441455, 2000
Cambridge University Press
' 2000 Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
00219630\00 $15.00j0.00
Michael J. Boulton
Keele University, U.K.
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, published between 1978 and 1997, of the association of peer
victimization with psychosocial maladjustment. 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 were used to assess both victimization and maladjustment than when different
informants were 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.
Keywords: Bullying, cross-cultural, internalizing disorder, meta-analysis, peer relationships,
victimization.
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 agemates. 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 childrens distress
does not go unrecognized. A common way of addressing
it empirically is with cross-sectional designs. In these
designs quantitative methods are used to investigate the
relation between childrens experiences of peer victimization and maladjustment, both assessed at a single
point in time. Cross-sectional studies of this type are
Request for reprints to : David S. J. Hawker, Oxford Regional
Training Course in Clinical Psychology, Isis Education Centre,
Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, U.K. (E-mail :
David.Hawker!oxmhc-tr.anglox.nhs.uk.)
441
442
Table 1
Forms of Victimization Assessed in Cross-sectional Adjustment Research
Victimization
category
Indirect
Physical
Target pushed
Target kicked
Targets hair pulled
Target locked inside a room
Others pick\ start fights with target
Others rough with target
Target shoved
Bullying can be physical
Targets belongings taken
Relational
Verbal
Target teased
Target laughed at\ ridiculed
Target called names\ nasty names
Target bullied
Target harassed or tormented
Others try to hurt targets feelings
Mean\ nasty things done to target
Target exposed to aggression
Target made fun of
PEER VICTIMIZATION
Generic
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boulton & Smith (1994) ; Byrne (1994) ; Callaghan & Joseph
(1995 ; self-reported victimization) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ;
self-reported victimization) ; Olweus (1978)* ; Vernberg (1990)
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Byrne (1994) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported
victimization) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported
victimization) ; Olweus (1978)*
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported victimization) ; Mynard
& Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee
(1992) ; Sharp (1996) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b)
Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)
Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Sharp (1996)
OMoore & Hillery (1991)
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported victimization) ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ;
Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee (1992) ; Slee (1994b,
1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b) ; Vernberg (1990)
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported and peer-reported
victimization) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph
(1994 ; self-reported and peer-reported victimization) ; Rigby (1996) ; Slee (1994a)
Bjo$ rkqvist et al. (1982)* ; Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)* ; Boivin et al. (1995)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)* ; Boivin et al. (1995)* ; Boulton & Smith (1994)
Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*
Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b)
* The reported description of victims experience was a translation into English of a term in another language.
443
444
Unfortunately there has been no systematic or metaanalytic review 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).
PEER VICTIMIZATION
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 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
445
446
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 (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ;
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 Josephs
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 Josephs (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 (Bjo$ rkqvist
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 8 and 13 years : 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 ; OMoore & 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,b, 1995a,b,c ; Slee & Rigby,
1993a,b) ; French Canada (Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin
et al., 1995) ; Northern Ireland (Callaghan & Joseph,
1995) ; the Irish Republic (Byrne, 1994 ; Neary & Joseph,
1994 ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991) ; Finland (Bjo$ rkqvist 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 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Boulton & Underwood,
1992 ; MacLeod & Morris, 1996 ; Mynard & Joseph,
1997 ; Sharp, 1996 ; Williams, Chambers, Logan, &
Robinson, 1996). With the exception of two studies of a
single French-speaking group of children (Boivin &
Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin et al., 1995), all the participants
have been English-speaking or Scandinavian.
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 ; Bjo$ rkqvist 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 ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ;
Rigby & Slee, 1992 ; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee &
Rigby, 1993b ; Vernberg, 1990). Physical and verbal
victimization (or at least forms of victimization approximating their definitions above) have generally been
PEER VICTIMIZATION
447
Table 2
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Depression
Study
With shared method variance
Vernberg (1990)
Slee (1995b)
Slee (1994a)
Bjo$ rkqvist et al. (1982)
Austin & Joseph (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Slee (1995c)
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Boivin et al. (1995)
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Mean effect size
Age range
(years)
Victimization
informants
73
220
363
67
425
438
290
120
60
1214
1217
1215
1416
811
812
M l 10.9
1012
1012
Self
Self
Self
Peers
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
567
63
60
912
1012
1012
Peers
Peers
Peers
Victimization
subtypesa
GPV
GPV
G
G
GPV
PRI
GPV
GPVb
GPVb
.23
.26
.31
.38
.39
.42
.51
.53
.81
.45****
1.80
3.86
5.72
2.33
7.93
8.79
8.60
4.21
6.27
GPV
Gb
Gb
.24
.26
.36
.29****
5.41
2.85
2.79
448
Table 3
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Loneliness
Study
With shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)
Mean effect size
Age range
(years)
120
67
200
438
56
812
120
67
798
810
Victimization
informants
Victimization
subtypesa
PVR
.14
1.50
GPVI
PRI
.31
.49
.32****
4.76
10.25
PVR
.15
1.66
GPV
.34
.25****
9.57
Table 4
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Anxiety
Study
** p
Age range
(years)
Victimization
informants
220
363
1217
1215
Self
Self
GPV
G
239
64
1216
13
Peers
Teachers
120
67
57
114
438
438
114
810
913
812
812
913
120
67
Dependent
measure
Victimization
subtypesa
Anxiety
Anxiety
.20
.29
.25****
2.97
5.53
G
PV
Q-inventory anxiety
Q-sort anxiety
.18
.24
.21**
2.78
1.67
PVR
Fear of peers
.13
1.03
GPV
GPV
PRI
PRI
GPV
Shyness
Social avoidance
Social anxiety
Social avoidance
Fear of negative evaluation
.17
.25
.26
.30
.40
.25****
1.28
2.67
5.44
6.28
4.27
PVR
Fear of peers
.14**
2.50
PEER VICTIMIZATION
Generalized anxiety
With shared method variance
Slee (1995b)
Slee (1994a)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
Olweus (1978)b
Mean effect size
Social anxiety
With shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
.25****
.19****
.01 ; **** p
.0001.
449
450
Table 5
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Global\General Self-Esteem
Study
**** p
Age range
(years)
Victimization
informants
783
810
120
713
1218
67
G
GPV
PVR
.12
.22
.24
3.36
6.26
5.13
425
377
179
87
60
120
811
1112
813
713
1012
1012
Self
Self
Self, teachers, peers,
parents
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
GPV
PVRI
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV
.38
.41
.45
.52
.53
.55
n39****
7.70
7.96
6.02
4.85
4.11
4.26
120
67
PVR
.03
1.75
239
76
177
1216
810
Primary & secondary
school age
13
1012
1012
G
GPV
PV
.17
.17
.23
2.63
1.51
3.00
Teachers
Peers
Peers
PV
G
G
.26
.22
.38
.21****
2.08
1.70
2.94
64
60
63
Victimization
subtypesa
.0001.
PEER VICTIMIZATION
451
Table 6
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Social Self-esteem
Study
With shared method variance
OMoore & Hillery (1991)
Vernberg (1990)
Slee & Rigby (1993b)b
Austin & Joseph (1996)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Mynard & Joseph (1997)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Boulton & Smith (1994)
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Mean effect size
a G l generic
b Boys only.
c Girls only.
**** p
Age range
(years)
Victimization
informants
783
73
87
425
60
120
179
713
1214
713
811
1012
1012
813
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
76
63
793
60
810
1012
810
1012
Peers
Peers
Peers
Peers
Victimization
subtypesa
G
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV
.14
.19
.26
.39
.43
.49
.52
.35****
3.92
1.47
2.43
9.54
3.33
5.37
6.96
GPV
G
GPV
G
.07
.23
.26
.34
.23****
0.59
1.83
7.32
2.63
.0001.
452
Table 7
Summary of Published Studies of the Associations between Victimization and
Psychosocial Maladjustment
Mean effect sizes (rs)
Dependent variable
.29
.25
.21
.23
.14*
.21*
.19
.45
.32
.39
.35
.25
.25
.25
Depression
Loneliness
Global self-esteem
Social self-concept
Social anxiety
Generalized anxiety
Anxiety overall (social\
generalized)
*p
.0001.
PEER VICTIMIZATION
References
Data from the asterisked papers were included in the metaanalysis.
* Alsaker, F. D. (1993). Isolement et maltraitance par les pairs
dans les jardins denfants : comment mesurer ces phe! nome' nes
453
454
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, U.K. : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer
victimization in middle school : An attributional analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 587599.
Hammen, C. L., & Glass, D. R. (1975). Depression, activity
and evaluation of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 718721.
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, The Netherlands.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (1998). Peer victimization :
Cause and consequence of psychosocial maladjustment ? Manuscript submitted for publication.
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, 13051317.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Childrens 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, 705717.
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,
427449.
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 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., Bjo$ rkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E.
(1982). Group aggression among school children in three
schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 4552.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion : Social
anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221229.
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 Eysencks personality dimensions in 8to 13-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 5154.
* Neary, A., & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its
relationship to self-concept and depression among schoolgirls. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 183186.
* 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 : Lawrence Erlbaum.
* OMoore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1991). What do teachers need
PEER VICTIMIZATION
personality factors and self-esteem to bully-victim behaviour
in Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371373.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1994). Peer victimisation at school.
AECA Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19, 310.
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, 94100.
Strauss, C. C., Lahey, B. B., Frick, P., Frame, C. L., & Hynd,
G. W. (1988). Peer social status of children with anxiety
disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
137141.
Strube, M. J. (1985). Combining and comparing significance
levels from nonindependent hypothesis tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 334341.
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.
455
* Vernberg, E. M. (1990). Psychological adjustment and experience with peers during early adolescence : Reciprocal,
incidental, or unidirectional relationships ? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 187198.
Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A
multimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 571575.
Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1986). The social-context of
adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15,
315322.
West, D. A., Kellner, R., & Moorewest, M. (1986). The effects
of lonelinessa review of the literature. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 27, 351363.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and
extent of bullying in junior\middle and secondary schools.
Educational Research, 35, 325.
Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996).
Association of common health symptoms with bullying in
primary school children. British Medical Journal, 313, 1719.
Manuscript accepted 17 September 1999
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.