Content Summary

P b

S a

b

c

C

A R R A A

K B V M H P

p o p c L

r

0 h

Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

arenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a ully/victim: A meta-analysis study�

uzet Tanya Lereyaa,∗, Muthanna Samarab, Dieter Wolkec

Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK Department of Psychology, Kingston University London, Kingston, Upon-Thames KT1 2EE, UK Department of Psychology and Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Warwick Medical School), University of Warwick, Coventry V4 7AL, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 26 July 2012 eceived in revised form 1 March 2013 ccepted 5 March 2013 vailable online 25 April 2013

eywords: ullying ictimization eta-analysis arsh parenting arenting behavior

a b s t r a c t

Objective: Being bullied has adverse effects on children’s health. Children’s family experi- ences and parenting behavior before entering school help shape their capacity to adapt and cope at school and have an impact on children’s peer relationship, hence it is important to identify how parenting styles and parent–child relationship are related to victimization in order to develop intervention programs to prevent or mitigate victimization in childhood and adolescence. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on parenting behavior and peer victimization using MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE from 1970 through the end of December 2012. We included prospective cohort studies and cross- sectional studies that investigated the association between parenting behavior and peer victimization. Results: Both victims and those who both bully and are victims (bully/victims) were more likely to be exposed to negative parenting behavior including abuse and neglect and mal- adaptive parenting. The effects were generally small to moderate for victims (Hedge’s g range: 0.10–0.31) but moderate for bully/victims (0.13–0.68). Positive parenting behavior including good communication of parents with the child, warm and affectionate relation- ship, parental involvement and support, and parental supervision were protective against peer victimization. The protective effects were generally small to moderate for both victims (Hedge’s g: range: −0.12 to −0.22) and bully/victims (−0.17 to −0.42). Conclusions: Negative parenting behavior is related to a moderate increase of risk for becoming a bully/victim and small to moderate effects on victim status at school. Inter- vention programs against bullying should extend their focus beyond schools to include families and start before children enter school.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Victims of bullying are repeatedly exposed to aggressive behavior, perpetrated by an individual or peer group with more ower than the victim (Olweus, 1993, 2002; Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011). Bullying is a global problem with an average f 32% of children being bullied across 38 countries/regions (World Helth Organization, 2012). Victims more often develop

hysical health problems (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001), a range of mental health diffi- ulties including anxiety and depression (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Woods & White, 2005; Zwierzynska, Wolke, & ereya, 2013), psychotic symptoms (Schreier et al., 2009) and borderline personality symptoms (Wolke, Schreier, Zanarini, &

� Drs. Wolke and Lereya’s work on this study was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grant ES/K003593/1. Dr. Samara eceived support from Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) grant NPRP5 – 1134- 3-240. ∗ Corresponding author.

145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001

1092 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Winsper, 2012). They are also at highly increased risk of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and attempting and completing suicides (Fisher et al., 2012; Klomek et al., 2009; Winsper, Lereya, Zanarini, & Wolke, 2012). The targets of bullying are victims (Haynie et al., 2001; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000), and those who both bully others and are victims of bullying are called bully/victims (Wolke & Samara, 2004; Wolke et al., 2000). Bully/victims usually display the highest level of conduct, school, and peer relationship problems (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Wolke & Samara, 2004) and may come from the most adverse family backgrounds (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005).

Children’s family experiences before entering school help shape their capacity to adapt and cope at school and have an impact on children’s peer relationships (Ladd, 1992). Thus, it is important to identify which parenting styles and parent–child relationships are related to victimization in order to develop intervention programs to prevent or mitigate victimization in childhood and adolescence. From a social learning perspective, it has been argued that external environment contributes to acquiring and maintaining aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1986), and parents’ child rearing behavior may serve as a model upon which children base their behavior and expectations of future relationships (Ladd, 1992). It was found that maladaptive parenting, marked by high levels of hostility, hitting and shouting, was related to increased risk of peer victimization at school (e.g. Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004). On the other hand, children of authoritative parents (high on demanding and high on responsiveness) were found to do better at school and have less adjustment problems (e.g. Baumrind, 1991; Hay & Meldrum, 2010).

However, global parenting styles may fail to identify distinct aspects of parenting that are associated with childhood adjustments (Linver & Silverberg, 1997). The examination of individual parenting characteristics enable the exploration of relative independent effects of these characteristics on child outcomes (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). For example, previous research identified several factors that are important for the socialization of children. These include the extent of supervision (Georgiou, 2008), warmth (Booth, 1994; Fine, Voydanoff, & Donnelly, 1993) and overprotection (Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1998). Knowing which parenting factors increase or decrease the risk of victimization is necessary in order to develop prevention or intervention programs that go beyond the school context.

The objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically investigate the type and strength of the association between par- enting behavior (i.e. parent–child communication, authoritative parenting, parental involvement and support, supervision, warmth and affection of the parents, abuse and neglect, maladaptive parenting, overprotection) on being bullied. Analyses are conducted separately for victims and bully/victims.

Methods

The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the MOOSE guidelines for systematic reviews of observational studies (see supplementary Table 1; Brugha et al., 2012; Stroup et al., 2000).

Search strategy

We conducted a literature search for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of the association between parenting behav- ior and peer victimization published between January 1970, when the influential work of Olweus on bullying appeared, and the end of December 2012. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE. The following keywords were used ‘bully*’, ‘bulli*’ and ‘victim*’ in conjunction with ‘parent*’, ‘authoritarian’, ‘authoritative’, ‘per- missive’, ‘hostility’, ‘warmth’, ‘punitive’, ‘indulgent’, ‘neglectful’, ‘overprotection’, ‘discipline’, ‘control’, ‘dominance’, ‘accept*’, ‘reject*’, ‘sensitive’, ‘insensitive’, ‘communication’, ‘affect*’, ‘encouragement’, ‘interaction’, ‘monitor*’, ‘responsive’, ‘family’, and ‘famili*’. The parenting keywords were chosen from Holden and Miller’s meta-analysis (1999) on enduring parents’ child rearing styles.

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

The online MEDLINE search yielded 6,123 articles, the PsychINFO yielded 4,401 articles, Eric yielded 2,104 articles and EMBASE yielded 4,039 articles. The overall systematic literature search included 16,667 articles. There was an overlap of 4,926 articles. Duplicate articles were excluded from subsequent searches and the final literature search included 11,741 articles (see Fig. 1).

In order to be included in the analysis, the study had to meet three criteria. Firstly, the study had to include measures of peer victimization at school and parenting behavior that was directly related to the child. Guided by pre- vious meta-analyses on peer victimization (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010) studies that assessed relational, physical, verbal and/or cyber victimization were included. The studies could use self-report (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004), peer nominations (Cenkseven Onder & Yurtal, 2008), or teacher (Shin & Kim, 2008) or parent reports (Bowes et al., 2009). Secondly, the authors should report (or provide after request) sufficient statistical information (correlations, means and standard deviations, odds ratio, F or t values)

in order to allow the use of meta-analytic techniques. Finally, the studies needed to come from published sources in English, such as journals, book chapters, or books. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the sam- ple was from a clinical population; (2) it was a qualitative study; (3) it was an experimental study; (4) it included only distal family variables that are indirectly related to the child (e.g. domestic violence); or (5) there was not suf-

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1093

fi c

r t a a 1 F a y

S

a h y c p

Fig. 1. Description of the systematic review.

cient statistical information for the computation of effects and it was not provided by the authors despite being ontacted.

We reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles found (N = 11,741), resulting in 291 full text articles for additional eview. Two of the authors independently screened the full-text articles according to the selection and inclusion criteria. A otal of 72 articles were further excluded. For studies where data were missing, authors were contacted to obtain information bout the relationship between victimization and parenting factors or moderator variables. However, some authors were not ble to provide missing data (e.g. Baldry, 2003; Rigby, 1993; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001), could not be reached (e.g. Lowenstein, 977, 1978) or did not reply (e.g. Curtner-Smith, 2000). These studies were, therefore, not included in the meta-analysis. inally, 70 studies (N = 119 samples for victims; N = 55 samples for bully/victims) were included in the meta-analysis and re shown in Table 1. The final meta-analytic sample contained a total of 208,778 children with an age range of 4–25 ears.

election of parenting behavior variables and coding

Two coders independently constructed categories for the parenting variables that were then jointly reviewed nd decided with the help of a senior reviewer. Because, merging variables into very few categories might

ave obstructed any systematic patterns or too many categories that might reveal insufficient data for the anal- sis, considerable attention was given to determine the appropriate categories (Holden & Miller, 1999). Eight ategories of parenting behavior were created (see supplementary Table 2 for rationale behind the categories): ositive parenting behavior: authoritative parenting, parent–child communication, parental involvement and support,

1094 S.T.Lereya

et al./Child

A buse

& N

eglect 37

(2013) 1091–1108

Table 1 Summary of studies examining parenting behavior and peer victimization.

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Accordino and Accordino (2011)

124 7.5–12 Self-report General & cyber

Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection

Ahmed and Braithwaite (2004)

610 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Authoritative parenting, maladaptive parenting

Alikasifoglu, Erginoz, Ercan, Uysal, and Albayrak-Kaymak (2007)

3,519 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Communication

Aman-Back and Bjorkqvist (2007)

773 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, communication

Baldry and Farrington (1998)

238 12+ Self-report General Bully/victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Baldry (2004) 661 12+ Self-report Overt & relational

Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support

Baldry and Farrington (2005)

679 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Bender and Lösel (2011) 1,163 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting Beran (2009) 4,293 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Warmth & affection,

maladaptive parenting Beran, Hughes, and Lupart

(2008) 2,084 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &

support Bowes et al. (2009) 2,232 4–7 Mixed General Victim

bully/victim Longitudinal Europe Abuse & neglect, warmth &

affection Brighi, Guarini, Melotti,

Galli, and Genta (2012) 2,326 12+ Self-report Direct, indirect,

& cyber Victim Cross-sectional Europe Warmth & affection

Burk et al. (2008) 238 7.5–12 Mixed General Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Cassidy (2009) 461 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Cava, Musitu, and Murgui (2007)

1,319 12+ Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, parental involvement & support

Cenkseven Onder and Yurtal (2008)

273 12+ Peer nomination

General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, parental involvement & support warmth & affection

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011)

5,807 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting

Chaux, Molano, and Podlesky (2009)

53,316 12+ Self-report Overt Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting

Cheng, Cheung, and Cheung (2008)

712 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Cheng et al. (2010) 9,015 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

S.T.Lereya et

al./Child A

buse &

N eglect

37 (2013)

1091–1108 1095

Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Coleman (2003) 67 7.5–12 Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection Dehue, Bolman, Vollink,

and Pouwelse (2012) 1,184 7.5–12 Self-report General &

cyber Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, abuse & neglect, maladaptive parenting

Demanet and Van Houtte (2012)

11,872 12+ Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support, warmth & affection

Demaray and Malecki (2003)

499 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Duong, Schwartz, Chang, Kelly, and Tom (2009)

211 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting

Fanti, Demetriou, and Hawa (2012)

1,416 12+ Self-report General & cyber

Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal Europe Parental involvement & support

Finnegan et al. (1998) 184 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting, overprotection, warmth & affection

Franic et al. (2011) 803 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support, warmth & affection

Hay and Meldrum (2010) 426 12+ Self-report General & cyber

Victim Cross-sectional America Authoritative parenting

Hazemba, Siziya, Muula, and Rudatsikira (2008)

2,348 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Helweg-Larsen, Schutt, and Larsen (2012)

3,707 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, supervision

Herba et al. (2008) 1,526 12+ Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting

Holt and Espelage (2007) 1,501 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Holt, Kaufman Kantor, and Finkelhor (2009)

205 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision

Jimenez, Musitu, Ramos, and Murgui (2009)

565 12+ Self-report Verbal, physical & relational

Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication

Johnson et al. (2011) 832 12+ Self-report Verbal, relational & cyber

Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection

Kelleher et al. (2008) 211 12+ Mixed General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Abuse & neglect Kokkinos and Panayiotou

(2007) 186 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim

bully/victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting

1096 S.T.Lereya

et al./Child

A buse

& N

eglect 37

(2013) 1091–1108

Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Lemstra, Nielsen, Rogers, Thompson, and Moraros (2012)

4,197 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting

Ma, Phelps, Lerner, and Lerner (2009)

776 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Longitudinal America Warmth & affection

Ma and Bellmore (2012) 831 12+ Peer nomination

Overt & relational

Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting

Ma (2001) 13,751 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Marini et al. (2006) 7,290 12+ Self-report Overt & relational

Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support, supervision, warmth & affection

Mesch (2009) 935 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri,

Gadalla, and Daciuk (2012)

2,186 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Mohr (2006) 733 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Abuse & neglect, warmth & affection

Muula, Herring, Siziya, and Rudatsikira (2009)

2,249 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Murray-Harvey and Slee (2010)

888 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Perren and Hournung (2005)

1,107 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support

Rigby, Slee, and Martin (2007)

1,432 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Overprotection, warmth & affection

Rothon, Head, Klineberg, and Stansfeld (2011)

2,790 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support

Rudatsikira, Mataya, Siziya, and Muula (2008)

7,338 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Rudatsikira, Muula, and Siziya (2007)

1,197 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Rudatsikira, Muula, and Siziya (2008)

2,111 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Rudatsikira, Siziya, Kazembe, and Muula (2007)

6,283 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1997)

198 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting

S.T.Lereya et

al./Child A

buse &

N eglect

37 (2013)

1091–1108 1097

Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (2000) (Study 1)

389 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Longitudinal America Abuse & neglect, maladaptive parenting

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (2000) (Study 2)

243 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting

Segrin, Nevarez, Arroyo, and Harwood (2012)

111 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Communication

Shin and Kim (2008) 297 4–7 Teacher report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Abuse & neglect, maladaptive parenting, warmth & affection

Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie (2007)

11,033 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Communication, parental involvement & support

Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, and Van Oost (2002)

1,719 7.5–12 Mixed General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Communication, maladaptive parenting, overprotection, parental involvement & support, warmth & affection

Tanigawa, Furlong, Felix, and Sharkey (2011)

544 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Totura et al. (2009) 2,506 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Veenstra et al. (2005) 1,065 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, overprotection, warmth & affection

Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009)

7,182 12+ Self-report Physical, relational, verbal & cyber

Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Wilson, Bovet, Viswanathan, and Suris (2012)

1,427 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Windle et al. (2010) 598 7–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision, warmth & affection

Winsper et al. (2012) 6,043 7–12 Mixed General Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal Europe Maladaptive parenting

Yabko, Hokoda, and Ulloa (2008)

242 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting

Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) 1,501 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision, warmth & affection, maladaptive parenting

a,b,c,d Moderators. Please note study design was defined on the base of how the included articles analyzed the data; a longitudinal study analyzing data in a cross-sectional manner was deemed as cross-sectional.

1098 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

supervision, warmth and affection; negative parenting behavior: abuse/neglect, maladaptive parenting, and overprotec- tion.

Then, the two coders independently placed 117 parenting variables into the 8 categories (see supplementary Table 2 for variables in each category). Cohen’s kappa was computed for the constructs and results revealed very good inter-rater agreements; all kappa’s exceeded 0.84. All discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the coders. Three of the 117 variables did not match any of the categories. These variables (i.e. family problem solving, family gen- eral control and parental responsibility) were not classified into any of the suggested constructs and thus were not included in the analyses. In several instances, two or more variables used in a study were merged and classified into the same categories (e.g. tracking and knowledge [Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & Ylc, 2006] were placed in the supervi- sion category). In such cases, the effect sizes from the two (or more) variables were averaged to form one measure per study as recommended by Rosenthal to maintain independent samples in the meta-analysis (Rosenthal, 1991). If more than one study was published using the same data set, the paper with the most information and parenting factors was chosen (e.g. Bowes et al., 2009; Shakoor et al., 2012). With regards to sample characteristics, age was bro- ken down into the following categories: early childhood (4–7 years), middle childhood (7.5–12 years) and adolescence (older than 12 years). Assessment method of peer victimization (e.g. self-report, peer nomination, teacher or mixed), continent (Europe, America and other) and whether the study was cross-sectional or longitudinal were also coded (Table 1).

Data analysis

Studies provided different data and Hedge’s g, a dimensionless effect size, defined as the difference between the means of the two compared groups (e.g. victims versus neutrals) divided by the pooled standard devia- tion, was used (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). The outcomes of studies reporting correlations were transformed to Hedges g using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) program (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011). Hedge’s g with 95% confidence intervals for each study comparing the individual study’s effect size to the overall weighted effect size across studies for each parenting category are reported (see Figs. 2–5). Effect size may be interpreted using Cohen’s convention of small (0.20), medium (0.50) and large (0.80) effects (Cohen, 1988).

Mean effect sizes for the total sample were calculated for those studies reporting separate effect sizes for two or more independent groups of participants. If different effect sizes were derived from self-, mother-, teacher-, and peer-reports of victimization, these were combined into one effect size. Similarly, very few studies provided separate effect sizes for males and females; hence, if an effect size was given separately for males and females, they were combined.

Effect sizes were analyzed using the random effects model. Error term is composed of variation originating from both within-study variability and between study differences (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Hence, the generalization extends beyond the specific studies to other studies considered to be part of the same population (Rosenthal, 1995). The distribution of effect sizes was examined using tests of heterogeneity. Significant heterogeneity indicates that differ- ences across effect sizes are likely due to factors other than sampling error, such as different study characteristics (Borenstein et al., 2011). Moderator analyses were then conducted to explain variability in effect sizes across stud- ies. Categorical moderator tests are analogous to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and yield homogeneity estimates, a within groups Q (Qw) and a between groups Q (Qb). A significant value for Qw indicates that the effect sizes within a category of the moderator variable are heterogeneous, whereas a significant value for Qb indicates that the effect sizes are significantly different across different categories of the moderator variable (Borenstein et al., 2011).

We examined the potential for publication bias by using four methods. First, we computed Rosenthal’s failsafe num- ber (FSN; i.e. the number of studies that would be required to nullify the observed effect) for each combined effect size, separately to address the “file drawer problem” (Rosenthal, 1991). A tolerance level around a failsafe N equal to 5 times the number of effect size (k) plus 10 (“5k + 10” benchmark; Rosenthal, 1979) was calculated. Satisfactoriness is estab- lished if the fail-safe ratio exceeds Rosenthal’s threshold at 1.00, i.e. when the fail-safe number consistently exceeds the 5k + 10 benchmark then there is no need for additional research to establish the phenomenon. Secondly, biases according to study size were assessed with use of the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test (Kendall’s tau b; Begg & Mazumdar, 1994). Hence, if small studies with controversial results were less likely to be published, the correlation between vari- ance and effect size would be high. Conversely, lack of significant correlation can be seen as absence of publication bias. Thirdly, Egger’s test was used to assess whether there is a tendency for selective publication of studies based on the nature and direction of results. In the linear regression analysis, the intercept value provides a measure of asymme-

try; the larger its deviation from zero, the more pronounced the asymmetry (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). Lastly, Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill method was used. This method initially trims the asymmetric studies from one side to identify the unbiased effect, and then fills the plot by re-inserting the trimmed studies as well as their imputed counterparts.

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1099

Results

The Hedge’s g for each parenting behavior category is shown in Figs. 2–5. The studies included in the analysis with their descriptions are shown in supplementary Tables 3 and 4.

Positive parenting behavior (Figs. 2 and 4): The combined effect size showed that victims and bully/victims were sig- nificantly less likely to have authoritative parents (victims: Hedge’s g = −0.19, 95% CI: −0.28, −0.11; z = −4.42; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = −0.39, 95% CI: −0.61, −0.18; z = −3.55; p < 0.001), good parent–child communication (victims: Hedge’s g = −0.12; 95% CI, −0.20, −0.05; z = −3.13; p < 0.01; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = −0.17, 95% CI: −0.30, −0.04; z = −2.62; p < 0.01), parents that were involved and supportive (victims: Hedge’s g = −0.22; 95% CI, −0.29, −0.15; z = −5.97; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = − 0.30, 95% CI: −0.40, −0.20; z = −5.82; p < 0.001), receive supervision (victims: Hedge’s g = −0.16, 95% CI: −0.21, −0.12; z = −6.81; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = −0.34, 95% CI: −0.54, −0.14; z = −3.31; p < 0.01) and warm and affective parents (victims: Hedge’s g = −0.22; 95% CI, −0.30, −0.14; z = −5.17; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = −0.42, 95% CI: −0.54, −0.31; z = −7.21; p < 0.001). Overall, both victims and bully/victims were less likely to live in a family with positive parenting (victims: Hedge’s g = −0.19; 95% CI, −0.23, −0.15; z = −9.65 p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = −0.33; 95% CI: −0.41, −0.26; z = −9.07; p < 0.001).

Negative parenting behavior (Figs. 3 and 5): The combined effect size showed that victims and bully/victims were sig- nificantly more likely to have been abused or neglected (victims: Hedge’s g = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18–0.44; z = 4.53; p < 0.001;

Fig. 2. Peer victimization and positive parenting behavior.

1100 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Fig. 2. (Continued)

bully/victims: Hedge’s g = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44–0.92; z = 5.57; p < 0.001), or to have experienced maladaptive parenting (victims: Hedge’s g = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15–0.40; z = 4.31; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.23–0.75; z = 3.74; p < 0.001). In addition, victims were more likely to have overprotective parents (Hedge’s g = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03–0.17; z = 2.63; p < 0.01). Overall, both victims and bully/victims were found to experience negative parenting more often (victims: Hedge’s g = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16–0.36; z = 4.90; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedge’s g = 0.48 95% CI: 0.26–0.70; z = 4.23; p < 0.001).

Potential moderator variables

The heterogeneity analyses for some of the categories were significant (see supplementary Tables 3 and 4) indicat- ing potential moderating. Meta-ANOVAs of continent (Europe, America or other), age (4–7, 7.5–12 or over 12 years), assessment method (self, peer, teacher or mixed) and design (cross-sectional versus longitudinal) were employed for each parenting behavior category where moderation effects were detected. Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 show all moderation effects.

Victims: Communication showed a significant moderating effect according to the assessment method as indicated by the Qb heterogeneity coefficient (Qb = 6.741; p < 0.05) suggesting that studies using peer nomination showed lower levels of communication between the parent and the child (mean ES = −0.494; p < 0.01; N = 1). Warmth and affection category showed significant moderating effects according to the age group (Qb = 7.193; p < 0.05). Children aged 12 years or more were less likely to have warm and affectionate families (mean ES = −0.305; p < 0.001; N = 11) compared to the other age groups. Lastly, supervision category showed moderating effects according to continent (Qb = 16.862; p < 0.001) with European studies finding less supervision for victims (mean ES = −0.311; p < 0.001; N = 1).

Bully-victims: Parental involvement and support showed significant moderator effects according to the assessment method (Qb = 7.03; p < 0.05) suggesting that children who self-reported victimization (mean ES = −0.35; p < 0.001; N = 8) were less likely to have parents who are involved and supportive. Warmth and affection showed significant moderator effects according to continent (Qb = 6.678; p < 0.05), assessment method (Qb = 13.651; p < 0.01) and age group (Qb = 10.704; p < 0.01).

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1101

C p M t t E

P

m f s c t s p

Fig. 3. Peer victimization and negative parenting behavior.

hildren from other continents (mean ES = −0.59; p < 0.001; N = 1), who self-reported victimization (mean ES = −0.58; < 0.001; N = 3) or were over 12 years old (mean ES = −0.52; p < 0.001; N = 4) had parents with less warmth and affection. oreover, maladaptive parenting and overall negative parenting behavior showed significant moderating effects according

o continent (maladaptive parenting: Qb = 32.326; p < 0.001; overall negative parenting: Qb = 20.124; p < 0.001), other con- inents showed strongest maladaptive parenting and overall negative parenting behavior (maladaptive parenting: mean S = 0.94, p < 0.001: N = 2; overall negative parenting behavior: mean ES = 0.92, p < 0.001: N = 2).

ublication bias

A failsafe N and the “5k + 10” benchmark were calculated for all categories (see Tables 2 and 3). For victims, the eta-analysis of authoritative parenting and overprotection did not exceed the benchmark suggesting effects are open

or future disconfirmations. The Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation results for overall negative parenting behavior howed that controversial results from small studies were less likely to be published. Egger’s test showed signifi-

ant results for parental involvement and support and overall positive and negative parenting behavior suggesting hat publication bias might have influenced the estimates. Duval & Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure resulted in lightly different effect sizes for supervision, warmth and affection, overall positive parenting behavior, maladaptive arenting, overprotection and overall negative parenting behavior. For bully/victims, authoritative parenting, communi-

1102 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Fig. 4. Bully/victims and positive parenting behavior.

cation and supervision categories did not exceed the “5k + 10” benchmark suggesting that the effect may change with future studies. The Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation results for all categories were not significant. Egger’s test showed significant results for communication, maladaptive parenting and overall negative parenting behavior suggest- ing that publication bias might have influenced the estimates. Duval & Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure resulted in slightly different effect sizes for parental involvement and support, overall positive parenting behavior, and abuse and neglect.

Discussion

This review finds that both victims and bully/victims are more likely to be exposed to negative parenting. Although the effect sizes were usually small for increasing the risk of being a victim, the effects of negative par- enting were moderate for bully/victims. Abuse and neglect and maladaptive parenting were the best predictors of victim or bully/victim status at school. Furthermore, high parental involvement and support, and warm and affec- tionate relationships were most likely to protect children and adolescents against peer victimization followed by good family communication and supervision. However, protection by positive parenting for becoming a victim of peer bullying was small and at best moderate for bully/victims. These effects were found independent of whether

reported by children themselves, parents, teachers or mixed method. The effects of parenting were found to be gen- erally stronger for bully/victims than victims. Bully/victims have been shown to display the highest level of conduct, school, and peer relationship problems (Juvonen et al., 2003; Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000) and have the great- est risk of developing multiple psychopathologic behaviors compared to pure bullies, pure victims or children who

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1103

a s o

t ( p m m m ( i t ( e t r h c m c o t c

m i e ( o i c e

Fig. 5. Bully/victims and negative parenting behavior.

re not involved in bullying behavior (Kim, Leventhal, Koh, Hubbard, & Boyce, 2006). The reason behind developing uch problems may be partly due to exposure to harsher parenting rather than being a bully and victim simultane- us.

Through their experiences with primary caregivers, children may learn rules and constructs of relationships. According o social learning theories (Bandura, 1978), family-relational schema (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001), and attachment theory Bowlby, 1973), children who grow up in a socially adverse environment where they are exposed to violence may be at articular risk for learning negative relationship patterns. Moreover, research indicates that abused children experience ultiple victimization during their lives (Duncan, 1999). Certain characteristics of the victimized children may make them ore likely to be targets of other forms of assault. For example, some maltreated and abused children may adopt a sub- issive and ingratiating posture with their parents in an effort to maintain their safety in violent and/or chaotic homes

Finkelhor & Browne, 1985; Koenig, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2000). Moreover, children who are exposed to negative parent- ng may learn that they are powerless, have less-confidence and become less able to assert their needs (Duncan, 2004); hey may generalize such behavior to extra familial interactions; and peers may regard them as easy targets for bullying Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993; Wolke & Samara, 2004). On the other hand, some maltreated children display height- ned levels of aggression (Shields & Cicchetti, 1998) and antisocial acts (Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989), which suggests that hey may be more inclined toward bullying behavior. Adverse parenting has also been shown to alter brain and stress eactions that in turn may make children more likely to be targets of bullying (Belsky & de Haan, 2011). On the other and, protective factors, such as positive parenting, may strengthen the child’s self-concept and help to acquire adaptive oping strategies that reduce the chance of peer victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2003) and make the child ore resilient (Rutter, 1987). Although parental involvement and support and high supervision decrease the chances of

hildren involving in bullying behavior, for victims, overprotection increased this risk. It is possible that children with verprotective parents may not develop qualities such as autonomy and assertion (Finnegan et al., 1998), and hence, hey may become easy targets for bullies. It could also be that parents of victims may become overprotective of their hildren.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the cross-sectional nature (N = 62) of ost studies does not allow to differentiate cause and effect. The relationship between parenting and child characteristics

s bidirectional (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Lengua, 2006; i.e. a bullied child may be difficult and thus lead to maladaptive par- nting, or maladaptive parenting could lead to being bullied by peers). However, the few available prospective studies N = 8) provide tentative evidence for temporal priority, i.e. parenting behaviors are precursors of being bullied. Sec-

ndly, only studies published in English were used in the analysis. However, the analysis revealed no publication bias n most of the categories. Thirdly, some of the studies used the same informant (e.g. both being bullied and parenting haracteristics are self-reported by children); hence the results might be inflated by common method variance. How- ver, studies that used different informants revealed similar results and there were no significant differences between

1104 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Table 2 Publication bias analyses for victims.

Victims Fail safe Na

r = 0.05 “5k + 10” benchmarkb

Kendall’s tauc Egger’s testd Trim-and-fill (95% CI)e

Authoritative 24 35 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = 0.22 (−5.94, 6.38) p = 0.46

−0.19 (−0.27, −0.11)

Communication 57 50 −0.25 p = 0.19

ˇ = −1.93 (−6.53, 2.67) p = 0.17

−0.12 (−0.20, −0.05)

Parental involvement & support

1896 140 0.19 p = 0.09

ˇ = −3.34 (−4.76, −1.91) p < 0.001

−0.22 (−0.29, −0.15)

Supervision 354 70 −0.17 p = 0.23

ˇ = −0.21 (−2.44,2.02) p = 0.42

−0.16 (−0.21, −0.12)

Warmth & affection 821 105 −0.02 p = 0.14

ˇ = 0.39 (−1.90, 2.68) p = 0.36

−0.22 (−0.30, −0.13)

Overall positive parenting behavior

10,003 355 0.09 p = 0.13

ˇ = −2.45 (−3.29, −1.61) p < 0.001

−0.17 (−0.21, −0.13)

Abuse & neglect 42 40 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = 0.09 (−3.69,3.87) p = 0.47

0.31 (0.17, 0.44)

Maladaptive parenting 3622 140 0.20 p = 0.07

ˇ = −2.48 (−5.50, 0.54) p = 0.05

0.31 (0.19, 0.43)

Overprotection 6 30 0.17 p = 0.37

ˇ = 0.76 (−5.93, 7.44) p = 0.34

0.09 (0.03, 0.16)

Overall negative parenting behavior

4837 185 0.26 p = 0.01

ˇ = −2.39 (−4.74, −0.04) p = 0.02

0.30 (0.20, 0.39)

a Rosenthal’s failsafe number: the number of the studies that would be required to nullify the observed effect. b Tolerance level around a failsafe N (5 times the number of effect sizes plus 10). c Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test. d Egger’s regression intercept. e Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method (trims the studies from one side to identify the unbiased effect).

assessment methods with regards to parenting behavior variables. Fourthly, most of the studies included did not measure different forms of victimization separately (i.e. physical and relational bullying). Although these two forms of bullying are often both experienced (Wolke et al., 2000), they may be differentially related to personal adjustment (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). Fifthly, although previous studies showed that the parents treat their daughters and sons differently (Starrels, 1994) and the effects of parenting is different for boys and girls (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003), we were not able to analyze the effect sizes separately as most studies did not measure the relationships between par- enting and bullying involvement separately for boys and girls. Finally, substantial heterogeneity was detected within the parenting categories. This may be due to our classification of the various parenting concepts into the eight cate- gories.

In conclusion, our review of 70 studies finds evidence that parenting has small to moderate associations with being bullied, in particular if the child is both a victim and bullies others (bully/victim). Bullying is a substantial problem (World Health Organization, 2012) and involvement in bullying as a victim has long-term mental health and life course conse- quences (Arseneault et al., 2010; Wolke, Copeland, Angold, & Costello, in press). Moreover, previous research has shown that children involved in bullying behavior as bully/victims are at a greater risk for developing behavioral and psycho- logical problems (Juvonen et al., 2003; Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000; Wolke et al., in press). Partly, the reason behind developing such problems may be due to exposure to harsher parenting rather than being a bully and victim simulta- neously. Recent evidence indicates that although bully/victims come from harsher family environments, this difference may by itself only partly explain adverse long-term consequences (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). However, future studies on bullying need to take into account parenting and family adversity when investigating the associations between victimization role and outcomes. General practitioners should routinely enquire about parent–child and peer rela- tionships. Intervention programs that target children who are exposed to harsh or abusive parenting, may prevent peer victimization. Specific parental training programs may be necessary to strengthen supportive involvement and warm and

affectionate parenting to improve family relationships and prevent or reduce victimization by peers (Samara & Smith, 2008).

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1105

Table 3 Publication bias analyses for bully/victims.

Bully/victims Fail safe Na

r = 0.05 “5k + 10” benchmarkb

Kendall’s tauc Egger’s test d Trim-and-fill (95% CI)e

Authoritative parenting

24 25 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = −0.97 (−35.36, 33.41) p = 0.39

−0.39 (−0.61, −0.17)

Communication 2 25 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = −0.07 (−13.13, 12.99) p = 0.02

−0.17 (−0.30, −0.04)

Parental involvement & support

347 65 −0.11 p = 0.32

ˇ = −0.49 (−2.76, 1.79) p = 0.48

−0.26 (−0.37, −0.16)

Supervision 20 25 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = −2.17 (−59.82, −55.48) p = 0.36

−0.34 (−0.54, −0.14)

Warmth & affection 354 45 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = 1.27 (−2.66, 5.20) p = 0.22

−0.41 (−0.52, −0.30)

Overall positive parenting behavior

2065 140 −0.21 p = 0.07

ˇ = −0.15 (−1.64, 1.34) p = 0.42

−0.27 (−0.35, −0.19)

Abuse & neglect 30 25 0.00 p = 0.50

ˇ = 0.12 (−27.96, 28.19) p = 0.48

0.64 (0.41, 0.88)

Maladaptive parenting 2568 75 0.11 p = 0.29

ˇ = −4.29 (−8.07, −0.51) p = 0.02

0.49 (0.23, 0.75)

Overall negative parenting behavior

3306 100 0.04 p = 0.41

ˇ = −4.15 (−7.00, −1.31) p < 0.001

0.48 (0.26, 0.70)

a Rosenthal’s failsafe number: the number of the studies that would be required to nullify the observed effect. b Tolerance level around a failsafe N (5 times the number of effect sizes plus 10).

A

R

A

A A

A

A

B B B B B B B B B B

B

B B

B

B B

c Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test. d Egger’s regression intercept. e Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method (trims the studies from one side to identify the unbiased effect).

cknowledgement

We would like to thank all the authors who supplied the required information to perform the meta-analysis.

eferences

ccordino, D. B., & Accordino, M. P. (2011). An exploratory study of face-to-face and cyberbullying in sixth grade students. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 14–30.

hmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for concern for both families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 35–54. likasifoglu, M., Erginoz, E., Ercan, O., Uysal, O., & Albayrak-Kaymak, D. (2007). Bullying behaviours and psychosocial health: Results from a cross-sectional

survey among high school students in Istanbul, Turkey. European Journal of Pediatrics, 166, 1253–1260. man-Back, S., & Bjorkqvist, K. (2007). Relationship between home and school adjustment: Children’s experiences at ages 10 and 14. Perceptual & Motor

Skills, 104(3 Pt 1), 965L 974. rseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: Much ado about nothing? Psychological

Medicine, 40, 717–729. aldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713–732. aldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 343–355. aldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and victimisation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237–254. aldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 263–284. andura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. andura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 12–29. andura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. aumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. egg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101. elsky, J., & de Haan, M. (2011). Annual research review: Parenting and children’s brain development: The end of the beginning. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 52, 409–428. ender, D., & Lösel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour

and Mental Health, 21, 99–106. eran, T. (2009). Correlates of peer victimization and achievement: An exploratory model. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 348–361. eran, T., Hughes, G., & Lupart, J. (2008). A model of achievement and bullying: Analyses of the Canadian national longitudinal survey of children and youth

data. Educational Research, 50, 25–39.

ooth, C. L. (1994). Predicting social adjustment in middle childhood: The role of preschool attachment security and maternal style. Social Development, 3,

189–204. orenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2011). Comprehensive meta analysis version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. owes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s

bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 545–553.

1106 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Bowlby, J. (1973). . Attachment and loss: Seperation, anxiety and anger New York: Basic Books. Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., Galli, S., & Genta, M. L. (2012). Predictors of victimisation across direct bullying, indirect bullying and cyberbullying.

Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 375–388. Brugha, T. S., Matthews, R., Morgan, Z., Hill, T., Alonso, J., & Jones, D. R. (2012). Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of

observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: Systematic review. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 446–453. Burk, L. R., Park, J., Armstrong, J. M., Klein, M. H., Goldsmith, H. H., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Essex, M. J. (2008). Identification of early child and family risk factors

for aggressive victim status in first grade. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 513–526. Cassidy, T. (2009). Bullying and victimisation in school children: The role of social identity, problem-solving style, and family and school context. Social

Psychology of Education, 12(1), 63–76. Cava, M. J., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Individual and social risk factors related to overt victimization in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Psychological

Reports, 101, 275–290. Cenkseven Onder, F., & Yurtal, F. (2008). An investigation of the family characteristics of bullies, victims, and positively behaving adolescents. Educational

Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 821–832. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Bullying among middle school and high school students – Massachusetts, 2009. MMWR – Morbidity &

Mortality Weekly Report, 60(15), 465–471. Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family

Psychology, 17, 598–606. Chaux, E., Molano, A., & Podlesky, P. (2009). Socio-economic, socio-political and socio-emotional variables explaining school bullying: A country-wide

multilevel analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 520–529. Cheng, S. T., Cheung, K. C. C., & Cheung, C. K. (2008). Peer victimization and depression among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64,

766–776. Cheng, Y., Newman, I. M., Qu, M., Mbulo, L., Chai, Y., Chen, Y., & Shell, D. F. (2010). Being bullied and psychosocial adjustment among middle school students

in China. Journal of School Health, 80, 193–199. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent–child attachment, social self-efficacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development,

12, 351–368. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence.

JAMA Psychiatry, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504 Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

66, 337–347. Curtner-Smith, M. E. (2000). Mechanisms by which family processes contribute to boys’ bullying. Child Study Journal, 30(3), 169–186. Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation to adolescents’ perception of parenting. Journal

of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation, 5, 25–34. Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). The impact of bullying and victimization on students’ relationships. American Journal of Health Education, 43(2),

104–113. Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and

bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471–489. Duncan, R. D. (1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: The relationship between child abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child

Maltreatment, 4(1), 45–55. Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and their victims. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American

schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 227–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duong, M. T., Schwartz, D., Chang, L., Kelly, B. M., & Tom, S. R. (2009). Associations between maternal physical discipline and peer vic-

timization among Hong Kong Chinese children: The moderating role of child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(7), 957–966.

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Reiser, M. (1999). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal

relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Development, 70, 513–534. Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: Examining risk and protective factors. European Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 9, 168–181. Fine, M. A., Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1993). Relations between parental control and warmth and child well-being in stepfamilies. Journal of Family

Psychology, 7, 222–232. Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 530–541. Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with children’s reports of mother–child interaction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076–1086. Fisher, H. L., Moffitt, T. E., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Arseneault, L., & Caspi, A. (2012). Bullying victimisation and risk of self harm in early adolescence:

Longitudinal cohort study. BMJ, 344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2683 Franic, T., Dodig, G., Kardum, G., Marcinko, D., Ujevic, A., & Bilusic, M. (2011). Early adolescence and suicidal ideations in Croatia: Sociodemographic,

behavioral, and psychometric correlates. Crisis, 32, 334–345. Georgiou, S. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 109–125. Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology,

81, 143–154. Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-

sectional studies. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455. Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm: Testing hypotheses from general strain theory. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 39, 446–459. Haynie, D. L., Nansel Tonja, R., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of

at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29–49. Hazemba, A., Siziya, S., Muula, A. S., & Rudatsikira, E. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of being bullied among in-school adolescents in Beijing: Results

from the 2003 Beijing Global School-Based Health Survey. Annals of General Psychiatry, 7, 6. Helweg-Larsen, K., Schutt, N., & Larsen, H. B. (2012). Predictors and protective factors for adolescent Internet victimization: Results from a 2008 nationwide

Danish youth survey. International Journal of Paediatrics, 101(5), 533–539. Herba, C. M., Ferdinand, R. F., Stijnen, T., Veenstra, R., Oldehinkel, A. J., Ormel, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2008). Victimization and suicide ideation in the TRAILS

study: Specific vulnerabilities of victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 867–876. Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A meta-analysis of the similarity in parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 223–254. Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984–994. Holt, M. K., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying

and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 42–63.

J

J

J K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

L L M

M M M

M M

M

M M

N O O P

P

R

R R

R R R R

R

R

R

R

R S

S

S S

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1107

imenez, T. I., Musitu, G., Ramos, M. J., & Murgui, S. (2009). Community involvement and victimization at school: An analysis through family, personal and social adjustment. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 959–974.

ohnson, R. M., Kidd, J. D., Dunn, E. C., Green, J., Greif Corliss, H. L., & Bowen, D. (2011). Associations between caregiver support, bullying, and depressive symptomatology among sexual minority and heterosexual girls: Results from the 2008 Boston youth survey. Journal of School Violence, 10, 185–200.

uvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237. aufman, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Effects of maltreatment on school-age children’s socioemotional development: Assessments in a day-camp setting.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 516–524. elleher, I., Harley, M., Lynch, F., Arseneault, L., Fitzpatrick, C., & Cannon, M. (2008). Association between childhood trauma, bullying and psychotic symptoms

among a school-based adolescent sample. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 378–382. im, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh Yun-Joo Hubbard, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: Causes or consequences of psychopathologic

behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 1035–1041. lomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Niemelä, S., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Gould, M. S. (2009). Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide

attempts and completed suicides: A population-based birth cohort study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 254–261. ochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2003). Children’s coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38,

267–278. oenig, A. L., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2000). Child compliance/noncompliance and maternal contributors to internalization in maltreating and

nonmaltreating dyads. Child Development, 71, 1018–1032. okkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2007). Parental discipline practices and locus of control: Relationship to bullying and victimization experiences of

elementary school students. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 281–301. umpulainen, 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, 1567–1577. add, G. W. (1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family peer relationships. In R. D. Park, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family–peer relationships:

Models of linkage (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. emstra, M. E., Nielsen, G., Rogers, M. R., Thompson, A. T., & Moraros, J. S. (2012). Risk indicators and outcomes associated with bullying in youth aged 9–15

years. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 103, 9–13. engua, L. J. (2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during children’s transition to adolescence. Developmental Psychology,

42, 819–832. inver, M. R., & Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal predictors of early adolescent achievement-related outcomes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(3),

294–318. owenstein, L. F. (1977). Who is the bully? Home and School, 11, 3–4. owenstein, L. F. (1978). The bullied and non-bullied child: A contrast between the popular and unpopular child. Report: ED175200 (15 pp). a, L., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal

of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 628–644. a, T. L., & Bellmore, A. (2012). Peer victimization and parental psychological control in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(3), 413–424. a, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims? American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 351–370. arini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & Ylc, Cura. (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents

involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551–569. esch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 387–393. ishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims bullies and bully–victims. Children

and Youth Services Review, 34, 63–70. ohr, A. (2006). Family variables associated with peer victimization: Does family violence enhance the probability of being victimized by peers? Swiss

Journal of Psychology, 65(2), 107–116. urray-Harvey, R., & Slee, P. T. (2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31(3), 271–295. uula, A. S., Herring, P., Siziya, S., & Rudatsikira, E. (2009). Bullying victimization and physical fighting among Venezuelan adolescents in Barinas: Results

from the Global School-Based Health Survey 2003. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 35(38). akamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221–242. lweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. lweus, D. (2002). Bullying at school. Oxford: Blackwell. erren, S., & Hournung, R. (2005). Bulling and delinquency in adolescence: Victim’s and perpetrators’ family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology,

64(1), 51–64. erry, D. G., Hodges, E. V., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and a new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen,

& S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73–104). New York: The Guildford Press. eijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal

studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244–252. igby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501–513. igby, K., Slee, P. T., & Martin, G. (2007). Implications of inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental health. Journal of

Adolescence, 30, 801–812. osenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. osenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analysis: A review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 247–271. osenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192. othon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the

effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 579–588.

udatsikira, E., Mataya, R. H., Siziya, S., & Muula, A. S. (2008). Association between bullying victimization and physical fighting among Filipino adolescents: Results from the global school-based health survey. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 75(12), 1243–1247.

udatsikira, E., Muula, A. S., & Siziya, S. (2007). Prevalence and associated factors of suicidal ideation among school-going adolescents in Guyana: Results from a cross sectional study. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 3, 13.

udatsikira, E., Muula, A. S., & Siziya, S. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of physical fighting among school-going adolescents in Santiago, Chile. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 30(3), 197–202.

udatsikira, E., Siziya, S., Kazembe, L. N., & Muula, A. S. (2007). Prevalence and associated factors of physical fighting among school-going adolescents in Namibia. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6(18).

utter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331. amara, M. M., & Smith, P. K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying, and the use of whole school policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology,

28, 663–676.

chreier, A., Wolke, D., Thomas, K., Horwood, J., Hollis, C., Gunnell, D., & Harrison, G. (2009). Prospective study of peer victimization in childhood and

psychotic symptoms in a nonclinical population at age 12 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 527–536. chwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755. chwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68,

665–675.

1108 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group. The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 646–662.

Segrin, C., Nevarez, N., Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Family of origin environment and adolescent bullying predict young adult loneliness. Journal of Psychology, 146, 119–134.

Shakoor, S., Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Andreou, P., Happe, F., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2012). A prospective longitudinal study of children’s theory of mind and adolescent involvement in bullying. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 254–261.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381–395.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349–363.

Shin, Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2008). Peer victimization in Korean preschool children: The effects of child characteristics, parenting behaviours and teacher–child relationships. School Psychology International, 29(5), 590–605.

Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27(2), 101–110.

Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel Tonja, R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283–293.

Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parent–child relations. Journal of Family Issues, 15(1), 148–165. Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2002). Relationship of the family environment to children’s involvement in bully/victim problems at

school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(6), 419–428. Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., & Thacker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology:

A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283(15), 2008–2012. Tanigawa, D., Furlong, M. J., Felix, E. D., & Sharkey, J. D. (2011). The protective role of perceived social support against the manifestation of depressive

symptoms in peer victims. Journal of School Violence, 10, 393–412. Totura, C. W. M., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd Ray Divine, K. P., Dunham, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Bullying and victimization among boys

and girls in middle school: The influence of perceived family and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 571–609. Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A

comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672–682. 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, 368–375. Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48,

415–417. Wilson, M. L., Bovet, P., Viswanathan, B., & Suris, J. C. (2012). Bullying among adolescents in a sub-Saharan middle-income setting. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 51, 96–98. Windle, M., Brener, N., Cuccaro, P., Dittus, P., Kanouse, D. E., Murray, N., & Schuster, M. A. (2010). Parenting predictors of early-adolescents’ health behaviors:

Simultaneous group comparisons across sex and ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 594–606. Winsper, C., Lereya, T., Zanarini, M., & Wolke, D. (2012). Involvement in bullying and suicide-related behavior at 11 years: A prospective birth cohort study.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 271–282. Wolke, D., Copeland, W. E., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime and social outcomes. Psychological

Science, in press. Wolke, D., & Samara, M. M. (2004). Bullied by siblings: Association with peer victimisation and behaviour problems in Israeli lower secondary school

children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1015–1029. Wolke, D., Schreier, A., Zanarini, M. C., & Winsper, C. (2012). Bullied by peers in childhood and borderline personality symptoms at 11 years of age: A

prospective study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(8), 846–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02542.x Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000). The association between direct and relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary

school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 989–1002. Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems. Archives of Disease in

Childhood, 85, 197–201. Woods, S., & White, E. (2005). The association between bullying behaviour, arousal levels and behaviour problems. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 381–395. World Helth Organization. (2012). Risk behaviours: Being bullied and bullying others. In C. Currie, C. Zanaotti, A. Morgan, D. Currie, M. de Looze, C. Roberts,

O. Samdal, O. R. F. Smith, & V. Barnekow (Eds.), Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey (pp. 191–200). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe (Health Policy for Children and Adolescents, No. 6).

Yabko, B. A., Hokoda, A., & Ulloa, E. C. (2008). Depression as a mediator between family factors and peer-bullying victimization in Latino adolescents. Violence & Victims, 23(6), 727–742.

Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.

Zwierzynska, K., Wolke, D., & Lereya, T. (2013). Peer victimization in childhood and internalizing problems in adolescence: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(2), 309–323.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu. 2013.03.001.