Peer Victimization and Adjustment:

Coping Style as Mediator or Moderator?

Edward J. Dill, Todd D. Little, Bridget K. Gamm, University of Kansas

Hypotheses

Participants and Procedure

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Testing Mediation

Testing Moderation

Discussion

Measures

Rationale / Objectives

†

†

0.20

0.21†

0.21†m / 0.20†f

0.10

†

0.12

-0.15-0.16†

m

f

0.47m / 0.44f

0.24†f

0.15

0.19

†

0.19†

0.44

0.13

0.17

0.13

Overt Agg.Ovt R2 = .23m / .24f

Rel R2 = .20m / .21f

Victimization

Direct CopingOvt R2 = .02Rel R2 = .02

Indirect CopingOvt R2 = .02Rel R2 = .02

Prosocial Coping

Antisocial CopingOvt R2 = .05Rel R2 = .09

Relational Agg.Ovt R2 = .34

Rel R2 = .31m / .32f

DepressionOvt R2 = .27

Rel R2 = .22m / .32f

†

†

0.20

0.21†

0.21†m / 0.20†f

0.10

†

0.12

-0.15-0.16†

m

f

0.47m / 0.44f

0.24†f

0.15

0.19

†

0.19†

0.44

0.13

0.17

0.13

Overt Agg.Ovt R2 = .23m / .24f

Rel R2 = .20m / .21f

Victimization

Direct CopingOvt R2 = .02Rel R2 = .02

Indirect CopingOvt R2 = .02Rel R2 = .02

Prosocial Coping

Antisocial CopingOvt R2 = .05Rel R2 = .09

Relational Agg.Ovt R2 = .34

Rel R2 = .31m / .32f

DepressionOvt R2 = .27

Rel R2 = .22m / .32f

N = 759 7th and 8th grade students (49% males, 51% females) Urban middle school in the northeastern U. S.Socioeconomic status ranged from lower to upper-middle class67% European American, 16% African American, 6% Hispanic American, and 11% from another ethnic backgroundActive parental consent and student assent were obtained (around 80% of eligible students)Trained research assistants proctored the survey administrationsThe broader data collection effort included measures regarding aggression, victimization, internalizing symptoms, coping mechanisms, personal motivation, agency beliefs, personality characteristics, and perceived competenceOrder of surveys was counterbalanced for different classroomsClinical staff screened all critical items on the CDI and provided appropriate follow-up support to students when necessary

Victimization Subscales: Overt and Relational VictimizationSurvey type: 12-item self-reportItems: Others often hit or kick me. (Overt)

Others often leave me out of what they are doing. (Relational)Scale: 4-point (not at all true, somewhat true, mostly true, completely true)Internal consistency: Cronbach’s αs = .90 (Overt) and .86 (Relational)

Behavioral Inventory of Strategic Control (BISC; Lopez & Little, 1994)Subscales: Direct, Indirect, Prosocial, and Antisocial CopingSurvey type: 12-item self-reportItems: I try to work it out. (Direct)

I do something else instead. (Indirect)I seek out others. (Prosocial)I think others can’t help me. (Antisocial)

Scale: 4-point (almost never, sometimes, often, almost always)Internal consistency: Cronbach’s αs = .80 (D), .76 (I), .76 (P), and .73 (A)

Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985, 1992)Subscales: Negative mood, Interpersonal problems, Ineffectiveness,

Anhedonia, and Negative self-esteem (used total score only)Survey type: 27-item self-reportItems: Pick which of 3 sentences best describes experience over prior 2 weeks Scale: 0, 1, 2 (higher scores indicate increasing symptoms of depression) Internal consistency: Cronbach’s α = .89 for the total scale

Aggression (Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley, 2003)Subscales: Overt and Relational AggressionSurvey type: 12-item self-reportItems: I’m the kind of person who

…pushes, kicks, or punches others. (Overt)…keeps others from being in my group of friends. (Relational)

Scale: 4-point (not at all true, somewhat true, mostly true, completely true)Internal consistency: Cronbach’s αs = .90 (Overt) and .77 (Relational)

____________________________________________________________________________ Overt Victimization Relational Victimization

Dependent Variable ______________________ ______________________ Independent Variable Males Females Males Females____________________________________________________________________________Depression R2 = .31 R2 = .22 R2 = .34 R2 = .25 Victimization .41 .41 .42 .42 Antisocial .21 .21 .19 .19 Vict X Direct –––– –––– -.19 -.19 Vict X Indirect –––– –––– -.13 -.13 Vict X Prosocial -.10 -.10 –––– ––––

Overt Aggression R2 = .15 R2 = .27 R2 = .14 R2 = .29 Victimization .18 .18 .10 .10 Direct –––– –––– -.10 -.10 Indirect .21 .21 .13 .13 Prosocial –––– –––– .14 .14 Antisocial .23 .23 .29 .29 Vict X Direct –––– .08 –––– –––– Vict X Indirect –––– –––– –––– .17 Vict X Antisocial –––– –––– –––– -.09

Relational Aggression R2 = .26 R2 = .34 R2 = .29 R2 = .32 Victimization .18 .18 .10 .10 Direct –––– –––– -.15 –––– Indirect .30 .30 .23 .23 Prosocial –––– –––– .14 .14 Antisocial .28 .28 .36 .36____________________________________________________________________________Note. The values in the table represent the significant (p < .05) standardized regression coefficients. Dashes indicate that the independent variable did not significantly predict the particular dependent variable for the type of victimization and gender specified. R2 = total amount of variance accounted for in the dependent variable by the main effect and interaction independent variables.

2-group CFA by Gender9 latent constructs (i.e., relational victimization, overt victimization, direct coping, indirect coping, prosocial coping, antisocial coping, depression, overt aggression, relational aggression) and 27 indicators (3 per construct)All loadings were significant (p < .001) and invariant across genders Model fit was excellent (RMSEA = 0.048, NNFI = 0.97)Gender differences in latent variances:

Greater variance for males – overt and relational victimization, overt and relational aggression Greater variance for females – depression, prosocial coping

Gender differences in latent means:Higher means for males – overt and relational victimization, indirect coping, antisocial coping, overt and relational aggressionHigher means for females – direct coping, prosocial coping, depression

Gender differences in latent correlations

Only statistically significant (p < .05) standardized regression coefficients are presented. Results for overt vict. and relational vict. as the IV are presented above and below the lines, respectively. Overall model fit for overt vict.: RMSEA = 0.050; NNFI = 0.96. Overall model fit for relational vict.: RMSEA = 0.048; NNFI = 0.96. R2 values are also listed separately for models containing overt (Ovt) vs. relational (Rel) victimization as the IV. Regression paths marked with a † indicate significant indirect mediational effects (p < .05), according to the Sobel test. In all cases, inclusion of the mediators increased the proportion of variance explained of the DV’s and decreased the direct effects of victimization on the DV’s. Results marked with a m or f indicate findings specific to males or females, respectively; otherwise, results are invariant across genders.

There are established links between peer victimization and internalizing symptoms (Hawker & Boulton, 2000) as well as between being victimized and displaying aggressive behaviors (Schwartz, 2000).

Both overt and relational forms of victimization have been reported to lead to maladjustment in children and adolescents (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001).

Children and adolescents engage in a variety of coping strategies (e.g., direct action, distraction/avoidance, support seeking, externalizing) in response to various stressors (e.g., Band & Weisz, 1988).

Two recent studies have supported complex moderating effects of coping style upon the victimization-maladjustment relationship (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Sandstrom, 2004). For example, the use of distancing/denial coping was found to have short-term positive consequences (e.g., decreased aggressive retaliation) but long-term negative effects (e.g., increased anxiety) following victimization.

Objective: To delineate and compare both moderating influences and mediating pathways in the prediction of which victimized children are at risk for (or protected against) the development of negative inter- and intra-personal sequelae. This will aid in the design of effective preventive interventions and evidence-based treatments for victimized youth.

Children who are victimized will report more use of indirect and antisocial coping and less use of direct and prosocial coping strategies (e.g., if they feel that the situation is uncontrollable).

Gender differences may emerge in types of coping strategies employed (e.g., girls may use more prosocial coping; boys may use more antisocial coping).

Mediation: Relationships between victimization and internalizing and externalizing symptoms will be partially explained by the coping strategies employed.

For example, the positive correlation between victimization and depression will be partially explained as follows: children who are victimized use more antisocial coping (i.e., believing that other people cannot help), which in turn is associated with increased depression.

Moderation: The relationship between victimization and maladjustment will depend on the type of coping strategy used.

The use of direct and prosocial coping will be related to less severe internalizing and externalizing symptoms in victimized children.

Antisocial coping will be related to increased internalizing and externalizing problems in victimized children.

Indirect (distraction) coping will be related to decreased depressive symptoms but increased aggression in victimized children.

Both mediating and moderating hypotheses were supported. Some gender differences and differences between overt and relational victimization were found (see figure and table). Only the most salient results are discussed here.

Children who were victimized reported using less direct coping and more indirect and antisocial strategies (possibly from feeling a lack of control to change the situation). However, there was not a systematic relationship between victimization and the use of prosocial coping.

The use of indirect coping partially explained the relationship between victimization and relational aggression (if problems are not dealt with directly, anger may be displaced later in interactions with other peers; Sandstrom, 2004).

The use of antisocial coping partially explained the relationships between victimization and depression and aggression (victimization may lead to the belief that others are not helpful or needed, which could lead to feelings of hopelessness as well as increasing tendencies to treat others poorly).

When testing moderation, the use of direct, indirect, and prosocial coping led to fewer depressive symptoms. Therefore, children who do something actively to solve the problem, who distract themselves, and/or who seek out help from supportive others are less likely to experience internalizing symptoms following victimization. Girls who were overtly victimized, and who used direct coping, reported more overt aggression (one direct approach is to fight back).

Implications: Prevention/intervention programs should teach a complex model of coping to children, as any one coping strategy (e.g., direct action, distraction) may not lead to universal positive outcomes following victimization.