bullying presentation

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Patterns of Victimization Locations in Elementary School Children: Effects of Grade Level and Gender

Paula J. Fite • Anne Williford • John L. Cooley •

Kathryn DePaolis • Sonia L. Rubens • Eric M. Vernberg

Published online: 19 July 2013 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Background Little research has examined the locations in which youth are victimized, particularly outside the school context. Further, it is not clear if the locations in which

youth are victimized vary as a function of grade level or gender.

Objective The goals of the current study were to: (1) Determine the locations inside and outside of the school context in which elementary school students are most likely to report

being victimized, and (2) Examine whether the locations in which victimization takes place

varies by grade level and gender.

Methods Associations were examined in a sample of 186 2nd thru 5th grade students (52 % male) who reported experiencing victimization.

Results The playground was the most common place in which victimization was reported, followed by home and the neighborhood. Boys were more likely than girls to

report being victimized on the bus or during a sporting activity, while girls were more

likely than boys to report being victimized at home. No grade level effects were found,

suggesting that specific locations of victimization did not become more or less evident at

older grade levels.

Conclusions Findings indicate that there are many locations inside and outside the school context that need to be further monitored for the prevention of victimization and

that gender differences may need to be considered.

Keywords Victimization � Locations � Grade and gender differences

P. J. Fite (&) � J. L. Cooley � S. L. Rubens � E. M. Vernberg Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA e-mail: [email protected]

A. Williford � K. DePaolis School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

123

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 DOI 10.1007/s10566-013-9219-9

Introduction

Peer victimization, or being the object of other children’s aggressive and ostracizing

behavior, is associated with a host of negative outcomes starting in elementary school,

including poor academic performance (Nakamato and Schwartz 2010), aggression and

delinquency (e.g., Hodges et al. 1999; Khatri et al. 2000), depression, anxiety, loneliness,

and low self-esteem (Hawker and Boulton 2000; Reijntjes et al. 2010). Early onset and

duration of peer victimization has significant implications for the development of adjust-

ment problems (Kochenderfer and Ladd 1996), and as such, elementary school age rep-

resents a critical time period for studying children’s experiences of victimization. From a

prevention and intervention perspective it is important to understand where early victim-

ization is most likely to take place so that effective interventions, such as increased adult

monitoring and supervision, can be implemented before more pervasive patterns of vic-

timization are established. Unfortunately, however, our knowledge of where children are

most often victimized has been limited, particularly in elementary school-age students,

with no research to our knowledge examining where peer victimization takes place outside

the school context. Additionally, grade level and gender differences in the locations in

which victimization occurs are not yet clear. The current study significantly advances the

field by being one of the first to assess locations in which elementary school-age children

reported being victimized in and outside the school context and examining grade level and

gender differences in these locations.

Peer Victimization

Peer victimization can take many forms, with research commonly distinguishing between

overt, relational, and cybervictimization. Overt victimization refers to the experience of

being physically attacked (e.g., hit or kicked) or verbally threatened by a peer (Crick et al.

1999; Olweus 2001). In contrast, relational victimization involves being harmed by others

through the manipulation of peer relationships to diminish a child’s reputation, self esteem,

and social status using tactics such as spreading rumors and encouraging peers to exclude a

specific child from desired activities (Crick and Grotpeter 1996), with most research con-

ceptualizing relational victimization as occurring through in-person processes. More

recently, cybervictimization has drawn attention as a distinct form of victimization that

involves being threatened with harm, disparaged, or ostracized through the use of electronic

forms of contact (e.g. sending derogatory or threatening text messages via cell phones or

posting negative comments or photos on social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter;

Hinduja and Patchin 2008; Smith et al. 2008). Although research has found associations

between relational and overt victimization, accumulating evidence suggests cybervictim-

ization is a unique construct. In a recent study, Dempsey et al. (2009), using confirmatory

factor analysis, found the constructs of overt-, relational-, and cyber-victimization, while

overlapping to some degree, formed 3 separate latent factors. Further, Smith (2012) iden-

tified seven characteristics that distinguish cybervictimization from traditional victimiza-

tion, including cybervictimization not being bound by time (e.g. school hours), or place

(e.g., community, neighborhood, or school; also see Slonje et al. 2013).

Peer victimization in multiple forms appears to be a frequent problem for a significant

proportion of children, with all forms of victimization evident during the elementary school-

age years (Turner et al. 2011). Evidence suggests that between 10 and 20 % of students are

severely and repeatedly victimized by their peers (Biggs et al. 2010; Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention 2012; Graham and Juvonen 1998; Kochenderfer-Ladd and Wardrop

586 Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597

123

2001; Nansel et al. 2001; Stadler et al. 2010), and approximately 60 % of elementary school

children report having been exposed to some form of peer victimization (Kochenderfer-

Ladd and Wardrop 2001). More systematic evaluation of the locations in which elementary

school-age children are at risk for experiencing all forms of peer victimization may inform

efforts to prevent the many negative outcomes that arise from persistent peer victimization.

Potential grade and gender differences in locations must be also considered, as some dif-

ferences in forms of victimization across grade and gender have been found.

Considerable debate among researchers has focused on grade and gender differences in

rates of specific forms of peer victimization. Several studies have found that elementary

school-age girls are more likely than boys to be victims of relational aggression (e.g.,

Biggs et al. 2010; Crick and Grotpeter 1995; Galen and Underwood 1997), although other

studies did not find such differences (see Card et al. 2008). There is also evidence sug-

gesting that relational victimization increases as children age and may become more

prominent in girls’ peer networks as they age (Galen and Underwood 1997). Similarly,

there are inconsistencies in findings pertaining to cybervictimization, with some studies

suggesting that girls more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than boys (Dehue et al.

2008; Kowalski and Limber 2007; Wade and Beran 2011; Ybarra and Mitchell 2008) and

other studies finding no gender differences in rates of cybervictimization (Hinduja and

Patchin 2008; Juvoven and Gross 2008; Li 2006; Patchin and Hinduja 2006; Tokunaga

2010; Williams and Guerra 2007). With regard to grade level, some studies have found no

association between grade level and cybervictimization (Juvoven and Gross 2008; Patchin

and Hinduja 2006; Smith et al. 2008), while others have found that cybervictimization is

more prevalent among youth in older grades (Hinduja and Patchin 2008; Kowalski and

Limber 2007; Slonje and Smith 2008). At this point in time, there appears to be a curvi-

linear relationship between grade level and cyberbullying involvement with victimization

peaking in junior high (7th and 8th grades) and then declining in older adolescence

(Ševciková and Šmahel 2009; Tokunaga 2010).

In contrast, gender differences in overt victimization are consistent, with studies most

often finding greater overt victimization for boys than girls (Card et al. 2008) and that overt

aggression appears to decrease in both girls’ and boys’ social networks as they age (Brame

et al. 2001; Côté et al. 2006). Given these gender and grade level difference in victim-

ization, an important extension of the peer victimization literature is to assess for potential

gender and grade level differences in locations of victimization.

Locations of Victimization

To date, only a handful of studies have focused on the locations in which children are most

likely to be victimized, and these studies are primarily limited to victimization within the

school context (i.e., Baldry and Farrington 1999; Bradshaw et al. 2007; Collins et al. 2004;

Craig and Pepler 1997; Craig et al. 2000; deLara 2008; Espelage and Asidao 2001; Fekkes

et al. 2005; Raskauskas 2005; Vaillancourt et al. 2010; Wolke et al. 2001). These studies

suggest that victimization occurs in many locations within the school, but is most likely to

take place in large areas where fewer rules and constraints exist, the ratio of students to

teachers is high, and adults are limited in their ability to monitor and provide supervision

(e.g., Craig et al. 2000). Indeed, the playground is consistently viewed as the location

where children are most likely to be victimized (Craig and Pepler 1997; Craig et al. 2000;

Collins et al. 2004; Fekkes et al. 2005; Wolke et al. 2001). The lunchroom, the hallway, the

bathroom, and the classroom (particularly when the teacher is absent) are other school

locations where high levels of victimization are reported (e.g., Bradshaw et al. 2007;

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 587

123

Collins et al. 2004; Espelage and Asidao 2001; Vaillancourt et al. 2010). Studies have also

found that victimization is also likely to occur on the school bus (Allen et al. 2003; deLara

2008; Raskauskas 2005).

Assessing victimization outside of the school context generally captures victimization

that occurs ‘‘on the way to school,’’ ‘‘from school,’’ and ‘‘at the bus stop’’ (Collins et al.

2004; Vaillancourt et al. 2010). However, it is unlikely that victimization only occurs

within the school context, particularly in light of cyberbullying—a form of victimization

that may also take place at home via cell phone or computer. In fact, a recent study found

that 66 % of fourth through ninth graders have computers in their home and can access

them from the privacy of their bedrooms (Tokunaga 2010). Thus, further research is

needed to understand victimization that occurs outside the school context in order to

further inform prevention and intervention efforts. Importantly, limiting prevention and

intervention efforts to the school context alone may not address all instances of victim-

ization. Improving our understanding of where victimization occurs outside the school

context will help to identify who, other than school personnel, may need to be aware of and

know how to effectively intervene with victimization.

Moreover, although preliminary evidence has identified grade level differences regard-

ing where victimization is most likely to take place, some inconsistencies exist. Bradshaw

et al. (2007) found that victimization among middle school youth occurred more often in the

hallways as compared to elementary and high school students. Vaillancourt et al. (2010)

found that older students felt less safe in the lunchroom, bathroom, and hallways, whereas

elementary school students reported feeling less safe during outside recess time on the

playground. Collins et al. (2004) found that the most common places for primary school

students (year 6 of their education) to report being victimized were in the lunchroom and to

and from school, while post primary school students (year 9 of their education) reported that

victimization was most likely to take place on the playground/athletic field and in the

hallways. Both groups reported victimization in the classroom when the teacher was absent.

Although grade level differences are somewhat mixed across studies, particularly with

regard to the lunchroom, it appears that elementary school students may be more likely to

report being victimized on the playground yet less likely to report being victimized in the

hallway as compared to middle and high school students. Of note, however, students at all

grade levels may be at risk for victimization in the classroom when the teacher is absent.

Further, gender differences in locations of victimization have only been empirically

evaluated in two known studies. Raskauskas (2005) found that there were no gender differ-

ences in rates of victimization on the bus when examining videotaped observations on 30

elementary school bus rides. However, Collins et al. (2004) found that of children in primary

school reported that girls were more likely than boys to be victimized in the classroom. In

contrast, youth in post-primary school reported that girls were more likely than boys to be

victimized in the bathroom and at the school bus stop, whereas boys were more likely to be

victimized at other locations (however, ‘‘other’’ locations were not specified). Further

examination of both grade and gender differences is key for improving our prevention and

intervention efforts. Understanding at what grade and for whom particular locations are more

vulnerable for experiencing victimization will inform the development of additional protection

strategies for youth victimized by their peers (i.e., extra monitoring and contingency plans).

Current Study

In sum, the current study examined locations in which elementary school students reported

being victimized and evaluated whether grade level and gender differences exist in the

588 Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597

123

locations in which victimization occurs. The current study advances the field by examining

victimization locations at school (i.e., lunchroom, hallway, bathroom, classroom, play-

ground), on the bus, and outside the school context (i.e., program or club, sporting activity,

babysitter, at home, in neighborhood). This study further contributes to the literature by

examining grade level and gender differences in victimization locations. Consistent with

prior elementary school research, victimization rates were expected to be the highest on the

playground (Craig and Pepler 1997; Craig et al. 2000; Collins et al. 2004; Fekkes et al.

2005; Wolke et al. 2001), where adult monitoring is difficult and fewer rules and con-

straints exist. Victimization rates among elementary school-age students were also

expected to be high in other locations in which monitoring is more difficult, such as the

hallway, the bathroom, the bus, and in the neighborhood. No specific hypotheses regarding

grade level or gender differences in locations were posited, however, given the unclear

findings from the limited research available.

Method

Participants

Participants for this study included 186 students in 2nd thru 5th grade from an elementary

school in a small Midwestern town. Second through fifth grade students at this school were

recruited in two ways: (1) during school enrollment days just prior to school starting, and (2)

through letters and consent forms sent home at the beginning of the school year that could

mailed back in a pre-addressed, stamped envelope to the research lab. Of the 490 students

enrolled in the school, 360 (73.4 %) parental consent forms were received. Of those

received, 318 (88 %) consented for their children to participate and a total of 294 students

actually completed the study measures. The remaining 24 students with written consent did

not participate in data collection due to moving prior to data collection (n = 2), absent or

unavailable during the data collection period (n = 18), or declining to participate (n = 4).

The final sample for the current study is comprised of the 186 (63 %) participants who

reported experiencing at least one instance of peer victimization within the first 2 months

of school. The sample included 96 males and 90 females ranging from 7 to 11 years of age

(M = 8.65, SD = 1.19). School records indicate that the majority of the students are

Caucasian, with less than 20 % of the student body identifying with an ethnic/racial

minority group. The demographic make-up of the sample is representative of the entire

school, with similar gender and grade level distributions. City data indicate that per capita

income is approximately $25,369, and the school reported that approximately 35 % of the

entire student body receives free or reduced fee lunch.

Measures

Peer Victimization

Children’s self-reports of victimization were assessed using 9 items of the Victimization of

Self (VS) scale from the Peer Experiences Questionnaire used in prior research with ele-

mentary school-age children (e.g., Biggs et al. 2010; Dill et al. 2004; Vernberg et al. 2011)

and three new items intended to reflect children’s experiences of cybervictimization

(Vernberg, personal communication). Overt victimization items reflected physically

aggressive behavior (e.g., a kid hit, kicked or pushed me in a mean way; a kid grabbed, held,

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 589

123

or touched me in a way I didn’t like). Relational victimization items reflected behaviors that

were hurtful to the child by the manipulation of peer relationships (e.g., a kid told lies about

me so other kids wouldn’t like me; some kids left me out of thing just to be mean to me).

Cybervictimization items reflected the use of electronic forms of contact to disparage or

ostracize the child (e.g., a kid used email, instant messaging, or a chat room to turn other

kids against me; a kid used a webspace such as MySpace or Facebook to say mean things

about me). Participants were asked to rate the frequency of such occurrences since the

beginning of the current school year (i.e., over a 10-week period) on a 5-point scale ranging

from 1 (Never) to 5 (Several Times a Week). A dichotomous variable of whether or not a

student endorsed any of the above items was created and used for location analyses. Internal

consistency of the overall sample was good (a = .87). For descriptive purposes, items for each form of victimization were summed to create an

overall score for each subscale, with higher scores indicating more severe experiences of

victimization. Each subscale demonstrated adequate internal consistency (a = .72 for overt victimization, a = .80 for relational victimization, and a = .79 for cybervictimization) in the current sample. Mean scores of relational victimization were 8.63 (SD = 4.05), means

scores of overt victimization were 5.74 (SD = 2.73), and mean scores of cybervictimization

were 3.46 (SD = 1.61). Correlations between these subscales ranged from .70 (relational-

overt) to .57 (overt-cyber), suggesting related but distinct forms of victimization.

Location of Peer Victimization

Upon completion of the VS scale, participants were then asked to report globally where

these acts of victimization occurred. Participants were given a list of five locations asso-

ciated with the school context (i.e., lunchroom, hallway, bathroom, classroom, play-

ground), on the bus, and five locations outside of the typical school context (i.e., program

or club, sporting activity, babysitter, at home, in my neighborhood) and asked to indicate

whether or not (yes/no) they had experienced victimization in each of the locations.

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the researchers’ institutional review board as well

as the school district’s administrators and board prior to data collection. Participants

completed the survey in their classroom during the school day approximately 2 months

into the Fall semester. The research team came to the school on two separate days to

administer the survey, with 4th and 5th graders completing the survey on 1 day and 2nd

and 3rd graders completing the survey on a second day. There were 2–3 trained research

team members in each classroom; one researcher in each room read all survey items aloud

while the others walked around the room to help answer questions. Most students com-

pleted the survey in 30 min. No school personnel were present in the room while surveys

were administered in order to maintain student confidentiality. Participants provided verbal

assent prior to starting the survey, and each classroom received a $75 gift card for school

supplies as a thank you for participating.

Results

Among this sample of children (n = 186) who reported at least one recent incident of peer

victimization, most (91.9 %) reported one or more instance of relational victimization,

590 Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597

123

57 % reported experiencing at least one instance of overt victimization, and 11.8 %

reported experiencing at least one instance of cybervictimization.

Rates of victimization in the various locations are reported in Table 1. McNemar’s Chi

square test was used to evaluate whether the endorsement rate of particular locations was

significantly different from other locations. Note that a Chi square value is not provided in

SPSS, only a p value is reported. Victimization most often occurred on the playground

(p = .00). Also within the school setting, the lunchroom and hallway were common

locations in which victimization occurred, and they occurred at similar rates (p = .13).

Interestingly, less than 11 % of children reported being victimized in the classroom, which

is significantly less than reported in the lunchroom (p = .02) but similar to rates reported in

the hallway (p = .46). The bathroom was the location least likely for children to report

being victimized in the school setting (p = .04). The school bus was another common

location for victimization to occur, with rates similar to the lunchroom (p = .20).

Outside the school context, children were equally as likely to experience victimization

at home and in their neighborhood (p = .44). Additionally, children reported that vic-

timization occurs at programs and clubs. However, rates of victimization at a babysitter or

sporting activity were of similarly low rates (p [ .50), with less than 10 % of youth reporting being victimized in these settings.

Associations between grade level and victimization locations were evaluated using correla-

tion analyses. As seen in Table 2, grade level was not correlated with any victimization location.

That is, no location becomes more or less evident for victimization at higher grade levels.

Pearson Chi square tests were then estimated in order to evaluate gender differences in

victimization locations (See Table 3); only 3 gender differences emerged. Specifically,

boys were more likely to report victimization on the bus than girls. Additionally, there was

a marginally statistically significant trend (p = .056) for boys to be more likely to report

victimization during sporting events than girls. In contrast, girls were more likely to report

victimization at home than boys.

Discussion

The current study examined locations in which elementary school students reported being

victimized by peers and evaluated whether locations varied as a function of gender and

Table 1 Rates of endorsement for particular locations of victimization

Location % Reported

Playground 58.4

At home 31.4

In neighborhood 27

On the bus 24.9

Lunchroom 18.9

Program or club 15.7

Hallway 13.5

Classroom 10.8

Sporting activity 7

Babysitter 5.9

Bathroom 4.9

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 591

123

grade. The present study extends previous research by examining locations outside the

school context and by further evaluating grade and gender differences in victimization

locations. The playground was by far the location in which victimization was most likely to

occur, followed by home, the neighborhood, and on the bus. Although three gender dif-

ferences in locations of victimization were evident, grade level differences in these loca-

tions were not found. Specific findings and their implications are described in turn.

As anticipated, the playground was the most common location for victimization to

occur. Additionally, the lunchroom was a common location in which youth were victim-

ized within the school context. Findings are consistent with previous research, which has

found that victimization at school most often occurs on the playground and in other

locations in which monitoring is limited and rules and expectations are not as well defined

(Bradshaw et al. 2007; Collins et al. 2004; Craig and Pepler 1997; Craig et al. 2000;

Espelage and Asidao 2001; Vaillancourt et al. 2010). Strategies to improve adult moni-

toring (e.g., additional adult monitors strategically placed on the playground) and provide

Table 2 Correlations among locations and grade level

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Lunchroom –

2. Hallway .29** –

3. Bathroom .15* .21** –

4. Classroom .28** .27** .16* –

5. Playground -.04 .05 .04 .05 –

6. On the Bus .04 -.08 .04 .00 -.17* –

7. P/C .13 .00 -.03 .14 .00 .17* –

8. Sport .03 .02 .04 .04 .10 .18* .00 –

9. Sitter -.06 .17* .05 -.01 .07 .07 -.11 -.07 –

10. At Home .03 .14 -.04 .03 .03 -.01 -.07 .04 .03 –

11. Neighbor .05 .15* .09 -.02 .05 .13 .04 -.02 -.05 -.07 –

12. Grade .10 .06 -.08 .05 .01 -.09 -.11 .02 -.09 -.07 .04 –

N = 186; * p \ .05, ** p \ .01; P/C program or club, Neighbor neighborhood

Table 3 Evaluation of gender differences in locations of victimization

Boys (n) Girls (n) v2

Lunchroom 14 21 2.23

Hallway 14 11 .25

Bathroom 4 5 .18

Classroom 9 11 .36

Playground 51 57 1.77

On the bus 32 14 8.13*

Program or club 11 18 2.48

Sporting activity 10 3 3.66 �

Babysitter 7 4 .71

At home 22 36 6.09*

In neighborhood 30 20 2.05

* p \ .05; � p \ .06

592 Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597

123

added structure (e.g., organized games and activities for the students to choose from)

appear to be warranted.

Students also reported being victimized in the hallway and the classroom, but less so

than other locations, and rates reported in the current sample were lower than rates reported

in other studies examining these victimization locations in elementary school (e.g., Fekkes

et al. 2005; Vaillancourt et al. 2010). It may be that teachers in this school are more likely

to be present in these locations, and thus be aware of victimization that takes place among

students. We are aware of existing anti-bullying training for staff and enhanced monitoring

practices within this school (e.g., adult hall monitors before/after school). We note,

however, that although victimization appears to be less likely to occur in the hallway and

classroom, the rates of victimization as a whole are not lower, suggesting that the issue of

victimization persists. Thus, further research and interventions focusing on preventing

victimization in other locations are necessary to curtail victimization.

Interestingly, very few children reported being victimized in the bathroom (\5 %), which is a common location endorsed in prior studies (e.g., Espelage and Asidao 2001). At

the school in which data were collected children are required to be escorted by an adult to

the bathroom. The additional monitoring of bathrooms in this school context may account

for the low rates of victimization reported by students. This finding suggests that appro-

priate monitoring can prevent this location from being a ‘‘hotspot’’ for victimization.

However, it is possible the bathroom may be a more common location for victimization in

middle and high schools, when students visit the restroom in between classes and the flow

of traffic in and out is more difficult to monitor.

The school bus was an important ‘‘hotspot’’ for victimization in the present study.

Findings are consistent with previous research (Allen et al. 2003; deLara 2008; Raskauskas

2005) and further suggest the need to intervene while children are being transported.

Although prior research has not found gender differences in victimization on the bus when

using videotaped observations (Raskauskas 2005), results of the present study suggest that

victimization on the bus is particularly prevalent for boys. In light of findings that boys

report higher rates of overt victimization than girls (Card et al. 2008), it is possible that the

school bus represents a context where verbal taunts and physical forms of victimization

may be more likely, thus placing boys at a greater risk for experiencing victimization

within this context. However, further replication of these gender differences as well as

investigations to determine factors that contribute to these differences in locations are

needed to develop prevention and intervention strategies specific to girls and boys.

Previous research has documented that school bus drivers often observe victimization,

yet reports of these incidents to school personnel are often ignored (deLara 2008). Thus,

school-based anti-bullying efforts, including policies and practices, must extend to the

school bus context. Prior intervention recommendations by bus drivers themselves have

included: using behavioral strategies to prevent victimization (i.e., assigned seating),

building a positive relationship with all students, and holding parents and students

accountable for behavior on the bus (deLara 2008). However, empirical investigation of

these potential strategies is needed in order to identify which strategies are most effective.

When examining locations outside the school context, victimization was most likely to

be reported at home and the neighborhood. The neighborhood is certainly a large location,

where monitoring is more difficult and there are fewer rules and behavioral demands

(Craig et al. 2000), which may account for the increased rate of victimization reported in

this study.

However, the finding for increased rates of victimization at home is not as clear.

Further, girls (relative to boys) appear to be at an increased risk for victimization at home.

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 593

123

Although the form of victimization could not be assessed in these locations, it is possible

that the increased rates of victimization among girls reported at home may capture

experiences through electronic means. While evidence on gender differences in cyber-

victimization is largely inconclusive, some studies have found that girls experience more

cybervictimization than boys (e.g., Dehue et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2008).

In the present study, we were unable to determine if the victimization occurring at home

takes place while parents are present and to what degree monitoring is taking place when

victimization occurs. This is an important direction for future research, particularly in light

of the growing body of evidence on cybervictimization. Research suggests that when

parents’ directly monitor their child’s online activities the risk for victimization can be

reduced (Hinduja and Patchin 2008). Yet parents often know little about their child’s

activities online (David-Feron and Feldman 2007). Consequently, an important direction

for future research is to identify appropriate strategies for parents to protect their child from

electronic forms of victimization.

There was a significant portion of students ([15 %) who reported being victimized at a program or club. Adult monitoring/supervision and child to adult ratios will vary across

after school clubs and programs. As previously reported (Craig et al. 2000), victimization

is most likely to occur in less structured environments, especially when the child to adult

ratio is high. In contrast, relatively low rates (\8 %) of youth reported being victimized at the babysitters or sporting activity, and there was a trend (p \ .06) for boys to be more often victimized at a sporting activity than girls. These lower rates may be due to these

locations being better monitored and a smaller child to adult ratio. On the other hand, it

may be that fewer children receive after school care by a babysitter or attend sporting

activities, particularly among elementary school students, resulting in fewer youth

endorsing these locations. Nonetheless, it appears that these locations may not be con-

sidered ‘‘hotspots’’ for victimization among elementary school age youth.

No grade level differences in victimization locations were found in the present study.

Prior research has found mixed results regarding differences among elementary school and

older students (e.g., Bradshaw et al. 2007; Collins et al. 2004; Vaillancourt et al. 2010). Yet

the current study focused only on elementary school-age youth; thus, grade level differ-

ences may not be evident when focusing solely on elementary school students. It will be

particularly important for future research to evaluate grade and gender differences in

locations for middle and high school students.

Several limitations need to be considered when interpreting the results of the current

study. First, although it is important to examine associations in the current age sample,

findings should be interpreted as age specific. That is, current findings may not generalize

to middle and high school age students, as previous research has suggested that ele-

mentary school-age children may not be victimized in the same locations as middle and

high school students (Bradshaw et al. 2007; Collins et al. 2004; Vaillancourt et al. 2010).

Additionally, our list of locations was not all-inclusive. Other locations, such as friends’

homes, birthday parties and other social gatherings, need to be evaluated. The current data

are also limited in that we were not able to evaluate whether the forms of victimization

occur at different rates in various locations given that a global assessment of victimization

locations was utilized. Further, it is not clear from our data who the aggressor is or the

characteristics of the aggressor in these locations. Future research evaluating the various

forms of victimization, who is aggressing (e.g., siblings, older children, same age peers),

and characteristics of the aggressor (e.g., impulsivity level, gender) in various locations

would be helpful to better educate adults on how to identify and intervene with victim-

ization in hopes of preventing subsequent victimization and its associated negative

594 Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597

123

outcomes. Finally, we did not ask whether students had access to the various locations that

we assessed in the current study. For example, some children may not attend a program or

club, providing less opportunity for victimization to occur in this location. It will be

important for future studies that examine the locations where peer victimization occurs to

consider student access to specific locations and how frequently they are victimized in the

location.

Despite these limitations, the current study has several important implications for the

prevention of peer victimization. First and foremost, our findings suggest that better

coordination of prevention and intervention efforts between adults both within and outside

of the school and at home must occur. Schools would greatly benefit by extending anti-

bullying training to bus drivers, after school program coordinators, and sports club leaders,

to name a few, such that consistent monitoring and intervention with students are possible.

Moreover, schools’ anti-bullying policies would be strengthened by including clear

reporting and investigation procedures so that adults on the periphery of the school know

how to report such incidents and how these incidents will be investigated by school

personnel. Of note, however, the role of schools in addressing victimization that occurs off

school grounds or outside of school-sponsored activities is presently unclear. In fact, the

U.S. Department of Education issued guidance to public schools suggesting that victim-

ization that creates a significant disruption of the school environment, even when occurring

outside of the school context, is the school’s responsibility to address (Stuart-Cassel et al.

2011). It might be necessary, however, to have school districts’ legal counsel review any

anti-bullying policy language to clarify the degree to which outside activities are the

responsibility of the school.

Moreover, enhanced communication and coordination between school personnel and

parents is critical for preventing and intervening with students victimized by their peers

within as well as outside the school context. The results of the present study suggest that,

particularly for girls, parents may play a key role in preventing and intervening with

victimization at home. Prevention and intervention efforts would likely benefit from out-

lining steps parents can take to monitor their child’s online activities and their cell phone

usage. Finally, the locations in which victimization occurs appear to be consistent across

all grade levels in this elementary school sample, suggesting that strategies and locations

for monitoring may be the same for all elementary school-age students.

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Allen, M., Young, E. L., Ashbaker, B. Y., Heaton, E., & Parkinson, M. (2003). Sexual harassment on the school bus: Supporting and preparing bus drivers to respond appropriately. Journal of School Violence, 2(4), 101–108. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20#.UdDvk-vEizY.

Baldry,A.C.,&Farrington,D.P.(1999).TypesofbullyingamongItalianschoolchildren.JournalofAdolescence,22(3), 423–426.Retrievedfromhttp://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-adolescence.

Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., Little, T. D., & Dill, E. J. (2010). Peer victimization trajectories and their association with children’s affect in late elementary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(2), 136–146. doi:10.1177/0165025409348560.

Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 361–382. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/index-list.aspx.

Brame, B., Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Developmental trajectories of overt aggression from school entry to late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(4), 503–512. doi:10. 1017/S0021963001007120.

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 595

123

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and rela- tions to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185–1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Understanding bullying—Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/BullyingFactsheet2012-a.pdf.

Collins, K., McAleavy, G., & Adamson, G. (2004). Bullying in schools: A Northern Ireland study. Edu- cational Research, 46(1), 55–71. doi:10.1080/0013188042000178827.

Côté, S., Vaillancourt, T., LeBlanc, J., Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre-adolescence: A nation wide longitudinal study of Canadian chil- dren. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 34(1), 71–85. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-9001-z.

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13(2), 41–59. doi:10.1177/082957359801300205.

Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22–36. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 579–588. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.376.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. doi:10.2307/1131945.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 367–380. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007148.

David-Feron, C., & Feldman, M. H. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S1–S5. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.020.

Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental per- ceptions. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217–223. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0008.

deLara, E. W. (2008). Bullying and aggression on the school bus: School bus drivers’ observations and suggestions. Journal of School Violence, 7(3), 48–70. doi:10.1080/15388220801955554.

Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Nichols, R., & Storch, E. A. (2009). Differences between peer vic- timization in cyber and physical settings and associated psychological adjustment in early adolescence. Psychology in Schools, 46, 962–972. doi:10.1002/pits.20437.

Dill, E. J., Vernberg, E. M., Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., & Gamm, B. K. (2004). Negative affect in victimized children: The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and attitudes towards bullying. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 159–173. doi:10.1023/B:JACP.0000019768.31348.81.

Espelage, D. L., & Asidao, C. S. (2001). Conversations with middle school students about bullying and victimization: Should we be concerned? Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 49–62. doi:10.1300/ J135v02n02_04.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20(1), 81–91. doi:10.1093/her/cyg100.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589–600. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.589.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587–599. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587.

Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00629.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 94–101. doi:10. 1037/0012-1649.35.1.94.

Juvoven, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. The Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x.

Khatri, P., Kupermidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. (2000). Aggression and peer victimization as predictors of self- reported behavioral and emotional adjustment. Aggressive Behavior, 26(5), 345–358. doi:10.1002/ 1098-2337(2000)26:5.

Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school malad- justment? Child Development, 67(4), 1305–1317. doi:10.2307/1131701.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Wardrop, J. L. (2001). Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 134–151. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00270.

596 Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597

123

Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22–S30. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017.

Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157–170. doi:10.1177/0143034306064547.

Nakamato, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta- analytic review. Social Development, 19(2), 221–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 5–20). New York: The Guilford Press.

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyber- bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. doi:10.1177/1541204006286288.

Raskauskas, J. (2005). Bullying on the school bus: A video analysis. Journal of School Violence, 4(3), 93–107. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20#.UdD3WevEizY.

Reijntjes, 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 and Neglect, 34(4), 244–252. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009.

Ševciková, A., & Šmahel, D. (2009). Online harassment and cyberbullying in the Czech Republic. Zeits- chrift für Psychologie, 217(4), 227–229. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.227.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x.

Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.

Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety (pp. 93–103). New York: Routledge.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x.

Stadler, C., Feifel, J., Rohrmann, S., Vermeiren, R., & Poustka, F. (2010). Peer victimization and mental health problems in adolescents: Are parental and school support protective? Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(4), 371–386. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0174-5.

Stuart-Cassel, V., Bell, A., & Springer, J. F. (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review a synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009. 11.014.

Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S. L., Shattuck, A., & Ormrod, R. K. (2011). Specifying type and location of peer victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(8), 1052–1067. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9639-5.

Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., et al. (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 40–54. doi:10.1177/0829573509358686.

Vernberg, E. M., Nelson, T. D., Fonagy, P., & Twemlow, S. W. (2011). Victimization, aggression, and visits to the school nurse for somatic complaints, illness, and physical injury. Pediatrics, 127(5), 842–848. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3415.

Wade, A., & Beran, T. (2011). Cyberbullying: The new era of bullying. The Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26(1), 44–61. doi:10.1177/0829573510396318.

Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14–S21. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., & Schulz, H. (2001). Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology, 92(4), 673–696. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.548.

Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, J. K. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121(2), e350–e357. doi:10. 1542/peds.2007-0693.

Child Youth Care Forum (2013) 42:585–597 597

123

Copyright of Child & Youth Care Forum is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.