Content uploaded by Susan Calkins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan Calkins
Content may be subject to copyright.
Trajectories of Peer Victimization: The Role of Multiple
Relationships
Rachael D. Reavis,
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Susan P. Keane, and
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Susan D. Calkins
Department of Human Development and Family Studies & Department of Psychology, University
of North Carolina at Greensboro
Abstract
This study examined early elementary school children’s trajectories of peer victimization with a
sample of 218 boys and girls. Peer victimization was assessed (via peer report) in kindergarten, 1st,
2nd, and 5th grades. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to examine multiple types of
relationships (mother-child, student-teacher, friendship) as predictors of kindergarten levels of peer
victimization and changes in peer victimization across time. Results indicated that the mother-child
relationship predicted kindergarten levels of peer victimization, and that the student-teacher
relationship did not provide additional information, once the mother-child relationship was accounted
for in the analyses. Friendship predicted changes in peer victimization during the elementary school
years. Results are discussed in a developmental psychopathology framework with special emphasis
on the implication for understanding the etiology of peer victimization.
Peer victimization is typically defined as repeated exposure to negative actions on the part of
one or more people, often involving a real or perceived imbalance in strength or power
(Camodeca, Goossens, Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002; Olweus, 1991). Peer victimization is
ubiquitous in schools, with over 75% of children and adolescents reporting harassment by peers
within the last year (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992); approximately 10% of children are
identified as chronically, frequently, or severely victimized by their peers (Nansel et al.,
2001). As such, peer victimization is a public policy issue and a major concern to school
officials (Olweus, 2001).
Peer victimization is associated with many maladaptive outcomes, including depression,
loneliness, and anxiety (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, and Bukowksi,
1999), as well as with externalizing behaviors, school avoidance, and academic failure (Hanish
& Guerra, 2002; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). Although many of these associations are
assessed via cross-sectional designs, preliminary evidence indicates that peer victimization
predicts changes in symptomology and that these effects can linger after victimization has
ceased (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop, 2001), even into adulthood (Olweus, 1992).
Furthermore, children who are chronic, rather than transient, victims are more likely to exhibit
internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001). Identifying factors
Correspondence should be addressed to the first author at the Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
296 Eberhart Bldg, Greensboro, NC 27402-6164 USA; Phone: (336) 256-0028; FAX: (336) 256-0029; rdreavis@uncg.edu.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). 2010 July ; 56(3): 303–332. doi:10.1353/mpq.0.0055.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
that are associated with individual trajectories of peer victimization will help guide intervention
efforts that seek to decrease the degree to which children are targets of peer victimization.
The developmental psychopathology framework is useful in conceptualizing the risk and
protective factors associated with peer victimization. This framework acknowledges the
multiple pathways children follow and highlights the fact that children who begin at the same
point can diverge over time (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Research indicates that although many
children are victimized at some point—particularly at younger ages—only a subset continues
to become chronic victims (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001). That is, most children will
experience decreasing levels of peer victimization as they progress in elementary school, but
some children will continue to receive high levels of peer victimization. One explanation for
this decline is that aggressors begin to systematically target specific children, based on whether
rewards are gained from victimizing a specific child. Most children will emerge as unappealing
targets of aggression, but some children will continue to be targeted, because victimization
leads to resources or confirmation of dominant status by the aggressors (Smith, Shu, & Madsen,
2001). However, there is much to be learned about which children will continue to be targets
compared to those who will not. Thus, the notion of multifinality (Cicchetti, 2006) is directly
applicable to the question of the development of peer victimization. Children’s relationships
with individuals in their lives may at least partially explain why some children will become
persistent and chronic targets of peer victimization.
Children are socialized by many agents in their environments, including parents, teachers, and
peers. Relationships offer opportunities for children to develop a wide range of skills, including
the self-regulatory, coping, and general social skills that have been shown to reduce children’s
risk for peer victimization (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Olweus, 1978; Perry, Williard, &
Perry, 1990). Positive relationships with important individuals in children’s lives may help
protect children from becoming chronic targets of peer victimization. Although previous
research has suggested that aspects of these relationships are related to peer victimization (e.g.,
Beran & Violato, 2004; Perren & Alsaker, 2006), developmental psychopathology theory
emphasizes the importance of recognizing the complex realities of children’s social worlds,
and encourages the simultaneous examination of multiple influences upon a child. A main goal
of the current study was to determine whether the influence of multiple types of relationships
(mother-child, student-teacher, dyadic friendship) provides unique or redundant information
in the prediction of peer victimization trajectories.
The developmental psychopathology framework also emphasizes transition periods in
children’s lives. The kindergarten year represents an important transitional period, and is a
qualitatively different environment from preschool and home environments (Rimm-Kaufman
& Pianta, 2000). In addition to increased academic demands, the social demands are also
increased as children enter classrooms with larger child-to-adult ratios and confront growing
expectations of independence and self-sufficiency. Problems that arise during this transition
may persist across the school years and have important implications for children’s future school
adjustment (Entwisle & Hayduck, 1988). Moreover, Perry and Weinstein (1998) highlight the
importance of examining the social contexts that accompany the transition to kindergarten, as
children’s relationships at this time may have immediate, as well as long-term, consequences
for children’s social adjustment. From year to year, the quality of early student-teacher
relationships (conflict; r = .36; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) and mother-child relationships is
quite stable (responsiveness; r = .56; Feng, Shaw, Skuban, & Lane, 2007) as is friend status
(i.e., whether or not a child has a friend). For example, in one study, over 70% of children had
stable friend status over a one-year period (Wojslawowicz Bowker, Rubin, Burgess, Booth-
LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, 2006): that is, children who had a friend one year were likely to
have at least one friend the following year. As the quality of children’s relationships in
kindergarten is likely to be indicative of long-term trajectories of social adjustment, we were
Reavis et al. Page 2
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
particularly interested in examining the association between relationships in kindergarten and
changes in peer victimization across the elementary school years.
No study, to our knowledge, has tested the association of multiple relationships with peer
victimization in a single model. Previous research, however, indicates that tested separately,
the mother-child relationship (e.g., Beran & Violato) and friendships (e.g., Perren & Alsaker,
2006) are each associated with peer victimization. The student-teacher relationship is related
to child social outcomes, more generally (e.g., Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994). Although
these three types of relationships are related to peer victimization, it was of interest to determine
whether the contributions they make to peer victimization are unique.
Maternal warmth is associated with lower levels of peer victimization (Beran & Violato,
2004); whereas, maternal overcontrol (e.g., overprotection, intrusiveness) is associated with
higher levels of peer victimization (Paul, 2006; Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001; Stevens, De
Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2002). Perry and colleagues (2001) have proposed that maternal
overcontrol is associated with peer victimization because it fosters a “victim schema,” whereby
children come to view parents as threatening and controlling and come to see themselves as
incapable and powerless. This cognitive style seems to contribute to peer victimization over
time.
Thus, there is theoretical and empirical support suggesting the mother-child relationship is
related to peer victimization. Given that the mother-child relationship precedes school entry,
the quality of that early relationship may be particularly important in predicting children’s peer
victimization upon school entry. Thus, it was expected that the mother-child relationship would
be related to initial (kindergarten) levels of peer victimization. More specifically, maternal
positivity (e.g., warmth) was expected to be associated with lower kindergarten levels of peer
victimization and maternal overcontrol (operationalized as directiveness in the current study)
would be related to higher kindergarten levels of peer victimization. Moreover, maternal effects
tend to be long-lasting (Wakschlag & Hans, 1999). Thus, the effect was expected to be present
in kindergarten and was not expected to change over time. That is, neither positivity nor
directiveness was expected to have an effect on the changes in peer victimization. Finally, we
did not expect to see an interaction between maternal positivity and directiveness. Although
researchers have examined interactions between these two constructs to determine whether
positive parent behaviors might compensate for less positive parent behaviors, interactions
have rarely been identified (e.g., Caron, Weiss, Harris, & Catron, 2006; McKee, Colletti,
Rakow, Jones, & Forehand, 2008).
Although no study has tested the association between the student-teacher relationship and peer
victimization, the formation of a close, low-conflict relationship with the teacher is associated
with numerous positive outcomes for children, including enhanced academic adjustment
(Hamre & Pianta, 2005) and behavioral adjustment (Howes, Matheson, & Hamilton, 1994).
The student-teacher relationship seems particularly powerful for children who are at-risk for
academic or behavioral maladjustment (Decker, Dona, & Christenson, 2007). However,
children who have high conflict relationships with their teachers may be at increased risk for
negative outcomes (Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Myers & Pianta, 2008),
Teachers use warm and positive relationships with their students to encourage self-regulatory
behaviors (Tyson, 2000); consequently, if children with better student-teacher relationships
are more regulated, they may be less likely to be victimized by their peers. Furthermore, a
teacher who has a warm, close relationship with a child may be more attuned to the particular
needs—both academic and social—of that child. This awareness may lead to more intervention
and assistance on the teacher’s part, thus decreasing the likelihood the child will be victimized.
Although teachers state that they almost always intervene in cases of peer victimization,
Reavis et al. Page 3
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
observations show that they typically intervene in fewer than 5% of the episodes (Craig &
Pepler, 1997). A lack of awareness that these situations are occurring may be one major reason
for the discrepancy. Thus, a close relationship may increase the likelihood that the teacher will
become aware of victimization and stop it.
In contrast, having a high-conflict relationship with a teacher may inhibit the development of
self-regulatory skills that are important for the prevention of peer victimization. Furthermore,
teachers who have high conflict relationships with certain children may be less likely to
intervene on their behalf, perhaps because they do not take the extra time to notice potential
victimization situations. Moreover, not all teachers sympathize with victims of peer aggression
(Boulton, 1997). Having a high conflict relationship with a child may decrease sympathy and
concern. This relative lack of concern may be apparent to children in the classroom, who may
come to believe that they can “get away with” victimizing that child, thus leading to higher
levels of kindergarten victimization. We anticipated that, whereas closeness between students
and teachers would be associated with lower initial (i.e., kindergarten) levels of peer
victimization, conflict would be predictive of higher initial peer victimization scores.
The teacher relationship may also have important implications for changes (i.e., the slope of
trajectories) in peer victimization. Whereas the mother-child relationship precedes school entry
and its effects may not change over the early school years, the kindergarten student-teacher
relationship is a new relationship for the child and skills gained in the context of this relationship
may take time to emerge. Furthermore, social support and coping skills seem to be particularly
important in the face of peer victimization (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997). A lack of felt support
from teachers may interfere with children’s ability to cope, thus encouraging more
victimization over time. Therefore it was predicted that high conflict/low closeness student-
teacher relationships would be associated with increasing levels of peer victimization over
time.
Finally, friendship may protect children from peer victimization. Peer victimized children are
less likely to have friends compared to non-victimized children (Perren & Alsaker, 2006).
Nevertheless, there are peer-victimized children who do establish positive dyadic friendships
despite their problems with the larger peer group (Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly,
2003). Among peer-victimized children, those without friends are more likely to see increases
in peer victimization over time compared to those with friends (Boulton, Trueman, Chau,
Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999). Moreover, once children have gained reputations as people who
are teased and victimized, other children may be less likely to associate with them, thus
decreasing the likelihood that they will develop new friendships. A cycle of friendlessness and
victimization may be created. Therefore, kindergarten friend status (i.e., whether a child has a
mutual friend in kindergarten) may be particularly important in predicting changes in peer
victimization over time.
Despite the accumulating evidence that each of these relationships is associated with
victimization from peers, these links have been studied in isolation. In a child’s life, these
multiple relationships coexist and may influence one another as well as jointly influencing
outcomes. The current study will provide evidence as to whether these relationships are
uniquely related to peer victimization or whether they provide redundant information.
Furthermore, we test whether interaction effects exist between the different types of
relationships.
There are a number of reasons why mother-child, teacher-child, and friendship relationships
would be uniquely related to children’s risk for peer victimization. Mother-child relationships
are enduring and powerful forces in children’s lives, and many of the skills children develop
in the context of the maternal relationship precede the environments in which children may be
Reavis et al. Page 4
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
exposed to peer victimization. Teachers, on the other hand, may focus on helping children to
develop skills that are particularly important in the school context, and the student-teacher
relationship may facilitate such skill development. By encouraging children’s development of
regulatory skills, as well as intervening when children are harassed by peers, teachers may
contribute to children’s decreasing levels of peer victimization. Thus, both the mother-child
relationship and the student-teacher relationship were expected to be uniquely associated with
peer victimization.
Given that friendship relationships are most proximal to the outcome of interest, it was expected
that friendship would be a strong predictor of trajectories of peer victimization, even after
controlling for the quality of the student-teacher and mother-child relationships. Children’s
peers are the individuals who are most likely to be present during victimization episodes and
the most likely to intervene (Craig & Pepler, 1997). Teachers and parents are less likely to be
aware of peer victimization problems, and thus may not be in as strong of a position to help
children cope with and respond appropriately to peer victimization. Moreover, children may
be less likely to harass or tease others with supportive ties within the larger peer group.
The developmental psychopathology framework emphasizes the notion of the interplay
between risk and protective factors. Thus, we expected that there might be interactions between
the relationship variables. Specifically, because we hypothesized effects of the mother-child
relationship and the student-teacher relationship on kindergarten levels of peer victimization,
we also considered whether the characteristics of the mother-child and student-teacher
relationships worked interactively in the prediction of initial levels of peer victimization in
kindergarten. The student-teacher relationship has been shown to be particularly important for
children at risk for maladjustment (e.g., Decker, Dona, & Christenson, 2007) and can be
conceptualized as a protective factor. Following this line of thought, we hypothesized that the
quality of the student-teacher relationship would not be related to peer victimization in the
context of low levels of maternal directiveness and high levels of maternal positivity. On the
other hand, we expected that in the context of more negative aspects of the mother-child
relationship (high directiveness and low warmth), the student-teacher relationship would be
associated with peer victimization, such that positive aspects would be associated with lower
kindergarten levels of peer victimization and negative aspects would be related to higher
kindergarten levels.
In terms of predicting changes in peer victimization (i.e., predicting the slope), we reasoned
that an interaction between friend status and the student-teacher relationship was possible.
Children with friends may be less dependent on a positive student-teacher relationship. For
children without friends, who may have fewer people who are willing to intervene in peer
victimization situations and who may have fewer opportunities to develop important coping
and conflict negotiation skills, the student-teacher relationship may be important. For these
children, having a close, low-conflict relationship with a teacher may help them build the skills
necessary to lead to decreases in peer victimization. The peer victimization problems for
children with conflict relationships with teachers may be exacerbated. Finally, in line with
previous research (Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001), we expected an overall decline in peer
victimization over elementary school. However, we expected that children with positive
aspects of the relationships would show a steeper decline, whereas children with negative
aspects would show a shallow decline or demonstrate high stable trajectories.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study included 218 children who were part of a larger sample of 447
children participating in an ongoing longitudinal study. Children were assessed in
Reavis et al. Page 5
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Kindergarten, 1st grade, 2nd, and 5th grade. This sample is part of a longitudinal project in
which children with externalizing problems were over-sampled, based on elevated scores on
the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL 2–3; Achenbach, 1992) administered at age 2. The
participants were originally recruited through child day care centers, the county health
department, and the local Women, Infants, and Children program in order to obtain a broad,
community-based sample of children (see Calkins, Dedmon, Gill, Lomax, & Johnson, 2002
and Calkins, Graziano, Berdan, Keane, & Degnan, 2008 for further information on recruitment
procedures and original demographic information.) The current study’s sample of children
(N = 218; 56% female) was racially and economically diverse (64% Caucasian; mean
Hollingshead = 40.2, range: 13.5–66).
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) was used for the analyses.
HLM handles missing data at level-1 (in this case, peer victimization), but not at level-2
(relationship indices). The sample for this study was based on children providing data for all
level-2 predictors and data on peer victimization for at least one time point (N = 218). All 218
participants had victimization data in kindergarten. Of these, 105 (48%) provided data at all
four time points, 79 (36%) at three time points, 27 (12%) at two time points, and 7 (3%) at one
time point. Of the missing data, 55% was due to being unable to contact the family, 21% was
due to the family moving out of town, 11% was due to the principal declining, 8% to the parent
declining, 2% to the teacher declining, 2% to the child being home schooled, and 1% due to
collecting an insufficient number of consents from children’s classmates. There were no
significant differences between children who provided complete data for the current study and
those who provided partial data with regards to gender, minority status, or 2-year SES
(Hollingshead scores). There was also no difference in at-risk status for externalizing problems.
Procedure
Consent was obtained from children’s parents for each aspect of the study prior to data
collection. Consent for sociometric interviews was obtained from the local superintendent, the
principal, the teacher, and the parents of children’s classmates. Only children whose parents
provided consent were included in the sociometric assessment. To increase return rates, a small
incentive such as a pencil was given to all children who returned a consent form, regardless of
whether consent was granted. Furthermore, all children gave assent prior to the sociometric
interview. Children’s peer and teacher relationships were measured through sociometric
interviews and teacher self-report. Trained graduate students conducted sociometric interviews
at every grade (K, 1, 2, & 5). The average participation rate was 63% (range: 24% - 100%).
Peer victimization and friendship data were collected at these points; although for this study,
friendship was considered at kindergarten only. Teachers completed several questionnaires on
the target child at these assessments. The student-teacher relationship was also considered at
kindergarten only. Again, we chose to examine these relationships in kindergarten, because
we were interested in how relationship features at the transition to kindergarten predicted
changes in peer victimization across early elementary school. Finally, children came to the lab
with their mothers at age 5.5 and participated in several interactions together, which were
videotaped and coded.
Measures
Peer victimization was assessed using a standard sociometric peer nomination procedure (see
Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). In kindergarten through 2nd grade, children were
individually interviewed at which time they were presented with a class roster and asked to
indicate their answers by pointing to a picture of those classmates who fit a behavioral
descriptor. In 5th grade, children began to rotate classes and became familiar with children
across the grade, rather than just those children in their homerooms or primary classrooms. For
the 5th-grade data collection, we chose to allow students to select from a list of all participating
Reavis et al. Page 6
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
students in their grade, rather than limiting them to classmates. Thus, in 5th grade, interviews
were administered in a group format, and children indicated their responses by selecting names
from a roster of participating grademates. For peer victimization, children were told, “Some
kids get picked on and made fun of by other kids. They get teased or get called names. Who
gets picked on and teased by other kids?” Children were permitted to select as many or as few
classmates (K-2nd) or grademates (5th) as they wanted (by pointing to pictures of classmates
or selecting from a roster), but were encouraged to select at least three classmates. Because
peer nomination data include information from multiple reporters, the reliability of single-item
peer nomination scales tends to be quite high (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990).
Typically, this type of data is standardized within classroom; however, this procedure sets the
mean to zero at every time point, making it difficult to detect change over time. Thus, we chose
to use proportions of classmates who selected a child as “picked on or teased” as the score.
This corrected for variations in class size, but allowed for the modeling of change over time.
Most children were nominated by at least one classmate as “picked on or teased” (78.5% of
kindergartners, 79.2% of 1st graders, 69.2% of 2nd graders, and 80.3% of 5th graders). Only
nine children were never nominated as “picked on or teased.”
The number of children participating in each class at each grade level increased slightly from
year to year (K: M = 12.55, SD = 3.6; 1st: M = 13.43, SD = 3.87; 2nd: M = 13.87, SD = 4.10).
In 5th grade, an average of 49.24 grademates participated (SD = 22.39). Thus, overall observed
decreases in peer victimization may overestimate the actual decrease and observed increases
may underestimate the actual increase in peer victimization (i.e., if a child is nominated by 2
classmates as “picked on” at every year, his or her proportion score would decrease over time
if his class size is increasing). Although none of the predictor variables were related to class
size, class size was modestly and negative related to peer victimization scores (r = −.25, p < .
01). Thus, the overall mean change should be interpreted with caution. However, observed
deviations from the average trajectory based on the predictor variables should not be sensitive
to class size and can be interpreted with more confidence.
Friend status was assessed as a part of the sociometric interview. In kindergarten, children
were directed to select three classmates they liked to “play with a lot.” Children with at least
one mutual nomination were coded as having a friend (friended). Children with three
unreciprocated nominations were coded as having no identified friends (friendless). No child
selected fewer than three classmates they liked to “play with a lot”. We chose to ask for limited,
rather than unlimited friendship nominations, because we were interested in children’s close
relationships. 72.5% of children had at least one mutual friendship in kindergarten.
The student-teacher relationship was assessed in kindergarten via teacher report. Teachers
completed the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001), a 28-item scale that
assesses a teacher’s perception of his or her relationship with a particular student. Teachers
answer using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from Definitely does not apply to Definitely
applies. This scale yields three subscales (Conflict, Closeness, and Dependency), which were
created by adding the individual items within the subscale. The subscales can be combined
into a total positive scale (with conflict and dependency reverse-coded). However, we chose
to use the conflict and closeness scales as markers of positive and negative features of the
student-teacher relationship, given that we also used positive and negative features of the
mother-child relationship. The Conflict scale included 12 items (Cronbach’s alpha = .86) such
as, “This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other.” The Closeness scale
included 11 items (Cronbach’s alpha = .81) such as, “This child values his/her relationship
with me.”
Reavis et al. Page 7
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The mother-child relationship was assessed during a laboratory visit. Mother-child dyads
completed a series of tasks intended to measure mother-child interactions. The tasks included
a teaching task in which mothers were asked to help their children construct a duplo tower to
look like a model (4 min.); a puzzle task in which children completed a difficult puzzle and
mothers were asked to help their children as needed (4 min.); a freeplay task in which mother-
child dyads were given a selection of age-appropriate toys and asked to play as they normally
would at home (5 min.); a compliance task in which mothers were asked to have their children
pick-up the toys from the freeplay task (3 min.); and a pretend play task (6 min.) in which
mothers and children were given a train set and asked to play as they normally would at home.
Maternal behavior received codes for warmth/positive affect (displaying positive affect and
warmth to the child), sensitivity/responsiveness (promptly and appropriately responding to the
child’s bids to her), and strict/directive methods (directing child’s behavior so that there are
few child-initiated actions). These were coded on 4-point scales ranging from low to high. The
global codes were adapted from the Early Parenting Coding System (Winslow, Shaw, Bruns,
& Kiebler, 1995) and broadly represent maternal interaction styles. Warmth and
responsiveness were highly correlated (r = .75) and were averaged into one measure of positive
maternal behaviors. Thus, there were two measures used: maternal directiveness and maternal
positivity (warmth/responsiveness). The alpha coefficient for warmth/responsiveness was
0.88; the alpha coefficient for directiveness was 0.77. Reliability. Two research assistants coded
together 10% of the total sample on all tasks. Another 10% was coded separately to assess
reliability; weighted kappas for all items were above 0.7.
Externalizing behavior was used as a control and was assessed with the externalizing subscale
of the CBCL. Mothers completed the CBCL for 2- to 3-year-olds (Achenbach, 1992) when
children were 2 years of age. These scales have been shown to be a good index of externalizing
behavior across childhood, and were used to select children. The externalizing scale consisted
of 26 items that included the aggression and destructive subscales. Mothers rated their children
on a 3-point scale (not true, sometimes true, often true) on questions such as, “Hits others,”
and “Temper tantrums or hot temper.”
Results
Preliminary Analyses & Analytical Plan
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of predictor and outcome variables. Correlations among
study variables are presented in Table 2. Examination of correlations among the three types of
relationship variables ranged from small and non-significant to weak and significant (|.03| ≤
rs ≤ |.20|). These results suggest that our relationship indices may be measuring something
specific to the relationship and not to the child (e.g., temperament, general social skills),
although measurement error cannot be ruled out.
All analyses were conducted using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush,
1992), with full maximum likelihood estimation. HLM was used because it allows for
unbalanced designs so those children with incomplete outcome data (level 1) could be included
in the analyses. Peer victimization was measured in kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 5th grades. All
other variables were assessed in kindergarten. Grade was centered at kindergarten (K = 0; 1st
= 1; 2nd = 2; 5th = 5) so that the intercept indicated initial (kindergarten) levels of peer
victimization. Friend status was entered as a dichotomous variable (friended = 1; friendless =
0), and continuous predictor variables were centered at their means. Individual growth
modeling requires first testing an unconditional growth model (level 1), which contains no
level 2 predictors variable. The purpose of this analysis is a) to determine the overall trajectory
of children’s peer victimization in the sample and b) to determine whether there is enough
individual variation around the overall peer victimization trajectory to warrant testing
conditional models.
Reavis et al. Page 8
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Analyses at level-2 (predictors of trajectories) can be performed once satisfactory individual
variation around the mean trajectory has been established. In the current study, we examined
variability in interindividual change in peer victimization by adding kindergarten relationship
indices to predict initial levels of peer victimization and to predict increases or decreases in
peer victimization from kindergarten to 5th grade. We first tested each relationship index in
isolation, so that the results could be compared to previous research. We then tested a full
model. We did not test all possible main effects or interactions; rather, we entered variables
based on the individual models. For example, if a variable was shown to be significant only
on the intercept (kindergarten levels) and not the slope in the individual model, then this
variable and any interactions including this variable were included only in the intercept.
Different models were fit sequentially using a backward elimination method where the full
model was fit and then non-significant predictors were removed one by one. We then examined
the p-values of the three-way interactions (if the individual models suggested that all three
variables should be included in the intercept or the slope), and these were removed one at a
time, starting with the highest (most non-significant) p-value (as long as p > .05). The same
process was used for the two-way interactions, then for the main effects. Given that we were
comparing nested models, we used the chi-square significance test between deviance scores
to determine best fit.
Growth Models
Coefficients, random effects, and model fit statistics are presented in Table 3. Data are
presented only for selected models, not for every model that was tested using the backward
elimination procedure.
The unconditional linear growth model (Model A; Table 3) of peer victimization was
significant both at the intercept (kindergarten; coefficient = .134, p < .001) and slope
(coefficient = −.013, p < .001). These parameters indicate that in kindergarten, the average
child is nominated as “teased” by approximately 13% of his or her classmates. This level
decreases by .013 (1 percentage point) per year, such that by 5th grade, the average child is
nominated as “teased” by approximately 8% of his or her classmates. Moreover, variance
components (random effects) were significant, which indicated sufficient individual variability
around both the intercept and the slope to add level-2 predictors (see Table 3).
We first tested whether demographic variables (gender, race, SES) predicted peer
victimization. None were significant and thus all were excluded from further analyses. Given
that externalizing behavior was initially over-represented in our sample, we also tested whether
2-year externalizing scores from the CBCL should be included as a control variable. We found
that the CBCL score did not predict the slope of peer victimization scores, but did predict the
intercept (coefficient = .001, p < .05). The CBCL is measured using a T-score, having a standard
deviation of 10. Thus, for a 10-point (1 SD) increase above the mean, there would be an increase
of .01 in peer victimization score; that is, a child whose CBCL score was 1 SD above the mean
would be predicted to have been nominated as victimized by approximately 14% of his or her
classmates.
Two-year CBCL scores were thus included as a control variable following suggestions by
Singer and Willett (2003). The goal was to determine whether models still exhibited good fit
after controlling for early externalizing. After the reduced model was determined for each
relationship variable in isolation and in the final reduced model, externalizing was added to
ensure that the variables of interest were still significantly related to the outcome.
Although our goal was to test relationship indices simultaneously, we first tested them in
isolation so the results could be more directly compared to previous studies. Kindergarten
friend status was entered as a level-2 predictor (friended = 1; friendless = 0). It was not a
Reavis et al. Page 9
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
significant predictor of kindergarten levels of peer victimization, although it was a significant
predictor of peer victimization trajectories. The non-significant predictor of the intercept was
maintained in the model. More specifically, children with friends displayed a steeper decline
in peer victimization over time compared to children who were friendless in kindergarten
(coefficient = −.009, p < .05). The parameters (Model B; Table 3) indicate that the average
child is nominated by approximately 13% (friended) to 14% (friendless) of his or classmates
in kindergarten, but the difference between friend status groups was non-significant. Children
who were friendless in kindergarten saw, on average, a decrease of .006 in their peer
victimization scores per year, suggesting that by 5th grade, these children were nominated by
approximately 11% of their peers as victimized. Children who had mutual friends in
kindergarten, on the other hand, had an additional average decrease of 0.009 (0.015 total) per
year, suggesting that by 5th grade, friended children were being nominated as victimized by
approximately 6% of their classmates. These results remained significant once externalizing
was entered as a control variable.
The student-teacher relationship was next tested as a level-2 predictor. Closeness was tested
first, then conflict, then with both variables (additive and multiplicative). Closeness did not
predict kindergarten levels of peer victimization (intercept) or changes in peer victimization
over time (slope), nor did closeness interact with conflict to predict peer victimization.
However, conflict in the student-teacher relationship was positively associated with
kindergarten levels of peer victimization (coefficient = .001, p < .01), such that children with
more conflict in their relationships with their teachers were more likely to be victimized by
peers in kindergarten. Conflict was not a significant predictor of slope, suggesting that the
effect of the kindergarten student-teacher conflict on peer victimization is constant across
elementary school. These results (Model C; Table 3) indicated that for each standard deviation
increase in student-teacher conflict (SD = 7.75), the kindergarten peer victimization score
increased by .008. That is, a child with a student-teacher conflict score 1 SD above the mean
would be predicted to have been nominated as victimized by approximately 14% of his or her
kindergarten classmates. The more complex model did not evidence better fit, based on the
χ2 deviance test (ΔDeviance = 2.23, df = 5, p > .05). Thus, the more parsimonious model was
retained, and closeness was dropped from further analyses. When externalizing was added,
student-teacher conflict remained significant.
The mother-child relationship was tested next, in the same manner as the student-teacher
relationship. Maternal positivity was first tested as a predictor, then maternal directiveness,
then with both (additive and multiplicative). Maternal positivity was not a significant predictor
of kindergarten levels of peer victimization or of change across time. The interactions between
positivity and directiveness were not significant. Maternal directiveness was a significant
predictor of the intercept (coefficient = .021, p = .01), but not of the slope. Higher levels of
maternal directiveness were associated with higher levels of peer victimization in kindergarten,
and this difference remained stable (i.e., the slope did not change) during elementary school
(Model D; Table 3). A child with a maternal directiveness score 1 SD (.61) above the mean
would be predicted to have an increase of .013 in kindergarten peer victimization; that is, the
child would be expected to be nominated as victimized by approximately 14% of his or her
classmates. As with the student-teacher analysis, the more complex model did not evidence
significantly better fit (ΔDeviance = 2.8, df = 5, p > .05). Maternal directiveness was retained
in favor of the more parsimonious model. Maternal positivity was dropped from further
analyses. The results remained significant when externalizing was included as a control.
We next tested the relationship indices in a single model. Maternal warmth and student-teacher
closeness were not included, because the simple models suggested that maternal directiveness
and student-teacher conflict were the aspects of the relationships that were related to peer
victimization. Based on the backward elimination procedure and the deviance comparison,
Reavis et al. Page 10
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
models with interactions terms among the predictor variables were not supported (Model E;
Table 3). The final reduced model (Model F; Table 3) indicated that maternal directiveness
was significantly associated with initial kindergarten levels (intercept) of peer victimization
(coefficient = 0.020, p < .05). Kindergarten friend status also continued to be a predictor of
peer victimization trajectories (coefficient = −.009, p = .053), although not of the initial
kindergarten levels. Stated another way, kindergarten friend status interacted with time to
predict peer victimization. For this model, the trajectory of peer victimization was predicted
by the following equation:
The intercept for individual i is denoted by π0i, and π1i is the linear slope. β00 is the coefficient
for the mean intercept; β01 represents the increase over the mean intercept for children with
friends;β02 represents the increase over the mean intercept for one unit increase of maternal
directiveness; β10 is the coefficient for the mean slope; and β11 represents the increase over
the mean slope for children with friends.
The χ2 deviance test indicated that the final model fit significantly better than the unconditional
growth model (ΔDeviance = 16.98, df = 3, p < .001). The proportion of total outcome variation
explained by the final model was estimated by pseudo-R2y, ŷ (0.49) which suggested that 49%
of the variance was explained by all predictors included in the model (Singer & Willett,
2003). The proportional reduction in residual variance was also computed for the slope and
the intercept. The pseudo- R2intercept (0.071) indicated a 7% reduction in variance associated
with the intercept from the unconditional growth model to the final reduced model. The pseudo-
R2slope (0.043) indicated a 4% reduction in variance associated with the slope.
The parameters for the final model suggested that children with directive mothers were more
likely to be victimized in kindergarten than were children with mothers who were less directive.
Children whose mothers were 1 SD above the mean on directiveness would be expected to be
nominated as victimized by approximately 15% of their kindergarten classmates, compared to
approximately 13% for children whose mothers were 1 SD below the mean. As children age,
initial friend status becomes more important. Regardless of the mother’s directiveness, children
with friends in kindergarten had much lower levels of peer victimization by 5th grade than
children without friends in kindergarten. Within friend status groups (friended, friendless),
children with directive mothers were more victimized than children with non-directive mothers
(Figure 1). That is, by 5th grade children who were friendless in kindergarten and whose
mothers were 1 SD above the mean on directiveness would be predicted to be nominated by
approximately 12% of their classmates, compared to approximately 10% for friendless children
whose mothers were 1 SD below the mean. Friended children in kindergarten whose mothers
were 1 SD above the mean would be expected to be nominated by approximately 8% of their
5th grade classmates; whereas, friended children whose mothers were 1 SD below the mean
would be expected to be nominated by approximately 4% of their 5th grade classmates. These
effects remained significant when controlling for externalizing.
Discussion
Given the potential of chronic peer victimization to lead to psychological distress and
behavioral maladaptation (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Perry,
Hodges, & Egan, 2001), it is important to identify the factors that might protect children from
becoming chronic victims. Using the developmental psychopathology framework to guide our
thinking, we tested the influence of three relationships on trajectories of peer victimization:
Reavis et al. Page 11
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
mother-child, student-teacher, and friend relationships. When considered together, we found
the mother-child and friend relationships made unique predictions, but accounted for different
aspects of children’s peer victimization trajectories. To our knowledge, no study to date has
tested multiple relationships in a single model.
On average, we found a decline in peer victimization during elementary school. Although this
decline may have been due to a statistical artifact (class sizes were increasing across this period
as well), there are theoretical reasons to expect a decline (e.g., Smith, Madsen, & Moody,
1999). First, aggression is also declining during this period (Kokko, Tremblay, Lacourse,
Nagin, & Vitaro, 2006), which means there may be fewer chances for children to be harassed
or victimized. Second, as children age, they are more able to distinguish various peer behaviors
and their nominations may become more specific and stable (Graziano, Berdan, Keane, &
Balentine, 2004). Third, children may be less specific in whom they victimize at younger ages.
Children who are picked on and respond in ways that do not reward the aggressor (ignoring,
assertive responding) may be less likely to be victimized in the future, whereas children who
respond in ways that reward the aggressor (showing fear, acquiescing, reactive/ineffective
aggression) may continue to be victimized (Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001). Thus, over time,
fewer children are identified as peer victimized.
Another explanation is that victimization is not declining per se; rather, children’s classmates
could be coming to a consensus about who is and is not victimized by their peers. It is difficult
to tell whether this is the case from the current data. If this were the explanation, one might
also expect a decrease in variability. In our data, variability in kindergarten was similar to the
variability in 5th grade. Moreover, previous studies have similarly shown declining trajectories
of peer victimization using peer reports among preadolescents (Troop-Gordon & Ladd,
2005) and among adolescents (Nylund, Bellmore, Nishina, & Graham, 2007). Future
researchers can help to rule out this explanation by having peers rate each classmate on a
continuum of peer victimization, rather than using nominations. A better approach may be to
combine multiple reports (peer, teachers, self) to avoid bias from any one perspective.
What is clear from our data is that indices of important relationships predict different patterns
of peer victimization across elementary school. Our data indicated that maternal directiveness
predicted kindergarten levels of peer victimization only; that the association between the
student-teacher conflict and kindergarten peer victimization was non-significant after
accounting for maternal directiveness; and that friend status predicted the trajectory of peer
victimization, but not initial kindergarten levels.
Taken separately, maternal directiveness and student-teacher conflict demonstrated
overlapping associations with kindergarten peer victimization. Although directiveness and
conflict are not synonymous, they represent potentially negative aspects of both relationships.
Moreover, both of these relationships are vertical to the child and may influence outcomes in
similar ways compared to lateral relationships (e.g., peers, friends, siblings). The maternal
relationship, however, is an enduring and more powerful relationship compared to those of
teachers. Moreover, children’s self-regulatory skills—which may be important in preventing
peer victimization (Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2005; Toblin, Schwartz, Gorman, & Abou-
ezzedine, 2005)—develop beginning in infancy, toddlerhood, and the preschool years, and the
mother-child relationship is implicated in the successful development of these behaviors
(Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins, 1995). Furthermore, these findings suggest that maternal
involvement in the school transition may be particularly helpful for successfully navigating
the new social demands children face in elementary school.
The finding that maternal directiveness predicted kindergarten levels of peer victimization is
consistent with previous literature suggesting that maternal overcontrol is associated with peer
Reavis et al. Page 12
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
victimization (Ladd & Ladd, 1998), perhaps through the development of a victim schema
(Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001). The current study demonstrates that the effect of maternal
overcontrol is evident upon school entry and persists throughout elementary school. This
finding suggests including mothers in interventions for young children who are targets of peer
victimization would be important. A focused strategy might be to have mothers and young
children (kindergartners) discuss hypothetical instances of peer victimization. In the context
of these discussions, both the mother’s tendency to control/direct and the child’s strategies to
deal with the conflict could be improved.
The difference in magnitude between the trajectories of children with highly directive mothers
and children with non-directive mothers was consistent from kindergarten to 5th grade. That
is, there was no effect on the slope. This is not surprising, considering that the mother-child
relationship, and maternal behaviors in particular, are quite stable (Feng, Shaw, Skuban, &
Lane, 2007). Moreover, other relationships—at least the aspects we measured—do not seem
to serve as protective factors for children with highly directive mothers. Future research should
determine what other factors (e.g., father-child relationships, temperamental factors, emotion
regulation) might decrease the association between maternal overcontrol and peer
victimization. For example, emotional responses (e.g., crying, reactive aggression) have been
associated with higher levels of peer victimization (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997;
Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001). Children with high emotional reactivity in combination with
maternal overcontrol may be at the greatest risk for peer victimization; whereas, for children
with average levels of emotional reactivity, maternal overcontrol may have a weaker
association with peer victimization.
Interestingly, it was only the negative aspects of these vertical relationships (maternal
directiveness / student-teacher conflict) that seemed to predict peer victimization. One possible
explanation is that maternal overcontrol decreases the likelihood that children will be able to
deal successfully with conflict in a variety of relationships, including with teachers, peers, and
friends. Conflict resolution skills might mediate the association between maternal overcontrol
and conflictual relationships in general.
Friend status also emerged as a significant predictor of children’s peer victimization, although
this difference did not emerge until after kindergarten (due to different slopes). Unlike the other
relationships, a measure of quality was not gathered, so it is unclear whether negative aspects
of friendship interactions might be more strongly related to peer victimization than positive
ones among children who have friends. Although children always have relationships with
teachers and caregivers (making the presence or absence of such a relationship meaningless),
children do not necessarily participate in reciprocated friendship dyads. Understanding the role
of friendship quality will be important for future research, but the fact that friendless children
are at significantly higher risk of peer victimization across elementary school may have
important implications for intervention efforts.
Children without friends displayed a slight decrease in peer victimization across elementary
school; however, this decrease was much steeper in children with friends. By 5th grade, the
effect of friend status seems to eclipse the effect of maternal directiveness. That is, the
difference in peer victimization between friended and non-friended children seems to be greater
than the difference between children with high and low levels of maternal directiveness.
However, it should be noted that maternal directiveness still predicted differences within friend
status groups. The delay in the association between friend status and victimization is
interesting. It is possible that aggressors initially target many children, but through a process
of reward (e.g., responses of fear and frustration from victims) and punishment (e.g., retaliation
by a friend) come to victimize certain children. However, if this were the primary factor, we
would not expect any variable to predict kindergarten peer victimization—it would be random.
Reavis et al. Page 13
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Another explanation is that friendships provide the opportunity for children to practice the
social skills that discourage peer victimization, but that the acquisition of these skills emerges
slowly. Interventions may want to focus on increasing the likelihood that victimized children
will develop friendships. For children who are victimized upon school entry, including a
friendship skills building component in interventions may be important for their long-term
social adjustment.
The current study provides important evidence about the types of relationships that are
associated with peer victimization. There are several limitations, however, that should be
acknowledged. First, the indices of relationships were not identical in terms of methods (mutual
report of friendship, teacher-report of quality, observer coding). Although the mother-child
and student-teacher relationships both had measures of potentially negative and positive
aspects of the relationship, for friendship, we only measured the presence or absence of a friend.
Future research should certainly use similar methods to measure relationship quality. Multiple
perspectives should also be gathered, including child-report, other-report (teacher, peer,
parent), and observations. It will be particularly important to include measures of friendship
quality. Although these results suggest having a friend is better than not having a friend, low-
quality friendships may be detrimental for a child. Friendships characterized by conflict,
betrayal, and jealousy may foster the development of maladaptive conflict resolution skills,
such as revenge (Dunn & Slomkowski, 1992). Thus, a low quality friendship may leave a child
more vulnerable to peer victimization than a child without a mutual friend at all. Whether this
is the case remains an open empirical question. Moreover, interactions between relationship
types—not supported in the current study—may be detected when more similar aspects of
relationships are considered.
A second issue is that we used single-time assessments of relationships. We were particularly
interested in the relationships that exist as children make the transition to elementary school,
as kindergarten adjustment to this transition can influence adjustment across elementary school
and beyond. However, these relationships are ongoing and dynamic, and future investigations
of how changes in these relationships over time influence trajectories of peer-victimization
may help us further understand the causes and correlates of peer victimization. Furthermore,
examining how changes in multiple relationships interact will also be important. For example,
in longitudinal studies, it seems that friendship disturbances (e.g., moving from friended to
friendless) precede rather than follow peer victimization (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Perhaps
conflict-free student-teacher relationships do not protect chronically friendless children, but
might be protective of children who have lost a friend until they are able to establish another
close friendship.
It should also be noted that the mother-child relationship preceded entry into kindergarten, but
friend status and the student-teacher relationship did not. Had we included measures of pre-
school student-teacher relationships and friendships, the results may have differed. For
example, LoCasale-Crouch, Masburn, Downer, and Pianta (2008) found that kindergartners
had better social and academic adjustment when their pre-kindergarten teachers used practices
aimed at preparing young children for the transition to kindergarten. Thus, the association
between child outcomes and the student-teacher relationship may be more important before
the child is exposed to the new social and academic demands of kindergarten. The level of
exposure to non-maternal caregivers (daycare workers or pre-school teachers) may also be
related to adjustment. For example, more time spent in non-maternal care prior to kindergarten
is associated with conflict with adults in kindergarten, although this effect is modest and smaller
than the effect of the mother-child relationship (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network,
2003). Thus, we might expect modest effects, but it would likely not overshadow the effects
of maternal directiveness seen in the current study.
Reavis et al. Page 14
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
In summary, this study provides evidence that multiple relationships are associated with
children’s trajectories of peer victimization. The results highlight the necessity of assessing
multiple relationships within one study. Had we relied on analyses involving relationships in
isolation, we would have concluded that the student-teacher relationship had an immediate and
lasting effect on children’s peer victimization. When considered simultaneously with the
mother-child relationship, the student-teacher relationship was no longer significant. It seems
that researchers should focus on maternal factors in studying the emergence of peer
victimization, while children’s kindergarten friendships seem more important in understanding
the persistence of peer victimization.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) awards (MH 55625 and MH 58144) to
the third author and an NIMH award to the second and third authors (MH 55584). We thank the parents and children
who have repeatedly given their time and effort to participate in this research. Additionally, we are grateful to the
entire RIGHT-Track staff for their help in data collection, entry, checking, coding, etc. Amanda Williford provided
us with statistical help. Thanks also to Lilly Shanahan for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Elizabeth Shuey,
Jessica Moore, Ana Zdravkovic, Evin Lawson, Niloofar Fallah, Jason Boye, and Stephanie Doty provided excellent
insights and support throughout the process, and we are grateful for their help.
References
Achenbach, T. Manual for the child behavior checklist/2–3 and 1992 profile. Burlington, VT: University
of VT Department of Psychiatry; 1992.
Beran T, Violato C. A model of childhood perceived peer harassment: Analyses of the Canadian national
longitudinal survey of children and youth data. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and applied
2004;138(2):129–147. [PubMed: 15218785]
Boulton M. Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes, and ability to cope. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 1997;67(2):223–233. [PubMed: 9254132]
Boulton M, Trueman M, Chau C, Whitehand C, Amatya K. Concurrent and longitudinal links between
friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescence
1999;22(4):461–466. [PubMed: 10469510]
Bryk, A.; Raudenbush, S. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage; 1992.
Calkins S, Dedmon S, Gill K, Lomax L, Johnson L. Frustration in infancy: Implications for emotion
regulation, physiological processes, and temperament. Infancy 2002;3(2):175–197.
Calkins S, Graziano P, Berdan L, Keane S, Degnan K. Predicting cardiac vagal regulation in early
childhood from maternal-child relationship quality during toddlerhood. Developmental Psychobiology
2008;50(8):751–766. [PubMed: 18814182]
Camodeca M, Goossens F, Terwogt M, Schuengel C. Bullying and victimization among school-age
children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development 2002;11(3):
332–345.
Caron A, Weiss B, Harris V, Catron T. Parenting behavior dimensions and child psychopathology:
Specificity, task dependency, and interactive relations. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology 2006;35(1):34–45. [PubMed: 16390301]
Ciccheti, D. Development and psychopathology. In: Cicchetti, D.; Cohen, D., editors. Developmental
Psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development. 6. New Jersey: Wiley; 2006.
p. 798-828.
Coie J, Dodge K, Coppotelli H. Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective.
Developmental Psychology 1982;18(4):557–570.
Coie, J.; Dodge, K.; Kupersmidt, J. Peer group behavior and social status. In: Asher, S.; Coie, J., editors.
Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 17-59.
Craig W, Pepler D. Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology 1997;13(2):41–59.
Reavis et al. Page 15
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Decker D, Dona D, Christenson S. Behaviorally at-risk African American students: The importance of
student-teacher relationships for student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology 2007;45(1):83–
109.
Dunn, J.; Slomkowski, C. Conflict and the development of social understanding. In: Shantz, C.; Hartup,
WW., editors. Conflict in child and adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press;
1992. p. 70-92.
Entwisle D, Hayduck L. Lasting effects of elementary school. Sociology of Education 1988;61(3):147–
159.
Feng X, Shaw D, Skuban E, Lane T. Emotional exchange in mother-child dyads: Stability, mutual
influence, and associations with maternal depression and child problem behavior. Journal of Family
Psychology 2007;21(4):714–725. [PubMed: 18179343]
Goldbaum S, Craig W, Pepler D, Connolly J. Developmental trajectories of victimization: Identifying
risk and protective factors. Journal of Applied School Psychology 2003;19(2):139–156.
Graziano, P.; Berdan, L.; Keane, S.; Balentine, C. Are young children good reporters of behavior?
Validation of new sociometric constructs. Poster presented at the Conference on Human
Development; Washington, DC. Apr. 2004
Hamre B, Pianta R. Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes
through eighth grade. Child Development 2001;72(2):625–638. [PubMed: 11333089]
Hanish L, Guerra N. A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization.
Development and Psychopathology 2002;14(1):69–89. [PubMed: 11893095]
Hodges E, Perry D. Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999;76(4):677–685. [PubMed: 10234851]
Hodges E, Boivin M, Vitaro F, Bukowski W. The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating
cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology 1999;35(1):94–101. [PubMed: 9923467]
Hoover J, Oliver R, Hazler R. Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School
Psychology International 1992;13(1):5–16.
Howes C, Matheson C, Hamilton C. Maternal, teacher, and child care history correlates of children’s
relationships with peers. Child Development 1994;65(1):264–273. [PubMed: 8131652]
Kochenderfer B, Ladd G. Peer victimization: Manifestations and relations to school adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology 1996;34:267–283.
Kochenderfer B, Ladd G. Victimized children’s responses to peer’s aggression: Behaviors associated
with reduced versus continued victimization. Developmental Psychopathology 1997;9(1):59–73.
Kochenderfer-Ladd B, Wardrop J. Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences
as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development 2001;72(1):134–
151. [PubMed: 11280475]
Kokko K, Tremblay R, Lacourse E, Nagin D, Vitaro F. Trajectories of prosocial behavior and physical
aggression in middle childhood: Links to adolescent school dropout and physical violence. Journal
of Research on Adolescence 2006;16(3):403–428.
Ladd G, Burgess K. Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood
aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development 2001;72(5):1579–
1601. [PubMed: 11699688]
Ladd G, Ladd B. Parenting behaviors and parent-child relationships: Correlates of peer victimization in
kindergarten? Developmental Psychology 1998;34(6):1450–1458. [PubMed: 9823524]
LoCasale-Crouch J, Mashburn A, Downer J, Pianta R. Pre-kindergarten teachers’ use of transition
practices and children’s adjustment to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2008;23
(1):124–139.
McKee L, Colletti C, Rakow A, Jones D, Forehand R. Parenting and child externalizing behaviors: Are
the associations specific or diffuse? Aggression and Violent Behavior 2008;13(3):201–215.
[PubMed: 19122818]
Monks C, Smith P, Swettenham J. Psychological correlates of peer victimisation in preschool: Social
cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profiles. Aggressive Behavior 2005;31(6):571–
588.
Reavis et al. Page 16
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Myers S, Pianta R. Developmental commentary: Individual and contextual influences on student-teacher
relationships and children’s early problem behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology 2008;37(3):600–608. [PubMed: 18645750]
Nansel T, Overpeck M, Pilla R, Ruan W, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US
youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA: Journal of the American
Medical Association 2001;285(16):2094–2100.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research
Network. Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the
transition to kindergarten? Child Development 2003;74(4):976–1005. [PubMed: 12938694]
Nylund K, Bellmore A, Nishina A, Graham S. Subtypes, severity, and structural stability of peer
victimization: What does latent class analysis say? Child Development 2007;78(6):1706–1722.
[PubMed: 17988316]
Olweus, D. Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Oxford; England: 1978.
Olweus, D. Victimization among school children. In: Baenninger, R., editor. Targets of violence and
aggression. Oxford, England: North-Holland; 1991. p. 45-102.
Olweus, D. Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In: Rubin, K.; Asendorpf, J.,
editors. Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992. p.
315-341.
Olweus, D. Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In: Juvonen, J.; Graham, S.,
editors. Peer harassment in schools: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: The
Guilford Press; 2001. p. 3-20.
Paul J. Peer victimization, parent-adolescent relationships, and life stressors. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Science and Engineering 2006;66(10-B):5691.
Pellegrini A, Long J. A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition
from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology
2002;20(2):259–280.
Perren S, Alsaker F. Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in
kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006;47(1):45–57. [PubMed: 16405640]
Perry, D.; Hodges, E.; Egan, S. Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and new model
of family influence. In: Juvonen, J.; Graham, S., editors. Peer harassment in school: The plight of
the vulnerable and victimized. New York: The Guilford Press; 2001. p. 73-104.
Perry D, Williard J, Perry L. Peers’ perceptions of consequences that victimized children provide
aggressors. Child Development 1990;61:1310–1325. [PubMed: 2245726]
Perry K, Weinstein R. The social context of early schooling and children’s school adjustment. Educational
Psychologist 1998;33(4):177–194.
Pianta, R. Implications of a developmental systems model for preventing and treating behavioral
disturbances in children and adolescents. In: Hughes, J.; LaGreca, A.; Conoley, J., editors. Handbook
of psychological services for children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
p. 23-41.
Pianta R, Stuhlman M. Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school.
School Psychology Review 2004;33:444–458.
Rimm-Kaufman S, Pianta R. An ecological perspective on the transition to kindergarten: A theoretical
framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2000;21(5):
491–511.
Rubin K, Coplan R, Fox N, Calkins S. Emotionality, emotion regulation, and preschoolers’ social
adaptation. Development and Psychopathology 1995;7(1):49–62.
Schwartz D, Dodge K, Pettit G, Bates J. The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child
Development 1997;68(4):665–675. [PubMed: 9306645]
Singer, J.; Willett, J. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New
York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Smith P, Madsen K, Moody J. What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards
a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research 1999;41(3):267–285.
Reavis et al. Page 17
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Smith, P.; Shu, S.; Madsen, K. Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes in
coping strategies and skills. In: Juvonen, J.; Graham, S., editors. Peer harrassment in school: The
plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: The Guilford Press; 2001. p. 332-352.
Sroufe L, Rutter M. The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development 1984;55(1):
17–29. [PubMed: 6705619]
Stevens V, De Bourdeauhuij I, Van Oost P. Relationship of the family environment to children’s
involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2002;31(6):419–
428.
Toblin R, Schwartz D, Gorman A, Abou-ezzeddine T. Social-cognitive and behavioral attributes of
aggressive victims of bullying. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2005;26(3):329–346.
Troop-Gordon W, Ladd G. Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates:
Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development 2005;76(5):1072–1091.
[PubMed: 16150003]
Tyson K. Using the teacher-student relationship to help children diagnosed as hyperactive: An application
of intrapsychic humanism. Child and Youth Care Forum 2000;29(4):265–289.
Wakschlag L, Hans S. Relation of maternal responsiveness during infancy to the development of behavior
problems in high-risk youths. Developmental Psychology 1999;35(2):569–579. [PubMed:
10082027]
Winslow, E.; Shaw, D.; Bruns, H.; Kiebler, K. Parenting as a mediator of child behavior problems and
maternal stress, support, and adjustment. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development; Indianapolis, IN. 1995 Mar.
Wojslawowicz Bowker J, Rubin K, Burgess K, Booth-LaForce C, Rose-Krasnor L. Behavioral
characteristics associated with stable and fluid best friendship patterns in middle childhood. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly 2006;52(4):671–693.
Reavis et al. Page 18
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Figure 1.
Final model of relationship indices predictors of peer victimization (proportion of classmates
nominating child as “teased”) trajectories: Maternal directiveness (intercept) and friend status
(intercept and slope).
Note: High Directive = 1 SD above the mean for maternal directiveness; Low Directive = 1
SD below the mean
Reavis et al. Page 19
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Reavis et al. Page 20
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for predictor and outcome measures.
Measures M SD Range
Peer Victimization (proportion score)
Kindergarten 0.14 0.12 0.00 – 0.57
1st Grade 0.12 0.10 0.00 – 0.44
2nd Grade 0.10 0.11 0.00 – 0.71
5th Grade 0.08 0.12 0.00 – 0.62
Teacher Relationship (Kindergarten)
Conflict 21.62 7.75 12 – 52
Closeness 42.89 5.89 23 – 54
Mother-Child Relationship (Kindergarten)
Directiveness 2.07 0.61 1 – 4
Positivity 2.76 0.62 1 – 4
% friended % friendless
Friend Status (Kindergarten) 72.5% 27.5%
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Reavis et al. Page 21
Table 2
Inter-correlations of predictor and outcome measures.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Friend Status (K) ---
2. Teacher Conflict (K) −0.13*---
3. Teacher Closeness (K) 0.09 −0.31*** ---
4. Maternal Directiveiness (K) −0.11 0.20** −.11+---
5. Maternal Positivity (K) 0.15*−0.08 0.03 −0.18** ---
6. Peer Victimization (K) −0.02 0.06 −0.03 0.13 −0.08 ---
7. Peer Victimization (1st Grade) −0.07 0.20** −0.02 0.08 −.13+0.02 ---
8. Peer Victimization (2nd Grade) −0.16*0.13+−0.08 0.20** −0.10 0.11 0.21** ---
9. Peer Victimization (5th Grade) −0.26** 0.13+0.07 0.17*0.03 −0.003 0.23** 0.30*** ---
Note. K = Kindergarten,
+p < .10,
*p < .05,
**p < .01,
***p < .001
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Reavis et al. Page 22
Table 3
Results of selected hierarchical linear models for change in peer victimization across elementary school (N = 218)
Model
A B C D E F
Fixed effects Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE) Coefficient (SE)
Intercept (Kindergarten) 0.134*** (0.0063) 0.142*** (0.0122) 0.134*** (0.0063) 0.133*** (0.0063) 0.035 (0.0860) 0.140*** (0.0121)
K Friend Status (friended) 0.012 (0.0142) 0.136 (0.1183) −0.010 (0.0142)
K Teacher Conflict 0.002* (0.0006) 0.005 (0.0038)
K Maternal Directiveness 0.021** (0.0079) 0.060 (0.0417) 0.020* (0.0078)
Conflict by Directiveness −0.002 (0.0015)
Conflict by Friend Status −0.006 (0.0049)
Friend Status by Directiveness −0.062 (0.0507)
Friend Status by Directiveness by Conflict 0.002 (0.002)
Slope (Grade) −0.013*** (0.0022) −0.006 (0.0042) −0.013*** (0.0022) −0.013*** (0.0021) −0.006 (0.0042) −0.006 (0.0042)
K Friend Status (friended) −0.009+ (0.0049) −0.010* (0.0049) −0.009+ (0.0049)
Variance Components Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance
Level 1 Within person 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094 0.0093 0.0094
Level 2 Initial Status 0.0030*** 0.0031*** 0.0029*** 0.0028*** 0.0028*** 0.0028***
Rate of Change 0.00014*0.00014*0.00014*0.00014*0.00014*0.00013*
Goodness-of-Fit
Deviance −1151.91 −1162.66 −1158.31 −1159.01 −1173.47 −1168.89
Note: Model A = Unconditional Growth; Model B = Final Model with Friend Status; Model C = Final Model with Student-Teacher Conflict; Model D = Final Model with Maternal Directiveness; Model E =
Full Model with three relationship variables (as suggested by previous models), Model F (best fitting final model);
+p<.06
*p < .05,
**p < .01,
***p < .001
Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1.
