Abstract
AbstractSchool victimization issues remain largely unresolved due to over-reliance on unidimensional conceptions of victimization and data from a few developed OECD countries. Thus, support for cross-national generalizability over multiple victimization components (relational, verbal, and physical) is weak. Our substantive–methodological synergy tests the cross-national generalizability of a three-component model (594,196 fifteen-year-olds; nationally -representative samples from 77 countries) compared to competing (unidimensional and two-component) victimization models. We demonstrate the superior explanatory power of the three-component model—goodness-of-fit, component differentiation, and discriminant validity of the three components concerning gender differences, paradoxical anti-bullying attitudes (the Pro-Bully Paradox) whereby victims are more supportive of bullies than of other victims, and multiple indicators of well-being. For example, gender differences varied significantly across the three components, and all 13 well-being indicators were more strongly related to verbal and particularly relational victimization than physical victimization. Collapsing the three components into one or two components undermined discriminant validity. Cross-nationally, systematic differences emerged across the three victimization components regarding country-level means, gender differences, national development, and cultural values. These findings across countries support a tripartite model in which the three components of victimization—relational, verbal, and physical—relate differently to key outcomes. Thus, these findings advance victimization theory and have implications for policy, practice, and intervention. We also discuss directions for further research: the need for simultaneous evaluation of multiple, parallel components of victimization and bullying, theoretical definitions of bullying and victimization and their implications for measurement, conceptual bases of global victimization indices, cyberbullying, anti-bullying policies, and capitalizing on anti-bullying attitudes.
Funder
Australian Catholic University Limited
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Developmental and Educational Psychology,Education
Reference129 articles.
1. Alfonso-Rosa, R. M., García-Hermoso, A., et al. (2020). Lifestyle behaviors predict adolescents bullying victimization in low and middle-income countries. Journal of Affective Disorders, 273, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.04.065
2. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings is a meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
3. Baldry, A., & Farrington, D. (1999). Brief report is types of bullying among Italian school children. Journal of Adolescence, 22(3), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0234
4. Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802379085
5. Bear, G., Yang, C., Mantz, L., Pasipanodya, E., Hearn, S., & Boyer, D. (2014). Technical manual for Delaware School Survey: Scales of school climate, bullying victimization, student engagement, and positive, punitive, and social emotional learning techniques. Funded by the Delaware Positive Behavior Support Project at the Center for Disability Studies at University of Delaware and Delaware Department of Education. https://wh1.oet.udel.edu/pbs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Delaware-School-Survey-Technical-Manual-Fall-2016.pdf
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献