Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

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

The relation between bullying, victimization, and adolescents’ levelof hopelessness

Sinem Siyahhan a,*, O. Tolga Aricak b, Nur Cayirdag-Acar c

aArizona State University, School of Social and Family Dynamics, PO Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, USAb Fatih University, Department of Psychology, Buyukcekmece 34500, Istanbul, TurkeycMiddle East Technical University, School of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Ankara 06531, Turkey

Keywords:BullyingVictimizationHopelessnessAdolescentsYouth’s psychological health

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 480 965 6156; faE-mail addresses: sinem.siyahhan@asu.edu (S. Si

0140-1971/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevidoi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.011

a b s t r a c t

In this study, 419 Turkish middle school students (203 girls, 216 boys) were surveyed ontheir exposure to and engagement in bullying, and their level of hopelessness. Our findingssuggest that girls were victims of indirect (e.g. gossiping) bullying more than boys. Boysreported being victims of physical (e.g. damaging property) and verbal (e.g. teasing)bullying more than girls. While the level of hopelessness among victims of physical andverbal bullying was higher than non-victims, no difference was found between the victimsof indirect bullying and non-victims. Students who never talked to their teachers andparents about bullying reported higher levels of hopelessness than others. The implica-tions of the study for intervention and prevention programs are discussed.

Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Foundation for Professionals in Services forAdolescents.

Introduction

During the last twenty years, our understanding of the relation between bullying, victimization and children’s psycho-logical health has broadened significantly. It is nowwell documented that peer victimization and bullying has negative effectson adolescents’ psychological health (Baldry, 2004; Roland, 2002) including increased anxiety, depression, low self-esteem,and in some cases, suicide. Despite a large number of studies on the relation between bullying and depression, few wereconducted on the relation between hopelessness and bullying when in fact hopelessness was found to be a key factor linkingdepression to suicidal behavior (Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman, 1975). The National Institute of Mental Health (2011) definesdepression, the persistent feeling of sadness, as a “serious illness” that is manifested through various symptoms that inter-feres with daily functioning of the individual. These symptoms can be a combination of physical, emotional, and socialsymptoms such as anxiety, social withdrawal, and fatigue. Hopelessness, the cognitive dimension of depression, is associatedwith individuals’ perceptions of lacking control over future event outcomes, and is found to play an important role in pre-dicting depression (Marshall & Lang, 1990; McLaughlin, Miller, & Warwick, 1996). While previous studies suggest thatdepression and suicidal thoughts are high among both bullies and victims (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Marttunen, Rimpelä, &Rantanen,1999;West & Salmon, 2000), it is unclear what aspect(s) of depression are more salient for bullying prevention andintervention programs. This paper examines the relation between bullying, victimization, and hopelessness among Turkishadolescents (ages 12–14) to understand the relation between depression and bullying, and how to improve prevention andintervention programs to address the issues of mental health surrounding bullying and victimization.

x: þ1 480 965 6779.yahhan), aricaktolga@yahoo.com (O.T. Aricak), cayirdag@hotmail.com (N. Cayirdag-Acar).

er Ltd on behalf of The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.

S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–10591054

Bullying, victimization, and depression

Children engage in two types of bullying depending on the overt or covert ways of displaying an aggressive behavior.Direct bullying, the display of overt aggressive behavior(s), is defined as harassing others through either direct physicalcontact or verbal attack such as pushing, hitting, and teasing (Woods & Wolke, 2004). Indirect bullying, also called relationalbullying, is defined as a person’s covert aggressive behavior(s) that is intended to harass others by damaging the victim’ssocial relations. It includes gossiping, rumor spreading, and excluding someone from the group (Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006).Research suggests that boys are more likely to engage in and be exposed to direct bullying than girls, and girls are more likelyto engage in indirect bullying than boys (Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Smith & Gross, 2006).

Both victimization and bullying is associated with depression, anxiety, and somatic complains (Baldry, 2004; Craig, 1998).In their study, Marini, Dane, Bosacki, and YLC-CURA (2006) found that indirect bully-victims, those who bully others and arebullied by others, and victims, those who are bullied by others only, reported higher level of depression than bullies anduninvolved adolescents. While the level of depression of direct bullies and bully-victims were same, the victims reportedlower levels of depression compared to the other two groups. In addition, previous studies suggest that bullies and victimsdisplay symptoms of depression and have suicidal thoughts more than thosewho are neither a bully nor a victim (Gini, 2008).Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, and Gillberg (2005) found that children who were victims or bully-victims have higher suicideattempts than bullies and those who were neither victims nor bully-victims.

Parents, peers and teachers, play an important role in children’s ability to copewith bullying andmediate the developmentof depression. For instance, the positive relationship with peers, teachers, and parents play a buffering role betweenvictimization and its negative psychological effects on the personwho is been bullied (Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Idsoe, Solli,& Cosmovici, 2008). Studies found that teachers’ beliefs about bullying determine whether they intervene in a bullyingsituation and how well the child copes with victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Interestingly, teachers andparents perceive physical bullying as being more serious and harmful than verbal and indirect (relational) bullying and areless likely to intervene when children experience indirect bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green,2001).

Bullying, victimization and hopelessness

Depression designates a complex pattern of deviation in feelings, cognitive processes, and behavior (Beck, 1969). Whileearly studies conceptualized depression as a result of different pathologies caused by one factor, researchers developedmultidimensional models that explained different characteristics of depression (Craighead, 1980). According to theory ofhopelessness (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974), the person’s negative attributions to the event, the future and the self determinehis level of hopelessness. People who are hopeless make three kinds of inferences in the face of a negative event: (a) theyattribute the cause of a negative event to stable and global causes (b) they believe that the consequences are unchangeableand have big impacts, and (c) view themselves as worthless and inferior (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989). Thus, inter-pretation of the negative event, not the negative event itself, presumed to contribute to the development of hopelessnessdepression. While hopelessness depression is conceptualized having all three inferential styles, Abela and Sarin (2002) foundthat they are relatively independent for younger children but are interrelated in adolescence.

The theory of helplessness, a similar cognitive model of depression, also suggests that people’s attribution to the causes ofevents to uncontrollable factors results in the development of chronic self-handicapping behaviors in the face of a newsituation (e.g. learned helplessness). Furthermore, the expectation of failure results in adaptation of negative self-image. Thus,people who expect negative events are more likely to have low self-esteem and feel helpless, consequentially, morevulnerable to depression than those who do not have negative expectations (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).Together, the theory of hopelessness and the theory of helplessness is the basis of cognitive vulnerability-stress frameworkmodel that focuses on the cognitive rather than emotional and behavioral characteristics of depression (e.g. negative attri-butional styles). According to this model, hopelessness and helplessness moderate the relationship between the negative lifeevents and the development of depression (Hankin & Abramson, 2001); individuals with cognitive vulnerability are morelikely to be depressedwhen facedwith negative events than thosewho are not cognitively vulnerable. However, some studiessuggest that hopelessness has a mediator effect (Cole & Turner, 1993). For instance, in their longitudinal study with 4th and5th-grade children, Gibb and Alloy (2006) found that the level of children’s hopelessness was a mediator between verbalvictimization and the development of depression for both 4th and 5th-graders, while it was a moderator for only 5th-graders.Although the findings of this study are important in understanding hopelessness phenomenon, they do not address therelation between hopelessness and different kinds of victimization (e.g. physical) and bullying behaviors.

Methods

Participants

419 middle school students (203 girls, 216 boys), ages between 12 and 14, were surveyed on their exposure to andengagement in direct (physical and verbal) and indirect bullying and their level of hopelessness in their regular classrooms.Four middle schools in Istanbul, Turkey were randomly selected from two different school districts that vary according to

S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059 1055

family income, education, and profession. 247 students were from high socio-economic schools and 172 students were fromlow socio-economic schools.

Procedure

One of the researchers contacted the principal of the schools for permission and teacher introductions and then visited theclassroom of the teachers who agreed to let their students to participate in the study. In each classroom, the researcherexplained the goal of the study and procedures for data collection during a regular class period to the students. Only studentswho volunteered to participate in the study filled out the questionnaires and were included in the data collection. There is noreview board for research in Turkey. It is a standard method for researchers who are affiliated with a university to obtainteacher permission and student verbal consent to collect data. The researcher explained the definition of bullying, victimi-zation and hopelessness to students before they started filling out the questionnaires. Students spent 35min in total to fill outboth questionnaires.

Instruments

Two instruments were used in this study. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ) (Olweus, 1996; adapted byDolek, 2002) was used to measure the students’ bullying behaviors. The Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck, Steer, & Carbin, 1988;adapted by Savasir & Sahin, 1997) was used to measure students’ level of hopelessness. In the Olweus Bully/Victim Ques-tionnaire, students answered 40 questions on the extent to which they were exposed to and engaged in various forms ofbullying. Sample questions include: “Have you bullied others in the past two months?”, “How often have you been bullied atschool in the past couple of months?”, “I was called mean names, was made fun of, or teased in a hurtful way.”, “Otherstudents left me out of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends, or completely ignored me.”. Students alsoanswered questions on the extent to which they inform their parents and teachers about their bullying experience.

The Rasch model was used to test the validity of the questionnaire. The Rasch model is based on the assumption that thedifference between item difficulty and person ability should govern the probability of any person being successful on anyparticular item. Data revealed that the items have a good fit to the measurement model, indicating strong mutual consistencyin the responses of the 335 pupils located at different positions on the scale. The item difficulties ranged from �2.08 to 3.04logits. Reliability was calculated by the Item Separation Index and the Person Separation Index. Data revealed that for thewhole sample and for each group the indices of cases and item separation (i.e. reliability) were higher than .85 indicating thatthe separability of each scale was relatively satisfactory. The internal consistency reliability coefficient was .98 which is veryhigh (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006; Solberg & Olweus, 2003).

On the Beck Hopelessness Scale, students answered 20 true–false statements about their positive and negative beliefsabout the future. Each statement is scored 0 or 1. A total score is calculated by summing the pessimistic responses for each ofthe 20 items. The total BHS score ranges from 0 to 20. The questionnaire takes approximately 5 min to complete. Moderateinternal reliability (a ¼ .69, Beck & Steer, 1988) and high test–retest reliability (r ¼ .85, Holden & Fekken, 1988) was reported.Sample items include: “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”, “I might as well give up because there isnothing I can do about making things better for myself”, “I can’t imagine what my life would be like in ten years.”, “I haveenough time to accomplish the things I want to do.”

Data analysis

The statistical package data of SPSS 15 for windowswas used to analyze the data. One-Way ANOVAwas used to analyze theaffects of victimization and bullying on the level of hopelessness. MANCOVAwas performed to assess the interaction effects ofindependent variables on the dependent variable, level of hopelessness. Stepwise regressionwas used to examine the relativepredictive power of independent variables on level of hopelessness. Additionally, we conducted two separate Chi-square teststo understand the differences between males and females with respect to victimization and bullying.

Results

Consistent with previous research, our findings suggest that both boys and girls were victims of bullying. As seen in Table 1,students reported mostly being victims of verbal bullying (e.g. name calling, teasing) at 47% (23.63% males, 23.39% females),followed by being victims of indirect (or relational) bullying (e.g. gossiping) at 26.3% (9.78% males, 16.47% females), andphysical bullying (e.g. hitting, damaging belongings) at 27.96% (15.06% males, 12.90% females). There were no differencesbetween boys and girls in terms of victimization (see Table 1), except that girls (16.47%) were victims of gossiping more thanthat of boys (9.78%) [c2(1) ¼ 12.18, p ¼ .000].

In terms of bullying, 43.7% of students bullied others verbally (name calling and teasing), 16.55% of students bullied othersindirectly (rejecting from group and gossiping), and only 10.35% of students bullied others physically (hitting and damagingbelongings). Boys were verbal bullies with 29.53% [c2(1) ¼ 14.25 for “name calling” and 10.31, p < .01 for “teasing”,respectively] and physical bullies more than that of girls (2.89%) [c2(1) ¼ 4.21 for “hitting” and 4.24, p < .05 for “damagingbelongings”, respectively] (see Table 2).

Table 1Observed victimization in male and females.

Victimization Male Female c2

Non-victim Victim Non-victim Victim

Name calling 117(27.92%) 99(23.63%) 105(25.06%) 98(23.39%) .25Teasing 157(37.47%) 59(14.08%) 140(33.41%) 63(15.04%) .70Rejecting from group 168(40.09%) 48(11.46%) 155(36.99%) 48(11.46%) .12Gossiping 175(41.77%) 41(9.78%) 134(31.98%) 69(16.47%) 12.18**Hitting 182(43.54%) 33(7.90%) 180(43.06%) 23(5.50%) 1.45Damaging belongings 186(44.39%) 30(7.16%) 172(41.05%) 31(7.40%) .16

**p < .01.

Table 2Observed bully behaviors in male and females.

Bullying Male Female c2

Non-bully Bully Non-bully Bully

Name calling 142(33.97%) 73(17.46%) 167(39.95%) 36(8.61%) 14.25**Teasing 163(39.37%) 50(12.07%) 178(43%) 23(5.56%) 10.31**Rejecting from group 192(46.04%) 22(5.28%) 174(41.73%) 29(6.95%) 1.56Gossiping 201(48.20%) 13(3.12%) 198(47.48%) 5(1.2%) 3.29Hitting 191(46.02%) 22(5.30%) 192(46.27%) 10(2.41%) 4.21*Damaging belongings 204(49.04%) 9(2.16%) 201(48.32%) 2(.48%) 4.24*

*p < .05; **p < .01.

S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–10591056

By using cross-tabs, we identified students whowere pure verbal bully (9.9%), pure indirect bully (2.4%), and pure physicalbully (1.2%). Students were also categorized as pure verbal victim (22.9%), pure indirect victim (12.2%), and pure physicalvictim (6.2%). Additionally, 16.5% of students were verbal bully-victim, 3.8% were indirect bully-victim, and 1.7% of studentswere physical bully-victim. A pure victim is a person who is victimized by others but never bully others. A pure bully isa person who bullies others but never been victimized by others. A bully-victim is a person who bullies others and isvictimized by others. Our findings suggest that more students were pure victims than pure bullies and bully-victims.

Overall, boys (M¼ 5.91, SD ¼ 3.93) reported higher levels of hopelessness than girls (M¼ 5.10, SD¼ 3.80), [t(417) ¼�2.13,p¼ .034]. Further, students whowere victims of name calling (M¼ 6.07, SD¼ 3.76) and teasing (M¼ 6.42, SD¼ 3.82) reportedhigher levels of hopelessness than non-victim students (MName Calling ¼ 5.03, SD ¼ 3.93; MTeasing ¼ 5.15, SD ¼ 3.85),[t(417) ¼ �2.74; �3.07, p < .01, respectively]. Similarly, the level of hopelessness of pure physical victims (MHitting ¼ 6.61,SD ¼ 4.11; MDamaging belongings ¼ 6.69, SD ¼ 3.94) was higher than those non-victims (MHitting ¼ 5.36, SD ¼ 3.83; MDamaging

belongings ¼ 5.32, SD ¼ 3.84), [t(417) ¼ �2.25; �2.56, p < .05, respectively]. However, no difference was found in the level ofhopelessness between non-victims and pure indirect victims [t(417) ¼ �1.24; �1.84, p > .05, respectively]. We performedGeneral Linear Model Multivariate Analysis of Co-Variance (GLMMANCOVA) to see the effect of interaction between bullyingand victimization on the level of hopelessness. Gender, education levels of mother and father were taken as co-variates in theanalysis. As seen in Table 3, results showed that the interaction between bullying and victimization had a significant effect onthe level of hopelessness, [F(4, 403) ¼ 3.49, p ¼ .008, ƞ2 ¼ .034]. Students who engaged in bully behaviors every week(M ¼ 9.52, SD ¼ 4.13) reported higher levels of hopeless than non-bully students (M ¼ 5.45, SD ¼ 3.77), [F(2, 403) ¼ 11.01,p ¼ .000, ƞ2 ¼ .052]. Effect sizes (ƞ) can be interpreted as small (ƞ < .20) in the result. Students who reported never talking toteachers and parents about victimization had more hopelessness than other students [F(2, 416) ¼ 3.42; F(2, 416) ¼ 7.04,p < .05, respectively].

Table 3Bullying and victimization interaction on hopelessness.

Source Type III SS df MS F p ƞ2

Corrected model 749,211a 11 68,110 4982 .000 .120Intercept 964,636 1 964,636 70,555 .000 .149Gender (covariate) 33,119 1 33,119 2422 .120 .006Mother’s education (covariate) 13,564 1 13,564 .992 .320 .002Father’s education (covariate) 29,635 1 29,635 2168 .142 .005Victimization 12,960 2 6480 .474 .623 .002Bullying 301,159 2 150,579 11,014 .000 .052Victimization � bullying 191,009 4 47,752 3493 .008 .034Error 5509,883 403 13,672Total 18995,000 415Corrected total 6259,094 414

a R2 ¼ .120 (adjusted R2 ¼ .096).

Table 4Bullying, victimization, and school SES interaction on hopelessness.

Source Type III SS df MS F p ƞ2

Corrected model 855,413a 20 42,771 3119 .000 .137Intercept 918,877 1 918,877 66,998 .000 .145Gender (covariate) 20,474 1 20,474 1493 .223 .004Mother’s education (covariate) 15,577 1 15,577 1136 .287 .003Father’s education (covariate) 53,641 1 53,641 3911 .049 .010Bullying 260,557 2 130,278 9499 .000 .046Victimization 29,723 2 14,862 1084 .339 .005School SES 65,609 1 65,609 4784 .029 .012Bullying � victimization � school SES 25,989 4 6497 .474 .755 .005Error 5403,681 394 13,715Total 18995,000 415Corrected total 6259,094 414

a R2 ¼ .137 (adjusted R2 ¼ .093).

S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059 1057

We also performed GLM MANCOVA to see the effect of interaction between schools from low and high SES, bullying, andvictimization on the level of hopelessness (see Table 4). Gender, education levels of mother and father were taken as co-variates in the analysis. Data revealed that there was no significant effect of interaction between SES (schools), bullying,and victimization on the hopelessness [F(4, 414) ¼ .47, p ¼ .755, ƞ2 ¼ .005].

We could not find any significant difference between schools from low and high SES according to hopelessness level [F(1,418) ¼ 2.31, p ¼ .129, ƞ2 ¼ .006]. In addition, we performed stepwise regression analysis to predict hopelessness level. Allverbal, indirect, and physical bullying and victimization variables were included in the analysis as independent variable, andhopelessness was included as a dependent variable. The regression analysis yielded two models. In the first model, beinga victim of teasing was the only variable that predicted hopelessness directly (R2 ¼ .018, b ¼ .14, F(1, 408) ¼ 8.56, p ¼ .004). Inthe second model, being a victim and being a bully of teasing independently were the two variables that predicted hope-lessness (R2 ¼ .030, bvictim ¼ .12, bbully ¼ .12, F(2, 407) ¼ 7.38, p ¼ .001).

Discussion

It is well documented that bullying and victimization are prominent among adolescents (Olweus, 1993). Previous studiesfound that girls are likely to be engaged in and exposed to indirect (or relational) bullying (e.g. gossiping) while boys are morelikely to engage in and be exposed to physical bullying (Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Smith & Gross, 2006). Our findings alsosuggest that girls were victims and bullies of indirect bullying (e.g. gossiping)more so than boys. However, we found that bothphysical and verbal bullying is a problem among boysmore so than among girls.With 47% of students reporting being a victimof verbal bullying, verbal bullying seems to be the kind of bullying that is most prevalent among Turkish adolescents.

One possible explanation for the high levels of verbal bullying among Turkish adolescents is that there are differences inthe kinds of bullying behaviors adolescent children experience across different socio-cultural contexts. Future cross-culturalstudies can shed light onto the cultural differences in bullying and victimization. It is also possible that Turkish adolescentsmight have considered amicable teasing or joking as “bullying” as well. This suggests a challenge for researchers andeducators in identifying and intervening bullying and victimization because the boundaries of verbal bullying are moredifficult to draw than physical and indirect (relational) bullying. Considering that teachers and parents are more likely tointervene in a physical bullying situation than situations that involve other kinds of bullying, it is important to educate bothchildren and adults about the nature of verbal bullying and how it is different than amicable teasing or joking.

We found that boys, whowere more likely to be victims of verbal and physical bullying, have higher levels of hopelessnessthan those of girls, and that there were no difference between indirect bullying victims and non-victims in their level ofhopelessness. This suggests that boys are more vulnerable to be depressed when experiencing bullying than girls. This isinteresting given that previous studies found that indirect (or relational) bullying contribute to depression, especially amonggirls, more than other forms of bullying (Paquette & Underwood, 1999). We found that there is no relation between indirectbullying and hopelessness. The gender differences in exposure to different kinds of bullying and hopelessness suggest thatintervention or prevention programs need to pay attention to gender specific issues when addressing the issues of bullying inschools.

The univariate ANOVA suggests that while neither bullying nor victimization independently has a significant effect onhopelessness, bullying and victimization together has a significant effect on hopelessness. This supports the previous findingsthat bully-victims are the most at risk for developing psychological problems such as depression and suicidal thoughts(Ivarsson et al., 2005; Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007). Our findings suggest that bully-victims are atthe risk of feeling hopeless compared to that of bullies or victims. One possible explanation is that both engaging in andexposing to bullying make it so that bully-victims feel that there is no way to break a vicious cycle of bullying. This suggeststhat intervention and prevention programs need to target changing the perceptions of both victims and bullies about theircontrol over negative events, in this case bullying. Helping children understand that they have agency is changing the

S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–10591058

situation can help (a) bullies to gain more self-control and take responsibility of their actions, and (b) victims to pursue waysto change their situations.

While this study has limitations in that the findings are based on retrospective self-reports of participants, it has importantimplications for future research. First, the prevalence of verbal bullying among youth combined with parents’ and teachers’lack of attention to this form bullying suggest that prevention and intervention programs need to raise awareness aroundmore subtle forms of bullying. Second, hopelessness seems to be associated more with physical and verbal bullying, sug-gesting that childrenwho are exposed to overt forms of aggression may bemore vulnerable to depression than those who areexposed to covert forms of aggression. Third, boys and bully-victims, in particular, are vulnerable to depression. Programs thatfocus on teaching children the individuals’ ability to change negative events can prevent depression among children who areexposed to bullying.

References

Abela, J. R. Z., & Sarin, S. (2002). Cognitive vulnerability to hopelessness depression: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 26(6), 811–829.

Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96(2), 358–372.Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

87(1), 49–74.Baldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 343–355.Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Types of bullying among Italian school children. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423–426.Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: comparing physical, verbal and indirect bullying. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219–231.Beck, A. T. (1969). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: the depression inventory. InPichot, P., & Olivier-Marton, R. (Eds.). (1974). Psychological

measurements in psychopharmacology, Vol. 7 (pp. 151–169). Switzerland: Karger Press.Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, A. (1975). Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 234(11), 1146–1149.Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Carbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the beck depression inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology

Review, 8(1), 77–100.Cole, D. A., & Turner, J. E., Jr. (1993). Models of cognitive mediation and moderation in child depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(2),

271–281.Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2006). “We’re not friends anymore! Unless.”: the frequency and harmfulness of indirect, indirect, and social aggression.

Aggressive Behavior, 32, 294–307.Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and

Individual Differences, 24, 123–130.Craighead, W. E. (1980). Away from a unitary model of depression. Behavior Therapy, 11, 122–128.Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: a multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

66(2), 337–347.Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School

Psychology Review, 36(3), 383–405.Dolek, N. (2002). _Ilk ve ortaö�gretim okullarındaki ö�grenciler arasında zorbaca davranısların incelenmesi ve zorbalı�gı önleme tutumu gelistirmek için hazırlanan

bir programın etkisinin arastırılması. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Marmara University, _Istanbul.Gibb, B. E., & Alloy, L. B. (2006). A prospective test of the hopelessness theory of depression in children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

35(2), 264–274.Gini, G. (2008). Associations between bullying behavior, psychosomatic complains, emotional and behavioral problems. Journal of Paediatrics and Child

Health, 44, 492–497.Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: an elaborated cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress theory.

Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 773–796.Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research, 43(2), 133–146.Holden, R. R., & Fekken, C. (1988). Test-retest reliability of the hopelessness scale and its items in a university population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44,

40–43.Idsoe, T., Solli, E., & Cosmovici, E. M. (2008). Social psychological processes in family and school: more evidence on their relative etiological significance for

bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 460–474.Ivarsson, T., Broberg, A. G., Arvidsson, T., & Gillberg, C. (2005). Bullying in adolescence: psychiatric problems in victims and bullies as measured by the Youth

Self Report (YSR) and the Depression Self-Rating Scale (DSRS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59(5), 365–373.Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpelä, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: school

survey. British Medical Journal, 319(7206), 348–351.Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 40–49.Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying: influences on classroom management strategies and students’

coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 431–453.Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct-indirect bully-victims: differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents

involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551–569.Marshall, G. N., & Lang, E. L. (1990). Optimism, self-mastery, and symptoms of depression in women professionals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59(1), 132–139.McLaughlin, J., Miller, P., & Warwick, H. (1996). Deliberate self-harm in adolescents: hopelessness, depression, problems and problem-solving. Journal of

Adolescence, 19, 523–532.Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University

of Bergen.Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: social and physical aggression.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(2), 242–266.Roland, E. (2002). Aggression, depression, and bullying others. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 198–206.Savasir, I., & Sahin, N. H. (1997). Bilissel davranisci terapilerde degerlendirme: Sik kullanilan olcekler. Ankara: Turk Psikologlar Dernegi Yayinlari.Smith, R. G., & Gross, A. M. (2006). Bullying: prevalence and the effect of age and gender. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 28(4), 13–37.

S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059 1059

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.The National Institute of Health. (2011, November 15). Depression. Retrieved from. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/depression-

booklet.pdf.West, G., & Salmon, A. (2000). Bullying and depression: a case report. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 4(1), 73–75.Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and indirect bullying among primary school children and academic school. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2),

135–155.