See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/13845662

Individual Risk and Social Risk as Interacting Determinants of Victimization

in the Peer Group

Article  in  Developmental Psychology · December 1997

DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1032 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

776 2,704

3 authors, including:

Ernest Hodges David Perry

St. John's University Florida Atlantic University
55 PUBLICATIONS   5,609 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   8,181 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernest Hodges on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Developmental Psychology Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1997, Vol. 33, No. 6, 1032-1039 0012-1649/97/S3.00

Individual Risk and Social Risk as Interacting Determinants

of Victimization in the Peer Group
Ernest V. E. Hodges, Maurice J. Malone, and David G. Perry
Florida Atlantic University

This study evaluated the hypothesis that the behavior problems that place children at risk for victim-
ization by peers are associated with victimization primarily when children are also at social risk for
victimization. Social risk was defined as lacking supportive friends or as being rejected by the peer
group. Participants were 229 boys and girls in the 3rd through 7th grades (M age = 1 1 years 2
months). As predicted, behavior problems (internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

physical weakness) were more strongly related to victimization when children had few friends, had
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

friends who were incapable of fulfilling a protective function (e.g., were physically weak), or were
rejected by peers than when children had more friends, had friends capable of defending them, or
were better liked by peers. Results illustrate the principle that individual risk variables depend on
social context for expression.

Recent research has drawn attention to the existence and the
plight of children who serve habitually as targets of peer aggres-
sion (Olweus, 1978; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988). Victimiza-
tion, like aggression, is highly stable over the school years (Ep-
stein, 1990; Khatri, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994; Olweus,
1978) and is associated with a variety of negative adjustment
outcomes across a wide age span. For example, kindergartners
who are victimized in the fall of the school year are likely to
avoid school and to report feelings of loneliness in the spring
(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). Elementary schoolers who are
victimized show gains in depression over time (Hodges, Ma-
lone, & Perry, 1995; Khatri et al., 1994; Kupersmidt & Khatri,
1995). "Young adolescents who are abused by peers report ele-
vated depression and low self-esteem 10 years later in adulthood
(Olweus, 1992).
In an effort to understand the factors that place children at risk
for victimization, several investigators have focused on proximal
influences operating within the peer group, especially forms of
social impairment exhibited by children that might contribute
to their victimization. The guiding assumption has been that
victimized children behave in ways that invite or reinforce at-
tacks against them. A growing literature confirms the validity
of this premise. Many victimized children exhibit behaviors
that very probably signal that they will be unlikely to defend
themselves successfully against attacks: They cry easily, are
Ernest V. E. Hodges, Maurice J. Malone, and David G. Perry, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University.
We express appreciation to William M. Bukowski, who shared ideas
and data that inspired certain analyses reported in this article. This
research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 89-
07558. We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the faculty and
students of the A. D. Henderson University School.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David
G. Perry, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, Florida 33431. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to perrydg
@fau.edu.
1032
manifestly anxious, lack humor, lack self-confidence and self-
esteem, and use ineffectual persuasion tactics; moreover, they
reward their attackers by being submissive and by relinquishing
resources (Olweus, 1978; Patterson, Littman, & Bricker, 1967;
Perry et al., 1988; Perry, Williard, & Perry, 1990; Pierce, 1990;
Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993). Many of the foregoing attri-
butes are consistent with a picture of the victimized child as
having "internalizing difficulties." In addition, victimized chil-
dren tend to be physically weak (Olweus, 1978). Longitudinal
work indicates that internalizing difficulties and physical weak-
ness contribute to gains in victimization over time; they are not
simply correlates or consequences of it (Hodges et al., 1995;
Schwartz et al., 1993). It should be noted that some victimized
children also display ' 'externalizing problems,'' such as disrup-
tiveness, ineffectual aggression, and argumentativeness (Ol-
weus, 1978; Perry et al., 1988; Perry, Perry, & Kennedy, 1992).
These behaviors very likely serve to irritate and provoke other
children, especially bullies; victimized children with these attri-
butes are sometimes called "provocative victims" (Olweus,
1978).
Like the foregoing studies, the present investigation is also
premised on the idea that children's behavioral attributes con-
tribute to their victimization, but it is built on the additional idea
that the relation of behavioral vulnerabilities to victimization
depends on social context factors residing in the peer group. In
particular, the present investigation tested a theory of victimiza-
tion that holds that chronic victimization occurs mainly when a
child not only possesses a behavior problem that places the
child at risk for victimization but also occupies a social position
in the peer group that invites, disinhibits, or permits aggressive
attacks toward the child by other children. We propose that a
child who possesses a behavioral vulnerability (e.g., internaliz-
ing problems, physical weakness) or who is behaviorally irritat-
ing to peers (e.g., displays externalizing behaviors) is likely to
become chronically victimized primarily when the child either
(a) lacks friends who can support and protect the child against
aggressors or (b) is generally rejected by the peer group. We
 VICTIMIZATION BY PEERS
suggest that both of these aspects of a child's social relations,
which we refer to as social risk factors, are visible and known
to other children in the peer group, including aggressive chil-
dren, and serve to elicit and to excuse chronic aggression toward
children with behavioral difficulties. In contrast, children who
have behavior problems but are fortunate to have supportive
friends or to be better accepted generally by the peer group
should be protected from chronic victimization. The roles of
these two social risk factors—the lack of allies in the form of
friends and peer rejection—are discussed in turn.
Children's friendships serve many important developmental
functions (Hartup, 1993), but one function that has received
relatively little attention is a protective function. Several investi-
gators (Bukowski, Sippola, & Boivin, 1995; Rizzo, 1989) have
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
proposed that having one or more supportive friends protects
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
children against victimization. Children know very well who is
friends with whom (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, &
Gariepy, 1988), and aggressive children probably prefer to at-
tack peers who lack supportive and protective friends because
they can do so without worrying about retaliation or ostracism
from the children's friends. Support for the hypothesis that
friendship protects against victimization was offered by Bukow-
ski et al. (1995) and Malone and Perry (1995), who found that
friendless children were indeed more likely to be victimized
than were children who had friends.
In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that internalizing
problems, externalizing problems, and physical weakness are
more strongly associated with victimization when children have
few friends than when they have more friends. Such a finding
would support the idea that friendship buffers or protects the
child against the potential contribution of behavioral risk factors
to victimization. We also tested the hypothesis that when chil-
dren do have one or more friends, their friends' behavioral
qualities also affect the relation of behavioral risk to victimiza-
tion. In particular, we reasoned that if a child's friends are
physically weak, characterized by internalizing problems, or
victimized by peers, the friends will be unlikely to fulfill a
protective function very effectively; thus children who exhibit
behaviors that place them at risk for victimization will be more
likely to be victimized if their friends possess these qualities
than if they do not.
The second social risk factor that we investigated as a possible
moderator of the relation of behavioral risk to victimization was
peer rejection, or the degree to which a child is generally disliked
by peers. Children who are rejected by classmates may be per-
ceived as fair game by aggressive children because the knowl-
edge that a child is widely devalued by peers may legitimize
the child's status as a target of abuse. Even nonaggressive, main-
stream peers tend to express negative attitudes toward rejected
classmates (Dodge, 1986; Hymel, 1986); this-may signal to
aggressive children that attacks on rejected children will go
unpunished. Previous studies have shown that victimized chil-
dren are indeed rejected and devalued by peers (Perry et al.,
1988); moreover, when victimized children are attacked, they
elicit little empathy from peers, even from nonaggressive ones
(Perry et al., 1990). In the present study, we examined whether
peer rejection might be a social condition that serves to disin-
hibit aggression toward children who possess behavior problems
that put them at risk for victimization. Thus, we expected inter-
1033
nalizing problems, externalizing problems, and physical weak-
ness to predict victimization more strongly for peer-rejected
children than for children who are not widely disliked by peers.
Method
Participants
Participants were 119 boys and 110 girls in the third through seventh
grades of a university school serving a middle-class, predominantly
White community (M age = 11 years 2 months). This age range was
chosen for study because it has been suggested that victimization tends
to become stable during this age period (Perry et al., 1992). Written
parental consent had been obtained for participants, who represented
92% of the children in their grades. The children participating in this
study also took part in an unrelated study by Finnegan, Hodges, and
Perry (1996).
Procedure
Two to 3 months before the end of the school year, children responded
to two instruments administered in their homerooms. The first was a
53-item modified Peer Nomination Inventory designed to measure chil-
dren's behavioral characteristics. Because of its length, the instrument
was administered in two sessions on consecutive school days. At the
end of the second session, the second instrument was given. This was a
brief sociometric measure asking children to name preferred and nonpre-
ferred peers. Each instrument is described below.
Modified Peer Nomination Inventory
This inventory was a modification of Wiggins and Winder's (1961)
Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI). The modified PNI contained 53 items
and was designed to measure victimization, physical strength, and 10
other behavioral dimensions relevant to social competence with peers.
The behavioral dimensions and the items were culled from previous
studies of peer relations (Coie & Dodge, 1988; Parkhurst & Asher, 1987;
Perry et al., 1988; Pierce, 1990; Pope, Bierman, & Mumma, 1991).
Children checked off the names of same-sex classmates who manifested
the behavior described in each item.
The behavioral scales (and the items for each, from the boys' form)
were as follows (the girls' form was identical to that for boys, except
"she" and "her" replaced " h e " and " h i m " ) : (a) victimization—
seven items: "Kids make fun of him"; "He gets beat up"; "He gets
called names by other kids"; "Kids do mean things to him"; "He gets
picked on by other kids"; "He gets hit and pushed by other kids";
"Kids try to hurt his feelings"; (b) aggression—seven items: "When
he doesn't get his way he gets real mad"; "He's just plain mean"; "He
makes fun of people"; "He says he can beat everybody u p " ; "He tries
to get other people in trouble"; "He hits and pushes others around";
"He tries to pick fights with people"; (c) argumentativeness—two
items: "He argues a lot"; "He always has to have his own way"; (d)
dishonesty—two items: "He sometimes tells lies"; "Sometimes he
takes things that belong to someone else"; (e) pushy peer entry style—
one item: "He tries to get other kids to play with him even when they
don't want to"; (f) disruptiveness—two items: "He makes noise or
bothers you in class"; "He doesn't follow rules"; (g) immaturity —
three items: "He acts like a baby"; "He gets upset when called on to
answer questions in class"; "He complains a lot, and nothing makes
him happy"; (h) withdrawal—two items: "On the playground he just
stands around"; "He doesn't talk much"; (i) anxiety I depression—two
items: "He seems unhappy and looks sad often"; "He is afraid to do
things"; (j) hovering peer entry style—one item: "When other kids
are playing he just hangs around watching them but doesn't join in";
 1034 HODGES, MALONE, AND PERRY
(k) prosocial behavior—two items: "He is good to have in a group
because he shares things and gives other people a turn"; "He is always
friendly"; and (1) physical strength—three items: "He is very strong";
"He would win an arm wrestling contest"; "He is good at sports."
The remaining items were "filler" items (e.g., "He is good at art").
A score on each scale was determined for each child by calculating
the percentage of same-sex classmates who checked the child's name
on each item of the scale and then totaling these percentages for the
scale. Scores for each variable were then standardized by sex and grade
groupings.
Reliability of the peer nomination scales is uniformly high. Because
the scoring of peer nomination items involves aggregating across multi-
ple respondents, even single-item peer nomination scales tend to be
remarkably reliable (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990). Indeed, test-
retest coefficients (rs) over a 1-year period for the same measures as
those used here were reported by Hodges et al. (1995) to be as follows:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
victimization, .84; immaturity, .77; withdrawal, .80; anxiety/depression,
.74; hovering peer entry style, .77; aggression, .73; argumentativeness,
.74; dishonesty, .72; pushy peer entry style, .58; disruptiveness, .74;
prosocial behavior, .69; and physical strength, .80.
Sociometric Measures
Children were asked to name the 3 same-sex classmates with whom
they most liked to work or play. They also named the 3 same-sex class-
mates with whom they least liked to work or play. A child's friends
were defined as peers who reciprocated the child's nomination of liking
(range 0 - 3 ) ; these scores were then standardized within sex and grade.
Rejection scores were determined by calculating the percentage of same-
sex classmates who nominated the child as 1 of 3 least preferred class-
mates and then standardizing by sex and grade.
Results
Factor Analysis of Adjustment Measures
To reduce the number of adjustment measures, a principal-
components factor analysis with varimax rotation was per-
formed on 10 of the PNI measures, not including victimization
and physical strength. Victimization was omitted because it is
the primary dependent variable of the study and because, con-
ceptually, it is not a measure of behavior that the child emits
but rather is an index of what the child experiences at the hands
of others. Physical strength was also omitted from the factor
analysis because it is not a social behavior in the same sense
as the other measures are. The factor analysis yielded two factors
with eigenvalues over 1.0. Because the variable of immaturity
had high loadings on both factors, the analysis was redone ex-
cluding this variable. The analysis of the nine remaining vari-
ables yielded two relatively pure factors. The first was labeled
Externalizing Problems and accounted for 55% of the variance
(eigenvalue = 4.95). Aggression, argumentativeness, dishon-
esty, pushy peer entry style, and disruptiveness loaded positively
on this factor, whereas prosocial behavior loaded negatively. The
second factor was labeled Internalizing Problems and accounted
for an additional 25% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.21).
Withdrawal, anxiety/depression, and hovering peer entry style
had high loadings on this factor. For factor loadings of all vari-
ables, see Finnegan et al. (1996). Children's scores on the two
factors were computed with the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences regression method, which yields uncorrelated factors.
Although the adjustment measures were reduced to two fac-
tors that we labeled Externalizing Problems and Internalizing
Problems, we caution that the labels of externalizing and inter-
nalizing are used for descriptive convenience only and do not
imply clinical relevance. We have not validated our peer-report
measures against standardized parent- or teacher-report mea-
sures of behavior problems, and it is unlikely that many, if
any, of our participants exhibited a level of externalizing or
internalizing symptoms that would qualify for clinical diagnosis.
Intercorrelations among the four peer nomination measures
are given in Table 1. Although this table indicates that victimiza-
tion was moderately correlated with each of the three behavioral
risk variables (internalizing problems, externalizing problems,
and physical strength), caution must be exercised in interpreting
these correlations because the use of common respondents
(peers) likely inflated the relations (e.g., perceptual biases may
be operating). However, the main hypotheses of the study in-
volved tests of whether the relations of behavioral risk variables
to victimization differ significantly as a function of level of
social risk, and tests of these hypotheses should be less compro-
mised by the use of common respondents to measure behavioral
risk variables and victimization. We turn now to tests of our
major hypotheses.
Does Friendship Moderate the Relation of Behavioral
Risk to Victimization?
In this section, we evaluate the hypothesis that the relation
of behavioral risk to victimization is moderated by both (a)
number of friends and (b) qualities of friends.
Number of friends. Consistent with prior research (Bukow-
ski et al., 1995), number of friends was correlated with victim-
ization (r = -.42, p < .01). To determine whether availability
of friends moderates the relation of behavioral risk to victimiza-
tion, three multiple regression analyses were performed—one
for each behavioral risk variable (internalizing problems, exter-
nalizing problems, and physical strength); the dependent vari-
able was always victimization. In each analysis, the behavioral
risk variable and the number of friends were entered on the first
step; the product term was entered on the second step. (Number
of friends was modestly correlated with each behavioral risk
variable, rs = - . 3 4 , -.30, and .33, for internalizing problems,
externalizing problems, and physical strength, respectively,
ps < .01.)'
The product term was significant in each analysis, and follow-
up analyses were conducted to examine how the relation of each
behavioral risk factor to victimization hinges on number of
friends. Follow-up analyses (for these and other significant inter-
actions reported in this article) were carried out according to
the procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991). In
this procedure, the relation between a predictor variable and a
criterion variable is estimated in the form of an unstandardized
beta coefficient (/3) at each of three levels of a moderator vari-
able ( —1, 0, and +1 SD; i.e., at low, medium, and high levels
1
Because all variables were standardized within sex and grade, each
variable was effectively centered (i.e., given a mean of zero). Centering
of variables is necessary for interpretation of interactions in multiple
regression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991).
 VICTIMIZATION BY PEERS
of the moderator). Comparing the /3s across the three levels of
the moderator variable allows one to see how the relation (i.e.,
slope) between the predictor and the criterion changes with level
of the moderator.
For the analysis involving internalizing problems, the interac-
tion term was significant, FA = 8.26, p < .01, and follow-up
analyses indicated that, as predicted, the relation of internalizing
problems to victimization diminished as the number of chil-
dren's friends increased (/3s for low, medium, and high numbers
of friends = .65, .49, and .33, respectively).2 In the analysis
involving externalizing problems, the product term was again
significant, FA = 16.21, p < .001; as expected, the relation of
externalizing problems to victimization declined as the number
of children's friends increased (/0s for low, medium, and high
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
numbers of friends = .64, .42, and .21). Finally, the interaction
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of physical strength and number of friends was significant, FA
= 11.20, p < .01; as anticipated, the negative relation of physical
strength to victimization diminished as the number of children's
friends increased (/0s for low, medium, and high numbers of
friends = -.56, - . 3 6 , and - . 1 6 ) .
The follow-up analyses just reported were also performed
one other way. Children were grouped into those with no friend
(w = 66) versus those with one or more friends (n = 163), and
the relations of the behavioral risk variables to victimization
were compared across groups. Results were essentially the same
as those reported above.
Qualities of friends. Of the 229 participants, 163 had at
least 1 reciprocated friend. To explore whether the behavioral
qualities of children's friends moderate the relations of behav-
ioral risk to victimization, it was first necessary to estimate the
qualities of each child's friends. This was done by averaging
the scores received by each child's friends on each of four
behavioral dimensions: victimization, physical strength, inter-
nalizing problems, and externalizing problems. (Because the
number of a child's friends could vary from 1 to 3, these aver-
aged scores were based on different numbers of friends for
different participants).
The top row of Table 2 presents the correlations between
participants' victimization and the four behavioral qualities of
their friends. Participants' victimization was related to friends'
victimization, friends' physical strength, and friends' internaliz-
ing problems but not to friends' externalizing problems. To de-
termine whether friends' qualities moderate the relations of be-
havioral risk to victimization, 12 regression analyses were run,
3 (participant behavioral risk variables) X 4 (qualities of partic-
ipants' friends). The n for these analyses was 163. The form
of these analyses was similar to that of the earlier moderator
Table 1
Correlations Among Four Peer-Report Measures
Measure 1 2 3 with a t test. All of the /3s reported in this article are significant (p <
1. Victimization
-.44*
2. Physical strength
3. Internalizing problems .65* -.56*
4. Externalizing problems .58* -.06 .00
Note. N = 229.
*p < .01.
1035
Table 2
Correlations of Participants' Qualities With
Friends' Qualities
Friends' qualities
Participants' qualities 1 2 3 4
1. Victimization .26* -.27* .31* -.12
2. Physical strength -.27* .35* -.40* .10
3. Internalizing problems .30* -.40* .48* -.30*
4. Externalizing problems -.06 .07 -.22* .21*
Note, n = 163.
*p < .01.
analyses (i.e., product terms were evaluated with main effects
already in the model). 3
Friends' victimization moderated the relations of all three
participant behavioral risk factors to victimization in the antici-
pated way; the product term FAs for analyses involving partici-
pants' internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and phys-
ical strength were, respectively, 5.80, p < .05; 22.36,/? < .001;
and 5.04, p < .05. As friends' victimization increased from low
to medium to high levels, there were corresponding increases
in the degree to which victimization was predictable from parti-
cipants' internalizing problems (/3s = .22, .39, and .56), from
participants' externalizing problems (/3s = .21, .52, and .84),
and from participants' physical strength (/9s = —.22, - . 4 0 , and
-.58).
Friends' internalizing problems did not significantly moderate
the relation of participants' internalizing problems to victimiza-
tion, product term FA = 2.00, ns, but did moderate the relation
of both participants' externalizing problems, FA = 14.16, p <
.001, and participants' physical strength, FA = 14.38, p < .001,
to victimization. As friends' internalizing problems increased
across low, medium, and high levels, there were the expected
corresponding increases in the degree to which victimization
could be predicted from participants' externalizing problems
(/3s = .39, .60, and .80) and from participants' physical strength
(/3s = - . 1 3 , ns, - . 4 2 , and - . 7 2 ) .
Friends' physical strength moderated the relations of all three
behavioral risk variables to victimization in the expected way;
the product term FAs for internalizing problems, externalizing
problems, and physical strength were 12.03, p < .001, 20.31,
p < .001, and 6.25, p < .05, respectively. As children's friends
increased in strength (from low to medium to high levels),
victimization became decreasingly predictable from partici-
pants' internalizing problems (/3s = .60, .30, and .04, ns), from
participants' externalizing problems (/3s = .78, .50, and .21),
2
We also computed the SE, and tested the significance, of each /?
.05) or better except those denoted as ns immediately following the 0
value.
3
Because the regression analyses reported in this section were com-
puted with a subset of 163 participants, it was first necessary to recenter
the data for these children. This was done by restandardizing all the
variables within sex and grade for this subsample. The data given in
Table 2 are also based on these restandardized scores.
 1036 HODGES, MALONE, AND PERRY
and from participants' physical strength (/3s = - . 5 8 , -.40, and
-.21).
In the theory presented in the introduction to this article,
friends' externalizing problems were not presented as a potential
moderator of associations between behavioral risk and victim-
ization. However, one might argue that the more children's
friends are aggressive and exhibit other externalizing behaviors,
the less participant behavioral risk variables should be linked
with victimization. This is because having aggressive friends
might protect a child from being victimized; that is, aggressive
friends may be especially likely to defend, and retaliate on behalf
of, their companions. Consequently, we also examined whether
friends' externalizing problems moderate relations of participant
behavioral risk variables to victimization. Friends' externalizing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
problems did not moderate the relation of either participants'
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
internalizing problems, FA = .05, ns, or participants' physical
strength, FA = .78, ns, to victimization. However, friends' ex-
ternalizing problems did moderate the relation of participants'
externalizing problems to victimization, FA = 10.78,/? < .001.
As expected, participants' externalizing problems became in-
creasingly less linked with victimization across low, medium,
and high levels of friends' externalizing (/3s = .77, .54, and .31,
respectively).4
Does Peer Rejection Moderate the Relation of
Behavioral Risk to Victimization?
In this data set, peer rejection bore a sizable zero-order rela-
tion to victimization (r = .80). In addition, rejection was corre-
lated with each behavioral risk variable (rs for internalizing
problems, externalizing problems, and physical strength = .48,
.70, and —.32, respectively, ps < .01). However, as predicted,
rejection also moderated the relation of each behavioral risk
variable to victimization; again, moderation was tested by evalu-
ating the product term with rejection and the behavioral risk
factor already in the model. Product term FAs for the analyses
involving internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and
physical strength were, respectively, 24.32, p < .001; 6.56,
p < .01; and 28.72, p < .001. Follow-up analyses confirmed
that as the level of participants' rejection by peers moved from
low to medium to high, victimization became increasingly pre-
dictable from participants' internalizing problems (/3s = .13,
.27, and .41), from participants' externalizing problems (/3s =
- . 0 8 , ns; .01, ns; and .10, ns), and from participants' physical
strength (/3s = - . 0 1 , ns; - . 2 5 , and - . 4 9 ) .
Effects of Sex and Grade
As noted, variables were standardized within sex and grade
groupings before being analyzed. This is a common procedure
with peer nomination data and is done primarily to prevent
differences in group size from unduly influencing the data. The
procedure has other advantages, including centering the data
and reducing the number of predictor variables entered into the
analyses (although still controlling for main effects of sex and
grade). However, a disadvantage is that standardization obscures
possible sex and grade differences in the measures. To explore
such possible differences, the raw (unstandardized) scores of
each of the study variables (participants' victimization, partici-
pants' internalizing, participants' externalizing, participants'
physical strength, number of friends, friends' victimization,
friends' internalizing, friends' externalizing, friends' physical
strength, and rejection) were examined in separate multiple re-
gression analyses in which sex and grade were entered as simul-
taneous predictors.
Sex differences (with grade controlled) were evident for four
measures: Compared with girls, boys had higher scores on parti-
cipants' externalizing (p < .05), friends' victimization (p <
.01), friends' internalizing (p < .05), and friends' externalizing
(p < .01). Grade differences (with sex controlled) were evident
for three measures: As children grew older, they had more
friends (p < .05), but, surprisingly, they were less likely to be
named as physically strong (p < .05) or to have friends named
as physically strong (p < .01). These various effects of sex
and grade indicate the usefulness of having controlled sex and
grade (through standardizing) in the main analyses.
Standardizing by sex and grade does not preclude tests of
interactions of these variables with other predictor variables.
Although our theoretical formulation does not suggest that the
processes under test (i.e., interactive contributions of behavioral
and social risk to victimization) depend on sex or grade, as a
check, all of the previous multiple regression analyses that in-
volved victimization as the dependent variable were rerun to
include product terms involving sex and grade. In each analysis,
the main effects of the behavioral risk variable and the social
risk variable were entered on the first step. On the second step,
six two-way interactions (all pairwise combinations of the be-
havioral risk variable, the social risk variable, sex, and grade)
were entered. On the final step, the three possible three-way
interactions were entered.
Only one three-way interaction was significant (the interac-
tion of participants' externalizing problems, friends' internaliz-
ing problems, and grade, p < .05). We therefore conclude that,
in general, the interactive effects of behavioral and social risk
reported in earlier sections apply equally well to both boys and
girls and to children of different grades.5
Discussion
Results provide considerable support for the theory that social
risk moderates the relation of behavioral risk to victimization
4
The qualities of children's friends were only weakly related to the
number of friends children had. For the 163 children who had at least
1 friend, the correlations between number of friends (from 1 to 3) and
friends' victimization, friends' internalizing problems, friends' exter-
nalizing problems, and friends' physical strength were, respectively,
- . 0 8 , ns; -.14, ns; .16, p < .05; and .21, p < .01. Because the latter
two correlations were significant, the moderator analyses reported here
and above were rerun with number of friends included as a control
variable; results were essentially the same.
5
A number of two-way interactions involving either sex or grade
were also significant in the supplementary analyses but were not relevant
to the study. For example, sex interacted with participants' internalizing
problems to predict victimization (p < .01), owing to the fact that
internalizing was somewhat more strongly related to victimization for
girls (r = .73) than for boys (r = .56).
 VICTIMIZATION BY PEERS
by peers. Clearly, children who possess behavior problems that
put them at risk for victimization are more likely to be chroni-
cally abused if they are also at social risk for victimization, that
is, if they lack friends who can protect them or if they are widely
devalued by peers. The roles of these two social risk factors—
lack of supportive friends and peer rejection—are discussed in
turn.
As described by Hartup (1992) and by others, childhood
friendships serve several important functions. Friendships are
contexts for learning social skills, are information sources for
self-knowledge and self-esteem, furnish emotional and cognitive
resources for support and coping, and provide practice for later
relationships. The present results accord with the notions of
Bukowski et al. (1995) and of Rizzo (1989) that friendships
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
serve an additional important function—that of protection
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
against bullies and aggressors. The protective role of friendship
was evident in the present data in two ways. First, the sheer
number of a child's friends moderated the link of behavioral
risk to victimization. That internalizing problems, externalizing
problems, and physical weakness all were considerably more
predictive of victimization for children with fewer rather than
with many friends is evidence that friendship buffers or protects
behaviorally at-risk children from victimization. Having friends
may protect children in several ways. First, aggressive children
may fear retaliation or ostracism from a victim's friends. Sec-
ond, children who interact with friends will be alone less often
and thus will be less available or less salient as targets. Third,
children with friends may profit from friends' advice on how to
handle conflicts and threats of victimization. Of course, having
friends did not completely eliminate the risk of victimization
for children with behavior problems because all three behavioral
risk indexes still bore some relation to victimization even for
children with relatively many friends.
A second source of support for the hypothesis that friendship
serves a protective function comes from the analyses showing
that, for children who did have friends, the friends' behavioral
qualities moderated the relation of behavioral" risk to victimiza-
tion. As predicted, when children's friends possessed qualities
that rendered them unlikely to serve a protective function very
effectively (e.g., the friends were victimized or weak), the rela-
tion of behavioral risk to victimization was greater than when
the friends were more capable of providing protection and de-
fense. It is also informative that when children's friends were
characterized by externalizing behaviors, the children's own
externalizing problems were less predictive of victimization than
when their friends lacked externalizing problems. Friends who
are prone to externalizing behaviors may retaliate on behalf of
their friends and thereby serve a deterrent or protective function.
In sum, both the number and the nature of children's friends
govern the relation of behavioral risk to victimization by peers
in meaningful ways.
Rejection from the peer group constitutes another social risk
factor that probably serves to encourage attacks upon children
who display behavioral vulnerabilities or behave in ways that
irritate peers. The relation of each behavioral risk factor to
victimization was greater for peer-rejected children than for
better accepted children. Having few friends and being rejected
by peers are, of course, related conditions (r between number
of friends and peer rejection in the present study = —.38), and
1037
both may reflect a common "social outcast" risk factor. At
present, there is no theory to suggest that either of these two
related variables should be the superior predictor of aggression
toward behaviorally at-risk children; hence, we did not perform
analyses in which the effects of each risk variable were evalu-
ated with the effects of the other controlled. Our point is simply
that social risk, however measured, serves to invite aggression
toward susceptible children.
Results of this study support the principle that individual-
level vulnerabilities often depend on social context factors for
expression (Rutter & Garmezy, 1983). This principle has been
supported in research with families. For example, Kagan (1994)
reported that, among boys, inhibited temperament leads to anxi-
ety disorder primarily when the mother is overprotective. The
present data argue that social context factors residing in the peer
group, such as the number and nature of one's friends, also
can serve to actualize vulnerabilities (or, alternatively, to buffer
against their expression).
Although most chronically victimized children are character-
ized by internalizing problems, such as anxiety, depression, and
low self-esteem (Perry et al., 1992), victimized children differ
widely in the degree to which they also display externalizing
problems, such as aggression, disruptiveness, and other provoca-
tive behaviors (Olweus, 1978; Perry et al., 1988, 1992). Do the
processes studied in this report apply equally to nonaggressive
victims and aggressive (or "provocative") victims? We believe
the general principle of behavioral risk interacting with social
risk to promote victimization applies equally well to both kinds
of victims, but clearly the nature of the behavioral risk involved
will differ for the two kinds of victims, with internalizing prob-
lems predominating for nonaggressive victims and a combina-
tion of internalizing and externalizing problems more likely for
aggressive victims. We also suspect that the nature of the social
risk involved will differ for the two sorts of victims. Malone
and Perry (1995) recently reported that nonaggressive victims
have almost as many friends as normal children do, but their
friends tend to be weak, to have internalizing problems, and to
be victims, too; in contrast, aggressive victims were found to
have almost no friends at all. Thus, for nonaggressive vic-
tims, social risk may take the form of having less-than-helpful
friends, but, for aggressive victims, it may take the form of
friendlessness.6
Certain strengths and limitations of the current study deserve
mention. A strength is the large sample size that allowed tests
of the generality of the processes under study across sex and
age. However, the use of a homogeneous, largely White middle-
class sample limits generalizations to other groups.
A rather large number of statistical tests were performed on
the present data, raising the possibility that some significant
findings occurred by chance. However, given that significant
findings were predicted and painted a consistent picture, we do
6
Malone and Perry's (1995) finding that aggressive victims have few
friends may appear inconsistent with the conclusion of other researchers
(e.g., Cairns et al., 1988) that aggressive children do not lack friends.
The findings are reconcilable. Malone and Perry found that although
aggressive-victimized children had very few friends, aggressive-nonvic-
timized children had many friends (even more than nonaggressive-non-
victimized children, though not significantly so).
 1038 HODGES, MALONE, AND PERRY
not believe that the overall contribution was compromised by
the number of statistical tests conducted.
In this study, victimization was assessed in terms of receipt
of direct physical and verbal abuse; other sorts of victimization,
such as indirect or relational victimization (Crick & Grotpeter,
1995), may operate according to different processes. Relational
aggression refers to acts intended to harm a child's relations
with peers (e.g., encouraging one's friends to exclude a disliked
child from a social function or clique); girls are more likely
than boys both to enact and to receive this form of aggression.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that the present as well
as prior studies (e.g., Perry et al., 1988) have shown that girls
are just about as likely as boys to experience the kind of direct,
overt forms of abuse investigated here. Hence, the sort of victim-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ization studied here is equally relevant to both girls and boys.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Two design limitations should be noted. First, the measures
of behavioral vulnerability and victimization came from the
same set of respondents—children's peers—and therefore rela-
tions between these variables may be inflated (e.g., due to per-
ceptual biases). Of course, tests of the main hypotheses did not
rest on the absolute size of relations between behavioral risk
and victimization but rather depended on the relative sizes of
these relations across different levels of the social risk moderator
variables. Nonetheless, there could be different levels of percep-
tual bias for different levels of risk. Clearly, greater confidence
could be placed in our results if either behavioral risk variables
or victimization had been measured independently of peer
reports.
A second design limitation is that all the measures were col-
lected concurrently, opening the door to alternative interpreta-
tions with regard to direction of effects. For example, variables
we have conceptualized as causing victimization (e.g., internal-
izing problems, friendlessness) may actually be outcomes of a
history of abuse. It is also possible, even likely, that behavioral
risk factors help create certain of the social risk conditions
that encourage victimization. For example, because depressed
children tend to befriend other depressed children (see Table 2,
as well as Hogue & Steinberg, 1995), they may be helping
to create the very social environments that cause them to be
victimized. Longitudinal work would clearly be illuminating. It
might be especially informative to measure risk factors and
victimization in both the fall and the spring of a school year.
This would allow one to see, for example, whether children
who begin the year with behavior problems become victimized
primarily to the extent that they also lack a supportive friendship
network.
Ultimately, questions concerning the causal primacy of behav-
ioral risk, social risk, and victimization may reduce to a
"chicken-and-the-egg" problem. It may be best to regard co-
occurrences of victimization with various risk factors as systems
of mutually reinforcing components. Such a conceptualization
should not imply helplessness concerning intervention, however,
because disruption of one component may lead to desirable
changes in others, as systems theorists emphasize (e.g., Mi-
nuchin, 1985). Results of the present study suggest that inter-
ventions aimed to give victimized children the benefits of friend-
ship (e.g., arranging for a victimized child to begin the next
school year with a friend in the same class; see Ladd & Price,
1987) might be one way of breaking the cycle of peer abuse.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L. K., & Boivin, M. (1995, March). Friend-
ship protects "at risk" children from victimization by peers. In J. M.
Price (Chair), The role offriendship in children's developmental risk
and resilience: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Sym-
posium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy,
J. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or
peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815-823.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social
behavior and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison.
Child Development, 59, 815-829.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group
behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer
rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). New "fork: Cambridge University
Press.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-
722.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social
competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Sympo-
sium on Child Psychology (pp. 77-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Epstein, A. M. (1990). Stability of victimization in elementary school
children. Unpublished master's thesis, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton.
Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1996). Preoccupied
and avoidant coping during middle childhood. Child Development,
67, 1318-1328.
Hartup, W. W. (1992). Peer relations in early and middle childhood. In
V. B. Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social develop-
ment: A lifespan perspective. New \brk: Plenum.
Hartup, W. W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In B. Laursen
(Ed.), Close friendships in adolescence (pp. 3-22). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., Jr., & Perry, D. G. (1995, March).
Behavioral and social antecedents and consequences of victimization
by peers. In N. R. Crick (Chair), Recent trends in the study of peer
victimization: Who is at risk and what are the consequences? Sympo-
sium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized distress
in adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 31, 897-906.
Hymel, S. (1986). Interpretations of peer behavior: Affective bias in
childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 57, 431-445.
Kagan. J. (1994). Galen's prophecy: Temperament in human nature.
New 'Vfork: Basic Books.
Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J., & Patterson, C. J. (1994, April). Aggression
and peer victimization as predictors of self-report of behavioral and
emotional adjustment. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the
Conference on Human Development, Pittsburgh, PA.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause
or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67,
1305-1317.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Khatri, P. (1995, March). Peer victimization and
aggression as predictors of self-reported behavioral and emotional
problems across adolescence. In N. R. Crick (Chair), Recent trends in
the study of peer victimization. Symposium conducted at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapo-
lis, IN.
Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children's social and
 VICTIMIZATION BY PEERS 1039

school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kinder- Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 301-329). New
garten. Child Development, 58, 1168-1189. %rk: Cambridge University Press.
Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1995, March). Features of aggressive Perry, D. G., Williard, J. C , & Perry, L. C. (1990). Peers' perceptions
and victimized children's friendships and affiUative preferences. Poster of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, 1310-1325.
Pierce, S. (1990). The behavioral attributes of victimized children. Un-
Development, Indianapolis, IN.
published master's thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations
Pope, A. W., Bierman, K. L., & Mumma, G. H. (1991). Aggression,
from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289-302.
hyperactivity, and inattention-immaturity: Behavior dimensions asso-
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping ciated with peer rejection in elementary school boys. Developmental
boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Psychology, 27, 663-671.
Olweus, D. (1992). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term Rizzo, T. A. (1989). Friendship development among children in school.
outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social with- Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
drawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-341). Hills- Rutter, M., & Garmezy, N. (1983). Developmental psychopathology. In
dale, NJ: Erlbaum. E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.
Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 775-911).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Parkhurst, J. T, & Asher, S. R. (1987, March). The social concerns of

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

aggressive-rejected children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting New York: Wiley.
of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of
Patterson, G. R., Littman, R. A., & Bricker, W. (1967). Assertive behav- chronic peer victimization in boys' play groups. Child Development,
ior in children: A step toward a theory of aggression. Monographs of 64, 1755-1772.
Wiggins, J. S., & Winder, C. L. (1961). The Peer Nomination Inventory:
the Society for Research in Child Development, 35 (5, Serial No.
An empirically derived sociometric measure of adjustment in preado-
113).
lescent boys. Psychological Reports, 9, (Al-dll.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggres-
sion. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807—814. Received April 30, 1996
Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C , & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and the devel- Revision received April 15, 1997
opment of antisocial behavior. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Accepted May 5, 1997 •

Develojmiental Psyctvilogy Sentembor 1997

October 1997
Dovclopnenta Psychology
1h <> 0

"
U-
'
•-~™-«=«- — ™ 6,400 6,660
BL-HoiUhly •!.
'• • • '
'/ n,'

:...... iirc i a

(202) 3 36-5579
5,496 5,280

5,496 5,280
t HE, Washington, I
175 17b

Psychological Association, 750 First Street, HE, Washington, DC 20002-4242

175 176

Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, Ph.D., 4305- Dresden Street, Kensington, MD 20895 5,671 5,456

,-,0-^U^.SPO- 729 1,206

Susan Knapp, tooclcan Psychological Association,
750 Firat Street, NE, Ifaahin^ton, DC 20002-4242
-as
6,400 • „ • •

M N M
95.9 96.8

Washington, DC 20002-4242

• Wuar rrMukig MvnMonffllH< Brm

Hoklnj 1 PKMUC. JJor.nl TOM iwnoi« Of Bon*. i t a ^ j M . of ^ I n s l r u c t i o n s to P u b l l i h e r s

CompWUflk, M a r . .

II n» puUtctUan tite M o m W i u •uriortuUsn u * gtnani a ™qw«« pubfcaWon. Oilt Si«»m«« oi Omimht. M»n»B«monl, B « I
riinJiTkm mi ifI ho pufahihJLirtmull b* Dftnltd w >nv h i u In Odofcorof • thfl DUblctElpn 15 not DUblvWd du Oc[ofc* Vt V

View publication stats