Correlates and Consequences of Peer Victimization: Gender Differences in Direct and Indirect Forms of Bullying

• Author: Kristin Carbone-Lopez,Bradley T. Brick,Finn-Aage Esbensen
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204010362954
• Published date: 01 October 2010
• Date: 01 October 2010
• Subject Matter: Articles

Correlates and Consequences

of Peer Victimization: Gender

Differences in Direct and

Indirect Forms of Bullying

Kristin Carbone-Lopez,

1

Finn-Aage Esbensen,

1

and Bradley T. Brick

2

Abstract

Research on school-based violence and bullying suggests that males are more likely to be both

perpetrators and victims of bullying. Because of this, until recently, the experiences of females have

been somewhat overlooked. Evidence suggests, however, that definition and measurement issues

may be at play; girls, for instance, are more likely than boys to experience indirect forms of bullying

such as teasing. To what extent have the correlates and consequences of bullying victimization been

misspecified due to an emphasis on direct forms of bullying, such as physical violence, which dispro-

portionately affects boys? The authors use data from two waves of a longitudinal panel study of 1,222

youths in 15 schools across the United States to address this question by examining the correlates

and consequences for both boys and girls of two forms of bullying. Findings suggest a number of

important gender similarities and differences in indirect and direct bullying victimization.

Keywords

bullying, school victimization, gender differences, consequences of victimization

A great deal of attention in recent years has been paid to violence within schools, particularly bully-

ing. Likely due, at least in part, to intense media coverage following a number of school shooting

incidents in the United States and Europe, the research community has sought a greater understand-

ing of school violence with the goal of preventing such tragedies. Media exposure and the resulting

flurry of research have largely focused on the more dramatic victimization experiences, such as

school shootings, or on other forms of serious violence such as assault and robbery, despite the fact

that these are relatively rare occurrences.

Other forms of victimization, including teasing and relational aggression, may actually present a

greater threat within schools because they tend to be much more prevalent. For example, the School

1

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri, St. Louis, USA

2

Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kristin Carbone-Lopez, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri, 324 Lucas Hall, One Uni-

versity Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA.

Email: carbonelopezk@umsl.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

8(4) 332-350

ªThe Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204010362954

http://yvjj.sagepub.com

332

Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey suggests that prevalence rates of

these indirect forms of victimization are, in some cases, more than twice the rates of physical

violence occurring within schools (Dinkes, Cataldi, Lin-Kelly, & Snyder, 2007). Yet, the

disproportionate attention to the most extreme forms of violence has resulted in greater focus on the

experiences of boys as they are more likely to be involved as both perpetrators and victims in overt

physical forms of victimization. The ‘‘more insidious threats’’ to safety—including the indirect

forms of bullying that girls are more likely to experience—have received somewhat less attention

by academics and school officials alike (Stein, Tolman, Porche, & Spencer, 2002).

The current study examines both direct and indirect bullying in an effort to understand bullying

victimization more fully. Longitudinal panel data allow us to separate repeated experiences of vic-

timization (i.e., across multiple data points) from those that occur more intermittently. Using data

collected from a sample of American students attending 15 schools in nine cities across four states,

we explore gender differences in the correlates and consequences of bullying victimization among

middle-school aged students. First, we question whether known correlates of bullying victimization,

such as race/ethnicity and school-level contextual effects, are similar or unique for boys and girls.

Second, we explore a range of outcomes or consequences of such victimization for both boys and

girls, focusing specifically on whether such consequences differ by gender and type of victimization.

Of particular interest are the consequences that bullying experiences have for involvement in

delinquent behavior.

Answers to these questions have potentially important implications for school safety policies and

programming. Current efforts largely focus on the prevention of physical violence, particularly the

use of weapons, in schools and zero tolerance policies (indeed, even metal detectors) have become

standard practice in most school districts for ensuring school safety. The existing focus on overt

forms of aggression and violence within schools may mean that interventions predominantly target

boys, whether intentionally or not. Other aspects of safety within schools, which may in fact be more

salient to students themselves, such as threats to their ‘‘psychological and social safety,’’ are largely

ignored (Stein et al., 2002). If, in fact, other types of victimization have similar or greater negative

consequences on victims’ well-being, this focus on physical violence may be misguided. Moreover,

gender and racial differences in the experiences of various forms of bullying victimization may

indicate the need for more tailored programming for specific target groups.

Bullying Victimization and Its Correlates

Although there is still some debate concerning what specifically constitutes bullying, more

researchers are adopting the definition advocated by Olweus (1993). His definition includes the fol-

lowing criteria: (a) physically harming a person (e.g., hitting, kicking, and pushing) or indirect forms

of victimization including making fun of, excluding, and/or spreading rumors about a person;

(b) victimization that occurs repeatedly over time; and (c) victims who do not have equal strength

or power to the bully (see also Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Olweus, 1996; Solberg, Olweus, &

Endreson, 2007; Sourander, Helstela, Helenius, & Piha, 2000).

1

While early research largely relied

on students’ answers to a generic question asking whether they had ever been ‘‘bullied,’’ more recent

research relies on multiple behavior-specific questions measuring both indirect and direct forms to

better identify victims of bullying (Andreou, 2000; Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Borg, 1999; Boulton,

Trueman, & Flemington, 2002; Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach,

& Unger, 2004; Seals & Young, 2003; Unnever & Cornell, 2003).

Most analyses of bullying victimization have found that students more commonly report

experiencing teasing, being picked on, or having rumors spread about them as opposed to the direct,

physical forms of bullying (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Borg, 1999; Dinkes et al., 2007; Rivers

& Smith, 1994). This relational aggression is generally more covert than physical threats and

Carbone-Lopez et al. 333

333