the association of bullying and victimization with middle school adjustment

This article was downloaded by: [University of Wyoming Libraries]On: 01 October 2013, At: 14:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Applied SchoolPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapp20

The Association of Bullyingand Victimization with MiddleSchool AdjustmentTonja R. Nansel PhD a , Denise L. Haynie a & BruceG. Simonsmorton aa National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment, USAPublished online: 02 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Tonja R. Nansel PhD , Denise L. Haynie & Bruce G. Simonsmorton(2003) The Association of Bullying and Victimization with Middle School Adjustment,Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19:2, 45-61, DOI: 10.1300/J008v19n02_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n02_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J008v19n02_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n02_04

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Association of Bullyingand Victimization

with Middle School Adjustment

Tonja R. NanselDenise L. Haynie

Bruce G. Simons-Morton

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

SUMMARY. Bullying others or being victimized during the transitionto middle school may be an important risk factor for school adjustmentproblems; however, it has been minimally addressed in previous re-search. This study examined the relationship of bullying and being vic-timized during the first year of middle school with subsequent schooladjustment. Self-report data were obtained from 930 youth at the begin-ning of 6th grade, the end of 6th grade, and the end of 7th grade. After con-trolling for baseline scores, youth who were classified as bullies, victims, orbully-victims during sixth grade showed poorer school adjustment thantheir non-involved peers. In addition, those who were victims or bully-vic-tims during 6th grade reported a more negative perceived school climatethan bullies or comparison youth. These differences persisted over time.

Address correspondence to: Tonja R. Nansel, PhD, Division of Epidemiology, Statis-tics, and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-ment, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 7B05, MSC 7510, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510(E-mail: [email protected]).

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “The Association of Bullying and Victimization with Middle School Ad-justment.” Nansel, Tonja, Denise L. Haynie, and Bruce G. Simons-Morton. Co-published simultaneously inJournal of Applied School Psychology (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 19, No. 2, 2003, pp. 45-61; and: Bullying,Peer Harassment, and Victimization in the Schools: The Next Generation of Prevention (ed: Maurice J. Elias, andJoseph E. Zins) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2003, pp. 45-61. Single or multiple copies of this article are availablefor a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST).E-mail address: [email protected]].

http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J008 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

10.1300/J008v19n02_04 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Findings suggest that problematic peer interactions may hinder youth’s adap-tation to the middle school environment. [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail ad-dress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Bullying, victimization, school adjustment, school cli-mate, middle school, transition

INTRODUCTION

The transition from elementary to middle school is an important develop-mental task for early adolescents. It is a time typically characterized by in-creased academic demand, decreased personal attention in school, increasedsocial stressors, and a shift from adult-focused to peer-focused relationships(Eccles, 1999; Elias, Gara, & Ubriaco, 1985; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997). Animportant component of adaptation to middle school is the youth’s develop-ment of healthy social relationships with peers. Peer relationships may influ-ence school adjustment through both affective and social processes. Youths’peer relationships at school function as either supports or stressors in their ad-justment to the demands of a new school environment (Birch & Ladd, 1996;Ladd & Price, 1987; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997). Difficulties inpeer relationships are associated with negative changes in self-concept andfeelings of self-worth (Fenzel, 2000; Haynes, 1990; Wenz-Gross, Siperstein,Untch, & Widaman, 1997), which may impair subsequent school adjustment.Conversely, healthy peer relationships may promote positive school adjust-ment by creating a sense of relatedness that serves a motivational function foryouth in school (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Hicks & Anderman, 1999; Ryan &Powelson, 1991).

A common maladaptive type of peer interaction among middle-schoolyouth is that of bullying. Bullying is typically defined as aggressive peer-to-peer behavior in which (1) there is an intention to harm or disturb the victim;(2) the aggression occurs repeatedly over time; and (3) there is an imbalance ofpower, with a more powerful person or group attacking a less powerful one(Olweus, 1993). The aggressive behavior may be verbal (e.g., name-calling,threats), physical (e.g., hitting), or psychological (e.g., rumors, shunning/ex-clusion). Bullying is a relatively common phenomenon among early adoles-cents. In a nationally representative study of U.S. youth in grades 6-10, 29.9%reported involvement in moderate or frequent bullying, with 13.0% bullying

46 Bullying, Peer Harassment, and Victimization in the Schools

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

others, 10.6% being bullied, and 6.3% reporting both bullying others and be-ing bullied. Bullying occurred more frequently among 6th to 8th grade youththan among those in grades 9 and 10 (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, &Simons-Morton, 2001).

Involvement in bullying during the transition to middle school may repre-sent an important risk factor for subsequent school adjustment. Both bullyingothers and being victimized represent maladaptive peer relationships, whichcould predispose the youth to increased difficulty during the middle-school tran-sition. However, the relationship between bullying/victimization and schooladjustment has not been adequately addressed in previous research. The pur-pose of this study was to determine the relationship of bullying and being vic-timized during the first year of middle school with school adjustment andperceived school climate at the end of the first and second years of middleschool. We examined the continuity of bullying behaviors over time, and in-vestigated the extent to which bullies, victims, and bully-victims differed fromnon-involved youth in their adjustment to middle school.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

The developmental challenges associated with the transition to middleschool may result in personal and academic difficulties for youth. Overall,students typically experience an increase in psychological distress and a de-crease in academic motivation and achievement during the transition to middleschool (Blyth, Simmons, & Carlton-Ford, 1983; Crockett, Peterson, Graber,Schulenberg, & Ebata, 1989; Gutman & Midgley, 2000; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1987;Simmons & Blyth, 1987; Wigfield, Eccles, Maclver, Reuman, & Midgley,1991). While these findings occur across racial and socioeconomic statusgroups, individual students vary in the extent to which they experience suchtransition difficulties (Chung, Elias, & Schneider, 1996; Crockett et al., 1989;Fenzel & Blyth, 1986; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1987; Simmons & Blyth, 1987).Thus, it is likely that various risk and protective factors may influence the de-gree of difficulty experienced.

Previous research indicates that one important factor influencing middleschool adjustment may be that of the youth’s peer relationships. In a predomi-nantly middle-class sample of Canadian youth, McDougall and Hymel (1998)found that transition differences between youth were predicted by both socialadjustment and school attitudes/behaviors, with social adjustment playing apotentially critical role. In a study of low-income Black children, adjustmentduring the first year of middle school was predicted by both aggression andpeer rejection (Coie, Lochman, Terry, & Hyman, 1992). Support for various

Nansel, Haynie, and Simons-Morton 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

mechanisms linking peer relationships to academic adjustment has beenfound. One study conducted with youth in a working-class, ethnically diverseMidwestern community, found support for the mediating role of prosocial be-havior (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Another conducted with a sample of eth-nically diverse urban middle-school youth supported an explanatory model inwhich peer harassment negatively influences psychological adjustment, whichsubsequently affects school adjustment (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000).

There is much support for the assertion that peer harassment has a negativeeffect on psychological adjustment. Research conducted across countries andwith diverse samples has consistently found that both bullies and victims ofbullying demonstrate poorer psychosocial functioning than their non-involvedpeers. Youth who bully others tend to demonstrate higher levels of conductproblems and externalizing behaviors, whereas youth who are bullied generallyshow higher levels of internalizing behaviors, including anxiety, depression,loneliness, unhappiness, and low self-esteem, as well as increased physicalsymptoms (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Forero,McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Haynie et al., 2001;Hodges & Perry, 1999; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen, & Rimpela, 2000;Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Henttonen, 1999; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus,1978; Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 1999; Salmon, James, & Smith, 1998; Williams,Chambers, Logan, & Robinson, 1996). Moreover, youth who both bully othersand are victims of bullying demonstrate even poorer psychosocial functioningthan youth who only bully or are only victimized (Andreuo, 2000; Austin &Joseph, 1996; Forero et al., 1999; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000; Kumpulainen etal., 1998; Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001).

Studies conducted to date, then, suggest that peer relationships influence psy-chological adjustment, and subsequently, psychological adjustment affects schooladjustment. This relationship may be especially acute during the middle-schoolyears, when youth are shifting emphasis from adult-focused to peer-focused rela-tionships. If maladaptive peer relationships do in fact have a negative impact onschool adjustment due to their detrimental effect on psychosocial functioning,youth who bully others and youth who are bullied would be at risk for school ad-justment problems. This study focuses on bullying that occurs during the sixthgrade year–when students are in the middle-school transition period.

METHODS

Participants

Self-report survey data were obtained from two cohorts of students in fourmiddle schools (grades 6-8) in one suburban Maryland school district. The


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

county in which this school district resides is racially diverse, with 69% of resi-dents White, 26% African American, 2% Hispanic and 2% Asian (U.S. CensusBureau, 1990). The 1997 model based estimates for the percent of people of allages in poverty in the county is 7%, and median income is $54,110, accordingto the U.S. Census Bureau. Students starting 6th grade in the fall of 1996 andthe fall of 1997 were recruited to participate in the study. Special educationstudents with reading disabilities (n = 119) were considered ineligible. Datawere obtained in the fall of 6th grade, the spring of 6th grade, and the spring of7th grade. The four schools had been randomly assigned a non-interventionstatus as part of a district-wide study evaluating the effects of a school-basedprogram targeting multiple problem behaviors. The school district had noother special interventions occurring in the middle schools at the time of thestudy, as part of their agreement to be the site for the research. From a total of1,490 eligible 6th grade students, 1,267 (85%) completed the baseline survey.Nonparticipants included 118 parent refusals, 47 non-returned consent forms,55 absences on both assessment dates, and 3 incomplete/unusable surveys. Ofthe 1,267 baseline participants, 939 (74%) were also assessed at the followingtwo time points. Lost to follow-up were 116 students who moved out of thecounty, 42 parent refusals, 60 non-returned consent forms, 43 absences, 33who moved to a treatment condition school, 27 who were later classified asspecial education students, and 7 who failed 6th grade. The final sample com-prised 47.1% boys and 52.9% girls. The ethnic composition of the sample was73.7% White students, 16.7% Black students, and 9.6% students of other ra-cial/ethnic backgrounds.

Procedures

Parents and students were informed that the survey was the measurementcomponent of the intervention evaluation study. Written consent was obtainedfrom all parents of the participating students. Students assent was also ob-tained. Students completed questionnaires during their home-base classroom,with make-up assessments scheduled the following week for students whowere absent on the day of assessment. The survey was administered in eachclassroom by two trained proctors. Study investigators and project staff servedas trainers and team leaders, each supervising several pairs of proctors.Teachers remained in the classroom to supervise student discipline but wereotherwise uninvolved in the survey procedures. To ensure confidentiality, stu-dents first completed and turned in a cover page that included their name, sur-vey identification number, birth date, and home-base classroom teacher’sname. Students’ names were not on the questionnaires. The study was re-viewed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development In-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

stitutional Review Board and authorized by representatives of the schooldistrict.

Measures

The questionnaire was designed to assess behaviors and attitudes targetedby the intervention program. Measures were either selected or created basedon extensive review of the relevant published literature. Prior to implementa-tion in this study, a pilot study (n = 130 sixth-grade students) was conducted toascertain the readability of items and internal consistency of scales. The surveyused in the current study consisted of 116 items assessing student background,psychosocial, school, and parent variables, as well as involvement in problembehaviors, a subset of which included questions about bullying and victimiza-tion. For the measures of school adjustment and climate, if a student completedat least 3/5 of the items comprising a scale, the value for any missing items wasimputed based on the item mean for students of the same grade and gender.Scale scores were then computed (Kessler, Little, & Groves, 1995). A sum-mary of each measure is provided below.

Bullying. Bullying was assessed by asking “How many times in the last yearhave you bullied or picked on someone younger, smaller, or weaker (not in-cluding your brothers and sisters”)? Response categories were 0 = zero, 1 = 1or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.

Victimization. Victimization during the last year was assessed by askinghow many times the respondent had (a) something taken from them by force orthreats, (b) been made to do something they did not want to do, (c) been threat-ened to be physically hurt, and (d) been actually physically hurt. Response cat-egories were 0 = zero, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 to 5 times, and 3 = 6 or more times.

School Adjustment. This 11-item scale measured the student’s adjustmentin the activities of school, such as doing well on schoolwork, getting alongwith classmates, following rules, doing homework, etc. Students rate how wellthe item describes them on a four-point scale: really true, sort of true, sort offalse or really false.

School Climate. This 17-item scale, adapted from Pyper and colleagues(1987), includes items measuring perceived teacher support, rule clarity andenforcement, and student respect for one another. Items are rated fromstrongly agree to strongly disagree on a 4-point scale.

Analysis

As the focus of this study is on bullying/victimization that occurs during thefirst year of middle school, students were classified as victims, bullies, bully-vic-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

tims, or comparisons based on their reports in the spring of 6th grade regardingbullying and victimization during the previous year (i.e., during 6th grade).Victims reported having been victimized three or more times in the past yearand having never or rarely (two or fewer times) bullied. Bullies reported bully-ing others three or more times in the past year and never or rarely having beenvictimized. Bully-victims reported both having bullied and having been vic-timized three or more times in the past year. Comparison youth were those whoreported no bullying or victimization. Students who reported rarely bullyingand/or being victimized were not classified in any of the four groups, as the fo-cus of this study is on repeated bullying and victimization during the first yearof middle school. Students missing data on either bullying or victimizationmeasures (n = 9; 0.01%) were excluded from the analysis.

Because bullying behaviors may persist over time (Kumpulainen et al.,1999), students who bullied or were victimized during the first year of middleschool may have differed from non-involved youth at baseline (fall of 6thgrade). Therefore, potential baseline group differences were assessed byanalyses of variance (ANOVAs) conducted on baseline measures of bully-ing, victimization, school adjustment, and school climate using the four-groupclassification. To control for these baseline differences, analysis of covariance(ANCOVA) was selected as the analytic technique for subsequent analyses.Analysis of covariance adjusts the means on each dependent variable (schooladjustment or climate) to their expected levels if all subjects had scoredequally on the covariates (baseline bullying, victimization, and the corre-sponding school measure) (Tabachnick & Fidel, 1996). A series of ANCOVAswere conducted on spring 6th and 7th grade measures of school adjustmentand school climate with baseline bullying, victimization, and the correspond-ing school measure as covariates.

RESULTS

Variable means, standard deviations, range of responses, coefficient alphas,and correlations are presented in Table 1. As anticipated, school adjustment andperceived school climate showed a mean decrease from fall to spring of 6thgrade. In addition, perceived school climate declined further by spring of 7thgrade. School adjustment and perceived school climate were positively associ-ated with each other, and negatively associated with bullying and victimization.

A total of 199 students (21.4%) reported being victimized repeatedly (threeor more times) during their first year of middle school, 25 (2.7%) reported re-peatedly bullying others, and 23 (2.5%) reported both repeatedly bullying oth-ers and repeatedly being victimized (Table 2). Almost half of the students (n =


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

TA

BLE

1.R

ange

s,M

eans

,Sta

ndar

dD

evia

tions

,and

Cor

rela

tions

Am

ong

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

e†ra

nge

alph

am

ean

SD

12

34

56

78

910

11

1.F

6V

ictim

izat

ion

0-18

.82

1.27

2.43

2.S

6V

ictim

izat

ion

0-24

.84

1.82

3.16

.37

3.S

7V

ictim

izat

ion

0-24

.84

1.79

3.25

.30

.48

4.F

6B

ully

ing

0-3

--.2

1.5

7.3

0.2

0.1

0

5.S

6B

ully

ing

0-3

--.2

8.6

4.1

5.1

6.1

8.2

1

6.S

7B

ully

ing

0-3

--.3

9.7

5.1

5.1

6.2

8.2

8.4

2

7.F

6S

choo

lAdj

ustm

ent

15-4

4.8

535

.91

5.81

�.2

2�

.17

�.1

7�

.24

�.1

5�

.10

8.S

6S

choo

lAdj

ustm

ent

11-4

4.8

533

.68

6.26

�.2

1�

.29

�.2

0�

.26

�.2

2�

.18

.49

9.S

7S

choo

lAdj

ustm

ent

14-4

4.7

833

.21

5.94

�.1

9�

.28

�.2

5�

.28

�.1

9�

.31

.38

.62

10.F

6S

choo

lClim

ate

23-6

8.9

159

.50

7.38

�.1

8�

.12

�.1

3�

.23

�.1

4�

.09

.41

.34

.26

11.S

6S

choo

lClim

ate

17-6

8.9

254

.90

9.22

�.1

4�

.24

�.1

9�

.20

�.1

8�

.16

.29

.52

.38

.49

12.S

7S

choo

lClim

ate

17-6

8.9

252

.18

9.06

�.1

3�

.20

�.2

1�

.17

�.1

3�

.20

.21

.35

.49

.40

.57

†Not

atio

n:F

6F

allo

f6th

grad

eS

6S

prin

gof

6th

grad

eS

7S

prin

gof

7th

grad

e

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

419, 45.1%) reported no bullying or victimization. In addition, 264 (28.4%) re-ported bullying and/or being victimized once or twice.

Analysis of the four groups’ reported bullying and victimization during 7thgrade showed considerable continuity from spring of 6th to spring of 7thgrade. (The 6th grade measures were done seven months apart, thus, continuityfrom fall to spring of 6th grade was not assessed due to overlap in the 12-monthtime frame of these two measures.) As seen in Table 2, most students who re-ported no bullying or victimization during 6th grade also reported two or fewersuch incidents during 7th grade. About half of the 6th grade victims reported7th grade victimization and half of the 6th grade bullies reported 7th grade bul-lying. Among the 6th grade bully-victims, almost all were bullies, victim orboth in 7th grade.

A series of ANOVAs for bullying, victimization, school adjustment, andschool climate at the fall of 6th grade showed significant baseline differencesbetween the four groups (F = 40.34 for victimization, 18.35 for bullying, 12.38for school adjustment, and 4.19 for school climate; p < .01 for all variables).That is, students who bullied others and/or were victimized during their firstyear of middle school were significantly different on these measures whenthey entered middle school. Therefore, adjusting for baseline scores on thesemeasures is warranted.

The results of the ANCOVAs demonstrated poorer adjustment to middleschool at both spring of 6th grade and spring of 7th grade among victims, bul-lies, and bully-victims after controlling for baseline scores on these measures


TABLE 2. 6th Grade Bully and Victim Groups’ Reports of Bullying and Victim-ization During 7th Grade

6th Grade Group 7th Grade Group

None Minimal† Victim Bully Bully-Victim

Non-bully/Non-victimn = 419‡

62.5%(260)

25.3%(105)

9.4%(39)

1.9%(8)

1.0%(4)

Victimn = 199‡

23.2%(46)

24.2%(48)

46.0%(91)

2.5%(5)

4.0%(8)

Bullyn = 25

32.0%(8)

8.0%(2)

8.0%(2)

32.0%(8)

20.0%(5)

Bully/Victimn = 23

0.0%(0)

17.4%(4)

47.8%(11)

8.7%(2)

26.1%(6)

† Those who bullied and/or were victimized only “once or twice.”‡ Four participants were missing data on bullying/victimization at the spring 7th gradeassessment. As such, table percentages are calculated based on an n of 416 on thenon-bully/non-victim group and 198 in the victim group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

(Table 3). Bully and victim group status demonstrated a significant effect onschool adjustment and climate at spring of 6th and 7th grade above that ex-plained by baseline scores. Bullies, victims, and bully-victims all demon-strated poorer school adjustment than their non-involved peers even aftercontrolling for their poorer baseline scores on these measures. These differ-ences were present at spring of 6th grade and persisted through spring of 7thgrade. Victims and bully-victims also reported a more negative perceivedschool climate at spring of both 6th and 7th grades than non-involved students.

DISCUSSION

Overview of Findings

Findings from this study indicate that bullying and victimization are com-mon problems among youth. More than one-half of sixth grade youth reportedsome level of bullying, victimization, or both, and over one-fourth reported re-peated bullying and/or victimization. Both bullying and victimization demon-strated continuity over time, with over half of students who were involved inrepeated bullying and/or victimization in 6th grade reporting repeated involve-ment in 7th grade as well. In contrast, among youth not involved in bullying orvictimization during 6th grade, almost 12% reported repeated bullying and/orvictimization during 7th grade. This suggests that bullying and/or victimiza-tion is a continuing problem for youth who are involved in these behaviors dur-ing their first year of middle school.

Results of this study suggest that involvement in bullying others or being avictim of bullying may be a risk factor for poorer adjustment to middle school.Youth who were classified as bullies, victims, or bully-victims during 6thgrade all reported poorer school adjustment at both spring of 6th grade andspring of 7th grade than their non-involved peers, even after adjusting for theirbaseline scores on bullying, victimization, and school adjustment. Similarly,those who were victims or bully-victims during 6th grade reported a more neg-ative perceived school climate at spring of both 6th and 7th grade than bulliesor comparison youth. These youth were less adapted to middle school upon en-try, but showed even poorer later school adjustment than would be expectedfrom their initial scores. This suggests that the failure to develop positive peerrelationships may be an issue not only of social and emotional development,but also may hinder adaptation to the middle school environment as well. Thiseffect may be mediated by poorer psychosocial adjustment for both bullies andvictims. In addition, for bullies, it may reflect difficulties with the social con-straints and limits placed by the school environment. In previous studies, bul-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

TA

BLE

3.A

djus

ted

and

Una

djus

ted

Mea

nsfo

rB

ully

and

Vic

timG

roup

son

Sch

oolM

easu

res

atS

prin

gof

6th

and

7th

Gra

de

Sp

rin

go

f6t

hG

rad

eS

pri

ng

of

7th

Gra

de

6th

Gra

deB

ully

and

Vic

timG

roup

Sch

oo

lAd

just

men

tF

=16

.63*

*S

cho

olC

limat

eF

=8.

69**

Sch

oo

lAd

just

men

tF

=15

.29*

*S

cho

olC

limat

eF

=5.

48**

Una

djus

ted

Mea

nA

djus

ted

Mea

n†U

nadj

uste

dM

ean‡

Adj

uste

dM

ean

Una

djus

ted

Mea

nA

djus

ted

Mea

n†U

nadj

uste

dM

ean

Adj

uste

dM

ean‡

Non

-bul

ly/

Non

-vic

tims

35.5

734

.97a

56.9

656

.37a

35.1

134

.65a

53.7

453

.31a

Vic

tims

30.7

031

.65b

51.8

052

.70b

30.8

631

.56b

49.7

350

.41b

Bul

lies

30.4

230

.91b

52.3

053

.74ab

31.0

031

.46b

50.8

351

.85ab

Bul

ly/V

ictim

s30

.32

32.3

1b50

.00

51.3

5b29

.64

31.2

1b48

.00

48.7

8b

**p

<.0

1†

Adj

uste

dfo

rba

selin

eva

lues

onvi

ctim

izat

ion,

bully

ing,

and

scho

olad

just

men

t.A

djus

ted

mea

nsre

flect

the

valu

eth

atw

ould

beex

pect

edif

alls

ubje

cts

had

the

sam

esc

ores

atba

selin

e.‡

Adj

uste

dfo

rba

selin

eva

lues

onvi

ctim

izat

ion,

bully

,and

scho

olcl

imat

e.A

djus

ted

mea

nsre

flect

the

valu

eth

atw

ould

beex

pect

edif

all

subj

ects

had

the

sam

esc

ores

atba

selin

e.ab

Mea

nsw

ithdi

ffere

ntsu

pers

crip

tsar

esi

gnifi

cant

lydi

ffere

ntfr

omea

chot

her.

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

lies have been found to like school less (Rigby & Slee, 1991) and to be lesspopular with teachers (Slee & Rigby, 1993) than other youth. For victims, thelack of safety in the school environment may also contribute to poorer adjust-ment to school.

In the past, bullying has often been viewed as a minor problem amongyouth–as a negative but normative and unavoidable aspect of peer interaction(Arora & Thompson, 1987; Hoover & Oliver, 1996). Findings from the currentstudy add to the body of research indicating that bullying is associated withdetrimental outcomes for both bullies and victims. As such, it should be treatedas a significant issue for youth, warranting efforts to promote youth and adultnorms intolerant of bullying.

Strengths and Limitations

This study is one of the few to address the relationship between bullyingand school adjustment over time. The longitudinal nature of the data providesseveral strengths. Continuity of bullying/victimization over time were as-sessed. Baseline differences on the variables of interest were controlled for inthe analysis, and outcomes were measured during spring of both the first andsecond years of middle school. Nevertheless, the study’s limitations must berecognized as well. Variables associated with bullying and victimization wereassessed through self-report, and measures used were brief, as bullying wasnot the main focus of the survey. Further, the measure of bullying in this studymight have tapped primarily direct, aggressive bullying, and not other behav-iors, such as teasing or exclusion, which are not as commonly associated withthe word “bully.” As such, the number of youth in the bully and bully victimgroups were small, limiting the power of the study. The youth in this study,while ethnically diverse, were from a primarily suburban area of an easterncity, and may differ from youth in rural or urban areas and those from otherparts of the country. Finally, this study did not investigate causes of bullying orpotential variables that might account for both bullying/victimization andschool adjustment problems (e.g., family socialization, individual character,etc.), nor did it test the potential pathway of the effect of peer harassment onschool adjustment through psychological adjustment.

Implications for Research and Practice

While much research has been conducted on aggressive behavior amongU.S. youth, little attention has been paid specifically to bullying. However, alarge body of international research provides a foundation for future study andintervention in this area (Smith & Brain, 2000). Research conducted in Nor-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

way and England has demonstrated that the incidence of bullying in schoolscan, in fact, be reduced substantially through school-based interventions thatcreate changes within the school and classroom environment (Olweus, 1991;Olweus, 1994; Smith, 1997; Sharp & Smith, 1991). Findings from these studiesdemonstrate the importance of creating a school environment (1) characterizedby warmth, positive interest, and involvement from adults–where students feelthey are cared about and expected to do well; and (2) where there are clear,firm limits to peer harassment and bullying that are consistently enforced. Im-portant components of these bullying prevention programs include clear andexplicit expectations regarding the treatment of others, the use of classroommeetings addressing peer relationships, the incorporation of activities promot-ing respect for others into day-to-day curriculum, adequate supervision ofyouth, adult intervention in bullying situations, individual intervention withbullies and victims as needed, ongoing staff training/development, and the fa-cilitation of parental involvement.

Findings from this study support the need for these types of programs in theU.S. and highlight the importance of early prevention, before these behaviorpatterns become entrenched, and concomitant adjustment problems occur.Bullying prevention information and materials for educators are becoming in-creasingly available and may provide a useful start for the promotion ofschool-based bullying prevention efforts (e.g., Committee for Children, 2001;Froschl, Sprung, & Mullin-Rindler, 1998; Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sager, &Short-Camilli, 2001; Hoover & Oliver, 1996; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic,1999). However, as little research has been done on the effectiveness of bully-ing prevention programs in the U.S., these efforts should include efficacy andeffectiveness trials to determine effective and feasible models for U.S.schools. Adaptations of programs based on school size, grade levels served,geographic location, and culture also need to be addressed. In addition, thehypothesized model linking peer relationships to school adjustment throughpsychological adjustment needs to be more fully tested in future studies. Adjust-ment to school represents an important task of youth, one that may parallel lateradaptation to the work world and other adult responsibilities. Promoting posi-tive peer relationships and preventing abuse and harassment among youth maybe an essential element of healthy youth development.

REFERENCES

Anderman, L. H. & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 21-37.

Andreuo, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological con-structs in 8- to 12-year-old Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 49-56.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Arora, C. M. & Thompson, D. A. (1987). Defining bullying for a secondary school.Educational and Child Psychology, 4(3-4), 110-120.

Austin, S. & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8- to 11-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456.

Birch, S. H. & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the school environ-ment and children’s early school adjustment: The role of teachers and peers. In J.Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social Motivation: Understanding Children’sSchool Adjustment (pp. 199-225). Cambridge University Press.

Blyth, D. A., Simmons, R. G., & Carlton-Ford, S. (1983). The adjustments of early ad-olescents to school transitions. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3(1-2), 105-120.

Boulton, M. J. & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle schoolchildren. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87.

Chung, H., Elias, M., & Schneider, K. (1998). Patterns of individual adjustmentchanges during middle school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1),83-101.

Coie, J. D., Lochman, J. E., Tery, R., & Hyman, C. (1992). Predicting early adolescentdisorder from childhood aggression and peer rejection. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 60(5), 783-792.

Committee for Children (2001). Steps to Respect: A bullying prevention program. Se-attle, Washington: Committee for Children. Available at http://www.cfchildren.org/str.html

Connell, J.P., & Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: Amotivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe(Eds.), Self processes in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology(vol. 23, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crockett, L. J., Peterson, A. C., Graber, J. A., Schulenberg, J., & Ebata, A. (1989).School transitions and adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Early Ado-lescence, 9(3), 181-210.

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The Development of Children Ages 6 to 14. The Future ofChildren, 9(2), 30-44.

Elias, M. J., Gara, M., & Ubriaco, M. (1985). Sources of Stress and Support inChildren’s Transition to Middle School: An empirical analysis. Journal of ClinicalChild Psychology, 14(2), 112-118.

Fenzel, L. M. (2000). Prospective study of changes in global self-worth and strain dur-ing the transition to middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(1), 93-116.

Fenzel, L. M. & Blyth, D. A. (1986). Individual adjustment to school transitions: Anexploration of the role of supportive peer relations. Journal of Early Adolescence,6(4), 315-329.

Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour andpsychosocial health among school students in New South Wales, Australia:Cross-sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 344-348.

Froschl, M., Sprung, B., & Mullin-Rindler, N. (1998). Quit it: A teacher’s guide onteasing and bullying for use with students in grades K-3. New York: EducationalEquity Concepts.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli, C. (2001). Bully proofingyour school: A comprehensive approach for elementary schools. Longmont, Colo-rado: Sopris West.

Guttman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting theacademic achievement of poor African American students during the middle schooltransition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 223-248.

Hawker, D. S. J. & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimizationand psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional stud-ies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.

Haynes, N. M. (1990). Influence of self-concept on school adjustment among mid-dle-school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2), 199-207.

Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T. R., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K. E., Yu, K., &Simons-Morton, B. G. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groupsof youth at risk. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-50.

Hirsch, B. J. & Rapkin, B. D. (1987). The transition to junior high school: A longitudi-nal study of self-esteem, psychological symptomatology, school life and social sup-port. Child Development, 58(5), 1235-1243.

Hodges, E. V. E. & Perry, D. B. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents andconsequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 76(4), 677-685.

Hoover, J. H. & Oliver, R. L. (1996). The bullying prevention handbook: A guide forprincipals, teachers, and counselors. Bloomington, Indiana: National EducationalServices.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjust-ment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 92(2), 349-359.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Bullying atschool: An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adoles-cence, 23(6), 661-674.

Kessler, R. C., Little, R. J. A., & Groves, R. M. (1995). Advances in strategies forminimizing and adjusting for survey nonresponse. Epidemiologic Reviews, 17(1),192-204.

Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., & Henttonen, I. (1999). Children involved in bullying:Psychological disturbance and the persistence of the involvement. Child Abuse andNeglect, 23(12), 1253-1262.

Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S. L.,Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Puura, K. (1998). Bullying and psychiatricsymptoms among elementary school-age children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(7),705-717.

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer accep-tance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contributeuniquely to a children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68(6), 1181-1197.

Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustmentfollowing the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58(5),1168-1189.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: Anexamination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psy-chology, 35(1), 81-99.

McDougall, P. & Hymel, S. (1998). Moving into middle school: Individual differencesin the transition experience. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30(2),108-120.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2001).Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocialadjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools, bullies and whipping boys. Washington,DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford:Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and an ef-fective school-based intervention program. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressivebehavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97-130). New York: Plenum Press.

Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. F. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention,book nine: Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 165-176.

Pyper, J. R., Freiberg, H. J., Ginsburg, M., & Spuck, D. W. (1987). Instruments to mea-sure teacher, parent, and student perceptions of school climate. Bloomington, ID:Phi Delta Kappa.

Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school stu-dents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 95-104.

Rigby, K. & Slee, P. T. (1991). Dimensions of interpersonal relations among Austra-lian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of SocialPsychology, 133(1), 33-42.

Ryan, R. M. & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental tomotivation and education. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1), 49-66.

Salmon, G., James, A., & Smith, D. M. (1998). Bullying in schools: Self-reported anxi-ety, depression, and self-esteem in secondary school children. British MedicalJournal, 317, 924-925.

Sharp, S. & Smith, P. K. (1991). Bullying in UK schools: The DES Sheffield BullyingProject. Early Child Development & Care, 77, 47-55.

Simmons, R. G. & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of puber-tal change and school context. New York: Aldine.

Slee, P. T. & Rigby, K. (1993a). Australian school children’s self-appraisal of interper-sonal relations: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Develop-ment, 23(4), 273-282.

Smith, P. K. (1997). Bullying in schools: The UK experience and the SheffieldAnti-Bullying Project. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 191-201.

Smith, P. K. & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of re-search. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 1-9.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidel, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York:Harper Collins.

U.S. Census Bureau (1990). Charles County, Maryland: 1990 Census population, de-mographic, and housing information. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/cgi-bin/cnty_QuickLinks?24017. Availability verified August 8, 2002.

Wentzel, K. R. & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group mem-bership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development,68(6), 1198-1209.

Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G. N., Untch, A. S., & Widaman, K. F. (1997). Stress, so-cial support, and adjustment of adolescents in middle school. Journal of Early Ado-lescence, 17(2), 129-151.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Maclver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitionsduring early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain specific self-perceptions andgeneral self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psy-chology, 27, 552-565.

Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996). Association of com-mon health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. British MedicalJournal, 313, 17-19.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

4:22

01

Oct

ober

201

3

the association of bullying and victimization with middle school adjustment

Documents