Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics Maria Sapouna a,∗ , Dieter Wolke b,c a b c

School of Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, ML3 0JB, UK Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 9 March 2013 Received in revised form 21 May 2013 Accepted 25 May 2013 Available online xxx Keywords: Bullying Victimization Resilience Parents Peers Individual differences

a b s t r a c t Little research attention has been paid to bullied students who function better than expected and are therefore defined as “resilient”. The present longitudinal study aimed to identify individual, family and peer factors that predict fewer than expected levels of depression and delinquency following experiences of bullying victimization. The sample consisted 3,136 adolescents. Self-report data were used to measure bullying victimization at age 13 and 14 and depression and delinquency at age 14. We examined the effects of gender, self-esteem, social alienation, parental conflict, sibling victimization and number of close friends on levels of emotional and behavioral resilience following bullying victimization. The resilience measures were derived by regressing depression and delinquency scores at age 14 on levels of bullying victimization at age 13 and 14, respectively. The adolescents who reported low depression despite frequently experiencing bullying tended to be male, had higher self-esteem, were feeling less socially alienated, were experiencing low levels of conflict with parents and were not victimized by siblings. On the other hand, the adolescents who reported low delinquency despite frequently experiencing bullying tended to be female, had higher self-esteem, were experiencing low levels of conflict with parents, were not victimized by siblings and had less close friends. Relationships with parents and siblings continue to play some role in promoting emotional and behavioral adjustment among victims of bullying and, therefore, interventions are more likely to be successful if they target both the psychosocial skills of adolescents and their relationships with their family. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior that is repeated over time against a person who feels powerless to defend him or herself (Monks, Smith, Naylor, Barter, Ireland, & Coyne, 2009). It can take many forms such as hitting, name calling, social exclusion, spreading nasty rumors and sending insulting messages by phone. A recent comparison of bullying prevalence across 40 countries revealed that, on average, 26% of adolescents are involved in bullying: 12.6% as victims, 10.7% as bullies and 3.6% as bully victims (Craig et al., 2009). Bullying increases steadily in primary school, peaks during the first years of secondary school (ages 12–14) as students re-negotiate their position in the new peer group and tapers off in late adolescence. The consequences of bullying can be severe and long-lasting, including low self-esteem, depression, academic failure, conduct problems, psychosis and increased risk of suicide (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2009; Barker, Arseneault, Brendgen, Fontaine, & Maughan, 2008; Brunstein-Klomek, Sourander, & Gould, 2010; Schreier et al., 2009).

∗ Corresponding author address: School of Social Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Almada Street, Hamilton ML3 0JB, UK. 0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

2

Although bullied students are clearly at risk of the problems mentioned above, not all of them will experience such difficulties. Those individuals who show positive developmental outcomes despite facing stressors such as bullying are referred to as “resilient” (Rutter, 2006). Resilience has been neglected in bullying research (Rothon, Head, Klineberg, & Stansfeld, 2011), and, as a result, it is not currently known how some bullied students manage to bounce back and function well over time despite their negative experience. Studies that have investigated resilience to child maltreatment find that 12–22% of children or adults who were abused as children manifest better outcomes than expected given their experiences of abuse (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomás, & Taylor, 2007). However, even in this field, longitudinal studies are relatively few and often limited to small samples (Cicchetti, 2010; Werner, 2013). Identifying the factors that promote positive outcomes in young people who have experienced negative events such as bullying could steer the development of successful interventions for victims. The present study attempts to address this by investigating individual, family and peer predictors of resilience to bullying using a large cohort of adolescents in Scotland. Defining resilience Although definitions of resilience vary among studies, a consensus view is emerging that resilient individuals are those who manifest positive outcomes over time despite facing significant adversities (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). In adolescence, not being depressed is an indicator of emotional adjustment, performing well at school is an indicator of academic adjustment and not being delinquent is an indicator of behavioral adjustment (Jaffee et al., 2007; Luthar et al., 2000). Most authors are also in agreement that resilience is not a personality trait but rather a capacity that develops over time in the context of positive relationships with family members and peers (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Luthar, 2003; Rutter, 1999). Garmezy (1985) was one of the first researchers in this field to recognize the importance of positive relationships within and outside the family in fostering resilience. He distinguished between three basic sources of protection: individual characteristics (including high self-esteem and autonomy), family environment (defined as positive relationships with parents characterized by warmth, harmony and absence of neglect and conflict) and community (including positive peer interactions characterized by trust, support and absence of conflict, quality neighborhoods and schools). Garmezy’s theoretical framework influenced much subsequent theorizing and research on resilience (Luthar et al., 2000). For example, life-course theories of resilience also place emphasis on positive relationships with family members and peers as determinants of resilience (Rutter, 1999). According to this perspective, relationships within and outside the family serve either to increase or decrease the risk of negative outcomes following adversity depending on their quality. Rutter (1999) has argued that negative relationships with family and peers may be genetically mediated in the sense that the child’s characteristics and behavior shapes the type of relationship they develop with other people. Resilience against bullying Although central in Garmezy’s and others’ theoretical frameworks, family and peer predictors of positive adjustment among victims of bullying have been largely overlooked in the literature. Rather, the literature has primarily explored how individual characteristics influence the outcomes that bullied children and young people will experience. For example, research has identified that cognitive interpretations of events (e.g. how great the threat is perceived to be) partially mediate the extent to which bullied children will report feeling lonely (Catterson & Hunter, 2010). However, other individual characteristics remain under-investigated. For example, although there is evidence that adolescents who are resilient to sexual abuse are characterized by high levels of self-esteem (i.e. have a positive view of themselves; Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2010), the possible mediating role of self-esteem in the association between bullying and positive adjustment remains under-investigated. It is also not clear how gender may affect adolescents’ adjustment to bullying. Some studies suggest that females are more vulnerable to the effects of bullying than males (Barker et al., 2008; Klomek et al., 2009; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010) while others have found that bullying affects both genders equally (Bakker, Ormel, Verhulst, & Oldehinkel, 2010; Turner, Exum, Brame, & Holt, 2013). Only recently have studies begun to examine how family relationships influence longer-term developmental outcomes for bullied students. Bowes, Maughan, Caspi, Moffitt and Arseneault (2010) investigated predictors of positive adjustment following experiences of bullying victimization in primary school in a sample of 1,116 pairs of twins aged 10–12. The study found that maternal warmth, sibling warmth and a positive atmosphere at home were associated with fewer than expected emotional and behavioral problems such as depression and aggression over a two-year period following bullying victimization. Maternal warmth, in particular, exerted a protective effect independent of genetic factors such that the bullied twin who received more maternal warmth had fewer behavioral problems than the twin who received less maternal warmth. This study provides strong evidence of an environmental effect of families in protecting children aged 10–12 years from negative outcomes associated with being bullied. However, it is not known whether family relationships are equally important for older age groups that tend to spend less time at home. The importance of positive relationships with siblings has been further highlighted in a recent review of sibling bullying (Wolke & Skew, 2012). Although based on a small number of cross-sectional studies, the review suggests that those bullied at home and at school show increased odds of emotional and behavioral problems compared to those victimized in only one context or not at all. This is not surprising given emerging evidence that sibling relationships have a significant bearing on a range of developmental outcomes including self-esteem and social competence in peer relationships. Adolescents who report Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

3

positive relationships with siblings tend to have higher self-esteem and lower levels of anxiety (Campione-Barr, BassettGreer, & Kruse, 2012). Moreover, longitudinal research suggests that positive relationships with siblings characterized by warmth and absence of hostility and aggression can provide a buffer against maladjustment following stressful life events (Soli, McHale, & Feinberg, 2009). Peer relationships may also play a role in promoting resilience to bullying. For example, bullied adolescents who report high levels of support from peers are more likely to maintain appropriate academic achievement for their age group compared to those with low peer support (Rothon et al., 2011; Wang, Iannotti, & Luk, 2011). However, in other domains of adjustment results are mixed. According to some studies, high levels of peer support moderate the effect of bullying victimization on adolescents’ emotional adjustment (Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vanderzee, Sink, & Birchmeier, 2009; Stadler, Feifel, Rohrmann, Vermeiren, & Poustka, 2010; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010). Conversely, other studies found that support from friends alone cannot mitigate against the strong negative effect that bullying has on adolescent emotional adjustment (Pouwelse, Bolman, Lodewijkx, & Spaa, 2011; Rothon et al., 2011). There is a suggestion that relationships with peers gain increasing importance in adolescence as buffers of stress compared to relationships with parents (La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Stadler et al., 2010), however further research with larger samples is needed. The present study The present short-term longitudinal study aims to shed some light on the process of resilience to bullying by identifying individual, family and peer factors that predict fewer than expected levels of depression and delinquency following experiences of bullying victimization. In particular, we were interested in examining the extent to which positive qualities of relationships with parents, siblings and peers predict resilience over and above individual characteristics. We also sought to examine whether it is relationships with family members or peer relationships that provide the strongest protection against bullying during early adolescence as youths make their transition from predominantly adult- to peer-centered relationships. Methods Sample The sample for this study was drawn from a cohort of 4,597 individuals participating in the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, a prospective longitudinal study of pathways in and out of youth offending and victimization managed by the University of Edinburgh (McAra & McVie, 2007; Smith & McVie, 2003; http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/cls/esytc/). Participants were recruited at age 12 and followed annually up to age 17. At initial recruitment in autumn 1998, the sample consisted of 92% of the total population of young people who were enrolled at secondary school in the City of Edinburgh. Only data from sweeps 1 (age 12) to 4 (age 15) have been made publicly available via the UK Data Archive for use by researchers. For the purposes of this study, self-report data from the first three waves were analyzed (ages 12, 13 and 14). We were not able to use all four waves of data because there was no measure of depression at wave 4 (age 15). The final sample consisted of 3,136 adolescents for whom data were available on all the variables needed for this analysis. A total of 48.5% of our final sample were males and 94.9% were of White ethnic background. Procedures Parental and child consent was obtained for all participants in the study. Self-report data was obtained via questionnaires administered at schools by trained researchers. Follow-up visits were arranged to capture absent students’ views. All participants were assured of confidentiality prior to completing the questionnaire. Measures A summary of the variables used in the study is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of variables used in the study. Time 1 (age 12) Bullying Depression Delinquency Self-esteem Social alienation Parental conflict Sibling victimization Number of close friends

X X X

Time 2 (age 13)

Time 3 (age 14)

X

X X X

X X

X

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10 4

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Bullying at age 13 and age 14 (waves 2 and 3) was a composite score of responses to the following four items adapted from Olweus (1993): being ignored/left out, being ‘slagged off’/called names, being threatened and being attacked (0 = hardly ever/never, 1 = less than once a week, 2 = at least once a week, or 3 = most days). Scores ranged from 0 to 12, representing the frequency of bullying victimization in the last year (at 13: M = 1.48, SD = 2.36; at 14: M = 1.39, SD = 2.20, ˛ = .81). Depression was assessed at age 14 (wave 3) using 6 self-reported items that asked how often in the last month the participant felt too tired to do things, had trouble sleeping, felt unhappy, sad or depressed, felt hopeless about the future, felt nervous or tense, and had worried too much about things (0 = hardly ever/never, 1 = less than once a week, 2 = at least once per week, or 3 = most days). This measure was adapted from the West of Scotland 11 to 16 Study of Teenage Health (Sweeting, Young, West, & Der, 2006) and originally validated by Kandel and Davies (1982). A composite score was created to denote the frequency of depression symptoms in the last month (range 0–18, M = 7.03, SD = 4.32, ˛ = .82). Delinquency, defined as criminal offenses committed by young people, was assessed at age 14 (wave 3) using 14 selfreported items that asked whether the participant had committed any of the following 14 offenses in the last year: not paying the correct fare, being noisy or cheeky in public, stealing something from a shop, riding in a stolen vehicle, stealing something from the school, carrying a weapon or knife, breaking into a vehicle, using force/weapon/threats to rob someone, vandalizing property, breaking into a house, stealing something from home, writing or spraying graffiti, setting fire to something and hitting, punching or kicking someone. Responses were coded 1 for yes and 0 for no and summed across the items to provide a measure of delinquency (range 0–14, M = 2.97, SD = 2.86, ˛ = .81). Outcome measures. Two domains of positive adjustment following experiences of bullying were investigated for the purposes of this study. First, a measure of “emotional resilience” to bullying was derived using the methodology adopted by Bowes et al. (2010). Emotionally resilient participants were considered those who reported fewer than expected levels of depression given the frequency of bullying they experienced at ages 13 and 14. The emotional resilience measure was derived by regressing depression scores at age 14 on levels of bullying victimization at ages 13 and 14. Residual scores were saved and reverse-coded (−14.58 to 12.17) so that positive residual scores indicated participants with fewer than expected levels of depression at age 14 given the frequency of bullying experienced at ages 13 and 14 (i.e. emotionally resilient participants). Second, a measure of “behavioral resilience” to bullying was derived using the same methodology above. Behaviorally resilient participants were considered those who reported fewer than expected levels of delinquency given the frequency of bullying they experienced at ages 13 and 14. The behavioral resilience measure was derived by regressing delinquency scores at age 14 on levels of bullying victimization at ages 13 and 14. Residual scores were saved and reverse-coded (−4.41 to 11.24) so that positive residual scores indicated participants with fewer than expected levels of delinquency at age 14 given the frequency of bullying experienced at ages 13 and 14 (i.e. behaviorally resilient participants). Testing the validity of the resilience measures. There was no correlation between our measures of resilience and the frequency of bullying victimization at ages 13 and 14 (r = .00, p = 1.00) which proves that our measures were not purely a function of the low frequency of bullying victimization (we would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us; see Table 3 below). To further test the validity of our measures, we examined how strongly they correlated to other developmental outcomes that were measured in the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. We found that emotional and behavioral resilience was negatively correlated to self-reported alcohol (r = −.16, p < .01 for emotional and r = −.41, p < .01 for behavioral) and drug use (r = −.03, p = ns for emotional and r = −.28, p < .01 for behavioral) and teacher-reported truancy (r = −.05, p < .05 for emotional and r = −.09, p < .01 for behavioral). Furthermore, behaviorally resilient children were less likely to be referred to the Children’s Reporter (t(3,134) = −4.96, p < .001) which is the body responsible for judging cases of adolescent delinquency in Scotland. Individual, family and peer predictors. Individual factors considered were Gender coded 1 for males and 0 for females. Social alienation at age 12 (sweep 1), defined as the experience that one is not an integral part of a group, was the composite index of 6 self-reported items rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 0 (disagree a lot) to 4 (agree a lot). An example item was: Some people are against me for no good reason; range 0–24, M = 9.42, SD = 6.23, ˛ = .85. The scale was a modified version of the Alienation scale of the MPQ (Tellegen, 1982) that taps negative emotionality. Being estranged from peers has been found to increase the risk of peer victimization and depression (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010; Gooren, van Lier Stegge, Terwogt, & Koot, 2011, Ostrov, 2008). Self-esteem, defined as a positive evaluation of self, was assessed at age 12 (sweep 1) using a modified version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965) consisting of 6 self-reported items rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 0 (disagree a lot) to 4 (agree a lot). An example item was: I like myself; range 0–24, M = 15.32, SD = 4.39, ˛ = .72. To develop a proxy indicator of positive relationships with parents we conducted a principal component analysis of the following items: (1) composite index of 6 self-reported items measuring the frequency of arguments with parents at age 12 (sweep 1; e.g. “argue with parents about homework”, “argue with parents about friends”) (from 0 = hardly ever/never to 4 = most days; range 0–18, M = 5.64, SD = 4.04, ˛ = .75), (2) composite index of 6 self-reported items measuring the frequency of arguments with parents at age 13 (sweep 2; e.g. “argue with parents about homework”, “argue with parents about friends”) (from 0 = hardly ever/never to 4 = most days; range 0–18, M = 5.05, SD = 4.02, ˛ = .77) and 3 composite index of 5 self-reported items measuring the frequency of punitive behaviors exhibited by parents at age 13 (sweep 2; e.g. “parents tell you off or give you a row”, “parents stop you going out”; from 0 = hardly ever/never to 4 = most days; range 0–15, M = 2.91, SD = 2.38, ˛ = .66). Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

5

We extracted one principal component that explained 59.4% of the variance: the composite scores of arguments with parents at sweep 1 (.73) and sweep 2 (.84), and punitive parenting at sweep 2 (.73) all loaded high on the factor “parental conflict” defined as frequent arguments with parents. Factor scores were saved as variables through the use of the Anderson–Rubin method, and the “parental conflict” factor was reverse-coded so that positive scores indicated low levels of conflict with parents (range 1–7.15, M = 5.50, SD = .99). Sibling victimization was measured at age 13 (sweep 2) by asking respondents how often their siblings had threatened to hurt them, had hurt them by hitting or had hurt them using a weapon. Responses were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (hardly ever/never) to 3 (most days). We created a composite score, ranging from 0 to 9, which represented the frequency of victimization by siblings in the past year (M = 2.02, SD = 2.38, ˛ = .72). We reverse-coded scores so that positive values indicated low levels of sibling victimization (range 0–9, M = 6.98, SD = 2.38). The adolescents’ size of peer group was assessed by means of a single time measuring the number of close friends the participants reported having at age 12 (sweep 1; “How many close friends do you have?”). Responses ranged from 0 (none) to 3 (between six and ten; Mdn = 1).

Statistical analyses Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 18.0. First, descriptive statistics and correlations among all the variables used in the study were examined. Second, we tested for significant associations between the predictors (independent variables: gender, social alienation, self-esteem, parental conflict, sibling victimization and number of close friends) and the two dependent outcomes of emotional and behavioral resilience to bullying using a hierarchical regression model, one for each of the two outcomes. Individual variables (i.e. gender, social alienation, self-esteem) were entered at step 1 and family and peer-related variables (i.e. parental conflict, sibling victimization and number of close friends) were entered at step 2 to establish the extent to which resilience to bullying can be predicted by family and peer-related characteristics over and beyond individual characteristics of adolescents who were entered in the model first. For these regression analyses, dependent and independent variables (with the exception of gender) were transformed into standardized z-scores. The resulting standardized coefficients (betas) measured standard deviation change in the dependent variable per standard deviation increase in the predictor variables.

Results Descriptive statistics, by gender, for the study population are provided in Table 2. Significant gender differences emerged for depression, delinquency, emotional and behavioral resilience, self-esteem, sibling victimization and parental conflict. More specifically, girls reported significantly more depression (t(3,134) = −12.85, p < .001), less conflict with parents (t(3,134) = −5.40, p < .001) and higher behavioral resilience (t(3,134) = −7.21, p < .001) whereas boys reported higher selfesteem (t(3,134) = 12.90, p < .001), more delinquency (t(3,134) = 7.17, p < .001), less sibling victimization (t(3,134) = 3.23, p < .01) and higher emotional resilience (t(3,134) = 13.93, p < .001). The correlations table shows that being bullied at age 13 was associated with higher levels of depression (r = .28, p < .01) and delinquency (r = .07, p < .01) one year later. Bullying at age 13 was also associated with experiencing more bullying victimization at age 14, having less self-esteem, feeling more socially alienated, experiencing more conflict with parents, experiencing more sibling victimization and having less close friends (see Table 3).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics, by gender, for the study population (N = 3,136). Boys (N = 1,521)

Bullying victimization at age 13 Bullying victimization at age 14 Depression Delinquency Emotional resilience Behavioral resilience Self-esteem Social alienation Low parental conflict Low sibling victimization

Number of friends

Girls (N = 1,615)

Range

M (SD)

Range

M (SD)

0–12 0–12 0–18 0–14 −14.58 to 12.17 −4.41 to 11.10 0–24 0–24 1–7.15 0–9

1.51 (2.49) 1.37 (2.28) 6.04 (4.03) 3.34 (3.01) −1.42 (3.68) 6.45 (3.01) 16.34 (4.13) 9.58 (6.32) 5.41 (1.02) 7.12 (2.38)

0–12 0–12 0–18 0–13 −14.58 to 8.80 −3.41 to 11.24 0–24 0–24 1.15–7.15 0–9

1.46 (2.24) 1.41 (2.11) 7.97 (4.37) 2.61 (2.65) −3.34 (4.04) 7.18 (2.63) 14.37 (4.42) 9.27 (6.15) 5.60 (0.95) 6.85 (2.37)

Range

Mdn

Range

Mdn

0–3

1

0–3

1

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

6

Table 3 Correlations between the study variables (N = 3,136). Correlations matrix Variables 1 Bullying victimization at age 13 2 Bullying victimization at age 14 3 Depression 4 Delinquency 5 Emotional resilience 6 Behavioral resilience 7 Self-esteem 8 Social alienation 9 Low parental conflict 10 Low sibling victimization 11 Number of close friends * **

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1.00

.45** 1.00

.28** .36** 1.00

.07** .09** .18** 1.00

.00 .00 −.92** −.16** 1.00

.00 .00 −.15** −.10** .16** 1.00

−.14** −.11** −.27** −.07** .24** .05** 1.00

.38** .29** .25** .02** −.12** −.06** −.29** 1.00

−.21** −.17** −.24** −.32** .17** .30** .23** −.27** 1.00

−.18** −.13** −.19** −.14** .14** .13** .14** −.16** .31** 1.00

11 −.08** −.04* −.05** .11** .03 −.12** .07* −.13** −.03 −.01 1.00

p < .05. p < .01.

Table 4 Summary of hierarchical regression models predicting emotional resilience to bullying victimization (N = 3,136). ˇ

Predictor variable Step 1 Male Self-esteem Social alienation

R2

R2

0.10

F change 112.96

.21*** .17*** −.08***

Step 2 Low parental conflict Low sibling victimization Number of close friends

0.12

0.02

27.22***

.13*** .06** .00

*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Predictors of emotional resilience to bullying The two-step model of the hierarchical regression is presented in Table 4 and shows that individual variables alone accounted for 10% of the total variance of emotional resilience to bullying. Being male (ˇ = .21, p < .001), having high selfesteem (ˇ = .17, p < .001) and feeling less socially alienated (ˇ = −.08, p < .001) significantly predicted emotional resilience to bullying victimization. The inclusion of environmental variables in step 2 of the model further only slightly increased its predictive power (R2 = .02, p < .001). Only low levels of family discord (ˇ = .13, p < .001) and sibling victimization (ˇ = .06, p < .01) were statistically significant predictors of emotional resilience to bullying. The full model accounted for 12% of the variance in emotional resilience to bullying victimization. Predictors of behavioral resilience to bullying The two-step model of the hierarchical regression is presented in Table 5 and shows that individual variables alone accounted for 2% of the total variance of behavioral resilience to bullying. Being female (ˇ = −.14, p < .001) and having Table 5 Summary of hierarchical regression models predicting behavioral resilience to bullying victimization (N = 3,136). Predictor variable

ˇ

Step 1 Male Self-esteem Social alienation

−.14*** .08*** −.03

Step 2 Low parental conflict Low sibling victimization Number of close friends

.28*** .05* −.11***

R2

R2

0.02

0.116

F change 25.66

0.09

108.59***

* p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

7

high self-esteem (ˇ = .08, p < .001) significantly predicted behavioral resilience to bullying victimization. The inclusion of environmental variables in step 2 of the model further increased its predictive power (R2 = .09, p < .001). Low levels of family discord (ˇ = .28, p < .001), low levels of sibling victimization (ˇ = .05, p < .05) and less close friends (ˇ = −.11, p < .001) were statistically significant predictors of emotional resilience to bullying. The full model accounted for 12% of the variance in behavioral resilience to bullying victimization. Discussion This study investigated positive outcomes following experiences of bullying victimization in early adolescence. Using prospective data from a large cohort of adolescents, we found, similar to other studies (Klomek et al., 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011; Winsper, Lereya, Zanarini, & Wolke, 2012), that frequent bullying victimization is typically associated with higher levels of depression and delinquency. Despite experiencing frequent bullying, however, some adolescents were “resilient” in that they showed fewer than expected levels of depression and delinquency over time. The adolescents who reported low depression despite frequently experiencing bullying tended to be male, had higher self-esteem, were feeling less socially alienated, were experiencing low levels of conflict with parents and were not victimized by siblings compared to those who reported more depression. On the other hand, the adolescents who reported low delinquency despite frequently experiencing bullying tended to be female, had higher self-esteem, were experiencing low levels of conflict with parents, were not victimized by siblings and had less close friends compared to those who reported more delinquency. The resilient adolescents in our study were also less likely to report frequent alcohol and drug use, be truant from school and be referred to the Children’s Reporter, pointing to the validity of our measures of resilience. In terms of individual characteristics that predict positive adjustment among bullied adolescents, males were more likely to report lower than expected levels of depression following bullying. On the other hand, females were more likely to report lower than expected levels of delinquency following bullying. We cannot rule out the possibility that these gender differences reflect differences in the prevalence of depression and delinquency between females and males rather than “true” gender differences in resilience. Most previous studies have shown females to be at greater risk of depression following experiences of bullying victimization (Barker et al., 2008; Gower & Borowsky, 2013; Klomek et al., 2009; Perren et al., 2010) and epidemiological data that point to a female preponderance in prevalence of depression over the life-course (Velde, Bracke, & Levecque, 2010). Previous studies have also found that girls are more likely to be subject to relational forms of victimization that have been shown to be more hurtful and more difficult to escape from (Smith, Rose, & Schwartz-Mette, 2009; Wolke, Woods, & Samara, 2009). Gender differences in the prevalence of delinquency following experiences of bullying victimization are less clear. Some studies have found that bullied boys are more likely to get involved in delinquent behaviors compared to bullied girls (Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006) while others have found that bullied boys and girls are equally likely to subsequently engage in delinquency (Barker et al., 2008; Cullen, Unnever, Hartman, Turner, & Agnew, 2008). Findings further indicated that internal resources such as self-esteem are influential in successfully overcoming victimization experiences as previously found with samples of sexually victimized and maltreated youth (Turner et al., 2010). Furthermore, our study found that negative emotionality is negatively associated to emotional resilience to bullying supporting earlier findings in the literature that have linked negative emotionality with greater risk of depression (Doane et al., 2011). This study also examined the role of family and peer characteristics in promoting positive outcomes for bullied students in adolescence. Results indicated that adolescents who experienced no or low levels of conflict with their parents were more likely to report low levels of depression and delinquency following bullying victimization. These results are similar to another study that examined resilience to bullying among children (Bowes et al., 2010). This finding adds to the previous literature by showing that parents maintain a buffering role against victimization experiences in early adolescence, contrary to what some recent research has suggested (Reavis, Keane, & Calkins, 2010). The mechanisms by which relationships with parents protect against maladjustment of bullied students are not well-understood but there is an indication from some studies that support from within and outside the family promotes self-esteem and induces positive feelings about one’s relationships with others, thereby increasing an individual’s perception that he or she can cope effectively with negative experiences such as bullying (Burton, Stice, & Seeley, 2004; Ueno, 2005). It has further been suggested that a positive family environment may serve a stress-relieving function, enabling adolescents to cope more effectively with the emotional sequelae of bullying (Bowes et al., 2010). In addition, this study confirmed that a victimization-free sibling environment can make a contribution, albeit small, to developmental outcomes for bullied adolescents over and above the effects of parental relationships as found in previous studies of younger samples (Bowes et al., 2010). This points to the need to give siblings some role in interventions aimed to improve health outcomes for adolescents. In the present study, having less close friends predicted lower than expected levels of delinquency following bullying victimization. This can be explained from a routine activities perspective according to which young people who spend more time socializing with peers are at an increased risk of crime involvement (Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996). The reported lack of an association between the number of close friends and levels of depression following bullying might reflect, to some extent, the limitations of our measure. According to Furman (1996), simply measuring whether a victim has a best friend, or not, is an inadequate measure of the potential buffering effect friendships can offer. Recent research corroborates this assertion indicating that the quality of friendships including friends’ levels of prosocial behavior Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

8

is more important that the quantity in moderating associations between peer victimization and depression (Woods, Done, & Kalsi, 2009; You & Bellmore, 2012). Victims of bullying tend to have as close friends other victimized adolescents who are, therefore, less able to offer protection against victimization and its emotional consequences (Salmivalli, 2010). Overall, the individual, family and peer characteristics examined in this study accounted for only a small amount of the variance in resilience to bullying. However, it is worth noting that relationships with parents, siblings and peers remained significant in predicting lower than expected levels of depression and delinquency after controlling for individual differences. Although individual differences explained more of the variance in depression following bullying victimization, family and peer characteristics explained more of the variance in delinquency following bullying victimization. This finding is not surprising considering that self-esteem and social alienation are stronger predictors of depression than they are of delinquency (Mason, 2001; Sowislo & Orth, 2013). When interpreting these findings, certain limitations of our study need to be considered. First and foremost, we sourced our measures from a large cohort longitudinal study that was not specifically designed to test hypotheses around bullying and resilience. As a result, our measures are rather limited proxy indicators of family and peer relationships. In addition, our study did not control for other co-morbid psychological, medical and developmental conditions that could be present in our sample because no such measures were available in the data. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that such uncontrolled variables had an unmeasured effect on resilience. For these reasons, this study provides only some suggestive evidence, rather than sweeping arguments, on what helps to promote resilience to bullying. We feel that such evidence, although only suggestive, is useful as resilience to bullying has been overlooked in the literature. Second, we used adolescents as single informants to measure both victimization and adjustment, and as such results could be inflated by shared method variance. We also relied exclusively on student’s self-reports to measure bullying which may have led to under-reporting of victimization (Perren et al., 2010). Third, we were not able to control for baseline differences in depression because no such measure was available before wave 3. Fourth, we were only able to investigate depression and delinquency as outcomes of bullying victimization over a one-year period and therefore it is unclear whether the protective function of the variables we tested holds in the longer-term. Despite these limitations, our findings demonstrate clearly that there is a subset of bullied adolescents who sustain positive outcomes, as indicated by their levels of depression and delinquency. Both individual differences and qualities of relationships with parents, siblings and friends appear to play some role in explaining resilience to bullying. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving the psychosocial and behavioral development of bullied adolescents should take a holistic approach whereby victims are supported to develop their psychosocial competence while improving their family relationships. Kindsvatter and Desmond (2013) have recently advocated an attachment-based approach to resolving conflict between children and parents. Interventions to reduce sibling conflict are also starting to appear (Feinberg, Solmeyer, Hostetler, Sakuma, Jones, & McHale, 2012). Future research should consider a wider range of factors that may influence resilience, including biological mechanisms to aid the development of more holistic interventions that can help bullied adolescents bounce back from the negative effects of victimization. References Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2009). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: Much ado about nothing? Psychological Medicine, 40, 717–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 Bakker, M. P., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2010). Peer stressors and gender differences in adolescents’ mental health. The TRAILS study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 444–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.002 Barker, E. D., Arseneault, L., Brendgen, M., Fontaine, N., & Maughan, B. (2008). Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: Relationships to delinquency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1030–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.ObO13e31817eec98 Bowes, L., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2010). Families promote emotional and behavioral resilience to bullying: Evidence of an environmental effect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 809–817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02216.x Brunstein-Klomek, A., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. S. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of crosssectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 282–288. Burton, E. M., Stice, E., & Seeley, J. R. (2004). A prospective test of the stress-buffering model of depression in adolescent girls: No support once again. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 689–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.4.689 Campione-Barr, N., Bassett Greer, K., & Kruse, A. (2012). Differential associations between domains of sibling conflict and adolescent emotional adjustment. Child Development, 84, 938–954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12022 Catterson, J., & Hunter, S. C. (2010). Cognitive mediators of the effect of peer victimization on loneliness. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 403–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709909X481274 Cicchetti, D. (2010). Resilience under conditions of extreme stress: A multilevel perspective. World Psychiatry, 9, 145–154. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2948722/ Cook, C., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of childhood bullying and victimization: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020149 Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., & Bullying Writing HBSC Group. (2009). A crossnational profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9 Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Hartman, J. L., Turner, M. G., & Agnew, R. (2008). Gender, bullying victimization and juvenile delinquency: A test of general strain theory. Victims & Offenders, 3, 346–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880802338468 Doane, L. D., Franz, C. E., Prom-Wormley, E., Eaves, L. J., Mendoza, S. P., Hellhammer, D. H., & Jacobson, K. C. (2011). Negative emotionality, depressive symptoms and cortisol diurnal rhythms: Analysis of a community sample of middle-aged males. Hormones and Behavior, 60, 202–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.05.003 Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 517–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006131

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

9

Feinberg, M. E., Solmeyer, A. R., Hostetler, M. L., Sakuma, K. L., Jones, D., & McHale, S. M. (2012). Siblings are special: Initial test of a new approach for preventing youth behavior problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.10.004 [Epub ahead of print] Flaspohler, P., Elfstrom, J., Vanderzee, K., Sink, H., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 636–649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20404 Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of children and adolescent’s perceptions of friendships: Conceptual and methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence (pp. 41–65). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychology (pp. 213–233). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Gooren, E. M. J. C., Lier, P. A. C., van Stegge, G. T. M., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Koot, H. M. (2011). The development of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early elementary school children: The role of peer rejection. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 245–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.546045 Gower, A. L., & Borowsky, I. W. (2013). Associations between frequency of bullying involvement and adjustment in adolescence. Academic Pediatrics, 13, 214–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2013.02.004 Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Polo-Tomás, M., & Taylor, A. (2007). Individual, family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated children: A cumulative stressors model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 231–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.011 Kandel, D., & Davies, M. (1982). Epidemiology of depressive mood in adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1205–1212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290100065011 Kindsvatter, A., & Desmond, K. J. (2013). Addressing parent–child conflict: Attachment-based interventions with parents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91, 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00078.x Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Niemela, S., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Gould, M. (2009). Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide attempts and completed suicides: A population-based birth cohort study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 254–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318196b91f La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. W. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49–61. Luthar, S. S. (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885202/ Mason, W. A. (2001). Self-esteem and delinquency revisited (again): A test of Kaplan’s self-derogation theory of delinquency using latent growth curve modeling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 83–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005276905961 McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). Youth justice? The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 315–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477370807077186 Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009). Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 146–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004 Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying as School: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635–655. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096397 Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Forms of aggression and peer victimization during early childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 311–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9179-3 Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in schools and in cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Psychiatry, 4, 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-4-28 Pouwelse, M., Bolman, C., Lodewijkx, H., & Spaa, M. (2011). Gender differences and social support: Mediators or moderators between peer victimization and depressive feelings? Psychology in the Schools, 48, 800–814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20589 Reavis, R., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2010). Trajectories of peer victimization: The role of multiple relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 303–332. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951683/ Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rothon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 579–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.007 Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 119–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00108 Rutter, M. (2006). Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.002 Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 Schreier, A., Wolke, D., Thomas, K., Horwood, J., Hollis, C., Gunnell, D., & Harrison, G. (2009). Prospective study of peer victimization in childhood and psychotic symptoms in a nonclinical population at age 12 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 527–536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.23 Smith, D. J., & McVie, S. (2003). Theory and method in the Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 69–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/43.1.169 Smith, R. L., Rose, A. J., & Schwartz-Mette, R. A. (2009). Relational and overt aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender differences and associations with peer acceptance. Social Development, 19, 243–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00541.x Soli, A. R., McHale, S. M., & Feinberg, M. E. (2009). Risk and protective effects of sibling relationships among African American adolescents. Family Relations, 58, 578–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00576.x Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 213–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028931 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0174-5 Sullivan, T., Farrell, A., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457940606007X Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 577–594. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 63–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17596591111132873 Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying victimization and adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 53–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005 Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. K. (2010). The effects of child victimization on self-concept and depression. Child Maltreatment, 15, 76–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559509349444

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

G Model CHIABU-2592; No. of Pages 10 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Sapouna, D. Wolke / Child Abuse & Neglect xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Ueno, K. (2005). The effects of friendship networks on adolescent depressive symptoms. Social Science Research, 34, 484–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.002 Van de Velde, S., Bracke, P., & Levecque, K. (2010). Gender differences in depression in 23 countries: Cross-national variation in the gender gap in depression. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 305–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.035 Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2011). Peer victimization and academic adjustment among U.S. early adolescents: Moderation by gender and mediation by perceived classmate support. Journal of School Health, 81, 386–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00606.x Werner, E. E. (2013). What can we learn about resilience from large-scale longitudinal studies? In S. Goldstein, & R. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (2nd ed., pp. 87–102). New York: Springer. Winsper, C., Lereya, T., Zanarini, M., & Wolke, D. (2012). Involvement in bullying and suicide related behavior at 11 years: A prospective birth cohort study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.001 Wolke, D., & Skew, A. (2012). Bullying among siblings. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24, 17–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.2012.004 Wolke, D., Woods, S., & Samara, M. (2009). Who escapes or remains a victim of bullying in primary school? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 835–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151008X383003 Woods, S., Done, J., & Kalsi, H. (2009). Peer victimization and internalising difficulties: The moderating role of friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 293–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.005 Yeung, R. S., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2010). Adults make a difference: The protective effects of parent and teacher emotional support on emotional and behavioral problems among peer victimized adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 80–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20353 You, J., & Bellmore, A. (2011). Relational peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment: The mediating role of best friendship qualities. Personal Relationships, 19, 340–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01365.x

Please cite this article in press as: Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009