Content uploaded by David Hawker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Hawker on Oct 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J.
(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-
analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-
455., which has been published in final form at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-7610.00629/abstract. This article may be used
for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-
Archiving
Peer Victimization Review 2
Twenty Years' Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta-
analytic Review of Cross-sectional Studies
David S. J. Hawker*, Oxford Regional Training Course in Clinical Psychology, Isis Education
Centre, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX.
email: David.Hawker@oxmhc-tr.anglox.nhs.uk
Michael J. Boulton, Department of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG.
email: m.j.boulton@psy.keele.ac.uk
RUNNING HEAD: PEER VICTIMIZATION AND PSYCHOSOCIAL
MALADJUSTMENT
* Request for reprints
Peer Victimization Review 1
Twenty Years' Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta-
analytic Review of Cross-Sectional Studies
Peer Victimization Review 2
Abstract
Cross-sectional quantitative designs are often used to investigate whether peer
victimization is positively related to psychosocial maladjustment. This paper presents a meta-
analytic review of cross-sectional studies, of the association of peer victimization with
psychosocial maladjustment, that were published between 1978 and 1997. Mean effect sizes
were calculated for the association between peer victimization and each form of maladjustment
(depression, loneliness, generalized and social anxiety, and global and social self-worth)
assessed. The results suggested that victimization is most strongly related to depression, and
least strongly related to anxiety. There was no evidence that victimization is more strongly
related to social than to psychological forms of maladjustment. Effect sizes were stronger when
the same informants are used to assess both victimization and maladjustment than when
different informants are used. There were some design limitations to the studies reviewed, but
all together their results provide a strong background for more complex research into the
course and treatment of victims' distress.
Peer Victimization Review 3
Introduction
Peer victimization is the experience among children of being a target of the aggressive
behaviour of other children, who are not siblings and not necessarily age-mates. Peer
victimization is a problem of growing concern for researchers, educators, and clinicians (e.g.,
Ambert, 1995; Dawkins, 1995; Hazler & Hoover, 1996; Olweus, 1993a; Ross, 1996; Slee &
Rigby, 1994). Children targeted for peer aggression are variously described as being bullied
(e.g., Olweus, 1993a; Rigby, 1996; Whitney & Smith, 1993), being victimized (e.g., Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988), or sometimes as being rejected (e.g., Vernberg,
1990). In this paper, we refer to studies which used any of these terms, provided that they
made some measurement of the experience of being a target of peers' aggressive behaviour.
In recent years growing numbers of investigators have asked whether victims of peer
aggression experience psychosocial maladjustment (depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and
the like). It is clearly important to know the answer to this question, so that children's distress
does not go unrecognised. A common way of addressing it empirically is with cross-sectional
designs. In these designs quantitative methods are used to investigate the relation between
children's experiences of peer victimization and maladjustment, both assessed at a single point
in time. Cross-sectional studies of this type are increasing in number rapidly. At least six were
published in 1998 alone (Craig 1998; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998;
Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Salmon, James, & Smith, 1998; Stanley & Arora, 1998).
Independently of such studies, converging theoretical and empirical perspectives
suggest that victims may suffer greater psychosocial maladjustment than non-victims. First, a
number of theorists have argued that certain social psychological experiences, reminiscent of
peer victimization, play a central role in the development of depression and of other forms of
psychosocial maladjustment. For example, Gilbert (1992) outlined how attacks on peer-group
rank, with strong similarities to physical victimization, maintain depression; Baumeister and
Peer Victimization Review 4
Leary (1995) suggested that threats to social bonds (c.f. relational victimization) can lead to
anxiety, loneliness. or depression. Second, empirical research has shown that certain types of
maladjustment (such as loneliness, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem) are positively
associated with such peer relationship difficulties as submissiveness, social withdrawal, and
unpopularity with peers (e.g., Parkhurst & Asher, 1992; Strauss, Lahey, Frick, Frame, &
Hynd, 1988; Vosk, Forehand, Parker, & Rickard, 1982; Walker & Greene, 1986). These peer
relationship difficulties are themselves positively related to peer victimization (e.g., Bjorkqvist,
Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982; Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994;
Perry et al., 1988; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).
Thus there are strong a priori reasons to hypothesize that the pattern of results, from
cross-sectional studies of peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment, will show that
these two experiences are positively related. Unfortunately there has been no systematic or
meta-analytic reivew of cross-sectional studies of this type. As a consequence there is little
awareness in the literature about the strength of empirical evidence concerning victims' distress.
Investigators typically cite a small number of results, from a limited range of studies, which
may not be representative. The absence of evaluative reviews is unfortunate because many of
the forms of psychosocial maladjustment investigated separately in these studies are
conceptually and empirically related amongst themselves (see, e.g., Eason, Finch, Brasted, &
Saylor, 1985; Leary, 1990; West, Kellner, & Moorewest, 1986). In this paper we address the
question of victims' psychosocial maladjustment not with a new cross-sectional study, but by
collating and evaluating the results of previous studies in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis offers a
quantitative summary of the effect sizes reported in quantitative research papers, and reduces
the bias inherent in purely qualitative review papers (e.g., Rosenthal, 1995).
Forms of victimization and adjustment
Peer Victimization Review 5
Cross-sectional studies have employed a variety of measures of peer victimization.
Some have used generic definitions of victimization, asking children whether they are "bullied"
(e.g., Slee, 1994a), "harassed" (e.g., Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Berts, & King, 1982), or "picked
on" (e.g., Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). Others have specified types of aggressive behaviour
which victims might be targeted for, such as overt, physical, direct verbal, relational, and
indirect aggression (Alsaker, 1993; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996).
Many investigators have made conceptual distinctions among subtypes of peer victiumization,
and not all of these distinctions are compatible (Crick et al., 1997).
We distinguish three subtypes of peer victimization. Physical victimization (e.g.,
Österman et al., 1994; Rivers & Smith, 1994) is considered as any form of victimization in
which there is actual or threatened physical contact with the victim. Examples include being hit,
kicked, or punched. Relational victimization (after Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) is any form of
victimization in which the victims' affiliative relationships are attacked or threatened. Examples
include being excluded from peer activities (friendships, parties, games, conversations, and so
on). Subordinal victimization is any form of victimization in which the victims' social status or
rank is attacked or threatened. Subordinal victimization encompasses verbal victimization (c.f.,
Rivers & Smith, 1994) but is a more inclusive term. Examples include being targeted for name-
calling, malicious rumours, or verbal or non-verbal put-downs.
In most of the cross-sectional studies reviewed here, correlational methods, or tests of
difference between mean scores for victims, non-victims, and other groups have been used to
express the associations between one or more of these forms of peer victimization and
psychosocial adjustment. The forms of psychosocial maladjustment included here are:
depressed or dysphoric mood, loneliness, low social and global self-esteem and self-worth, and
generalized and social anxiety. These are the principal forms of psychosocial maladjustment
which have been investigated previously. It is not our intention to present an exhaustive review
Peer Victimization Review 6
that would include other measures which might be described as psychosocial maladjustment.
We will not include generalised measures of internalizing distress (such as general
maladjustment and inadequacy, as assessed by Olweus, 1978), non-social, non-general aspects
of children's self-concepts (such as academic, physical, or behavioural self-competence, as
assessed by Austin & Joseph, 1996), measures related mainly to school adjustment (such as
school liking, as assessed by Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), forms of adjustment which have
rarely been investigated in cross-sectional studies (such as self-restraint, measured by Crick &
Bigbee, 1998), or behaviourally-oriented measures of internalizing problems (such as social
withdrawal or submissiveness),
Source of informants and shared method variance
The informants who have been asked to make assessments of victimization in cross-
sectional studies have included not only the children in the cohort (giving self-reports), but also
their teachers, parents or peers. In some of the studies reviewed, victimization and adjustment
have been assessed by asking questions of the same informants; for instance, both have been
assessed by self-reports (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). In other studies, separate informants
have been used to measure separate variables; for example, Boivin and Hymel (1997) assessed
victimization by peer-report and loneliness by self-report.
Recently several studies have compared the adjustment correlates of peer-assessed and
self-assessed victimization (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Haselager,
1997). In these studies, self-reported victimization was more strongly associated than peer-
reported victimization with self-reported maladjustment, and peer-reported victimization was
more strongly associated than self-reported victimization with peer-reported maladjustment. In
other words, effect sizes were larger when informants were the same than when they were
different. To explain such findings the investigators proposed a variety of explanations. The
Peer Victimization Review 7
most parsimonious explanation, and the most useful for present purposes, was suggested by
Crick and Bigbee (1998) and Haselager (1997) and that is that the results are due to shared
method variance.
When the same method is used to assess outcome and predictor variables, any resulting
correlation between outcome and predictor could be explained partly by the fact that
measurement variance is shared between the two variables (e.g., Olweus, 1993b). Thus, a
correlation between how unhappy children feel, and how victimised they say they are, may not
primarily represent the association between victimization and unhappiness per se. Instead it
may represent the extent to which children who have negative feelings about one aspect of
their life tend also to have negative feelings about another aspect. Or it may reflect the
tendency of depressives to selectively recall negative events (c.f. Hammen & Glass, 1975). In
contrast, a correlation between children's own feelings of unhappiness, and their degree of
victimization as assessed by the reports of other informants is not so open to such alternative
interpretation. Other investigators in the field of peer relations have made similar points (e.g.,
Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991), and recommended that outcome and predictor variables be
assessed from different (or multiple) sources. When victimization is assessed by different
informants from those assessing adjustment, in the studies reviewed here, it is assumed that
shared method variance has been avoided as an alternative explanation of significant results.
Summary of Research Aims
Thus, in the present meta-analysis we aimed to collate the results of cross-sectional
studies which have made separate measurements of peer victimization (of generic, physical,
relational, or subordinal types) and psychosocial maladjustment (in the form of measures of
depressive or anxious symptoms, loneliness, and global and social self-concepts). For the
theoretical and empirical reasons outlined earlier, we predicted that victimization would be
Peer Victimization Review 8
positively related to each of these forms of maladjustment.
As well as summarising effect sizes across studies, we aimed to note a number of their
attributes which seemed important for an evaluation. These included participants' sexes, age
groups, and nationalities; the subtypes of victimization measured; the source on informants
(self-, peer-, teacher-, or parent-reports); the presence of shared method variance in effect
sizes; and the nature of adjustment measurements used. As shared method variance potentially
has a major impact on the magnitude of effect sizes, we separated effect size summaries
according the the degree of shared method variance present in measurements.
Method
Literature search
We attempted to locate all cross-sectional studies of peer victimization and psychosocial
maladjustment published between 1978, when the influential work of Olweus (1978) appeared,
and the end of June 1997. Although it would have been interesting to add more recent studies,
a great number of cross-sectional investigations were already published by that date. As they
are continually being added to, it was necessary to place a limit on the time period to be
sampled.
Published studies were located using a variety of recursive methods. We searched
electronic databases, PsycLit, BIDS ISI Social Science Citation Index, and OCLC Firstsearch,
using keywords BULLY* and VICT*, and also the names of known bullying researchers. We
consulted Skinner’s (1996) bibliography of bullying literature. We sought relevant publications
cited in reviews of the bullying literature and elsewhere in the peer relations literature. We
followed up citations, in articles and book chapters retrieved by these methods, that referred to
other work on victims’ adjustment. We conducted hand searches of journals in which papers
on victims’ adjustment had previously been published, and we wrote to authors who had
Peer Victimization Review 9
published in the field, asking for any relevant publications of which we were not aware.
Manuscripts retrieved in this way which remained unpublished by June 1997 were not included
in the meta-analysis.
Calculation of effect sizes
This meta-analysis followed the procedures outlined by Rosenthal (1984) and Strube
(1985) for calculating effect sizes, based on Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), and standard
normal deviates (Z-scores), for each study, and one-tailed probability values (as recommended
by Rosenthal) for mean effect sizes. Pearson's r was chosen as the measure of effect size
(Rosenthal, 1984) for summarising studies in this meta-analysis. These rs, based on
correlations between a continuum of victimization, and psychosocial maladjustment, amounted
to a comparison of victims with non-victims.
Direct estimates of r were available from some studies as Pearson's rs (Alsaker, 1993;
Austin & Joseph, 1996; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Callaghan & Joseph,
1995, for maladjustment of self-assessed victims; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Mynard &
Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994, for maladjustment of self-assessed victims; Rigby &
Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a, 1994b, 1995c; Vernberg, 1990), multiple Rs (Crick & Grotpeter,
1996) or s (Olweus, 1978). When rs were not available (Björkqvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz,
1982; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Byrne, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995, for maladjustment of
peer-assessed victims; Neary & Joseph, 1994, for maladjustment of peer-assessed victims;
O'Moore & Hillery, 1991; Sharp, 1996; Slee & Rigby, 1993b), rs were computed from the
statistics reported by the authors, according to formulae provided by Rosenthal (1984). In
some studies (Björkqvist et al., 1982; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Olweus,
1978) victims were compared with tightly-defined groups such as bullies, well-adjusted
children, or not-involved children. In these studies, effect sizes (s, equivalent to rs - see
Peer Victimization Review 10
Howell, 1992) were calculated from the omnibus Fs (if available) from analyses in which data
from all groups of participants had been included. Omnibus Fs were not available in the studies
published by Lagerspetz et al. (1982), and Slee and Rigby (1993b), but within-group means
and standard deviations were. From these, rs were computed via omnibus Fs (for Lagerspetz et
al., 1982), and Hedge's g (Rosenthal, 1984; for Slee & Rigby, 1993b).
Mean effect sizes were calculated separately for studies in which the shared method
variance was, and was not, present in the effect. The first of the present authors calculated Z-
statistics, and mean effect sizes and significance levels, using formulae provided by Rosenthal
(1984) and Strube (1985), and tables for Fisher's transformation of r to r´ (necessary for the
computation of unbiased mean effect sizes) from Howell (1992). When effect sizes were
reported separately for more than one independent group of participants (e.g., males and
females in Slee, 1994a, 1994b, 1995b, 1995c), the means of the rs and Zs reported or
computed, were displayed in the meta-analysis. When more than one test of the same
hypothesis was carried out, within a single study, on a single group of participants (Boivin et
al., 1995; Slee, 1994b; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Vernberg, 1990), mean rs were
calculated using Rosenthal's formula, and mean Zs using Strube's adjusted formula for non-
independence of hypotheses. The same procedure was followed to combine effect sizes across
subtypes of victimization, from studies in which effects were reported for more than one
subtype (Alsaker, 1993; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). In these instances, correlations between
repeated measures were used in adjusting for dependence, as recommended by Strube. There
was one instance in which different analyses of the same data set had been published separately
(Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995). When effect sizes could be estimated from both
publications (as for loneliness) they were taken from the study with the larger data set (Boivin
& Hymel, 1997). When more than one test had been carried out, but full details (i.e., statistical
values and, if necessary, the sample size) had not been reported (Björkqvist et al., 1982;
Peer Victimization Review 11
Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Olweus, 1978), the first author computed the smallest possible
effect size from the results available. This was not possible in Callaghan and Joseph's (1995)
study, as they published only the maximum effect sizes in their report, and so these were used
instead.
Results
Overview of study attributes
Variety of participants. The victimization-adjustment association has been investigated
among an impressive variety of populations. Both boys and girls have been considered in most
studies, although only girls were included in Neary and Joseph's (1994) study, and only boys in
two studies (Olweus, 1978; Slee & Rigby, 1993b). The age range of children studied is also
broad: it has included infant and preschool children (Alsaker, 1993; Kochenderfer & Ladd,
1996) and adolescents (Björkqvist et al., 1982; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Olweus, 1978; Rigby
& Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a, 1995b; Vernberg, 1990). But most of the studies’ participants have
been in their middle childhood (aged between eight and thirteen: Austin & Joseph, 1996;
Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph,
1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994; O'Moore &
Hillery, 1991; Sharp, 1996; Slee, 1994b, 1995c; Slee & Rigby, 1993b).
Participants have been drawn from a variety of countries. These include Australia
(Rigby, 1996; Rigby & Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c; Slee & Rigby,
1993a, 1993b); French Canada (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995); Northern Ireland
(Callaghan & Joseph, 1995); the Irish Republic (Byrne, 1994; Neary & Joseph, 1994;
O'Moore & Hillery, 1991); Finland (Björkqvist et al., 1982; Lagerspetz et al., 1982); Norway
(Alsaker, 1993); Sweden (Olweus, 1978); the United States (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Vernberg, 1990); and mainland Britain (Austin & Joseph, 1996;
Peer Victimization Review 12
Boulton & Smith, 1994; Boulton & Underwood, 1992; MacLeod & Morris, 1996; Mynard &
Joseph, 1997; Sharp, 1996; Williams, Chambers, Logan, & Robinson, 1996). These countries
are largely western, however, and Scandinavian or English-speaking.
Subtypes of victimization. In most of the studies reviewed, subtypes of victimization
were not assessed separately. Rather, victimization has been measured as a composite of two or
more subtypes (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Björkqvist et al., 1982; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin
et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Byrne, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Kochenderfer
& Ladd, 1996; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994;
Olweus, 1978; O'Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a, 1994b, 1995b,
1995c; Slee & Rigby, 1993b; Vernberg, 1990). Physical and subordinal victimization (or at
least forms of victimization approximating their definitions above) have generally been included
in the assessment of victimization in the studies reviewed here.
Assessments of victimization have included relational victimization in only four of the
published studies reviewed (Alsaker, 1993; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Sharp, 1996; Boulton &
Underwood, 1992, in which data for the calculation of effect sizes were not published).
Additionally, in some studies (Björkqvist et al., 1982; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Slee, 1994a)
only a generic form of victimization has been assessed, without further specification of the
types of victimization that are meant.
Source of informants. Victimization has most commonly been assessed by self-report
or peer-report (e.g., Austin & Joseph, 1996; Björkqvist et al., 1982; Boivin & Hymel, 1997;
Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter,
1996; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary &
Joseph, 1994; O'Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1992; Sharp, 1996; Slee, 1994a,
1994b, 1995b, 1995c; Slee & Rigby, 1993b; Vernberg, 1990). Psychosocial maladjustment
has usually been measured by self-report (e.g., Austin & Joseph, 1996; Björkqvist et al., 1982;
Peer Victimization Review 13
Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Byrne, 1994; Callaghan
& Joseph, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Lagerspetz et al.,
1982; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994; O'Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby &
Slee, 1992; Sharp, 1996; Slee, 1994a, 1994b, 1995b, 1995c; Slee & Rigby, 1993b; Vernberg,
1990).
Effects of victimization on contemporaneous maladjustment
Overview. Tables 1 to 5 summarise the results of published studies of the relationship
between victimization and each form of psychosocial maladjustment. The number and age
range of participants contributing to the effect size are displayed in the second and third
columns. Unless otherwise indicated, children of both sexes participated in the studies. In the
fourth and fifth columns are indications of the type of informants’ reports used to assess
victimization (self-, peer-, teacher-, or parent-reports), and of the subtypes of victimization
assessed (generic, physical, subordinal, or relational. Both these methodological attributes are
indicated in abbreviated form, as shown in the footnote to each table.
The effects in each table are separated according to whether there was shared method
variance due to shared informants present in the effect. For example, if both victimization and
maladjustment were assessed by self-report, shared method variance was not avoided as an
explanation of effect size. If victimization was assessed by peer-report, and maladjustment by
self-report, shared method variance was avoided as an explanation of effect size.
In the final columns of Tables 1 to 5 the effect size r, and the corresponding Z-score
are reported. Within each category of effect (with and without shared method variance) studies
are listed in order of increasing effect size. Mean effect sizes and their overall significance
levels are shown separately for studies with and without shared method variance. In the display
of effect sizes, the valence of negative rs and Zs is reversed when these indicate a negative
Peer Victimization Review 14
relationship between victimization and maladjustment. Thus, the effect sizes presented in
Tables 1 to 5, which were all positive, represent the magnitude of positive associations between
victimization and maladjustment found in each study. One-tailed significance levels, as
recommended by Rosenthal (1984), are given for the overall Z-score, but not for individual Z-
scores, because it is the overall significance level which is of interest.
Table 1 about here
Depression. It is clear from the studies presented in Table 1 that victimization is
positively associated with depression. Mean effect sizes were significantly greater than zero (p
< .0001), whether or not there was shared method variance in the effect. Victims of peer
aggression tended to be more depressed than non-victims. Effect sizes were smaller when
shared method variance was avoided than when it was not. When victimization was assessed
by peers, and depression by self-report, the mean effect size was r = .29, representing 8.4%
shared variance. The range was .24 to .36. When both victimization and depression were
assessed by self-report, the mean effect size was r = .45 (20.3% shared variance), with a range
of .23 to .81. Nevertheless, victimization and depression were clearly associated independently
of shared method variance.
Similar findings have been made in research which is not summarised in Table 1, and
which used slightly different dependent measures. MacLeod and Morris (1996) reported that
over 4% of a sample of children who called a bullying telephone helpline had expressed
suicidal thoughts. These authors did not make a comparison to the prevalence of suicidal
thoughts in the normal population, or among callers to helplines which are not specifically
targeted at victims of peer aggression, however. Rigby (1996) found that among secondary
school children victims were twice as likely as non-victims to report suicidal thoughts and other
Peer Victimization Review 15
symptoms of depression.1 Other researchers have also found that victims rate themselves as
generally less happy (Rigby & Slee, 1992; Williams et al., 1996), or less happy in a school
context (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Slee, 1995a, 1995c; Slee & Rigby, 1993a) than non-
victims. Data concerning unhappiness and suicidal ideation are not included in Table 1, as
there was an abundance of studies which used well-validated measures of depression, such as
the Children's Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992 - used by Boivin et al., 1995; and Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996), the Depression Self-Rating Scale (Birleson, 1981 - used by Austin &
Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Neary & Joseph, 1994; and Slee, 1995c).
The major limitation of depression-victimization research is in its measurement of
victimization. Only one study measured relational victimization (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996), and
this study did not include subordinal victimization. Only one study (Boivin et al., 1995) used
more than one item to assess peer-reported victimization.
Table 2 about here
Loneliness. Fewer studies have been published in which loneliness was the dependent
variable. In these studies the mean effect size from published studies was smaller for loneliness
than for depression. Nevertheless, it is clear from the studies presented in Table 2 that
loneliness is positively associated with victimization. Mean effect sizes were significantly
greater than zero (p < .0001), whether or not shared method variance was avoided. The
tendency was, again, for effects to be smaller when shared method variance was avoided
(mean r = .25, range = .14 to .49) than when it was not (mean r = .32, range = .15 to .34). On
average, loneliness and victimization shared 6.3% of variance when there was no shared
method variance, and 10.2% of variance when there was shared method variance.
Peer Victimization Review 16
Thus, victims were more lonely than non-victims, irrespective of shared method
variance. Similar conclusions have been drawn from unpublished data reported in published
reports (Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Slee & Rigby, 1994), and can be drawn from an
analysis of Boivin and Hymel's (1997) data with a smaller sample (Boivin, et al., 1995). Most
of the studies (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Slee & Rigby, 1994)
employed a well-validated measure of loneliness - the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction
Scale (Asher & Wheeler, 1985), or its equivalent for younger children (used by Kochenderfer
& Ladd, 1996). It is possible that other measures of loneliness are not so strongly correlated
with victimization, given the smaller effect sizes calculated from Alsaker's (1993) data. But this
research is not limited to the same extent as the victimization-depression research, as both
Alsaker (1993), and Boulton and Underwood (1992) included relational and subordinal
victimization in their measures.
Table 3 about here.
Anxiety and Social Anxiety. In the literature it is fairly common to find victimization
positively correlated with some measure of social anxiety (e.g., Alsaker, 1993; Boulton &
Smith, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Slee, 1994b), or with constructs which are similar but
not equivalent to anxiety, such as neuroticism (Byrne, 1994; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Slee &
Rigby, 1994) or anxious self-concept (O'Moore & Hillery, 1991). Studies of the relationship
between victimization and generalised anxiety are less common. In two separate studies, Slee
(1994a, 1995b) found that victimization was positively correlated with anxiety measured as a
subscale of a published health symptom checklist. Using the same items from this checklist (but
not combining them in a single index of anxiety), Rigby (1996) also found more symptoms of
anxiety among victims than non-victims. Olweus (1978) and Lagerspetz et al. (1982) found
Peer Victimization Review 17
that victimization was positively correlated with unvalidated measures of anxiety. In
unpublished studies Pierce (1990) and Kupersmidt, Voegler, Sigda, and Sedikides (1997) have
also shown that anxiety was positively related to victimization.
The studies are summarised separately for social and generalized anxiety in Table 3,
with an indication of the measures of anxiety used. Table 3 shows that the mean effect sizes
for social and generalized anxiety were barely different from one another. Victims were more
generally and socially anxious than non-victims, independently of shared method variance. The
effect sizes were smaller than for other forms of psychosocial maladjustment, although they
were again clearly greater than zero (p < .01). Across studies in which there was shared
method variance, victimization shared 6.3% of its variance with both social and general
anxiety. When there was no shared method variance, victimization shared 4.3% of its variance
with general anxiety and 2.0% of its variance with social anxiety.
There are relatively few of these studies in which validated measures of generalized
anxiety have been employed, and in which the breadth of victimization experience has been
assessed. One published study (Alsaker, 1993) and one unpublished study (Kupersmidt et al.,
1997) measured physical, subordinal and relational victimization, but both these studies used
single items to assess either anxiety or some of these forms of victimization.
Table 4 about here
General or global self-esteem. A large number of cross-sectional studies have
investigated the relation between peer victimization and children's global or general self-
concepts. Across these studies, as shown in Table 4, victimization was correlated with low self-
esteem, independently of shared method variance (mean r = .21, p < .0001, representing 4.4%
shared variance), and more so in studies in which shared method variance was not avoided
Peer Victimization Review 18
(mean r = .39, p < .0001, 15.2% shared variance). It is possible that shared method variance
may bias the mean effect sizes across self-concept studies more than in the studies involving
depression, loneliness, and anxiety. This bias is due to the results of four studies by Joseph and
his colleagues (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Mynard & Joseph, 1997;
Neary & Joseph, 1994). Neary and Joseph (1994) developed a self-report peer victimisation
scale, which they immersed in Harter's (1985) Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPFC)
such that children were asked to respond to its items in the same way as they did to other items
in the SPPFC. The same peer victimisation scale was used in the other work published by
Joseph and colleagues. In other words, the methods of assessing victimisation and self-concept
used by Joseph have even more in common than they do in other studies where both variables
were self-assessed (such as Alsaker, 1993; O'Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1992;
Sharp, 1996; Slee & Rigby, 1993b). Sure enough, in Joseph's work, there are high correlations
among the subscales of the SPPFC, and also between these and his peer victimisation scale.
The mean r for global self-concept across his four studies summarised in Table 4 was .48 for
global self-concept. In contrast, the mean r for global self-concept across the other published
studies in which there was shared method variance (Alsaker, 1993; O'Moore & Hillery, 1991;
Rigby & Slee, 1992; Sharp, 1996; Slee & Rigby, 1993b) was .31. All mean rs remained highly
significant (p < .0001).
Leaving aside these considerations, one of the strengths of the cross-sectional studies of
global self-concepts is that they have employed a variety of different, widely used, and
empirically validated self-esteem inventories, and consistently demonstrated that victims have
low self-esteem. One of the limitations is that relational victimization has only rarely been
assessed (except by Alsaker, 1993; and Sharp, 1996; and perhaps by Byrne, 1994, though it
was not clear in his report whether or not he measured it). Another is that, when shared
method variance has been avoided, only one item has been used to measure victimization
Peer Victimization Review 19
(except by Byrne, 1994).
Table 5 about here
Social self-concept. Measures of children's social self-concept index the extent to which
they see themselves as being socially competent, well-accepted by their peers, or having good
social relationships. It has generally been found that victims tend to have negative views of
themselves in the social domain, as shown in Table 5. Again, this pattern has been shown with
a variety of widely-used and validated instruments. The mean effect size for published studies
with shared method variance was .35 (12.3% variance shared between victimization and social
self-esteem), and .23 for those without (5.3% variance shared between the variables); both
were highly significant (p < .0001). The magnitude of effect sizes in studies with shared
method variance was again affected by the measure of victimization used. Across Joseph's
studies (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary &
Joseph, 1994) the mean effect size for self-reported victimization and self-reported social self-
worth was .46. Across the remaining studies (O'Moore & Hillery, 1991; Slee & Rigby, 1993b;
Vernberg, 1990) that relied exclusively on self-reports the mean effect was .20. A major
limitation of this group of studies is that none of them employed a composite measure of
victimization which included relational victimization.
Table 6 about here
Summary and Discussion
This paper presented the first meta-analysis of the victimization-adjustment literature.
The pattern of results across cross-sectional studies strongly suggested that victims of peer
Peer Victimization Review 20
aggression experience more negative affect, and negative thoughts about themselves, than other
children. The strength of previous research is in the number of studies which have been carried
out, using a variety of methods and with participants drawn from diverse populations. For ease
of comparison of the impact of different adjustment variables and different informants, mean
effect sizes from Tables 1 to 5 are summarised in Table 6. Table 6 demonstrates clearly that
effect sizes were uniformly larger when there was shared method variance than when there was
not. In other words, victimization was more strongly correlated with psychosocial
maladjustment when both variables were assessed by asking the same informants (who were
usually the participants themselves), than when different informants were used to assess each
variable.
Victimization and different forms of maladjustment
The relative sizes of effects for different forms of maladjustment are worthy of
comment. Several authors have asserted that victims are typically fearful and anxious (e.g.
Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1993a; Rigby, 1996; Ross, 1996; Tattum & Tattum, 1992). Similarly, it
is widely asserted in the bullying literature that victims have low self-esteem (e.g., by Besag,
1989; Farrington, 1993; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1993a; Perry, Perry, &
Kennedy, 1992; Randall, 1996; and Ross, 1996). In contrast, the largest effect sizes in this
meta-analysis were for depression, and the smallest for anxiety. Effect sizes for loneliness, and
social and global or general self-esteem, were midway between these. Additionally, effects for
social and global self-esteem were substantially lowered after excluding a group of studies
(Austin & Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary &
Joseph, 1994) which used similarly-structured victimization and self-concept measures. All
together these results suggest that, while victims are indeed generally and socially anxious and
have low global and social self-esteem, they are even more strongly characterized by feelings of
Peer Victimization Review 21
loneliness and dysphoria.
This is an important observation, and one which deserves further investigation. These
dysphoric feelings may find an explanation in social rank theory (Gilbert, 1992), which
proposes that social experiences like victimization are implicated particularly in the
development of depression. The associations of victimization with anxiety and a poor self-
concept were first observed in pioneering research (Olweus, 1978), in which depression and
loneliness were not assessed. One might hypothesize that these associations, being less strong
across studies, are due primarily to the comorbidity of anxiety and low-self-esteem with
depression. Unfortunately, the studies reviewed here do not allow a test of this depression
hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, it is necessary to use more than one adjustment variable as a
predictor of concurrent victimization, while controlling for the correlations between different
forms of adjustment. In a recent study (Reference withheld for masked review purposes, 1998)
we compared self-reported depressed mood, loneliness, anxiety, and social and global self-
esteem as predictors of contemporaneous peer victimization among children aged between
eight and twelve. When inter-correlations between different forms of maladjustment were
controlled, all of them were related to self-reported victimization, but depression and loneliness
emerged as the strongest predictors of peer-reported victimization. These results offer some
tentative support to the depression hypothesis. Replications using similar designs would help
show whether victimization is primarily related to children's negative thoughts about themselves
and their lives, to their socially-related concerns, to their anxiety-related cognitions, or to some
combination of these.
Another type of comparison available in Table 6 is between forms of maladjustment
which might be described as primarily social (loneliness, social self-concept, and social anxiety)
and those which might be described as primarily psychological (depression, global self-concept,
and generalized anxiety). Given that peer victimization is a social experience, one might expect
Peer Victimization Review 22
it to be more strongly related to social than to psychological forms of maladjustment. In fact
there is no evidence for this proposition. If anything it seems the other way around. Across the
studies, victimization was no more strongly related to social self-worth than to global self-
worth. Victimization was marginally less strongly related to social anxiety than to generalized
anxiety, and less strongly related to loneliness than to depression. It would be unwise, given the
variation in adjustment measures, to make too much of the greater effects for psychological
maladjustment. But these results make it clear, at least, that victims' emotional suffering is not
confined to the social domain. Again, it is difficult to say whether victimization is primarily
related to social or to psychological forms of maladjustment, without conducting a study which
controls for the relation between different forms of maladjustment.
General implications for future research
A number of more specific limitations of the studies reviewed here could be addressed
in future research. First, few previous studies have included relational victimization, either in its
own right (e.g., Alsaker, 1993; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996), or as part of an index of composite
victimization (e.g., Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Sharp, 1996). Even in some of those in
which it was assessed, subordinal victimization was not measured. It is possible that effect sizes
have been exaggerated or under-estimated as a consequence. Second, while in several studies
multiple items have been used in the self-assessment of victimization, there is a shortage of
studies that have used more than one item in peer-assessments of victimization. Third,
researchers have generally reported significance levels but not effect sizes. This practice may
encourage the impression that a single study can show, on the basis of an arbitrary significance
level, whether or not victimization is related to a particular form of maladjustment. We have
attempted to show in this review that it is more effective to combine effect sizes across studies
than to base conclusions on the results of significance tests in a single study. Fourth, there is a
Peer Victimization Review 23
need for studies of children from cultural backgrounds which are not Scandanavian or English-
speaking.
In many ways, however, the strengths of cross-sectional studies outweigh their
weaknesses. Together they demonstrate that victims of peer aggression suffer a variety of
feelings of psychosocial distress. They feel more anxious, socially anxious, depressed, lonely,
and worse about themselves than do non-victims. The evidence suggests that these feelings
occur among victims of both sexes, of all age groups, and of all subtypes of victimization.
Across studies in which different informants' reports were used to measure victimization and
adjustment, the aggregated effects show that victims' reports of distress cannot be explained
away as an artefact of shared method variance. That is, children who are seen as victims by
their peers tend to report greater distress than children who are not seen as victims by their
peers. Conclusions such as these have been drawn before from single empirical studies or in
qualitative review papers. Here they are clearly demonstrated in a pattern of aggregated
quantitative effects.
We suggest that the strongest implication of these conclusions is that there is little need
now for further cross-sectional studies of peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment.
There is some value in designing studies which will address some of the limitations of past
research, by accounting for issues such as comorbidity, the measurement of victimization, and
cross-cultural variability. Otherwise it is time for victimization research to move on. Early
studies of bullying and victimization, ably reviewed by Farrington (1993), answered questions
about prevalence. More recent studies, including those reviewed here, focused on the
correlates of victimization. We suggest that it is time for researchers to look at questions which
arise out of the conclusions of the current meta-analysis. Among these questions are matters of
risk, causation, the differential relation of maladjustment to subtypes of victimization, and
interventions to reduce victims' distress. Some studies have been published which begin to
Peer Victimization Review 24
address these questions (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Cunningham et al., 1998;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1993a, 1993b; Smith & Sharp, 1994; Reference
withheld for masked review purposes, 1998). But they are far fewer in number than the cross-
sectional studies incorporated in this meta-analysis. If more researchers devote themselves to
addressing these more complex questions, then professional understanding of victim's distress
can grow.
Peer Victimization Review 25
Acknowledgements
This work was completed with financial assistance from the University of Keele.
Portions of the material were presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for
the Study of Behavioral Development, Berne, July 1998, and to the British Psychological
Society, London, December 1998. We are grateful to Precilla Choi, Debbie Lovell, Susan
O'Neill and Peter K. Smith for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Peer Victimization Review 26
References
Note: Data from asterisked papers was included in the meta-analysis.
* Alsaker, F.D. (1993). Isolement et maltraitance par les pairs dans les jardins d'enfants:
comment mesurer ces phénomènes et quelles sont leurs onséquences? [Isolation and bullying in
day-care centres: How can these phenomena be measured and what are their consequences?]
Enfance, 47, 241-260.
Ambert, A-M. (1995). Toward a theory of peer abuse. Sociological Studies of Children, 7,
177-205.
Asher, S.R., & Wheeler, V.A. (1985). Children's loneliness: A comparison of rejected and
neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500-505.
* Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Besag, V.E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Peer Victimization Review 27
Birleson, P. (1981). The validity of depressive disorder in childhood and the development of a
self rating scale: A research report. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 22, 73-88.
* Björkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their ego picture,
ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 307-313.
* Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential
model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135-145.
* Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W.M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer
rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765-685.
* Boulton, M.J., & Smith, P.K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children:
Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 12, 315-329.
Boulton, M.J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school
children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87.
* Byrne, B.J. (1994). Bullies and victims in a school setting with reference to some Dublin
schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 15, 574-586.
Peer Victimization Review 28
* Callaghan, S., & Joseph, S. (1995). Self-concept and peer victimization among
schoolchildren. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 161-163.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and
aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt victimization: A multiinformant
approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347.
* Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1996). Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational
and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.
Crick, N. R., Wellman, N. E., Casas, J. F., O'Brien, K. M., Nelson, D. A., Grotpeter, J. K., &
Markon, K. (1997). Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an old problem. In D.
Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 45. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran , A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R.
(1998). The effects of primary division student-mediated conflict resolution programs on
playground aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39,
653-662.
Peer Victimization Review 29
Dawkins, J. (1995). Bullying in schools: Doctors' responsibilities. British Medical Journal, 310,
274-275.
Eason, L.J., Finch, A.J., Jr., Brasted, W., & Saylor, C.F. (1985). The assessment of
depression and anxiety in hospitalized pediatric patients. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 16, 57-64.
Farrington, D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime
and justice (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness. Hove: Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998. Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An
attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587-599.
Hammen, C.L., & Glass, D.R. (1975). Depression, activity and evaluation of reinforcement.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 718-721.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO:
University of Denver.
Haselager, G.J.T. (1997). Classmates: Studies on the development of their relationships and
personality in middle childhood. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Catholic University of Nijmegen,
Peer Victimization Review 30
The Netherlands.
Hazler, R.J., & Hoover, J.H. (Eds.). (1996). Putting bullies out of business. [Special Issue].
Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Problems, 5(1).
Howell, D.C. (1992). Statistical Methods for Psychology (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
* Kochenderfer, B.J., & Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer victimisation: Cause or consequence of
school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-
Health Systems.
Kumpulainen, K., Raesaenen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S.L.,
Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Puura, K., & Tamminen, T. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptoms
among elementary school-age children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 705-717.
Kupersmidt, J.B., & Patterson, C.J. (1991). Childhood peer rejection, aggression, withdrawal,
and perceived competence as predictors of self-reported behavior problems in preadolescence.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 427-449.
Kupersmidt, J.B., Voegler, M.E., Sigda, K.B., & Sedikides, C. (1997, April). Social self
discrepancy theory: Social self-cognitions as mediators of peer relations problems and
Peer Victimization Review 31
concurrent adjustment. In A.H.N. Cillessen, & M.E. DeRosier (Chairs), Linking Peer
Relations and Adjustment: The role of interpersonal perceptions. Symposium conducted at the
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
* Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Björkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among
school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 45-52.
Leary, M.R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221-229.
MacLeod, M., & Morris, M. (1996). Why Me? Children talk to ChildLine about bullying.
London: ChildLine.
* Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck's
personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 51-
54.
* Neary, A, & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its relationship to self-concept and
depression among schoolgirls. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 183-186.
* O'Moore, A.M., & Hillery, B. (1991). What do teachers need to know. In M. Elliott (Ed.),
Bullying: A practical guide for coping in schools. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Peer Victimization Review 32
* Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere (Wiley).
Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term consequences. In
K.H. Rubin & J.B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Huesmann, L. R., &
Fraczek, A. (1994). Peer and self-estimated aggression and victimization in 8-year-old children
from five ethnic groups. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 411-428.
Parkhurst, J.T. & Asher, S.R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in
behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 231-241.
Perry, D.G., Kusel, S.J., & Perry, L.C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 807-814.
Perry, D.G., Perry, L.C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and the development of antisocial
behaviour. In C.U. Shantz & W.W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in Child and Adolescent
Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peer Victimization Review 33
Pierce, S. (1990). The behavioral attributes of victimized children. Unpublished master's thesis,
Florida Atlantic University.
Randall, P. (1996). A community approach to bullying. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. London: Jessica Kingsley.
* Rigby, K. & Slee, P.T. (1992). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian
children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133,
33-42.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive
Behavior, 20, 359-368.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183-192.
Ross, D.M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: What school personnel, other
professionals, and parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American Counselling Association.
Salmon, G., James, A., & Smith, D. M. (1998). Bullying in schools: Self-reported anxiety,
Peer Victimization Review 34
depression, and self-esteem in secondary school children. British Medical Journal, 317, 924-
925.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1993). The emergence of chronic victimization in
boys' peer groups. Child Development, 64, 1755-1772.
* Sharp, S. (1996). Self-esteem, response style and victimization: Possible ways of preventing
victimization through parenting and school based training programs. School Psychology
International, 17, 347-357.
Skinner, A. (1996). Bullying: An annotated bibliography of literature and resources (2nd Ed.).
Leicester: Youth Work Press.
* Slee, P.T. (1994a). Life at school used to be so good. Youth Studies Australia, 1 (Summer),
20-23.
* Slee, P.T. (1994b). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer
victimisation. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97-107.
Slee, P.T. (1995a). Bullying in the playground: The impact of inter-personal violence on
Australian children's perceptions of their play environment. Children's Environments, 12, 320-
327.
Peer Victimization Review 35
* Slee, P.T. (1995b). Bullying: Health concerns of Australian secondary school students.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 5, 215-224.
* Slee, P.T. (1995c). Peer victimization and its relationship to depression among Australian
primary school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 57-62.
Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993a). Australian school children's self appraisal of interpersonal
relations: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23, 273-282.
* Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993b). The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self-
esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual
Differences, 14, 371-373.
Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1994). Peer victimisation at school. AECA Australian Journal of
Early Childhood, 19, 3-10.
Smith, P.K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Stanley, L., & Arora, T. (1998). Social exclusion amongst adolescent girls: Their self-esteem
and coping strategies. Educational Psychology in Practice, 14, 94-100.
Strauss, C.C., Lahey, B.B., Frick, P., Frame, C.L., & Hynd, G.W. (1988). Peer social status
Peer Victimization Review 36
of children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 137-
141.
Strube, M.J. (1985). Combining and comparing significance levels from nonindependent
hypothesis tests. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 334-341.
Tattum, D., & Tattum, E. (1992). Bullying: A whole-school response. In N. Jones & E.B.
Jones (Eds.), Learning to behave: Curriculum and whole-school management approaches to
discipline. London: Kogan Page.
* Vernberg, E.M. (1990). Psychological adjustment and experience with peers during early
adolescence: Reciprocal, incidental, or unidirectional relationships? Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 18, 187-198.
Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J.B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A multimethod comparison of
popular and unpopular children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 571-575.
Walker, L.S., & Greene, J.W. (1986). The social-context of adolescent self-esteem. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 15, 315-322.
West, D.A., Kellner, R., & Moorewest, M. (1986). The effects of loneliness - a review of the
literature. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 27, 351-363.
Peer Victimization Review 37
Whitney, I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25.
Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996). Association of common
health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. British Medical Journal, 313, 17-19.
Peer Victimization Review 38
Footnote
1. Rigby (1996) did not report total depression scores which would allow computation of
effect sizes.
Peer Victimization Review 39
Table 1
Published studies of the contemporaneous association between victimization and depression
Study
N
Age range
Victimization
informants
Victimization
subtypesa
r
Z
Studies with shared method variance
Vernberg (1990)
73
12-14
Self
GPS
.23
1.80
Slee (1995b)
220
12-17
Self
GPS
.26
3.86
Slee (1994a)
363
12-15
Self
G
.31
5.72
Björkqvist et al. (1982)
67
14-16
Peer
G
.38
2.33
Austin & Joseph (1996)
425
8-11
Self
GPS
.39
7.93
Peer Victimization Review 40
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
438
8-12
Self
PR
.42
8.79
Slee (1995c)
290
mean = 10.9
Self
GPS
.51
8.60
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
120
10-12
Self
GPSb
.53
4.21
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
60
10-12
Self
GPSb
.81
6.27
Mean effect size across studies with shared method variance
Studies avoiding shared method variance
.45****
Boivin et al. (1995)
567
9-12
Peer
GPS
.24
5.41
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
63
10-12
Peer
Gb
.26
2.85
Neary & Joseph (1994) c
60
10-12
Peer
Gb
.36
2.79
Mean effect size across studies avoiding shared method variance
.29****
Notes.
**** p < .0001.
a G = generic victimization; P = physical victimization; S = subordinal victimization; R = relational victimization.
Peer Victimization Review 41
b Separate effect sizes were published for peer-reported and self-reported victimization.
C Girls only.
Peer Victimization Review 42
Table 2
Published studies of the contemporaneous association between victimization and loneliness
Study
N
Age
range
Victimization
informants
Victimization
subtypesa
r
Z
Studies with shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
120
6-7
Self, teachers,
peers, parents
PSR
.14
1.50
Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)
200
5-6
Self
GPS
.31
4.76
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
438
8-12
Self
PR
.49
10.25
Mean effect sizes for studies with shared method variance
Studies avoiding shared method variance
.32****
Peer Victimization Review 43
Alsaker (1993)
120
6-7
Self, teachers,
peers, parents
PSR
.15
1.66
Boivin & Hymel (1997)
798
8-10
Peer
GPS
.34
9.57
Mean effect sizes across studies avoiding shared method variance
.25****
Notes.
**** p < .0001.
a G = generic victimization; P = physical victimization; S = subordinal victimization; R = relational victimization.
Peer Victimization Review 44
Table 3
Published studies of the contemporaneous association between victimization and anxiety
Study
N
Age range
Victimization
informants
Victimization
subtypesa
Dependent measure
r
Z
Generalized anxiety: Studies with shared method variance
Slee (1995b)
220
12-17
Self
GPS
Anxiety
.20
2.97
Slee (1994a)
363
12-15
Self
G
Anxiety
.29
5.53
Mean effect size for generalized anxiety across studies with shared method variance
.25****
Peer Victimization Review 45
Generalized anxiety: Studies avoiding shared method variance
Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
239
12-16
Peer
G
Q-inventory anxiety
.18
2.78
Olweus (1978)b
64
13
Teacher
PS
Q-sort anxiety
.24
1.67
Mean effect size for generalized anxiety across studies avoiding shared method variance
.21**
Social anxiety: Studies with shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
120
6-7
self, teachers,
peers, parents
PSR
Fear of peers
.13
1.03
Boulton & Smith (1994)
57
8-10
peer
GPS
Shyness
.17
1.28
Slee (1994b)
114
9-13
self
GPS
Social avoidance
.25
2.67
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
438
8-12
self
PR
Social anxiety
.26
5.44
Peer Victimization Review 46
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
438
8-12
self
PR
Social avoidance
.30
6.28
Slee (1994b)
114
9-13
self
GPS
Fear of negative
evaluation
.40
4.27
Mean effect size for social anxiety across studies with shared method variance
Social anxiety: Study avoiding shared method variance
.25****
Alsaker (1993)
120
6-7
self, teachers,
peers, parents
PSR
Fear of peers
.14**
2.50
Overall mean effect sizes for
anxiety
Shared method variance
No shared method variance
.25****
.19****
Notes
Peer Victimization Review 47
** p < .01. **** p < .0001.
a G = generic victimization; P = physical victimization; S = subordinal victimization; R = relational victimization.
b Boys only.
Peer Victimization Review 48
Table 4
Published studies of the contemporaneous association between victimization and global/general self-esteem
Study
N
Age range
Victimization
informants
Victimization
subtypesa
r
Z
Studies with shared method variance
O’Moore & Hillery (1991)
783
7-13
self
G
.12
3.36
Rigby & Slee (1992)
810
12-18
self
GPS
.22
6.26
Alsaker (1993)
120
6-7
self, teachers,
peers, parents
PSR
.24
5.13
Peer Victimization Review 49
Austin & Joseph (1996)
425
8-11
self
GPS
.38
7.70
Sharp (1996)
377
11-12
self
PSR
.41
7.96
Mynard & Joseph (1997)
179
8-13
self
GPS
.45
6.02
Slee & Rigby (1993b)b
87
7-13
self
GPS
.52
4.85
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
60
10-12
self
GPS
.53
4.11
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
120
10-12
self
GPS
.55
4.26
Mean effect size across studies with shared method variance
Studies avoiding shared method variance
.39****
Alsaker (1993)
120
6-7
self, teachers,
peers, parents
PSR
.03
1.75
Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
239
12-16
peer
G
.17
2.63
Peer Victimization Review 50
Boulton & Smith (1994)
76
8-10
peer
GPS
.17
1.51
Byrne (1994)
177
primary & secondary
school age
teachers, peers
PS?
.23
3.00
Olweus (1978)b
64
age 13
teacher
PS
.26
2.08
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
60
10-12
peer
G
.22
1.70
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
63
10-12
peer
G
.38
2.94
Mean effect size across studies avoiding shared method variance
.21****
Notes
**** p < .0001.
a G = generic victimization; P = physical victimization; S = subordinal victimization; R = relational victimization; ? = type of victimization cannot be
determined from published description.
b Boys only.
Peer Victimization Review 51
c Girls only.
Peer Victimization Review 52
Table 5
Published studies of the contemporaneous association between victimization and social self-esteem
Study
N
Age range
Victimization
informants
Victimization
subtypesa
r
Z
Studies with shared method variance
O’Moore & Hillery (1991)
783
7-13
self
G
.14
3.92
Vernberg (1990)
73
12-14
self
GPS
.19
1.47
Slee & Rigby (1993b)b
87
7-13
self
GPS
.26
2.43
Austin & Joseph (1996)
425
8-11
self
GPS
.39
9.54
Peer Victimization Review 53
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
60
10-12
self
GPS
.43
3.33
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
120
10-12
self
GPS
.49
5.37
Mynard & Joseph (1997)
179
8-13
self
GPS
.52
6.96
Mean effect size across studies with shared method variance
Studies avoiding shared method variance
.35****
Boulton & Smith (1994)
76
8-10
peer
GPS
.07
.59
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
63
10-12
peer
G
.23
1.83
Boivin & Hymel (1997)
793
8-10
peer
GPS
.26
7.32
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
60
10-12
peer
G
.34
2.63
Mean effect size across studies avoiding shared method variance
.23****
Notes
Peer Victimization Review 54
**** p < .0001.
a G = generic victimization; P = physical victimization; S = subordinal victimization; R = relational victimization.
b Boys only.
c Girls only.
Peer Victimization Review 55
Table 6
Summary of published studies of the associations between victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment
Mean effect sizes (rs)
Dependent variable
For studies avoiding
shared method variance
For studies not avoiding
shared method variance
Depression
.29
.45
Loneliness
.25
.32
Global self-esteem
.21
.39
Social self-concept
.23
.38
Social anxiety
.14+
.25
Generalized anxiety
.21+
.25
Anxiety overall
(social/ general)
.19
.25
+ p < .01. All other rs significant, p < .0001
