Parents' beliefs about peer victimization and children's socio-emotional development

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Parents' beliefs about peer victimization and children's socio-emotional development ☆ Wendy Troop-Gordon a,⁎, Haeli Gerardy b a b

Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, USA Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 November 2010 Received in revised form 3 October 2011 Accepted 9 October 2011 Available online 1 December 2011 Keywords: Peer victimization Parents Stress Adjustment Beliefs

a b s t r a c t There is increasing evidence that interpersonal risks and resources can modulate the impact peer victimization has on children's socio-emotional adjustment. The current study contributes to this research by examining links between parents' victimization-related beliefs and children's psychosocial functioning. Data were collected on 190 3rd- and 4th-grade children (92 boys) and their parents. After controlling for earlier levels of socioemotional adjustment, parents' normative beliefs predicted greater overt victimization and aggression among boys and, for boys and girls, amplified links between peer victimization and subsequent psychosocial maladjustment. Avoidance beliefs predicted positive behavioral development among low victimized youth, but compromised adjustment among highly victimized youth. Sex-specific findings emerged, and results were stronger for overt than relational victimization. These findings underscore the need for parent education components within anti-bullying interventions. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction There is mounting evidence that peer victimization, the experience of repeated harassment from peers (Hawker & Boulton, 2000), is detrimental to children's psychosocial development. A meta-analysis of studies conducted from 1978 to 1997 showed that victimization is associated with depression, loneliness, anxiety, and reduced selfworth (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Other correlates of peer victimization include reactive aggression (Schwartz et al., 1998), social withdrawal (Boivin et al., 2010), and school avoidance (Buhs et al., 2006), and chronic victimization is at least as common as other established disorders (Card & Hodges, 2008). However, links between peer victimization and maladjustment are modest (see Hawker & Boulton, 2000), spurring researchers to study those factors which mitigate risk to victims' well-being. Much of this work has focused on interpersonal resources. In particular, friendships

☆ Data for this study came from the NDSU Youth Development Study. This paper is based on an undergraduate honors thesis by Haeli Gerardy completed at North Dakota State University. This research was supported by ND EPSCoR Grant #EPS-0447679 and North Dakota State University. We would like to thank Elizabeth Ewing Lee and all of the undergraduate research assistants who aided in data collection and management. We are especially grateful to the children, teachers, and school administrators who participated in this study. ⁎ Corresponding author at: North Dakota State University, Department of Psychology, Dept. 2765, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA. Tel.: +1 701 231 8738; fax: +1 701 231 8426. E-mail address: [email protected] (W. Troop-Gordon). 0193-3973/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.10.001

with peers have been shown to reduce the risk posed by victimization on youths' socio-emotional adjustment (Lamarche et al., 2007; Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). Less work has been conducted on victims' relationships with non-peers (e.g., family members, teachers; see Lamarche et al., 2007, for research on sibling relationships). Parents, in particular, are a source of support and guidance for most youth. Moreover, children are often advised to inform their parents about bullying (e.g., Stop Bullying Now!, US Department of Health & Human Services, 2010), and children report often seeking adults' support when coping with peer harassment (Naylor et al., 2001; Paquette & Underwood, 1999). Whether parents' responses to children's peer harassment amplify or diminish the well-being of victimized youth may depend on their beliefs regarding bullying and its consequences. Adults' views on peer victimization vary significantly, likely impacting how they respond to children's peer harassment (Craig et al., 2000; Troop & Ladd, 2002). Furthermore, it is assumed that parents can best respond to peer victimization if they are aware of the prevalence, nature, and consequences of bullying, as well as strategies that decrease peer harassment and empower victimized youth. To this end, parent education is often incorporated in anti-bullying programs (e.g., Limber et al., 2004) and websites (e.g., Stop Bullying Now!, US Department of Health & Human Services, 2009). However, there has been little research on parents' victimization-related beliefs and whether they prevent or amplify trajectories of increasing socio-emotional maladjustment among victimized youth. The objective of the current study, therefore, was to examine links between parents' victimization-related beliefs and children's psychosocial development.

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

Parental beliefs as moderators of victimization-adjustment linkages Although the study of parents' beliefs predate the advancement of social cognitive theories within developmental and social psychological literatures (Goodnow, 1988), increased emphasis on cognition as a basis for parenting behaviors has resulted in extensive empirical and theoretical works on parents' beliefs over the past 30 years (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002). Parental beliefs function as accessible knowledge structures (i.e., mental representations, working models, schemas) which guide attention, organize incoming information, and determine, in part, affective and behavioral responses (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998). The effects of parental beliefs are believed to be multifaceted, influencing parents' goals, attributions, communication patterns, expressed emotions, and socialization practices (Bugental & Goodnow, 1998; Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi., 2002). Although parental beliefs are believed to have primarily an indirect effect on child outcomes (Rubin & Mills, 1992), accumulating evidence points to meaningful relations between parents' beliefs and children's development in such diverse domains as language acquisition, academic achievement, cognitive growth, and socioemotional development (Miller, 1988; Sigel & McGillicuddy-De Lisi., 2002). However, research on parents' beliefs specific to peer victimization remains limited. Such beliefs may impact parents' ability to provide their children instrumental assistance and emotional comfort (Carver et al., 1989), the amount of concern they express, their attributions for peer harassment, and their socialization of coping strategies (see Abaied & Rudolph, 2010). Consequently, children's behavioral and emotional reactions to peer harassment may vary as a function of their parents' beliefs. Moreover, anti-bullying programs often seek to influence: a) the seriousness with which parents view bullying, and b) the strategies parents believe children should use to prevent peer harassment (e.g., Stop Bullying Now!, US Department of Health & Human Services, 2010). Accordingly, the current study focused on parents' belief that peer harassment is a normative experience and their beliefs regarding two strategies often recommended to victims of bullying — avoidance and assertion. Although such beliefs are likely not mutually exclusive (e.g., one may hold normative and assertion beliefs), each was expected to have unique relations with children's socio-emotional development.

Normative beliefs Despite efforts to dispel commonly held myths regarding bullying, many misconceptions remain prevalent including the belief that peer victimization is a normative and harmless experience (O'Moore, 2000). For this study, we conceptualized normative beliefs as the perception that harassment is a natural and common part of growing up, that peer harassment has no significant negative effects on children's development, and that children can learn from their experiences of bullying. Because holding normative beliefs likely reduces empathetic arousal and active coping in the face of children's peer victimization, it was hypothesized that parents' normative beliefs would amplify links between peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment. Children who are frequently victimized may lack the skills needed to effectively respond to peer harassment (Schwartz et al., 1993). If their parents view bullying as a normative childhood experience, these children may not receive parental assistance, leading to continued victimization from peers. To avoid further harassment, they may withdraw from peers (Boivin et al., 2010) or become increasingly aggressive and less prosocial, particularly if they adopt their parents' normative views on aggression (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Parents holding normative beliefs also may not provide their children adequate emotional support, resulting in children's heightened negative affect (e.g., depression, anxiety) when coping with peer harassment (Hawker & Boulton, 2000).

41

Avoidance beliefs In addition, parents may vary as to how they believe children should respond when victimized by peers. Many adults endorse avoidance (i.e., evading, ignoring, or walking away from aggressors and aggressive situations) as an effective means of coping with bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996), and avoidance is frequently recommended in anti-bullying programs (e.g., Smith & Sharp, 1991; US Department of Health & Human Services, 2009). As a basis for providing instrumental support, parents' avoidance beliefs may be adaptive to the extent that walking away and ignoring aggressors is effective at deterring bullying and maintaining positive peer relationships. However, avoidance beliefs may reduce active intervention by parents, who may simply advise avoidance to their children without taking other steps to end the bullying, and, similar to normative beliefs, may communicate to children that bullying is typical among children and efforts to deter other's aggression are futile. Although little research has been conducted on behavioral avoidance in response to peer victimization, Visconti and Troop-Gordon (2010) found, using data from the second year of the current longitudinal study, that the efficacy of walking away from aggressors may depend on the child's sex and whether the child is a frequent target of peer harassment (see also Abaied & Rudolph, 2010). For some children, particularly those who are frequently victimized, walking away may signal anger and frustration, increasing the risk that they will continue to engage in more aggressive, less prosocial peer interactions. In addition, children who frequently avoid agemates due to chronic harassment may become withdrawn and disengaged from peers. Avoidance may also be a maladaptive strategy for girls, who often engage in reparative behaviors during peer conflicts (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). However, for nonvictimized youth and boys, walking away from aggressive peers may allow for a de-escalation of the conflict and opportunities to engage with other agemates, resulting in positive social development (Visconti & Troop-Gordon, 2010). Parents' avoidance beliefs also were expected to amplify emotional distress among victimized youth. Victims who perceive adults as advocating avoidance may blame themselves for not effectively handling their mistreatment and may expect little intervention on the part of adults. Support for this proposition comes from data collected by Troop-Gordon and Quenette (2010) using a sample of 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-graders. Children were asked what they believed their teacher did in response to students' peer harassment. Results showed that believing one's teacher advises avoidance is associated with heightened internalizing problems among victimized youth. The current study tested the proposition that victims may similarly evidence greater depression and anxiety when their parents endorse avoidance beliefs. Assertion beliefs Parents also may hold the belief that children should assert themselves when victimized by peers (i.e., stand up for themselves; make it clear that they will not be picked on). Assertive behavior predicts greater socio-emotional adjustment and reduced victimization (Schwartz et al., 1993; Schwartz et al., 1998), suggesting that children who assert themselves may be seen as socially competent (e.g., less aggressive or withdrawn, more prosocial) by peers. Parents' endorsement of assertion also may communicate to children that they are capable of effectively responding to aggressive peers, increasing children's feelings of competence and decreasing depression and anxiety. Thus, parental assertion beliefs were predicted to be related to diminished links between peer harassment and later psychosocial functioning. The current study In summary, the current study examined if parents' normative, avoidance, and assertion beliefs moderate links between peer victimization and children's socio-emotional adjustment. Third- and fourth-graders were recruited for this study. This age group was of interest because children

42

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

victimize an increasingly smaller and more passive set of peers during middle childhood (Boivin et al., 2010; Hanish & Guerra, 2004; Smith et al., 1999). These victimized youth likely have difficulty coping with peer harassment independently and may rely on parents' support more than older youth (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). In addition, children of similar ages have been the focus of studies of parental support seeking and parents' socialization of coping in response to peer harassment (e.g., Abaied & Rudolph, 2010; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002). Thus, the current study contributes to a growing literature on the role of parents in children's responses to peer victimization during middle childhood. Data were collected at the beginning and end of one school year, allowing for a test of prospective relations between parents' beliefs and children's socio-emotional development. Furthermore, data were collected from multiple informants (i.e., teachers, parents, and peers), and potential sex differences were tested. Whether parents' beliefs moderate relations between peer harassment and children's psychosocial development also may depend, in part, on whether children are the targets of overt (e.g., physical bullying, name calling) or relational victimization (e.g., social exclusion; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). Adults more readily recognize overt aggression as maltreatment than relational aggression and are more likely to intervene in response to overt peer harassment (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Werner & Grant, 2009). Thus, it may be that parents' victimization-related beliefs are more likely to be elicited and communicated in response to overt than relational forms of peer harassment. To test the possibility that the moderating role of parents' beliefs would be stronger for overt than relational victimization, analyses were conducted separately for these two forms of peer victimization. Method Participants Data for this study were obtained as part of a longitudinal study investigating the social-cognitive and interpersonal correlates of peer victimization. At the beginning of the study, all 3rd- and 4th- grade teachers from 5 public elementary schools were invited to participate. The schools were located in 2 mid-sized and 3 rural communities in the upper-Midwest of the USA. Consent was granted from 24 (80%) of the teachers, and all children from these classes were invited to take part in the study. A total of 366 (74.1%) children received parental consent. Of these children, parent-data for 202 children were obtained. Twelve of these children were missing teacher- or peer-report data, resulting in a final sample of 190 children (92 boys, 98 girls; Mage = 9 years, 4 months, SDage = 7.38 months). Children were Caucasian (92.6%), Native American (1.6%), Hispanic (1.1%), or mixed ethnicity (4.7%). Of the 190 parents providing data, 168 were mothers, and 20 were fathers. In addition, one grandfather completed the forms, and in one case, the mother and father completed the forms together. Of these parents, 5.8% reported annual incomes between $0–$20,000, 13.2% within $20–$40,000, and 79.5% reported incomes of $41,000 or greater. Three parents did not provide annual income data. Measures Parents' victimization-related beliefs A newly created measure, the Children's Social Behavior Questionnaire (CSBQ), was written for this study to assess parents' beliefs regarding children's peer victimization (see Appendix A). Items were adapted from Troop and Ladd (2002) Student Social Behavior Questionnaire, which assesses teachers' beliefs regarding students' peer victimization. Fourteen items were written to assess parents' victimization-related beliefs, and each of these items was written twice, once pertaining to boys and once pertaining to girls. Five filler items were also included. For each item, parents indicated the extent to which they agreed with a victimizationrelated statement on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly

agree). Exploratory factor analyses with a Varimax rotation were conducted separately for the boy and girl items. Both analyses yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. However, two items written to assess assertion-related beliefs cross-loaded on a factor with items tapping normative beliefs. One item written to assess normative beliefs did not load on any factor in the exploratory factor analysis of the girl items (i.e., loadings b.40). Therefore, these items were removed from the analyses. Factor analyses without these items yielded three-factor solutions. Factors representing normative, avoidance, and assertion beliefs accounted for 38.43%, 14.46%, and 9.53% of the variance in the boy items, respectively, and 33.37%, 18.21%, and 12.23% of the variance in the girl items, respectively. Separate composite scores were created for the boy items and girls items by averaging all items making up the respective subscales. Six items assessed parents' normative beliefs. Three items tapped parents' avoidance beliefs, and two items tapped parents' assertion beliefs. Correlations among corresponding boy and girl subscales were strong (r = .85, .84, and .72, all ps b .001, for the normative, avoidance, and assertion subscales, respectively). Therefore, subscale scores for the boy and girls items were averaged resulting in three parent belief variables: normative (α = .91), avoidance (α = .89), and assertion (α = .79). Peer victimization Children's overt and relational peer victimization was assessed using four peer-rating items adapted from the Multi-Informant Peer Victimization Inventory (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). Peer-reports are often lauded as an optimal method for assessing peer harassment, as peers are likely privy to social interactions not easily witnessed by adults and are less prone to reporter-biases than self-report measures. Moreover, peerreports have the advantage of aggregating information across multiple informants, and the reliability and validity of peer-report measures are well established (see Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). The overt victimization items assessed the frequency of general (“gets picked on by others”), physical (“gets hit or pushed at school”), and verbal victimization (“called bad names or [kids say] other mean things to him or her”). Relational victimization was assessed with one item (“get[s] left out of things that kids are doing [or] kids don't let him or her play with them)”. For each item, children rated each of their participating classmates on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (A lot). Peer-report data collected from all 366 children participating in the larger study were used in computing overt and relational victimization scores. Within-classroom participation rates ranged from 46 to 95% (M = 77%). Children received a score for each item by averaging across the ratings they received from their classmates. A composite overt peer victimization score was calculated by averaging children's scores across the general, physical, and verbal victimization items (α = .82 and .85, for the fall and spring administrations, respectively). Social withdrawal Children's social withdrawal was assessed using four items from the Asocial with Peers subscale of the Child Behavior Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996). This subscale was based on Rubin and Asendorpf's (1993) distinction between asocial behaviors reflecting a low approach orientation, and withdrawal due to active isolation or anxiety and fearfulness. More recently, investigators have focused on a conceptually similar group of avoidant youth who evidence low approach and strong avoidance motivation (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2006). Teachers rated how often each participating child in their class “prefers to be alone,” “likes to be alone,” “avoids peers,” and “withdraws from peer activities,” using a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (A lot of the time). Items were averaged to create a composite social withdrawal variable (α = .85 and .90, for the fall and spring, respectively). Aggressive behavior Children's aggressive behaviors were assessed using six items measuring children's overt and relational aggression. Teachers rated on a four

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

point scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (A lot of the time) how often each participating child, “threatens or bullies,” “spreads rumors or lies about other kids,” “acts aggressively toward peers,” “gets kids to gang up on a peer he/she doesn't like,” “likes to boss other kids around,” and “tries to get other kids in trouble.” Ratings on these six items were averaged to create a composite aggressive behavior variable (α = .84 and .90, for the fall and spring administrations, respectively). Prosocial behavior Prosocial behavior was assessed by having teachers rate the extent to which each participating child was “friendly,” “helpful to peers,” and “kind toward peers” and how often each child “[shared] with other kids.” Ratings were made on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (A lot of the time). Items were averaged to compute a composite prosocial score (α = .81 and .88, for the fall and spring administrations, respectively). Depression Depression was assessed by having teachers rate the extent to which each participating child felt “sad and alone,” was “unhappy at school,” “cries,” and was “unhappy.” These items were derived from existing teacher- and self-report measures of depression such as the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC; Radloff, 1977) and the Teacher Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, 1991). Ratings were made on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (A lot of the time). Item ratings were averaged to create a composite depression scale (α = .75 and .83, for the fall and spring administrations respectively). Anxiety Anxiety was assessed using four items adapted from the Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (Reynolds & Richmond, 1978). Teachers rated the extent to which each participating child was “nervous,” and “afraid of what [was] going to happen,” and how often each child “worries” and “worries is going to do something wrong.” Ratings were made on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (A lot of the time). Items were averaged to create a composite anxiety score (α = .82 and .85, for the fall and spring administrations, respectively). Procedures Data were collected during the 2005–2006 school year. Data collection in the fall was completed in November and December, and data collection in the spring was completed in April or May. Questionnaires were administered in students' classrooms. At the beginning of each data collection session, research assistants discussed the purpose of the study and participant rights to the children, and written assent was obtained. One research assistant read questions aloud, and one to three additional research assistants were available to answer questions and offer assistance to students individually. The questionnaires took approximately 45 min to complete. Questionnaires were also administered to parents and teachers in the fall and spring. Questionnaires were mailed to parents of participating children, and a self-addressed stamped envelope was included for returning the questionnaires. Parents completed self-report measures and measures of their child's academic and socio-emotional development. Reminder postcards were mailed to parents in order to maximize the number of returned forms. Only the CSBQ, collected in the fall of 2005, was used in this study. Questionnaires were distributed to teachers, and self-addressed stamped envelopes were provided for returning the forms. Teachers completed self-report measures and measures assessing the academic and socio-emotional development of each participating student in their class. They were given $5 for completing the self-report questionnaires and $5 for each child-packet completed. Teacher-reports of students' psychosocial adjustment collected in the fall and the spring were used in the current study.

43

Results Preliminary analyses Missing data analyses Analyses were conducted to assess whether children whose data were included in this study differed from the children not included in this study due to missing data. Two series of independent samples t-tests were performed. The first series compared children whose parents completed the CSBQ to those children whose parents did not complete it. Children were compared on their peer-reported peer victimization and teacher-reported behavioral and emotional adjustment (i.e., social withdrawal, aggressive behavior, prosocial behavior, depression, and anxiety) using data collected in the fall and spring. One difference emerged. Children whose parents completed the CSBQ were less depressed in the spring compared to children whose parents did not complete the CSBQ (Mcomplete data = 1.40, SD = .57; Mno parent data = 1.58, SD = .63; t(157) = − 2.40, p b .05). The second series of t-tests compared children with complete data to children who were not included in the analyses due to missing peer- and/or teacher-report data. Children were compared on all study variables, and one difference was found. Children with complete data were less prosocial in the fall than the children with missing data (Mcomplete data = 3.49, SD = .45; Mmissing data = 3.88, SD = .14; t(6) = −2.16, p b .05). In general, these results suggest that the children included in the analyses were representative of the larger sample participating in the study. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1. Withdrawal, aggression, depression, and anxiety were significantly negatively skewed, and prosocial behavior was positively skewed. Log transformations were applied to the skewed variables, and all analyses were performed on the transformed scores. Transformed scores for prosocial behavior were reflected prior to transformation and then reflected a second time, allowing higher scores to indicate greater levels of prosocial behavior. Also examined was whether responses on the CSBQ differed depending on whether the mother or father completed the measure. One significant difference arose. Fathers more strongly endorsed assertion beliefs (M = 3.38, SD = .74) than mothers (M = 3.02, SD = .72), t(186) = −2.08, p = .04. Comparisons on all other study variables were also made between children whose mother and children whose father completed the CSBQ. No significant differences emerged. Bivariate correlations among all study variables are presented in Table 2. Parents' beliefs were only modestly correlated with one another,

Table 1 Descriptive statistics.

Parents' normative beliefs Parents' avoidance beliefs Parents' assertion beliefs Fall peer-reported overt victimization Fall peer-reported relational victimization Fall teacher-reported withdrawal Fall teacher-reported aggression Fall teacher-reported prosocial behavior Fall teacher-reported depression Fall teacher-reported anxiety Spring peer-reported overt victimization Spring peer-reported relational victimization Spring teacher-reported withdrawal Spring teacher-reported aggression Spring teacher-reported prosocial behavior Spring teacher-reported depression Spring teacher-reported anxiety

M

SD

Minimum

Maximum

1.67 2.59 3.06 1.44 1.44 1.52 1.29 3.49 1.33 1.45 1.45 1.50 1.54 1.40 3.59 1.43 1.64

.48 .67 .72 .28 .32 .57 .45 .45 .45 .55 .28 .34 .63 .57 .44 .49 .60

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.17 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.17 1.00 1.00

2.75 4.83 5.00 2.63 2.90 3.50 3.17 4.00 3.00 3.50 2.62 1.50 3.75 3.67 4.00 3.00 3.50

.13

– .33⁎⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎⁎ – .30⁎⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ −.29⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎

.06 −.10 .34⁎⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎⁎

– −.35⁎⁎⁎ −.10 −.35⁎⁎⁎ −.37⁎⁎⁎ −.17⁎ −.45⁎⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎⁎ −.34⁎⁎⁎ −.18⁎ −.14 .51⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎

.07 .17⁎ .64⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎

– −.35⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎ .27⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ .80⁎⁎⁎ −.43⁎⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎⁎ – .26⁎ −.19⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎⁎

– .18⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ −.45⁎⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎⁎ .16⁎ .59⁎⁎⁎ .74⁎⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ −.41⁎⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎ – .80⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ −.42⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎⁎ −.39⁎⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎⁎ – −.05 −.09 .01 −.07 −.07 .04 .07 −.03 −.03 −.10 −.10 .03 −.06 .02 −.11 −.14⁎ .00 −.11 −.10 .03 −.08 −.07 −.14⁎

– .31⁎⁎ −.06 −.11 −.01 −.03 −.04 .05 .07 −.02 .01 −.01 .00 .04 −.01 .01

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Variable

Table 2 Bivariate correlations.

– .32⁎⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎⁎ −.08 −.03 −.11 −.03 −.18⁎

8

9

– .37⁎⁎⁎ .22⁎ .37⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎

10

– .07 .09 .32⁎⁎⁎

11

– .76⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎

12

To assess whether parents' victimization-related beliefs moderated links between peer victimization and children's adjustment in the spring, two series of hierarchical regressions were conducted, one including overt victimization as a predictor and criterion variable and one including relational victimization as a predictor and criterion variable. In each series, separate regressions were conducted for each criterion variable. The measurement of the criterion variable in the fall, child's sex, overt or relational peer victimization in the fall, and parents' normative, avoidance, and assertion beliefs were included in the first step of each regression. All two-way interactions were entered in the second step, and three-way interactions between each parental belief, sex, and overt or relational victimization were entered in the third step. Significant effects were interpreted only if the variance explained at a step was also significant, unless the interpretation of a parameter allowed for greater understanding of similarities and differences across overt and relational victimization. Sex was dummy coded (0 = boy; 1 = girl). All other predictors were centered prior to the creation of the interaction terms and inclusion in analyses. To interpret significant interactions, simple slopes were tested at +1, 0, and −1 standard deviations from the mean for parental belief variables following guidelines outlined by Preacher et al. (2006). Preliminary analyses included parental informant (i.e., mother or father) as a control variable. As the inclusion of this variable did not change the pattern of findings, it was dropped from the analyses.

Note. F = Fall assessment. S = Spring assessment. Norm. = normative. Avoid. = avoidance. Assert. = assertion. Ovt. victim = peer-reported overt victimization. Rel. victim = peer-reported relational victimization. Social withdrawal, aggression, prosocial behavior, depression, and anxiety are teacher-reported. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎p b .001.

– −.51⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎

15 14 13

Contribution of parents' beliefs to the prediction of children's socioemotional well-being

Overt peer victimization Results of the analyses in which socio-emotional adjustment in the spring was predicted from overt peer victimization and parents' beliefs are presented in Table 3. No main effects of sex or the three parent beliefs emerged. However, overt peer victimization in the fall predicted greater subsequent overt victimization, social withdrawal, and anxiety, and lower levels of prosocial behavior. For overt peer victimization, two three-way interactions emerged. There was a significant Normative belief × Overt peer victimization × Sex interaction. Tests of the simple slopes revealed that for boys, the positive link between overt peer victimization in the fall and spring was somewhat stronger when parents held lower levels of normative beliefs, b = .79, t(174) = 8.33, p b .001, compared to when parents more strongly endorsed normative beliefs, b = .55, t(174) = 4.82, p b 001. For girls, the opposite pattern emerged, such that the link between overt victimization in the fall and spring was stronger when parents advocated normative beliefs, b = .90, t(174) = 5.25, p b .001, and weaker when parents held low levels of normative beliefs, b = .57 t(174) = 4.19, p b .001. As can be seen in Fig. 1a, girls who were overtly victimized in the fall evidenced greater levels of overt victimization in the spring if their parent endorsed normative beliefs. In contrast, boys who experienced infrequent victimization in the fall showed somewhat elevated levels of overt victimization in the spring if their parent endorsed normative beliefs. There also was a significant avoidance belief × overt victimization × sex interaction. Among boys, the positive association between overt

– −.46⁎⁎⁎ −.29⁎⁎⁎

16

providing evidence of the divergent validity of the measure. Correlations were in expected directions between the socio-emotional adjustment variables, and these variables were moderately stable over the course of the school year (e.g., r = .54). However, aggressive behavior was highly stable (r = .80), consistent with previous research (e.g., Dodge et al., 1990). Overt and relational victimization also were positively correlated with children's social and emotional adjustment and were negatively related to prosocial behavior. Greater endorsement of normative beliefs was related to children being less prosocial in the fall and less anxious in the fall and spring. However, parents' beliefs were not related to the frequency of children's victimization.

– .58⁎⁎⁎

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

1. Norm. belief 2. Avoid. belief 3. Assert. belief 4. F ovt. victim. 5. F rel. victim. 6. F withdrawn 7. F aggression 8. F prosocial 9. F depression 10. F anxiety 11. S ovt. victim 12. S rel. victim 13. S withdrawn 14. S aggression 15. S prosocial 16. S depression 17. S anxiety

44

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

45

Table 3 Regressions predicting spring teacher-rated socio-emotional adjustment from parents' beliefs, overt peer victimization, and sex. Overt victimization β

Predictor Step 1 Fall outcome Sex Fall overt victimization Normative belief Avoidance belief Assertion belief Step 2 Normative × Overt vic. Avoidance × Overt vic. Assertion × Overt vic. Normative × Sex Avoidance × Sex Assertion × Sex Overt victimization × Sex Step 3 Normative × Vic. × Sex Avoidance × Vic. × Sex Assertion × Vic. × Sex

Withdrawal

ΔR2

β

.50⁎⁎⁎

.61⁎⁎⁎ .05 .21⁎⁎⁎ .01 .03 −.11†

– −.08 .68⁎⁎⁎ .06 .01 −.01 .01 −.01 −.05 −.04 −.01 −.13 −.04 .00 .17⁎ −.19⁎ −.03

.14⁎ .11 −.12 −.04 .21⁎

.47⁎⁎⁎

.05⁎

β .77⁎⁎⁎ −.06 .09† .08† .03 −.07

.01 −.06 .13 .00

ΔR2 .67⁎⁎⁎

Prosocial β .65⁎⁎⁎ .01 −.11⁎ −.01 .04 .06

.02 .07 .03 −.01 −.03 .08 .12† −.07

.07 −.05

.02⁎

Aggression

ΔR2

.20⁎⁎ −.16⁎ .01

Depression ΔR2

.50⁎⁎⁎

.04⁎

.00 −.15⁎ .15⁎ .04 −.20⁎ .02⁎⁎

−.06 .11

β .50⁎⁎⁎ .05 .14† −.02 −.09 −.08 .20⁎⁎ −.04 −.04 −.03 .19† .10 .03

.00 −.05 −.07 .00

ΔR2 .32⁎⁎⁎

.06⁎

Anxiety β .51⁎⁎⁎ −.06 .15⁎ −.06 .01 .01

.33⁎⁎⁎

.01 .04 −.06 .09 −.03 .04 .16 .04

.02 .14 −.16 −.04

ΔR2

.00 .08 −.06 .00

Note. Vic. = victimization. † p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎p b .001.

victimization in the fall and spring was greater when parents more strongly endorsed avoidance beliefs, b = .78 t(174) = 5.68, p b .001, than when parents held lower levels of avoidance beliefs, b = .56

Spring Overt Victimization

a 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 Low Victimization

Spring Overt Victimization

b

Ave. Victimization

High Victimization

Boys - Low Normative

Girls - Low Normative

Boys - High Normative

Girls - High Normative

1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 Low Victimization

Ave. Victimization

High Victimization

Boys - Low Avoidance

Girls - Low Avoidance

Boys - High Avoidance

Girls - High Avoidance

Fig. 1. Interactive contributions of fall overt victimization and (a) parental normative beliefs and sex and (b) parental avoidance beliefs and sex to the prediction of spring overt victimization.

t(174) = 4.88, p b .001. For girls, the link between overt victimization in the fall and spring was stronger when their parent held lower levels of avoidance beliefs, b = 1.03 t(174) = 5.23, p b .001, and weaker when their parent endorsed higher levels of avoidance beliefs, b = .44, t(174) = 2.80, p = .006. As can be seen Fig. 1b, children who experienced little overt victimization in the fall evidenced little overt victimization in the spring regardless of their parent's avoidance beliefs. However, among children frequently victimized in the fall, boys evidenced greater victimization in the spring if their parent endorsed avoidance beliefs, and girls evidenced greater overt victimization if their parent reported low levels of avoidance beliefs. For social withdrawal, a significant Avoidance belief × Sex interaction and a Normative belief × Overt victimization interaction emerged. Parents' avoidance beliefs predicted heightened social withdrawal in the spring for girls, b = .10, t(176) = 2.33, p = .02, but not for boys, b = −.06, t(176) = −1.00, ns (see Fig. 2a). Decomposition of the Normative belief × Peer victimization interaction revealed that overt victimization in the fall predicted subsequent social withdrawal at high, b = .54, t(176) = 4.26, p b .001, and moderate, b = .36, t(176) = 3.99, p b .001, levels of parents' normative beliefs, but not at low levels of parents' normative beliefs, b = .17, t(176) = 1.54, ns (see Fig. 2b). Two three-way interactions emerged in the prediction of aggression. A Normative belief × Victimization × Sex interaction revealed that, for girls, victimization was positively related to aggression in the spring at high, b = .49, t(176) = 2.78, p = .006, but not low levels of normative beliefs, b = −.20, t(176) = 1.48, ns. For boys, peer victimization predicted heightened aggression at low, b = .27, t(176) = 2.86, p = .005, but not high, b = .11, t(176) = .93, ns, levels of normative beliefs. As shown in Fig. 3a, boys whose parents endorsed normative beliefs had elevated levels of aggression in the spring regardless of how frequently they were victimized in the fall. In contrast, boys whose parents did not endorse normative beliefs evidenced heightened aggression in the spring only if they were frequently victimized by peers. For girls, only a combination of overt victimization in the fall and parents' normative beliefs forecast greater aggression in the spring. The Avoidance belief × Victimization × Sex interaction was also significant (see Fig. 3b). Overt victimization predicted heightened aggression in the spring for boys whose parents held high levels of avoidance beliefs, b = .44, t(176) = 3.15, p = .002. Overt peer

46

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

a 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 Low Victimization

Ave. Victimization Boy

High Victimization

Spring Teacher-reported Aggression

Spring Teacher-reported Withdrawal

a

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1

Girl

Low Victimization

High Victimization

Girls -Low Normative

Boys -High Normative

Girls -High Normative

0.55

b

0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 Low Victimization Low Normative Beliefs

Ave. Victimization Ave. Normative Beliefs

High Victimization High Normative Beliefs

Fig. 2. Interactive contributions of (a) parental avoidance beliefs and sex to the prediction of spring teacher-reported social withdrawal and (b) fall overt victimization and parental normative beliefs.

victimization was not predictive of aggression in the spring for boys whose parents were low in avoidance beliefs, b = −.05, t(176) = −.46, ns, girls whose parents were low in avoidance beliefs, b = .31, t(176) = 1.69, ns, or girls whose parents were high in avoidance beliefs, b = −.02, t(176) = −.12, ns. Three significant two-way interactions emerged in the prediction of prosocial behavior. However, decomposition of the Sex × Avoidance belief interaction revealed no significant links between avoidance and prosocial behavior for boys or girls. An Avoidance belief × Victimization interaction revealed that overt peer victimization was linked to lower levels of prosocial behavior in the spring at average, b = −.17, t(176) = − 2.38, p = .02, and high levels of avoidance beliefs, b = −.33, t(176) = − 2.97, p = .003, but not at low levels of avoidance beliefs, b = −.01, t(176) = −.06, ns. As shown in Fig. 4a, high levels of overt victimization in the fall were associated with low levels of prosocial behavior regardless of parents' avoidance beliefs. At low levels of overt victimization in the fall, children's prosocial behavior was positively related to parents' avoidance beliefs. Furthermore, the Assertion belief × Victimization interaction revealed that peer victimization predicted lower levels of prosocial behavior among children whose parents endorsed low, b = −.30, t(176) = −3.21, p = .002, and average, b = −.17, t(176) = −2.38, p = .019, but not high levels of assertion beliefs, b = −.04, t(176) = −.40, ns. As shown in Fig. 4b, children evidenced heightened prosocial behavior if their parents endorsed assertion beliefs regardless of how frequently they were overtly victimized in the fall. However, when children were more frequently victimized, they exhibited less prosocial behavior if their parents were low in assertion beliefs.

Spring Teacher-reported Aggression

Spring Teacher-reported Withdrawal

b

Ave. Victimization

Boys -Low Normative

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 Low Victimization

Ave. Victimization

High Victimization

Boys -Low Avoidance

Girls -Low Avoidance

Boys -High Avoidance

Girls -High Avoidance

Fig. 3. Interactive contributions of fall overt victimization, sex, and (a) parental normative beliefs and (b) parental avoidance beliefs to the prediction of spring teacher-reported aggressive behavior.

Although there were no main or interactive effects of parents' beliefs on anxiety scores in the spring, there was a significant Normative belief × Overt victimization interaction in the prediction of depression. Victimization predicted heightened depression at average, b = .20, t(176) = 2.10, p = .04, and high levels of normative beliefs b = .42, t(176) = 3.15, p = .002, but not at low levels of normative beliefs, b = −.02, t(176) = .22, ns (see Fig. 4c). Relational peer victimization Results of the analyses predicting children's socio-emotional adjustment in the spring from their relational victimization in the fall are presented in Table 4. There were no main effects of sex, and fall relational victimization was predictive only of relational victimization and social withdrawal in the spring. Moreover, two main effects revealed that relational victimization in the spring was negatively related to parents' endorsement of normative beliefs and positively related to parents' endorsement of avoidance beliefs. For social withdrawal, a significant Avoidance belief × Relational victimization interaction emerged. Victimization predicted heightened social withdrawal for children whose parents held average, b = .36, t(176) = 3.83, p b .001, and high, b = .54, t(176) = 3.77, p b .001, but not low, b = .19, t(176) = 1.70, ns, levels of avoidance beliefs. As can be seen in Fig. 5a, high levels of relational victimization were associated with heightened social withdrawal regardless of parents' avoidance

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

a

47

Spring Teacher-reported Prosocial Behavior

Discussion

1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 Low Victimization

Low Avoidance Beliefs

Ave. Victimization

Ave. Avoidance Beliefs

High Victimization High Avoidance Beliefs

Spring Teacher-reported Prosocial Behavior

b 1.9 1.8 1.7

Parental normative beliefs and children's adjustment

1.6 1.5 1.4 Low Victimization

Low Assertion Beliefs

Ave. Victimization

Ave. Assertion Beliefs

High Victimization High Assertion Beliefs

c Spring Teacher-reported Depression

The current research provides a novel exploration of the links between parents' peer victimization-related beliefs and their children's teacherreported socio-emotional adjustment. As such, this study provides new insights regarding the role of parents in children's socio-emotional development and adds to the existing literature on the consequences of peer victimization to children's mental health and behavioral adjustment. Moreover, it addresses the lack of research concerning the role of nonpeer relations, especially parents, in the lives of peer-victimized children. Findings indicated that parents' victimization-related beliefs are predictive of individual differences in children's socio-emotional development and moderate relations between peer victimization and children's psychosocial adjustment. Moreover, the findings suggest that addressing parents' attitudes and beliefs about peer victimization may be an important component of anti-bullying interventions.

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 Low Victimization

Low Normative Beliefs

Ave. Victimization

Ave. Normative Beliefs

High Victimization High Normative Beliefs

Fig. 4. Interactive contributions of fall overt victimization and (a) parental avoidance beliefs to the prediction of spring teacher-reported prosocial behavior, (b) parental assertion beliefs to the prediction of spring teacher-reported prosocial behavior, and c) parental normative beliefs to the prediction of spring teacher-reported depression.

beliefs. However, at low levels of relational victimization, children evidenced lower levels of social withdrawal if their parents more strongly endorsed avoidance beliefs. Furthermore, the Avoidance belief × Sex interaction was significant. As was found when overt victimization was included as a predictor, avoidance beliefs forecast social withdrawal for girls, b = .10, t(176) = 3.07, p = .003, but not boys, b = −.03, t(176) = −.55, ns (see Fig. 5b). The two-way interactions did not predict a significant proportion of the variance in children's prosocial behavior (p = .06). However, the Avoidance belief × Relational victimization and the Assertion beliefs × Relational victimization interactions were significant, replicating findings found when overt victimization was included as a predictor. That is, low relational victimization was associated with greater prosocial behavior at average or high levels of parental avoidance beliefs, and relational victimization predicted lower levels of prosocial behavior when parents were low, but not average or high, in assertion beliefs (as shown in Figs. 4a and b). Finally, a Normative belief × Relational victimization interaction emerged in the prediction of depression. Relational victimization predicted higher levels of depression in the spring when children's parents held high, b = .40, t(176) = 3.21, p = .002, and average, b = .19, t(176) = 1.99, p = .048, but not low, b = −.02, t(176) = −.14, ns, levels of normative beliefs (see Fig. 5c).

Previous research has linked peer victimization with trajectories of psychopathology reflecting moving away from the world (e.g., social withdrawal) or moving against the world (e.g., externalizing problems; cf. Caspi et al., 1987, 1988; Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003). The current study contributes to this research by showing that the risk posed to children's psychosocial development by peer harassment is amplified when parents of victimized youth view bullying as a normative experience. Specifically, overt victimization predicted greater social withdrawal and depression only for those children whose parents reported moderate or high levels of normative beliefs. Having parents who believe that peer victimization is a normative childhood experience also was associated with heightened aggressive behavior and overt victimization, although this pattern of findings differed slightly for boys and girls. Having parents who viewed bullying as normative predicted increased risk for subsequent overt victimization and aggression among girls who had relatively high levels of overt victimization in the fall. In contrast, having parents who held normative beliefs about bullying was associated with heightened overt victimization and aggression among boys who had experienced high or low levels of overt victimization in the fall. These findings are consistent with the proposition that parents who view peer victimization as normative may fail to provide their children needed emotional and instrumental supports and may not actively intervene to prevent further peer harassment. Victimized youth evidence less emotional distress when they perceive their parents as being supportive and emotionally responsive (Rigby et al., 2007; Stadler et al., 2010). Parents who endorse normative beliefs may fail to attend to negative feelings expressed by their children as a result of peer harassment and may miss opportunities to help their children learn to effectively regulate painful emotions. In addition, children and adults have been found to cope more effectively with stressors they view as controllable (Carver et al., 1989; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002). Parents who hold normative beliefs may instill in their children the view that peer stress cannot be controlled, increasing the likelihood that their children will evidence internalizing problems when harassed by peers. Parents endorsing normative beliefs may also communicate that such treatment is common and to be expected (Werner & Grant, 2009). In turn, their children may come to perceive peers as antisocial and to view aggression as an acceptable behavior, beliefs that have been linked to the development of externalizing problems (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005). Moreover, if children learn that peer harassment is a normative experience, they may be less likely to see their maltreatment as warranting adult intervention and, therefore, may fail to seek out adult support. As a result of heightened social withdrawal, negative affect, and aggressive behavior, these victimized youth may evidence continued or increased overt victimization over time, resulting in a stable, transactional cycle of behavioral maladjustment and peer harassment.

48

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

Table 4 Regressions predicting spring teacher-rated socio-emotional adjustment from parents' beliefs, relational peer victimization, and sex. Relational victimization Predictor Step 1 Fall outcome Sex Fall relational victimization Normative belief Avoidance belief Assertion belief Step 2 Normative × Relational vic. Avoidance × Relational vic. Assertion × Relational vic. Normative × Sex Avoidance × Sex Assertion × Sex Relational victimization × Sex Step 3 Normative × Vic. × Sex Avoidance × Vic. × Sex Assertion × Vic. × Sex

β

Withdrawal

ΔR2

β

.57⁎⁎⁎ – −.04 .75⁎⁎⁎ −.14⁎ .13⁎

.60⁎⁎⁎ .02 .23⁎⁎⁎ −.01 .05 −.10†

.05 .01 −.10 .03 .09 .07 −.12 .03 −.07

.48⁎⁎⁎

.04⁎

.09 .17⁎ −.12 −.08 .17⁎

.01 −.09 .07 .07

ΔR2

β .79⁎⁎⁎ −.08 .05 .07 .04 −.07

.66⁎⁎⁎

Prosocial β .64⁎⁎⁎ .02 −.11† .00 .03 .05

.50⁎⁎⁎

−.05 −.16⁎ .17⁎ .04 −.17† −.08 .08

.15⁎⁎ −.14⁎ .00

Depression ΔR2

.04†

.02 .08 −.08 .07 −.06 .07 .13† −.03

.10 −.08 .01

.04 −.00 −.10

Aggression

ΔR2

.01

β .49⁎⁎⁎ .04 .19 .01 .00 −.07 .21⁎⁎ −.04 −.14 −.09 .18† .10 −.00

.00 −.05 −.04 .01

ΔR2 .33⁎⁎⁎

.05⁎

Anxiety β .53⁎⁎⁎ −.09 .07 −.07 .01 .01

.31⁎⁎⁎

.02 −.04 −.03 .14 .00 .05 .16 −.06

.00 −.02 −.05 .04

ΔR2

.00 .08 .07 −.00

Note. Vic. = victimization. † p ≤ .10. ⁎ p ≤ .05. ⁎⁎ p ≤ .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p ≤ .001.

Although it was predicted that parental normative beliefs would amplify links between victimization and later maladjustment, boys whose parents believed that bullying is a harmless childhood experience showed heightened aggression regardless of whether they were targets of peer victimization. Parents who view victimization as normative may socialize their boys to aggress not only in response to being harassed (i.e., in a reactive manner), but also when not the target of harassment (i.e., in a proactive manner, see Dodge & Coie, 1987). This would explain why boys who experienced low levels of overt peer victimization in the fall evidenced greater aggression in the spring when their parents endorsed normative beliefs. Possibly due to heightened aggressive behavior, these boys also were found to have higher levels of overt victimization. Also in contrast to expectations, having parents who held the belief that bullying is normative negatively predicted relational victimization in the spring. As this finding seems to conflict with the current pattern of results showing that normative beliefs predict social maladjustment, lower levels of relational victimization among children whose parents believe that bullying is normative likely reflect continued negative interactions with peers including overt forms of peer harassment. Parental avoidance beliefs and children's adjustment It was hypothesized that children experiencing little peer harassment would benefit from having parents who believe that avoidance is an effectual means of handling bullying. Consistent with this expectation, children who experienced infrequent overt or relational victimization evidenced greater prosocial behavior when their parents believed that avoidance is an effective strategy for handling peer conflict. In addition, children experiencing low levels of relational victimization were less socially withdrawn in the spring when their parents believed avoidance is effective. These children may learn to walk away from conflicts before they escalate, resulting in fewer negative peer interactions and more opportunities to display prosocial behavior. Infrequently victimized children also may have a broad network of friends allowing them to remain engaged with agemates while ignoring aggressive peers. These positive relationships also may protect them from concluding that instances of peer victimization reflect a tendency toward bullying by the entire peer

group. Rather, they may attribute any harassment to a small subset of peers who can be easily avoided. Despite these potential benefits, having parents who endorsed avoidance predicted heightened relational victimization for all children. When parents view avoidance as an effective means of dealing with peer harassment, some children, even those not victimized, may become socially inhibited and wary around peers, increasing their risk for relational victimization (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Siegel et al., 2009). Gender-specific links between parents' beliefs about avoidance and children's social maladjustment also emerged. Girls evidenced greater social withdrawal in the spring if their parents endorsed avoiding aggressors as an effective means of handling peer mistreatment. Girls who are encouraged to avoid aggressive peers may gradually withdraw from social activities and interactions out of fear of potential ridicule or rejection. In addition, victimized girls evidenced less overt victimization in the spring if their parents held beliefs supporting avoidance. Together, these findings suggest that for girls who have a history of peer harassment avoiding peers may indeed be an effective means of protecting oneself from future overt victimization. For boys, in contrast, a combination of overt victimization in the fall and having parents who believe avoidance is an effective response to bullying predicted greater levels of overt victimization and aggression in the spring. Parents' beliefs that avoidance is a good strategy may contribute to submissiveness and inhibition among boys, placing them at risk for overt victimization (Schwartz et al., 1993). Boys may find it difficult to avoid aggressive peers, as they have been shown to often play in large groups and have highly integrated social networks (see Rose and Rudolph, 2006, for a review). Therefore, their attempts at avoidance may elicit, rather than prevent, peer harassment. In turn, prolonged negative peer interactions may lead to reactive, albeit ineffectual, aggression among some victimized boys (Schwartz et al., 2001). Taken together, these findings inform the study of sex differences in peer harassment. Girls have been found to be less overtly victimized than boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). The current findings suggest that girls internalize avoidance messages, leading to greater social withdrawal. This social disengagement may protect girls from direct confrontation with peers and overt peer harassment, but may increase risk for social exclusion and relational victimization (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Siegel et

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

Spring Teacher-reported Withdrawal

a 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Low Victimization Low Avoidance Beliefs

Ave. Victimization Ave. Avoidance Beliefs

High Victimization High Avoidance Beliefs

Spring Teacher-reported Withdrawal

b

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3

Overall, however, beliefs that children should assert themselves were not related to children's socio-emotional well-being. Parents may be less likely to act on such beliefs out of fear that children may engage in inappropriate behaviors in an effort to end their harassment. Links between beliefs about the use of assertion and child outcomes may also depend on how those beliefs are communicated. Whereas retaliatory responses to peer harassment predict poor socio-emotional adjustment (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002), non-hostile assertive behaviors promote positive peer relationships (Schwartz et al., 1993; Schwartz et al., 1998). Thus, whether parents' beliefs that assertion is an effective strategy predict bolstered or impaired psychosocial development may depend on whether these beliefs lead children to adopt aggressive or assertive coping. In addition, if parents encourage “standing up” without providing concrete advice as to how to enact this strategy, children's own interpretations of this advice may determine whether they respond to peer harassment with assertion or aggression. Research into the socialization practices of parents who believe assertion is an effective response to peer harassment, and their children's coping behaviors, will help elucidate the circumstances in which having parents who hold these beliefs predicts heightened or compromised socio-emotional adjustment.

0.25 Low Avoidance

Ave. Avoidance Boy

High Avoidance Girl

c Spring Teacher-reported Depression

49

0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 Low Victimization Low Normative Beliefs

Ave. Victimization Ave. Normative Beliefs

High Victimization High Normative Beliefs

Fig. 5. Interactive contributions of: (a) parental avoidance beliefs and relational victimization to the prediction of spring teacher-reported social withdrawal, (b) parental avoidance beliefs and sex to the prediction of spring teacher-reported social withdrawal, and c) parental normative beliefs and relational victimization to the prediction of spring teacher-reported depression.

al., 2009). Moreover, boys are more likely than girls to be categorized as aggressive-victims (e.g., Hanish & Guerra, 2004; Schwartz, 2000). The current study suggests that parents' beliefs that children should respond to peer harassment by avoiding aggressors may inadvertently contribute to victimized boys becoming increasingly embroiled in a pattern of aggression and victimization with peers. Parental assertion beliefs and children's adjustment Consistent with findings showing that assertion contributes to positive social adjustment (Schwartz et al., 1993; Schwartz et al., 1998) victimized youth evidenced lower levels of prosocial behavior in the spring when their parents did not believe that assertion is an effective means of responding to bullying. In the absence of support from parents to use assertive strategies such as standing up for themselves, victimized youth may not learn to manage negative peer interactions in a prosocial manner or to take advantage of opportunities to help and cooperate with others. In contrast, victims whose parents believe that standing up for oneself is effective may utilize assertive strategies in response to peer stress (see Owens et al., 2005), leading to positive peer interactions and more prosocial behavior. Furthermore, victims whose parents do believe assertion is effective may assert themselves in other contexts (e.g., play initiation) resulting in a reputation for prosocial behavior.

Parenting and overtly and relationally victimized children's socio-emotional adjustment The current study contributes to a small but growing body of research on the role adults have in the developmental pathways of victimized youth. Studies have shown that victims evidence less emotional distress when they perceive adults as being emotionally responsive (Rigby et al., 2007; Stadler et al., 2010). Recent research elucidates some of the mechanisms that may contribute to children feeling supported, or unsupported, by adults. Troop-Gordon and Quenette (2010) found that perceiving the teacher as responding with relative inaction (e.g., telling children to work problems out on their own, encouraging avoidance) was associated with greater internalizing problems among boys and peer victimized girls. Abaied and Rudolph (2010) similarly found that children with high levels of interpersonal stress evidenced greater depression if their mothers reported socializing their child to use disengagement coping, and reported not encouraging engagement coping, in response to stress. The current findings contribute to this work by showing that parents' peer victimizationrelated beliefs may underlie parents' behaviors, or inaction, that lead victimized children to feel unsupported or to employ coping behaviors that may be maladaptive for their socio-emotional development. Furthermore, although, parents' victimization-related beliefs moderated a number of the relations between children's overt victimization and their socio-emotional development, notably fewer moderated links were found for relational victimization. This is consistent with evidence showing that adults view relational aggression as less serious than overt aggression and are less likely to identify it as bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Werner & Grant, 2009). Relational victimization may not elicit bullying-related schemas as readily as overt victimization, and, therefore, adults' victimization-related beliefs may play a weaker role in the development of relationally victimized youth than they do for overtly victimized youth. Implications for Intervention Foremost, these findings highlight the need for parent education that dispels the myth that bullying is a normative and relatively harmless part of growing up. Numerous anti-bullying interventions target misconceptions parents may hold regarding peer victimization (e.g., Stop Bullying Now!, US Department of Health & Human Services, 2010). Given that boys whose parents hold normative beliefs about peer victimization were at increased risk for aggressive behavior and overt victimization even when they experienced low levels of peer harassment in the fall, the findings support the need for universal

50

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

programs that target entire school populations (Olweus, 1993; Rigby et al., 2004). Moreover, helping parents to realize that bullying has predominately negative rather than neutral effects may have particular benefits for victimized youth, as these children are at increased risk for socio-emotional maladjustment when their parents perceive bullying as a normative childhood experience. However, countering parents' normative beliefs may not be sufficient. Parents may need information as to how they can best advise children when they are victimized by peers. In particular, parents might benefit from educational resources providing concrete advice regarding how children can employ assertive, problemfocused strategies in response to peer harassment. In conjunction with findings from Visconti and Troop-Gordon (2010), the results from this study suggest that promoting avoidance in response to peer harassment may have beneficial or deleterious effects depending on how frequently a parent's child is the target of peer harassment. However, tailoring intervention programs to the parents of high versus low victimized youth would likely be difficult. Rather, it may be more effective to emphasize that children need to be taught how to use avoidance in a way that reduces conflict with peers and promotes positive interactions with other classmates. Such skills may be present among low-victimized youth, but may need to be taught to those who are highly victimized. Moreover, low victimized youth may benefit from avoidance because they have high quality friendships that they can turn to after avoiding aggressive peers (Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). Thus, interventions that aim to increase victimized youths' friendships with peers may further allow them to avoid aggressors without compromising their psychosocial development. Limitations and future directions The current investigation had a number of strengths including the longitudinal design, the use of multiple reporters, and a comprehensive examination of the socio-emotional correlates of peer victimization. However, this research was limited in that parents' beliefs were not assessed in the spring, which would have allowed for an examination of possible reciprocal associations between children's peer victimization and their parents' beliefs. It is possible, for example, that parents derive their beliefs, in part, from observing how their own children emotionally and behaviorally cope with peer harassment. Alternatively, parents may have highly stable victimization-related belief systems, possibly derived from their own childhood experiences of peer harassment. Future, longitudinal investigations are needed to explicate the basis on which parents form their beliefs and attitudes related to children's peer harassment. Although data for this study were obtained from multiple reporters, for each construct studied, data were used from only a single informant. Findings may have differed if self-reported peer victimization had been included in the analyses (see Graham & Juvonen, 1998) or if more comprehensive measures utilizing multiple reporters had been used in testing children's socio-emotional development. Furthermore, although this study provides initial evidence of the validity of the CSBQ, further tests of the psychometric properties of this measure is needed. Studies are also needed using larger and more diverse samples of children. Although the current sample had sufficient power to detect medium and somewhat more moderate relations between variables, studies with larger samples may detect small effects not significant in the current study. The sample was also limited to 3rd- and 4th-graders. Agerelated changes in the nature and frequency of peer victimization, children's social-cognitive abilities, adults' influence on children's behaviors, and the types of responses that are effective in deterring peer harassment may lead to developmental shifts in the socio-emotional correlates of parents' victimization-related beliefs. In addition, while few differences emerged between the participants in this study and those not included due to missing data, future studies should insure a more representative sample of participants. In particular, the current sample was homogenous with regard to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. However, the correlates of parents' victimization-related beliefs may

vary depending on the family's ethnicity, social class, or the racial composition of the school the children attend (Bellmore et al., 2004). A number of other contextual variables should be examined as well. For example, the small number of fathers completing the CSBQ in this study prohibited examining whether mothers' and fathers' beliefs differentially predict children's adjustment. Moreover, these beliefs may change depending on the nature and severity of the victimization experienced or whether children are harassed by same-sex or crosssex peers. For example, parents may view occasional teasing from cross-sex peers as normative (Thorne, 1986), but show greater concern for chronic victimization among same-sex peers. Studies are also needed to identify processes that may mediate links between parents' beliefs and victims' socio-emotional well-being, including children's attributions for peer harassment, coping responses, and peer beliefs, and the quality of parental support available to them. Most notably, there is little research on parents' active intervention in response to children's peer victimization. This reflects a major limitation in the literature. As indicated by the current findings, research is needed in which parents' responses to overt and relational victimization are studied separately in order to identify differential links to parents' victimization-related beliefs and to children's psychosocial development. Conclusion The findings indicated that parents' victimization-related beliefs predict children's social and emotional functioning and moderate links between children's peer harassment and their psychosocial adjustment. In general, endorsement of normative beliefs forecast greater social difficulties and emotional distress. Avoidance beliefs were found to serve a potentially protective role for the social development of children not victimized by their peers, but evidence pointed to a possible detrimental effect on the social adjustment of more frequently victimized youth. These results underscore the need for research into the etiology of parents' victimization-related beliefs and their consequences, as well as the need for parental education that dispels beliefs that may compromise parents' effective handling of their children's peer harassment. Appendix A. Items from the children's social behavior questionnaire (CSBQ)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Kids will stop bullying a girl who asserts herself. Boys do not mind being picked on because teasing shows that other kids are interested in them. Girls who get picked on by others need to learn to stand up for themselves. Insults among girls do not hurt anyone.⁎ Compared to all of the other problems boys have, being picked on is relatively minor Girls get picked on because they let others push them around.⁎ Teasing helps girls learn important social norms. Fighting between girls is just a part of playing. Boys can get over being picked on by peers pretty easily. Children will stop picking on boys who ignore them. The best thing for girls to do when others tease them is to stay away from those children in the future. Girls who are teased by others should just avoid their attackers. Most children will get to know other children before deciding whether or not they like them. For boys, teasing other children is just a part of growing up. Girls do not mind being picked on because teasing shows that other kids are interested in them. Boys who get picked on by others need to learn to stand up for themselves. Fighting between boys is just a part of playing. Fights between girls help them learn to stand up for themselves.⁎ Girls can get over being picked on by other children pretty easily. Boys who are teased by their peers should just avoid their attackers. Teasing helps boys learn important social norms.

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52 Appendix A (continued) 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Kids will stop bullying a boy who asserts himself. For girls, teasing other children is just a part of growing up. Boys get picked on because they let others push them around.⁎ Compared to all the other problems girls have, being picked on is relatively minor. The best thing for boys to do when others tease them is to stay away from those children in the future. 27. Children will stop picking on girls who ignore them. 28. Insults among boys do not hurt anyone.⁎ 29. Most children try hard not to hurt other kids' feelings. 30. Children will assist other kids who are in need of help even if they are not one of their good friends. 31. Most children want to be friends with all of their classmates. 32. Fights between boys help them learn to stand up for themselves.⁎ 33. Most children will like any peer who is friendly and cooperative. Note. Items 13, 29, 30, 31, and 33 are filler items. ⁎ Based on the initial factor analysis, item was not included in the creation of the composite CSBQ variables.

References Abaied, J. L., & Rudolph, K. R. (2010). Mothers as a resource in times of stress: Interactive contributions of socialization of coping and stress to youth psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 273–289. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers' responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219–231. Bellmore, A. D., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2004). Beyond the individual: The impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims' adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1159–1172. Boivin, M., Petitclerc, A., Feng, B., & Barker, E. D. (2010). The developmental trajectories of peer victimization in middle to late childhood and the changing nature of their behavioral consequences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 231–260. Bowker, J. C., & Raja, R. (2011). Social withdrawal subtypes during early adolescence in India. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 201–212. Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children's classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13. Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization processes. In W. Damon & N. Wisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development, (pp. 389–462) New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among school children: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 451–461. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308–313. Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824–831. Coplan, R. J., Wilson, J., Frohlick, S. L., & Zelenski, J. (2006). A person-oriented analysis of behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 917–927. Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers' attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21, 5–21. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367–380. Dodge, K., & Coie, J. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158. Dodge, K., Coie, J., Pettit, G., & Price, J. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boys' groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289–1309. Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Parents' ideas, actions, and feelings: Models and methods from developmental and social psychology. Child Development, 59, 286–320. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587–599. Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies: Developmental continuity or developmental change? Journal of Developmental Psychology, 50, 17–38. 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, 41, 441–455. Huesmann, R. L., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children's coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38, 267–278.

51

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. Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024. Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties in the development of children's psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74, 1344–1367. Lamarche, V., Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., Dionne, G., & Perusse, D. (2007). Do friends' characteristics moderate the prospective links between peer victimization and reactive and proactive aggression? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 665–680. Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention programme in the Southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 55–79). New York: NY: Cambridge University Press. Miller, S. A. (1988). Parents' beliefs about children's cognitive development. Child Development, 59, 259–285. Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 6, 114–120. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. O'Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teacher training to counter bullying and victimisation in Ireland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 99–111. Owens, L., Daly, A., & Slee, P. (2005). Sex and age differences in victimization and conflict resolution among adolescents in a South Australian school. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 1–12. Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents' experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242–266. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. Reynolds, C., & Richmond, B. (1978). What I think and feel: A revised measure of children's manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Pscyhology, 6, 271–280. Rigby, K., Slee, P. T., & Martin, G. (2007). Implications of inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental health. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 801–812. Rigby, K., Smith, P. K., & Pepler, D. (2004). Working to prevent school bullying: Key issues. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 1–12). New York: NY: Cambridge University Press. Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131. Rubin, K. H., & Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. L. (1992). Parents' ideas about the development of aggression and withdrawal. In I. Sigel, J. Goodnow, & A. McGillicudy-deLisi (Eds.), Parental belief systems (pp. 41–68). Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum. Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1996). How do victims respond to bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 99–109. Schmidt, M. E., & Bagwell, C. L. (2007). The protective role of friendships in overtly and relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 439–460. 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 victimization in boys' play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755–1772. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Hubbard, J. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lemerise, E. A., & Bateman, H. (1998). Social-cognitive and behavioral correlates of aggression and victimization in boys' play groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 431–440. Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174). New York, NY: Guilford. Siegel, R. S., La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2009). Peer victimization and social anxiety in adolescents: Prospective and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1096–1109. Sigel, I. E., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V. (2002). Parent beliefs are cognitions: The dynamic belief systems model. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Being and becoming a parent (pp. 485–508). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C., & Moody, J. C. (1999). What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied? Educational Research, 41, 267–285. Smith, S., & Sharp, P. (1991). Bullying in UK schools: The DES Sheffield bullying project. Early Child Development and Care, 77, 47–55. Stadler, C., Feifel, J., Rohrmann, S., Vermeiren, R., & Poustka, F. (2010). Peer-victimization and mental health problems in adolescents: Are parental and school support protective? Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 371–386. Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841–851. Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together but mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary schools. In W. W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 167–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

52

W. Troop-Gordon, H. Gerardy / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 33 (2012) 40–52

Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of self and schoolmates: Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 1072–1091. Troop, W. P., & Ladd, G. W. (2002). Teachers' beliefs regarding peer victimization and their intervention practices. Charlotte, NC: Poster presented at the Conference on Human Development (April). Troop-Gordon, W., & Quenette, A. (2010). Children's perceptions of their teacher's responses to students' peer harassment: Moderators of victimization-adjustment linkages. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 333–360.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2010). Stop bullying now. Retrieved from:http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov Visconti, K. J., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2010). Prospective relations between children's responses to peer victimization and their socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 261–272. Werner, N. E., & Grant, S. (2009). Mothers' cognitions about relational aggression: Associations with discipline responses, children's normative beliefs, and peer competence. Social Development, 18, 77–98.