ARTICLES

Understanding Children Victimizedby Their Peers

Stephen E. BrockAmanda B. NickersonMeagan D. O’Malley

Yiping Chang

ABSTRACT. Because children who are bullied by their peers are at riskfor a variety of psychosocial challenges, it is critical to better understandthe nature and dynamics of peer victimization. This paper defines peervictimization, examines forms of victimization, classifies types of vic-tims, and proposes a model to better understand the dynamic interplayamong the variables that serve to develop and maintain peer victimization.Findings from this review highlight the cyclical nature of this problem

Stephen E. Brock (E-mail: brock@csus.edu and brock_s@sbcglobal.net) andMeagan D. O’Malley are affiliated with California State University, College of Educa-tion, Sacramento, CA 95825.

Amanda B. Nickerson (E-mail: anickerson@uamail.albany.edu) and Yiping Changare affiliated with Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, Universityat Albany–State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222.

Journal of School Violence, Vol. 5(3) 2006Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSV

2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J202v05n03_02 3

and the prominent role of peers, parents, and school staff in victimiza-tion. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc.All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Victimization, peers, bullying, context

The victimization of children by their peers is a significant problemconfronting American schools. In fact, 22.6% of children in one kinder-garten sample reported moderate to high levels of peer victimization(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996b). In another sample, 10% of 8 to 12-year-olds were nominated by their peers as “extreme victims” (Perry, Kusel,& Perry, 1988). Although physical forms of victimization are reportedto decline with age, verbal abuse remains high at all grade levels (Perryet al., 1988). Further, what begins as situational victimization canevolve into cross-situational and chronic victimization as children ad-vance in school (Snyder et al., 2003). This review explores the natureand dynamics of peer victimization, with a particular focus on bullying.

Peer victimization has been associated with a variety of negativeschool, social, and mental health outcomes (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995,1996; Olweus, 1993). Victimized students report high levels of emotionaldistress, loneliness, peer rejection, and a desire to avoid school (Boivin,Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Kochenderfer &Ladd, 1996a; Perry et al., 1988). Elevated levels of anxiety, depression,and lowered self-esteem are also associated with peer victimization(Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Egan & Perry, 1998; Olweus, 1993). Inaddition, the loneliness associated with bullying tends to linger even afterbullying ends (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a); and subsequent adjust-ment difficulties, such as adult depression, have been associated withpeer victimization (Olweus, 1993).

Given the prevalence of, and psychosocial risk associated with peervictimization, it is essential that educators and parents understand thisphenomenon, and become better prepared to immediately recognize itsoccurrence. Such knowledge is prerequisite to providing assistance tovictimized students. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe the na-ture and dynamics of peer victimization. This paper is intended to lay thefoundation for the discussion of assessing children bullied by peers of-fered by Greif and Furlong (2005); the general discussion of empirically

4 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

supported direct interventions for peer victims (as well as indirect inter-ventions for parents, peers, and school staff) offered by Nickerson,Brock, Chang, and O’Malley (2005) and the specific discussion of theuse of social support in programs designed to prevent bullying providedby Demaray and Malecki (2005).

PEER VICTIMIZATION DEFINED

We begin by offering what we believe to be an overarching definitionof peer victimization:

Peer victimization is the consequence of acts of intentional aggres-sion, by a peer (or group of peers) operating from a position ofstrength or power, and directed at a victim who is viewed as rela-tively weak. The aggressor’s goal is to damage status and/or socialrelationships. The victim may or may not have had a role in pro-voking the aggression. As a consequence of the aggression, thevictim perceives him- or herself as having been hurt or abused, andthe victimization significantly decreases his or her well-being.These negative acts occur over a period of time and are viewed byvictims as comprising a pattern of aggressive behavior.

The essential elements of this definition are now discussed:Intentional aggression. A primary element of this definition is that

students who victimize their peers engage in hostile behaviors explicitlydesigned to abuse and/or hurt the victim. When attempting to inflictharm on peers, aggressive children do so in ways that best thwart ordamage goals valued and respected by their respective peer groups(Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Given that boys and girls have different so-cial goals and values, it is not surprising to find that they tend to engagein/experience different types of victimization (Crick & Bigbee, 1998).

Power differential. Aggressors operate from a position of strength orpower. Conversely, victims are described as being “weak.” Many timesthis “weakness” is generated by physical differences (e.g., being smallin stature) that are beyond the victim’s control. However, it is importantto acknowledge that the victim’s lack of power is not always an obviousone, as it may arise more from differences (in terms of race, ethnicity,sexual orientation, social status, verbal abilities) than from a weakness,per se (Greif & Furlong, 2005).

Brock et al. 5

Perceptions. A victim’s subjective impressions of an aggressive actcan be more important than the act itself. Simply stated, students whoperceive themselves as having been victimized will have perceived theaggressive act as extremely negative. Conversely, individuals who donot view the event as severe, regardless of how aggressive it actuallywas, will not experience an acute sense of distress or victimization(Brock, 2002). For example, Crick and Bigbee (1998) documented thatintermediate grade students who identified themselves as having beenovertly victimized were significantly more distressed, lonely, sociallydissatisfied, and avoidant than those students who were identified bytheir peers as “victims.” Students most negatively affected by peer vic-timization were those who were identified by both themselves and theirpeers as being victims.

Repetition. The kind of victimization identified in this definitionresults from repeated exposure over time to the aggressive actions ofone or more peers (Olweus, 2001). The chronic nature of these aggres-sive acts serves to increase the victim’s sense of victimization and gen-erate a greater degree of psychological trauma (Brock, 2002).

Damage status and/or social relationships. Overt acts of aggressionare not the only type of victimization recognized in this definition. Theoccurrence of relational aggression is also acknowledged. In otherwords, this definition recognizes that victimization can not only damagesocial status by obtaining physical and psychological dominance over aless powerful peer, but it can also damage social relationships throughthe hurtful manipulation of peer relationships (Crick & Bigbee, 1998).

Provoked and unprovoked aggression. While the dictionary definesvictimization as resulting from an unprovoked attack, this definitionrecognizes that in some instances the victim may have had a role in pro-voking the aggressive act. Referred to by Olweus (1978) as “provoca-tive victims,” these students tend to create the conditions that lead totheir victimization.

FORMS OF VICTIMIZATION AND TYPES OF VICTIMS

This review now offers a more detailed discussion of the variousforms of victimization and victim types alluded to in the aforemen-tioned definition. We begin by examining the different types of aggres-sive behaviors that result in victimization, and then further discuss thedifferent types of victims.

6 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Forms of Victimization

The behavior of the aggressor can be either relational (indirect/so-cial) aggression, or it can be overt (direct) aggression. Regression anal-ysis suggests that the different forms of victimization make uniquecontributions to school adjustment outcomes, and are considered quali-tatively distinct (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996a).

Relational victimization. This form of victimization (also referred to associal aggression) involves the deliberate and hurtful manipulationof peer relationships or friendships (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick &Grotpeter, 1996). In cases where the victim is not directly confronted, thevictimization type can be classified as indirect (Crick et al., 2001). Rela-tional aggression includes slandering, spreading rumors, and manipulat-ing classroom friendships (Olweus, 1993). Although some research hassuggested that girls are most typically involved in of this type of aggres-sive behavior (Crick & Bigbee, 1998), others have failed to find genderdifferences for relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, 1996).However, it appears that girls are more affected than boys by this type ofvictimization in early and middle childhood (for a review, see Crick et al.,2001). Girls tend to view this type of victimization as more upsetting anddistressful than do boys (Galen & Underwood, 1997).

Overt victimization. This form of victimization involves the system-atic verbal or physical harassment of a weaker child by a stronger one(Olweus, 1978). This overt form of bullying includes extortion,name-calling, hitting and kicking, threatening, and sexual harassment(Mellor, 2000). Boys are most typically involved in this type of aggres-sive behavior (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Seals &Young, 2003), and not surprisingly, this gender group tends to viewphysically aggressive episodes as more hurtful than the social aggres-sion associated with relational victimization (Galen & Underwood,1997). Rates of overt victimization tend to decline with age among bothboys and girls (Olweus, 1993; Perry et al., 1988).

Types of Victims

The victims of overt and relational aggression can be classified aseither passive (nonaggressive victims) or provocative (aggressive vic-tims). However, research regarding the different types of relational ag-gression victims is limited (Schwartz, 2000). Regardless of victim type,all students involved in peer victimization (including the aggressorsthemselves) suffer from some degree of peer rejection. It has been

Brock et al. 7

suggested that this rejection precedes victimization and that, in turn,victimization fosters the conditions that increase peer rejection (Boivinet al., 1995), t hus creating a vicious cycle.

Olweus (1993) reported that, in general, victims are more anxiousand insecure than their peers; they are sensitive and quiet; commonlyreact to their victimization with crying (especially in the lower gradelevels); have a negative view of themselves and their situation; and as arule, do not have a single good friend in their class.

Passive victims. The majority of peer victims are passive (Olweus,2001), have internalizing behavior problems (e.g., emotional distress andloneliness), and can be described as submissive and unassertive (Hodges& Perry, 1999; Olweus, 1978, 1993; Snyder et al., 2003). These studentsappear to do nothing to invite acts of aggression. They are not aggressiveor teasing in their behavior, and consequently their victimization cannotbe explained as a consequence of their own provocative behavior. Thisvictim type is anxious and insecure, and does not fight back when at-tacked (Olweus, 2001). In addition, they report less prosocial assertive-ness, social acceptance, and academic competence (Schwartz, 2000).Olweus (1993) characterizes these students as having an anxious or sub-missive reaction pattern combined with physical weakness. He alsoreports that these students often relate better to adults.

Provocative victims. These students tend to create tension by offend-ing, irritating, and teasing others. Unlike passive victims, they are rarelywithdrawn or passive. Instead they are characterized by a combinationof anxious and aggressive reaction patterns; and are described as beinghot tempered, restless, and as fighting back when attacked. Male peersexpect provocative victims to display more signs of pain and sufferingthan passive victims (Perry, Willard, & Perry, 1990). In effect, this typeof victim tends to create conditions that provoke and reinforce their ownvictimization (Olweus, 1978). In fact, due to their highly reactive be-havior, this victim type may become a persistent target of peer aggres-sion (Schwartz, 2000).

A minority of peer victims falls into this category. Provocative vic-tims who overtly aggress against peers are primarily boys, although pre-liminary research suggests that there may be more female provocativevictims than originally suggested (Schwartz, 2000). Supporting thisproposition are findings that relational victims, who are most likely tobe girls, are more likely than overt victims to also be aggressive, andthus classified as provocative victims. The potential for relationalvictims to be classified as “provocative” is found among data suggesting

8 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

that relational victims have more problems with self-restraint than theirpeers (e.g., poor anger and impulse control; Crick & Bigbee, 1998).

When compared with nonvictim peers and passive victims, provoca-tive victims are reported to have highly problematic social outcomes andmore disruptive behavior profiles, including emotional distress (e.g., aremore anxious and depressed), ADHD, and social rejection. When com-pared with nonvictimized students, provocative victims display loweracademic functioning and poor prosocial assertiveness. Provocative vic-tims do not appear to recognize their social problems. In fact, they reportaverage levels of loneliness and social satisfaction (Boivin, Poulin, &Vitaro, 1994). They also report higher levels of depressive symptomo-logy than their average-status peers (Boivin et al., 1994). Not surpris-ingly, this group of students is highly disliked by their peers, more so thanpassive victims and even aggressors themselves (Schwartz, 2000).

THE DYNAMICS OF PEER VICTIMIZATION

This section reviews individual factors that relate to the rejection andbullying of children. Recognizing the important buffering and protec-tive function of social support (for a review, see Demaray & Malecki,2005), this section also examines research regarding the role of signifi-cant others (i.e., peers, teachers, and parents) in various aspects of vic-timization. It concludes with a proposed theoretical model of the role ofthese factors in causing and maintaining peer victimization.

Role of parents. The role of the family in peer victimization has beenstudied in terms of the parent-child relationship and child-rearing prac-tices. Troy and Sroufe (1987) conducted a longitudinal study and foundthat all children observed to be peer victims were anxiously attached(i.e., either avoidant or resistant) and all victimizers had avoidant at-tachment histories. In contrast, children with secure attachment histo-ries did not tend to be involved in victimization, either as the victimizeror the victim. This is consistent with findings that decreased victimiza-tion is associated with parent responsiveness to children’s needs (Ladd& Ladd, 1998) and father involvement (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002).

Enmeshment with parents, characterized by emotionally intense,positive interactions, and overprotection on the part of the parent, hasbeen associated with increased risk for victimization in studies using di-verse methodologies, such as observations (Ladd & Ladd, 1998), childself-report (Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1994; Finnegan, Hodges, &Perry, 1998), and interviews with parents of victimized boys (Olweus,

Brock et al. 9

1991). In these families, victims report high and positive involvementwith other family members when compared with nonvictimized chil-dren (Bowers et al., 1994). Emotionally intense parent-child relation-ships appear to place boys at increased risk for victimization, possiblybecause these relationships encourage children to develop passive-dependent behavior (Ladd & Ladd, 1998).

Exceptions to this pattern occur for girls and provocative victims,whose parents tend to exert a high degree of psychological control. Ma-ternal threat of rejection, coercion, and low encouragement of assertion(as opposed to overprotection) have been associated with girls’ risk forvictimization (Finnegan et al., 1998). In contrast to the aforementionedenmeshed profile for passive victims, provocative victims indicate thattheir parents are low in accurate monitoring and warmth, yet high inoverprotection and neglect, suggesting inconsistent discipline practicesnot tempered by warmth (Bowers et al., 1994).

Perry, Hodges, and Egan (2001) have proposed a social cognitivemodel for the influence of families on victimization. According to thismodel, a child’s repeated experiences of parent and self during criticalinteractions lead to the formation of family-relational schemas. Passivevictims develop a “victim schema,” with the parent as controlling andthe self as helpless, which then contributes to peer victimization. Vic-tims may view themselves as helpless either because they have beensubordinated during parent-child conflicts or because they may havedeveloped an over-dependent emotional attachment to a parent. A mod-ification of this model applies to provocative victims. They may per-ceive the parent as coercive and perceive the self as defiant or avoidant,which could lead them to imitate the coercive behavior while also feel-ing helpless, physically weak, or emotionally dysregulated, therebyleading to provocative victimization.

Characteristics of victims. There is considerable evidence to suggestthat, once identified as a victim by his or her peers, a student becomesmore consistently victimized over time (Boulton & Underwood, 1992).In addition, children assign greater value to the rewards incurred by ag-gressing against a victim than a nonvictim. Regardless of the number offriends a child has, if he or she has been identified as a victim, peers arelikely to continue to aggress against him or her over time (Hodges &Perry, 1999). The attitude of the nonaggressive peer group toward thevictim also becomes more negative over time, suggesting reduced sen-sitivity to the needs of the victim (Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).

Given that the role of “victim” tends to be relatively durable, it isimportant to identify the factors that place students at risk for initial peer

10 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

rejection and victimization. For example, students who demonstrateelevated levels of irritable-inattentive (e.g., complain, do not pay atten-tion, and exaggerate) and withdrawn-internalizing (e.g., shy, are unhappyor sad, feelings are easily hurt, and often do not want to play) behaviorproblems in both elementary and junior high school are more likely tobe rejected and victimized (Pope & Bierman, 1999). Among junior highschool students, disruptive-hyperactive behaviors (e.g., fidgets a lot,gets excited, and cannot wait a turn) also predicted rejection and peervictimization. Furthermore, elevated levels of withdrawn-internalizingbehavior in elementary school predicted rejection and peer victimiza-tion in junior high school.

Not all students with behavioral risk factors are subject to chronicpeer victimization. This suggests that other factors interact withdysregulated behaviors to facilitate or mitigate the victimization riskgenerated by these behavior problems. Egan and Perry (1998) reportedthat confidence in one’s standing in a peer group protects the behavi-orally at-risk child from becoming a chronic victim and that high self-regard and assertiveness are coping resources that help children dealadaptively with victimization. In addition, behavior problems are morelikely to be associated with peer victimization when at-risk childrenhave few friends or have friends who are physically weak and not ableto be protective (Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997).

Role of peers. Although peers witness more than 80% of peer victim-ization episodes (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001), most do not help thevictim. In Charach, Pepler, and Ziegler’s (1995) survey, 24% of chil-dren and adolescents sampled reported that bullying was none of theirbusiness and 33% of peers reported that they felt they should help butdid not. Even though 41% of students in another study reported that they“try to help” the victim (O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999), observa-tional data have revealed that peers intervene in only 11 to 19% of play-ground peer aggression (Hawkins et al., 2001) and 10% of classroombullying (Atlas & Pepler, 1998). Moreover, when compared with olderstudents, younger children more frequently report trying to help peervictims (Charach et al., 1995; Whitney & Smith, 1993).

Students’ helping behavior in peer victimization situations largely de-pends on how their social network members react (Salmivalli, Huttunen,& Lagerspetz, 1997). About one-fifth of children and adolescents reportthat they might join bullying when their friends bully others (Whitney &Smith, 1993), which may be a consequence of peer pressure (Espelage &Asidao, 2001), avoidance of teasing (Cowie & Sharp, 1994), or a desireto be accepted by peers (Rogers & Tisak, 1996). Students who defend

Brock et al. 11

victims and those who passively watch usually do not belong to the samenetwork (Salmivalli et al., 1997). In fact, children who defend victimstend to hold high social status (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist,Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). Furthermore, a victim is more likely toattract help if he or she is an in-group member with bystanders (Levine,Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002).

Compared with their peers, victims have fewer friends, lower friend-ship quality, and generally feel less liked by their peers (Smith, Shu, &Madsen, 2001). In addition, peers generally dislike victims and viewthem as weak and less assertive (Courtney, Cohen, Deptula, & Kitzmann,2003), with many children and adolescents believing that victims are re-sponsible for their own plights (Graham & Juvonen, 2001). Victims oftenhave lower social status compared with their perpetrators. Seventy per-cent of victims belong to rejected social groups (Salmivalli et al., 1996),whereas many aggressive children have larger social networks (Salmi-valli et al., 1997), are less rejected by peers (Salmivalli et al., 1996), andare sometimes rated as the most popular students (Rodkin, Farmer, Peral,& Acker, 2000).

Positive peer relationships reduce the likelihood of peer victimiza-tion and protect children from the ensuing negative consequences.Friendship and peer acceptance moderate the relationship of several in-dividual risk factors, such as physical weakness, behavioral problems(Hodges et al., 1997), and harsh home environments (Schwartz, Dodge,Pettit, & Bates, 2000), with future peer victimization. Peers’ prosocialbehavior also protects adolescents against the effects of overt and rela-tional victimization on loneliness (Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner,2003). However, victims report receiving less support from their class-mates compared with their peers (Demaray & Malecki, 2003, 2005;Furlong & Chung, Bates, & Morrison, 1995). For victims that do havepeer support, their best friends are unable to provide enough support forthem to inhibit victimization (Hodge et al., 1997).

Role of teachers and school staff. Social support from teachers bene-fits early adolescents’ school adjustment, social skills, and academicperformance (Malecki & Demaray, 2003). Furthermore, victims of bul-lying perceive this support as more important than do nonvictimizedchildren (Demaray & Malecki, 2003). However, children and adoles-cents who are the recipients of verbal or physical aggression reportreceiving less support from their teachers compared with their peers(Furlong et al., 1995).

12 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Teachers may indirectly affect victims through their influence onpeers. The teacher-student relationship accounts for 38-54% of the vari-ance in peers’ evaluation of social and academic competence (Hughes,Cavell, & Willson, 2001). Specific feedback, attitudes, and beliefs alsoaffect peer status. For example, whereas teacher criticism heightenschildren’s perceptions of the child as displaying inappropriate behavior,positive feedback leads peers to have more positive expectations of thechild for the future (White, Sherman, & Jones, 1996). In a recent study,Chang (2003) found that teacher warmth and negative attitudes towardsaggression had an overarching positive effect in enhancing peer accep-tance of withdrawn and aggressive students. In addition, Demaray andMalecki (2005) illustrate ways in which teachers can use social supportto intervene with bullying behavior.

Theoretical model of peer victimization. Based on the literature re-viewed in the preceding section, we propose a theoretical overview ofinteractions among the variables that may be associated with and/orlead to peer victimization. The model is consistent with Swearer andEspelage’s (2004) social-ecological framework, yet offers more spe-cific details about the processes that may lead to victimization. Asshown in Figure 1, the process that leads to chronic peer victimizationbegins with a student having differences that might be viewed by othersas weaknesses. Typically, beyond the student’s control, these differ-ences are primarily associated with physically weakness (e.g., beingsmall in stature). However, they may also include differences in race andethnicity, sexual orientation, social status, verbal abilities, and interper-sonal skills. By themselves these differences are insufficient to resultin peer rejection, social failure and subsequent peer victimization.However, when combined with certain behavioral risk factors andplaced within a particular school social context, the potential for a givenstudent to become victimized by his or her peers can be realized. Thismodel also acknowledges the role of parents in promoting behavioralrisk factors. Specifically, maternal threats of rejection and coercion maylead to irritable-inattentive behavior, and controlling and overprotectiveparental behavior can promote withdrawn-internalizing behaviors.

Again, behavioral risk factors alone are insufficient to result in peerrejection, social failure and subsequent peer victimization. Not all stu-dents who display behavioral risk factors (event those who might beperceived as being “weak”) will become peer victims. Thus, it is sug-gested that the school’s social context should also be considered asplaying an important role in determining who among those studentsat risk for victimization will actually go on to become peer victims.

Brock et al. 13

Factors important to determining the consequences of victimizationrisk include relationships with teachers and peers. Specifically, havinga poor relationship with the teacher (i.e., being given less support,warmth, and/or subject to criticism), and having a teacher who haseither neutral or accepting attitudes toward aggression promotes peerrejection, social failure, and victimization. In terms of peer relation-ships, having low confidence in peer group standing; not being an“in-group” members with those who witness acts of victimization; andhaving few, absent, or weak friends (e.g., friends who are from a so-cially rejected group) may also promote peer rejection, social failure,and victimization.

According to the proposed theoretical model, the combination of a cer-tain set of student differences, behavioral risk factors, and a particularschool social context creates conditions that facilitate peer rejection andsocial failure. Such rejection and failure in turn promote an increasinglynegative attitude toward the rejected student, a decreased sensitivity tostudent needs, and fewer opportunities for social skill development, con-ditions that only make more acceptable and likely peer victimization.Finally, peer victimization results in increased levels of dysregulatedbehavior, thus creating a vicious cycle.

14 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Student Differences Perceived as “Weaknesses”(Primarily physical weakness, but may also include race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, social status, verbal abilities, etc.)

Behavioral Risk Factors Associated with Problematic Peer Relationships

ParentalBehavior

Irritable-Inattentive Withdrawn-Internalizing ParentalBehavior

CoerciveThreats of Rejection

Defiant-RestlessAnxious-Aggressive

Submissive-UnassertiveAnxious-Insecure

ControllingOverprotective

Enmeshed

School Social Context

Teacher Relationships Peer Relationships

Poor Teacher-Student

Relationship

Less Warmth, More Criticism

Neutral or Accepting

of Peer Aggression

Not a Member of Witnesses Peer

Group

LowConfidence in

Peer Group Standing

Absent, Few and/or

Weak Friends

Peer Rejection and Social Failure(As a result, reduced opportunities to develop social skills,

and among peers reduced sensitivity to needs and increasingly negative attitude toward victim)

Peer Victimization

FIGURE 1. Theoretical Model of Peer Victimization

CONCLUSION

Peer victimization is a cyclical pattern typically catalyzed in the earli-est stages of school socialization. Children who enter school at a socialdisadvantage are more likely to become the victim of one-on-one reac-tive events at lower grade levels (e.g., victim gets hit by another studentbecause the student feels annoyed by his social behavior). As these stu-dents advance in school and friendship groups begin to form, they be-come more vulnerable to isolation and chronic victimization, whichimpedes their opportunities to learn appropriate social skills. As this cy-cle continues, the nonaggressive peer group helps the victim less, dem-onstrates more hostility toward, and attributes more fault to the victim.Given the vicious cycle that can be generated by peer victimization it isessential that it be identified early and immediately responded to at mul-tiple levels. This review has highlighted the prominent role of peers,parents, and school staff in victimization. The next review by Nickersonet al. (2005) offers an overview of the few empirically supported inter-vention strategies which involve these support systems.

REFERENCES

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journalof Educational Research, 92, 86-99.

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal,peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressedmood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.

Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peer rejection inchildhood. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 483-498.

Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, P. K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middleschool children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87.

Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bul-lies, victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 11, 215-232.

Brock, S. E. (2002). Identifying individuals at risk for psychological trauma. InS. E. Brock, P. J. Lazarus, & S. R. Jimerson (Eds.), Best practices in school crisisprevention and intervention (pp. 367-383). Bethesda, MD: National Association ofSchool Psychologists.

Chang, L. (2003). Variable effects of children’s aggression, social withdrawal, andprosocial leadership as functions of teacher beliefs and behaviors. Child Develop-ment, 74, 535-548.

Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995). Bullying at school: A Canadian perspec-tive. Education Canada, 35, 12-19.

Brock et al. 15

Courtney, M. L., Cohen, R., Deptula, D. P., & Kitzmann, K. M. (2003). An experimentalanalysis of children’s dislike of aggressors and victims. Social Development, 12, 46-66.

Cowie, H., & Sharp, S. (1994). Tackling bullying through the curriculum. In P. K. Smith& S. S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 84-107).London: Routledge.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization:A multi informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,337-347.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psy-chological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of rela-tional and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.

Crick, N. R., Nelson, D. A., Morales, J. R., Cullerton-Sen, C., Casas, J. F., & Hickman,S. E. (2001). Relational victimization in childhood and adolescence: I hurt youthrough the grapevine. In J. Juvoven & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196-214). New York: Guilford Press.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and impor-tance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims inan urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471-489.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2005). A review of the use of social support inanti-bullying programs. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Devel-opmental Psychology, 34, 299-309.

Espelage, D. L., & Asidao, C. S. (2001). Conversations with middle school studentsabout bullying and victimization: Should we be concerned? Journal of EmotionalAbuse, 2, 49-62.

Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers:Associations with children’s reports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076-1086.

Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The moderatingrole of father involvement and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 126-133.

Furlong, M. J., Chung, A., Bates, M. P., & Morrison, R. (1995). Who are the victims ofschool violence? A comparison of student non-victims and multi-victims. Educa-tion & Treatment of Children, 18, 282-298.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of socialaggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589-600.

Greif, J. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2005). The assessment of school bullying: Moving fromtheory to practice. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hawkins, D., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer in-terventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.

Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social riskas interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. DevelopmentalPsychology, 33, 1032-1039.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents andconsequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 76, 677-685.

16 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the develop-mental significance of the quality of the teacher-student relationship. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 39, 289-301.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996a). Peer victimization: Cause or consequenceof school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996b). Peer victimization: Manifestations and rela-tions to school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 34,267-283.

Ladd, G. W., & Ladd, B. K. (1998). Parenting behaviors and parent-child relationships:Correlates of peer victimization in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology, 34,1450-1458.

Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-categorization and by-stander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 32, 1452-1463.

Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need? Investi-gating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, andinstrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 231-252.

Mellor, A. (2000). Child victims of bullying. In H. Kemshall & J. Pritchard (Eds.), Goodpractice in working with victims of violence (pp. 75-88). Philadelphia, PA: Kingley.

Nickerson, A. B., Brock, S. E., Chang, Y., & O’Malley, M. (2005). Responding to chil-dren victimized by their peers. Manuscript submitted for publication.

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insightsand challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Oxford,England: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1991). Victimization among school children. In R. Baenninger (Ed.), Tar-gets of violence and aggression (pp. 45-102). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden,MA: Blackwell.

Olweus, E. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. InJ. Juvoven & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulner-able and victimized (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford Press.

Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victim-ization by peers: A review and new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen & S.Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victim-ized (pp. 73-104). New York: Guilford Press.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Develop-mental Psychology, 24, 807-814.

Perry, D. G., Willard, J. C., & Perry, L. C. (1990) Peers’ perceptions of the consequencesthat victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61, 1310-1325.

Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antiso-cial activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. DevelopmentalPsychology, 35, 335-346.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Peral, R., & Acker, R. V. (2000). Heterogeneity of popu-lar boys: antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36,14-24.

Brock et al. 17

Rogers, M. J., & Tisak, M. S. (1996). Children’s reasoning about responses to peeraggression: Victim’s and witness’s expected and prescribed behaviors. AggressiveBehavior, 22, 259-269.

Salmivalli, C., Huttunen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997). Peer networks and bully-ing in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305-312.

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996).Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social statuswithin the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.

Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192.

Schwartz , D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer vic-timization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755-1772.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2000). Friendship as a moder-ating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victim-ization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 646-662.

Seals, D. & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: prevalence and relationship togender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.

Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bully-ing: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Gra-ham (Ed.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized(pp. 332-351). New York: Guilford Press.

Snyder, J., Brooker, M., Patrick, M. R., Snyder, A., Schrepferman, L., & Stoolmiller,M. (2003). Observed peer victimization during early elementary school: Continu-ity, growth, and relation to risk for child antisocial and depressive behavior (2003).Child Development, 74, 1881-1898.

Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of peervictimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal,33, 1-18.

Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A social-ecological frameworkof bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying inAmerican schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention(pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attach-ment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles-cent Psychiatry, 26, 166-172.

White, K. J., Sherman, M. D., & Jones, K. (1996). Children’s perceptions of behaviorproblem peers: Effects of teacher feedback and peer-reputed status. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 34, 53-72.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying injunior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25.

Received: September 8, 2005Accepted: December 2, 2005

18 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE