McMillan Honors Thesis Final

Peer Victimization Effects 1

Running Head: Self-Schema and Peer Victimization

Peer Victimization and Its Adverse Effects on Self-Schema in Children and Adolescents

Jessica McMillan

Vanderbilt University

Dr. David Cole Lab


Abstract

Our current study builds on Beck’s cognitive model of depression by testing whether peer victimization gives rise to depressive schemas in children and adolescents. Specifically, we created a model stating that chronic peer victimization affects the construction of self-cognitions and adds negative information to the content of self-schema, in turn predisposing for depression.

Stemming from a larger 2-year, 3-wave longitudinal study, our experimental study yielded a sample of elementary and middle children who were either chronically peer victimized (n = 110) or those who were not (n = 105). Using self-reports and a self-referent encoding task, this study yielded four major findings: (1) all forms of chronic peer victimization were positively associated with students’ self-reported negative self-cognitions, (2) all forms of peer victimization were negatively related to students’ self-reported positive self-cognitions, (3) relational and verbal peer victimization were related to a decrease in or eradication of the positive memorial bias, and (4) the association between peer victimization and some indicators of depressive self-schemas was stronger for relational and verbal peer victimization than for physical peer victimization. Clinical implications and future research are also elaborated upon in this study.


Introduction

In the last few years, peer victimization and its effects on school-aged children have acquired considerable media attention. Previous research has shown peer victimization to be very common, demonstrating that it affects approximately 50% of children and adolescents (e.g.,

Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Tubin, & Patton, 2001; Rugby & Slee, 1991). Of all children, approximately 1 of 10 experience persistent victimization by their peers and are at risk for a wide variety of emotional, social, and behavioral problems (Leadbeater, Hoglund, & Woods, 2003;

Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988; Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003). A metaanalysis of studies found depression to be the most common psychopathological outcome of peer victimization (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Despite these correlations, research fails to explain how peer victimization leads to depression. Research has also failed to offer a sufficient explanation for the cognitive effects of peer victimization and the specific predispositions for depression when dealing with children and adolescents. In an attempt to assist and counsel students who experience chronic peer victimization, in this paper, we will try to understand some of the cognitive processes that are affected by peer victimization.

One of the pioneers of research involving peer victimization, Dan Olweus, stated, “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (Olweus 1994, p. 1173). Peer victimization is characterized by three specific criteria: the intent to harm, frequency, and a disproportionate relationship between the victim and the child who commits the acts of peer victimization (Houbre, Tarquinio, Thuillier, & Hergott, 2006). Peer victimization is exhibited in two forms, relational and overt victimization, respectively (Card & Hodges, 2008). Overt

Peer Victimization Effects 4 victimization involves more physical and verbal antics such as hitting and teasing, while relational victimization involves group exclusion and rumor spreading (Rigby & Slee, 1999,

Mynard & Joseph, 2000). Our research focuses on both types of peer victimization and understanding how the negative cognitions that result from being chronically victimized by one’s peers affect one’s self-schema.

Cognitive schemas are content-specific organizations of information that are saved in long-term memory (Canter, 1990). A self-schema is a particular framework that organizes and condenses emotions, thoughts, and experiences a person has about one’s self in particular situations (Stein, 1995). According to Fiske (1996), self-schemas are divided into two sectors, content and function. The content of a self-schema consists of various domains of selfknowledge, whereas the function helps to organize and process self-pertinent information. Selfschemas can also be used to help predict future behavior (Fiske, 1996). One of our objectives is to determine whether chronic peer victimization is a mechanism that can lead students to develop negative self-schema during childhood or early adolescence.

Aaron Beck’s cognitive model of depression suggested that negative experiences lead to dysfunctional thoughts about the world, which in turn induce a more depressed state for the individual. His model suggests that subjective symptoms such as a negative view of self, world, or future, also known as the negative triad, can precipitate depression (Beck, 1967). In light of this model, Roth, Cole, and Heimberg stated that being chronically victimized by one’s peers during a critical developmental period may act as a mechanism that propels a child to develop a more negative self-schema that could later progress into depressive symptoms (2002). In the current study, we will attempt to determine if this mechanism has a similar effect when children experience peer victimization.


In order to achieve this goal, we have created a model that explains the connection between peer victimization and self-schema. Our model states that chronic and repetitive peer victimization affects the construction of cognitions pertaining to self as well as adds negative information to the content of one’s self-schema. A negative self-schema facilitates the interpretation, organization, and processing of new information. Research conducted on depressed persons have found that this processing style involves a tendency to examine stimuli through a painfully accurate and impartial lens (e.g., Gotlib, 1983). Depressed persons lack the natural tendency towards a positive recall bias (which facilitates better recall for more positive material), and thus have been shown to recall more negative material than non-depressed people

(Bradley & Mathews, 1983). To assess peer victimization’s affect on self-schema function, we used the Self-Referent Encoding Task (SRET; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977).

Middle childhood is particularly pertinent to the development of this process, in that children in this age group are actively constructing their self-schema, as well as being at an increased risk for being victimized by their peers (Cole, Maxwell, Dukewich, & Yosick, 2010).

Research has shown that children who experience chronic victimization during this time of their lives will have an increased risk of internalizing implicit and/or explicit messages that deal with their self-worth and self-concept (e.g., Cole, Maxwell, Dukewich, & Yosick, 2010; Troop-

Gordon & Ladd, 2005). In conjunction with this information, studies have shown that individuals are more likely to organize information faster, have a greater recall, and focus on information that is consistent with a pre-established self-schema (Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977; Bargh,

1982).

Due to the aforementioned processes of chronic peer victimization, we can predict that children with a history of peer victimization will have more negative cognitions stored within

Peer Victimization Effects 6 their self-schema content than their non-victimized peers. We also believe that the positive recall bias will not be present for those experiencing chronic peer victimization, causing them to have a greater memorial function for more negative self-relevant descriptive words than those who do not have a history of peer victimization. If this is the case, evidence of increased recall and recognition of negative self-referential words will be found on the SRET. Therefore, we expect a significant and positive Pearson correlation between victimization and the portion of negative words recalled, as well as a significant and negative correlation between victimization and the portion of positive words recalled . We plan on performing multiple regression analysis on how sex and age moderate these correlations. In addition to our two primary hypotheses, we also believe that relational and verbal peer victimization will better predict negative self-cognitions than will physical peer victimization. Previous research supports our claim that relational peer victimization is more frequently related to negative self-cognitions than is physical victimization

(Cole, Maxwell, Dukewich, & Yosick, 2010; Sinclair et al., 2012). We are less clear about whether the effects of verbal peer victimization are more similar to physical or relational peer victimization. Given that verbal peer victimization focuses on direct teasing and name-calling, we believe that verbal peer victimization will also better predict negative self-cognitions compared to physical peer victimization, which focuses on non-verbal encounters (that we believe to have less of an effect on self-cognitions) such as hitting and fighting.

Methods

Participants


Participants were recruited from five elementary schools and four middle schools in the

Davidson Country of Tennessee. Data were collected at three different times, each three months apart. During Wave 1, letters and consent forms were distributed to the parents of students ranging from third to sixth grade. After Wave 1, students were re-recruited and re-consented for the next two waves. Of the 2999 recruits, there were 1888 total participants that had parental consent and had at least participated in two of the three waves of data collection.

After collecting the data from all three waves, we created an algorithm to determine the students we would invite to participate in our lab-based study. For our lab-based study, we targeted children who were either chronically peer victimized or who did not experience chronic peer victimization. In order to be considered chronically peer victimized, the child must have at least two reporters, including peer, self, parent, and/or teacher, identify the child as experiencing high peer victimization (PV) in one wave, and at least one of those reporters identify the child as high PV in an adjacent wave of date (e.g. Wave 1 and 2 or Wave 2 and 3). In order to be deemed a child who does not experience chronic peer victimization, the child must have at least two reporters identify the child as low PV in one wave, and at least one of those reporters identify the child as low PV in an adjacent wave, and none of the four reporters in either wave identify the child as high PV. From the total participants in all three waves, we invited 398 students classified as either low PV or high PV to participate in our lab-based study, along with one parent or guardian. Of the total we invited to participate, 215 (54%) of children had parental consent and participated in the lab-based study. Of those, 105 were low PV and 110 were high PV.

Comparisons of participants to nonparticipants on grade level, sex, and ethnicity revealed nonsignficant differences (ps > .20).


Students were in the fourth (n = 16), fifth (n = 30), sixth (n = 97), seventh (n = 53), and eighth (n = 19) grades. Ages ranged from 9.75 to 14.58 (M = 12.20, SD = 1.00). The sample was evenly represented with 48% boys and 52% girls. The sample consisted of Caucasian (59%),

African American (34%), Hispanic (11%), Asian (3%), Native American (3%), and other (1%).

The race distribution was greater than one-hundred percent because the participants were able to select more than one race. Family size (i.e. the number of children living in the home) ranged from 1 to 7 (Median = 2).

Measures

Victimization by peers. For this study we measured peer victimization using self-reports, peer nominations, teacher reports, and parent reports.

For self-reports, we used a peer victimization (PV-SR) measure that consisted of a 15item questionnaire created to assess physical and relational victimization. We modified items used by Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd (2002). Items were slightly modified for older children and to include a wider range of physical and relation victimization, as well as verbal victimization items. The question stem was, “How often do kids…?” The four verbal items were:

(1) Make fun of you (2) Call you names (3) Laugh at you in a mean way, and (4) Tease you. The four physical victimization items include: (6) Push or shove you around (7) Hit or kick you (8)

Hurt you physically, and (9) Say they will hurt you later . The four relational victimization items include: (11) Say mean things about you to other kids (12) Tell others to stop being your friend

(13) Say you can’t play with them, and (14) Tell lies about you to other kids

. There are also three positive peer interaction items: (5) Say something nice to you (10) Let you to be in their group, and (15) Treat you like a friend . Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, spanning 1 ( never), 2

( rarely ), 3 ( sometimes ), and 4 ( a lot ). Previous studies have shown the PV-SR to be both valid

Peer Victimization Effects 9 and reliable with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .73 to .86 (e.g., Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd,

B, 2002; Sinclair et al., 2012; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006). The internal consistencies for relational, verbal, and physical victimization in this current study were .77, .89, and .81, respectively. Means and standard deviations for all the items are presented in Table 1.

Teacher reports of children’s peer victimization (PV-TR) examined the perception of peer victimization involving the students within each teacher’s classroom using a measure modified from Warden, Hurley, and Volicer (2003). This instrument consisted of items that pertained to both relational and physical victimization. Teachers were only asked to fill out this measure for students whose parents submitted consent forms. The teacher indicated whether or not the child in question has been a victim of either relational or physical victimization, as well as the frequency and severity of that/those particular victimization type(s).

Peer reports were collected using peer nominations. Peer nominations were structured in a format similar to many studies (e.g., Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988; Graham & Juvonen, 1998;

Crick & Bigbee, 1998), and focused on children’s social status among other children. There were separate forms for relational and physical victimization. Each child whose parent submitted consent forms were asked to write down the names of classmates who experienced each particular type of victimization.

The parent report, PV-PR, similar to the PV self-report, was adapted from a measure used by Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd (2002). This measure directly corresponds to the PV self-report completed by the child. Both questionnaires share the same items, except the PV-PR examined how often parents have heard about their children’s experience with different kinds of victimization from their peers. The measure, validated by a multi-trait, multi-method study,

Peer Victimization Effects 10 consisted of 15 items that included a wide range of physical, relational, and verbal questions

(Cole, Maxwell, Dukewich, & Yosick, 2010).

Self-Cognition Measures. The Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale (CATS; Schniering

& Rapee, 2002) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses a wide variety of negative selfcognitions in children and adolescents. The questionnaire asked children to rate the frequency that they have thought 56 different negative thoughts over the past week. We adapted this measure by using only 24 items in our study. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale, spanning 1

( not at all), 2 ( sometimes ), 3 ( fairly often ), 4 ( often ), and 5 ( all the time ). The CATS yields a full scale score and consists of four subscale scores including: physical threat, social threat, personal failure, and hostility. For the purpose of this study, we only used items pertaining to the subscales social threat (e.g., “Kids will think I’m stupid”) and personal failure (e.g., “I can’t do anything right”). The internal consistency of the full scale is high with a Cronbach’s alpha of

0.95. The internal consistencies of the two subscales were also high; both social threat and personal failure had a Cronbach’s alphas of 0.92 (Schniering & Rapee, 2002). For this study, the

Cronbach’s alphas for social threat and personal failure were .88 and .90, respectively.

The Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) is a self-report inventory comprised of

36 items that centralize on six different developmentally relevant areas including scholastic competence, social acceptance, behavioral conduct, physical attractiveness, sports competence, and global self-worth, that is then used to assess how children views themselves (Harter 1985).

For this study we only focused on three of the six subscales, social acceptance, physical attractiveness, and global self-worth, which decreased the number of items from 36 to 18. For each item, the participants chose one of two contrasting statements that depict them as being either good or not so good at a specific activity. They then selected whether the statement they

Peer Victimization Effects 11 chose was “sort of” or “really” like them. Items were scored on a 4-point rating scale with high scores reflecting greater self-perceived competence. The SPPC has a highly interpretable factor structure and all of the subscales have good internal consistency, including the three that our study is focusing on, social acceptance (.80), physical attractiveness (.86), and global self-worth

(.80), as seen by their Cronbach’s alphas (Harter 1982, 1985, Muris, Meesters, & Fijen, 2003).

For our study, the Cronbach’s alphas for the three SPCC subscales ranged from .77 to .86.

The Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children (CTI-C) is a self-report questionnaire that consists of 36 items that assess how children perceives themselves (e.g., “I do well at many different things” and ”I am a good person”), their world (e.g., “The world is a very mean place” and “Bad things happen to me a lot”), and their future (e.g., “My future is too bad to think about” and “There is nothing to look forward to as I get older”). The 36 items are equally distributed as either positive or negative self-cognitions and are randomized, so that all the negative and positive items are not placed together. For each item, children must indicate if they have had a particular thought today using a three point scale: yes, maybe, and no. The scores for this measure range from 0 to 72 with higher scores representing a more negative perspective . CTI-C has good construct validity and high internal consistency, and correlates with measures of selfworth, self-control, perceived contingency, attributional style, and self-perception (Kaslow,

Stark, Printz, Livingston, and Tsai, 1992; LaGrange & Cole, 2008). For this study, the

Cronbach’s alphas were .87 and .87, for the negative and positive subscales.

Experimental Task

The experimental portion of this study was conducted on students who were deemed to be low PV or high PV through our victimization algorithm, and who received parental consent.

All of these tasks were conducted through computer.


Mood Induction. In order to invoke a certain desired mood, we used a Victimization

Mood Induction task. This task was a six-minute video clip containing various movie clips reflecting either relational victimization for female participants or physical victimization for male participants. The clips consisted of different aspects of victimization such as social rejection, mild physical aggression, and name-calling. In order to channel mild levels of a victimization mood, we used mood priming, which helped the participants to recreate the affective state associated with being victimized by their peers (Scher, Ingram, & Segal, 2005).

Due to research showing that males are more overtly victimized and females are more commonly relationally victimized, we thought that showing either relational or physical peer victimization for girls and boys, respectively, would further assist with effective mood priming (e.g., Craig,

1998). The affective state of each participant was assessed prior to, to obtain a baseline mood, and after the victimization mood induction task, using the PANAS, to ensure that the desired mood was induced. The PANAS or Positive Affect and Negative Affect scales, consist of two ten item mood scales that measure positive and negative affect. The PANAS has high internal consistency and has shown that its positive and negative measures are largely uncorrelated

(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

At the end of all experimental tasks, we conducted a Positive Mood Induction task. This consisted of the participant watching a two to three minute video clip about positive social interactions such as laughing, dancing, and having fun. Similar to the Victimization Mood

Induction task, the affective state of the participant was assessed to determine if the participant had returned to baseline mood or a more positive mood than before the victimization mood induction.


Self-Referent Encoding Task. Using procedures modified from the Rogers, Juiper, and

Kirker study, participants performed a SRET that involved two tasks (1977). The first task involved answering “yes” or “no” to one of three questions: (1) Does this word describe you? (2)

Does this word describe your best friend? (3) Does this word describe something good? The participants were then presented with one negative or positive adjective, such as happy, unloved, wimp, cool, and loser. The answers to each question (yes or no) and the time it took the participants to respond were recorded electronically through the computer program. It should be noted that prior to the SRET, the participants provided us with the name of their best friend, so they had someone particular in mind as they answered the various questions. After the computer task was completed, the participants then completed the second task. The participants were asked to list any of words they recalled from the computer task. It should be noted that the participants were not told that they would have to recall words before the SRET began. After the free recall, the participants were then presented a list of words that included all the words featured in the electronic task as well as others that did not appear in the task. We asked the participants to read aloud each word and circle the ones they remembered. We attempted to identify words recognized as well as words that the participants could not pronounce using this task. We took notes on each word the participants could not pronounce and assumed that they did not understand whether the word was a positive or negative adjective. Based on previous studies

(e.g., Rogers, Juiper, & Kirker, 1977; Ingram, Smith, & Brehem, 1983), we believe that the number of words correctly recalled and recognized is indicative of the self-referent information encoded by the participant. Similar to the Rogers, Juiper, and Kirker study, we believe that recall is a function of the depth of processing and the strength of memory for self-relevant descriptive words (1977).


Procedure

Before data collection of each wave, we sent informed-consent letters to all the children in the participating classrooms. We offered a $100 donation to each class who returned 90% of their parent-consent forms signed (if the children returned a signed parent consent form that indicated that the child could not participate in the study, they were still included in the 90%).

For those parents who consented to their child’s participation in the study, we also distributed parent questionnaires (PV-PR). Peer nominations (PV-Peer Nominations) and teacher reports were also distributed to participating students and teachers. After determining which children were low PV or high PV using the peer victimization algorithm, we invited children and their parents to participate in our laboratory study. For participating, we offered each parent fifty dollars, even if the participant did not complete the study.

Prior to beginning our experimental task, we reviewed the consent forms with the parent and child, and administered different questionnaires to both. The questionnaires for the participant consisted of the PV-SR, the CATS measure, the CTI-C, and the SPPC, while the parents received PV-PR. After the questionnaires were administered, the participant was taken into the computer room to complete the computer tasks. Using PANAS, the child’s baseline mood was obtained and then the Victimization Mood Induction task was administered. After the induction task, PANAS was used. Then, the SRET was administered. After the SRET, the child was asked to recall any remembered words and then was given a sheet full of words to read aloud and circle if they remembered them from the task. After this, we initiated the Positive

Mood Induction and used the PANAS to measure if the child had returned to baseline mood or a more positive mood. When the experiment was over, we gave the parents $50 for their participation in the study.


Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 contains correlations among all study variables as well as their means and standard deviations. Descriptive statistics were similar to those found in a study using a schoolbased sample (e.g., LaGrange et al., 2008). Both relational and verbal PV were significantly correlated with all of the cognitive questionnaire measures and the incidental recall difference variable, in the expected directions. We hypothesized that verbal and relational PV would be more highly correlated with the cognitive variables than would physical PV. We used Steiger’s Z

(1980) to test the significance of the difference between two independent correlations. Table 2 displays the results of these tests, including correlations among the cognitive, incidental recall/recognition difference, and PV variables. We found verbal and relational PV to be more highly correlated with the SPPC Global, CTI-C Positive, and CTI-C Negative cognitive measures than physical PV. For the CATS Personal Failure measure, relational PV was found to be more highly correlated than physical PV.

Analysis Overview

We performed three sets of multiple regression analyses, in which we regressed each cognitive and SRET variable onto one of the three types of victimization, plus Sex, Age, and the

Victimization x Sex interaction. Please note that Sex is coded male = 0 and female = 1, therefore positive correlations with Sex reflect a greater association between that variable and being female, while negative correlations with Sex reflect a greater association between that variable and being male. Tables 3 and 4 display the results for the regression of cognitive and SRET variables on physical PV , Age, and Sex. Tables 5 and 6 display the results for the regression of cognitive and SRET variables on relational PV , Age, and Sex. Tables 7 and 8 display the results

Peer Victimization Effects 16 for the regression of cognitive and SRET variables on verbal PV , Age, and Sex. When the interaction between variables was significant, we plotted the effects in Figures 1, 2, and 3, but when the interaction was not significant, we dropped it from the regression model and interpreted the main effects.

Physical PV

We had two primary hypotheses about children experiencing chronic peer victimization:

(1) we believed that they would hold more negative cognitions within their self-schema and (2) we predicted that they would have a better memory for negative self-relevant descriptive words compared to children who have not experienced chronic peer victimization. Table 3 supported hypothesis 1 for five out of seven self-cognition variables, in which there was either a main effect for physical PV or a physical PV x Sex interaction for the five cognitive self-report variables. CATS Social Threat and CTI-C Negative showed a main effect for physical PV, in which students experiencing higher levels of physical PV endorsed more self-cognitions than those that experienced lower levels of physical PV. Note that a poor score on each of the selfcognitive variables reflects a higher amount of negative self-cognitions experienced by the student. CATS Personal Failure, CTI-C Positive, and SPPC Social subscales each showed a physical PV x Sex interaction (see Figure 1). For the CATS Personal Failure and CTI-C positive subscales, physical PV had a stronger effect for girls than for boys. On the SPPC Social subscale, physical PV had a stronger effect on boys than girls. Similar to CATS Social Threat and CTI-C

Negative, students experiencing higher levels of physical PV scored more poorly on CATS

Personal Failure, CTI-C Positive, and SPPC Social subscales than those experiencing lower levels of physical PV.


Table 4 did not support hypothesis 2. None of the incidental recall or recognition measures in the Self, Best Friend, or Something Good conditions were strong or significant.

Physical PV did not predict greater memory for negative self-relevant descriptive words.

Relational PV

Table 5 supported hypothesis 1 by showing either a main effect for relational PV or a relational PV x Sex interaction for all of the cognitive self-report variables. CATS Social, SPPC

Social, CTI-C Positive, and CTI-C Negative all showed a significant main effect for relational

PV, in which students experiencing higher levels of relational PV scored more poorly on each of the aforementioned self-cognitive measures than those experiencing lower levels of relational

PV. CATS Personal Failure, SPPC Global, and SPPC Appearance were shown to have significant relational PV x Sex interactions that showed relational PV to have a significantly stronger effect on the three self-cognition variables for girls than for boys (see Figure 2). For the

CATS Personal Failure, SPPC Global, and SPPC Appearance self-cognitive measures, high relational PV students scored more poorly on the subscales than low relational PV students.

Table 6 supported hypothesis 2 by reflecting relational PV’s significant main effect on the incidental recall of negative versus positive words presented during the Self encoding condition of the SRET. In addition to this main effect, there was also a relational PV x Sex interaction for the incidental recall of negative versus positive words in the Self encoding condition, as displayed in Figure 2. Students experiencing higher levels of relational PV recalled a significantly higher proportion of negative minus positive words than those with lower levels of relational PV, as displayed in Figure 4. Figure 4 also showed that higher levels of relational

PV produced a proportion of negative minus positive words that was close to 0, thus showing that children experiencing higher levels of relational PV recall a nearly equal number of positive

Peer Victimization Effects 18 and negative self-relevant words. Conversely, Figure 4 illustrated that children with lower levels of relational PV scores were less than 0, on average, thus showing that students experiencing lower levels of relational PV recalled more positive than negative self-relevant words. Findings for the recognition task were similar to those of the recall task, except that the effect was weaker and not statistically significant (see Table 6).

Verbal PV

Table 7 supported hypothesis 1 by showing either a main effect for verbal PV or a verbal

PV x Sex interaction for all of the cognitive self-report variables. CATS Personal Failure, CATS

Social Threat, SPPC Appearance, and CTI-C Negative all showed a significant main effect for verbal PV, in which high verbal PV students scored more poorly on each of the aforementioned self-cognitive measures than low verbal PV students. SPPC Global, SPPC Social, and CTI-C

Positive were shown to have significant verbal PV x Sex interactions that showed verbal victimization to have a significantly stronger effect on the three self-cognition variables for girls than for boys (see Figure 3). These three self-cognitive subscales, SPPC Global, SPPC Social, and CTI-C Positive, show an worsening in each measure’s score when verbal PV is high instead of low.

Table 8 did not support hypothesis 2. None of the incidental recall or recognition of negative versus positive words in either the Self, Best Friend, or Something Good encoding condition were strong or significant. The only exception to this is the incidental recall for the

Best Friend encoding condition, which sheds light on cognitions about one’s best friend instead of about Self. Given this, verbal PV did not predict for a greater memorial function for more negative self-relevant descriptive words.

Discussion


This study yielded four major findings and supported the overarching goal of showing that key indicators of depressive self-schemas are associated with peer victimization in middle childhood. First, all forms of chronic peer victimization, physical, relational, and verbal, were positively associated with students’ self-reported negative self-cognitions. Second, all forms of peer victimization were negatively related to students’ self-reported positive self-cognitions, although many of these associations were weaker (even nonsignficant) for physical peer victimization and boys. Third, relational and verbal peer victimization were related to a decrease in or eradication of the positive memorial bias that was evident in the nonvictimized students and is normative amongst youth in general. Lastly, the association between peer victimization and some indicators of depressive self-schemas was stronger for relational and verbal PV than it was for physical PV. Our four major findings build upon research generated by Beck’s cognitive model of depression, by predicting the types of social-cognitive-emotional events in childhood that might produce the cognitive diatheses for depression. We elaborate on each of these results below.

First, being exposed to persistent physical, relational, or verbal victimization by peers was related to a multitude of negative self-cognitions that represent the negative informational content typically associated with depressive self-schemas in both children and adults. (Abela &

Sullivan, 2003; Cole et al., 1998; Cole, Martin, Powers, &  Truglio, 1996; Cole, Peeke,

Dolezal, Murray, & Canzoniero, 1999; Lakdawalla, Hankin, & Mermelstein, 2007; Lewinsohn,

Joiner, & Rohde, 2001; Reinherz et al., 1989). We found significant evidence that victimized students self-reported negative cognitions in areas like physical attractiveness, global self-worth, social acceptance, themselves, the world, and the future. Our results were similar to those of

Sinclair et al. (2012), which found relational and physical PV to be associated with perceptions

Peer Victimization Effects 20 of failure, physical unattractiveness, and social incompetence, as well as negative cognitions about themselves, their worlds, and their futures. In light of these results, future research might explore whether the aforementioned negative self-cognitions influence a later relation between children who have experienced chronic physical, relational, or verbal PV and depressive symptoms.

Second, our hypothesis that PV would be associated with reduced positive self-cognitions was supported for girls but not boys. Out of the three analyses that revealed significant relations between PV and positive cognitions, two of them were moderated by sex. Girls showed diminished levels of positive self-cognitions in association with persistent PV, whereas boys did not. For girls, PV was associated with increased risk for depression (negative self-cognitions) and a weakened protective factor (positive self-cognitions). For boys, PV was also related with increased risk for depression but for the most part was not related to the reduction of positive self-cognitions. These results connect with research regarding sex differences in depression, which states that the occurrence of depression rises during early adolescence for both girls and boys, although the increase is strikingly greater for girls than for boys (Angold & Costello, 2001;

Galambos, Leadbeater, & Barker, 2004; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995; Rushton, Forcier, &

Schectman, 2002; Twenge & Nolen- Hoeksema, 2002). Nolen-Hoeksema and Girgus (1994) goes further to state that girls develop more risk factors that negatively influence their selfconcept during adolescence than boys, which in turn puts them at greater risk for future depression during adulthood. The sex differences seen in our study also connect to literature that suggests that in terms of the construction of global self-worth, girls place more importance on social acceptance and physical appearance than do boys (Cambron, Acitelli, & Pettit, 2009;

Cross & Madson, 1997; Gore, Cross & Morris, 2006; Harter, 1999). Taylor (2012) highlights the

Peer Victimization Effects 21 differences between sexes, proposing that on average, females have a greater need for affiliation than males, which would give reason to the significance girls place on social acceptance and physical appearance.

Our third major finding was that children who have not experienced chronic victimization demonstrated biased recall for positive self-referential words, whereas children who were relationally or verbally victimized recalled positive and negative self-referential words equally well. Research on depression presents a very similar positive memorial bias for non-depressed individuals, which is not present in depressed individuals (Cole & Jordan, 1995; Gencoz et al.,

2001; Hammen, & Zupan, 1984; Moilanen, 1995; Prieto et al., 1992; Timbremont & Braet, 2005;

Woolgar & Tranah, 2010). As control conditions, the children were shown words referring to

“something good” and their “best friend,” and in accordance with the aforementioned research as well as our prediction that self-referent words would be the most effectively recalled, we found nonsignficant results for the recall of both control conditions.

Our last major finding partially supported our fourth hypothesis. In comparison to physical peer victimization, relational and verbal PV were more strongly related to some indicators of depressive self-schemas. Results were significant for more global measures of selfcognitions such as CTI-C Positive, CTI-C Negative, and SPPC Global Self-Worth. Previous research produced similar results as we have found in our study: self-reported covert/relational peer victimization was shown to be more strongly associated with indicators of depressive selfschemas than overt/physical peer victimization (Cole, Maxwell, Dukewich, & Yosick, 2010 &

Sinclair et al., 2012). Also congruent with our study, was the fact that there were significant results in regard to more global measures of self-cognitions like CTI-C Negative (Cole,

Maxwell, Dukewich, & Yosick, 2010; Sinclair et al., 2012). These results shed interesting light

Peer Victimization Effects 22 on the childhood saying that “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” In contrast to popular belief, the aforementioned articles and our current study illustrate that

“names” may actually be more harmful than “sticks and stones,” thus future research should be structured more around relational and verbal peer victimization than physical peer victimization.

Our study yields a few important clinical implications. Firstly, our results have shown an association between all forms of chronic peer victimization and an increase of negative selfcognitions, along with a decrease of positive self-cognitions. These results make evident the need for bullying interventions in school systems. Although our study focuses on victimized students, it may also be helpful to gear interventions towards teachers and school officials. Orpinas,

Horne, and Staniszewski (2003) in their systematic review on school-based interventions to prevent peer victimization and Vreeman and Carroll (2007) suggested that a more collaborative problem-solving approach, involving modifying the school environment, training teachers, educating students, among other facets, yielded both reduced self-reported victimization and aggression. This leads to the second clinical implication of our study: the necessity for social and psychological support for both the victimized children, who are at risk for poor mental health when social support is low, as well as the perpetrators who are inflicting pain on other children

(Rigby, 2000). Lastly, there is a need to facilitate better relationships between students, as negative peer interactions has been shown to contribute significantly to depression and suicidal behavior in some children (Topol & Reznikoff, 1982; Rigby & Slee, 1999). Conversely, a shortterm longitudinal study examining the relation between PV and friendship showed that friendship with a peer protected against victimization (Boulton, Trueman, Whitehand, &

Amatya, 1999). Overall, in order to assist with the reduction of the incidents and effects of PV, it is important to develop multi-faceted bullying interventions, provide social support, and

Peer Victimization Effects 23 psychological counseling to the victims and their perpetrators, as well as build relationships between students and their peers.

Despite the strengths and significant results of our current study, several shortcomings and limitations must be addressed with additional research. First, although we obtained a diverse sample, in terms of race and sex, our experimental sample size was substantially smaller than that of our initial three-wave study. Large longitudinal studies could produce a more representative sample and increase the strength of the results obtained from these studies.

Second, our study focused solely on the target of peer victimization and did not collect any data regarding the perpetrator of peer victimization. Understanding the perpetrators may help to reduce peer victimization in schools, as interventions and support can be given to them as well as the victims. Lastly, although this experiment involved both non-victimized and victimized children, data were collected only about the cognitive effects of peer victimization without considering protective factors against peer victimization. Studies designed to analyze and identify protective factors that reduce the incidence of peer victimization could produce more strategies to be used in bullying interventions and psychological counseling. It is just as important to identify the lasting effects of victimization by peers, as it is to understand the factors that protect individuals from experiencing persistent victimization by their peers.


References

Abuela, J. R. & Sullivan, C. (2003). A test of Beck’s cognitive diathesis-stress theory of depression in early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23 (4), 383-404.

Angold, A., & Costello, E.J. (2001). Epidemiology of depression in children and adolescents. In I.Goodyer (Ed.), The depressed child and adolescent . (2nd edn. pp.

143–178). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bargh, J. (1982). Attention and automaticity in the processing of self-relevant information.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (3), 425-436.

Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997).

Beck, A. (1967). Depression: Causes and Treatment. University of Pennsylvania Press:

Philadelphia

Bond, L., Carlin, J., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical

Journal, 323 , 480-484.

Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal of adolescence , 22 (4), 461-466.

Bradley, B., & Mathews, A. (1983). Negative self-schemata in clinical depression. British

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22 (3), 173-181.

Buhs, S. E., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s

Peer Victimization Effects 25 classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1),

1-13.

Cambron, M. J., Acitelli, L. K., & Pettit, J. W. (2009). Explaining gender differences in depression: An interpersonal contingent self-esteem perspective. Sex Roles , 61 (11),

751-761.

Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45 , 735-750.

Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23 (4), 451-461.

Craig, Wendy. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual

Differences, 1 , 123-130.

Cole, D.A., & Jordan, A. E. (1995). Competence and memory: Integrating psychosocial and cognitive correlates of child depression. Child Development, 66 (2), 459- 473.

Cole, D. A., Martin, J. M., Powers, B., & Truglio, R. (1996). Modeling causal relations between academic and social competence and depression: A multitrait-multimethod longitudinal study of children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105 , 258–270.

Cole, D. A., Maxwell, M., Dukewich, T., & Yosick, R. (2010). Targeted peer victimization 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.


Cole, D. A., Peeke, L., Dolezal, S., Murray, N., & Canzoniero, A. (

1999). A longitudinal study of negative affect and self-perceived competence in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (4), 851-862.

Cole, D. A., Peeke, L. G., Martin, J. M., Truglio, R, &Seroczynski, A.D. (1998). A longitudinal look at the relation between depression and anxiety in children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 (3), 451-460.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 (2),

337-347.

Dake, J., Price, J., & Telljohann, S. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school.

Journal of School Health, 73 (5), 173-180.

Fiske, S., & Morling, B. (1996). “Self-schemas." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social

Psychology . Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online.

Galambos, N. L., Leadbeater,B. J., & Barker, E. T. (2004). Gender differences in and risk factors for depression in adolescence: A 4-year longitudinal study. International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 28( 1), 16-25.

Gençöz, T., Voelz, Z. R., Gençöz, F., Pettit, J. W., & Joiner, T. E. (2001). Specificity of information processing styles to depressive symptoms in youth psychiatric inpatients.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 29 (3), 255-262.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, Jaana. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school:

An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34 (3), 587-538.


Gore, Jonathan S., Susan E. Cross, and Michael L. Morris. "Let's be friends: Relational self ‐ construal and the development of intimacy." Personal Relationships 13.1

(2006): 83-102.

Gotlib, I. H. (1983). Perception and recall of interpersonal feedback: negative bias in depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7 (5), 399-412.

Hammen, C., & Zupan, B. A. (1984). Self-schemas, depression, and the processing of personal information in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 37 (3),

598-608.

Hanish, L., & Guerra, N. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14 , 69-89.

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.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective.

Guilford Press,

New York.

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 Psychiatry, 41 , 441–455.

Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006). Bullying among students and its consequences on health. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21 (21),

183-208.


Ingram, R. E., Smith, T. W., & Brehem, S. S. (1983). Depression and information processing

Self-schemata and the encoding of self-referent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 412-420.

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 Psychology, 21 , 339–347.

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 adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identiﬁed victims.

Psychological Assessment, 14 , 74–96.

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.

LaGrange, B., Cole, D. A., Dallaire, D.H., Ciesla, J. A., Pineda, A, Q., Truss, A. E., &

Folmer, A. (2008). Developmental changes in depressive cognitions: A longitudinal evaluation of the Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children Psychological Assessment,

20 , 217-226.

Lakdawalla, Z., Hankin, B. L., & Mermelstein, R. (2007). Cognitive theories of depression in children and adolescents: A conceptual and quantitative review. Child Clinical and

Family Psychology Review, 10 , 1–24.

Leadbeater, B., Hoglund, W., & Woods, T. (2003). Changing contexts? The effects of a primary prevention program on classroom levels of peer relational and physical victimization. Journal of Community Psychology, 31 (4), 397–418.


Lewinsohn, P. M., Joiner, T. E., & Rohde, P. (2001). Evaluation of cognitive diathesis–stress models in predicting major depressive disorder in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 110, 203–215.

Moilanen, D. L. (1995). Validity of Beck's cognitive theory of depression with nonreferred adolescents. Journal of Counseling & Development , 73 (4), 438-442.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Fijen, P. (2003). The Self-Perception Profile for Children: Further evidence for its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Personality and Individual

Diffrences, 35, 1791-1802.

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169-178.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1995). Gender differences in coping with depression across the lifespan. Depression, 3, 81-90.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. J ournal of Child Psychology Psych, 35 (7), 1171-1190.

Orpinas, P., Horne, A. M., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School bullying: Changing the problem by changing the school. School Psychology Review , 32 (3), 431-444.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an antibullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental

Health, 13 (2), 95-110.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental

Psychology, 24 (6), 807-814.


Prieto, S. L., Cole, D. A., & Tageson, C. W. (1992). Depressive self-schemas in clinic and nonclinic children. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 16 (5), 521-534.

Reinherz, H. Z., Stewart-Berghauer, G., Pakiz, B., Frost, A. K., Moeykens, B. A., & Holmes,

W. M. (1989). The relationship of early risk and current mediators to depressive symptomatology in adolescence . Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 942-947.

Rigby, K. (2000). Effect of peer vicitimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57-68.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131 (5).

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children, involvement in bully—victim problems, and perceived social support. Suicide and

Life-Threatening Behavior, 29 , 119–130.

Rogers, B., Kuiper, A., & Kirker, S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 , 677-688.

Roth, A. D., Coles, E. A., & Heimberg, G. R. (2002). The relationship between memories for childhood teasing and anxiety and depression in adulthood. Anxiety Disorders , 16,

149-164.

Rushton, J. L., Forcier, M., & Schectman, R. M. (2002). Epidemiology of depressive symptoms in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 41 (2), 199-205.


Scher, C. D., Ingram, R. E., & Segal, Z. V. (2005). Cognitive reactivity and vulnerability:

Empirical evaluation of construct activation and cognitive diatheses in unipolar depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 25 (4), 487-510.

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.

Sinclair, K. R., Cole, D. A., Dukewich, T., Felton, J., Weitlauf, A. S., Maxwell, M. A.,

Tilghman-Osborne, C., & Jacky, A. (2012). Impact of physical and relational peer victimization on depressive cognitions in children & adolescents . Journal of Clinical

Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41 (5), 570-583.

Steiger, J.H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix, Psychological

Bulletin, 87 , 245-251.

Stein, K. (1995). Schema model of the self-concept. Journal of Nursing-Scholarship, 27 (3),

188-193.

Taylor S.E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential to who we are and how we live . New York: Holt.

Timbremont, B., & Braet, C. (2005) Selective information-processing in depressed children and adolescents: Is there a difference in processing of self-referent and other-referent information?. Behaviour Change, 22 (3), 143-155.

Topol, P., & Reznikoff, M. (1982). Perceived peer and family relationships, hopelessness, and locus of control as factors in adolescent suicide attempts. Suicide and Life

Threatening Behavior , 12, 141–150.


Troop-Gordin, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems.

Child Development, 76 (5), 1072-1091.

Twenge, J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and birth cohort differences on the Children's Depression Inventory: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 578–588.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 161 (1), 78-88.

Warden, V., Hurley, A. C., & Volicer, L. (2003) Development and psychometric evaluation of the pain assessment in advanced dementia (PAINAD) scale. Journal of the

American Medical Directors Association, 4 (1), 9-15.

Woolgar, M., & Tranah, T. (2010). Cognitive vulnerability to depression in young people in secure accommodation: The influence of ethnicity and current suicidal ideation.

Journal of Adolescence , 33 (5), 653-661.


Table 1

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations

Variable

1. Age

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M SD

.01 .26** .20** -.18** -.11 -.13

.03

.18* -.01 -.07

.00 -.23** .12 -.12

.00 -.13 -.01 -.19** -.08 -.11 -.05 -.15* -.08 12.20 1.00

2. Sex -.03 .16* .07

.12 .17* -.15* -.18* -.22** .06

.01

-.06 -.02 -.08

.00 .05

.01

-.05

.10 -.09 -.15* -.03 -.02

.52

.50

3. PPV

4. RPV

5. VPV

6. CATS PF

.55** .55** .13 .35** -.11 -.42** -.11 .21** .16*

.72** .30** .41**-.31** -.49** -.19** .31** .30**

.15* .40**-.22** -.50** -.15* .31** .27**

.52**-.54** -.31** -.37** .51** .61**

-.01 -.06

-.04 -.09

-.03 -.12

.00 -.17*

.00

.01

.05

.06

.04 -.07 -.07

.13 .02 -.08

.06 .00 -.12

.05 .13 -.02

-.06 -.02 -.02 -.04

-.03

.00

.03

.02

.05 -.03

.00 -.07

.06 .02

.01 .00

.06 .08

.08 .09

.10 -.02 .16*

3.63 1.36

6.11 2.51

6.41 2.70

.08 12.04 4.60

7. CATS ST

8. SPPC G

9. SPPC S

10. SPPC A

11. CTI-C P

12. CTI-C N

13. PPYWRecog

14. PPYWRecall

-.44** -.46** -.42** .50** .44**

.47** .60** -.67** -.62**

.46** -.51** -.35**

-.57** -.46**

.69**

-.01 -.18*

.03

-.12

-.03

-.11 -.17*

.08

.02

.20** .55**

.04 .05 -.11

.07 -.01 -.11 -.10

.08 -.06 -.09 -.07

.06 .33** .02

.03

.05

.05 .06 -.08

.00

.06 -.04

-.05

.06 -.01

.11 .49** .17* .49**

.08 .22**

.10 -.04

.07 .02

.12 .13

.13 .08 13.08 5.29

.02 -.10 -.02 -.09 -.01 15.94 2.94

-.05 -.03 -.09 .01 -.10 -.11 14.17 4.09

.02 -.02 -.06 -.08 -.01 -.16* -.07 -.08 -.03 -.06 -.07 13.88 4.48

.03 -.06

.09 .16* .12

.01

.10

.00

.13 .07

.10 .07 21.29 4.34

.09 .08 23.25 5.52

.12 .52** .14* .44** .10

.05 .13*

.85

.21

.19

.16

15. PNYWRecog

16. PNYWRecall

17. PPFWRecog

18. PPFWRecall

19. PNFWRecog

20. PNFWRecall

21. PPGWRecog

22. PPGWRecall

23. PNGWRecog

24. PNGWRecall

.22 .51** .09 .63** .17* .58** .08 .55** .03

.81

.21

.14* .13 .19** .21** .17* .12 .16* .26** .18

.15

.21** .56** .16* .56** .23 .54** .14* .80

.19

.13 .20** .19** .11

.13 .15* .21

.16

.32** .50** .23** .53** .14* .75

.22

.15* .17* .15* .14* .15

.14

.35** .61** .12

.75

.22

.20** .23** .17

.14

.30** .73

.23

.14

.14


Note.

PPP = Physical Peer Victimization; RPV = Relational Peer Victimization; VPV = Verbal Peer Victimization; CATS = Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale (PF

= Personal Failure, ST = Social Threat); SPPC= Self-Perception Profile for Children (G = Global; S = Social; A = Appearance; CTI-C = Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children (N = Negative, P = Positive). The SPPC is scaled in the opposite direction of the CATS and CTI-C. PPYW = Proportion of Positive You Words; Recog

= Recognized; Recall = Recalled; PNYW = Proportion of Negative You Words; PPFW = Proportion of Positive Friend Words; PNFW = Proportion of Negative

Friend Words; PPGW = Proportion of Positive Good Words; PNGW = Proportion of Negative Good Words.

* p < .05 ** p < .01


Table 2

Relations Between PV and Cognitive and SRET Variables

Steiger's Z Correlation with

Variables

CATS Personal Failure

(a) PPV (b) RPV (c) VPV a vs b a vs c b vs c

0.131 0.296** 0.148* -2.615** -0.263 2.948**

CATS Social Threat

0.35** 0.405** 0.403** -0.932 0.891 0.043

SPPC Global

-0.106 -0.311** -0.221** 3.345** 1.787* -1.817*

SPPC Social

-0.42** -0.492** -0.495** 1.285 1.330 0.068

SPPC Appearance

-0.109 -0.192** -0.151* 1.296 0.649 -0.807

CTI-C Positive

0.205** 0.314** 0.314** -1.753* -1.739* 0.000

CTI-C Negative

0.156* 0.299** 0.269** -2.276 -1.777* 0.609

PNMP You Words Recall

0.086 .189** .159*

-1.615 -1.126 0.277

PNMP You Words Recog

0.008 0.057 0.091

0.755 -1.275 -0.660

Note.

CATS = Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale; SPPC = Self-Perception Profile for Children; CTI-C = Cognitive

Triad Inventory for Children; PNMP = Proportion of Negative Minus Positive; Recog = Recognized; Recall = Recalled;

PVP= Physical Peer Victimization; RPV = Relational Peer Victimization; VPV = Verbal Peer Victimization.

* p < .05 ** p < .01

Table 3

Regression of Cognitive Variables on Physical PV, Age, and Sex

Predictor

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Physical PVxSex

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

B

13.053

-.106

-2.151

-.134

.986

8.457

-.116

1.908

1.391

17.787

-.028

-.914

-.257

15.050

.193

2.009

-.647

SE(B) Beta

DV = CATS Personal Failure

4.289

.323

1.814

.363

.469

-.024

-.242

-.040

.463

DV = CATS Social Threat

4.859

.367

.700

-.021

.178

.270

DV = SPPC Global

.349

2.826

.213

.407

.157

DV = SPPC Social

3.548

.268

1.501

.301

-.010

-.157

-.119

.047

.247

-.213 t

3.044

-.329

-1.185

-.368

2.099

1.740

-.315

2.726

5.147

6.295

-.132

-2.247

-1.638

4.242

.722

1.338

-2.153

P

.000

.895

.026

.103

.000

.471

.182

.033

.003

.743

.237

.713

.037

.083

.753

.007

.000


Physical PVxSex -.986 .388 -.505 -2.539 .012

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Physical PVxSex

Intercept

Age

Sex

18.475

-.173

-1.897

-.417

19.578

.086

-3.280

.057

1.107

15.466

.366

.595

DV = SPPC Appearance

4.335

.328

.624

-.038

-.210

.241

DV = CTI-C Positive

-.124

4.196

.316

1.775

.356

.459

.020

-.375

.017

.528

DV = CTI-C Negative

5.287

.399

.761

.066

.055

4.262

-.530

-3.039

-1.731

4.666

.273

-1.848

.160

2.411

2.925

.916

.782

.000

.597

.003

.085

.000

.785

.066

.873

.017

.004

.361

.435

Physical PV .783 .294 .193 2.664 .008

Note. CATS = Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale; SPPC = Self-Perception Profile for Children; CTI-C =

Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children.


Table 4

Regression of SRET Variables on Physical Peer Victimization, Age, and Sex

Predictor B SE(B) Beta t

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

1.421

-.043

-.031

-.010

.044

.016

-.012

-.007

1.105

-.021

-.048

-.002

.143

.001

-.001

.008

DV = Prop Pos You Words Recognized

.178 7.972

.013

.026

.010

-.227

-.084

-.072

-3.159

-1.214

-.997

DV = Prop Pos You Words Recalled

.157 .278

.012

.023

.101

-.039

1.374

-.546

.009 -.058 -.788

DV = Prop Neg You Words Recognized

.208

.016

.030

.012

-.099

-.113

-.014

5.315

-1.354

-1.601

DV = Prop Neg You Words Recalled

-.198

.145

.011

.021

.008

.009

-.003

.070

.991

.116

-.041

.950

1.159

-.027

.010

-.009

.302

-.004

-.003

-.011

DV = Prop Pos Friend Words Recognized

.189 6.143

.014

.027

.010

-.138

.027

-.064

-1.882

.380

-.869

DV = Prop Pos Friend Words Recalled

.157 1.919

.012

.023

-.025

-.009

-.336

-.128

.009 -.093 -1.260

DV = Prop Neg Friend Words Recognized

1.376 .214

-.046 .016 -.206

6.432

-2.848

-.025 .031 -.057 -.817

-.013 .012 -.081 -1.120

DV = Prop Neg Friend Words Recalled

.283 .135

-.011 .010 -.081

2.103

-1.104

P

.000

.002

.226

.320

.781

.171

.586

.432

.000

.177

.111

.843

.323

.907

.967

.343

.000

.061

.704

.386

.056

.737

.898

.209

.000

.005

.415

.264

.037

.271


Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

.024 .019 .088 1.243

-.002 .007 -.020 -.271

DV = Prop Pos Good Words Recognized

1.131

-.026

-.053

-.009

.215

.016

.031

.012

-.118

-.121

-.052

5.263

-1.627

-1.717

-.717

.215

.787

.000

.105

.087

.474

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Physical PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

.288

-.007

-.038

-.005

1.141

-.034

-.015

.000

.275

-.011

-.003

DV = Prop Pos Good Words Recalled

.134 2.157

.010

.019

.007

-.049

-.139

-.050

-.673

-1.973

-.684

DV = Prop Neg Good Words Recognized

.228 5.011

.017

.033

.013

-.142

-.032

.001

-1.950

-.461

.007

DV = Prop Neg Good Words Recalled

.137 1.999

.010

.020

-.077

-.010

-1.045

-.140

.032

.502

.050

.495

.000

.053

.645

.994

.047

.297

.888

Physical PV .000 .008 .000 .002 .998




Table 5

Regression of Cognitive Variables on Relational Peer Victimization, Age, and Sex


Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Relational PVxSex

11.173

-.034

-2.754

.093

.622


4.066

.306 -.008

1.627

.215

.255

-.309

.054

.545


2.748

-.113

-1.693

.433

2.442

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Relational PVxSex

9.409

-.158

1.133

.819

18.759

-.152

1.901

-.075

-.416

4.628

.358

.702

.140

DV = SPPC Global

2.656

.200

1.063

.140

.166

DV = SPPC Social

-.029

.106

.393

-.051

.326

-.066

-.556

2.033

-.441

1.613

5.861

7.063

-.760

1.789

-.532

-2.497

16.020

.280

-.852

-.775

4.849

1.097

-1.700

-7.761

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Relational PVxSex

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

16.430

-.213

2.369

.170

-.666

17.062

.057

.218

.548

3.304

.255

.501

.100

.068

-.104

-.487


4.232

.318

1.693

.223

-.047

.262

.097

.265

DV = CTI-C Positive

-.575

3.967

.307

.602

.120

.013

.025

.321

3.883

-.668

1.400

.759

-2.512

4.301

.184

.363

4.575

Intercept

Age

Sex

12.994

.476

-.056

DV = CTI-C Negative

4.944

.382

.750

.086

-.005

2.628

1.246

-.075

P

.000

.505

.163

.449

.013

.000

.854

.717

.000

.009

.214

.940

.000

.448

.075

.595

.013

.000

.274

.091

.000

.007

.910

.092

.665

.016

.043

.660

.108

.000


Relational PV .704 .149 .331 4.712 .000




Table 6

Regression of SRET Variables on Relational Peer Victimization, Age, and Sex


Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Relational PVxSex

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

1.431

-.043

-.023

-.007

.064

.015

-.005

-.006

1.078

-.020

-.048

.001

.042

.003

.099

.020

-.018

1.100

-.025

.014

-.001

.301

-.004

.003

-.007


.172 8.315

.013

.026

.005

-.231

-.062

-.094

-3.255

-.882

-1.309


.152 .418

.012

.023

.094

-.017

1.292

-.239

.005 -.091 -1.239


.202

.016

.031

.006

-.094

-.113

.010

5.350

-1.294

-1.570


.134

.142

.011

.057

.008

.017

.337

.353

.295

.238

1.742

2.688

.009 -.481 -2.034


.183

.014

.028

.006

-.126

.035

-.008

6.022

-1.743

.488

-.107


.152

.012

.023

.005

-.023

.009

-.116

1.979

-.322

.128

-1.571


1.334 .208 6.426

-.044 .016

-.019 .031

-.198

-.043

-2.767

-.601

-.005 .006 -.056 -.771


P

.000

.001

.379

.192

.676

.198

.812

.217

.000

.197

.118

.893

.768

.812

.083

.008

.043

.000

.083

.626

.915

.049

.748

.898

.118

.000

.006

.548

.442


Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

.270 .131

-.011 .010

.024 .020

-.077

.089

2.069

-1.054

1.228

.000 .004 -.005 -.069


1.083

-.025

-.049

-.001

.208

.016

.032

.006

-.111

-.112

-.013

5.212

-1.541

-1.561

-.184

.040

.293

.221

.945

.000

.125

.120

.854

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

.286

-.007

-.034

-.003

1.093

-.032

-.016

.005

.225

-.008

-.007


.129 2.211

.010

.020

.004

-.049

-.126

-.055

-.683

-1.754

-.756


.220 4.978

.017

.033

.007

-.136

-.035

.051

-1.884

-.482

.694


.133 1.700

.010

.020

-.060

-.027

-.818

-.373

.028

.495

.081

.451

.000

.061

.630

.488

.091

.415

.710

Relational PV .004 .004 .068 .914 .362




Table 7

Regression of Cognitive Variables on Verbal Peer Victimization, Age, and Sex

Predictor B SE(B) Beta

Intercept

Age

Sex

Verbal PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Verbal PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Verbal PV

Verbal PVxSex

Intercept

Age

Sex

Verbal PV

Verbal PVxSex

12.127

-.205

1.329

.261

9.592

-.197

1.586

.787

18.313

-.105

1.180

-.084

-.310

15.021

.279

1.079

-.537

-.366


4.094

.317

.616

.115

-.046

.150

.161


4.542

.352

.684

-.036

.148

.128

DV = SPPC Global

.402

2.644

.205

1.022

.104

.146

DV = SPPC Social

3.241

.251

1.253

.128

.179

-.036

.203

-.079

-.410

.068

.133

-.360

-.346 t

2.962

-.647

2.156

2.273

2.112

-.561

2.320

6.168

6.926

-.512

1.154

-.807

-2.124

4.634

1.108

.861

-4.199

-2.047

P

.003

.519

.032

.024

.036

.575

.021

.000

.000

.609

.250

.420

.035

.000

.269

.390

.000

.042

Intercept

Age

Sex

Verbal PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Verbal PV

Verbal PVxSex

18.091

-.147

-1.802

-.233

18.270

.067

-2.220

.280

.429


4.146

.321

.624

.116

DV = CTI-C Positive

3.917

.304

1.515

.155

.216

-.032

-.200

-.141

.015

-.254

.175

.377

4.364

-.458

-2.888

-1.998

4.664

.219

-1.465

1.811

1.986

.000

.647

.004

.047

.000

.827

.144

.072

.048

Intercept

Age

Sex

14.174

.400

.362

DV = CTI-C Negative

4.933

.382

.742

.073

.033

2.874

1.046

.487

.005

.297

.627

Verbal PV .595 .138 .298 4.298 .000





Table 8

Regression of SRET Variables on Relational Peer Victimization, Age, and Sex

Predictor

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

B

1.419

-.042

-.029

-.006

.076

.015

-.010

-.007

SE(B) Beta t


.171

.013

.026

.005

-.225

-.077

-.090

8.319

-3.195

-1.117

-1.271


.150

.012

.023

.004

.093

-.030

-.118

.509

1.304

-.431

-1.641

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

1.049

-.019

-.049

.003

.165

.000

-.002

.003

1.118

-.025

.012

-.002

.322

-.005

.000

-.008


.199 5.265

.015

.030

.006

-.088

-.115

.039

-1.223

-1.630

.537


.139 1.189

.011

.021

.001

-.008

.017

-.106

.004 .058 .796


.181

.014

.027

.005

-.128

.030

-.035

6.170

-1.773

.422

-.484


.150

.012

.023

.004

-.028

.001

-.145

2.145

-.390

.018

-2.016


1.295 .206 6.292

-.042 .016

-.024 .031

-.189

-.054

-2.655

-.776

-.002 .006 -.024 -.337


.267 .129 2.070

P

.000

.002

.265

.205

.611

.194

.667

.102

.000

.223

.105

.592

.236

.986

.916

.427

.000

.078

.673

.629

.033

.697

.985

.045

.000

.009

.439

.736

.040


Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

Intercept

Age

Sex

Relational PV

-.011 .010 -.076 -1.051

.024 .019 .088 1.244

.000 .004 .000 -.006


1.018

-.022

-.054

.003

.232

-.004

-.038

.001

1.066

-.030

-.017

.006

.206

.016

.031

-.096

-.123

4.940

-1.348

-1.742

.006 .043 .604


.128

.010

.019

.004

-.031

-.140

.025

1.806

-.435

-1.980

.350


.218

.017

.033

.006

-.129

-.037

.070

4.895

-1.804

-.524

.977


.294

.215

.995

.000

.179

.083

.547

.072

.664

.049

.727

.000

.073

.601

.330

Intercept

Age

.242

-.010

.132

.010 -.067

1.841

-.932

.067

.352

Sex -.004 .020 -.013 -.185 .853

Relational PV .003 .004 .050 .697 .487




FIGURE 1 Sex differences in the relation between physical peer victimization (PV) and multiple measures of self  cognition. Note. CATS = Chil dren’s Automatic Thoughts Scale (PF = Personal Failure); SPPC =

Self-Perception Profile for Children (S = Social); CTI-C = Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children (P =

Positive).


FIGURE 2 Sex differences in the relation between relational peer victimization (PV) and multiple measures of self  cognition and SRET. Note. CATS = Children’s Automatic Thoughts Scale (PF =

Personal Failure); SPPC = Self-Perception Profile for Children (G = Global; A = Appearance); PNYW =

Proportion of Negative You Words.


FIGURE 3 Sex differences in the relation between verbal peer victimization (PV) and multiple measures of self  cognition. Note. SPPC = Self-Perception Profile for Children (G = Global; S = Social); CTI-C =

Cognitive Triad Inventory for Children (P = Positive).


FIGURE 4 Relation between relational peer victimization (PV) and the proportion of negative minus positive you words recalled (PNMPYWR).

McMillan Honors Thesis Final

Related documents

Products

Support

McMillan Honors Thesis Final

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib