Moderators of the Effect of Peer Victimization During FifthGrade on Subsequent Symptoms of (Anxious) Depression:The Roles of Engagement in Bullying and BaselineSymptomatology

Christopher C. Henrich & Golan Shahar

# Society for Prevention Research 2014

Abstract Two hypothesized moderators of the effect of peervictimization during fifth grade on subsequent symptoms of(anxious) depression in sixth grade were examined: engage-ment in bullying and baseline fifth grade symptoms of(anxious) depression. Analyses were conducted on longitudi-nal data from the National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development Study of Early Child Care and YouthDevelopment. Interview data from 1,081 fifth grade partici-pants assessed peer victimization and engagement in bullyingclassmates during the school year. Self-reported symptoms ofdepression were measured in fifth and sixth grade with theChild Depression Inventory Short form. Additionally, mater-nal reports of child anxious depression were measured withthe Child Behavior Checklist. Engagement in bullying andconcurrent depression symptoms moderated the effect of peervictimization in fifth grade on child-reported symptoms ofdepression in sixth grade. The adverse effect of peer victimi-zation was stronger for children with high levels of concurrentdepression symptoms or engagement in bullying. Concurrentsymptomatology also moderated the effects of peer victimiza-tion on mother-reported child anxious depression 1 year later.

Keywords Peer victimization . Depression . Bullying

Estimates from the nationally representative Health Risk Be-havior of School-aged Children survey indicate that by sixthgrade a large number of students are being victimized by

physical (21.5 %), verbal (45.2 %), and/or relational (50 %)forms of bullying (Wang et al. 2009). Furthermore, levels ofpeer victimization are highest in early adolescence, becomingless prevalent in the older grades (Wang et al. 2009). These ratesof peer victimization are alarming given the risks victimizationpose to youth adjustment and mental health, particularly de-pression (Hawker and Boulton 2000). Depression is a salientmental health outcome at this age, given that the transition toadolescence is associated with markedly higher prevalencerates of depressive disorders (Rohde et al. 2013). The mentalhealth effects of peer victimization can persist over time (e.g.,Hodges and Perry 1999), even from childhood into youngadulthood (Copeland et al. 2013; Isaacs et al. 2008).

The purpose of the present study was to examine childcharacteristics that may exacerbate the effect of peer victimi-zation on depression over time. This examination was guidedby a developmental perspective focusing on the ways in whichchildren’s individual characteristics can influence the devel-opment of psychopathology through shaping contextual pro-cesses of risk and resilience (Bronfenbrenner and Morris2006; Lerner 1982). Such an approach to identifying factorsthat can make children more vulnerable to the depressogeniceffects of peer victimization has potentially important preven-tion implications. Indicated prevention efforts, which entailselection of children for intervention based on assessment ofindividual risk factors (Gordon 1983), can have robust effectson behavioral mental health outcomes (Durlak and Wells1998), and are more effective at preventing depression thanare universal prevention strategies (Horowitz and Garber2006). A focus on individual factors that exacerbate the ad-verse effects of peer victimization can provide information onwhich students may be at higher risk for sustained adverseeffects, as well as how the content of preventive interventionsmay be tailored to optimally benefit different types ofchildren. In this study, we focused on two individual

C. C. Henrich (*)Department of Psychology, Georgia State University,P.O. Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302-5010, USAe-mail: chenrich@gsu.edu

G. ShaharDepartment of Psychology, Ben Gurion University of the Negev,Beer-Sheva, Israel

Prev SciDOI 10.1007/s11121-013-0456-9

factors that may exacerbate the effect of peer victimiza-tion on subsequent symptoms of depression as follows:engagement in bullying and baseline symptomatology.

Bullying

Peer victimization often occurs within the context of bullying(e.g., Varjas et al. 2009), indicating that a number of victimsare also bullies. These “bully-victims” are uniquely placed atrisk by several factors. They are more reactively aggressivethan other bullies, and compared to victims who do not alsobully, they tend to have lower social status (e.g., less socialacceptance and fewer friends) and have poorer self-esteemand self-concept (Austin and Joseph 1996; Perren and Alsaker2006; Andreou 2000, 2001; Houbre et al. 2006; Unnever2005; Veenstra et al. 2005). Olweus (2001) has referred tochildren who both bully and are victimized by peers as “pro-vocative victims,” suggesting that they act and react in waysthat can provoke continued peer victimization. Furthermore,low self-esteem and social isolation are potent risk factors fordepression (Pettit and Joiner 2006), and not surprisingly,bully-victims have been found to be at increased risk forsymptoms of depression (Conners-burrow et al. 2009;Copeland et al. 2013; Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2000; Sweareret al. 2004). Limitations of the literature on the mental healthsymptoms of those who both bully and are victimized by peersare that it is largely cross-sectional—although recent longitu-dinal findings indicate potentially large long-term risks asso-ciated with being a bully-victim (Copeland et al. 2013)—andthat in much of the literature, children are arbitrarily classifiedinto groups (e.g., ‘bully,’ ‘victim,’ or ‘bully-victim’) based onsample-based Z-scores or percentiles rather than on a prioricriteria (Solberg and Olweus 2003). As such, there is stillmuch to be learned about how bullying and victimizationinteract with one another to prospectively predict mentalhealth outcomes, and depression in particular. In the currentstudy, rather than attempt to classify children into one group oranother, we examined the linear interaction between continu-ous measures of bullying and peer victimization to test wheth-er higher levels of involvement in bullying exacerbates theeffect of victimization on symptoms of depression 1 year later.

Baseline Depression Symptoms

Joiner (1994) called for moving beyond the standard practiceof controlling for initial levels of psychopathology in longitu-dinal studies that examine the effect of risk and protectivefactors on subsequent psychopathology. He recommendedthat interactions between these risk/protective factors andinitial, or baseline, levels of psychopathology be examined,so as to identify the differential effects of risk and protective

factors on mental health outcomes as a function of baselineconditions (Joiner and Rudd 2000). Joiner’s position appearsto be highly pertinent to the effect of peer victimization onchildren’s symptoms of depression. Specifically, peer victim-ization is likely to have a particularly strong effect on subse-quent symptoms of depression for children who are alreadydepressed. The rationale for this hypothesis is as follows: peervictimization can be a major stressor for children, and thestress-depression link is stronger among people who are al-ready depressed (Post 1992). Also, because depression ishighly comorbid with anxiety (e.g., Brady and Kendall1992), it is important to examine the extent to whichthe hypothesized moderating role of baseline depressionalso emerges when comorbid anxiety is included (i.e.,anxious depression).

The Present Study

The current study builds on the extant literature linking peervictimization to depression by asking, what factors exacerbatethe effect of peer victimization on subsequent symptoms ofdepression 1 year later? Guided by a perspective in which therisks of peer victimization are posited to operate differently forchildren based on their individual characteristics, and basedon bodies of literature reviewed above on the risks associatedwith being a bully-victim and of the role of baseline symp-tomatology in exacerbating the potency of risk factors forsubsequent psychopathology, we hypothesized that engage-ment in bullying and concurrent symptoms of depressionwould exacerbate the effect of peer victimization on subse-quent symptoms of depression. Due to gender differences indepression (Nolen-Hoeksema 2001), as well as in the types ofpeer victimization reported by children (e.g., Mynard andJoseph 2000; Varjas et al. 2009), interactions by child genderwere also considered.

These research questions were examined through second-ary analysis of data from the NICHD Study of Early ChildCare and Youth Development, a large-scale longitudinal studythat included self-reported assessments of peer victimizationand engagement in bullying in fifth and sixth grade, plus bothchild-reported symptoms of depression and maternal re-ports of children’s symptoms of anxious depression infifth and sixth grade. The study also benefits from alow rate of attrition over time.

Method

Participants

The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Develop-ment (SECCYD; US Department of Health and Human

Prev Sci

Services 2010) started data collection in 1991 when partici-pating children were 1 month old and followed them throughninth grade. Participating mothers who had just given birthwere recruited from hospitals in ten cities—Little Rock, AR,Irvine, CA, Lawrence, KS, Boston, MA, Philadelphia, andPittsburgh, PA, Charlottesville, VA, Morganton, NC, Seattle,WA, andMadison,WI—if theymet eligibility criteria of beingover 18 years old, proficient in English, not having a sub-stance use problem, and having a healthy child (i.e., nothospitalized for more than a week after birth) with no knowndisabilities (for more information, see http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd/Pages/overview.aspx). Fifty-eight percent of eligible families who were invited to partici-pate agreed to participate (NICHD Early Child Care ResearchNetwork 1997) resulting in a total sample size of 1,364recruited to be in the study.

Data for the current study were from phase III of theNICHD SECCYD, which spanned third through sixth grade.Our focus was on measures included in the fifth and sixthgrade assessment waves. By phase III, the study’s sample sizehad decreased to N=1,081 due to families either declining tocontinue participation or moving away. Interviews were con-ducted in children’s homes and during family visits to theresearchers’ laboratories. Child gender, race, and ethnicitydata were collected when families first entered into the study.This sample was 50%male and 81%White, with 12%Blackor African-American, 2 % Asian or Pacific Islander, less thanhalf a percent American Indian, Eskimo or Aleutian, and 5 %reporting a racial group of “other.” In terms of ethnicity, 6 %of the sample was Hispanic. The sample was socioeconomi-cally diverse, with a median family income of $65,000 whenchildren were in fifth grade, and an annual income range from$2,500 to over $500,000. In fifth grade, the average partici-pant age was 11 years old (NICHDEarly Child Care ResearchNetwork 2004). Demographic comparisons between the1,081 phase III participants and the remaining 283 whodropped out before phase III revealed no significant differ-ences by race (χ2(4)=7.03, p=0.13) or Hispanic ethnicity(χ2(1)=0.39, p=0.54). There was a difference in child gender(χ2(1)=5.00, p=0.03). A greater proportion of families withboys had dropped out by phase II (58 vs. 50 %).

Measures

Peer victimization and engagement in bullying were measuredby child-report on the Kids in My Class at School question-naire (US Department of Health and Human Services 2010),which was adapted from an instrument used by Ladd andcolleagues (e.g., Kochenderfer and Ladd 1996, 1997). Chil-dren rated items about their social experiences that school yearon a five-point scale from 1=never to 5=always. In researchusing this instrument, Ladd and colleagues reported peervictimization in elementary school to be associated with a

host of measures of school maladjustment, and that levels ofvictimization were similar to those reported in studies usingthe more widely used Olweus Bullying Survey (Kochenderferand Ladd 1996, 1997).

Peer victimization was assessed by averaging responses toitems representing physical, verbal, and relational victimiza-tion as follows: does anyone in your class (a) pick on you atschool, (b) say mean things to you at school, (c) say bad thingsabout you to other kids at school, and (d) hit you at school?These items formed an internally consistent scale, α=0.81;M=1.80 (SD=0.77).

Engagement in bullying was assessed by averaging re-sponses to four items designed to mirror the victimization itemsas follows: do you (a) pick on other kids in your class at school,(b) say mean things to other kids in your class at school, (c) saybad things about other kids in your class at school, and (d) hitother kids in your class at school? These items formed aninternally consistent scale, α=0.78; M=1.29 (SD=0.45).

Symptoms of depression were measured in fifth and sixthgrade with the Child Depression Inventory Short form (CDI:S;Kovacs 1992). The CDI:S consists of ten items, each scored ona scale from 0 to 2. Scores were summed to form an internallyconsistent measure of depressive symptoms, α=0.73 in bothfifth and sixth grade. Validity studies indicate that the sensitivityof the CDI:S is equivalent to that of the widely used full-lengthCDI, and scores on the CDI:S of ≥3 have been suggested as acutoff for clinically significant symptoms (Allgaier et al. 2012).In this sample, the average score was M=1.28 (SD=1.95) infifth grade, and M=1.41 (SD=2.15) in sixth grade.

The measures described above were all self-reported bychildren. To examine symptoms of anxious depression,mother-reported child anxiety/depression was included as aseparate outcome variable. It was measured in fifth and sixthgrade by the widely used and well-validated Child BehaviorChecklist (CBCL; Achenbach 1991), which was administeredto mothers at home (fifth grade) or during the family visit tothe research labs (sixth grade). The anxious/depressed domainof the CBCL consists of 14 items rated by mothers on a scaleof 0=not true to 2=very true or often true, and the scale has apublished internal consistency of α=0.84 (Achenbach andRescorla 2001). Standardized T-scores were used in the anal-yses. For the anxiety/depression scale, T-scores ≥65 are con-sidered to be in the clinical range. In fifth grade, the average T-score wasM=53.14 (SD=5.48), and in sixth grade the averageT-score was M=52.83 (SD=5.30).

All variables were square-root transformed to reduce skew-ness prior to analyses.

Results

Of the 1,081 children and families participating in phase III ofthe NICHDSECCYD, 150 (14%) had missing data on at least

Prev Sci

one of the measures in the study. To account for these missingdata, analyses were conducted on 30 imputed datasets usingBayesian analysis in Mplus 7.1 to impute missing values(Asparouhov and Muthén 2010). Subsequent analyses werealso conducted in Mplus; the program is versatile in handlingcomplex survey data and adjusting standard errors to correctfor nonindependence of observations due to clustering ofsamples. Analyses employed a robust maximum likelihoodestimator and took into account clustering by the ten researchsites. Because multiple imputation was used to handle missingdata, results reported represent the average estimates acrossthe 30 imputed datasets.

Correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1.Of note, the cross-sectional correlation between self-reports ofpeer victimization and concurrent symptoms of depression infifth grade (r=0.35) was similar to the mean correlation be-tween the two variables in Hawker and Boulton’s (2000) meta-analysis in studies with shared method variance (r=0.45); how-ever, the correlation between peer victimization and concurrentmother-reported depression/anxiety was substantially lower (r=0.16). Additionally, the correlation between self-reported bul-lying and peer victimization (r=0.42) was similar to that foundin previous studies (e.g., r=0.49 in Varjas et al. 2009). Theautoregressive correlation of child-report symptoms of depres-sion between grades 5 and 6, which reflects the degree ofinterindividual change over time, was r=0.49, indicating amoderate amount of stability in the outcome variable. Theautocorrelation over time for mother-report anxiety/depressionwas r=0.69. Child-report symptoms of depression andmother-report child anxiety/depression were relativelydistinct; the two were mildly correlated r=0.20 in fifthgrade and r=0.22 in sixth grade.

Child-Report Symptoms of Depression

To examine moderators of the effects of peer victimization infifth grade on symptoms of depression 1 year later, a regres-sion model was estimated in which sixth grade depression

symptoms were regressed on fifth grade peer victimization,fifth grade engagement in bullying, fifth grade depressionsymptoms, and child gender, plus interactions of peer victim-ization with fifth grade depression symptoms, fifth gradeengagement in bullying, and child gender. Childrace/ethnicity was not included in the regression because itwas uncorrelated with symptoms of depression. Family in-come was also not included in the regression because, al-though it was slightly correlated with sixth grade depressionsymptoms (see Table 1), it had no unique effect after control-ling for fifth grade depression symptoms. All continuousvariables were mean centered before creating the interactionterms, and child gender was dummy coded so that 1=male.

The model explained 28 % of the variance in sixth gradedepression symptoms, p<0.001. Standardized coefficients arepresented in Table 2. As indicated in the table, there was aconditional effect of peer victimization on increased depres-sion symptoms. This effect was moderated by engagement inbullying and by levels of fifth grade depression symptoms, butnot by child gender.

Each interaction was probed by estimating the simpleslopes of peer victimization at high and low levels of themoderator (Aiken and West 1991). There was not a statisti-cally significant effect of peer victimization on depressionsymptoms 1 year later for students who did not engage inbullying, β=0.07, p=0.11, whereas the effect of peer victim-ization on subsequent symptoms of depression for studentswho reported high (+1 SD) levels of engagement in bullyingwas β=0.18, p<0.001. As well, for students who reported noconcurrent depression symptoms (i.e., in fifth grade), therewas not a statistically significant effect of peer victimizationon subsequent depression symptoms in sixth grade, β=0.05,p=0.21, whereas for students with high levels of concurrentdepression symptoms (+1 SD, which is just above the clinicalcut-off score), the effect of peer victimization on subsequentsymptoms of depression was β=0.19, p<0.001.

We also estimated a regression model that added the fol-lowing exploratory three-way interactions: victimization ×

Table 1 Correlations among study variables

Family income Male Engagement in bullying(5th grade)

Peer victimization(5th grade)

CDI (5th grade) CDI (6th grade) CBCL (5th grade)

Male −0.04Engagement in bullying(5th grade)

−0.10** 0.07

Peer victimization(5th grade)

−0.15** 0.02 0.43**

CDI (5th grade) −0.09** −0.03 0.14** 0.35**

CDI (6th grade) −0.08** −0.04 0.19** 0.32** 0.49**

CBCL (5th grade) −0.09** 0.03 0.02 0.16** 0.20** 0.18**

CBCL (6th grade) −0.06* 0.06 0.00 0.16** 0.21** 0.22** 0.69**

N=1,081. CDI child-report depression, CBCLmother-report depression/anxiety. *p<0.05; **p<0.01

Prev Sci

bullying × gender, victimization × concurrent depressionsymptoms × gender, and victimization × bullying × concur-rent depression symptoms (as well all constituent two-wayinteractions). None of the three-way interaction termsapproached statistical significance.

Mother Reports of Child Anxious Depression Symptoms

Similar regression models were conducted for mothers’ re-ports of children’s anxious depression symptoms. Sixth gradeanxious depression symptoms were regressed on fifth gradepeer victimization, fifth grade engagement in bullying, fifthgrade anxious depression symptoms, and child gender, plusinteractions of peer victimization with fifth grade anxiousdepression symptoms, fifth grade engagement in bullying,and child gender. Child race/ethnicity and family income werenot included in the regression because they were uncorrelatedwith the outcome.

The model explained 49 % of the variance in sixth gradeanxious depression symptoms, p<0.001. Standardized coeffi-cients are reported in Table 3. There was a small but statisti-cally significant conditional effect of peer victimization onincreased anxious depression symptoms. There was also amarginally significant (p=0.05) interaction between peer vic-timization and fifth grade anxious depression symptoms. Thisinteraction was probed by estimating the effects of victimiza-tion on sixth grade anxious depression symptoms at high and

low levels of fifth grade anxious depression symptoms. Forstudents with low levels of concurrent (i.e., fifth grade) anx-ious depression symptoms (−1 SD), there was no effect ofpeer victimization on subsequent anxious depression symp-toms, β=0.01, p=0.84; whereas for students who were 1 SDabove the mean of fifth grade anxious depression symptoms(+1 SD), the effect of peer victimization on subsequent symp-tomatology was β=0.13, p=0.02. For children at the CBLC’sclinical cutoff, which was approximately 2 SDs above themean of concurrent symptoms, the effect of peer victimizationon subsequent depression symptoms was β=0.21, p=0.03.

We also estimated a regression model that added the fol-lowing exploratory three-way interactions: victimization ×bullying × gender, victimization × concurrent anxious depres-sion × gender, and victimization × bullying × concurrentanxious depression (as well as constituent two-way interac-tions). None of the three-way interaction terms approachedstatistical significance.

Discussion

Using data from the NICHD SECCYD to investigatemoderators of the effect of peer victimization on symp-toms of depression 1 year later, we found that the effectof peer victimization on subsequent self-reported symptomsof depression was stronger for children who bullied others orhad high baseline symptoms. When maternal report of chil-dren’s symptoms of anxious depression was used as the out-come variable, the effect of peer victimization was alsostronger for children with high levels of baseline anxiousdepression symptoms.

These findings extend the above reviewed research, whichsuggests that children and adolescents who both bully and arevictimized by peers are vulnerable to maladjustment in gen-eral and depression in particular (Conners-Burrow et al. 2009;Copeland et al. 2013; Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2000). In our study,involvement in bullying appeared to exacerbate the effect ofpeer victimization only for child self-reported symptomatolo-gy, and the interaction effect was small. It is surprising that amore robust effect was not detected, given the body of litera-ture on the risks associated with “bully-victims.” It may bebecause overall reports of bullying were low in the currentsample. Still, our findings call further attention for the need toidentify and intervene expeditiously with children who bothbully and are victimized by their peers.

As noted, effects of peer victimization on subsequentsymptoms of depression and anxious depression in sixth gradewere stronger for children with higher levels of baselinesymptomatology. Of note, the standardized effects of peervictimization were equivalent and of moderate magnitudefor children at the clinical threshold of both child- andparent-reported concurrent symptomatology, highlighting the

Table 2 6th grade child-report symptoms of depression

5th grade β SEβ p

Male −0.04 0.03 0.221

Depression symptoms 0.40 0.04 <0.001

Engagement in bullying 0.05 0.03 0.130

Peer victimization 0.12 0.03 <0.001

Male × victimization 0.01 0.03 0.860

Bullying × victimization 0.06 0.03 0.035

Depression × victimization 0.08 0.03 0.002

N=1,081. R2 =0.28, p<0.001. Standardized parameter estimates reported

Table 3 6th grade mother-report symptoms of anxious depression

5th grade β SE β p

Male 0.04 0.03 0.233

Anxious depression symptoms 0.66 0.04 <0.001

Engagement in bullying −0.04 0.02 0.051

Peer victimization 0.07 0.03 0.028

Male × victimization −0.02 0.04 0.689

Bullying × victimization 0.01 0.03 0.923

Anxious depression × victimization 0.07 0.04 0.050

N=1,081. R2 =0.49, p<0.001. Standardized parameter estimates reported

Prev Sci

clinical risk of peer victimization for compounding symptom-atology and leading to more serious depression. Although theNICHD SECCYD study has an extensive longitudinal designand an exhaustive battery of measures, different constructs areassessed at different waves, and as a result, we restrictedanalyses for this study to two waves of data. Thus, analyseswere only able to capture a snapshot of the developmentalprocesses at play. The pattern emerging from analyses of thesetwo waves of data appears to be one in which symptoms ofdepression (and anxious depression) and peer victimizationoperate synergistically such that greater symptomatology atbaseline exacerbates the effect of peer victimization on sub-sequent symptoms of depression. As indicated, peer victimi-zation can be a source of major stress for children, anddepressed children might be particularly vulnerable to such astressor, leading to increased symptomatology over time.

One possible mechanism underlying such a synergisticeffect could be rumination, i.e., the tendency to adopt aninquisitive, evaluative, self-focused attention (Nolen-Hoeksema 2000). Rumination has been shown to be both acause and consequence of depression, and to be involved inseveral anxiety disorders (Nolen-Hoeksema 2000; Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow 1991). Children with depression arehighly ruminative. It is possible that, when these depressedand highly ruminative children experience peer victimization,they direct their attention inwardly, attempting to identify realor imagined flaws in themselves that propelled the victimiza-tion, as opposed to engaging in more constructive ways ofcoping (e.g., seeking assistance from school personnel). This,in turn, might increase the likelihood of subsequent symptomsof depression and anxiety. Research should build on recentfindings implicating rumination in the link between peer vic-timization and depression (Barchia and Bussey 2010;Rudolph et al. 2011).

Future research should also explore the extent to whichchanges in the social environment explain why children withhigh initial levels of symptomatology are more vulnerable tothe effects of peer victimization on subsequent symptomatol-ogy. Action-oriented perspectives on development focus onrole of children’s individual characteristics on shaping theirsocial context (e.g., Lerner 1982), and there is empiricalsupport for the role of depression in having a negative impacton the social environment of children and adolescents. Higherlevels of depressive symptoms predict decreases in socialsupport over time, particularly for support from parents(Jaycox et al. 2009; Larsen et al. 2012). It may be that whendepressed children experience peer problems like victimiza-tion, they are less able to elicit support from other socialcontexts, like the family, to help cope.

Alternately, the interactive effect of peer victimization andconcurrent symptomatology on subsequent symptoms of de-pression and anxious depression may reflect a process inwhich children who experience greater short-term distress by

victimization are at higher risk for developing sustained symp-tomatology over time. Because only two waves of data onboth peer victimization and depression symptoms were avail-able, with a 1-year interval between assessments, we could nottease apart baseline symptomatology that was present prior toreported victimization versus that which presented followingexperiences of victimization. Furthermore, it is possible thatthe findings reported here capture one relatively brief segmentof an ongoing, “vicious” developmental cycle involving de-pression, bullying, and peer-victimization, potentiallycompounding over childhood and into adolescence. Capturingsuch a cycle would entail using data analytic techniques thatrequire more longitudinal waves of data (Ferrer and McArdle2010). Given that the effects of peer victimization in child-hood can persist at least to early adulthood (Copeland et al.2013; Isaacs et al. 2008), a greater understanding of thedynamics of how peer victimization, bullying, and symptomsof depression may compound or cascade over developmentaltransitions from childhood to adolescence to adulthood couldhelp inform the timing and scope of preventive interventionefforts across these developmental periods.

Several additional limitations of the NICHD SECCYDdataset constrain the conclusions from this study. First, withthe exception of mother-reported anxiety/depression, all mea-sures were child self-report. This shared method variance caninflate the estimate of the association between peer victimiza-tion and symptoms of depression, Also, peer reports wouldhave provided a more robust assessment of peer victimization(e.g., Pakaslahti and Keltikangas-Järvinen 2001). Further-more, although questions assessing peer victimization andengagement in bullying reflected physical, verbal, and rela-tional forms, the scales were too brief to examine whetherthere were differential effects for the different forms of vic-timization. This inability to differentiate forms of victimiza-tion may explain why no gender effects were detected; re-search has found that gender differences in bullying andvictimization disappear when scores are collapsed across thedifferent forms (Varjas et al. 2009). Additionally, cyber vic-timization has received increasing attention from researchers.Although cyber victimization appears to be less common thanthe other forms of victimization, especially among early andpre-adolescents (Varjas et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2011), it alsodistinct from other forms of peer victimization (Varjas et al.2009), and may place victims at particularly high risk fordepression (Wang et al. 2011). Last, the NICHD SECCYDsample was largely European-American, which limits gener-alizability of findings to other cultural groups.

Despite these limitations, the current study’s findings arepertinent for efforts to intervene in bullying at school to reduceits prevalence and to help protect students from its potentiallylong-term negative impact on mental health. Specifically,findings indicate that children who bully others or have strug-gled with depressive symptoms may be placed at particularly

Prev Sci

high risk for subsequent problems with depression when theyare victimized by their peers.

Research suggests that that effective anti-bullying interven-tions involve multiple components, combining universal andtargeted (i.e., indicated) prevention strategies (Vreeman andCarroll 2007). Targeted prevention components often involvecounseling with bullies and support groups for victims. How-ever, there is little empirical support for the effectiveness ofvictim support groups at mitigating the adverse effects ofvictimization (Ttofi and Farrington 2011; Varjas et al. 2006;Williford et al. 2012). An implication of our findings is thatselection for and tailoring of targeted interventions with vic-tims should be based on other individual characteristics be-sides just victimization. One promising type of indicatedprevention program may be mentoring programs for victimswho are also at heightened risk for behavioral problems anddepressive symptoms (Vreeman and Carroll 2007). For exam-ple, King et al. (2002) assessed the effects of participation in ayear-long mentoring program for fourth grade students, whowere selected for intervention based on risk profiles thatincluded behavior problems, low self-esteem, and symptomsof depression. Program participation was associated with in-creased self-esteem, better peer relations, reduced involve-ment in bullying, and decreased symptomatology. Addition-ally, indicated prevention efforts for children who both expe-rience peer victimization and report symptoms of depressioncould benefit from interventions that incorporate elements ofevidence-based cognitive behavioral techniques used to pre-vent depression in children and adolescents (Clarke et al.1995; Horowitz and Garber 2006; Weisz et al. 2005).

Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of indicatedpreventive efforts targeted at victims who also bully others orreport high levels of symptomatology. Evaluation research onsuch prevention efforts could in turn inform our theoreticalunderstanding of how individual characteristics can interactivelyshape processes of risk and resilience in children’s development(Cicchetti and Hinshaw 2002). Such bridging of basic andapplied research is critical for reaching the goal of being able toeffectively prevent peer victimization from having long-termadverse effects on mental health and well-being.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18and profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department ofPsychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBASchool-Age forms & profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont,Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Allgaier, A., Frühe, B., Pietsch, K., Saravo, B., Baethmann, M., &Schulte-Körne, G. (2012). Is the Children’s Depression Inventory

Short version a valid screening tool in pediatric care? A comparisonto its full-length version. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 73,369–374. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.08.016.

Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association withpsychological constructs in 8- to 12-year-old Greek schoolchildren.Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49–56. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1<49::AID-AB4>3.0.CO;2-M.

Andreou, E. (2001). Bully/victim problems and their association withcoping behavior in conflictual peer interactions among school-agechildren. Educational Psychology, 21, 59–66. doi:10.1080/01443410125042.

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Multiple imputation with Mplus.MPlus Web Notes.

Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8to 11 year olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447–456. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01211.x.

Barchia, K., & Bussey, K. (2010). The psychological impact of peervictimization: Exploring social-cognitive mediators of depression.Journal of Adolescence, 33, 615–623. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.002.

Brady, E. U., & Kendall, P. C. (1992). Comorbidity of anxiety anddepression in children and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin,111, 244–255. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.244.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model ofhuman development. In R. M. Lerner &W. Damon (Eds.),Handbookof child psychology (6th ed.): Vol 1, Theoretical models of humandevelopment (pp. 793–828). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Cicchetti, D., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Development and psychopathol-ogy: Editorial: Prevention and intervention science: Contributions todevelopmental theory.Development and Psychopathology, 14, 667–671. doi:10.1017/S0954579402004017.

Clarke, G. N., Hawkins, W., Murphy, M., Sheeber, L. B., Lewinsohn, P.M., & Seeley, J. R. (1995). Targeted prevention of unipolar depres-sive disorder in an at-risk sample of high school adolescents: Arandomized trial of a group cognitive intervention. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 312–321.doi:10.1097/00004583-199503000-00016.

Conners-Burrow, N. A., Johnson, D. L., Whiteside-Mansell, L.,McKelvey, L., & Gargus, R. A. (2009). Adult s matter: Protectingchildren from the negative impacts of bullying. Psychology in theSchools, 46, 593–604. doi:10.1002/pits.20400.

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adultpsychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers inchildhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 1–8.

Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1998). Evaluation of indicated preventiveintervention (secondary prevention) mental health programs forchildren and adolescents. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 26, 775–802. doi:10.1023/A:1022162015815.

Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J. (2010). Longitudinal modeling of develop-mental changes in psychological research. Current Directions inPsycho log ica l Sc ience , 19, 149–154 . do i :10 .1177 /0963721410370300.

Gordon, R. S., Jr. (1983). An operational classification of disease preven-tion. Public Health Reports, 98, 107.

Hawker, D. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peervictimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic re-view of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 41, 441–455. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00629.

Hodges, E. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal ante-cedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.677.

Horowitz, J. L., & Garber, J. (2006). The prevention of depressivesymptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 401–415. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.401.

Prev Sci

Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E. (2006). Bullyingamong students and its consequences on health. European Journalof Psychology of Education, 21, 183–208. doi:10.1007/BF03173576.

Isaacs, J., Hodges, E. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Long-term consequencesof victimization by peers: A follow-up from adolescence to youngadulthood. European Journal of Developmental Science, 2, 387–397.

Jaycox, L. H., Stein, B. D., Paddock, S., Miles, J. V., Chandra, A.,Meredith, L. S., &…Burnam, M. (2009). Impact of teen depressionon academic, social, and physical functioning. Pediatrics, 124,e596–e605. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3348.

Joiner, T. E. (1994). Covariance of baseline symptom scores in predictionof future symptom scores: A methodological note. CognitiveTherapy and Research, 18, 497–504. doi:10.1007/BF02357756.

Joiner, T. E., & Rudd, M. (2000). Intensity and duration of suicidal crisisvary as a function of previous suicide attempts and negative lifeevents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 909–916. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.909.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000).Bullying at school—an indicator of adolescents at risk for mentaldisorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661–674. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0351.

King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., Davis, B., & McClellan, W. (2002).Increasing self-esteem and school connectedness through a multidi-mensional mentoring program. Journal of School Health, 72, 294–299. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb01336.x.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause orconsequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67,1305–1317. doi:10.2307/1131701.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G.W. (1997). Victimized children’s responsesto peers’ aggression: Behaviors associated with reduced versus con-tinued victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 59–73.doi:10.1017/S0954579497001065.

Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI): Technicalmanual update. North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Larsen, J. K., Vermulst, A. A., Eisinga, R., English, T., Gross, J. J.,Hofman, E., &… Engels, R. E. (2012). Social coping by masking?Parental support and peer victimization as mediators of the relation-ship between depressive symptoms and expressive suppression inadolescents. Journal Of Youth And Adolescence, 41, 1628-1642. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9782-7.

Lerner, R. M. (1982). Children and adolescents as producers of their owndevelopment. Developmental Review, 2, 342–370. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(82)90018-1.

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensionalpeer victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169–178. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:2<169::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-A.

NICHDEarly Child Care ResearchNetwork. (1997). The effects of infantchild care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of theNICHD study of early child care (1997). Child Development, 68,860–879. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01967.x.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Trajectories ofphysical aggression from toddlerhood to middle childhood:Predictors, correlates, and outcomes. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, 69, 1–143.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2001). Gender differences in depression. CurrentDirection in Psychological Science, 10, 173–176. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00142.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disor-ders and mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 109, 504–511. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depres-sion and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 61, 115–121. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.115.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some impor-tant issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment inschool: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3–20). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2001). Peer-attributedprosocial behavior among aggressive/preferred, aggressive/non-preferred, non-aggressive/preferred and non-aggressive/non-pre-ferred adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,903–916. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00082-9.

Perren, S., &Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationshipsof victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 45–57. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x.

Pettit, J. W., & Joiner, T. E. (2006). Chronic depression: Interpersonalsources, therapeutic solutions. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Assessment Press.

Post, R. M. (1992). Transduction of psychosocial stress into the neurobi-ology of recurrent affective disorder. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 149, 999–1010.

Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., Klein, D. N., Seeley, J. R., & Gau, J. M.(2013). Key characteristics of major depressive disorders occurringin childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood, and adulthood.Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 41–53. doi:10.1177/2167702612457599.

Rudolph, K. D., Troop-Gordon, W., & Granger, D. A. (2011). Individualdifferences in biological stress responses moderate the contributionof early peer victimization to subsequent depressive symp-toms. Psychopharmacology, 214, 209–219. doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1879-7.

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of schoolbullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. AggressiveBehavior, 29, 239–268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047.

Swearer, S. M., Grills, A. E., Haye, K. M., & Cary, P. (2004).Internalizing problems in students involved in cullying and victim-ization: Implications for intervention. In D. L. Espelage & S. M.Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecologicalperspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 63–83). Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-basedprograms to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic re-view. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.

United States Department of Health and Human Services.National Institutes of Health. Eunice Kennedy ShriverNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development.NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development:Phase III 2000-2004 [United States] [Computer file].ICPSR21942-v1. Ann Arbor, MI : In te r -un ivers i tyConsortium for Political and Social Research [distributor],2010-01-08. doi:10.3886/ICPSR21942.v1.

Unnever, J. D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are theydistinct groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153–171. doi:10.1002/ab.20083.

Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Henrich, C. C., Graybill, E. C., Dew, B. J.,et al. (2006). Using a participatory culture specific interven-tion model to develop a peer victimization intervention.Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22, 35–58. doi:10.1300/J370v22n02_03.

Varjas, K., Henrich, C. C., & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle schoolstudents’ perceptions of bullying, cyber bullying, and school safety.Journal of School Violence, 8, 159–176. doi:10.1080/15388220802074165.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F.,Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization inelementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims,

Prev Sci

and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41,672–682. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics &Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying amongadolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, andcyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.

Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditionalbullying: Differential association with depression. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 48, 415–417. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012.

Weisz, J. R., Sandler, I. N., Durlak, J. A., & Anton, B. S. (2005).Promoting and protecting youth mental health through evidence-based prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 60, 628–648. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.628.

Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., &Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying programon adolescents’ depression, anxiety, and perception of peers.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 289–300. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9551-1.

Prev Sci