these mea-sures). Second, covert=relational TPV was negativelyrelated to positive self-cognitions (b¼�.81) andpositively related to negative self-cognitions (b¼ .84),even after controlling for the effects of overt=physicalTPV. These effects were strong and statistically signifi-cant (ps< .001). Third, overt=physical TPV was not

significantly related to either positive or negativeself-cognitions after controlling for the effects ofcovert=relational TPV (bs¼ .02, ps> .50). Essentiallyno variance in either positive or negative self-cognitionwas explained by overt=physical TPV after controllingfor covert=relational TPV. This finding does not implythat overt=physical victimization is uncorrelatedwith self-cognition. In fact, from the path diagramin Figure 2, we can calculate that the correlation ofovert=physical victimization is (0.81)(0.84)¼ .68 withnegative cognitions and is (0.81)(�0.81)¼�.66 withpositive cognitions. These correlations are explained,however, by the effects of covert=relational TPV.

We also tested the relation of covert=relational andovert=physical victimization to the five content-specificdomains of self-perceived competence measured by theSPPC. The model is depicted in the bottom panel ofFigure 2, except that the two latent cognitive variableswere replaced by five manifest variables representingthe five domains. The model fit the data well. Themodel provided a good fit to the data by most criteria.The chi-square test was again significant, v2(25,N¼ 403)¼ 41.60, p< .020. However, the alternativeindices revealed that the discrepancies between themodel and the data were quite small: NFI¼ 0.95,IFI¼ 0.98, CFI¼ 0.98, and RMSEA¼ .028 (with a90% CI of .011–.043). Cross-group comparisons ofmeasurement and structural path coefficients revealedno significant gender differences. As in the previous

FIGURE 2 Path diagrams of structural equation model. Note: Upper panel: regressing positive and negative self-cognition onto covert=relational

(C=R) and overt=physical (O=P) targeted peer victimization (TPV). Lower panel: regressing five domains of self-perceived competence onto C=R and

O=P TPV. Statistical significance is denoted: �p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001. Although not indicated, all factor loadings were significant at p< .001.

(Parenthesized values are estimates when overlapping items were deleted.).

428 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

analysis, overt=physical TPV was not significantlyrelated to any of the cognitive variables after controllingfor covert=relational TPV. Covert=relational TPV,however was significantly related to physical appear-ance, athletic competence, and social acceptance (seeFigure 2).3

Relation of TPV to Depressive Symptoms

To examine the relation of overt=physical and covert=relational TPV to depressive symptoms, we again usedlatent variable structural equation modeling but replacedthe two TPV factors with a single measure of depression(see Figure 3). The model provided a good fit to the databy most criteria. The chi-square test was again significant,v2(9, N¼ 403)¼ 34.51, p< .001. However, the alternativeindices revealed that the discrepancies between the modeland the data were quite small: NFI¼ 0.96, IFI¼ 0.97,CFI¼ 0.97, and RMSEA¼ .059 (with a 90% CI of .039to .080). Cross-group comparisons of the path coeffi-cients revealed no significant gender differences. Examin-ation of the structural path coefficients revealed two keyresults. First, covert=relational TPV was significantlyand positively related to depressive symptoms (b¼ .65,p< .001), controlling for overt=physical TPV. Second,overt=physical TPV was not significantly related todepressive symptoms after controlling for the effects ofcovert=relational TPV (bs¼ .14, p> .30).

TPV, Self-Cognition, and Depressive Symptoms

Finally, we examined the degree to which the relationbetween covert=relational TPV and depressive symptoms

might be statistically explained by positive and negativeself-cognitions. That is, does statistically controlling forpositive and negative cognitions reduce or eliminate therelation between covert=relational TPV and depressivesymptoms? We only focused on covert=relational TPV,as overt=physical explained no variance in depressivesymptoms that was not explained by covert=relationalTPV. First, we estimated the overall relation between cov-ert=relational TPV and the CDI using the model depictedin the upper panel of Figure 4. This model fit the data wellby all criteria: v2(2, N¼ 403)¼ .82, p> .40; NFI¼ 1.00,IFI¼ 1.01, CFI¼ 1.00, and RMSEA¼ .00. The totaleffect of covert=relational TPV on the CDI was .78(p< .001). Second, we added the two types of cognitionto the model, as shown in the lower panel of Figure 4.This model also provided a good fit to the data. Althoughthe chi-square test was significant, v2(14, N¼ 403)¼54.43, p> .001, the alternative indices revealed thatthe discrepancies between the model and the datawere small: NFI¼ 0.97, IFI¼ 0.98, CFI¼ 0.98, andRMSEA¼ .059 (with a 90% CI of .026 to .081).

From this model, we estimated the (a) the directrelation of covert=relational TPV to positive and nega-tive self-cognitions, (b) the direct relation of positiveand negative self-cognitions to depressive symptoms,(c) the residual relation of covert=relational TPV todepressive symptoms after statistically controlling forpositive and negative self-cognitions, and (d) Sobel’s(1982) test of the indirect effects. Of importance, we alsoconducted a two-group analysis, which revealed nosignificant gender differences. Examination of the pathcoefficients revealed that the previously significantrelation between TPV and depressive symptoms droppedfrom .78 to .33. Although still statistically significant atp< .05, Approximately 100� (0.78� 0.33)=0.78¼ 58%of the effect of covert=relational TPV on depressivesymptoms was explained by positive and negativeself-cognitions (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007).Sobel’s test indicated that the indirect effect was signifi-cant through negative cognitions (z¼ 3.10, p< .002)but not through positive cognitions (z¼ 1.77, p> .07).

DISCUSSION

Our results can be summarized by four major findings.First, multiple measures of covert=relational andovert=physical TPV yielded evidence of convergentand discriminant validity. Second, covert=relationaland overt=physical TPV were both correlated withnegative self-cognitions, positive self-cognitions, anddepressive symptoms. However, in a multivariate con-text, the effects of covert=relational TPV subsumed theeffects of overt=physical TPV. Third, gender and agedifferences emerged in covert=relational and overt=

FIGURE 3 Path diagram of structural equation model. Note:

Regressing depressive symptoms onto covert=relational (C=R) and

overt=physical (O=P) targeted peer victimization (TPV). Statistical

significance is denoted: �p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001. Although

not indicated, all factor loadings were significant at p< .001.

(Parenthesized values are estimates when overlapping were deleted.).

3For both sets of analyses (one predicting positive and negative

cognitions, and the other predicting the five specific domains), we also

tested the interaction between overt=physical and covert=relational

TPV. Using Ping’s (1996) two-step method, we found no evidence of

an interaction between the two types of TPV in the prediction of

any outcome variable (ps> .10).

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

physical TPV. However, no group differences emergedin the strength of relations among the study variables.Finally, preliminary analyses revealed that controllingfor individual differences in negative self-cognitions sub-stantially diminished the relation of covert=relationalTPV to depressive symptoms.

The current MTMM results provided qualifiedsupport for the convergent and discriminant validity ofmultiple measures of two types of peer victimization.Confirmatory factor analysis revealed significantconvergence of self-report, peer-nomination, andparent-report measures onto a pair of covert=relationaland overt=physical TPV factors. In the context of thismodel, we detected significant shared method variancefor the two peer-nomination measures but not for thetwo self-report measures or the two parent-report mea-sures. Shared method variance on the peer-nominationmeasures could reflect the effects of in-group=out-groupalliances, friendship patterns, or differences in thedegree to which nominators were familiar with the indi-viduals whom they were asked to nominate (Bellmore,Nishina, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2007; Jackson,Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006; Poulin & Dishion,2008). Further, the peer nomination measure had thesmallest convergent validity coefficients (or factorloadings). We speculate that this could be due to a subtledifference in construct tapped by peer nominations ver-sus parent and child inventories. Peer nominationsassess the degree to which one’s victimization is public,

whereas inventories assess the frequency of one’s victi-mization (see Poulin & Dishion, 2008, for elaborationon these differences). In general, these findings supportDe Los Reyes and Prinstein’s (2004) claim that mono-methodism can bias the results of research on peer victi-mization. Our use of an MTMM design and structuralequation modeling enabled us to control for such effectsin the current study. Nevertheless, we urge the continuedpsychometric refinement of all methods for measuringpeer victimization in children.

The same MTMM confirmatory factor analysisaddressed the discriminant validity of the covert=relational and overt=physical TPV constructs. The twofactors correlated .82 with each other. This correlationshould be interpreted with two things in mind: (a) Itrepresents the correlation between latent variables andis not attenuated due to the effect of random measure-ment error, and (b) the effects of shared method vari-ance have been statistically controlled. A correlationof this magnitude suggests substantial, but not com-plete, overlap between these two constructs. Theyshare 66% variance. More important, children whoexperienced overt=physical TPV were more likely toexperience covert=relational TPV than vice versa.The nonoverlap between these constructs is importantin that it allows for the possibility that covert=relationaland overt=physical TPV could relate to other variablesin somewhat different ways, several of which we discussnext.

FIGURE 4 Path diagram of structural equation model. Note: Positive and negative self-cognition explain the relation between covert=relational

(C=R) TPV and depressive symptoms. Statistical significance is denoted: �p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .001. Although not indicated, all factor loadings

were significant at p< .001. (Parenthesized values are estimates when overlapping were deleted.)

430 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

Covert=relational and overt=physical TPV werepositively correlated with negative self-cognitions andnegatively correlated with positive self-cognitions. Whenwe examined the conjoint effects of both types of TPVonto self-cognitions, however, the contribution ofcovert=relational TPV remained strong whereas the con-tribution of overt=physical victimization became smalland nonsignificant. Further, the interaction betweenthe two types of TPV was not significant. This pattern,which replicates and extends the results of Storch et al.(2003), appears to derive from the nature of the overlapbetween the two types of TPV. Overt=physical TPVwithout covert=relational TPV was relatively rare,whereas covert=relational TPV without overt=physicalTPV was not that unusual.

The current results further suggest that covert=rela-tional TPV is the more critical ingredient, at least insofaras positive and negative self-cognitions are concerned.These findings are commensurate with the speculationthat children’s self-cognitions are informed by and con-structed out of social interactions with others, especiallyinteractions that convey poignant, evaluative, andself-relevant information (Cole, 1991; D. T. Rose &Abramson, 1992; see also Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934).Previous research has implicated peer victimization asone important kind of social interaction related to chil-dren’s global self-worth, self-perceived competence,learned helplessness, and even the emergence of a victi-mization self-schema (Andreou, 2001; Boulton & Smith,1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Gibb et al., 2004;Prinstein et al., 2005; Rosen, Milich, & Harris, 2007).The current work extends this research, suggesting thatcovert=relational TPV is the more insidious form ofvictimization, at least insofar as the construction ofpositive and negative self-cognitions are concerned.

Similar results emerged regarding the relation of TPVto depressive symptoms. Both forms of TPV werepositively correlated with our depression measure. Inmodels that included both types of TPV as predictors,only covert=relational TPV was a significant predictor.Overt=physical victimization accounted for essentiallyno variance in depressive symptoms after controllingfor covert=relational TPV. On one hand, this findingsupports Hunter and Boyle’s (2002) speculation thatcovert=relational TPV is more detrimental. Theysuggested that its particularly pernicious effects maybe due to the fact that relational victimization servesto isolate the victim and is difficult to counteract. Onthe other hand, these results do not support B. J. Laddand Ladd’s (2001) suggestion that being subjected toboth overt=physical and covert=relational victimizationwill result in more serious consequences than beingsubjected to only one or the other. Although covert=relational TPV had maladaptive effects over and aboveovert=physical victimization, the reverse was not true.

Overt=physical TPV had no predictive utility over andabove covert=relational TPV. Instead of focusing onthe combined effects of two kinds of TPV, we speculatethat more serious consequences should emerge as afunction of increased frequency or chronicity of TPV.If TPV conveys negative self-relevant information tothe victim and if each TPV episode constitutes a kindof ‘‘learning trial,’’ then children who are chronicallyvictimized will have had had ample opportunity toacquire negative information about themselves. To thedegree that such negative self-information augmentsthe construction of negative self-schemas, we reasonthat chronically victimized youth will be at increasedrisk for depression.

Gender and age differentially related to both covert=relational and overt=physical TPV. Girls experiencedmore covert=relational TPV than did boys. Boys experi-enced more overt=physical TPV than did girls. Boysand girls experienced less overt=physical and covert=relational victimization at older grade levels. The agedifference has been described elsewhere as a likely effectof age-related socialization (Rivers & Smith, 1994). Thegender difference has also been previously documentedalthough results have varied as a function of age andinformant (e.g., Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Cullerton-Sen &Crick, 2005; A. J. Rose & Rudolf, 2006; Schaefer,Werner, & Crick, 2002), and the pattern has not alwaysemerged (e.g., Prinstein et al., 2001). Using multipleinformants and controlling for method variance, thecurrent study suggests that girls are significantly morelikely to be the targets of covert=relational aggressionand that boys are significantly more likely to experienceovert=physical aggression. Of interest, the current studyrevealed no gender differences in the structural modelsthat we tested. In other words, the strength and patternof relations between victimization, positive cognitions,negative cognitions, and depressive symptoms werequite similar across gender. Taken together, these find-ings suggest that differences exist in the kinds of victimi-zation that boys and girls experience, but not in thedegree to which victimization experiences are relatedto depressive cognitions or symptoms. Future researchshould examine the possibility that girls are placed atgreater risk for depressive symptoms in part becausethey are more likely to experience the kinds of victimiza-tion that are especially linked to the construction ofnegative self-schemas and to the erosion of positiveself-schemas.

Finally, we present preliminary evidence suggestingthat individual differences in negative self-cognitionsaccounted for a substantial amount of the relation ofcovert=relational TPV to depressive symptoms. Thatis, statistically controlling for self-cognitions greatlydiminished the relation between TPV and self-reporteddepressive symptoms. Only one previous study has

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

described this phenomenon, reporting that low levels ofpositive self-cognitions and high levels of negativeself-cognitions mediated the relation between peer victi-mization and depressive symptoms (Gibb et al., 2007).We must note, however, that Gibb et al.’s results derivedfrom college students (not children) and relied on retro-spective measures of victimization. The current studysubstantially extends Gibbs et al.’s results by focusingdirectly on children and utilizing multiple concurrentmeasures of peer victimization. Although self-cognitionsno doubt continue to develop across the lifespan,middle childhood and early adolescence are particularlyimportant times for the differentiation, integration, anddevelopment of relatively stable individual differences inself-perceived competence (Cole et al., 1999; Harter,1990, 2003a; LaGrange & Cole, 2008).

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

The current study has important clinical implications.First, we found evidence that both types of TPV arelinked to depressive symptoms and that the relationof TPV to depressive symptoms was explained byself-cognitions. This suggests that victimized youthmay require psychological intervention and thatcognitive-behavioral therapy, with its emphasis on cog-nitive restructuring and problem-solving techniquesmay be particularly valuable. Second, the finding thatcovert=relational TPV accounted for the effects ofovert=physical TPV on depressive symptoms highlightsthe fact that forms of TPV that are potentially less bla-tant and likely harder for school personnel to detectthan physical abuse still have serious consequences.Many victims may not be recognized as such by thosein a position to help them. Because of this, individual-level interventions may not be possible—or at leastnot in a timely manner. TPV must be recognized as partof a broader social problem, requiring school-wideprevention efforts. School-based social skills trainingprograms appear to have positive effects on bothperpetrators and victims (e.g., Bradshaw, Sawyer, &O’Brennan, 2009; Card & Hodges, 2008; Hanish &Guerra, 2000; Jenson & Dieterich, 2007; Kazdin,Esveldt-Dawson, French, & Unis, 1987). Empiricallysupported prevention programs exist, such as the SocialSkills Group Intervention (DeRosier, 2002), the Stepsto Respect Program (Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrom, &Snell, 2009), and the Olweus bullying prevention pro-gram (Olweus et al., 2007). Classroom-based strategiessuch as the Jigsaw Classroom (see Aronson, Blaney,Stephan, Rosenfield, & Sikes, 1977) can also reducehostility faced by ostracized and victimized students(Swearer, Grills, Haye, & Cary, 2004).

Several shortcomings of the current study suggestavenues for future research. First and foremost, the

current study is cross-sectional, not longitudinal. Assuch it cannot truly test the implied mediational model.Longitudinal research is needed so that investigators canstatistically control for prior levels of the downstreamvariables when testing the effects of TPV on self-cognition, testing the effects of self-cognition ondepressive symptoms, and testing the role of self-cognition as a mediator of the TPV-depression relation(Cole & Maxwell, 2003; Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Second,much of our interpretation of these results implies anexpectation that TPV drives the construction ofself-cognitions and predisposes depressive symptoms.The reverse may also be true. Hodges and Perry’s(1999) data suggest that internalizing problems may beas much a cause as an effect of TPV, both part of reci-procating vicious cycle. Third, although we obtainedmultiple measures of peer victimization and self-cognitions, we relied on a single self-report of depressivesymptoms, the CDI. Despite the fact that the CDI iswell validated and represents the most commonly usedmeasure of depression in children, it is only onemeasure. As such, relations between depression andeither TPV or self-cognitions could be underestimated.Even though our analyses revealed these relations tobe relatively strong, future estimates would likely bestronger still, if a depression latent variable could beextracted from multiple measures of children’s depress-ive symptoms. Fourth, some theorists and investigatorshave it useful to consider the higher-order constructof emotional abuse, suggesting that all forms ofabuse—be it relational or physical, or be it peer orparental—has its effect as a manifestation as a largerclass of abuse (Gibb et al., 2001; Hankin, 2005). Moreresult on the utility of subtyping maltreatment is clearlyneeded. Finally, the current study focused on the con-tent, not the function, of positive and negativeself-schemas. Such schemas likely affect depression viamultiple mechanisms, including selective attention,associative learning, and memory. Measuring the effectsof peer victimization on the processing, not just the con-tent, of self-relevant information would be a valuableaddition to this line of future research (e.g., Rosenet al., 2007).

REFERENCES

Abela, J. R. Z., & Hankin, B. L. (2008). Cognitive vulnerability

to depression in children and adolescents: A developmental psycho-

pathology perspective. In J. R. Z. Abela & B. L. Hankin (Eds.),

Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 35–78).

New York: Guilford.

Adams, R. E., & Bukowski, W. M. (2008). Peer victimization as a

predictor of depression and body mass index in obese and non-obese

adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49,

858–866.

432 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

Andreou, E. (2001). Bully=victim problems and their association with

coping behaviour in conflictual peer interactions among school-age

children. Educational Psychology, 21, 59–66.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N. T., Stephan, C., Rosenfield, R., & Sikes, J.

(1977). Interdependence in the classroom: A field study. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 69, 121–128.

Bellmore, A. D., Nishina, A., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen,

J. (2007). The influence of classroom ethnic composition on

same- and other-ethnicity peer nominations in middle school. Social

Development, 16, 720–740.

Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully=victim problems in

middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer

perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 12, 315–329.

Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2009). A social

disorganization perspective on bullying-related attitudes and

behaviors: The influence of school context. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 43, 204–220.

Caldwell, M. S., Rudolph, K. D., Troop-Gordon, W., & Kim, D.

(2004). Reciprocal influences among relational self-views, social

disengagement, and peer stress during early adolescence. Child

Development, 75, 1140–1154.

Callaghan, S., & Joseph, S. (1995). Self-concept and peer victimization

among school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 18,

161–163.

Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among

schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considera-

tions in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly,

23, 451–461.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bellmore, A. D. (1999). Accuracy of social

self-perceptions and peer competence in middle childhood.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 650–675.

Clark, D. A., Beck, A. T., & Alford, B. A. (1999). Scientific foundations

of cognitive theory and therapy of depression. New York: Wiley.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and

types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental

Psychology, 18, 557–570.

Cole, D. A. (1987). The utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test

validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

4, 584–594.

Cole, D. A. (1991). Change in self-perceived competence as a function

of peer and teacher evaluation.Developmental Psychology, 27, 682–688.

Cole, D. A., & Jordan, A. E. (1995). Competence and memory: Inte-

grating psychosocial and cognitive correlates of child depression.

Child Development, 66, 459–473.

Cole, D. A., Martin, J. M., Peeke, L. A., Seroczynski, A. D., & Fier, J.

(1999). Children’s over- and underestimation of academic com-

petence: A longitudinal study of gender differences, depression,

and anxiety. Child Development, 17, 459–473.

Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with

longitudinal data: Myths and tips in the use of structural equation

modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577.

Cole, D. A., & Turner, J. E. (1993). Models of cognitive mediation and

moderation in self-reported child depression. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 102, 271–281.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design

and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:

Scribner.

Craighead, W. E., Smucker, M. R., Craighead, L. W., & Ilardi, S. S.

(1998). Factor analysis of the Children’s Depression Inventory in

a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 156–165.

Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of relational aggression, overt aggression,

and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social

adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of

peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consult-

ing and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. (1999). Physical and relational

peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35,

376–385.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Toward a

more complete understanding of peer maltreatment: Studies of

relational victimization. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

11, 98–101.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression,

gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development,

66, 710–722.

Cullerton-Sen, C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Understanding the effects

of physical and relational victimization: The utility of multiple

perspectives in predicting social-emotional adjustment. School

Psychology Review, 34, 147–160.

De Los Reyes, A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2004). Applying depression-

distortion hypotheses to the assessment of peer victimization in

adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,

33, 325–335.

DeRosier, M. E. (2002). Group interventions and exercises for enhancing

children’s communication, cooperation, and confidence. Sarasota, FL:

Professional Resource Press.

French, D. C., Jansen, E. A., & Pidada, S. (2002). United States and

Indonesian children’s and adolescents’ reports of relational

aggression by disliked peers. Child Development, 73, 1143–1150.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009).

Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and

destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 101, 466–481.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental

investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental

Psychology, 33, 589–600.

Gibb, B. E., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2004). Emotional

maltreatment from parents, verbal peer victimization, and cognitive

vulnerability to depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research,

28, 1–21.

Gibb, B. E., Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Rose, D. T., Whitehouse,

W. G., Donovan, P., et al. (2001). History of childhood maltreat-

ment, depressogenic cognitive style, and episodes of depression in

adulthood. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 425–446.

Gibb, B. E., Benas, J. S., Crossett, S. E., & Uhrlass, D. J. (2007).

Emotional maltreatment and verbal victimization in childhood:

Relation to adults’ depressive cognitions and symptoms. Journal of

Emotional Abuse, 7, 59–73.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in

middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology,

34, 587–599.

Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt

aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328–2338.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). Children who get victimized at

school: What is known? What can be done? Professional School

Counseling, 4, 113–119.

Hankin, B. L. (2005). Childhood maltreatment and psychopathology:

Prospective tests of attachment, cognitive vulnerability, and stress

as mediating processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29,

645–671.

Hankin, B. L. (2008). Stability of cognitive vulnerabilities to

depression: A short-term prospective multiwave study. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 117, 324–333.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child

Development, 53, 87–97.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children.

Denver, CO: University of Denver.

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

Harter, S. (1990). Developmental differences in the nature of

self-representations: Implications for the understanding, assessment,

and treatment of maladaptive behavior. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 14, 113–142.

Harter, S. (2003a). The development of self-representations. In W.

Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:

Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 506–

561). New York: Wiley.

Harter, S. (2003b). The development of self-representations during

childhood and adolescence. In R. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),

Handbook of self and identity (pp. 610–642). New York: Guilford.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on

peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic

review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999).

The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of

peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94–101.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal

antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685.

Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2007). Managing threat:

Do social-cognitive processes mediate the link between peer victimi-

zation and adjustment problems in early adolescence? The Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 17, 525–540.

Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions

of adolescent victims in Midwestern USA. School Psychology

International, 13, 5–16.

Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control in the

victims of school bullying: The importance of early intervention.

Educational Research, 44, 323–336.

Jackson, M. F., Barth, J. M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. E. (2006).

Classroom contextual effects of race on children’s peer nominations.

Child Development, 77, 1325–1337.

Jacquez, F. M., Cole, D. A., & Searle, B. (2004). Self-perceived com-

petence as a mediator between maternal feedback and depressive

symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

32, 355–367.

Jenson, J. M., & Dieterich, W. A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based

prevention program on bullying and bully victimization among

elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8, 285–296.

Kaslow, N. J., Stark, K. D., Printz, B., Livingston, R. & Tsai, S. L.

(1992). Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children: Development and

relation to depression and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Child Psy-

chology, 21, 339–347.

Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M.,

Vauras, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002). Learning difficulties, social intel-

ligence and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269–278.

Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N. H., & Unis, A. S.

(1987). Problem-solving skills, training and relationship therapy in

the treatment of antisocial child behavior. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 55, 76–85.

Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait–multi-

method matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 112, 165–172.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Variations in peer

victimization: Relations to children’s maladjustment. In J. Juvonen

& S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the

vulnerable and victimized (pp. 25–48). New York: Guilford.

Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI).

Psychopharmacological Bulletin, 21, 995–998.

Ladd, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization. In

J. Juvonen & G. S. (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of

the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 25–47). New York: Guilford.

Ladd, G. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior,

and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: An examination

of four predictive models. Child Development, 77, 822–846.

Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of

peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-

informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjust-

ment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified

victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74–96.

Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer

difficulties in the development of children’s psychological adjust-

ment problems. Child Development, 74, 1344–1367.

LaGrange, B., & Cole, D. A. (2008). An expansion of the trait-state-

occasion model: Accounting for shared method variance. Structural

Equation Modeling, 15, 241–271.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation

analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses

of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23–44.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a

social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., Flerx, V. C., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder,

M. (2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Schoolwide guide.

Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Pellegrini, A., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying,

victimizatioin, and peer affiliation during the transistion from

primary school to middle school. American Educational Research

Journal, 37, 699–725.

Ping, R. A. (1996). Latent variable interaction and quadratic effect

estimation: A two-step technique using structural equation analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 119, 166–175.

Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of

peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social

Development, 17, 908–921.

Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and

relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological function-

ing of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,

30, 477–489.

Prinstein, M. J., Cheah, C. S., & Guyer, A. E. (2005). Peer victimiza-

tion, cue interpretation, and internalizing symptoms: Preliminary

concurrent and longitudinal findings for children and adolescents.

Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 11–24.

Rivers, L., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types bullying behavior and their

correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20(5), 359–368.

Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in

peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional

and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological

Bulletin, 132, 98–131.

Rose, D. T., & Abramson, L. Y. (1992). Developmental predictors

of depressive cognitive style: Research and theory. In D. Cicchetti

& S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psycho-

pathology, Vol. IV (pp. 323–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosen, P. J., Milich, R., & Harris, M. J. (2007). Victims of their own

cognitions: Implicit social cognitions, emotional distress, and peer vic-

timization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 211–226.

Roth, D. A., Coles, M. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (2002). The relationship

between memories for childhood teasing and anxiety and depression

in adulthood. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 149–164.

Salmivalli, C., & Isaacs, J. (2005). Prospective relations among victimi-

zation, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-

perceptions. Child Development, 76, 1161–1171.

Schaefer, M., Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (2002). A comparison

of two approaches to the study of negative peer treatment:

General victimization and bully=victim problems among German

school children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20,

281–306.

434 COLE, MAXWELL, DUKEWICH, YOSICK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014

Schniering, C. A., & Rapee, R. M. (2002). Development and validation

of a measure of children’s automatic thoughts: The children’s

automatic thoughts scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40,

1091–1109.

Smith, P., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of

school bullying: Developmental changes in coping strategies and

skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:

The plight of the vunerable and victimized (pp. 332–351). New York:

Guilford.

Smucker, M. R., Craighead, W. E., Craighead, L. W., & Green, B. J.

(1986). Normative and reliability data for the children’s depression

inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 25–39.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in struc-

tural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological method-

ology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. I. (2003). The

relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness

in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1–18.

Storch, E. A., & Ledley, D. R. (2005). Peer victimization and psychosocial

adjustment in children: Current knowledge and future directions.

Clinical Pediatrics, 44, 29–38.

Storch, E. A., Nock, M. K., Masia-Warner, C. L., & Barlas, M. E.

(2003). Peer victimization and social-psychological adjustment in

Hispanic-American and African-American children. Journal of Child

and Family Studies, 12, 439–452.

Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization

in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational

victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors

among urban middle school students. Development and Psycho-

pathology, 18, 119–137.

Swearer, S.M.,Grills, A. E.,Haye,K.M.,&Cary, P. T. (2004). Internaliz-

ing problems in students involved in bullying and victimization: Impli-

cations for intervention. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.),

Bullying in American schools (pp. 63–83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Timbremont, B., Braet, C., & Dreessen, L. (2004). Assessing

depression in youth: Relation between the Children’s Depression

Inventory and a structured interview. Journal of Clinical Child and

Adolescent Psychology, 33, 149–157.

Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victi-

mization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: Precursors to

internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76,

1072–1091.

TARGETED PEER VICTIMIZATION 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tin P

eay

St U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

03 0

6 Ju

ne 2

014