Mediation of school bonding and peer norms on the reciprocal effects of friend victimization and problem behavior

Abstract

Peer victimization is a pervasive problem among children and associated with numerous psychological and behavioural problems for all participants. Research is needed to understand the complex relations between factors that increase risk of victimization and its consequences. We used autoregressive cross-lagged modelling with self-report data to examine the longitudinal reciprocal effects of victimization by friends with problem behaviour, as well as the mediating effects of school bonding and peer norms. Participants were 316 4th grade students in socioeconomically disadvantaged elementary schools in California, USA, most of whom were Latino/a American (89.9%). Results indicated a causal path from peer victimization by friends in 4th grade to problem behaviour in 5th grade, which was fully mediated by school bonding and peer norms for academics in 5th grade. These results confirm the need to monitor and respond to peer victimization by friends in any setting. Moreover, results demonstrate the importance of creating opportunities to positively engage students in school activities that teach or ensure positive social interactions and exposure to peers that are engaged in normative social and academic behaviours.

Keywords

Longitudinal analysis peer norms peer victimization problem behaviour school bonding

Peer victimization is pervasive among school-age children (e.g., Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010; Nylund, Bellmore, Nishina, & Graham, 2007). Peer victimization is defined as inflicting any type of physical, verbal, or relational harm to others of a similar age (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Olweus, 2001). It includes a broader set of behaviours than bullying, which involves the same behaviours inflicted with intentionality, repetition, and a power differential (Olweus, 1993). Researchers worldwide have long struggled to measure peer victimization and bullying in ways that facilitate cross-national comparisons and to accurately estimate prevalence rates. Past efforts have produced equivocal results with considerable differences of prevalence rates across studies and countries (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002). Research in the United States (USA) suggests approximately 20% to 30% of students are chronically involved in bullying as either victims, aggressors, or both (Nansel et al., 2001), whereas most students have experienced some form of peer victimization during their school lives (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Felix & McMahon, 2007).

Victimization is present across countries (for a review see Jimerson, Swearer, & Espelage, 2010). In addition, Western classifications of involvement in peer victimization and the psychosocial characteristics of victims and aggressors have also been found in non-Western cultures (e.g., Korea; Shin, 2010). Peer victimization shows remarkable stability over time, with Finnish students identified as victims at age 8-years-old also reporting peer victimization at 16-years-old (Sourander, Helstelä, Helenius, & Piha, 2000). Although common across all age groups from 3- to 18years-old (Cook, Williams, et al., 2010), victimization appears to be particularly common in middle school (Nylund et al., 2007). Given its widespread occurrence, scholarship needs to uncover factors that protect youth from long-term impacts of peer victimization.

Extant international research documents the association of peer victimization to psychological and behavioural problems in victims including depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and externalizing behaviour problems (Christiansen & Evans, 2005; Craig, 1998; Grills & Ollendick, 2002; Hampel, Manhal, & Hayer, 2009; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Rantanen, & Rimpelä, 2000; Shin, 2010). Peer victimization interferes with current and future school functioning, including engagement in learning, attitudes toward teachers and school, and academic achievement (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010). A Canadian study has shown that the association between victimization and academic achievement is stronger for victims with disruptive behaviour problems and poor peer relationships (Beran & Lupart, 2009). Even students who are rarely involved in peer victimization show higher prevalence of mental health problems than non-involved students (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000). Although research has established the prevalence and impact of victimization, there has been a call for a second generation of research to understand more complex processes that promote or ameliorate risk for peer victimization and its consequences (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2010).

Reciprocal relations between peer victimization and problem behaviour

Peer victimization is correlated with aggressive behaviour that impairs a child’s ability to meet the behavioural standards of school settings. For example, Schwartz, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1998) conducted a brief longitudinal investigation with 330 US children in 3rd or 4th grade of the role of peer victimization in the development of children’s behavioural maladjustment in school and at home. Results indicated that peer victimization was both concurrently and prospectively associated with increasing aggressive and delinquent behaviour as assessed by both teachers and mothers. In another US longitudinal study, Hanish and Guerra (2002) also found that peer victimization predicted increased externalizing behaviour.

The predictive association of aggressive behaviour to future victimization has also been identified (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2010). For example, in another analysis of similar longitudinal data, Schwartz, McFayen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1999) expanded on research that identified problematic and potentially aggressive relationships between children who have been victimized and confirmed that early behaviour problems predicted later peer group victimization. In the United Kingdom (UK), short-term longitudinal research supported the theory that peer victimization and poor psychosocial outcomes are mutually related over time (Boulton, Smith, & Cowie, 2010). Overall, these findings suggest it is important to consider the reciprocal nature of victimization and problem behaviour longitudinally. It would therefore be informative to understand which of those directional trends is more dominant.

There is growing international evidence to suggest that children who are involved in peer victimization as aggressor or victim experience problems within their friendships (Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1999; Shin, 2010; Wei & Jonson-Reid, 2011). Children may begin to narrow their group of friends to other children who are also victimized and who have similar behavioural issues. That is, children with a tendency towards antisocial behaviour select into peer relationships with other antisocial children, and these relationships with antisocial peers lead to increases in problem behaviour (Laird et al., 1999). Among Korean school children who were classified by their involvement in peer victimization (passive victim, aggressive victim, bullies, and normative contrasts), children tended to befriend others within their same subgroup (Shin, 2010). Among Taiwanese students, reciprocal peer nominations of friendship were found between aggressors and victims in 8% of relational victimization incidents, and 12% of physical victimization incidents (Wei & Jonson-Reid, 2011). Moreover, Hodges and Perry (1999) found that despite the negative consequences of peer victimization across time, this victimization did not predict a loss of friends. They suggested that victimization leads to changes in the nature of children’s friends, children tend to befriend similar others, and the experience of being victimized may influence these youth’s friend selection.

These studies highlight the importance of understanding friendship groups as a context where problem behaviour is reinforced and where children who are victimized by peers in general are also victimized in their friendship groups. This scenario fits with the ‘lifestyle exposure’ theoretical perspective about risk of victimization (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978). That is, an individual is exposed to victimization by associating with other individuals who are aggressive and/or who find themselves in risky situations where they are more likely to be victimized. Although research has focused on the peer contexts and social support of youth involved in victimization (e.g., Demaray, & Malecki, 2003; Holt & Espelage, 2007; Tanigawa, Furlong, Felix, & Sharkey, 2011), research has not yet focused on the specific subset of victimization that occurs in friendship groups, which we label ‘friend victimization’. Friend victimization may be a particularly insidious form of victimization because it is not well recognized. For example, in Canada, Mishna, Wiener, and Pepler (2008) conducted interviews with children aged 9- and 10-years-old who self-identified as victimized, as well as with their parents and teachers. Interviews indicated that a child being bullied by a friend is particularly perplexing for both the victim and observers. Specifically, it was difficult for the child to recognize that a friend was bullying them and for adults to appropriately identify these interactions as bullying despite experiencing repeated and intentional aggression. To pinpoint intervening factors in trajectories that involve victimization, further examination of friend victimization is warranted.

Mediators of friend victimization and problem behaviour

In addition to exploring the directional, reciprocal nature of the relations between victimization and problem behaviour, it is also important to understand key mediators of this association. For example, peer and school contexts may serve as ‘protective’ or ‘risk’ factors for victimization and problem behaviour (Crick et al., 1999; Hanish & Guerra, 2000). Despite substantial evidence that peer victimization leads to negative consequences, not all children suffer adverse consequences and many may be resilient in the face of the risk caused by victimization. For example, Ybrandt and Armelius (2010) found that self-esteem mediated the association between peer aggression and externalizing mental health problems, indicating a possible protective possibility for school interventions to enhance self-esteem to reduce behaviour problems. MacDonald and Validivieso (2000) propose that environments can promote resilience by providing developmental opportunities and emotional, motivational, and strategic supports. For students entering adolescence, school and peer groups are particularly critical contexts for development that likely influence resilience.

School bonding

School bonding can be conceptualized as psychological engagement to school, which includes students’ feelings that they belong in school, their interest in school and motivation to succeed, their identification with or attachment to school, the value they place on education, and their relationships with teachers and peers (Christenson, & Thurlow, 2004). Students’ bonding to school is positively related to their acceptance of school behavioural norms and negatively related to destructive behaviours that affect academic performance, such as substance abuse, disruptive behaviour, and delinquency (Finn & Rock, 1997; Hawkins, Guo, Hill, Battin-Pearson, & Abbott, 2001). Students with positive, supportive connections to school staff are more successful, both academically and socially (Furlong, Pavelski, & Saxton, 2002).

In contrast, a cross-national study of 40 countries found an association between negative school perceptions and involvement in bullying (Harel-Fisch et al., 2011). Past research has found complex relations between peer victimization, problem behaviours, and school bonding. For example, Wei and Williams (2004) found that the association between peer victimization and school bonding is mediated by perceived peer nonsupport among 6th grade students. They also found that lack of school bonding was related to inattentive school behaviours and poor academic achievement. Thus, it can be hypothesized that peer victimization leads to perceptions that peers are not supportive, which reduces feelings of attachment to school, which consequently leads to behaviour associated with school disengagement. In support of this, Haynie et al. (2001) compared non-victims, victims, bullies, and bully-victims in grades 6–8 on a variety of psychosocial indices. They found increasing problem behaviours and decreasing school adjustment and bonding across the subgroups of students involved in peer victimization. Victims reported more negative outcomes than non-victims, bullies reported more than victims, and bully-victims reported the most problems.

The extent that peer victimization affects school bonding may be the reason for increased behaviour problems, because students feel less connected to the social institutions that foster prosocial attitudes and behaviour. In support of this hypothesis, Stadler, Feifel, Rohrmann, Vermeiren, and Poustka (2010) found that school bonding (i.e., teacher support, attachment to school, and school climate) buffered both male and female adolescents from the negative effects of victimization when considering risk for mental health problems. Overall, school bonding has support as a potential mediator between peer victimization and problem behaviour.

Peer norms for academics

As students approach adolescence, the salience of peers as influences in social and academic arenas increases (Berndt, 1996). Friendship groups provide a ‘norming’ opportunity. Children who experience instability in their peer relationships or who are rejected by their peers tend to develop a negative attitude toward school and subsequently are at greater risk for low academic success, retention, delinquency, and dropping out (Vitaro, Larocque, Janosz, & Tremblay, 2001). Alternatively, a child is protected in situations where the peer group exhibits positive and adaptive behaviours (Hindelang et al., 1978). In the school setting, positive peers exhibit adaptive study habits and beliefs about the importance of doing homework and complying with school rules. Shin, Daly, and Vera (2007) established the association of positive peer norms for academics to school bonding in a sample of inner-city middle school students. Further work to understand the protective influence of positive peer relationships on victimization trajectories is needed.

Study purpose

Although peer victimization is commonly studied, further work is needed to determine longitudinal pathways of victimization and what factors mediate the causes and impacts of victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2010). Exploration of the protective roles of school bonding and positive peer group norms for academics on the relations between victimization and problem behaviours is especially important for understanding students who are already at-risk for negative schooling outcomes. Thus, our target population is late elementary school students who attend school settings where the majority of students are Latino/a and from families with lower socioeconomic status. Latino Americans are one of the fasted growing populations in the United State; yet additional study is needed to identify educational interventions that will address their unique educational challenges related to language differences, low socioeconmic status, recency of immigration, and variations in academic/school readiness. Identification of protective possibilities for these understudied students provides much-needed guidance for key educational interventions.

Using a cross-lag panel analysis, we explore the question of causational direction between victimization and problem behaviour to determine if friend victimization leads to problem behaviour rather than the other way around. Additionally, we examine if latent constructs of school bonding and peer norms for academic excellence explain the relation between friend victimization and problem behaviour. By understanding the impact of school bonding and peer norms for academics on the pathways between friend victimization and problem behaviour we investigate the possibility that school-based relationships are critical to interrupt negative developmental trajectories.

Method

Participants

Participants were 316 students (153 males and 163 females) sampled from a larger evaluation of an After School Education and Safety Program (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ba/as/) implemented in five elementary schools in a central coast California community. The project focused on ‘healthy start schools’, which have at least 50% of their students who either (a) come from families who have income and property below the California maximum limits for family size or (b) are English Learners. With approval from Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects, researchers collected surveys from all participating students with parent permission and student assent. Only students who participated in both their 4th and 5th grade years over the course of the program evaluation, which spanned from Spring 2000 to Spring 2006, were included in the study. For descriptive reference in this article, in the United States, 4th and 5th grade students are predominantly 9- and 10-years old. The ethnic make-up of this sample was 89.9% Latino/a American (145 females, 139 males), 6.3% European American (13 females, 7 males), and 3.8% other ethnicities (5 females, 7 males).

Measures

Friend victimization

Self-reports of peer victimization were obtained using an adapted four-item scale within The Perceptions of Peer Support Scale (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). The original scale demonstrated consistent patterns of responses with kindergarten children (α = 0.73) and, using the Olweus (1991) criterion, rates of kindergarten children who reported experiencing victimization were similar using the four-item measure (20.5%) as with 2nd graders in the Olweus (1991) study (17%). Participants in this study were asked to rate the extent to which they had experienced four types of friend aggression (originally ‘anyone in your class’) using a 3-point Likert scale (1 = no/never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = a lot). These items asked if they had experienced: Physical (e.g., ‘My friends kick or hit me); direct verbal (e.g., ‘My friends say mean things to me’) indirect verbal (e.g., ‘My friends say bad things about me to other kids’); and general (e.g., ‘My friends pick on me’) victimization. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for pre- and post-friend victimization scores were 0.82 and 0.80, respectively.

Problem behaviour

The Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI) is a self-report measure of adolescent resiliency (Springer & Phillips, 1997). We used the five highest-loaded items (> 0.40) from the self-reported risk behaviour section. These items inquired how many times in the last year the participant did any of the following: ‘Get sent to the principal’s office or have detention’, ‘get into a fist fight’, ‘talk back to a teacher’, ‘steal something’, and ‘damage someone else’s property on purpose’ on a three-point Likert scale (1 = 3 or more, 2 = 1 or 2, 3 = 0 times). Items were reverse-coded so higher scores indicate increase in problem behaviour. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for pre- and post-problem behaviour scores were 0.73 and 0.77, respectively.

Peer norms for academics

The Peer Norms Regarding Academic Excellence Inventory (Kurdek, Fine, & Sinclair, 1995) was developed to examine the degree to which adolescents are friends with peers who value academic excellence. On the inventory students are instructed to indicate how much they agree (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) with each of the eight statements regarding how their friends thought and felt about school. Five of the highest loaded items (> 0.40) were selected for this study 3, 4, 6, 7, 8: ‘I talk about school subjects with my friends’, ‘My friends and I have common interests in school subjects’, ‘I hang around with kids who like school’, ‘I fit in with kids who like school’, and ‘One thing my friends and I have in common is wanting to do well at school’. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for pre- and post-peer norms scores were 0.75 and 0.82, respectively.

School bonding

The Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993) measures perceived liking, personal acceptance, inclusion, respect, encouragement for participation, and sense of belonging in the school setting. Six of the highest loaded items (> 0.40) were selected for this study: ‘I feel like a real part of this school’, ‘People at this school are friendly to me’, ‘I am treated with as much respect as other students’, ‘People here know I can do good work’, ‘I feel proud of belonging to this school’, and ‘Other students here like me the way I am’. All items are written in a 5-point Likert format, with responses ranging from ‘not at all true’ (1) to ‘completely true’ (5). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for pre- and post-school bonding scores were 0.81 and 0.86, respectively.

Procedures

The two-page questionnaire was administered to students in small groups by graduate student researchers during the after school program. All participants were assigned study-specific identification numbers for tracking their responses over time. Since the items are ordinal variables that violate the assumption of multivariate normality, analysis was based on a robust weighted least squares (WLS) estimation using Mplus 4.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2006). In order to study the longitudinal relation between friend victimization and problem behaviour, an autoregressive cross-lagged modelling was performed. The key characteristic of the autoregressive model is that a linear regression of the scores at time t (when students were in 5th grade) is adequately explained by the score variation at time t-1 (when students were in 4th grade; Curran & Bollen, 2001). The parameter values obtained by regressing the measure at each time-point onto the same measure at the previous time-point are called autoregressive coefficients. In this study, our autoregressive model was extended to the bivariate case with two latent variables to allow the cross-lagged paths to represent reciprocal influences across constructs over time.

We modelled autoregressive cross-lagged relations in the repeated latent variables with multiple indicators rather than summed composites of multiple items. The latent variable approach has two advantages: Controlling for measurement error, and testing the assumption of measurement invariance across time. Testing the assumption of measurement invariance is a prerequisite to test the autoregressive model since it should be the outcome of theoretical interest that is changing rather than the scale used to measure the construct (Sayer & Cumsille, 2001). For model evaluation, we examined comparative fit index (CFI; close to 0.95) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; lower than 0.08). As experimental control was not possible due to human subjects protection against experiences of victimization, a causal chain was established in the first step of analysis by determining not only that there is an association between friend victimization and problem behaviour but that the victimization experience occurred prior to problem behaviour in longitudinal analysis (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004).

Results

Descriptive statistics

A preliminary descriptive analysis was conducted. Means, Standard Deviations, and scale reliabilities were computed for each scale and a correlation matrix documented associations between variables (Table 1).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and correlations between study variables

Variable Mean±SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

Females, Males

1. PRE friend victimization 1.56 ± 0.58, 1.47 ± 0.48 0.82 – 0.30* 0.33* −0.16 −0.18 −0.14

2. POST friend victimization 1.46 ± 0.56, 1.56 ± 0.48 0.80 0.14 – 0.39* 0.43* −0.45* −0.25*

3. PRE problem behaviour^a 1.51 ± 0.47, 1.18 ± 0.32 0.73 −0.04 −0.01 – 0.44* 0.18 −0.21*

4. POST problem behaviour^a 1.58 ± 0.52, 1.21 ± 0.30 0.77 −0.12 0.09 0.46* – −0.35* −0.21*

5. POST school bonding^a 3.62 ± 1.07, 3.92 ± 0.82 0.86 −0.24* −0.02 −0.39* −0.54* – −0.55*

6. POST peer norms^a 3.12 ± 1.01, 3.66 ± 0.89 0.82 −0.070 −0.228* −0.285* −0.424* 0.613* –

Note: ^a indicates gender difference at p < 0.01. *Correlation is significant at p < 0.01. The correlation matrix for males is displayed above the diagnonal and for females is displayed below the diagonal.

Reciprocal relations between friend victimization and problem behaviour

We fit the autoregressive cross-lagged model to test the reciprocal relations between friend victimization and problem behaviour. We tested first whether the latent variables have the same interpretation at each time-point. We tested measurement invariance across time by comparing two models: Model 1 without any constraints, and Model 2 with the equality constraints of the factor loadings across time. If a latent factor has equal loadings across time, this ensures that participants respond to the items in the same way across time. The comparison between the two models in terms of CFI and RMSEA demonstrates that Model 2 (i.e., χ²₍₁₂₁₎ = 176.39; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.04) fits better than Model 1 (i.e., χ²₍₁₃₀₎ = 251.67; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06). Because the Model 2 is nested within the Model 1, a chi-square difference test was also performed, which supported Model 2, indicating the equality constraints of factor loadings over time are valid. The parameter estimates obtained from Model 2 are presented in Figure 1. Results demonstrated a significant relation between pre- and post-scores in both latent factors, in particular, there was a strong relation found (0.55) in problem behaviour. Regarding cross-lagged path coefficients, we found that only friend victimization in 4th grade influenced problem behaviour in 5th grade. This result indicates that there is a causal direction from friend victimization to problem behaviour.
Figure 1.
Autoregressive cross-lagged model with standardized solution.

Mediating effects of school bonding and peer norms

To establish an indirect effect of friend victimization on problem behaviour via two mediators, both the path from friend victimization to the mediating variable and the path from the mediating variable to problem behaviour must be significant. Thus, we tested two mediational models: The partial meditational model included only the indirect effects from friend victimization to problem behaviour via two mediators, and the full meditational model included both indirect and direct effects of friend victimization to problem behaviour. Because the full mediational model is nested within the partial mediational model, a chi-square difference test was performed. A chi-square difference test supported the full meditational model (i.e., χ²₍₁₆₆₎ = 378.57; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.06) in addition to the fact that the direct path from friend victimization to problem behaviour was not significant in the partial meditational model (i.e., χ²₍₁₆₅₎ = 377.22; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.06). The parameter estimates obtained from the full mediating model are presented in Figure 2. Both mediators exerted significant effects in the relation between friend victimization and problem behaviour.
Figure 2.
Final structural model with standardized solution.

Discussion

This study examined the relation between friend victimization and problem behaviour with mediating influences of school bonding and peer norms for academic excellence. The directional effect of problem behaviour leading to friend victimization is not supported by this study, in contrast with another US study (Schwartz et al., 1999) and the ‘lifestyle exposure’ theory. Results of the autoregressive cross-lagged modelling indicated that at-risk Latino students who experienced more frequent friend victimization exhibited a subsequent increased likelihood of problem behaviour, whereas problem behaviour did not lead to future friend victimization. Thus, self-reports of physical or verbal victimization by friends at age 9-years-old years had a significant impact on their own reports of getting in trouble at school and being involved in delinquent activities such as stealing and property damage during the subsequent academic year.

These results support the US findings of Schwartz et al. (1998) about the prospective effects of peer victimization and concerns raised by Crick et al. (1999) about the negative effects of bullying between friends; however, they are in contrast to findings of Schwartz et al. (1999) about the link from early problem behaviour to later peer victimization. Other short-term longitudinal research has found an association between earlier engagement in bullying behaviour and changes in behavioural conduct (Boulton et al., 2010), thus, the type of involvement in peer victimization may matter. It is possible that reciprocal effects may have been muted given the short duration of the study and the fluid nature of friendship associations in elementary school. In the transition between 4th and 5th grades, the concentrated ‘exposure’ to negative friendship relationships may not be an issue if their friendship groups have changed. In particular, the students in this study were associated with an after-school program where friendships were limited to peers in the after-school program, similar to the circumstance of their regular academic day. As such, further study is warranted to continue exploring the longitudinal reciprocal effects of victimization and problem behaviour.

Limitations

Although this study addressed multiple important gaps in the peer victimization literature, there are some limitations that need attention in further study. First, the results relied solely on youth self-report. Triangulating data from other sources such as teacher and parent reports, peer nominations, or behaviour observations may provide a more accurate picture. Second, the sample size was small for such a complex analysis. Additional participants would provide more power to detect subtle effects and to analyse moderating effects such as the influence of gender that may influence the relations between variables. Third, although psychometrically valid measures were used, four items were changed to assess ‘friend’ victimization. Further psychometric analysis is needed to verify the validity of this adaptation. Finally, without additional research, results cannot be generalized beyond this understudied group of primarily low-income minority students, of whom many were English language learners.

Mediating effects of school bonding and peer norms

The mediation model indicated that school bonding and peer norms for academics explained the relation between friend victimization and problem behaviour. That is, early school bonding and peer academic norms were intervening variables in the trajectory from friend victimization to problem behaviour. The path from 4th grade peer victimization to 5th grade problem behaviour was explained by the extent to which the students felt connected to school and had friends who were also engaged in and liked schoolwork. Thus, the relation between early friend victimization and later problem behaviour is reduced by positive perspectives about school relationships and the availability of friends and associates who are positively engaged in the academic work of school. That is, school bonding and having peers with positive academic attitudes buffered the impact of early friend victimization.

Morrison, Brown, D’Incau, O’Farrell, and Furlong (2006) label key actions that can be taken in school settings to enhance student resilience as ‘protective possibilities’. These relationships within a school setting have been captured with research measures that centre on concepts of bonding, attachment, and engagement in school (Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003). Our results lend credence to the importance of present circumstances for elementary school students. The longitudinal effects of friend victimization and later problem behaviour were lessened by the students’ perceptions, at the later point in time (5th grade), about the extent to which they felt their peer and teacher relationships at school were positive and the extent to which their peers had good attitudes toward academics tasks at school. These findings emphasize the importance of school-level interventions designed to enhance the student’s positive relationships to teachers, peers, and academic norms. Such efforts have the potential of halting a negative developmental trajectory initiated through early peer victimization experiences.

Implications

This study confirms the importance of understanding that victimization or aggression within peer groups has long-lasting effects on adjustment, especially later involvement in incidents of misbehaviour. Fortunately there are social and contextual processes that may intervene in this negative developmental trajectory. Comprehensive reviews of the international literature identify some of these processes in elements of bully-victimization prevention and intervention programs, e.g., schoolwide and classroom behaviour intervention programs, peer anti-bullying interventions, individual interventions, and parent education and awareness programs (Jimerson & Huai, 2010). Acknowledging the importance of implementing programs at the community, school, family, and individual levels, our research findings lend the most insight into peer group and school social contexts as important levels of concern and intervention. School psychologists play an important facilitative role in assessing and modifying peer and school social contexts, e.g., as consultants they may be involved in the design and implementation of evidence-based programs to enhance social skills. They provide key information for teachers about how to identify and intervene with peer social contexts that involve aggression or bullying. School psychogists may also assist in the design and implementation of classroom structures and curriculum that ensure positive peer norms for academic and social engagement.

The implications of this study are important beyond the role of school psychologists in schools. The presence of school psychologists varies considerably from country to country, and the types of services provided by a school psychologist may be scarce (Cook, Jimerson, & Begeny, 2010). Thus, it is important to develop intervention strategies that can be implemented in a variety of settings as well as by professional school psychologists in schools. Schools, families, and other caretaking contexts should be aware of the interactions that happen within friendship groups. Relational and physical aggression may be considered acceptable, ‘normal’ behaviour in some peer groups or friendship dyads; research in Taiwan demonstrated that peer victimization incidents often occurred in perceived friendship groups (Wei & Johnson-Reid, 2011). School personnel need to be alert to bullying dynamics and normative aggression within friendship dyads or groups. Opportunities within classrooms or other group peer contexts to discuss acceptable and unacceptable social interactions can help to norm or re-norm social group standards (Olweus, 2004; Salmivalli, 2001).

The results of the present study indicate that school bonding and academic peer norms are significant mediators of early friend victimization and later problem behaviour. As surveyed in this study, these concepts refer to opportunities within a school context for students to feel they are liked and respected by teaches and peers and for them to relate to other peers who are positively involved in school activities and recognized for their participation. School psychologists can play a key role in collaboration with teachers and adminstrators to combat peer victimization in the following ways: (a) provide opportunities for students to be actively and successfully engaged in academic, social, artistic, and athletic school activities; (b) provide mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding such engagement; (c) provide opportunities for mentoring relationships—e.g., teacher-to-student and student-to-younger-student; (d) teach cooperative learning; and (e) ensure that positive feedback and discussion about successes occur in individual, peer, and parent contexts. In conclusion, our results reinforce the importance of close examination of peer group dynamics and opportunities to positively engage students in school activities where structure teaches or ensures positive social interactions and exposure to peers that are engaged in normative social and academic behaviours.

Variable	Mean±SD	Alpha	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. PRE friend victimization	1.56 ± 0.58, 1.47 ± 0.48	0.82	–	0.30*	0.33*	−0.16	−0.18	−0.14
2. POST friend victimization	1.46 ± 0.56, 1.56 ± 0.48	0.80	0.14	–	0.39*	0.43*	−0.45*	−0.25*
3. PRE problem behaviour^a	1.51 ± 0.47, 1.18 ± 0.32	0.73	−0.04	−0.01	–	0.44*	0.18	−0.21*
4. POST problem behaviour^a	1.58 ± 0.52, 1.21 ± 0.30	0.77	−0.12	0.09	0.46*	–	−0.35*	−0.21*
5. POST school bonding^a	3.62 ± 1.07, 3.92 ± 0.82	0.86	−0.24*	−0.02	−0.39*	−0.54*	–	−0.55*
6. POST peer norms^a	3.12 ± 1.01, 3.66 ± 0.89	0.82	−0.070	−0.228*	−0.285*	−0.424*	0.613*	–

Footnotes

Funding

Study data were collected for a grant designed to evaluate an after-school program funded by the California Department of Education (ASES I.D. NUMBER:42-R2002-594). A Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund granted to Sukkyung You supported the analysis.

Author biographies

Gale M. Morrison, PhD, is Dean of the Graduate Division at UCSB and a Professor of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology. Dr Morrison received her PhD in Special Education from the University of California, Riverside and joined the faculty at UCSB in 1980. Her research examines the risk and resilience patterns for upper elementary students with and without disabilities who experience discipline problems at school and documents the educational and behavioural trajectories of students as they transition to middle or junior high schools. Address: Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490, USA. Email: gale.morrison@graddiv.ucsb.edu

Sukkyung You, PhD, is an Assistant Professor for the College of Education at the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Korea. She completed her doctoral degree from the University of California at Santa Barbara, USA. Her recent scholarly publications and conference presentations have focused on students’ achievement, motivation, risk and resilience, school violence, social context of education, and gender and ethnic differences in emotional and behavioural problems. She has been awarded research grants from the Association for Institutional Research, American Educational Research Association, the Spencer foundation, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Address: Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, College of Education, 270, Imun-Dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea, 130–791. Email: skyou@hufs.ac.kr

Jill D. Sharkey, PhD, obtained her doctorate from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and serves as a Faculty Member in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at UCSB. Dr Sharkey was a Research Summit Scholar (2010) and an Early Career Scholar (2005) in collaboration conferences sponsored by The Society for the Study of School Psychology. She has received numerous awards including the Michael Goodman Memorial Research Award (2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011) and the National Association of School Psychologist’s Paul H. Henkin Scholarship (2004). Dr Sharkey conducts research at the Center for School-Based Youth Development, where she studies student engagement for youth at risk, proactive discipline strategies, and systems influences on juvenile delinquency and joining youth gangs. Address: Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490, USA. Email: jsharkey@education.ucsb.edu

Erika D. Felix, PhD, obtained her doctorate in clinical-community psychology from DePaul University and is a Research Faculty member in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). Her research interests include school bullying and peer victimization, disaster mental health, and school-based prevention and intervention services for youth. Dr Felix has co-authored several scholarly publications and presentations in the areas of peer victimization, disaster mental health, preventive interventions for youth, and program evaluation. Address: Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490, USA. Email: efelix@education.ucsb.edu

Amy J. Griffiths, PhD, obtained her doctorate from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and currently serves as the Director of Advance LA, an intervention program of The Help Group, designed to support teens and young adults with disabilities as they transition into adulthood. She has served as a consultant and trainer implementing data-driven practices in a number of settings, including schools and residential treatment facilities. Dr Griffiths has conducted research on topics including implementing Positive Behaviour Supports, reading intervention, bullying prevention, empirically-supported targeted interventions for students with behavioural concerns, and the development of data-based decision making teams. In addition, she has published in a number of areas including threat assessment, student engagement, and positive school adaptation. Special areas of interest include systems-change and the development of interventions to improve outcomes for children at-risk for academic and/or behavioural problems. Address: The Help Group, 13130 Burbank Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401, USA. Email: amyjanegriffiths@gmail.com

References

Berndt

T. J.

(1996) Transitions in friendship and friends’ influence. In: Graber

J. A.

Brooks-Gunn

Petersen

A. C.

(eds) Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, pp. 57–84.

Beran

T. N.

Lupart

(2009) The relationship between school achievement and peer harassment in Canadian adolescents: The importance of mediating factors. School Psychology International, 30, 75–91. doi: 10.1177/0143034308101851.

Boulton

M. J.

Smith

P. K.

Cowie

(2010) Short-term longitudinal relationships between children’s peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions. School Psychology International, 31, 296–311. doi: 10.1177/0143034310362329.

Buhs

E. S.

Ladd

G. W.

Herald

S. L.

(2006) Peer exclusion and victimisation: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1.

Christiansen

E. J.

Evans

W. P.

(2005) Adolescent victimisation testing models of resiliency by gender. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 298–316. doi: 10.1177/0272431605276931.

Christenson

S. L.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2004) School dropouts: Prevention consideration, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 36–39. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301010.x.

Cook

C. R.

Jimerson

S. J.

Begeny

J. C.

(2010) A model for predicting the presence of school psychology. School Psychology International, 31, 438–461. doi: 10.1177/0143034310377580.

Cook

C. R.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

Kim

T. E.

(2010) Variability in the prevalence of bullying and victimisation: A cross-national and methodological analysis. In: Jimerson

S. R.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

(eds) Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective, New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 347–362.

Craig

W. M.

(1998) The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123–130. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00145-1.

10.

Crick

N. R.

Bigbee

M. A.

(1998) Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.337.

11.

Crick

N. R.

Werner

N. E.

Casas

J. F.

O’Brien

K. M.

Nelson

D. A.

Grotpeter

J. K.

Markon

(1999) Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an old problem, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

12.

Curran

P. J.

Bollen

K. A.

(2001) The best of both worlds: Combining autoregressive and latent curve models. In: Collins

L. M.

Sayer

A. G.

(eds) New methods for the analysis of change, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 105–136. . doi: 10.1037/10409-004.

13.

Demaray

M. K.

Malecki

C. K.

(2003) Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471–489.

14.

Espelage

D. L.

Bosworth

Simon

T. R.

(2000) Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 326–333. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x.

15.

Felix

E. D.

McMahon

S. D.

(2007) The role of gender in peer victimisation among youth: A study of incidence, interrelations, and social cognitive correlates. Journal of School Violence, 6, 27–44. doi: 10.1300/J202v06n03_03.

16.

Finn

J. D.

Rock

D. A.

(1997) Academic success among students among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234. doi: 10.1037/00219010.82.2.221.

17.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

Barron

K. E.

(2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115.

18.

Furlong

M. J.

Pavelski

Saxton

(2002) The prevention of school violence. In: Brock

Lazarus

Jimerson

S. R.

(eds) Best practices in crisis intervention, Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists, pp. 131–149.

19.

Goodenow

(1993) The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79–90. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(199301)30:1<79::AID-PITS2310300113>3.0.CO;2-X.

20.

Grills

A. E.

Ollendick

T. H.

(2002) Peer-victimisation, global self-worth, and anxiety in middle school children. Journal of Clinical Child Adolescent Psychology, 31, 59–68.

21.

Hampel

Manhal

Hayer

(2009) Direct and relational bullying among children and adolescents: Coping and psychological adjustment. School Psychology International, 30, 474–490. doi: 10.1177/0143034309107066.

22.

Hanish

L. D.

Guerra

N. G.

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

23.

Hanish

L. D.

Guerra

N. G.

(2002) A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimisation. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89. doi: 10.1017/S0954579402001049.

24.

Harel-Fisch

Walsh

S. D.

Fogel-Grinvald

Amitai

Pickett

Molcho

(2011) Negative school perceptions and involvement in school bullying: A universal relationship across 40 countries. Journal of Adolescence, 34(4), 639–652. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.008.

25.

Hawkins

J. D.

Guo

Hill

K. G.

Battin-Pearson

Abbott

R. D.

(2001) Long term effects of the Seattle social development intervention of school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 225–236. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0504_04.

26.

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, 29–49. doi: 10.1177/0272431601021001002.

27.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

(1978) Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimisation, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

28.

Hodges

E. V. E.

Perry

D. G.

(1999) Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimisation by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.677.

29.

Holt

M. K.

Espelage

D. L.

(2007) Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984–994. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3.

30.

Jimerson

S. R.

Campos

Greif

J. L.

(2003) Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8, 7–28.

31.

Jimerson

S. R.

Huai

(2010) International perspectives on bullying prevention and intervention. In: Jimerson

S. R.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

(eds) Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective, New York: Routledge, pp. 571–592.

32.

Jimerson

S. R.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

(2010) International scholarship advances science and practice addressing bullying in schools. In: Jimerson

S. R.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

(eds) Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–6.

33.

Kaltiala-Heino

Rimpelä

Rantanen

Rimpelä

(2000) Bullying at school—an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661–674. doi: 10.1006/jado.2000.0351.

34.

Kochenderfer

B. J.

Ladd

G. W.

(1996) Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317. doi: 10.2307/1131701.

35.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

Troop-Gordon

(2010) Contexts, causes, and consequences new directions in peer victimisation research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 221–230. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0048.

36.

Kurdek

L. A.

Fine

M. A.

Sinclair

R. J.

(1995) School adjustment in sixth graders: Parenting transitions, family climate, and peer norm effects. Child Development, 66, 430–445. doi: 10.2307/1131588.

37.

Laird

R. D.

Pettit

G. S.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

(1999) Best friendships, group relationships, and antisocial behaviour in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(4), 413–437. doi: 10.1177/0272431699019004001.

38.

MacDonald

G. B.

Validivieso

(2000) Measuring deficits and assets: How we track youth development now, and how we should track it, Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, Center for Youth Development and Policy Research.

39.

Mishna

Wiener

Pepler

(2008) Some of my best friends–experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology International, 29, 549–573. doi: 10.1177/0143034308099201.

40.

Morrison

G. M.

Brown

D’Incau

O’Farrell

S. L.

Furlong

M. J.

(2006) Understanding resilience in educational trajectories: Implications for protective possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 19–31. doi: 10.1002/pits.20126.

41.

Murray-Harvey

Slee

P. T.

(2010) School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31, 271–295. doi: 10.1177/0143034310366206.

42.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Author.

43.

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, 2094–100. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.

44.

Nylund

Bellmore

Nishina

Graham

(2007) Subtypes, severity, and structural stability of peer victimisation: What does latent class analysis say? Child Development, 78, 1706–1722. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01097.x.

45.

Olweus

(1991) Bully/victim problems among school-children: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In: Pepler

Rubin

(eds) The development and treatment of childhood aggression, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 411–448.

46.

Olweus

(1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

47.

Olweus

(2001) Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In: Juvonen

Graham

(eds) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 3–20.

48.

Olweus

(2004) The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation issues and a new initiative in Norway. In: Smith

P. K.

Pepler

Rigby

(eds) Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be?, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–36. . doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511584466.003.

49.

Salmivalli

(2001) Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implications. In: Juvonen

Graham

(eds) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 398–419.

50.

Sayer

A. G.

Cumsille

P. E.

(2001) Second-order latent growth models. In: Collins

L. M.

Sayer

A. G.

(eds) New methods for the analysis of change, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 179–200. . doi: 10.1037/10409-006.

51.

Schwartz

McFadyen-Ketchum

S. A.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(1998) Peer group victimisation as a predictor of children’s behaviour problems at home and in school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 87–99. doi: 10.1017/S095457949800131X.

52.

Schwartz

McFadyen-Ketchum

S. A.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(1999) Early behaviour problems as a predictor of later peer group victimisation. Journal Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 191–201. doi: 10.1023/A:1021948206165.

53.

Shin

Daly

Vera

(2007) The relationships of peer norms, ethnic identity, and peer support to school engagement in urban youth. Professional School Counseling, 10, 379–388.

54.

Shin

(2010) Psychosocial and friendship characteristics of bully/victim subgroups in Korean primary school children. School Psychology International, 31, 372–388. doi: 10.1177/0143034310377296.

55.

Smith

P. K.

Cowie

Olafsson

R. F.

Liefooghe

A. P. D.

(2002) Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00461.

56.

Sourander

Helstelä

Helenius

Piha

(2000) Persistence of bullying from childhood to adolescence—a longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 873–881. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00146-0.

57.

Springer, J. F., & Phillips, J. L. (1997). Individual protective factors index: A measure of adolescent resilience. Evaluation, Management and Training (EMT) Associates, Inc.

58.

Stadler

Feifel

Rohrmann

Vermeiren

Puoustka

(2010) Peer-victimisation and mental health problems in adolescents: Are parental and school support protective? Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41, 371–386. doi: 10.1007/s10578-010-0174-5.

59.

Tanigawa

D. A.

Furlong

M. J.

Felix

E. D.

Sharkey

J. D.

(2011) The protective role of perceived social support against the manifestation of depressive symptoms in peer victims. Journal of School Violence, 10(4)), doi: 10.1080/15388220.2011.602614.

60.

Turner

H. A.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

(2010) Child mental health problems as risk factors for victimisation. Child Maltreatment, 15, 132–143. doi: 10.1177/1077559509349450.

61.

Vitaro

Larocque

Janosz

Tremblay

R. E.

(2001) Negative social experiences and dropping out of school. Educational Psychology, 21, 401–415. doi: 10.1080/01443410120090795.

62.

Wei

Jonson-Reid

(2011) Friends can hurt you: Examining the coexistence of friendship and bullying among early adolescents. School Psychology International, 32, 244–262. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402310.

63.

Wei

Williams

J. H.

(2004) Relationship between peer victimisation and school adjustment in sixth-grade students: Investigating mediation effects. Violence and Victims, 19, 557–571. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.5.557.63683.

64.

Ybrandt

Armelius

(2010) Aggression and mental health problems: Self-esteem as a mediator. School Psychology International, 31, 146–163. doi: 10.1177/0143034309352267.

Variable	Mean±SD	Alpha	1	2	3	4	5	6
Variable	Females, Males	Alpha	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. PRE friend victimization	1.56 ± 0.58, 1.47 ± 0.48	0.82	–	0.30*	0.33*	−0.16	−0.18	−0.14
2. POST friend victimization	1.46 ± 0.56, 1.56 ± 0.48	0.80	0.14	–	0.39*	0.43*	−0.45*	−0.25*
3. PRE problem behaviour^a	1.51 ± 0.47, 1.18 ± 0.32	0.73	−0.04	−0.01	–	0.44*	0.18	−0.21*
4. POST problem behaviour^a	1.58 ± 0.52, 1.21 ± 0.30	0.77	−0.12	0.09	0.46*	–	−0.35*	−0.21*
5. POST school bonding^a	3.62 ± 1.07, 3.92 ± 0.82	0.86	−0.24*	−0.02	−0.39*	−0.54*	–	−0.55*
6. POST peer norms^a	3.12 ± 1.01, 3.66 ± 0.89	0.82	−0.070	−0.228*	−0.285*	−0.424*	0.613*	–