Emotion Correlates of Bullies,Victims,and Bully-Victims in African American Children

Abstract

Bullying is a pervasive and widely studied problem. Less is known about the emotion correlates that accompany being a bully, being a victim of bullying, and experiencing both bullying and victimization for African American elementary-school-age students. The current study examined differences in emotion dysregulation and internalizing symptoms (depression, anxiety) across levels of bullying and victimization. Children (N = 336, M_age = 9.58 years, 42.3% boys, 100% African American) were recruited from two inner-city elementary schools and completed self- and peer-reports of bullying and self-reports of victimization, emotion dysregulation, and internalizing symptoms. Results indicated that emotion dysregulation and anxiety symptoms were predicted by an interaction between self-reported bullying and victimization. For children low in victimization, higher levels of self-reported bullying predicted an increase in emotion dysregulation and anxiety symptoms. However, for children high in victimization, bullying was not predictive of these outcomes. Depressive symptoms were predicted by self- and peer-reported bullying and self-reported victimization. Understanding underlying emotional correlates of bullying and victimization within this context have important implications for prevention programs.

Keywords

African American emotion dysregulation internalizing symptoms bullying

Bullying and victimization are pervasive problems in school-age children (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001). This issue has been of great interest to researchers, as demonstrated by the vast literature on this topic (Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010). Although the field has made significant strides to assess and identify bullying, less empirical attention has been devoted to the emotional correlates of bullying and victimization (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001). Furthermore, elementary-school-age children, and African American children in particular, have not been well-represented within this literature.

Emotions and emotion competencies are vital components of social interactions, with some researchers stating that emotional and social functioning are closely intertwined (Denham et al., 2000; Saarni, 1999). More specifically, from the functionalist theory of emotion (Campos, Campos, & Barrett, 1989), emotions function to initiate, maintain, and also potentially disrupt social relationships. The basic development of emotional awareness and emotional understanding occur during the toddler and preschool years (Saarni, 1999). However, the honing of these emotional competencies transpires during middle childhood in part due to the increasing influence of peer relationships. Conflicts between peers arise, and this provides a platform for learning and social problem solving. Children negotiate and employ different conflict resolution strategies like compromising and de-escalation, and more controversial strategies that utilize aggression and social withdrawal (Burgess, Wojslawowicz, Rubin, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth-LaForce, 2006). Thus, it is important to understand how emotional competencies develop in a variety of social and cultural contexts during the elementary school years as less research has examined these developmental process in this age group (Zeman, Cassano, & Adrian, 2012). The present article adopted a functionalist perspective to emotion that emphasizes the role of social context to understand predictors (e.g., bully experiences, emotion regulation) and outcomes (symptoms of depression and anxiety) of bullying and victimization experience.

Although considerable research has been conducted with White middle-class students (e.g., Haavet, Dalen, & Straand, 2006; Storch, Nock, Masia-Warner, & Barlas, 2003; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003), few studies have recruited ethnic minority children (Hanish & Guerra, 2000). Furthermore, across studies that include a highly diverse population, there have been discrepancies in the rates of victimization with some reports stating that rates of victimizations for African American children are lower than for White children (Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Nansel et al., 2001) and other studies reporting rates similar or higher to those of White children (Fitzpatrick, Dulin, & Piko, 2007; Storch et al., 2003). For example, Fitzpatrick et al. (2007) focused their research solely on African American adolescents and discovered that rates of bullying were much higher than national surveys have reported.

Reasons for the increased rates of peer victimization and bullying may be attributed to sociocultural factors such as poverty and discrimination that occur at higher rates among individuals of color (Hammond & Yung, 1993). Fitzpatrick, Dulin, and Piko (2010) argue that African American children exhibit higher rates of bullying because they identify externalizing behaviors as part of the social and cultural identity of being African American. Such stressful life experiences may put these children at heightened risk for experiencing internalizing problems like depression and anxiety (McLoyd, 1998). Yet, the majority of research on African American children has focused on externalizing behaviors (Tolan & Henry, 1996).

Researchers have argued that focusing on one group, in this case African American elementary-school-age children, may be beneficial in attenuating the cultural bias that occurs when presenting data that incorporate multiple groups (Smokowski, Mann, Reynolds, & Fraser, 2004). Furthermore, concentrating empirical efforts on studying African American children can help uncover factors that may be unique to this demographic that, in turn, may facilitate a more complete understanding of this particular sociocultural context. In turn, these research findings can guide the development of effective programs and school-based interventions that may lessen bullying behavior and help prevent difficulties in internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.

Children of elementary-school-age are at an important developmental stage for the examination of bullying and victimization behaviors. Students in this age group who are involved in bullying may be more easily identifiable to teachers and parents due to the overt forms of aggression used in comparison to the less overt relational and cyber aggression tactics of older children and adolescents (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012). Furthermore, the development of many of the processes and skills that are intrinsically related to social relationships, such as emotion regulation, occur during this time (Zeman et al., 2012). Despite the benefits of studying this age group, it often receives less attention than research that uses samples of younger children (e.g., preschool aggression), and adolescents (e.g., delinquency and aggression; Burk et al., 2011). For example, many studies have focused on periods of early and middle adolescence where outcomes of bullying such as truancy and self-injury are most prevalent (e.g., Borowsky, Taliaferro, & McMorris, 2013; Gastic, 2008). Thus, less is known about developmental trends and emotion correlates of bullying behavior and victimization in elementary-school-age children generally and especially in samples of African American children. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by recruiting a sample of African American children to provide insight into the unique emotion correlates of bullies, victims, and bully-victims in an urban, high poverty, high crime neighborhood elementary school setting. We conceptualized this study from a functionalist perspective of emotion (Campos et al., 1989) to better understand how emotion dysregulation and symptoms of depression and anxiety may be related to children’s experience of bullying and victimization with their social context.

Emotion Dysregulation

Emotion regulation is the internal and external processes involved in initiating, sustaining, and modifying emotional arousal and expression (Eisenberg & Morris, 2002). Over the course of typical development, children improve their ability to read others’ mental states, acquire cognitive coping strategies, and learn to regulate emotions with increasingly effective means (Eisenberg et al., 2001). Deficits in specific skills underlying emotion regulation may be associated with increased aggressive behavior. For example, Bowie (2010) examined the relation between emotion regulation and aggression longitudinally and found that lower emotion regulation levels in children 5½ to 12 years (13.6% African American sample) predicted relational aggression 2 years later.

Only one study of elementary-school-age children has examined emotion dysregulation as a concordant and prospective predictor of peer victimization (Kelly, Schwartz, Gorman, & Nakamoto, 2008). In this study, emotion dysregulation mediated the influence of victimization on peer rejection for third- and fourth-grade children (2% African American and 23% mixed-ethnicity/race) at an urban school. Furthermore, White children in Grades 4 to 6 who were victimized were more likely to have angry and retaliatory responses to provocation from a peer (Champion & Clay, 2007). Differences in the relations between emotion regulation and victimization also appear to differ by gender. That is, Morelen, Southam-Gerow, and Zeman (2016) found that girls with anger regulation difficulties were more apt to report being victimized than boys in a sample that comprised 35% African American youth ages 7 to 12 years. Conversely, for both African American and White preschool children, emotion regulation ability predicted positive social interactions (Mendez, Fantuzzo, & Cicchetti, 2002). Children who experienced chronic victimization during childhood, later exhibited physical signs of dysregulated reactivity and distress during conflict, including physiological arousal (i.e., increased heart rate) in a sample that was predominantly White (4.2% African American; Hessler & Katz, 2007). Overall, given that the preponderance of research has utilized White samples, research is needed to better understand that ways in which emotion dysregulation may be involved in bullying and victimization in the lives of African American children.

Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety

The prevalence rates of both depression and anxiety in African American youth have been mixed, with some research reporting rates that are higher (Woerpel, Winston, & Brady, 2016), similar (Neal & Turner, 1991) or lower than White youth (Breslau et al., 2006). However, there is an agreement that internalizing symptoms of African American youth more often go untreated and put this group at risk for long-term mental health issues (Wells, Klap, Koike, & Sherbourne, 2001).

One important predictor of internalizing symptoms is peer relations, more specifically bully and victimization experiences. Of particular interest to the current study, Blake, Lease, Turner, and Outley (2012) found no relation between both peer report of aggressiveness and self-report of depression in an all African American sample of girls ages 9 to 13 years. Conversely, Coie, Lochman, Terry, and Hyman (1992) conducted a 3-year longitudinal study with an African American sample of third-grade children. There was a significant interaction between self-report of peer rejection and peer-report of aggression at third grade on child’s self-report of internalizing problems in 6th grade. Specifically, for children with high peer acceptance, aggression was positively correlated with internalizing scores but for socially rejected children, aggression was not a significant predictor of internalizing symptoms.

These two studies highlight important methodological considerations. The discrepancy between results on how aggression relates to internalizing symptoms from Blake et al. (2012) and Coie et al. (1992) may be attributed to the addition of the social rejection moderator. Moreover, it is important to note that both of these studies solely utilized peer report of aggression. Further research needs to be conducted to understand how differences in reporters of aggression (i.e., self- vs. peer-report) may influence the prediction of internalizing symptoms.

Victimization is a stressful event, and the feelings of perilousness and helplessness associated with bullying can contribute to anxiety symptoms (Haavet et al., 2006). Slee (1994) found that students ages 9 to 13 years in an urban Australian elementary school (specific race information was not provided), who were bullied once a week had higher social anxiety and social avoidance than those belonging to noninvolved and bully groups. Social anxiety may have far reaching consequences such as weakened current peer relationships and decreased ability to form new social relationships (Warren, Good, & Velten, 1984). Bullies have the lowest levels of social anxiety and loneliness, whereas those categorized as bully-victims experience the highest levels of general anxiety symptoms (Graham & Bellmore, 2007). Thus, in primarily White samples, there appears to be a strong link between the experiences of bullying and victimization and internalizing symptoms, but more research is needed to better understand this important relation in African American children.

Present Study

The overarching goal of this study was to use the functionalist perspective of emotion to understand the interplay of behaviors (bullying, victimization, and their interactions) on internalizing symptoms and emotion regulation in African American children enrolled in Grades 2 to 5. The specific indicators of emotional functioning investigated in this study included emotion dysregulation and internalizing symptoms of depression and anxiety. To obtain two perspectives on bullying given that research indicates that self- and other-perceptions of aggression may differ (Smith, 2004), we obtained peer-report of aggressive behaviors as well as self-report of bullying behaviors. Reports of being victimized were based solely on self-report since the way in which aggressive behaviors may be perceived by the victim may be hidden to observers. Previous research has indicated that youth are best able to report on their feelings of depression and anxiety (Wallbott & Scherer, 1989) and emotion regulation factors (Zeman et al., 2012); thus, self-reports of these variables were obtained.

Based on the limited literature using samples of African American children, we hypothesized that emotion dysregulation, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms would be highest in children who experience both higher levels of bullying and higher levels of victimization (Bowie, 2010; Burk et al., 2011; Graham & Bellmore, 2007; Slee, 1994). We anticipated that the lowest levels of emotion dysregulation, and symptoms of depression and anxiety would emerge for those who report lower levels of both bullying and victimization.

Method

Participants included 336 African American elementary-school-age children (M_age = 9.58 years, SD = 1.05, range = 7-12 years; 42.3% boys), in the second (n = 94), third (n = 78), fourth (n = 106), and fifth grades (n = 59). Children were recruited from two low-income and high-crime neighborhood elementary schools, located in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Household demographic information was available for a subsample of caregivers who agreed to participate (n = 155). The mean household income ranged between $20,000 and $30,000, with 20.3% of caregivers reporting earnings of less than $10,000 a year. The majority of caregivers were unmarried (68.0%) and nearly half (45.9%) had three or more children in the household.

Procedure

Institutional review board approval was obtained from the authors’ university and the participating school district. We recruited children by sending a mailing to all 2nd- to 5th-grade children at two elementary schools. In total, 750 children were eligible to participate, with a 68% return rate. Of those who responded, 88% of parents/guardians (N = 450) consented for their child to participate. Of those with consent, 435 children (97%) of the initial 450 completed the study. Only the African American children (N = 336, 77.2%) are included in the analyses for the present study. The children who had parental permission and gave verbal assent were interviewed at school, in a private setting during a nonacademic time (e.g., homeroom, gym). Researchers met with the children two times. In the first 30-minute session, children met individually with a research assistant who read questionnaires aloud to the child. During the second session, approximately 1 month later, peer sociometric data were collected in the classroom with other peers present but file folders were used to provide privacy of responses. Interviewers (77% female) were all trained in the study procedures to assure standardization of data collection. Children received a small toy for their participation.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire

Administrative data from the schools were collected to obtain demographic information, including children’s birthdate, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Peer Victimization

Children’s self-reported experiences of victimization were assessed using the overt and relational victimization subscale of the Social Experience Questionnaire (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). Children were asked to respond to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= never to 5 = all the time). The overt victimization scale has three items asking how often the child is physically attacked or outwardly threatened by peers (e.g., “How often do you get hit?”). The five-item relational subscale indicates the frequency with which peers try to harm their relationships through means such as spreading rumors (e.g., “How often does a kid try to keep others from liking you by saying mean things about you?”). Previous studies using racially diverse elementary school samples demonstrated high-internal reliability (α = .78-.80) and high correlation between overt and relational subscales (r = .57; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). In the present study, overt and relational subscales were also significantly correlated (r = .54, p < .001) and, thus, were combined to create a total victimization score (α = .61).

Bullying

Children’s bully status was assessed using the Engagement in Bully Behavior subscale of the Kids in My Class at School questionnaire (an adapted version of Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996, 1997). The subscale consists of four items that evaluate the children’s physical and verbal aggression toward peers (e.g., How often do you: “pick on,” “say mean things to,” “say bad things about,” “hit” other kids in your class at school?). Children responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 5 = always). This measure has demonstrated high internal reliability (α = .70-.74) and validity with samples of racially diverse elementary school students (Ladd et al., 1996; Ladd et al., 1997). A total score was created by summing all items (α = .81).

Peer-Reported Aggression

Peer-reports of aggressive, bullying behavior were evaluated using a sociometric measure. A minimum classroom participation rate of 40% is recommended for sociometric measures (Terry & Coie, 1991), and in this study, the classroom participation ranged from 54% to 69%. Children were presented with the list of classmates who had guardian permission to participate in the study and were asked to assess classmates’ aggressive behavior using four items including: “How much does (child’s name): ‘Hits/Pushes/Kicks,’ ‘Starts Fights,’ ‘Is Mean,’ and ‘Gets Mad Easily.’” Children rated each item using a 5-point Likert-type Scale (1 = not at all to 5 =a whole lot). Scores for each item were created by summing all peer ratings and dividing by the number of children participating within each classroom. A total peer aggression score was created by summing the four items. Previous studies using racially diverse samples have demonstrated high test-retest reliability (rs = .32-.56) and high discriminant validity (Terry & Coie, 1991). The peer-reported aggression measure had strong internal consistency (α = .95).

Emotion Dysregulation

The Children’s Emotion Management Scales (CEMS; Zeman, Cassano, Suveg, & Shipman, 2010; Zeman, Shipman, & Penza-Clyve, 2001) for anger (CAMS), sadness (CSMS), and worry (CWMS) were used to measure the participants’ self-reports of emotion dysregulation. Although the CEMS contains three subscales, for the goals of the present study, only the Dysregulation subscale was used. This three-item scale for each emotion type assesses children’s culturally inappropriate, outward expression of emotion (e.g., “I attack whatever it is that makes me mad” and “I keep whining about how worried I am”). Children respond to each questions on a 3-point Likert-type scale (1 = hardly ever to 3 =often). The three items from each of the three emotion scales (total of nine questions) were summed to create a total score ranging from 9 to 27. The scale has shown strong test-retest reliability and the scale has been used in research with racially diverse samples (McAuliffe, Hubbard, Rubin, Morrow, & Dearing, 2006). The three emotion scales were significantly correlated (rs range from .36 to .40), thus they were combined. The scale had adequate internal consistency (α = .66).

Depressive Symptoms

The Children’s’ Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) was used to evaluate children’s depressive symptoms. The CDI is a self-report measure that assesses children’s cognitive, affective, somatic, and behavioral symptoms of depression during the previous 2 weeks. The CDI consists of 27 items each consisting of three statements describing different levels of specific depressive symptoms (e.g., “I am sad once in a while,” “I am sad many times,” “I am sad all the time”). Children select the item that best reflects how they feel. One item was removed pertaining to suicide ideation due to Institutional Review Board concerns. A total score, ranging from 0 to 52, was created by summing the remaining 26 items. Previous studies using racially diverse samples have demonstrated high test retest reliability (rs = .74-.89) and high construct validity (Kovacs, 1992). In the present study, internal consistency was strong (α = .86).

Anxiety

Participant’s anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; March, Parker, Sullivan, Stallings, & Conners, 1997). The MASC includes 39 items that assess social anxiety (e.g., “I’m afraid other people will think I’m stupid”), separation anxiety (e.g., “I try to stay near my mom or dad”), physical symptoms of anxiety (e.g., “I feel so tense or uptight), and harm avoidance (“I keep my eyes open for danger”). Children rated each item on a 4-point scale (0 = never true about me to 3 = often true about me). The items were summed to create a total score ranging from 0 to 156. In racially diverse samples the measure demonstrates high test-retest reliability (rs = .79-.93) and discriminant validity (March et al., 1997). Internal consistency for the MASC in the current study was strong (α = .88).

Data Analysis Plan

A post hoc power analysis was conducted using the software package, GPower (Faul & Erdfelder, 1992). Small (f² = .02), medium (f² = .15), and large (f² = .35) effect sizes were tested for the present sample of 336 children with five predictor variables used as a baseline. The statistical power for this study, given alpha value of .05, was .47 for detecting a small effect, whereas the power exceeded .99 for the detection of a moderate to large effect size. Thus, the present study had adequate power to detect medium to large effect sizes.

A set of six linear regressions were conducted with bullying behavior (both self- and peer-report in separate models) and self-reported victimization as the independent variables and emotion dysregulation, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms as the dependent variables. Two covariates, gender and age, were included because of their significant correlations with the dependent variables. Bullying and victimization data were entered in the first step and the interaction between bullying and victimization was entered in the second step of the linear regression. For significant interactions, simple slopes analysis was conducted, examining the slopes of bullying for high (1 SD above) and low (1 SD below) levels of victimization (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Gender and age differences were tested for all study variables (see Table 1). There were two significant gender differences such that girls reported more emotion dysregulation t(325) = −4.00, p < .001, d = 0.46, and anxiety symptoms, t(287) = −4.93, p < .001, d = 0.60, than boys. Age was negatively correlated with emotion dysregulation, and depressive symptoms. Therefore, gender and age were included as covariates in the regression analyses. Self-reported bullying behavior and peer ratings of aggression were significantly positively correlated. However, given that each report provides a unique perspective, both self- and peer-report of bullying are presented separately in the following models.

Table 1.

Descriptive and Bivariate Correlations Among Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M (SD)
Demographics
1. Gender (0 = Male, 1 = Female)	—	−.09	.04	.11^t	.13**	.22**	.09	.28**	—
2. Age (in months)		—	.09	−.28**	.06	−.15**	−.21**	−.08	115.00 (12.61)
Self-Reported Aggression
3. Bullying^a			—	.28**	.30**	.25**	.20**	.17**	6.71 (3.30)
4. Victimization^b				—	.18**	.41**	.41**	.41**	18.98 (6.67)
Peer-Reported Aggression
5. Bullying^c					—	.08	.16**	−.02	7.66 (2.74)
Self-Reported Emotion Variables
6. CEMS-Dysregulation^d						—	.31**	.33**	15.74 (3.68)
7. Depression Symptoms^e							—	.37**	8.79 (7.19)
8. Anxiety Symptoms^f								—	48.06 (18.39)

Kids in My Class. ^bSEQ = Social Experience Questionnaire. ^cSociometric Report. ^dCEMS = Children’s Emotion Management Scale. ^eCDI = Children’s Depression Index. ^fMASC = Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children.

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

Regression Analyses

Emotion Dysregulation

Results of the regression analyses conducted using the self-report of bullying yielded a significant model for emotion dysregulation that accounted for 25.7% of the variance, F(10, 200) = 19.33, p < .001, R² = .26 (see Table 2). There was a significant main effect for gender, t(290) = 3.30, p < .001, R² = .04, such that girls had higher levels of emotion dysregulation (β = .17). There were main effects of bullying that accounted for 6.9% of the variance, β = .21, t(290) = 3.52, p < .001, R² = .07, and victimization that accounted for 11.6% of the variance, β = .36, t(290) = −2.09, p = .04, R² = .12. These main effects were attenuated by the significant interaction between bullying and victimization that accounted for 1.2% of the variance, β = .12, t(290) = −2.09, p = .04, R² = .01.

Table 2.

Linear Regression With Self-Report of Bullying and Self-Report of Victimization Predicting Emotion Dysregulation, Depression, and Anxiety With Age and Gender Covariates.

Variables	CEMS-dysregulation^a			Depression symptoms^b			Anxiety symptoms^c
Variables	β	t	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²
Step 1			.06			.04			.07
Age in months	−.12	−2.18*		−.19	−3.34**		−.08	−1.36
Gender (0 = Males, 1 = Females)	.20	3.78**		.03	0.55		.25	4.24**
Step 2			.18			.13			.11
Age in months	−.04	−0.67		−.12	−2.10*		.02	0.26
Gender (0 = Males, 1 = Females)	.16	3.20*		.00	0.02		.22	3.98**
Self-report bullying	.16	2.90*		.12	2.06*		.03	0.58
Victimization	.37	6.70**		.32	5.48**		.37	6.21**
Step 3			.01			.01			.01
Age in months	−.03	−0.60		−.12	−2.04*		.02	0.40
Gender (0 = Males, 1 = Females)	.17	3.30**		.01	0.17		.23	4.16**
Self-report bullying	.21	3.52**		.15	2.28*		.09	1.34
Victimization	.36	6.42**		.32	5.50**		.36	5.99**
Self-report bully × Victimization	−.12	−2.09*		−.08	−1.28		−.12	−1.99*

CEMS = Children’s Emotion Management Scale. ^bCDI = Children’s Depression Index. ^cMASC= Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children.

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

The slopes of bullying for high (1 SD above) and low (1 SD below) levels of victimization were tested covarying gender and age (see Figure 1). For children high in victimization, the slope of self-reported bullying and emotion dysregulation was not significant, β = .08, t(377) = 1.53, p = .13. For children low in victimization, the slope of bullying and emotion dysregulation was significant in the positive direction, β = .31, t(377) = 3.78, p < .001. Thus, children who reported lower victimization and lower bullying behavior were also lower on emotion dysregulation. However, children lower in victimization but higher in bullying behavior reported higher emotion dysregulation.

Figure 1.

The regression predicting CEMS-Dysregulation from self-reported bullying and victimization, F(10, 200) = 19.33, p < .001. There was a significant interaction between bullying and victimization, t(290) = −2.09, p = .04.

Results of the second linear regression yielded a significant model for peer-reported bullying behavior predicting emotion dysregulation that accounted for 22.7% of the variance, F(5, 287) = 16.29, p < .001, R² = .23 (see Table 3). There was a significant main effect of gender, t(287) = 3.25, p = .001, R² = .04, such that girls were more likely to have higher emotion dysregulation than boys (β = .17). Furthermore, there was a significant main effect of victimization that accounted for 15.6% of the variance (β = .41), t(287) = 7.34, p < .001, R² = .16, such that children higher on victimization reported higher emotion dysregulation. However, the main effect of bullying and the interaction between bullying and victimization did not reach significance.

Table 3.

Linear Regression With Peer-report of Bullying and Self-report of Victimization Predicting Emotion Dysregulation, Depression, and Anxiety Symptoms With Age and Gender Covariates.

Variables	CEMS-dysregulation^a			Depression symptoms^b			Anxiety symptoms^c
Variables	β	t	ΔR²	β	t	ΔR²	Β	t	ΔR²
Step 1			.06			.04			.07
Age in months	−.12	−2.17*		−.19	−3.34**		−.08	−1.36
Gender (0 = Males, 1 = Females)	.20	3.78**		.03	.55		.25	4.24**
Step 2			.15			.13			.13
Age in months	−.01	−.16		−.11	−2.03*		.03	.45
Gender (0 = Males, 1 = Females)	.18	3.36**		.03	.57		.22	3.83**
Peer-report bullying	.03	.47		.12	2.22*		−.04	−.72
Victimization	.42	7.66**		.34	5.92**		.39	6.70**
Step 3			.00			.00			.00
Age in months	−.01	−.26	.02	−.12	−2.09*	.04	.02	.41	.01
Gender (0 = Males, 1 = Females)	.17	3.25**	.04	.03	.60	.00	.22	3.83**	.06
Peer-report bullying	.02	.41	.00	.12	2.10*	.03	−.05	−.82	.00
Victimization	.41	7.34**	.15	.35	6.01**	.10	.40	6.67**	.13
Peer-report bully × Victimization	.02	.42	.00	−.03	−.58	.00	−.06	−1.04	.00

CEMS = Children’s Emotion Management Scale. ^bCDI = Children’s Depression Index. ^cMASC= Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children.

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

Depressive Symptoms

The results of the third regression analyses using the self-report of bullying yielded a significant model for depression symptoms that accounted for 17.4% of the variance, F(5, 287) = 12.44, p < .001, R² = .17 (see Table 2). There was a significant main effect for age (β = −.12), t(287) = -2.04, p = .04, R² = .04, such that more depressive symptoms were reported with decreasing age. There were significant main effects of bullying that accounted for 4.5% of the variance, β = .15, t(287) = 2.28, p = .02, R² = .05, and victimization that accounted for 8.6% of the variance, β = .32, t(287) = 5.50, p < .001, R² = .09, such that more depressive symptoms were associated with more experiences of being a bully and with being victimized. Furthermore, there was no significant interaction between bullying and victimization.

Results of the fourth linear regression yielded a significant model of peer-reported bullying behavior predicting depressive symptoms that accounted for 17.5% of the variance, F(5, 288) = 12.59, p < .001, R² = .18 (see Table 3). There was a significant main effect for age (β = −.12), t(288) = −2.94, p = .04, R² = .04, with an inverse relation between age and depressive symptoms. Furthermore, there were significant main effects of peer-reported bullying that accounted for 3.4% of the variance, β = .12, t(288) = 2.10, p = .04, R² = .03, and victimization that accounted for 9.9% of variance, β = .35, t(288) = 6.00, p < .001, R² = .10, such that peer reports of aggression and being the victim of bullying predicted more depressive symptoms. There was not a significant interaction between bullying and victimization.

Anxiety Symptoms

Results of the fifth liner regression with self-report of bullying predicting anxiety symptoms yielded a significant model that accounted for 22.1% of the variance, F(5, 258) = 14.30, p < .001, R² = .22 (see Table 2). There was a significant main effect for gender, β = .23, t(258) = 4.16, p < .001, R² = .06, such that girls reported higher levels of anxiety symptoms than boys. There was also a significant main effect of victimization that accounted for 11.7% of the variance, β = .36, t(258) = 5.99, p < .001, R² = .12, that was attenuated by a significant interaction between bullying and victimization that accounted for 1.2% of the variance, β = .12, t(258) = −1.99, p = .05, R² = .01.

The slopes of bullying for high (1 SD above) and low (1 SD below) levels of victimization were tested covarying age and gender (see Figure 2). For children higher in victimization, the slope of self-reported bullying and anxiety symptoms was not significant, β = .03, t(340) = .46, p = .65. In comparison, for children lower in victimization, there was a marginally significant trend for increased bullying to predict more anxiety symptoms, β = .14, t(340) = 1.70, p = .10. That is, reports of lower victimization and lower bullying behavior predicted fewer anxiety symptoms. However, lower victimization but higher bullying behavior predicted more anxiety symptoms.

Figure 2.

The regression predicting anxiety symptoms from self-reported bullying and victimization after controlling for age and gender, was significant F(5, 258) = 14.30, p < .001. There was a significant interaction between bullying and victimization t(258) = −1.99, p = .05.

The results of the sixth linear regression using the peer-report of bullying to predict anxiety symptoms yielded an overall significant model for anxiety symptoms that accounted for 21.2% of the variance, F(5, 258) = 13.47, p < .001, R² = .21 (see Table 3). There was a significant main effect for gender,β = .22, t(258) = 3.83, p < .001, R² = .06, such that girls were more likely to report anxiety symptoms than boys. Furthermore, there was a significant main effect of victimization that accounted for 13.6% of the variance, β = .10, t(258) = 6.67, p < .001, R² = .14, such that the more victimization was reported, the higher the number of anxiety symptoms. There was not a significant main effect of bullying nor a significant interaction between bullying and victimization.

Discussion

The functionalist perspective of emotion (Campos et al., 1989) posits that emotion play a key role in social relationship and helps to maintain or disrupt these relationships. The current study provides further evidence of the significant interface between emotional regulation and emotion correlates and the social experiences of bullying and victimization behavior among African American elementary-school-age children. Despite increased attention in the media and research literature on the prevention and impact of bullying behavior (Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014), little research has examined emotion correlates of bullying behavior particularly among African American children in middle childhood. Overall, the results of this study indicated that children who self-reported more bullying behaviors and fewer experiences of being victimized, reported more difficulties with emotion dysregulation and symptoms of anxiety. Contrary to Blake et al. (2012), self- and peer-reports of bullying, and perceptions of being victimized were each associated with increased depressive symptoms. Furthermore, in contrast to other studies with all African American sample, peer-reports of aggression were not predictive of emotion dysregulation and anxiety symptoms (Blake et al., 2012; Coie et al., 1992). Fewer experiences of both bullying and being the recipient of bullying behavior predicted the most positive outcomes (i.e., low emotion dysregulation, low anxiety). These findings add to the literature by highlighting the problematic outcomes of being a bully and being victimized by a bully that affects the lives of many elementary-school-age children.

With respect to the findings regarding emotion dysregulation, the results indicate that more victimization experience without involvement in bullying predicted higher levels of emotion dysregulation. However, it is important to note that while the interaction was significant it only contributed to 1% variance over and beyond the main effects in the model. These findings are especially important given that the children reported higher levels of emotion dysregulation compared to previous samples (Zeman et al., 2001; Zeman et al., 2010). Because of the cross-sectional design of the study that excludes inferences about causality, it may also be that children who are emotionally dysregulated are more prone to bullying others and being the recipient of bullying. The direction of effects can only be determined through longitudinally designed studies (see Zimmer-Gembeck, 2016). These findings are partially consistent with other research using White samples that identified children high in both peer reported bullying and victimization to be significantly higher in emotion dysregulation than other children (Schwartz, 2000). However, the present study provides a slightly divergent view given that the interaction found between bullying and victimization was based on the self-report of both behaviors. That is, only bullies who have not reported substantial victimization reported increased emotion dysregulation. However, when peer reports of aggression were used to identify bullies, emotion dysregulation was related to higher levels of victimization but not aggression. Thus, these findings highlight the importance of considering the nature of the reporter providing information on aggressive and bullying behaviors.

Considered together, these findings add to the growing literature demonstrating the centrality of emotion regulation skills in children’s peer relations (Haynie et al., 2001; Schwartz, 2000). It has been suggested that bullies’ poor regulation skills are a catalyst for externalizing behaviors in the face of emotionally evocative situations. That is, bullies may react to perceived provocation by others through expressing negative emotions in under-controlled, intense emotional ways (Schwartz, 2000). Interestingly, these same emotionally dysregulated behaviors may also make children a target for bullying behavior due to the victim’s under-controlled displays of anger, sadness, and worry that may draw unwanted attention to themselves (Eisenberg, 2000).

Peer report of aggression was utilized in the present study. African American children are perceived by peers as exhibiting higher levels of aggression than their White peers (Putallaz et al., 2007). Arguably this is in part due to stereotypical portrayal of African Americans in the media as being overly aggressive and hostile (Gordon, 2016). Furthermore, it is important to note that both African American and White children completed sociometric ratings. Previous studies examining how adults report on children’s behavior have shown that there are significant differences across ratings of the children’s externalizing behavior based on the race of the child and rater. More specifically, White adult raters tend to perceive African American children as presenting more externalizing issues than White children? (Lambert, Puig, Lyubansky, Rowan, & Winfrey 2001). In the present study, we do not know how child ratings of aggression may have been influenced by racial biases; however, these potential biases may explain why peer report of aggression was not predictive of some of the outcomes. Future studies should address how children’s ratings of each other differ by rater and target specific racial and demographic differences.

Interestingly, peer perceptions of aggression were not predictive of emotion dysregulation. This finding is surprising since one of the items directly assesses poor anger regulation. However, the emotion dysregulation scale encompassed dysregulation of sadness and worry in addition to anger, and thus, it may be that peers do not view an aggressive peer as being dysregulated across all emotions. Furthermore, the behaviors assessed in the sociometric assessment did not evaluate aggressive behaviors directed toward other specific children in a targeted manner but rather reflected a general pattern of angry, aggressive behavior toward many (e.g., “starts fights”). One of the items (“is mean”) could have also been interpreted by others as indicative of relationally aggressive behavior. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to examine the relations between aggression, sociometrics, and emotion dysregulation in more detail in future research. It could be that self-perceptions of being a bully versus peer perceptions of who is aggressive yields a different subset of children for each type of reporter.

Regarding the findings for depressive symptoms, both self-report and peer-report of bullying and self-report of victimization were predictive of depressive symptoms. However, there were no significant interactions for self- or peer-report of bullying with self-report of victimization. It is noteworthy that the main effect findings held regardless of whether the report of bullying behaviors was generated by self-reports or peer-reports indicating the robust nature of these results. These findings dovetail other research in which youth identified by their peers as aggressive and rejected in third grade predicted increased depression symptoms in sixth grade in a sample of African American youth (Coie et al., 1992). These findings, however, point to the problematic vicious cycle for not only the victims of bullying behaviors but also for the aggressors. The negative psychological outcomes no doubt exacerbate the bullying and victimization behaviors. That is, bullies may externalize their unhappiness by aggressing against those who they consider to be vulnerable targets. The victims’ depressive symptoms may fuel their feelings of vulnerability and weakness, thus making them an easier target for their aggressors.

Children with higher levels of self-reported bullying behavior but lower levels of victimization reported higher levels of anxiety symptoms. Furthermore, lower victimization and lower self-reported bullying behaviors predicted lower levels of anxiety symptoms. This set of findings extends other research that found similar trends using predominately White and older adolescent samples (Veenstra et al., 2005). However, it is interesting that individuals high in both bullying and victimization did not report increased anxiety. However, in the model that used peer-reports of aggression, there was a main effect for victimization indicating that more victimization predicted higher symptoms of anxiety.

One significant difference between the present findings using an all African American sample and those that use predominately White samples is the difference in the experiences for the bully-victim. Previous research has found that children that both aggress and are victimized have the highest levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Burk et al., 2011; Graham & Bellmore, 2007). However, the present findings suggest that victimization accounts for the most variance for internalizing symptoms. Therefore, for African American children, it may be most important to focus on the victimization experience as opposed to aggressive behaviors, as it is most predictive of important emotional outcomes.

In the present study, gender was associated with peer reports of bullying but not self-report of bullying. Interestingly, peers reported females as higher in bullying behavior. It may be the slight variation in questions in peer- versus self-report that accounts for such differences. The sociometric measure asks if the child gets “mad easily” whereas, the self-report focuses on how that child teases others. Thus, the interpretation of these questions likely yielded the different findings. In addition, there were two gender differences in the outcomes, including girls reporting more emotional dysregulation, and anxiety symptoms than boys. These findings are somewhat consistent with the literature using White samples in that girls generally are higher in sadness dysregulation than boys (Zeman et al., 2001) but gender differences have not been found for anger or worry dysregulation. Previous research has reported that boys and girls do not differ on their anxiety symptoms (Merikangas et al., 2010). However, it could also be that these differences reflect differences in willingness to report vulnerability and difficulties, although gender differences were not found in reporting of depressive symptoms.

Additionally, age was also an important predictor of victimization, emotion dysregulation, and depressive symptoms. Across second to fifth grade, there was a significant decrease in means across the emotional correlates. These findings are consistent with other large representative populations showing a decrease in internalizing symptoms during this developmental period (Duchesne, Vitaro, Larose, & Tremblay, 2008). Characterizing these emotional competencies at this age is especially important in the prevention of problems reaching clinical levels. Further research should examine the trends in prevalence of internalizing symptoms and emotion dysregulation and see how different predictors account for changes in outcome trajectories (e.g., some children will remain high in anxiety whereas some will decrease across elementary school years).

This study contributes to the literature by its set of unique findings as well as methodological strengths such as the use of multiple reporters (child and peer) and the recruitment of an under-studied ethnic/racial minority population. Previous research indicates that children are the best reporters of their emotions, including empathy and internalizing symptoms as they do not always share how they are feeling with others (De Los Reyes et al., 2015; Durbin, 2010). For aggressive behavior, peers offer a unique perspective as they are often the recipients and/or observers of such behaviors (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). The peer and child ratings of aggressive behavior were strongly correlated further validating our bullying measure. Finally, the use of an African American elementary-school-age sample provides an important addition to the literature as this group has been understudied in the bullying, victimization, and emotion dysregulation research.

Despite these strengths, this article is limited by the single time point design. We were unable to draw causal inferences nor make within-person comparisons of how bullying and victimization affects emotion dysregulation and internalizing symptoms over time. Additionally, this study is limited in the developmental perspective evaluated in that it would be informative to document the factors that precede the development of bullying and victimization and the longitudinal outcomes of these experiences. This would add important information about the nature of bullying and victimization across key developmental periods in which social relationships change in critical ways. Finally, this study would have been strengthened by having teacher and/or guardian report of the outcomes variables as well as adult perceptions regarding children’s bullying and victimization behaviors.

There are many successful interventions focused on lowering rates of bullying (e.g., The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program; Olweus & Limber, 2010). However, many of the successful programs do not include emotion regulation strategy training components that this research and other researchers have demonstrated to be important variables to consider (Schwartz, 2000; Warden & Mackinnon, 2003). Furthermore, there is a dearth of interventions targeting children high in both victimization and bullying (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). This research supports teaching adaptive ways to manage strong emotions and alleviating internalizing symptoms. Furthermore, it highlights important differences between self- and peer-report of bullying on emotion profiles of children.

In summary, this research provides a more nuanced understanding of how emotion dysregulation and internalizing symptoms may present differently in African American urban elementary-school-age bullies and victims. Given that bullying is considered to be a stable construct (Camodeca, Goossens, Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002), learning more about the characteristics of bullies and their victims can aid in their identification and inform the development and implementation of intervention strategies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arsenio

W. F.

Lemerise

E. A.

(2001). Varieties of childhood bullying: Values, emotion processes, and social competence. Social Development, 10(1), 59-73. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00148

Blake

J. J.

Lease

A. M.

Turner

Outley

C. W.

(2012). Exploring ethnic variation in the adjustment patterns of aggressive girls. Journal of Black Psychology, 38, 104-131.

Borowsky

I. W.

Taliaferro

L. A.

McMorris

B. J.

(2013). Suicidal thinking and behavior among youth involved in verbal and social bullying: Risk and protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), 4-12. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.10.280

Bowie

B. H.

(2010). Understanding the gender differences in pathways to social deviancy: Relational aggression and emotion regulation. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 24(1), 27-37. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2009.04.007

Breslau

Aguilar-Gaxiola

Kendler

K. S.

Williams

Kessler

R. C.

(2006). Specifying race-ethnic differences in risk for psychiatric disorder in a USA national sample. Psychological Medicine, 36(1), 57-68. doi:10.1017/S0033291705006161

Burgess

K. B.

Wojslawowicz

J. C.

Rubin

K. H.

Rose-Krasnor

Booth-LaForce

(2006). Social information processing and coping strategies of shy/withdrawn and aggressive children: Does friendship matter? Child Development, 77, 371-383. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00876.x

Burk

L. R.

Armstrong

J. M.

Park

J. H.

Zahn-Waxler

Klein

M. H.

Essex

M. J.

(2011). Stability of early identified aggressive victim status in elementary school and associations with later mental health problems and functional impairments. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 225-238. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9454-6

Camodeca

Goossens

F. A.

Terwogt

M. M.

Schuengel

(2002). Bullying and victimization among school age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332-345. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00203

Campos

J. J.

Campos

R. G.

Barrett

K. C.

(1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394-402. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.394

10.

Champion

K. M.

Clay

D. L.

(2007). Individual differences in responses to provocation and frequent victimization by peers. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 37, 205-220. doi:10.1007/s10578-006-0030-9

11.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Coie

J. D.

Lochman

J. E.

Terry

Hyman

(1992). Predicting early adolescent disorder from childhood aggression and peer rejection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 783-792. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.5.783

13.

Crick

Grotpeter

(1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007148

14.

De Los Reyes

Augenstein

T. M.

Wang

Thomas

S. A.

Drabick

D. A.

Burgers

D. E.

Rabinowitz

. (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 858-900. doi:10.1037/a0038498

15.

Denham

S. A.

Workman

Cole

P. M.

Weissbrod

Kendziora

K. T.

Zahn-Waxler

(2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Development and Psychopathology, 12(1), 23-45.

16.

Duchesne

Vitaro

Larose

Tremblay

R. E.

(2008). Trajectories of anxiety during elementary-school years and the prediction of high school noncompletion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1134-1146. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9224-0

17.

Durbin

(2010). Validity of young children’s self-reports of their emotion in response to structured laboratory tasks. Emotion, 10, 519-535. doi:10.1037/a0019008

18.

Eisenberg

(2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665

19.

Eisenberg

Morris

A. S.

(2002). Children’s emotion-related regulation. In Reese

Kail

(Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 189-229). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

20.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

Spinrad

Fabes

R. A.

Shepard

Reiser

(2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72, 1112-1134. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00337

21.

Evans

C. B.

Fraser

M. W.

Cotter

K. L.

(2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 532-544. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004

22.

Faul

Erdfelder

(1992). Gpower 2.0. Bonn, Germany: Universitat Bonn.

23.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

Dulin

Piko

(2010). Bullying and depressive symptomatology among low-income, African-American youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 634-645. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9426-8

24.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

Dulin

A. J.

Piko

B. F.

(2007). Not just pushing and shoving: School bullying among African American adolescents. Journal of School Health, 77(1), 16-22. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00157.x

25.

Gastic

(2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying victims. Educational Review, 60, 391-404. doi:10.1080/00131910802393423

26.

Gordon

(2016) Achievement scripts media influences on African-American student’s academic performance, self-perceptions, and career interests. Journal of African-American Psychology, 42, 195-220. doi:10.1177/0095798414566510

27.

Graham

Bellmore

A. D.

(2007). Peer victimization and mental health during early adolescence. Theory into Practice, 46, 138-146. doi:10.1080/00405840701233081

28.

Graham

Juvonen

(2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 173-199. doi:10.1177/0272431602022002003

29.

Haavet

O. R.

Dalen

Straand

(2006). Depressive symptoms in adolescent pupils are heavily influenced by the school they go to. A study of 10th grade pupils in Oslo, Norway. European Journal of Public Health, 16, 400-404. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki197

30.

Hammond

W. R.

Yung

(1993). Psychology’s role in the public health response to assaultive violence among young African-American men. American Psychologist, 48, 142-154. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.142

31.

Hanish

Guerra

(2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in predicting children’s victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 201-223. doi:10.1023/A:1005187201519

32.

Haynie

D. L.

Nansel

Eitel

Crump

A. D.

Saylor

Simons-Morton

(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-49. doi:10.1177/0272431601021001002

33.

Hessler

Katz

(2007). Children’s emotion regulation: Self-report and physiological response to peer provocation. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 27-38. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.27

34.

Kelly

B. M.

Schwartz

Gorman

A. H.

Nakamoto

(2008). Violent victimization in the community and children’s subsequent peer rejection: The mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 175-185. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9168-6

35.

Kovacs

(1992). Children’s Depression Inventory. New York, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

36.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. P.

Agatston

P. W.

(2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age. Oxford, England: John Wiley.

37.

Ladd

Kochenderfer

Coleman

(1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103-1118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01785.x

38.

Ladd

Kochenderfer

Coleman

(1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relation systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181-1197. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01993.x

39.

Lambert

M. C.

Puig

Lyubansky

Rowan

G. T.

Winfrey

(2001). Adult perspectives on behavior and emotional problems in African American children. Journal of African-American Psychology, 27(1), 64-85. doi:10.1177/0095798401027001004

40.

March

Parker

Sullivan

Stallings

Conners

(1997). The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 554-565. doi:10.1097/00004583-199704000-00019

41.

McAuliffe

Hubbard

Rubin

Morrow

Dearing

(2006). Reactive and proactive aggression: Stability of constructs and relations to correlates. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 365-382. doi:10.3200/GNTP.167.4.365-382

42.

McLoyd

V. C.

(1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185

43.

Mendez

J. L.

Fantuzzo

Cicchetti

(2002). Profiles of social competence among low–income African American preschool children. Child Development, 73, 1085-1100. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00459

44.

Merikangas

K. R.

J. P.

Brody

Fisher

P. W.

Bourdon

Koretz

D. S.

(2010). Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders among US children in the 2001-2004 NHANES. Pediatrics, 125(1), 75-81. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2598

45.

Morelen

Southam-Gerow

Zeman

(2016). Links between child emotion regulation and victimization: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1941-1953.

46.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(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

47.

Neal

A. M.

Turner

S. M.

(1991). Anxiety disorders research with African Americans: Current status. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 400-410. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.400

48.

Olweus

Limber

S. P.

(2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124-134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x

49.

Putallaz

Grimes

C. L.

Foster

K. J.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Coie

J. D.

Dearing

(2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523-547. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.003

50.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

J. H.

Prinzie

Telch

M. J.

(2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244-252. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009

51.

Rubin

Bukowski

Parker

(1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In Eisenberg

(Ed), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 619-700). New York, NY: Wiley.

52.

Saarni

(1999). The development of emotional competencies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

53.

Schwartz

(2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192. doi:10.1023/A:1005174831561

54.

Slee

(1994). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer victimization. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97-107. doi:10.1007/BF02253289

55.

Smith

P. K.

(2004). Bullying: Recent developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 98-103. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2004.00089.x

56.

Smokowski

P. R.

Kopasz

K. H.

(2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27, 101-110. doi:10.1093/cs/27.2.101

57.

Smokowski

P. R.

Mann

E. A.

Reynolds

A. J.

Fraser

M. W.

(2004). Childhood risk and protective factors and late adolescent adjustment in inner city minority youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 63-91. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.003

58.

Storch

E. A.

Nock

M. K.

Masia-Warner

Barlas

M. E.

(2003). Peer victimization and social-psychological adjustment in Hispanic and African-American children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 439-452. doi:doi:10.1023/A:1026016124091

59.

Terry

Coie

J. D.

(1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867-880. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.867

60.

Tolan

P. H.

Henry

(1996). Patterns of psychopathology among urban poor children: Comorbidity and aggression effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1094-1099. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.5.1094

61.

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Oldehinkel

A. J.

De Winter

Verhulst

Ormel

(2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary-schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672

62.

Wallbott

H. G.

Scherer

K. R.

(1989). Assessing emotion by questionnaire. In Plutchik

Kellerman

(Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience: The measurement of emotions (Vol. 4, pp. 55-82). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

63.

Warden

Mackinnon

(2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 367-385. doi:10.1348/026151003322277757

64.

Warren

Good

Velten

(1984). Measurement of social-evaluate anxiety in junior high school students. Adolescence, 19, 643-648.

65.

Wells

Klap

Koike

Sherbourne

(2001). Ethnic disparities in unmet need for alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health care. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 2027-2032. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2027

66.

Woerpel

A. J.

Winston

Brady

S. S.

(2016). Stressful life circumstances, resources for support, and African American children’s psychological symptoms. Journal of African-American Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0095798416645717

67.

Zeman

Cassano

Adrian

. (2012). Socialization influences on children’s and adolescents’ emotional self-regulation processes: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In Barrett

Morgan

Fox

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulatory processes in development: New directions and international perspectives (pp. 79-107). New York, NY: Routledge.

68.

Zeman

J. L.

Cassano

Suveg

Shipman

(2010). Initial validation of the Children’s Worry Management Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 381-392. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9308-4

69.

Zeman

Shipman

Penza-Clyve

(2001). Development and initial validation of the Children’s Sadness Management Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 187-205. doi:10.1023/A:1010623226626

70.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2016). Peer rejection, victimization, and relational self system processes in adolescence: Toward a transactional model of stress, coping, and developing sensitivities. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 122-127. doi:10.1111/cdep.12174