Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–1080

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

The protective role of supportive friends against bullying perpetrationand victimization

Kristin Kendrick a,*, Göran Jutengren b, Håkan Stattin b

a School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, 2080 West Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2bCenter for Developmental Research, School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden

Keywords:BullyingVictimizationPeer supportSocial supportFriendshipAdolescent

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 604 838 9016; faE-mail addresses: kristinkendrick@yahoo.com (K

0140-1971/$ – see front matter � 2012 The Foundadoi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.014

a b s t r a c t

A crossed-lagged regression model was tested to investigate relationships betweenfriendship support, bullying involvement, and its consequences during adolescence.Students, 12–16 years (N ¼ 880), were administered questionnaires twice, one year apart.Using structural equation modeling, a model was specified and higher levels of supportfrom friends were related to lower levels of bullying and victimization one year later.Additionally, a bidirectional relationship between victimization and depression was found,and greater property crimes commission was related to higher levels of future bullying.These findings support the ‘friendship protection hypothesis’ and suggest the quality ofsupport in friendships can protect against bullying victimization and perpetration. Priorresearch has shown that friendships can protect against victimization; however this is oneof the few longitudinal studies to focus on the quality of friendship, rather than othercharacteristics of the friends. It is suggested that interventions should focus on increasingperceptions of support within existing friendships.� 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

Friendships may be able to protect against bullying involvement, a term used in this paper to refer to both perpetrationand victimization, because they offer adolescents opportunities to negotiate closeness, achieve acceptance and validation, andcontribute to their general well-being (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993; Sullivan, 1953). In addition to providing opportunitiesfor positive experiences, it has also been theorized that friendships can contribute to resiliency despite negative events duringadolescence. The ‘friendship protection hypothesis’ suggests that having friends might help to buffer against negativeexperiences and their subsequent outcomes (Boulton, Trueman, Chau, Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999).

Both quality and quantity of friendships have been theorized to protect against victimization. Having friends, in itself, isseen as positive as it is an indicator that the adolescent has a social skill set to some degree, and requires that adolescentsthink of others and can resolve conflict in order to maintain friendships (Hartup, 1996; Sullivan, 1953). The vast majority ofboth cross-sectional (Beran & Violato, 2004; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009) and longi-tudinal (Boulton et al., 1999; Fox & Boulton, 2006; Perren & Hornung, 2005) research linking friendship and decreasedvictimization has focused on the quantity of friends an adolescent has, or characteristics of their friendships (e.g., if they arereciprocal). However, most research does not account for characteristics of the people adolescents befriend, or the quality ofthe friendship. Antisocial adolescents might be very supportive of each other, but may nonetheless demonstrate aggressivebehaviors toward others. Research has shown that deviant youth tend to befriend others who engage in similar levels ofantisocial behaviors (Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991), and that deviant peers may serve to exacerbate anti-social behaviors in each other (Patterson, Dishion, & Yoerger, 2000; Wissink, Dekovi�c, & Meijer, 2009). Despite these reported

x: þ1 604 822 8656.. Kendrick), goran.jutengren@oru.se (G. Jutengren), hakan.stattin@oru.se (H. Stattin).

tion for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–10801070

negative influences, Bagwell and Coie (2004) found no differences in adolescents’ ratings of friendship quality betweenaggressive and non-aggressive boys. Alternatively, support of friends may increase psychosocial adjustment of adolescents,which may in turn lead to decreased involvement in bullying and victimization (Boulton et al., 1999). Little research hasexamined the quality of the friendship, and support within peer relationships in particular, in association with bullying andvictimization.

Hartup (1996) suggests that friendship quality might account for individual differences between adolescents more so thanquantity of friends, and support within friendships is one of the most commonly examined aspects of the quality offriendships. Adolescents’ perceptions about the quality of support received from their friends can buffer the impact ofnegative experiences in a number of ways (Sandler, Miller, Short, &Wolchik, 1989). Theoretically, perceived friendship qualitycan protect adolescents from stressful events such as being bullied because high quality friendships can enhance self-esteem,provide assistance in coping, and increase perceived security in social relationships (Sandler et al., 1989). The links betweenfriendship and positive outcomes have received empirical support (Moran & DuBois, 2002; Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray,2010), and support has additionally been linked with such benefits as increases in school achievement (Hogan et al., 2010;Rabaglietti & Ciairano, 2008), acquisition of autonomy (Rabaglietti & Ciairano, 2008), and decreases in such areas as problembehaviors (Moran & DuBois, 2002), and depression (Newman, Newman, Griffen, O’Connor, & Spas, 2007; Rueger et al., 2010).In turn, adolescents displaying these characteristics may be less likely to be targets for bullies (Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, &Connolly, 2003; Olweus, 1994; Shelley & Craig, 2010; Walden & Beran, 2010).

Cross-sectional research that has examined the relation between the support of peers and bullying involvement hasreported conflicting results (Barboza et al., 2009; Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005; Holt & Espelage, 2007;Woods, Done,& Kalsi, 2009). Two longitudinal studies were located that examined friendship quality as it related to bullying in adolescence(Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Malcolm, Jensen-Campbell, Rex-Lear, & Waldrip, 2006). The study by Malcolmet al. (2006) followed 207 fifth and sixth graders across one academic year and found that as the quality of reciprocalfriendships increased, peer victimization by both overt and relational aggression decreased. The other study examinedindividual dimensions of friendship quality and found that perceived protection in best friendships decreased the relationshipbetween teacher-rated internalizing behaviors and later victimization (Hodges et al., 1999). While having a mutual best friendprotected against a relationship between victimization and future internalizing and externalizing behaviors, the quality of thefriendship did not significantly influence this relationship. The perpetration of bullying was not investigated in relation tofriendship quality in either of these two studies.

Boulton et al. (1999) specifically discuss the friendship protection hypothesis as being relevant for helping to guard againstvictimization; however, it is logical to extend this theory to include protection against becoming involved in bullyingperpetration as well. Increases in coping strategies and relationship security are characteristics that might also decrease thelikelihood of becoming involved in bullying perpetration (Hampel, Manhal, & Hayer, 2009; Walden & Beran, 2010). PrimarySocialization Theory provides further theoretical rationale connecting bullying perpetration with friendship (Higgins,Ricketts, Marcum, & Mahoney, 2010; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998). This theory posits that delinquent behavior is sociallylearned, and that peers play a primary role as socialization agents during adolescence. Peers are thought to influence bothprosocial and deviant behavior, and the strength of the bond between peers is a major determinant of the efficacy of normtransmission between peers. Adolescents with weak bonds and emotional connections to peers are thought to be more likelyto bond with deviant peers and engage in deviant behaviors, which could include bullying perpetration. This is supported byresearch that examined close friendships of adolescent boys and determined that relationships between antisocial friendswere characterized as somewhat low in quality, were short-lived, andwere perceived as onlymarginally satisfactory (Dishion,Andrews, & Crosby, 1995). Other studies have found similar relationships between delinquency and friendship quality(Mcelhaney, Immele, Smith, & Allen, 2006; Poulin, Dishion, & Haas, 1999). Peers who are strongly bonded are thought todevelop similar attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviors. As antisocial adolescents seem to have weaker bonds, this influencewithin friendships may be less likely to occur in friendships of antisocial youth. However, Primary Socialization Theorysuggests that adolescents who have peers who are supportive of them are more likely to be supportive of others and lesslikely to treat them poorly through physical, verbal, or relational aggression. Thus, there are theoretical underpinningsassociating supportive friends with a decrease in both bullying and victimization.

Bullying has been defined in a variety of ways (Arora, 1996; Olweus, 1978; Wolke, Woods, & Samara, 2009). For thepurposes of this study, bullying is considered aggression between peers that occurs at school. This aggression can consist ofphysical aggression, verbal aggression, or social exclusion. Despite some disagreement in the literature, research has generallyestablished longitudinal and bidirectional relationships between both bullying (Kaltiala-Heino, Frojd, & Marttunen, 2010;Klomek et al., 2008; Sourander, Helstelä, Helenius, & Piha, 2000) and victimization (Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008; Fekkes, Pijpers,Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006; Gunther, Drukker, Feron, & van Os, 2007; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Klomeket al., 2008; Patton et al., 2008; Sourander et al., 2000; Sweeting, Young, West, & Der, 2006) on the one side and an inter-nalization of difficulties as manifested by depressive symptoms on the other. Research has also repeatedly found relationshipsacross time between bullying/victimization and externalizing problems, and the commission of property crimes in particular,during adolescence (Barker, Arseneault, Brendgen, Fontain, & Maughan, 2008; Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000; Souranderet al., 2007). As it seems that involvement in bullying often leads to problems for adolescents, it is important to investi-gate what might lead to decreases in bullying.

Few studies have directly linked friendship support with bullying, but those that do report a general consensus that higherlevels of support are associated with lower levels of bullying involvement (Holt & Espelage, 2007; Malcolm et al., 2006).

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–1080 1071

However, the vast majority of studies conducted to investigate these relationships have employed a cross-sectional design,and therefore the directionality within the included relationships remains unclear. Further, although researchers haveexamined friendship as protective against victimization, generally, protection against becoming involved in the bullying ofothers has not been a focus. In this paper, bullying and victimization are examined together across time, along with therelated factors of support within friendships, depression, and property crimes.

Gender has been indicated as an important factor when examining many topics related to bullying and friendship (Abadaet al., 2008; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Malcolm et al., 2006; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Generally, boys have been found toreport both engaging in and being victimized by higher levels of bullying than girls (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Differences inthe nature of bullying have also been reported. Research has found male bullies to engage most often in physically aggressivebehavior (Lee, 2009; Wissink et al., 2009), and that boys who are bullied are most likely to experience physical aggression(Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Brick, 2010). In contrast, female bullies are more likely to engage in verbal and relationalaggression when bullying (Lee, 2009; Wissink et al., 2009), and females victimized by bullying have been found to be morelikely to experience verbal aggression (Carbone-Lopez et al., 2010).

In addition to gender differences in the amount and type of bullying involvement, differences in the correlates of bullyinghave been found betweenmales and females. A far stronger relationship between delinquency involvement and indirect (e.g.,verbal and relational) bullying victimization was found for girls as compared with boys, and a relationship betweenvictimization and decreased self-esteemwas only found for girls and not boys (Carbone-Lopez et al., 2010). Espelage, Mebane,and Swearer (2004) integrated and reviewed research and theory on gender differences in bullying. These authors reportedthat depression is a common experience for both male and female victims, and that some research has found higher levels ofdepression for girls than boys who were victimized by bullying. Further, this review indicates that male and female bulliesalso have been found to have elevated levels of depression. Additionally, Lee (2009) found that aggressive boys are likely to berejected by peers, while girls who are aggressive may be rejected or accepted. Differences in friendship across genders havealso been found. While friendships have been found to become more supportive during adolescence for both males andfemales, male friendships have been found to be more characterized by power differentials than those of females, andadolescents perceived to have more power in the relationship are also perceived to be more supportive by boys, but not girls(De Goede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). Additionally, Wissink et al. (2009) reported that while boys spend more time with theirfriends, girls perceive their friendships to be of higher quality than do boys. As gender differences have been reportedregarding the amount, type, and correlates of bullying perpetration and victimization, and in friendship quality, the exam-ination of gender in bullying studies is warranted.

The primary goal of the present studywas to investigate the short-term longitudinal relationships between the perceptionof support by friends and both bullying and victimization. It was hypothesized that higher support by friendswould be relatedto lower levels of bullying and victimization across a one-year time period. In addition to the primary goal, depression andproperty crimes were also examined in the present study. These variables were included due to relationships that have beenfound between them and the primary variables of interest in this study: bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, andfriendship support. For example, existing research has established links between bullying and victimization and bothdepression and the commission of property crimes. Additionally, it is possible that depression, due to cognitive distortions(Marcotte, Lévesque, & Fortin, 2006) or support erosion (Coyne, 1976; Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004), and property crimecommission, as a result of trends for delinquent/aggressive adolescents having fewer friendships with similarly behavedpeers (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariépy, 1988; Digout Erhardt, 2005), could be related to levels of supportadolescents perceive from their friends. In order to increase confidence that any relationships that might be found betweenthe support of friends and bullying involvement are not confounded by depression or delinquency, these variables were alsoincluded in this study. Finally, given the gender differences that have been found in many areas relevant to this study, genderanalyses were also conducted.

Method

Sample

The analytical sample included 880 adolescents (435 boys; 445 girls) who participated in a data collection at two points intime approximately one year apart; these time points are referred to as Time 1 and Time 2. Data collection took place in eitherMay or September for the first wave of the study, and in September for the second wave of the study. During initial datacollection, participants ranged in age from 12 to 16 years (M¼ 13.72, SD¼ .78), with the vast majority of students being 13,14,or 15 (95.34%). In terms of family composition, 67% of the 880 participants livedwith both of their biological parents,16% livedwith their mother, 2% with their father, and 15% alternated living with each parent.

The sample included participants from an ongoing longitudinal study within seven junior high schools (gradesseven through nine) in a town in central Sweden with a population of around 130,000. The initial target sample wasall students at these schools in grades seven and eight, and these students were followed across a one-year period. Intotal, 988 youths participated; however, of these 988, 108 students did not have data for both time points. Only studentswho participated at both time points were included in analyses for the present study. The group of 108 that was removeddid not differ significantly from the participants in the analytical sample with regard to age, gender, or familycomposition.

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–10801072

Procedure

Data were collected from students at two time points approximately one year apart (once in 2007 and again in 2008).Trained research assistants administered questionnaires in the Swedish language to students during regular school hourswhile no school staff was present. The students and their parents were informed that participationwas completely voluntary,and that theywere free to discontinue participation at any time. Of the target sample,1% of eligible students (or their parents)declined to participate in the study. Participants were assured confidentiality. Completion of the questionnaires took betweenone and a half and 3 h. Research assistants returned to the schools approximately oneweek after the original data collection inorder to administer questionnaires to consenting students who were not present at school during the original session.A Regional Ethics Review Board approved all the procedures and measures used in the study.

Measures

BullyingBullying was assessed using a measure originally developed by Alsaker and Brunner (1999) that has previously been used

in studies using Swedish samples (Andershed, Kerr, & Stattin, 2001; Jutengren, Kerr, & Stattin, 2011). With reference to thecurrent semester at school, participants were asked the following three questions: ‘Have you said nasty things, mocked orteased anyone in an unpleasant way at school?’; ‘Have you beaten, kicked, or assaulted anyone in an unpleasant way at schoolor on the way to or from school?’; and ‘Have you participated in ostracizing someone?’. Each item was rated on a four-pointscale, with possible responses being: (1) ‘No, it has not happened’; (2) ‘Yes, it has happened once or twice’; (3) ‘Yes, it hashappened about once a week’; and (4) ‘Yes, it has happened several times a week’. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .64at Time 1 and .78 at Time 2. Notably, while this measure does capture many aspects of bullying, including verbal, physical, andrelational bullying, it does not necessarily reflect an imbalance of power between the bully and victim, which is often includedin the standard conceptualization of bullying.

VictimizationIn order to investigate victimization of youth by bullying, each participant was asked three questions about their expe-

riences during the current semester at school. These were similar questions to those asked about bullying, but referred towhether or not they had been victimized by others. Participants responded to each item on the same four-point scale that wasused to assess bullying. The Cronbach’s alpha for Time 1 and Time 2 was .64 and .67, respectively.

Supportive friendsAdolescents were instructed that they should nominate peers of any gender or age whom they considered as being very

important in their lives, and with whom they talk, spend time, and do things. In 90% of cases, adolescents nominated peerswho shared their same gender. The youths were then asked to answer questions concerning support, trust, and behaviors intheir relationships with their first-mentioned, or most important, peers. The items were adapted from the validation andcaring subscale of Parker and Asher’s (1993) Friendship Quality Questionnaire. The items that were adapted from this scalewere: ‘My VIP stands by me if others talk about me behind my back’; ‘My VIP would like me even if nobody else did’; ‘My VIPsays “I’m sorry” when he or she has hurt my feelings or been mean’; ‘My VIP doesn’t tell my secrets to others’; and ‘My VIPpays attention to my feelings’. Two additional items were included: ‘My VIP supports mewhen I’ve had an argument with myparents/teachers’; and ‘My VIP keeps his or her promises’. Possible responses were on a five-point scale, ranging from: (1)‘Don’t agree at all’, to (5) ‘Agree completely’. The internal consistency was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 at Time 1 and.87 at Time 2.

DepressionThis scale was adapted from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Weissman, Orvaschel, &

Padian, 1980), which is a 20-item self-report depression scale. For the present study, 16 of the original 20 items were used.The scale was shortened in order to make the questionnaire package manageable for students. The four items that were notincluded were found to load on a separate factor (general well-being) in a previous study (Gatz, Johansson, Pedersen, Berg, &Reynolds, 1993). Further, in the present study the internal consistency of this 16-item scale was high for both waves of datacollection, with the Cronbach’s alpha being .93 at both time points. Thus, the 16-item version of this scale was deemed mostappropriate for the purposes of this study. To adapt the CES-D to this study, we added a stem statement that urged adolescentsto refer to the past week in responding to the items. We consequently also removed the formulation “this week” from itemsthat included this phrase. In addition, a statement about feeling happywas reversed into “I was sad” in our version. Responseswere recorded on a four-point scale, ranging from: (1) ‘not at all’, to (4) ‘often’.

Property crimesProperty crimes were assessed using a scale that was created for the purposes of this study. The scale consists of eight

items that ask how often youths committed property crimes during the past year. Property crimes were defined as offensesinvolving the taking of money or property, but not involving force or threat against a person. For this study, property crimesincluded theft, burglary, shoplifting, and motor vehicle theft. Sample items include: ‘Have you taken things from a store,

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–1080 1073

stand, or shop without paying – during the last year?’; ‘Have you participated in breaking into a home, shop, stand, storageroom or other building with the intention of taking things – during the last year?’; and ‘Have you taken a moped, motorcycle,or vespa without permission – during the last year?’. Responses were recorded on a five-point scale, with possible responsesbeing: (1) ‘No, it has not happened’; (2) ‘Once’; (3) ‘2–3 times’; (4) ‘4–10 times’; and (5) ‘More than 10 times’. Cronbach’salphas were .84 at Time 1 and .87 at Time 2.

Data analysis

We used Mplus version 5.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2007) to conduct structural equation modeling with manifestvariables. Fig. 1 presents the cross-lagged regression model that was used to examine the paths between the variables ofinterest in this study. Each variable of bullying, victimization, support of friends, property crimes, and depression wasincluded in the model for both Time 1 and Time 2. We used a design that controlled both for stability over time and for cross-sectional intercorrelations of all variables. The model also included cross-lagged paths in both directions within each of thefollowing pairs of variables: (a) property crimes and bullying, (b) friendship support and bullying, (c) friendship support andvictimization, (d) victimization and depression, (e) bullying and depression, and (f) property crimes and victimization. Thus,for example, we tested pathways from property crimes at Time 1 to bullying at Time 2, as well as bullying at Time 1 toproperty crimes at Time 2.

Data for all variables included in themodel were skewed and notably different from being normally distributed. Therefore,maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR estimator) was used to conduct the analyses. As based onthe theory of generalized estimating equations, the MLR estimator does not assume data to be normality distributed (Yuan &Bentler, 2000). Model fit was evaluated using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approxi-mation (RSMEA), in addition to the c2 value and the associated degrees of freedom. The CFI (Bentler,1990;McDonald &Marsh,1990) measures howwell the current model fits relative to a baselinemodel and can vary between 0 and 1. CFI values of .95 orgreater are usually considered to be a good fit. The RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Steiger, Shapiro, & Browne, 1985)measures the amount of discrepancy between a specified model and the collected data. An RMSEA value of .05 or lower isusually considered good fit.

Althoughwe only included participants who had responded to items in both waves of data collection in the analyses, therewere still cases in which participants did not respond to certain variables. The rate of non-response for individual measuresranged from 1.1% to 5.3%. For paired variables that were examined in the model data coverage ranged from 90.7 to 98.0%. Themissing-data procedure provided by Mplus 5.1 as default was used for all models. This procedure uses all available data fromeach participant and assumes that data are missing at random.

The magnitude of design effects (DE) was determined for each variable in order to examine if responses were clusteredaccording to school membership. This was calculated using the average number of individuals in each cluster (nc), which inthis case was each school, and intraclass correlations, using the following formula: DE ¼ 1 þ (nc � 1) � ICC (Peugh, 2010). Asa rule of thumb, design effects of greater than 2.0 indicate that the nesting of data cannot be ignored (Muthén,1991;Muthén &Satorra, 1995). Design effects for each separate variable are presented in Table 1. As all but one design effect was greater than

Time 2 Depression

Time 1 Depression

Time 2 Bullying

Time 1 Bullying

Time 2 Support of Friends

Time 1 Support of Friends

Time 2 Victimization

Time 1 Victimization

Time 2 Property Crimes

Time 1 Property Crimes

Fig. 1. Cross-lagged model showing included pathways.

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–10801074

2.0, suggesting an effect of school membership, design effects for all study variables were accounted for in all subsequentanalyses. However, there were not enough schools for dealing with nestedness using multilevel analysis (Meuleman & Billiet,2009). Rather, we dummy-coded the school membership variable and then included the resulting binary variables as controlvariables for each of the study variables.

Results

Descriptive statistics and overall model fit

Descriptive statistics were obtained for each of the independent variables and bivariate correlations (see Table 2). Asexpected, the sample endorsed overall low levels of bullying, victimization, property crimes and depression, and high levels ofsupport from friends. However, variation existed in responses for each variable examined. During the first wave of datacollection, 35.9% of the sample reported engaging in some degree of bullying, 35.7% reported having been a victim of bullying,and 42.8% reported some property crimes. Throughout the next year 28.4% of the youths reporting some bullying, 27.4%reported some victimization, and 47.5% reporting some property crimes.

To evaluate the overall model fit, we ran a two-wave cross-lagged panel design with the hypothesized paths included, aspresented in Fig. 1. Except for stability and concurrent estimates, no additional paths or constraints were included in thismodel. The estimation of this hypothesized model yielded an excellent fit to the data, c2(8, N ¼ 880) ¼ 5.67, CFI ¼ 1.00,RMSEA ¼ .00 (90% CI ¼ .00–.03).

Stability and concurrent estimates

Stability and within-time estimates are presented in Table 3. All stability estimates were significant. However, stabilityestimates were relatively low for bullying, victimization, and property crimes, indicating that the seventh and eighth graderswho initially reported these behaviors were not necessarily the same people as those engaging in these behaviors thefollowing year. All within-time estimates were significant for Time 1, and all but two were significant in Time 2 (with theexception of support with property crimes and support with depression).

Cross-lagged estimates

Next, we examined the cross-lagged relationships of interest over the two waves of data. Fig. 1 presents the model and allcross-lagged paths examined, and Table 4 shows estimates for these paths.

Primary research goal: support and bullying involvementIt was hypothesized that higher support by friends would be related to lower levels of bullying and victimization. In

support of this, significant, negative relationships were found between support of friends during the first wave of datacollection and both bullying and victimization at Time 2. This suggests that increased perceived support of friends was relatedto decreases in both perpetration of, and victimization by, bullying one year later.

Depression and property crimes as related to bullying involvementVictimization at Time 1 was significantly related to depression at Time 2, and vice versa, depression at Time 1 was

significantly associated with victimization at Time 2. Bullying at Time 1 was not significantly related to any other variable atTime 2. A statistically significant association was found between property crimes at Time 1 and bullying at Time 2. Ourfindings indicate that bullying victimization was associated with depression, while property crimes were related to bullyingperpetration. Being increasingly victimized was related to later increases in depression, and increased levels of depressionwere associated with a future increases in victimization. The relationship between bullying perpetration and property crimes

Table 1Design effects of school membership for the independent and dependentvariables.

Variable Design effect

Property Crimes Wave 1 3.37Property Crimes Wave 2 1.50Victimization Wave 1 3.62Victimization Wave 2 3.74Bullying Wave 1 3.12Bullying Wave 2 3.62Depression Wave 1 3.99Depression Wave 2 3.49Support of Friends Wave 1 3.87Support of Friends Wave 2 2.25

Table 2Summary statistics and intercorrelations for independent and dependent variables.

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD Mdn Mode n

1. Bullying (T1) .30*** .39*** .17*** �.08** �.03 .33*** .22*** .10** .10** 1.21 .35 1.00 1.00 8462. Bullying (T2) .17*** .42*** �.14*** �.17*** .22*** .39*** .06 .15*** 1.22 .42 1.00 1.00 8333. Victimization (T1) .32*** �.13*** �.10** .20*** .09** .35*** .29*** 1.23 .42 1.00 1.00 8484. Victimization (T2) �.19*** �.21*** .15*** .30*** .17*** .28*** 1.18 .37 1.00 1.00 8335. Friend Support (T1) .46*** �.11*** �.09** .08* .06 4.19 .73 4.42 5.00 8366. Friend Support (T2) �.05 �.13*** �.06 �.01 4.20 .79 4.43 5.00 8437. Property Crimes (T1) .38*** .18*** .09** 1.16 .27 1.00 1.00 8628. Property Crimes (T2) .04 .15*** 1.25 .51 1.00 1.00 8709. Depression (T1) .57*** 1.64 .60 1.44 1.00 86610. Depression (T2) 1.77 .65 1.63 1.00 865

***p � .001; **p � .01; *p � .05.

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–1080 1075

was unidirectional, with higher levels of property crimes being associated with increased perpetration one year later. Byincluding depression and property crimes in this model, it was determined that the relationships between friendship supportand bullying involvement discussed in the previous section exist even when levels of depression and property crimecommission were taken into account.

Gender effects

As gender differences have previously been reported regarding bullying perpetration and victimization and friendshipquality, gender effects were tested in the present study. A grouping variable was added to the original model in order toexamine gender differences between girls (n ¼ 435) and boys (n ¼ 445). Tests for gender differences were performed by firstconstraining each path across groups. Next, each of the cross-path relationships were released, one at a time. All comparisonsacross models were accomplished using the Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square difference test statistic (Td), which corrects fornon-normality in the data (Satorra & Bentler, 2001), and was calculated following the procedure described by Muthen andMuthen (2005).

Significant changes inmodel fit were present for three relationships, including the following predictive effects: (1) supportof friends at Time 1 on bullying at Time 2 (Td[Ddf ¼ 1] ¼ 13.30, p < .001); (2) depression at Time 1 on victimization at Time 2(Td[Ddf ¼ 1] ¼ 6.39, p < .05); and (3) bullying at Time 1 on property crimes at Time 2 (Td[Ddf¼ 1] ¼ 4.10, p < .05). The genderdifference in the relationship between support and bullying suggests that increased support of friends at Time 1 reducesbullying at Time 2 for boys (b ¼ �.11, p ¼ .035) but not for girls (b ¼ .04, p ¼ .393). The gender difference concerning the link

Table 3Standardized stability and within-time estimates for the examined model.

Path B SE p

Stability estimatesProperty Crimes T1 / Property Crimes T2 .35 .05 <.001Bullying T1 / Bullying T2 .23 .05 <.001Friend Support T1 / Friend Support T2 .46 .04 <.001Victimization T1 / Victimization T2 .24 .05 <.001Depression T1 / Depression T2 .54 .03 <.001Estimates within Time 1Property Crimes T1 / Bullying T1 .33 .06 <.001Property Crimes T1 / Friend Support T1 �.10 .05 .024Property Crimes T1 / Victimization T1 .20 .06 .002Property Crimes T1 / Depression T1 .18 .04 <.001Bullying T1 / Friend Support T1 �.08 .04 .038Bullying T1 / Victimization T1 .39 .07 <.001Bullying T1 / Depression T1 .10 .04 .003Friend Support T1 / Victimization T1 �.13 .04 <.001Friend Support T1 / Depression T1 .08 .04 .046Victimization T1 / Depression T1 .35 .04 <.001Estimates within Time 2Property Crimes T2 / Bullying T2 .32 .05 <.001Property Crimes T2 / Friend Support T2 �.11 .07 .117Property Crimes T2 / Victimization T2 .27 .08 <.001Property Crimes T2 / Depression T2 .18 .05 .001Bullying T2 / Friend Support T2 �.13 .05 .006Bullying T2 / Victimization T2 .38 .05 <.001Bullying T2 / Depression T2 .14 .04 .001Friend Support T2 / Victimization T2 �.14 .05 .009Friend Support T2 / Depression T2 �.06 .04 .15Victimization T2 / Depression T2 .22 .05 <.001

Table 4Standardized cross-path estimates for the examined model.

Path B SE p

Property Crimes T1 / Bullying T2 .13 .05 .015Property Crimes T1 / Victimization T2 .07 .06 .222Bullying T1 / Property Crimes T2 .11 .06 .082Bullying T1 / Friend Support T2 .03 .04 .418Bullying T1 / Depression T2 �.01 .03 .869Friend Support T1 / Bullying T2 �.10 .04 .022Friend Support T1 / Victimization T2 �.15 .04 <.001Victimization T1 / Property Crimes T2 �.03 .04 .393Victimization T1 / Friend Support T2 �.04 .04 .289Victimization T1 / Depression T2 .10 .04 .005Depression T1 / Bullying T2 .04 .03 .289Depression T1 / Victimization T2 .09 .04 .013

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–10801076

between depression and later victimization indicates a vulnerability for depressed boys as they, as a consequence, are atparticular risk of being victimized by their peers (b ¼ .16, p ¼ .013), whereas the same risk was not evident for girls (b ¼ .04,p ¼ .394). With regard to the path between bullying and later property crimes, the follow up analysis showed that girls’increased involvement in bullying behavior predicted higher frequencies of property crimes (b¼ .26, p¼ .001), whereas therewas not such effect for boys (b ¼ .02, p ¼ .792). In some cases, it seems that correlates of bullying involvement influence boysand girls differently.

Discussion

Themain goal of this studywas to investigate the short-term longitudinal relationships between friendship support on theone hand and bullying involvement and bully victimization on the other. These relationships have rarely been examinedlongitudinally in previous research. Consistent with hypotheses, higher levels of perceived support from friends were relatedto lower levels in bullying and victimization one year later. These findings are consistent with the other study that examinedthe relation between victimization and support over time (Malcolm et al., 2006). In the study byMalcolm and colleagues, 207students in the fifth and sixth grades completed inventories once in the Fall and again in the Spring. As with the present study,these researchers found that the quality of friendships predicted lower levels of future victimization, but victimization wasnot significantly related to future friendship quality. The current study supports these findings by extending them to studentsin higher grades and examining the relationships over a longer period of time (i.e., a one-year period). Further, the presentinvestigation contributed to existing research by demonstrating a similar relationship between support and bullying as wasfound between support and victimization, something that was not examined in the study by Malcolm and colleagues.

The results of this study are in line with the friendship protection hypothesis and indicate that quality friendships cancontribute to decreasing victimization by bullies (Boulton et al., 1999). Friendship may protect adolescents from bullyingvictimization by increasing their psychosocial adjustment, thereby decreasing their vulnerability. It is possible thatsupportive friends are acting as defenders on behalf of adolescents against bullies, thus providing both emotional andinstrumental support. Defenders are peers who not only serve to comfort and support victims of bullying, but who may evenstand up for themwhen bullying does occur (Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, & Salmivalli, 2011; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist,Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). If these friends are acting as defenders, their action during bullying incidents may deterbullies from targeting the same adolescents in future. The present findings also support Primary Socialization Theory and theextension of the friendship protection hypothesis to include guarding against bullying perpetration. The relationship foundbetween increased support of friends and decreased bullying perpetration may be due to norm transmission between peerswhere adolescents who are supported by their friends become less likely to treat others poorly or with aggression. It is alsopossible that supportive friends increase the psychosocial well-being of adolescents, which in turn decrease their likelihoodof participating in deviant and aggressive behaviors. This study provides further support for the relationship betweenfriendship and bullying perpetration and victimization. Psychosocial adjustment is multidimensional in nature, and furtherresearch into the mechanisms through which these relationships develop would contribute valuable knowledge in thisresearch area. Support was found for the importance of friendship quality, as opposed to simply the number of friendsreported by adolescents.

This study also supports existing literature relating bullying victimization and perpetration to adolescent well-being.Similar to prior research, a bidirectional relationship was found between victimization and depression (Abada et al., 2008;Fekkes et al., 2006; Gunther et al., 2007; Hodges et al., 1999; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Klomek et al., 2008; Patton et al.,2008; Sourander et al., 2000; Sweeting et al., 2006). This suggests not only that victimization predicts depression, but thatdepression also predicts future victimization. Again, in line with previous research, bullying was related to criminal behavior(Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2010; Klomek et al., 2008; Sourander et al., 2000). Higher levels of bullying were predicted by propertycrimes one year prior, but higher levels of bullying involvement were not related to higher levels of future property crimes.This suggests that crime relating to objects might escalate into violence toward peers, but that bullying does not predict

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–1080 1077

involvement with more general antisocial behaviors. By including these variables in the model tested in this study it ispossible to state that the relationships found between higher levels of the support of friends and lower levels of involvementin both future bullying and victimization exist above and beyond any relationships between bullying involvement, depres-sion, and property crime commission.

In most cases, gender effects were not noted with regard to the relationships between the support of friends, bullyinginvolvement, and its consequences. However, in the few cases where gender was found to be important to these associations,it seems that they might be more relevant for boys than girls. Increased support of friends was associated with reducedbullying one year later, and depressionwas associatedwith future victimization, for boys but not for girls. The opposite genderdynamic was found regarding bullying and future property crime commission. When themodel was specified with the entiresample, bullying involvement at time 1 was not significantly related to property crime commission at time 2. However, whena grouping variable was added to the original model in order to examine gender differences, girls involved in bullying weremore likely to become involved in later property crime commission, whereas this was not the case for boys. Research hasfound that, in general, girls report higher levels of support from peers (Cheng & Chan, 2004; Malcolm et al., 2006; Ruegeret al., 2010) and lower levels of many types of bullying perpetration (Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Seals & Young, 2003; VonMarées & Petermann, 2010) than boys. Therefore, it is possible that any protection that supportive friends could offer tofemale adolescents against bullying involvement may have already occurred or were not significant due to overall levels ofthese behaviors. These gender differences might also be related to the types of bullying experienced. Females tend to beinvolved in verbal and relational types of aggression, whereas males are more likely to experience physical forms of bullying(Carbone-Lopez et al., 2010; Lee, 2009; Wissink et al., 2009). Perhaps these different forms of aggression are differentiallyrelated to correlates of bullying. In fact, the finding relating bullying to later commission of property crimes for girls issupported by a study by Carbone-Lopez et al. (2010) who reported a stronger relationship between delinquency and indirectforms of bullying for girls than for boys.

Although this study contributes meaningful information to the bullying literature, these findings should be interpretedgiven the context of the method used. The relationship between the support of friends and bullying involvement wasstatistically significant, but the effect sizes found were relatively modest. Further, although the relationship between supportand decreased future victimization was significant for both genders examined, gender analyses revealed that the associationbetween friendship support and bullying was only significant for boys. Therefore, it can be determined that friendshipsupport is a factor in bullying involvement, but other influences need also be considered. This study examined perceivedsupport of friends as reported by the adolescents. There might be additional factors that influence these adolescents’perceptions of their friends that relate to bullying involvement. Additionally, all measures were self-reported by theadolescents. The perspectives of the relationship by the friend were not examined, and these cannot be considered reciprocalfriendships. Investigation of different kinds of peer relationships might be helpful in more fully understanding associationsbetween support of friends and bullying involvement. However, despite the need to learn about a variety of relationships andperspectives, past research has indicated that perceptions of social support are more important in adjustment in the face ofsocial stressors than are other more objective measures of support (Cauce, Mason, Gonzales, Hiraga, & Liu, 1994).

Despite these limitations, this study has important implications. As bullying perpetration and victimization are bothrelated to difficulties experienced by adolescents, it is important to understand what factors might decrease involvement inthese activities. This study supports the idea that support and caring in peer relationships lead to lower levels of bullyingperpetration and victimization. Therefore, increasing the quality of peer relationships can decrease the occurrence of bullying.

Some existing bullying interventions do indeed focus on peer relationships. Prior research has focused on increasingsupport by peers who may or may not be considered friends. For example, studies have examined peer support/counsellingprograms (Cowie & Olafsson, 2000; Houlston & Smith, 2009) and social skills training (Fox & Boulton, 2003) for reducingbullying involvement, and have found them to be ineffective. Efficacy was found in another study that included the training ofothers by peer supporters (Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, & Cowie, 2003). As more students in the classroomwere taught theseskills, it may be that support within individual friendship dyads may have increased as a result. This suggests, in line with thepresent research findings, that interventions might better be targeted toward relationships with friends than general skillsthat are related to peer relationships. It might be that it is more important for adolescents to perceive supportive relationshipswith peers whom they already consider to be important. In support of this premise, Boulton (2005) posited that the nature ofthe relationship which was the source of support would be of great importance in the students’willingness to solicit support.This is supported in the present research. However, although the present study uses a longitudinal cross-lagged panel designthat controls for both temporal and cross-sectional relations, no intervention was performed. Therefore, further support isneeded.

Overall, more information is needed before the role of support by friends in decreasing bullying involvement can be fullyunderstood. Modest effect sizes were found suggesting other factors are also important in understanding bullying perpe-tration and victimization. This study furthers current knowledge in this area and offers some ideas for future improvements. Itmight be that interventions targeting levels of support in existing friendships could be helpful in reducing bullying behaviors.Further investigation in this area might be helpful for families and professionals looking to combat bullying behavior inadolescence.

In conclusion, while other studies have examined whether the presence, or characteristics, of adolescents’ friends areprotective, this study investigated whether characteristics of adolescent friendships, regardless of the identity or charac-teristics of the friends themselves, were protective against bullying and victimization. The results indicate that higher levels of

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–10801078

perceived support received from friends were related to lower levels of bullying and victimization one year later. Thus, wesuggest that the quality of the relationship between friends should not be ignored in preventing bullying involvement.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, awarded to the thirdauthor, as well as a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship – Doctoral Scholarship and a Canada GraduateScholarship – Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement awarded to the first author.

References

Abada, T., Hou, F., & Ram, B. (2008). The effects of harassment and victimization on self-rated health and mental health among Canadian adolescents. SocialScience & Medicine, 67(4), 557–567.

Alsaker, F. D., & Brunner, A. (1999). Switzerland. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying:A cross-national perspective (pp. 250–263). London: Routledge.

Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2001). Bullying in school and violence on the streets: are the same people involved? Journal of Scandinavian Studies inCriminology and Crime Prevention, 2, 31–49.

Arora, C. M. J. (1996). Defining bullying: towards a clearer general understanding and more effective intervention strategies. School Psychology International,17(4), 317–329.

Bagwell, C. L., & Coie, J. D. (2004). The best friendships of aggressive boys: relationship quality, conflict management, and rule-breaking behavior. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 88(1), 5–24.

Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts ofadolescent bullying: an ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101–121.

Barker, E. D., Arseneault, L., Brendgen, M., Fontain, N., & Maughan, B. (2008). Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: relations todelinquency and self-harm. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9), 1030–1038.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.Beran, T. N., & Violato, C. (2004). A model of childhood perceived peer harassment: analyses of the Canadian national longitudinal survey of children and

youth data. The Journal of Psychology, 138(2), 129–147.Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: the role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and

bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701–712.Boulton, M. J. (2005). School peer counselling for bullying services as a source of social support: a study with secondary school pupils. British Journal of

Guidance & Counselling, 33(4), 485–494.Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization:

implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 461–466.Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship, and emotional adjustment during early adolescence. In B. Laursen (Ed.), Close

friendships in adolescence (pp. 23–37). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariépy, J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: peer support or peer rejection?

Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 815–823.Carbone-Lopez, K., Esbensen, F.-A., & Brick, B. T. (2010). Correlates and consequences of peer victimization: gender differences in direct and indirect forms of

bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(4), 332–350.Cauce, A. M., Mason, C., Gonzales, N., Hiraga, Y., & Liu, G. (1994). Social support during adolescence: methodological and theoretical considerations. In

F. Nestmann, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence. Prevention and intervention in childhood andadolescence, (pp. 89–108). Oxford: Walter De Gruyter.

Cheng, S., & Chan, A. C. M. (2004). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescence.Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1359–1369.

Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying. School Psychology International, 21(1), 79–95.Coyne, J. C. (1976). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(2), 186–193.De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Developmental changes and gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of friendships. Journal

of Adolescence, 32(5), 1105–1123.Digout Erhardt, A. R. (2005). Friendship processes in childhood and adolescence: homophily, selection, and socialization of aggressive behaviors and

depressive symptoms. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(2-B), 1218.Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: relationship characteristics, quality, and inter-

actional process. Child Development, 66(1), 139–151.Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with

antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology, 27, 172–180.Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender differences in bullying: moving beyond mean level differences. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M.

Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 15–36). Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., Fredriks, A. M., Vogels, T., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? Aprospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117(5), 1568–1574.

Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of a social skills training (SST) programme for victims of bullying. Educational Research, 45(3),231–247.

Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2006). Friendship as a moderator of the relationship between social skills problems and peer victimisation. Aggressive Behavior,32(2), 110–121.

Gatz, M., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N., Berg, S., & Reynolds, C. (1993). A cross-national self-report measure of depressive symptomatology. InternationalPsychologeriatrics, 5(2), 147–156.

Goldbaum, S., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2003). Developmental trajectories of victimization: identifying risk and protective factors. In M. J. Elias,& J. E. Zins (Eds.), Bullying, peer harassment, and victimization in the schools: The next generation of prevention (pp. 139–156). New York: The HawthornePress.

Gunther, N., Drukker, M., Feron, F., & van Os, J. (2007). No ecological effect modification of the association between negative life experiences and laterpsychopathology in adolescence: a longitudinal community study in adolescents. European Psychiatry, 22(5), 296–304.

Hampel, P., Manhal, S., & Hayer, T. (2009). Direct and relational bullying among children and adolescents: coping and psychological adjustment. SchoolPsychology International, 30(5), 474–490.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67(1), 1–13.

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–1080 1079

Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L., Marcum, C. D., & Mahoney, M. (2010). Primary socialization theory: an exploratory study of delinquent trajectories. CriminalJustice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law & Society, 23(2), 133–146.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization.Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 94–101.

Hogan, M. J., Parker, J. D. A., Wiener, J., Watters, C., Wood, L. M., & Oke, A. (2010). Academic success in adolescence: relationships among verbal IQ, socialsupport and emotional intelligence. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(1), 30–41.

Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 984–994.Houlston, C., & Smith, P. K. (2009). The impact of a peer counselling scheme to address bullying in an all-girl London secondary school: a short-term

longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 69–86.Jutengren, G., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2011). Adolescents’ deliberate self-harm, interpersonal stress, and the moderating effects of self-regulation: a two-wave

longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 249–264.Kaltiala-Heino, R., Frojd, S., & Marttunen, M. (2010). Involvement in bullying and depression in a 2-year follow-up in middle adolescence. European Child &

Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(1), 45–55.Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., Moilanen, I., et al. (2008). Childhood bullying as a risk for later depression and suicidal

ideation among Finnish males. Journal of Affective Disorders, 109(1–2), 47–55.Kumpulainen, K., & Rasanen, E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school age: their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence. An

epidemiological sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(12), 1567–1577.Lee, E. (2009). The relationship of aggression and bullying to social preference: differences in gender and types of aggression. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 33(4), 323–330.McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 247–255.Malcolm, K. T., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Rex-Lear, M., & Waldrip, A. M. (2006). Divided we fall: children’s friendships and peer victimization. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 23(5), 721–740.Marcotte, D., Lévesque, N., & Fortin, L. (2006). Variations of cognitive distortions and school performance in depressed and non-depressed high school

adolescents: a two-year longitudinal study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30(2), 211–225.Mcelhaney, K. B., Immele, A., Smith, F. D., & Allen, J. P. (2006). Attachment organization as a moderator of the link between friendship quality and adolescent

delinquency. Attachment & Human Development, 8(1), 33–46.Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children’s responsibility to take action against bullying: evaluation of a befriending

intervention in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29(1), 1–14.Meuleman, B., & Billiet, J. (2009). A Monte Carlo sample size: how many countries are needed for accurate multilevel SEM? Survey Research Methods, 3,

45–58.Moran, B. L., & DuBois, D. L. (2002). Relation of social support and self-esteem to problem behavior: investigation of differing models. The Journal of Early

Adolescence, 22(4), 407–435.Muthén, B. O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(4), 338–354.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2005). Chi-square difference testing using the S-B scaled chi-square. Note on Mplus website. www.statmodel.com.Muthén, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex data in structural equation modeling. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 267–316). Oxford:

Blackwell.Newman, B. M., Newman, P. R., Griffen, S., O’Connor, K., & Spas, J. (2007). The relationship of social support to depressive symptoms during the transition to

high school. Adolescence, 42(167), 441–459.Oetting, E. R., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (1998). Primary socialization theory: I. The etiology of drug use and deviance. Substance Use and Misuse, 33, 995–1026.Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in schools: Bullies and whipping-boys. London: Wiley Halsted Press.Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective school-based intervention program. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.),

Aggressive behaviour: Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). New York: Plenum Press.Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and

social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611–621.Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: macro- and micro-peer dynamics. Prevention

Science, 1(1), 3–13.Patton, G. C., Olsson, C., Bond, L., Toumbourou, J. W., Carlin, J. B., Hemphill, S. A., et al. (2008). Predicting female depression across puberty: a two-nation

longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(12), 1424–1432.Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early

adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216–224.Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through

secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259–280.Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: victims’ and perpetrators’ family and peer relationships. Swiss Journal of

Psychology, 64(1), 51–64.Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85–112.Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Haas, E. (1999). The peer influence paradox: friendship quality and deviancy training within male adolescent friendships. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 45(1), 42–61.Rabaglietti, E., & Ciairano, S. (2008). Quality of friendship relationships and developmental tasks in adolescence. Cognition, Brian, Behavior: An Interdisci-

plinary Journal, 12(2), 183–203.Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2010). Relationship between multiple sources of perceived social support and psychological and academic

adjustment in early adolescence: comparisons across gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 47–61.Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Victims and their defenders: a dyadic approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development,

35(2), 144–151.Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social

status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.Sandler, I. N., Miller, P., Short, J., & Wolchik, S. A. (1989). Social support as a protective factor for children in stress. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children’s social networks

and social supports (pp. 277–307). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression.

Adolescence, 38(152), 735–747.Shelley, D., & Craig, W. M. (2010). Attributions and coping styles in reducing victimization. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 84–100.Sourander, A., Helstelä, L., Helenius, H., & Piha, J. (2000). Persistence of bullying from childhood to adolescenceda longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 24(7), 873–881.Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Rönning, J. A., Elonheimo, H., Niemelä, S., Helenius, H., et al. (2007). Childhood bullies and victims and their risk of criminality in

late adolescence – The Finnish from a boy to a man study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(6), 546–552.Steiger, J. H., Shapiro, A., & Browne,M.W. (1985). On themultivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential Chi-square statistics. Psychometrika, 50(3), 253–263.Stice, E., Ragan, J., & Randall, P. (2004). Prospective relations between social support and depression: differential direction of effects for parent and peer

support? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 155–159.

K. Kendrick et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1069–10801080

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P., & Der, G. (2006). Peer victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: a longitudinal study. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76(3), 577–594.Von Marées, N., & Petermann, F. (2010). Bullying in German primary schools: gender differences, age trends and influence of parents’ migration and

educational backgrounds. School Psychology International, 31(2), 178–198.Walden, L. M., & Beran, T. N. (2010). Attachment quality and bullying behavior in school-aged youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 5–18.Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375.Weissman, M. M., Orvaschel, H., & Padian, N. (1980). Children’s symptom and social functioning self-report scales: comparison of mothers’ and children’s

reports. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168(12), 736–740.Wissink, I. B., Dekovi�c, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2009). Adolescent friendship relations and developmental outcomes: ethnic and gender differences. The Journal

of Early Adolescence, 29(3), 405–425.Wolke, D., Woods, S., & Samara, M. (2009). Who escapes or remains a victim of bullying in primary school? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(4),

835–851.Woods, S., Done, J., & Kalsi, H. (2009). Peer victimisation and internalising difficulties: the moderating role of friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2),

293–308.Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. In M. E. Sobel,

& M. P. Becker (Eds.), Sociological methodology 2000 (pp. 165–200). Washington, D.C.: ASA.