ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effects of Students’ Grade Level, Gender, and Form of BullyingVictimization on Coping Strategy Effectiveness

Charisse L. Nixon1& Dharma Jairam2

& Stan Davis3 & Christine A. Linkie4& Seria Chatters5 & James J. Hodge6

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

AbstractBullying victimization is a pervasive problem nationwide and is related to students’ psychological distress, including increasedloneliness, anxiety, depression, helplessness, and suicidal behaviors. Importantly, not all students respond to peer victimization inthe same way. This study examined the effectiveness of students’ coping strategies in response to bullying as a function of theirgrade level, gender, and form of victimization. Students in grades five through twelve (N = 2627) completed surveys assessingcoping strategy effectiveness and associated emotional distress related to self-reported peer victimization. In general, findingsindicated that the most effective coping strategies in response to bullying victimization were support-seeking strategies, use ofhumor, and cognitive restructuring. However, effectiveness for all strategies (with the exception of peer support) varied by gradelevel, gender, and form of victimization. Strategies were also more effective for relational victimization than they were forphysical victimization. Moreover, although students identified several effective coping strategies, only the use of cognitiverestructuring was related to lower levels of associated emotional distress, an important component of effective coping. As such,bullying prevention programs should target students’ psychological processes in developing effective interventions. Implicationsfor prevention and intervention efforts are discussed.

Keywords Bullying . Coping strategies . School violence . Peer victimization

Bullying victimization, is a pervasive problem (Hong andEspelage 2012; Olweus 2013; Tenenbaum et al. 2011;Turner et al. 2011) that affects millions of students in theUSA (Nansel et al. 2004). According to the Kann et al. 2018Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS), 19% of

adolescents report being bullied at school (22.3% femalesand 15.6% males). However, despite the growing number ofbullying prevention programs, the trends in these prevalencerates have not changed since 2009 (Kann et al. 2018).Bullying victimization is defined as repeated exposure to ag-gressive behaviors by another youth, with an observed or per-ceived power imbalance (Gladden et al. 2014; Olweus 1993).These harmful behaviors can be physical (e.g., punching, hit-ting), verbal (e.g., name-calling, insulting), or relational (e.g.,social exclusion, rumor-spreading), and can take place in-person or through electronic devices (see Hinduja andPatchin 2015). The current study focuses on how studentsrespond to in-person physical and relational peer bullying asa function of their grade level and gender.

Recently, researchers have posited a diathesis-stressmodel in which victimization is conceptualized as a stress-ful life event that has an emotional impact on students, asinfluenced by both intra-individual (e.g., cognitive or bio-logical vulnerabilities) and environmental factors (seeSwearer and Hymel 2015). Consistent with this conceptu-alization, past research has demonstrated that students’ ex-perienced trauma levels increase with the frequency of the

We sincerely thank the teachers, administrators, parents, and especiallythe students who participated in this study.Without the students, this workwould not be possible.

* Charisse L. Nixoncln5@psu.edu

1 Pennsylvania Aggression Reduction Center (PARC), Penn StateBehrend, Erie, PA 16563, USA

2 Morningside College, Sioux City, IA 51106, USA3 Wayne, ME 04284, USA4 Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX 76204, USA5 Penn State University, State College, PA 16801, USA6 Center for Community Outreach, Research and Evaluation (CORE),

Penn State Behrend, Erie, PA 16563, USA

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00027-5

Published online: 27 June 2019

International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

stressor, that is, the peer bullying (Carney 2008). Clearly,addressing the emotional distress experienced by victim-ized students is an important piece of bullying prevention/intervention that merits further study. Findings from a re-cent meta-analysis have shown casual links between bul-lying victimization and mental health issues, such as de-pression, anxiety, poor general health, and suicidal ideation(Moore et al. 2017). What remains unclear, however, arethe specific individual and environmental factors that po-tentially interact to influence students’ emotional distress.This is an important question, given the wide range ofindividual responses to bullying victimization. For exam-ple, it is possible that some strategies serve to amelioratethe emotional distress associated with bullying victimiza-tion, while others exacerbate targeted students’ distress.

Prevention and Intervention of PeerVictimization

Given the plethora of evidence pointing to the detrimentaleffects of bullying victimization, it is not surprising that therehas been an eruption of anti-bullying programs in the past twodecades (Polanin et al. 2012; Ryan and Smith 2009; Ttofi andFarrington 2009; 2011). As of 2015, all 50 states in the USAhave adopted some form of anti-bullying legislation (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services). However, theoverall impact of these anti-bullying programs has beenmixed. For example, Smith et al. (2004) analyzed 14 schoolanti-bullying programs and found negligible outcomes witheffect sizes equal to or below .09. In addition, Baldry andFarrington (2007) and Vreeman and Carroll (2007) found neg-ligible, small, or even negative outcomes for the majority ofthe programs reviewed. However, Ttofi and Farrington (2011)analyzed 44 reports of anti-bullying programs published be-tween 1983 and 2009, and found that, on average, both bul-lying perpetration and victimization decreased by about 20%.Gaffney et al. (2018) conducted a recent meta-analysis thatincluded reports from 100 anti-bullying programs and con-cluded that anti-bullying programs reduced bullying and vic-timization by about 20% and 15%, respectively. These find-ings are encouraging. However, given that students continueto be bullied, taking a closer look at the strategies that studentsuse in response to bullying victimization is warranted. Whilethe effectiveness of anti-bullying programs is increasing, theneed to continue focusing on reducing the harm associatedwith bullying continues.

In order to design optimal bullying prevention and inter-vention programs, more information is needed to help increaseour understanding about how strategy effectiveness may in-teract with students’ grade level, gender, and specific form ofbullying victimization. Which strategies are most effective inresponse to bullying victimization? Does the effectiveness of

different strategies depend on students’ grade level and gen-der? Are the same strategies that are most effective for phys-ical bullying also effective for relational bullying? These areimportant questions to consider when most states have anti-bullying laws and policies in place, and some states haverequirements for anti-bullying programs and teacher develop-ment (www.stopbullying.gov). While bullying preventionprograms should include macro-interventions (i.e., actionsthat build a culture of inclusion and respect schoolwide), theyalso need to consider micro-interventions—specific strategiesthat affected youth can use in the moment to minimize theemotional distress associated with their bullying victimizationexperiences. Educators are on the front line and are expectedto address bullying victimization within their classrooms andschools, sometimes with insufficient knowledge of evidence-based strategies. For example, teachers and counselors may beguided to tell students to directly confront their perpetratorsand tell them how they feel. But, is this a truly effective strat-egy in terms of leading to positive outcomes for targeted stu-dents? Investigating students’ effective and ineffective copingstrategies could strengthen bullying prevention programs andreduce the emotional distress associated with bullyingvictimization.

Coping Strategies for Bullying Victimization

Coping is defined as how an individual responds to a stressor,with the goal of reducing the emotional and situational impactof that stressor (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Effective copingconsists of two separate, but related components: (a) the strat-egy to manage the stressor and (b) the subsequent experienceof decreased associated emotional distress. An effective cop-ing response can then be defined as a specific strategy thatleads or relates to a decrease in associated emotional distress,whereas an ineffective coping response leads or relates to anincrease or no change in associated emotional distress.Consistent with this conceptualization, bullying preventionresearch may benefit from assessing both student coping re-sponses to victimization experiences and the associatedoutcomes of those responses. For example, if a student copedwith peer victimization by ignoring it, we need to ask whathappened afterward—did things get better or worse for thestudent, situationally, and emotionally? Ideally, effective cop-ing strategies would mitigate both the stressful situation aswell as the associated psychological distress. Students’ copingstrategies are important to measure, given that effective cop-ing is associated with better health outcomes and reducedlevels of stress (Visconti and Troop-Gordon, 2010).

Bullying prevention research offers conflicting resultsabout which coping strategies are most effective in responseto peer victimization (Skrzypiec et al. 2011). For example,although some studies have documented negative outcomes

191Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

related to the use of assertive strategies (e.g., Mahady-Wiltonet al. 2000), other studies have shown that confrontationalstrategies improved outcomes and decreased students’ futurevictimization (Black et al. 2010; Cassidy and Taylor 2001). Intheir study of coping strategies, Kristensen and Smith (2003)found that self-reliance/problem-solving was the strategy pre-ferred by Danish children; however, students were respondingto hypothetical bullying scenarios rather than their own expe-riences. Research on the use of avoidant strategies has alsogarnered conflicting results. Some studies found that ignoringand avoiding the perpetrator de-escalated the situation andhelped resolve the problem (Black et al. 2010; Hunter et al.2004; Mahady-Wilton et al. 2000). In contrast, other studiesfound that those same strategies were maladaptive and led tocontinued victimization (Newman et al. 2011). Similarly, tell-ing an adult in response to bullying victimization also yieldedmixed results. For example, some studies found that tellingsomeone about peer mistreatment decreased victimization(e.g., Frisen et al. 2012), while other studies reported in-creased victimization (e.g., Tenenbaum et al. 2011).Similarly, victims of cyberbullying have also used strategiesof telling someone, distancing, retaliating, problem-solving,and distracting (Bradbury et al. 2018). Finally, recent researchfound that telling an adult, using humor, and retaliating werethe most effective responses (i.e., in terms of making thingsbetter) to peer victimization (Sulkowski, Bauman, Dinner,Nixon, & Davis 2014). However, this study did not considerhow students’ grade level or form of victimization may haveinfluenced the efficacy of students’ responses.

The majority of peer victimization and bullying studies todate have focused on reducing the frequency of bullying be-haviors or victimization over time (i.e., situational impact ofthe stressor) as opposed to students’ emotional distress asso-ciated with their peer mistreatment. The term Bcoping^ is notused consistently in the literature, as some studies useBcoping^ to refer to problem-focused strategies (i.e., to endthe bullying), while in other studies Bcoping^ refers to emo-tional responses. However, there have been studies that inves-tigated the emotional effects on students of using strategies toaddress bullying. For example, Naylor and Cowie (1999)found that students who used the strategy of telling a peer,parent, or teacher about being bullied reported they felt thatsomeone cared about them, which made them feel stronger. Intheir follow-up study (Naylor et al. 2001), the researchersfound that coping strategy effectiveness differed dependingupon students’ age and gender. A more recent qualitativestudy (Evans et al. 2017) found that talking with parents washelpful both as a problem-solving and an emotional supportstrategy for rural middle and high school students who hadbeen bullied.

Helping students to think about potential strategies to ad-dress bullying and reflect on their effectiveness could be im-portant for building self-efficacy and mitigating associated

stress. In their analysis of students’ coping strategies, Hunterand Boyle (2004) utilized a transactional model of coping toinclude students’ cognitive appraisals of bullying situations.Results indicated that when bullying situations are perceivedas ambiguous, that is, students do not knowwhether outcomesare likely to be positive or negative, they tend to use support-seeking and problem-focused strategies. Notably, students in-dicated that bullying was not always perceived as a threat andcould sometimes be a challenge; 44% of students reported thatbeing in a bullying situation might be an opportunity for per-sonal growth (e.g., building self-confidence). However, 38%of students indicated that bullying could have negative psy-chological consequences, such as losing self-confidence orthinking about suicide. Understanding more about students’thinking related to strategy effectiveness and outcome apprais-al may lead to the development of more effective bullyingprevention programs that are designed to address both thebullying situation and the associated stress.

In sum, findings related to strategy effectiveness in re-sponse to bullying victimization are inconsistent and tend tofocus on the situational impact and not the students’ percep-tions of what was successful or of their associated emotionaldistress. Subsequently, we know very little about how best toguide students to respond to peer victimization in ways thatare related to minimizing emotional distress and helping stu-dents feel confident about perceived outcomes. Consistentwith a social-ecological diathesis-stress model (see Swearerand Hymel 2015), we propose that students’ emotional dis-tress associated with their peer victimization is influenced bytheir selected coping strategies, the interaction between indi-vidual difference variables such as their gender and gradelevel, as well as the specific form of bullying (i.e., relationalor physical). More empirical work is needed to increase ourunderstanding of how individual variables may interact toinfluence the effectiveness of students’ coping strategies inresponse to different forms of bullying victimization.

Factors that Influence Coping ResponseEffectiveness

The myriad findings described above demonstrate the com-plexity of investigating students’ coping strategies. AsVisconti et al. (2013) write, Bit is difficult to explain children’scoping choices simply as a function of Bwhat works.^ Instead,such findings speak to the potentially complex interrelatedvariables^ (p. 123). However, past research has generally in-vestigated these factors independently, rather thanconcurrently.

Developmental Differences Few studies have explored theimpact of students’ developmental level on the efficacy oftheir responses to peer victimization. However, there is

192 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

evidence that developmental levels influence students’ copingresponses and their perception of strategy effectiveness. Forexample, Camodeca and Goossens (2005) used hypotheticalscenarios to ask 7th and 8th grade students how they wouldstop bullying behaviors. Findings showed that older studentspreferred retaliation, whereas younger students chose lessconfrontational strategies, such as ignoring the bullying. Onthe other hand, Craig et al. (2007) found older children andadolescents were more likely than younger students to useavoidant strategies. In a more recent study, Frisen et al.(2012) surveyed former targeted students and found that socialsupport (particularly from parents) was found to be more ef-fective for younger children (i.e., grades 1–6) than for adoles-cents. Consistent with the aforementioned developmentalfindings, a recent meta-analysis (19 reports) analyzed 72 ef-fect sizes and found evidence that students’ developmentallevel moderated the efficacy of bullying prevention programs,with programs relatively effective for children but ineffectivefor adolescents (Yeager et al. 2015). However, even amongchildren, it is important to note that the modest effect sizeswere found in European countries; but, not in the USA (Evanset al. 2014). In sum, although we know that it is important toconsider students’ developmental levels within the context ofcoping with peer victimization, little is known about how stu-dents’ developmental levels may interact with their copingresponses and ultimately influence their associated emotionaldistress.

Gender Differences Decades of research have clearly docu-mented that males and females are socialized differently.These differences are often reflected in student coping strate-gies. For example, males are usually socialized in the boycode, and subsequently are pushed towards independence,aggression, and separation (Pollack 2004). It is not surprisingthat boys are more likely to hit, tease, and joke (Eder 1998).Females, on the other hand, are socialized to connect withothers (for a review see Gilligan 1982), and accordingly, tendto choose more support-seeking strategies (Tenenbaum et al.2011) when responding to stressful situations.

Past research shows that, although female and male stu-dents reported the same rates of victimization, theeffectiveness of specific coping strategies varied by gender(Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner 2002). Effective strategiesfor males included yelling, throwing things, and hitting.However, females who used these same coping responses ex-perienced decreased popularity and increased social difficulty.These findings are reflected in several studies which demon-strate that confrontational responses were more effective formales, while support-seeking responses were more effectivefor females (Smith et al. 2001; Sulkowski et al. 2014). Forexample, males reported coping with peer victimization byfighting back (Frisen et al. 2012; Tenenbaum et al. 2011),using verbal and physical aggression, distraction, revenge,

and humor (Craig et al. 2007). Females, on the other hand,reported coping with peer victimization by telling an adult andseeking support from peers (Smith et al. 2001; Tenenbaumet al. 2011). Olafsen and Viemerö (2000) found that femalesused more self-destructive strategies such as hurting them-selves physically or thinking about suicide, but also usedmorepositive stress-recognition strategies such as crying or gettingadvice. Taken together, findings from these studies underscorethe importance of considering gender within the context ofexamining student coping responses to peer victimization.

Form of Victimization Finally, the form of victimization mightalso influence student coping response effectiveness. Past re-search suggests a possible interaction effect between the tar-get’s developmental level and the form of victimization expe-rienced (Crick and Bigbee 1998). For example, Roecker-Phelps (2001) found that students in grades three through sixpreferred assertive and external strategies (e.g., hitting some-thing) in response to physical victimization, and avoidant,internal strategies (e.g., telling oneself it does not matter) inresponse to relational victimization. However, like the major-ity of research in this area, this study examined the prevalencerates, but not the effectiveness of students’ coping responses indecreasing their associated emotional distress. In sum, it ispossible that the effectiveness of a student’s coping responsedepends on the form of victimization (i.e., physical or rela-tional) and the target’s grade level.

Although significant progress has been made, the studyof bulling victimization is limited in at least three ways.First, the majority of studies have examined the preva-lence of coping responses (e.g., Nansel et al. 2001;Wang et al. 2009) without examining their relative effec-tiveness. Second, of those studies that have examinedstrategy effectiveness, very few have studied the emotion-al outcomes of those strategies, which is a component ofeffective coping (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Finally, toour knowledge, no study has yet examined the potentialinteracting effects of students’ grade level, gender andform of victimization on students’ situational and emo-tional related outcomes.

In sum, there are several unanswered questions that need tobe addressed to move bullying prevention research forward.First, which strategies are most effective in response to peervictimization? Does the effectiveness of different strategiesdepend on students’ grade level gender and form of victimi-zation? Given the negative sequela associated with specificcoping responses to peer victimization (Visconti and Troop-Gordon 2010), it is imperative for researchers to continue tofocus on identifying effective coping strategies that lead tomore positive outcomes. Investigating students’ use of copingstrategies could provide critical information needed tostrengthen and develop bullying prevention and interventionprograms.

193Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

The current study addressed the above limitations by inves-tigating two primary research questions. The first researchquestion was to identify the most and least effective copingstrategies used in response to peer bullying as a function ofstudents’ grade level, gender, and form of victimization expe-rienced (i.e., physical and relational). The second researchquestion examined the relationship between students reportedcoping response effectiveness and their associated levels ofemotional distress. Was students’ reported use of effectivecoping responses actually related to lower levels of their emo-tional distress? Given the conflicting results described above,no a priori hypotheses were provided.

Method

Participants

Participants were sampled from the Youth Voice Project(YVP), a national study that explores peer victimizationamong children and youth. For additional information on thisstudy cited elsewhere, see Davis and Nixon (2014).Participants (51% female) were students in grades fivethrough 12, from 25 schools across four geographic areas inthe USA including the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, andWest. Schools were invited to participate in a study aboutstudent characteristics related to peer victimization by thethird author. Surveys were administered online and completedin school. Whole grades participated. Of the total population(N = 13,177), only those students who were frequently victim-ized by their peers were included in the current study.Following procedures used in past work (e.g., Olweus 1993,1997; Solberg and Olweus 2003), students were classified asfrequently victimized if they experienced peer victimization atleast two times per month for either physical or relationalvictimization. A total of 2929 students (i.e., 22%) of theYVP sample met this criterion (M = 13.19 years, SD = 1.95).The majority of this sample was White (53%), followed byHispanic American (9%), African American (7%), Multiracial(7%), Asian American (4%), Native American (3%), andPacific Islander (1%). The remaining students did not identifywith any of these categories. Thirty-one percent of the stu-dents received free or reduced lunch, 10% received specialeducation services and 9% reported a physical disability.

To control for possible developmental and school structureeffects (e.g., differences in experiences for 6th graders attend-ing a K-6 school compared with 6th graders attending a 6–8middle school), only those students who attended the follow-ing school structures were included: K-5 (elementary school),6–8 (middle school), and 9–12 (high school). Of the 2929students identified, 2627 met this criterion (M = 13.30 years,SD = 1.95). The grade level of the identified victimized stu-dents was as follows: 10%were in elementary school (ES; i.e.,

5th grade; K-5 structure), 57% were in middle school (MS;i.e., grades 6–8) and 33%were in high school (HS; i.e., grades9–12). The sample consisted of Caucasian (52%), HispanicAmerican (9%), African-American (7%), and Multi-racial(7%) students. The remaining students reported a variety ofethnicities, with frequencies all below 5%. Thirty-one percentof these students received reduced or free lunches at school,which served as a proxy for socioeconomic status. Ten percentof these students received special education services and 9%of the students reported a physical disability.

Procedure

Participants completed self-report questionnaires in the fall ofthe 2010–2011 school year. To ensure that the survey wasadministered in the same way across schools, the survey wasdelivered in a Web-based form (Granello and Wheaton 2004).Questionnaires were conducted on SurveyMonkey™ andwere completed in classroom settings during regularly sched-uled class periods. Students were told that the researcherswere interested in knowing what they think about how stu-dents treat each other at school. Students were reminded thatthere were no Bright^ or Bwrong^ answers and that all re-sponses were confidential. After reporting on the frequencyof peer victimization and associated emotional distress, theparticipants were then directed to a series of questions focusedon what they, adults, and other peers did in response to theirpeer victimization. This study focused on victimized students’responses to peer victimization, as well as the outcomes oftheir coping strategies and associated emotional distress.

Questionnaires took approximately 45 min to complete,and teachers were present to provide assistance with readingand technology if needed. Consistent with practicesestablished in previous research (Severson and Biglan 1989),passive consent procedures were used to obtain parental con-sent. Approval to conduct this research was obtained from theInstitutional Review Board at the Northeastern University.Students provided no identifying information and wereallowed to skip items and discontinue participation at anytime.

Measures

Frequency of Bullying Victimization Frequency of bullyingvictimization was assessed using a self-report measure origi-nally designed by McDonald et al. (2000) and has since beenrevised by Werner and Nixon (2005). Factor analysis resultsdemonstrated the need to assess physical and relational bully-ing separately. Test-rest reliabilities and internal consistencieswere acceptable (2005). Following the industry standard, bul-lying victimization was assessed by asking two parallel ques-tions related to the frequency with which students were hurtphysically and/or emotionally by peers. To assess relational

194 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

victimization (RV), students were asked, BIn the last month,how often have students at your school hurt you emotionallyor excluded you?^ Physical victimization (PV) was assessedby asking, BIn the last month, how often have students at yourschool threatened to hurt you or hurt you physically?^Response options were coded from 0 to 4 as BNever,^ BOnetime,^ Two/three times per month,^ BWeekly,^ and BDaily^(Davis and Nixon 2014). Students were included in the pres-ent study if they reported relational or physical bullying atleast twice in the last month (Olweus 1993, 1997).

Constructs of Relational and Physical Victimization

Using Olweus’ definition (see Olweus 1993, 1997), studentswere classified as relationally victimized if they reported RVtwice a month or more. This procedure resulted in 2564 stu-dents (53% female). A similar procedure was used to create agroup of physically victimized students (i.e., reported PVtwice a month or more). This procedure resulted in 1014 stu-dents (68% male). The number of students who reportedexperiencing both forms of bullying victimization was 760(61% male).

Coping Strategies to Bullying Victimization Prior to the cur-rent study, the third author worked with an adolescent focusgroup online to develop a list of students’ responses to peervictimization. Based on focus group data, 12 possible re-sponse categories to peer victimization were developed: (a)BTold the person to stop,^ (b) BHit them or fought them,^(c) BMade plans to get back at them,^ (d) BTold a friend,^(e) BPretended it did not bother me,^ (f) BTold an adult athome,^ (g) BMade a joke about it,^ (h) BDid nothing,^ (i)BReminded myself that what they are doing is not my faultand that they are the ones who are doing something wrong,^(j) BWalked away.^ (k) BTold adult at school,^, and (l) BToldthe person how I felt.^

In the current study, students were asked to read the abovelist of strategies and indicate whether they used each particularresponse after peers mistreated them, and if so, how theirsituation changed (or not) after strategy use. Students couldselect as many strategies as desired to indicate their responsesto the experienced peer victimization; responses were not mu-tually exclusive. The internal consistency for the 12 itemsrelated to students’ responses to peer victimization was ade-quate in the current study (α = .72). Based on past research(e.g., Hartley, Bauman, Nixon, and Davis 2017), these 12coping responses were organized and modified into six cate-gories: (1) support seeking strategies (i.e., told a friend, told anadult at school and told an adult at home), (2) assertive strat-egies (i.e., told the person to stop and told the person how Ifelt), (3) use of humor (i.e., made a joke about it), (4) cognitiverestructuring (i.e., reminded myself that it was not myfault…), (5) avoidant (i.e., did nothing, walked away, and

pretended it did not bother me), and (6) aggressive strategies(i.e., made plans to get back at them and hit them).

Effectiveness Score To compare students’ responses to peervictimization, an effectiveness score was created for eachstrategy. When students indicated that they had used a partic-ular strategy, they were asked to identify the outcome—whathappened after they used that response. BThings got better^was coded as B+1,^ Bthings got worse^ as B− 1,^ and Bthingsdid not change^ as B0.^ Using this coding scheme, an averageeffectiveness score was computed for each coping strategy.This variable represented strategy effectiveness.

Emotional DistressKnowing that coping includes an emotion-al component and that not all students are affected in the sameway by peer victimization, it was important to assess students’associated levels of emotional distress. Victimized studentswere asked to assess the psychological impact of their victim-ization using a four-point Likert scale. Responses ranged frommild to very severe. The four response choices were defined asfollows: (1) Mild—What they did bothered me only a little(42% of students), (2) Moderate—it bothered me quite a bit(37% of students), (3) Severe - I had or have trouble eating,sleeping, or enjoying myself because of what happened to me(11% of students), and (4) Very severe - I felt or feel unsafeand threatened because of what happened to me (10% of stu-dents). For additional information related to the construct va-lidity of this variable, see Mendez, Bauman and Sulkowski,Davis, and Nixon 2016.

Data Analyses

All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 24.0. Initialdata checking showed that there were minimal and negligiblemissing data on several of the survey items (< 1%). Becausethe minimal missing data were unlikely to alter the results in ameaningful way, missing data imputation procedures were notused in data analyses. However, it should be noted that sincestudents were permitted to skip items, the n may vary slightlyacross analyses. To answer our first research question, a seriesof 2 (form of victimization) × 2 (gender) × 3 (grade level)ANOVAswere conducted for each of the 12 coping strategies.Analyzing all three variables together using three-wayANOVAs for each coping response allowed for testing maineffects as well as for possible interaction effects among thevariables, while minimizing chances of type I error.Significant interactions were followed up by simple main ef-fects tests. The Bonferroni post-hoc tests were conducted tofollow up any grade level effects and control for type I error.

The second set of analyses was designed to investigatewhether students’ reported efficacious strategies predictedlower levels of associated emotional distress. In other words,

195Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

did students’ identified strategies that led to positive outcomes(i.e., BI did this and things got better^) actually predict lowerlevels of associated emotional distress? And if so, which strat-egy was most predictive of students’ associated emotionaldistress? Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were usedto test this research question. The dependent variable wasstudents’ levels of emotional distress.

Results

Overall, students’ most effective coping strategies in re-sponse to bullying victimization across gender, grade lev-el, and form of bullying included Btold a friend’ (M = .21,SD = .68), Btold an adult at home^ (M = .21, SD = .69),Btold an adult at school^ (M = .12, SD = .79), Bmade ajoke about it^ (M = .28, SD = .73), and Breminded myselfit was not my fault…^ (M = .17, SD = .69). The first re-search question was to identify students’ most and leasteffective coping strategies used in response to bullyingvictimization, as a function of students’ grade level, gen-der, and form of bullying. Tables 1 and 2 display thedescriptive statistics for students’ coping strategy effec-tiveness in response to relational and physical bullyingrespectively by grade level and gender. Coping responseswere organized by the six categories described above.

Support-Seeking Strategies

Support-seeking coping strategies involved telling someoneelse about the victimization in hopes of garnering support(Hartley et al. 2017).

Told a FriendResults from the three-way ANOVA revealed nosignificant effects for grade level, gender, or form of victimi-zation on Btold a friend.^ Descriptive statistics revealed thisstrategy was relatively effective in response to both forms ofpeer victimization, across grade levels and across gender(M = .21, SD = .68).

Told an Adult at School The three-way ANOVA yieldedmain effects for grade level, F(1, 681) = 6.98, p < .001and form of victimization, F(1, 681) = 5.73, p < .05.Examination of the means indicated that telling an adultat school was more effective for elementary (M = .27,SE = .07) and middle school students (M = .00, SE = .05)than it was for high school students (M = − .07, SE = .06).Post-hoc tests revealed differences in effectiveness forBtold an adult at school^ between ES students and HSstudents, p < .01. Additionally, telling an adult at schoolwas more effective in response to relational victimization(M = .15, SE = .04) compared with physical victimization(M = − .02, SE = .06). However, these main effects must

be qualified by a two-way interaction between grade leveland form of victimization, F(2, 681) = 3.73, p < .05. Toexplore this interaction further, a series of one-wayANOVAs were computed separately for each form of vic-timization using grade level as the independent variable.Grade level effects were significant for relational victim-ization only, F(2, 477) = 3.58, p < .05. Post-hoc tests indi-cated that students’ use of this strategy was much moreeffective for elementary (M = .26, SD = .75) and middleschool students (M = .21, SD = .74) than it was for highschool students (M = .00, SD = .73).

Told an Adult at Home Results from the three-way ANOVArevealed a significant main effect for form of victimizationonly, F(1, 919) = 6.15, p < .05. Examination of the means re-vealed that telling an adult at home was more effective inresponse to RV (M = .25, SE = .03) than it was for PV(M = .08, SE = .06).

Assertive Strategies

Assertive responses included non-aggressive efforts to direct-ly address the perpetrator (Hartley et al. 2017). Students’ as-sertive coping responses included Btold them to stop^ andBtold the person how I felt^.

Told the Person to StopThe three-way ANOVA yielded twomain effects: grade level, F(2, 1270) = 4.17, p < .05, andform of victimization, F(1, 1270) = 4.57, p < .05.Although this strategy was ineffective for both forms ofpeer bullying, examination of the means demonstratedthat telling the person to stop was less effective for PV(M = − .18, SE = .05) compared with RV (M = − .06,SE = .03). In terms of grade level effects, post-hoc testsindicated that Btold the person to stop^ was more effectivefor HS students (M = − .03, SE = .04) than for MS students(M = − .18, SE = .03), p < .001. However, overall, Btold theperson to stop^ was a relatively ineffective strategy for allstudents when addressing both RV and PV.

Told the Person How I Felt Results indicated a main effect ofform of victimization only, F(1, 722) = 6.49, p < .01.Examination of the means showed that telling the personhow I felt was not effective in response to either form ofvictimization and was significantly less effective when usedin response to PV (M = − .22, SE = .07) compared with RV(M = − .03, SE = .04).

Use of Humor

Made a Joke About It Results revealed main effects for gradelevel, F(2, 870) = 3.88, p < .05, form of victimization, F(1,870) = 15.67, p < .001, and gender, F(1, 870) = 4.73, p < .05.

196 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

Post-hoc tests for grade level revealed that Bmade a joke aboutit^ was more effective for MS (M = .25, SE = .04) and HSstudents (M = .25, SE = .04) than it was for ES students(M = − .08, SE = .11), p < .01. In terms of the form of victim-ization, examination of the means indicated that Bmade a jokeabout it^ was more effective in response to RV (M = .31,SE = .05) than it was for PV (M = − .03, SE = .07). Relativeto gender, using humor in response to peer victimization wasmuch more effective for males (M = .23, SE = .06) than it wasfor females (M = .04, SE = .06).

Cognitive Restructuring

Reminded Myself that it Was Not My Fault Results revealed amain effect for form of victimization, F(1, 1110) = 9.53,p < .01. This coping response was more effective in responseto RV (M = .19, SE = .03) compared with PV (M = .00,SE = .05).

Avoidant Strategies

The goal of avoidant coping responses is to distance oneselffrom the stressor; in this case, the peer victimization. This canbe accomplished internally (Bdid nothing,^ Bpretended itdidn’t bother me^) or externally (Bwalked away^).

Did Nothing The three-way ANOVA revealed main effectsfor form of victimization, F(1, 991) = 13.31, p < .001,and for gender F(1, 991) = 3.88, p < .05. Related to theform of victimization, examination of the means revealedthat Bdid nothing^ was relatively more effective in

response to RV (M = − .04, SE = .04) compared with PV(M = − .28, SE = .05). However, overall this strategy wasrelatively ineffective in response to either form of peerbullying. In terms of gender, descriptive statistics re-vealed that outcomes were more negative when femalesBdid nothing^ in response to RV (M = − .23, SE = .05)compared with males (M = − 10. SE = .04). However,these main effects must be interpreted in light of aninteraction effect that included grade level, gender, andform of victimization, F(2, 991) = 3.09, p < .05. To probethe triple interaction, the gender by grade level interac-tion was re-computed separately for each form of victim-ization. Results revealed a significant gender effect forRV only, F(1, 715) = 4.22, p < .05. Examination of themeans revealed that when females did nothing in re-sponse to RV (M = − .12, SE = .05), things were muchmore likely to get worse than when males did nothing(M = .03, SE = .05). However, examination of the meansrevealed that doing nothing in response to peer victimi-zation overall, was relatively an ineffective copingstrategy.

Pretended It Did Not Bother Me The three-way ANOVA re-vealed a main effect for form of victimization, F(1, 1486) =5.03, p < .05. Examination of the means indicated that thisresponse was more effective for RV (M = .05, SE = .03) com-pared with PV (M = − .07, SE = .05).

Walked Away The three-way ANOVA revealed a main effectfor form of victimization, F(1, 1251) = 9.51, p < .01.Examination of the means indicated that Bwalked away^ in

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for students’ coping strategy effectiveness to RV by grade level and gender

Relational victimization (RV)

Elementary (ES) Middle school (MS) High school (HS)

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Strategies M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Told a friend 16 (.72) .27 (.72) .23 (.67) .16 (.68) .24 (.65) .21 (.68)

Told an adult at school .30 (.75) .24 (.80) .11 (.79) .16 (.78) − .01 (.76) − .06 (.80)

Told an adult at home 25 (.72) .25 (.72) .23 (.66) .21 (.67) .22 (.63) .12 (.75)

Told the person to stop 19 (.71) − .17 (.75) − .13 (.71) − .15 (.72) − .02 (.71) .04 (.74)

Told the person how I felt 01 (.73) − .11 (.69) − .05 (.73) − .14 (.75) .05 (.76) − .08 (.77)

Made a joke about it 14 (.79) .35 (.78) .30 (.75) .27 (.74) .26 (.65) .33 (.70)

Reminded myself that it was not my fault 01 (.67) − .11 (69) .20 (.67) .17 (.69) .23 (.68) .21 (.71)

Did nothing 27 (.68) − .22 (.78) − .11 (.71) .02 (.74) − .06 (.68) .01 (.69)

Pretended it did not bother me 20 (.73) − .09 (.74) − .02 (.68) .06 (.70) .09 (.63) .15 (.71)

Walked away 06 (.69) .04 (.82) .00 (.73) .10 (.75) .10 (.71) .17 (.73)

Made plans to get back at them 40 (.85) − .71 (.56) − .16 (.75) − .09 (.83) − .07 (.84) .16 (.84)

Hit them 20 (.92) − .75 (.44) − .05 (.83) − .07 (.88) − .12 (.86) .22 (.83)

197Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

response to RV was more effective (M = .12, SE = .03) than inresponse to PV (M = − .07, SE = .05).

Aggressive Strategies

Made Plans to Get Back at Them Results from the three-wayANOVA revealed a grade level effect only, F(2, 527) = 7.55,p < .001. Post-hoc tests revealed that Bmade plans to get backat them^ was least effective for ES students (M = − .50,SE = .14), followed by MS students (M = − .15, SE = .05),and then by HS students (M = .05, SE = .06), p’s < .05.

Hit Them Results from the three-way ANOVAyielded a gradelevel by gender interaction, F(2, 353) = 3.49, p < .05; seeFig. 1). To explore this interaction further, two one-wayANOVAs were conducted (one for females and one formales), with students’ grade level as the independent variable.Results revealed a main effect of grade level for males only, F(2, 303) = 13.58, p < .001. Post-hoc grade level comparisonsrevealed that Bhitting^ in response to peer victimization wasreported as most effective for HS males (M = .24, SE = .09),followed by MS males (M = − .07, SE = .07). For ES males,hitting was the least effective strategy in response to peervictimization (M = − .79, SE = .23), p’s < .01.

The second research question examined whether the cop-ing strategies that students had identified as effective actuallypredicted lower levels of associated emotional distress. Toexamine if the relationship between strategy effectivenessand emotional distress varied by form of victimization, twoseparate regression analyses were conducted—one with stu-dents reporting RV and one with students reporting PV.

Students’ gender (coded male = 1 or female = 0) and gradelevel (coded ES = 1, MS = 2 or HS = 3) were entered at thefirst step of the model to control for any possible gender and/or developmental effects. The criterion variable was students’emotional distress associated with the victimization.

Students’ scores for RVor PV were included at the secondstep to control for frequency of the specific form of peer vic-timization. The most effective strategies identified by victim-ized students were entered in the last step of the model. Theyincluded support-seeking strategies (Btold a friend,^ Btold anadult at home,^ Btold an adult at school^), use of humor(Bmade a joke about it,^) and cognitive restructuring(Breminded myself that it was not my fault…^). This thirdstep examined the relative contribution of students’ effica-cious strategies, above and beyond their gender, grade level,and prevalence of the specific form of peer victimization theyexperienced related to their associated emotional distresslevels. Interaction effects between gender, grade level, andeach of the five efficacious coping strategies were entered onthe last step. Results indicated no significant interaction terms,and thus were not included in the final models.

Relational Victimization

The first model was not significant, F(2, 177) = .49, p > .05;students’ grade level and gender did not contribute significantvariance in the dependent variable (i.e., students’ emotionaldistress associated with their RV). As expected, the addition ofscores for the frequency of RVat step 2 did account for addi-tional variance (i.e., 15.8%) in students’ emotional distress,FΔ(1, 176) = 33.30, p < .001. The individual beta weight for

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for students’ coping strategy effectiveness to PV by grade level and gender

Physical Victimization (PV)

Elementary (ES) Middle school (MS) High school (HS)

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Strategies M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Told a friend 03 (.75) .07 (.68) .11 (.73) .09 (.71) .02 (.74) .19 (.72)

Told an adult at school 47 (.72) .03 (.84) − .11 (.75) .02 (.82) − .21 (.82) − .08 (.81)

Told an adult at home 06 (.70) .07 (.68) .08 (.73) .06 (.72) − .08 (.83) .11 (.77)

Told the person to stop − .13 (.69) − .17 (.75) − .25 (.75) − .20 (.74) − .21 (.66) − .16 (.77)

Told the person how I felt − .07 (.78) − .22 (.67) − .22 (.70) − .27 (.74) − .19 (.74) − .29 (.72)

Made a joke about it − .27 (.70) .06 (.85) .18 (.83) .28 (.75) .04 (.71) .23 (.73)

Reminded myself that it was not my fault… − .09 (.57) − .03 (74) .10 (.69) .08 (.68) − .02 (.73) .03 (.77)

Did nothing − .22 (.85) − .44 (.67) − .26 (.74) − .05 (.79) − .38 (.62) − .04 (.71)

Pretended it did not bother me − .23 (.84) − .18 (.79) − .04 (.74) .00 (.72) − .06 (.64) − .03 (.72)

Walked away − .09 (.75) .11 (.81) − .22 (.70) − .05 (.76) − .10 (.77) .03 (.76)

Made plans to get back at them − .40 (.88) − .60 (.83) − .29 (.80) − .12 (.84) − .06 (.75) .16 (.84)

Hit them − .20 (.92) − .80 (.41) − .14 (.88) − .09 (.88) − .18 (.79) .25 (.86)

198 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

this variable indicated that students who experienced morefrequent RV reported more associated emotional distress(β = .41, p < .001). Importantly, the addition of students’ iden-tified scores for efficacious coping strategies at step 3 ex-plained a significant amount of additional variance in stu-dents’ emotional distress, FΔ(5, 171) = 3.59, p < .01, andthe overall model remained significant, F(8, 171) = 6.87,p < .001. Together, these five coping strategies explained anadditional 8% of the variance in students’ emotional distressassociated with RV. However, individual beta weights indicat-ed that only one coping strategy predicted students’ associatedemotional distress above and beyond gender, grade level, andfrequency of RV. Examination of the beta weights indicatedthat students who Breminded themselves that it was not theirfault…^ in response to RV (β = − .24, p = .01), reported lowerlevels of emotional distress compared with victimized peerswho did not use this coping strategy.

Physical Victimization Only

The first model was not significant, F(2, 92) = 2.81, p > .05;gender and grade level did not predict students’ emotionaldistress associated with PV. As expected, the addition ofscores assessing the frequency of PV at step 2 explained anadditional 6% of the variance in students’ levels of emotionaldistress, FΔ(1, 91) = 6.34, p = .01. The addition of studentscores for efficacious coping strategies at step 3 explained anadditional 16% of the variance in students’ emotional distress,FΔ(5, 86) = 3.90, p < .01, and the overall model remainedsignificant, F(8, 86) = 4.22, p < .001. Similar to RV, individualbeta weights indicated that the use of only one coping strategypredicted students’ associated emotional distress above andbeyond gender, grade level, and frequency of PV.Examination of the beta weight for Breminded myself that itwas not my fault…^ indicated that students who used thisstrategy reported less emotional distress in response to PV(β = − .39, p < .05), compared with students who did not usethis strategy.

Discussion

The central goal of this study was to investigate the effective-ness of student coping strategies leading to positive outcomesin response to bullying victimization. The current study pro-vides an in-depth examination of the effects of grade level andgender on students’ perception of strategy effectiveness inresponse to relational and physical peer bullying.

Most Effective Strategies

In general, findings indicated that the most effective copingstrategies in response to peer victimization were support-seeking strategies (i.e., Btold a friend,^ Btold an adult atschool,^ Btold an adult at home^), use of humor (Bmade a jokeabout it^), and cognitive restructuring (Breminded myself thatit was not my fault…^). Importantly, study findings also re-vealed that strategy effectiveness varied as a function of theform of victimization experienced, gender, and grade level.For example, Btold an adult at home^ was effective for RV,but significantly less effective in response to PV. Similarly, theuse of humor and cognitive restructuring were much moreeffective in response to RV than they were in response toPV. Moreover, the use of humor was effective for males, butmuch less so for females. In fact, among the 12 strategiessurveyed, only one coping strategy was robust across gender,grade level, and form of victimization experienced Btold afriend.^

Told a Friend Findings indicated that Btold a friend^was likelyto be effective, (i.e., lead to a positive outcome) in response toboth forms of victimization, across grade levels, and acrossgender. These results are consistent with a recent meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programshighlighting the importance and effectiveness of mobilizingpeer support (Polanin et al. 2012). The widespread effective-ness of this support-seeking strategy reinforces the importanceof school programming that builds peer connectedness andinclusion for all.

Telling an Adult With respect to Btold an adult at school,^ amore complex picture emerged. As expected, there were de-velopmental effects; telling an adult at school was more effec-tive for younger students than it was for older students.However, these developmental effects depended upon theform of victimization experienced. For example, among rela-tionally victimized students, telling an adult at school wasmore effective for elementary and middle school students thanit was for high school students. Among physically victimizedstudents, however, there were no grade level differences. Ingeneral, telling an adult at school about experiences related tophysical peer victimization was not very effective. Similarly,telling an adult at home about RVexperiences was much more

Fig. 1 Mean effectiveness scores representing effectiveness of Bhit them^in response to peer victimization by grade level and gender

199Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

effective than telling an adult at home about experiences re-lated to PV.

There are at least two main implications of these results.First, these data point to the importance of adults at school inthe lives of relationally victimized students. However, not allstudents experienced positive outcomes when telling an adultat school about their victimization experiences. In fact, amongolder students (i.e., HS), this strategy generally did not lead topositive outcomes. These results suggest the need for adults atschool to re-examine how they interact with adolescents whocome to them and share their victimization experiences. Morework is needed to fully understand this important dynamicbetween older students and adults at school. Second, resultsindicate the need to increase effectiveness of adults’ actions(both at school and at home) to support adolescents who ex-perience physical peer victimization. Overall, the pattern ofthese findings suggests that adults may need additional strat-egies and training to intervene and ideally prevent PV. It isclear more research is needed to further understand the role ofadults in effectively addressing PV.

Use of Humor Strategy effectiveness also varied by form ofvictimization when students used humor to respond to peervictimization. Results indicated that the use of humor (Bmadea joke about it^) was effective in response to RV, but muchless effective in response to PV. This may reflect the type ofhumor being used. Students’ use of humor can be affiliative innature, thus helping to establish and maintain connection (seeCampbell et al. 2008), or aggressive in nature, subsequentlyleading to more negative outcomes (Klein and Kuiper 2006).Perhaps students used more adaptive forms of humor (e.g.,affiliative or self-enhancing) in response to RVand more dis-paraging humor in response to PV, thereby leading to morenegative outcomes. It is also possible that humor is an effec-tive way of punishing peer behavior that is meant to be hurtfulwhen the perpetrator is hoping to humiliate the target. Morework is needed to increase our understanding of the effect ofusing various forms of humor in response to peer victimiza-tion before drawing firm conclusions. In terms of develop-mental effects, the use of humor was effective for adolescents(i.e., MS and HS students), but rather ineffective for ES stu-dents. This grade level effect is consistent with researchhighlighting the social savvy needed to use humor effectively(for a review, see McGhee 1974).

Males’ use of humor in response to peer victimization wasconsistent with the boy code (e.g., BI am tough, nothingbothers me^). In fact, when females Bmade a joke about it^in response to peer victimization, things were about as likelyto get worse as they were to get better. These findings under-score the importance of considering students’ gender as wellas existing social norms within the context of identifying ef-fective strategies for peer victimization. Teachers are in aunique position to help address the emotional lives of male

students and challenge the well-established Bboy code^ in anintentional effort to promote positive developmentaloutcomes.

Gender differences emerged for three of the 12 strategies,including Bhit them,^ Bdid nothing,^ and Bmade a joke aboutit.^ Consistent with the social learning theory (Bandura 1986)and the boy code, males in the USA have learned over timethrough social reinforcement, to use aggressive behavior toachieve and sustain power and status (Pollack 2004).Subsequently, it was not surprising that high school malesreported Bhitting^ as an effective response to peer victimiza-tion, while younger males did not. Although adolescent malesreported that hitting was an effective coping strategy, we cer-tainly do not recommend any form of retaliatory aggression inresponse to peer victimization. However, the fact that adoles-cent males reported that hitting back was an effective strategyto address peer victimization must be considered by teachersand administrators as they develop intervention and disciplin-ary strategies. Students may choose this strategy because theyperceive that little else works. Moreover, consistent withPollack’s boy code (Pollack 2004), males who Bdid nothing^in response to PVexperienced more negative outcomes com-pared with those who Bdid nothing^ in response to RV. Alsoconsistent with gender socialization (e.g., see Smith, Rose,and Schwartz-Mette 2010), things were much more likely toget worse for females who Bdid nothing^ in response to RVcompared with males.

Grade level effects emerged for half of the coping strategies(i.e., six out of 12). Findings indicated that older students weremore efficacious in using some strategies, whereas youngerstudents were more efficacious in using other strategies toaddress peer victimization. For example, things were morelikely to get better when MS and HS students Bmade a jokeabout it^ compared with younger students. On the other hand,things were more likely to get better when ES students (i.e.,5th graders) Btold an adult at school^ compared with olderstudents. Study results also indicated that grade level effectsinteracted with both the form of victimization experienced andstudents’ gender. For example, among MS students, the effec-tiveness of Btold an adult at school^ depended on the form ofvictimization for females only.

The remaining strategies (i.e., Btold them to stop,^ Bdidnothing,^ Bhit them,^ and Bmade plans to get back at them^)were generally less effective for younger students. However, itshould be noted that these strategies were not effective interms of making things better for the majority of students. Insum, grade level effects from the current study suggest thatunderlying developmental processes may be involved whenidentifying effective coping strategies in response to peervictimization.

Taken together, these findings help us to better understandhow the form of victimization (i.e., RV or PV), gender anddevelopmental level relate to students’ coping with peer

200 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

victimization. Although form of victimization and develop-mental effects appear to play more of a role in affecting strat-egy effectiveness, findings from the current study also suggestthat it is important to consider the role of gender and culturalnorms when addressing peer victimization.

Students’ Coping Strategies and Associated Levelsof Emotional Distress

The second question examined whether the coping strategiesthat students identified as effective (i.e., led to positive out-comes) actually predicted lower levels of associated emotionaldistress. Interestingly, for both forms of peer victimization,only one of the five identified effective strategies (i.e., Btolda friend,^ Btold an adult at school,^ Btold an adult at home,^Bmade a joke about it,^ and Breminded myself that it was notmy fault…^) was related to students’ lower levels of emotion-al distress—Breminded myself that what they are doing is notmy fault and that they are the ones who are doing somethingwrong.^ This cognitive strategy was related to students’ emo-tional distress for each form of victimization and was robustacross gender and grade level. These results are consistentwith recent research highlighting the importance of targetingstudents’ psychological processes in developing effective orBwise^ interventions (Walton 2014). Using the lens of adiathesis-stress model, these findings are also consistent withpast research linking self-blame to negative emotional out-comes. For example, students who blamed themselves fortheir peer victimization (Bthere is something wrong withme^) were more likely to experience negative emotional out-comes, including shame, affecting their core self (Tangneyet al. 2007). One way teachers can help students cope withpeer victimization is by encouraging them to learn and useeffective strategies for cognitive restructuring. For example,teachers can train students from an early age not to acceptblame for others’ negative actions and attitudes towards themand to recognize that those actions do not reflect anythingwrong with them. Changing how youth think about their ex-periences with peer victimization can positively impact theirassociated emotional distress (Yeager et al. 2013a, b). Yeagerand colleagues’ findings suggest that it is important for vic-timized youth to understand that negative actions that a peeruses towards them result from choices made by the perpetra-tor, rather than from fixed negative traits within the perpetra-tor. Consistent with a strengths-based approach (Lerner et al.2015), future research is needed to explore how specific formsof cognitive restructuring in response to peer victimization canbe leveraged to build students’ resilience.

Strengths, Limitations, and Areas for Further Study

This study is the first known national study to examine notonly the main effects of students’ grade level, gender, and

form of bullying, but also potential interactions among thesethree variables as they relate to students’ strategy effectivenessin response to bullying victimization. This study includes alarge national sample from various geographic regions acrossthe USA.

Although this study yielded important findings, there arelimitations that need to be addressed, some of which pertain toinstrumentation. First, there was only one indicator of emo-tional distress. Relatedly, only two questions were used toassess students’ involvement with relational and physical bul-lying victimization. Future investigations using multiple as-sessments of distress and bullying victimization, with well-established psychometric properties, are needed to further ex-plore the relationship between bullying, strategy effectiveness,and associated its trauma. Second, expanding the number ofresponse choices on the strategy effectiveness scale may cap-ture more variance in students’ perceptions and result in amore valid measure of the perception of strategy efficacy. Inaddition, although self-report instruments are the preferredmethod for assessing students’ perception of bullying victim-ization (Juvonen and Graham 2001), demand characteristicsare still possible. For example, given the normative nature ofrelational aggression for females (Crick 1997), it is possiblethat males underreported their experiences related to relationalvictimization. Moreover, it is also possible that the reliance onself-report resulted in shared method variance. Subsequently,it is prudent that these findings be replicated using multiplemethods (e.g., direct observation) over time to assess students’coping strategies in response to different forms of bullying.

The form of bullying assessed also represents a limitation,as the current study focused on relational and physical bully-ing only and did not overtly measure verbal bullying andcyberbullying. Verbal bullying is an important construct toassess given its high prevalence rate (Barzilay et al. 2017).Cyberbullying can have a significant negative impact on themental health of young people and is also important to address(Fisheret et al. 2016; Hinduja and Patchin 2010 Nixon 2014).Future studies will need to examine strategy effectiveness andemotional distress as they relate to all forms of bullying vic-timization. Studies are also needed to examine strategy effec-tiveness related to peer victimization in the primary grades.Although grade level effects were analyzed, the current studyonly included grades five through twelve. Finally, the dataanalyzed here are cross-sectional in nature; thus, cause andeffect relationships between students’ coping responses andtheir associated distress levels cannot be inferred.

This was the first known study to examine the relationshipbetween students’ strategy effectiveness and their associatedemotional distress in response to relational and physical bul-lying, as a function of gender and grade level. This investiga-tion examined individual coping strategies in response to bul-lying; however, students tend to use more than one strategy.Future work should examine the interaction among strategies;

201Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

using multiple strategies may be more efficacious in reducingthe harm associated with bullying victimization.

The emotional impact of bullying victimization may beinfluenced by several mediating variables and include a myr-iad of intra-individual and environmental factors, in additionto strategy effectiveness, form of bullying, gender, and gradelevel. For example, researchers have demonstrated the protec-tive role of existing friendships (Hodges et al. 1999) and car-ing adults (Davidson and Kilpatrick-Demaray 2007) in miti-gating the negative effects of bullying victimization.Moreover, researchers have posited that school climate playsa significant role in influencing the relationships among peerbullying, strategy effectiveness, and emotional distress(Espelage et al. 2014). Future research examining these addi-tional variables might help to explain additional variance inpredicting students’ emotional distress.

Conclusion

The current study findings demonstrate that strategy effective-ness for coping with bullying victimization does depend onthe form of victimization experienced as well as students’grade level and gender. Study findings negate the old adage,Bone size fits all,^ in terms of equipping students with effec-tive strategies to address bullying victimization. Instead, studyresults confirm that students’ effective coping responses de-pend upon their form of victimization experienced, grade lev-el, and gender. Supporting youth in using effective copingstrategies in response to bullying victimization is fundamentalto building and sustaining students’ resilience over time.Although students identified five effective strategies, onlycognitive restructuring was related to students’ lower levelsof associated emotional distress. These study findings suggestthat it would be beneficial to help victimized students develophealthy attributions related to their peer mistreatment, specif-ically around self-blame.

References

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs toprevent school bullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 183–204.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a socialcognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Barzilay, S., Klomek, A. B., Apter, A., Carli, V., Wasserman, C.,Hadlaczky, G., et al. (2017). Bullying victimization and suicide ide-ation and behavior among adolescents in Europe: a 10-countrystudy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61, 179–186.

Black, S., Weinles, D., &Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to stopbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(2), 138–147.

Bradbury, S. L., Dubow, E. F., & Domoff, S. E. (2018). How do adoles-cents learn cyber-victimization coping skills? An examination of

parent and peer coping socialization. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 47, 1866–1879.

Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Children’s opinions on effec-tive strategies to cope with bullying: the importance of bullying roleand perspective. Educational Research, 47(1), 93–105.

Campbell, L., Martin, R. A., & Ward, J. R. (2008). An observationalstudy of humor use while resolving conflict in dating couples.Personal Relationships, 15, 41–55.

Carney, J. V. (2008). Perceptions of bullying and associated trauma dur-ing adolescence. Professional School Counseling, 11, 179–188.

Cassidy, T., & Taylor, L. (2001). Bullying, coping and psychologicaldistress in older children. Poster session presented at the BritishPsychological Society Centenary annual conference. Glasgow:SECC.

Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Blais, J. (2007). Responding to bullying. Whatworks. School Psychology International, 28, 465–477.

Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in sex normative versus non-normativeforms of aggression: links to social-psychological adjustment.Developmental Psychology, 33, 610–617.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peervictimization: a multi-informant approach. Journal of ConsultingClinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

Davidson, L., & Kilpatrick-Demaray, M. (2007). Social support as amoderator between victimization and internalizing-externalizingdistress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36, 383–405.

Davis, S. M., & Nixon, C. (2014). Youth voice project: student insightsinto bullying and peer mistreatment. Research Press Publishers.

Eder, D. (1998). Developing adolescent peer culture through collabora-tive narration. In S. M. Hoyle & C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids talk:strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 82–95). New York:Oxford University Press.

Espelage, D. L., Low, S. K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2014). Understandingschool climate, aggression, peer victimization, and bully perpetra-tion: contemporary science, practice, and policy. School PsychologyQuarterly, 29(3), 233–237.

Evans, C. B. R., Fraser, M. W., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effectivenessof school-based bullying prevention programs: a systematic review.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 532–544.

Evans, C. B. R., Cotter, K. L., & Smokowski, P. R. (2017). Giving victimsof bullying a voice: a qualitative study of post bullying reactions andcoping strategies. Journal of Child and Adolescent Social Work, 34,543–555.

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. (2012). Let’s prevent peervictimization, not just bullying. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36(4),271–274.

Frisen, A., Hasselblad, T., & Holmqvist, K. (2012). What actually makesbullying stop: reports from former victims. Journal of Adolescence,35, 981–990.

Fisher, B. W., Gardella, J. H., & Teurbe-Tolan, A. R. (2016). Peercybervictimization among adolescents and the associated internaliz-ing and externalizing problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 45(9), 1727–1743.

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2018). Evaluating the effective-ness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-an-alytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory andwomen’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin,C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform defini-tions for public health and recommended data elements, Version 1.0.Atlanta,GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Depart ofEducation.

Granello, D., &Wheaton, J. (2004). On-line data collection: Strategies forresearch. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 387–393.

202 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

Hartley, M. T., Bauman, S., Nixon, C. L., &Davis, S. (2017). Respondingto bullying victimization: comparative analysis of victimized stu-dents in general and special education. Journal of Disability PolicyStudies, 28(2), 77–89.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and sui-cide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard:preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.

Hodges, E. V., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). Thepower of friendship: protection against an escalating cycle of peervictimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94–101.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullyingand peer victimization in school: an ecological system analysis.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311–322.

Hunter, S. C., &Boyle, J.M. E. (2004). Appraisal and coping strategy usein victims of school bullying. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 74, 83–107.

Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchan, J., & Ortega, R. (2004). The long-termeffects of coping strategy use in victims of bullying. The SpanishJournal of Psychology, 7, 3–12.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2001). Peer harassment in school: the plightof the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford.

Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H.,Queen, B. ...Ethier, K. A. (2018). Youth Risk BehaviorSurveillance – United States, 2017. Morbidity and MortalityWeekly Report (MMWR), 67(8), 1–114.

Klein, D. N., & Kuiper, N. A. (2006). Humor styles, peer relationships,and bullying in middle childhood. Humor: International Journal ofHumor Research, 19(4), 383–404.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children’s coping strate-gies. Moderators of the effects of peer victimization.DevelopmentalPsychology, 38(2), 267–278.

Kristensen, S. M., & Smith, P. K. (2003). The use of coping strategies byDanish children classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and notinvolved, in response to different (hypothetical) types of bullying.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 479–488.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E. P., & Geldhof, G. H. (2015).Positive youth development and relational-developmental-systems.InW. Overton, F.Willis, P. Molenaar, & R. Lerner (Eds.),Handbookof child psychology and developmental science: theory and method(7th ed) (Vol. 1, pp. 607–651). Hoboken: Wiley.

Mahady-Wilton, M., Craig, W., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regu-lation and display in classroom victims of bullying: characteristicexpressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors.Social Development, 9(2), 226–245.

McDonald, C. D., D’Amico, L., & O’Laughlin, E. M. (2000). Relationalaggression and victimization in middle-school students. Paper pre-sented at the 2000 biennial meeting of the conferences of humandevelopment, Memphis, TN.

McGhee, P. E. (1974). Cognitive mastery and children’s humor.Psychological Bulletin, 81, 721–730.

Mendez, J. J., Bauman, S., Sulkowski, M. l., Davis, S., & Nixon, C.(2016). Racially-focused peer victimization: prevalence, psychoso-cial impacts, and the influence of coping strategies. Psychology ofViolence, 6(1), 103–111.

Moore, S. E., Norman, R. E., Suetani, S., Thomas, H. J., Sly, P. D., &Scott, J. G. (2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in child-hood and adolescence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 60–76.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, B., &Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: preva-lence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.

Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J.(2004). Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bul-lying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatrics& Adolescent Medicine, 158(8), 730–736.

Naylor, P., & Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer support systemsin challenging school bullying: the perspectives and experiences ofteachers and pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 467–480.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of second-ary school children in response to being bullied.Child Psychology&Psychiatry Review, 6(3), 114–120.

Newman, M. L., Holden, G. W., & Delville, Y. (2011). Coping with thestress of being bullied: consequences of coping strategies amongcollege students. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2,205–211.

Nixon, C. L. (2014). Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying onadolescent health. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics,5, 143.

Olafsen, R. N., & Viemerö, V. (2000). Bully/victim problems and copingwith stress in school among 10- to 12-year old pupils in Åland,Finland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 57–65.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what we cando. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: facts and interven-tion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some importantchallenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis ofschool-based bully prevention programs’ effects on bystander inter-vention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65.

Pollack, W. S. (2004). Male adolescent rites of passage. Annals New YorkAcademy of Sciences, 1036, 141–150.

Roecker-Phelps, C. E. (2001). Children’s responses to overt and relationalaggression. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 240–252.

Ryan, W., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Antibullying program in schools: Howeffective are evaluation practices? Prevention Science, 10, 248–259.

Severson, H., & Biglan, A. (1989). Rationale for the use of passive con-sent in smoking prevention research: politics, policy, and pragmat-ics. Preventive Medicine, 18, 267–279.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P. T., Murray-Harvey, R., & Pereira, B. (2011).School bullying by one or more ways: does it matter and how dostudents cope? School Psychology International, 32(3), 288–311.

Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims ofschool bullying: developmental changes in coping strategies andskills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer-harassment inschool: the plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 332–351).London: Guilford Press.

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). Theeffectiveness of whole-school anti-bullying programs: a synthesis ofevaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 548–561.

Smith, R. L., Rose, A. J., & Schwartz-Mette, R. A. (2010). Relational andovert aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender differences and associations with peer acceptance.Social Development, 19(2), 243–269.

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

Sulkowski, M. L., Bauman, S., Dinner, S., Nixon, C., & Davis, S. (2014).An investigation into how students’ respond to being victimized bypeer aggression. Journal of School Violence, 13(4), 339–358.

Swearer, S., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bul-lying – moving toward a social-ecological diathesis-stress model.American Psychologist, 70(4), 344–353.

Tangney, L. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions andmoral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

203Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204

Tenenbaum, L. S., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Parris, L. (2011). Copingstrategies and perceived effectiveness in fourth through eighth gradevictims of bullying. School Psychology International, 32, 263–287.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventingbullying: Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes. Journalof Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1(1), 13–24.

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.

Turner, H. A., Hamby, S. L., Shattuck, A., & Omrod, R. K. (2011).Specifying type and location of peer victimization in a nationalsample of children and youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,40(8), 1052–1067.

Viconti, K. J., & Troop-Gordon,W. (2010). Prospective relations betweenchildren’s responses to peer victimization and their socioemotionaladjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31,261–272.

Visconti, K. J., Sechler, C. M., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2013). Copingwith peer victimization: the role of children’s attributions. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 28, 122–140.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric andAdolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.

Walton, G. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 73–82.

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.

Werner, N., & Nixon, C. (2005). Normative beliefs and relational aggres-sion: an investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressivebehavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 229–243.

Wilson, T. (2011). Redirect: the surprising new science of psychologicalchange. New York: Penguin Group.

Yeager, D. S., Miu, A., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2013a). Implicittheories of personality and attributions of hostile intent: a meta-anal-yses, an experiment, and a longitudinal intervention. ChildDevelopment, 84(5), 1651–1667.

Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013b). An implicittheories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression inresponse to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84(3),970–988.

Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2015). Declinesin efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: the-ory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedDevelopment, 37, 36–51.

204 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:190–204