Peer victimization in youth from immigrant and non-immigrant US families

Abstract

The phenomenology of peer victimization in youth from immigrant and non-immigrant US families was investigated in the current study. Specifically, differences in how youth were victimized, their responses to being victimized, and how peer bystanders responded to peer aggression incidents involving youth from these respective groups were investigated. Data were collected from two subsets of youth involved in a national research project. Results indicate that youth from immigrant families are more likely than their non-immigrant peers to report being victimized by physical aggression and to be victimized because of issues related to their race, religion, and family income. In addition, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that their own responses to peer aggression were less likely to lead to positive outcomes and that peer bystander interventions did not benefit them as much as these interventions benefited their non-immigrant peers. Lastly, a concerning number of youth from immigrant families reported that both their own and bystander responses to peer aggression actually resulted in negative outcomes for them.

Keywords

Aggression bullying bystanders immigration peer victimization

Youth from families who have recently immigrated to the United States are entering public schools in large numbers and represent one of the fastest growing segments of the US population (Suárez-Orozco, Pimentel, & Martin, 2009). These youth come from various countries around the world and they often have strong family values, an optimistic life outlook, and positive beliefs about the value of education—all of which are key resiliency factors (Cardoso & Thompson, 2010; Perez, Espinoza, Ramos, Coronado, & Cortes, 2009). However, immigrant youth also face many risk factors that are associated with the acculturation process (i.e. the process of adapting to or incorporating values, behaviors, and cultural artifacts from the predominant culture). Additionally, new immigrants may be negatively impacted by discrimination, prejudice, and racism (Szalacha, Erkut, Coll, Alarcon, Fields, & Ceder, 2004); experience limited upward social mobility (Borjas, 2008); have low social capital (Kesler & Bloemraad, 2010); face challenges associated with learning a new language or dialect (Messinger, Nieri, Villar, & Luengo, 2012); and be disproportionally exposed to school and community violence (García-Coll & Magnuson, 1997; Peguero, 2009; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001).

These challenges and other stressors associated with the acculturation process have been incorporated within a stress and coping framework that pertains to recent US immigrants (Berry, 2001). This framework involves the process of adaptation to a dominant culture and it is linked with the development of psychosocial distress and physical health problems in individuals who have recently immigrated to a new country (De La Rosa, 2002; Finch, Frank, & Vega, 2004; Vega, Gil, & Wagner, 1998). Furthermore, the distress associated with acculturation has been linked with reductions in resiliency or protective factors such as social support (Peguero, 2009). Thus, in combination with other stressors, the additive effects of acculturative stress may contribute to a particular vulnerability in recent US immigrants (Berry, 2001; Messinger et al., 2012).

Peer victimization and immigrant youth

Peer victimization, the most common form of aggressive behavior that occurs in schools (Ross, 2002), may be particularly pernicious when it is experienced by youth from immigrant families. Large population-wide studies suggest between 10% to 25% of US youth are affected by peer victimization each year (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009) and other studies suggest that approximately half of students are victimized at some point during their K-12 educational experience (e.g. Charach, Pepler, & Ziegler, 1995). Furthermore, in addition to being a prevalent problem, being victimized by peer aggression is associated with negative psychosocial outcomes such as reductions in school attendance, decreases in emotional well-being, and poor self-esteem, as well as elevated risks for experiencing depression, anxiety, and even suicide (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Haynie et al., 2001; Staubli & Killias, 2011). Thus, peer victimization is a problem that impacts many students; however, as discussed below, it may disproportionately affect at-risk or vulnerable youth such as youth from families who have recently immigrated to a new country.

Phenomenology of peer victimization in immigrant youth

Scherr and Larson (2010) define ‘immigrant bullying’ as ‘bullying that targets another’s immigrant status or family history of immigration in the form of taunts and slurs, derogatory references to the immigration process, physical aggression, social manipulation, and exclusion because of immigration status’ (p. 225). Furthermore, and consistent with definitions of bullying that involve a power imbalance between aggressors and targets (e.g. Olweus, 1993), immigrant youth may be particularly at-risk for peer victimization because they may have low social power in particular contexts (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001). For example, as discussed by Scherr and Larson (2010), bullying-related power imbalances have been reported that disproportionately impact immigrant youth in certain school contexts (e.g. ‘the Latino lunch area’, ‘the Black-only door’). Therefore, although the presence of diversity and potential in-group/out-group conflict does not directly contribute to the victimization of immigrant youth, it does contribute to power imbalances that may disadvantage immigrant youth who display particular vulnerabilities (McKenney, Pepler, Craig, & Connolly, 2006). In this vein, immigrant youth who are adjusting to a new culture, learning a new language, and feeling socially isolated may display unique vulnerabilities to peer aggression and its pernicious effects (Messinger et al., 2012; Peguero, 2009).

Research on the phenomenology of peer victimization in immigrant youth is still emerging. Some studies have found that immigrant youth display higher rates of peer victimization when compared to their non-immigrant peers (e.g. Graham & Juvonen, 2002; von Grunigen, Perren, Nagele, & Alsaker, 2010). However, other studies have found the opposite (e.g. Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Strohmeier, Spiel, & Gradinger, 2008) and yet others have found no difference between groups in rates of victimization (e.g. McKenney et al., 2006; Monks, Ortega-Ruiz, & Rodriguez-Hidalgo, 2008). This discrepancy in findings may be related to the influence of important contextual variables. For example, research indicates that societies are particularly hostile to immigrant youth if they have low ethnic and cultural diversity and exhibit xenophobic and racist attitudes toward perceived outsiders (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Perhoniemi, 2006; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006; Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000). In these contexts, immigrant youth might be directly victimized because of negative perceptions associated with their cultural or ethnic group, indirectly because of intrapersonal and interpersonal problems that arise from being perceived as different from majority members of society, or through being marginalized from members of their own culture (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006; Mendez, Bauman, & Guillory, 2012).

Immigrant youth within the US context

The US has been heralded as a nation of immigrants and a cultural melting pot. Throughout much of its history, the country has experienced impressive population growth that was largely due to influxes of immigrants. However, despite being significantly more open to accepting immigrants than many other countries, immigrants have repeatedly been discriminated against in the US context (Jaret, 1999). Further, history indicates that notable spates in anti-immigrant sentiment tend to correspond with social changes associated with large influxes in immigrants (Cornelius, 2005).

According to a report by the Pew Research Center, almost half (42%) of Americans identify immigration as a ‘very big problem’ that impacts the country (Pew Research Center, 2006). In addition, according to data collected by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), xenophobia has risen considerably in the US since the 1990s and hate crimes against immigrants have become more prevalent (McDevitt, Shively, & Subramanian, 2011; Potok, 2008). Some scholars argue that recent legislative acts such as the Illegal Immigration Reform of 1996 and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 have increased anti-immigration sentiment and have contributed to a hostile dynamic between US-born individuals and immigrants (e.g. Androff, Ayon, Becerra, & Gurrola, 2011; Massey, Durand, & Malone, 2003). These acts empower states to limit or exclude immigration, preclude the provision of social services to undocumented immigrants, and require educational institutions to report foreign students to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (Massey et al., 2003). Furthermore, increased effort of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to remove undocumented adult immigrants during the past ten years has contributed to the dissolution of immigrant families when undocumented parents of US-born youth are deported (Capps, Castanada, Chaudry, & Santos, 2007).

Social identity theory and immigrant US youth

Relatively few studies have been conducted on peer victimization in immigrant youth, especially within the US context (Scherr & Larson, 2010). However, immigrant youth and youth of immigrant parents may be particularly likely to be victimized. According to social identity theory, which predicts that members of dominant in-groups derogate members of out-groups to maintain hegemony and a consistent group identity, youth from immigrant families may be victimized because of their status as a definable and potentially threatening out-group (McDevitt et al., 2011). Previous studies have found that members of in-groups often condone the use of peer aggression when it was consistent with in-group norms and when it was directed toward identifiable members of an out-group who may pose a real or perceived threat to members of the in-group (Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Gini, 2006). Thus, along with rising concerns that recent immigrants to the US will not assimilate to prevailing cultural, linguistic, and social norms and with concomitant increases in incidents of hostility toward immigrants (Androff et al., 2011; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2006; McDevitt et al., 2011; Potok, 2008), youth from families who have recently immigrated to the US may be targeted by peer aggression because of their immigrant identity their status as a definable out-group.

The current study

Consistent with tenants of social identity theory, we hypothesized that youth from families who had recently immigrated to the US would be more likely to report being victimized by peer aggression than would their non-immigrant peers as they may be identified as members of an out-group (Gini, 2006). In addition, because literature suggests that immigrant status, race, ethnicity, religion, physical appearance, and socio-economic status (SES) may be associated with having an immigrant identity or with being a member of an out-group (Phinney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001; Wiley, Perkins, & Deaux, 2008; Zhou, 1997), this study tested for differences in the focus of peer victimization. Specifically, we hypothesized that youth from immigrant families would be more likely to report being victimized because of issues related to their race, physical appearance (i.e. looks, body shape), religion, and family income than would non-immigrant youth. Lastly, in the absence of guiding literature, yet consistent with calls for research on contextual variables that may influence the bullying of immigrant youth (e.g. Peguero, 2009; Scherr & Larson, 2010), this study examined differences between youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families in how they respond to being victimized by peers, as well as differences in the ways that bystanders respond to incidents of peer aggression involving these groups. Because this is the first study to investigate these variables in this population, no specific hypotheses were formed a priori about bystander responses to peer aggression.

Method

Participants

All included participants (N = 2,929) reported that they had been victimized two times per month or more and were sampled from a larger sample of youth (N = 13,177) who participated in the Youth Voice Project (for more information, see: http://youthvoiceproject.com). Of those 2,929 victimized youth, a total of 280 participants (approximately 10% of the total sample) reported being from families who had immigrated to the US within the past two years. Cross comparisons were first made between samples before subsequent analyses were conducted. No age differences were found between youth from immigrant (13.42 years, SD = 2.64) and non-immigrant (13.23 years, SD = 1.92) families. However, when compared to non-immigrant youth, youth from immigrant families were significantly more likely to be male (55% versus 49%), χ²= 4.85, p < 0.05, V = 0.04, to be of minority status (76% versus 43%), χ²= 110.83, p < 0.01, V = 0.19, to receive special education services (39% vs. 9%), χ²= 242.81, p < .01, V = .28, and to be from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (i.e. receive reduced or free lunch; 50% versus 29%), χ²= 52.82, p < 0.01, V = 0.13.

Procedure

Data were collected as part of the Youth Voice Project, a project that aims to support mistreated youth, increase bystander intervention for bullying incidents, and support positive and inclusive school cultures. Participants contributed data by accessing a computer at school during regularly scheduled class periods. Total school populations were surveyed. Consistent with established practices for research with de-identified participants in educational settings, passive parental consent was obtained (e.g. Severson & Biglan, 1989). To opt out of participation, youth presented a signed letter from a parent or guardian refusing consent. Youth whose parents did not object to participation were provided with access to the survey. However, participants were able to choose not to take the survey at their own accord as well as to discontinue their participation at any time without incurring any negative consequences. All data were collected in the fall of the 2009–2010 school year. A university-based Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.

Measures

Peer victimization

Peer victimization items were adapted from a measure by Werner and Nixon (2005). Participants indicated how often in the last month they were socially excluded, harassed, threatened, or physically attacked by peers. Items were rated on a five5-point ordinal scale ranging from ‘never’ = 0 to ‘at least once a day’ = 4. Consistent with established criteria (e.g. Olweus, 1993), participants were classified as being repeatedly victimized (i.e. targets of peer aggression) if they reported being victimized at least two times during the previous 30 days.

Focus of victimization

Victimized youth were asked to report on the focus of their victimization experiences. Specifically, they were asked to report (‘yes’ or ‘no’) regarding whether the victimization focused on their race, looks, body shape, religion, and family income. Thus, content of victimization items were dichotomously coded to indicate the presence or absence of a focus on a particular attribute or characteristic.

Responses to peer aggression

Participants were asked to read a list of strategies that some people use to respond to peer aggression and then indicate whether or not they used these strategies in response to being victimized within the last 30 days. These responses were derived from content of online focus groups as part of the Youth Voice Project (Davis & Nixon, 2011). The following responses were included in the current study: Told the person to stop; hit them or fought them; made plans to get back at them; told a friend; pretended that I wasn’t bothered; told an adult at home; made a joke about it; did nothing; reminded myself that what they are doing is not my fault and that they are the ones who are doing something wrong; walked away; told adult at school; and told the person how I felt. When students indicated that they had used a particular strategy, they were asked to report what happened after they used that particular response using the following classification system: ‘I did not do this’, ‘I did this and things got worse’, ‘I did this and nothing changed’, and ‘I did this and things got better’.

Bystander responses to peer aggression

Participants were asked to indicate ways that bystanders had responded to incidents of peer victimization. Based on results obtained from focus groups conducted during the Youth Voice Project (Davis & Nixon, 2011), the following responses were included in the current study: Bystanders told the person to stop in an angry way; listened to me; asked the person to stop in a friendly way; ignored what was happening; spent time or hung out with me, gave me advice about what I should do; blamed me for what was happening; made fun of me for being treated badly; told an adult; helped me tell an adult; helped me get away from the situation; and distracted the people who were treating me badly. Following their endorsement of a particular bystander response, participants were then asked to indicate what happened after this response was employed by selecting one of the following options: ‘No one did this’, ‘other students did this and it got worse’, ‘other students did this and nothing changed’, and ‘other students did this and it got better’.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were first calculated for variables of interest. Secondly, group difference testing was conducted using non-parametric tests because of the non-normal variable distributions of dependent variables. Chi-square tests of independence were used to test for differences between youth from families who had recently immigrated to the US and their non-immigrant peers on demographic variables and variables of interest. Cramer’s V effect sizes were calculated to illustrate the magnitude of differences between groups. Mann–Whitney U tests of independence were conducted to test for differences between age groups. Listwise deletion was used because of the presence of few missing cases (less than 5%). SPSS v. 21.0 was used to conduct all analyses.

Results

Table 1 (see Supplementary Material at http://spi.sagepub.com/supplemental) displays differences in the frequency and focus of peer victimization rates between youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families. Regarding their peer victimization experiences, youth from immigrant families reported being more likely to be physically hit; however, they were not more likely to be called names, socially excluded, threatened, or have rumors spread about them by their peers. Significant differences were observed between youth from immigrant families and youth from non-immigrant families in how they were victimized. Specifically, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report being victimized because of their race, religion, and family income—but not because of their physical appearance (i.e. looks, body shape).

Table 1.

Differences in how and why youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families perceive that are victimized by peers.

	Immigrant		Non-immigrant
	Yes N (%)	No N (%)	Yes N (%)	No N (%)	χ²(V)
How were you victimized?
I was called names	163 (58)	117 (42)	1892 (63)	1098 (37)	2.81 (.03)
Rumors were spread about me	122 (44)	158 (56)	1311 (44)	1679 (56)	.01 (.01)
Socially excluded	97 (35)	183 (65)	968 (32)	2022 (68)	.60 (.02)
I was threatened	81 (29)	199 (71)	714 (24)	2276 (76)	3.55 (.04)
I was physically hit	93 (33)	187 (67)	664 (22)	2326 (78)	17.44** (.08)
Why were you victimized?
Because of their race	77 (28)	203 (73)	329 (11)	2661 (89)	64.07** (.14)
Because of their looks	129 (46)	151 (54)	1260 (42)	1730 (58)	1.62 (.02)
Because of body shape	70 (25)	210 (75)	797 (27)	2193 (73)	.36 (.01)
Because of their religion	56 (20)	224 (80)	201 (7)	2789 (93)	63.33** (.14)
Because of family income	52 (19)	228 (81)	218 (7)	2772 (93)	43.01** (.12)

Note: V = Cramer’s V measure of effect size.

p < .05.

p < .01.

Peer Victimization in Youth from Immigrant and Non-Immigrant U.S. Families.

Efficacy of self-strategies

Table 2 (see Supplementary Material at http://spi.sagepub.com/supplemental) displays differences in the ways that youth from immigrant families and youth from non-immigrant families responded to being victimized as well as the perceived efficacy of these responses. Notable differences were observed between groups in both regards. Youth from immigrant families were more likely to tell the aggressor how they felt, tell an adult at school about being victimized, make plans to get back at the aggressor, and to hit the aggressor when compared to their non-immigrant peers. Conversely, non-immigrant youth were more likely to pretend that they were not bothered by being victimized.

Table 2.

Differences between youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families in how they respond to being victimized by peers.

	I did not do this			It made things worse
	Immigrant N (%)	Non-Immigrant N (%)	χ² (V)	Immigrant N (%)	Non-Immigrant N (%)	χ² (V)
I pretend that I'm not bothered	69 (32)	660 (25)	4.26** (.04)	58 (27)	399 (15)	19.03** (.08)
I made plans to get back at the aggressor	131 (63)	1880 (74)	11.65** (.07)	47 (17)	226 (9)	40.56** (.12)
I hit the aggressor	128 (64)	2049 (82)	38.80** (.12)	42 (15)	159 (6)	57.48** (.15)
I told the aggressor to stop	66 (34)	854 (34)	.01 (.00)	62 (32)	505 (20)	14.75** (.07)
I told the aggressor how I felt	106 (53)	1573 (63)	7.13** (.05)	37 (13)	280 (11)	8.81** (.06)
I walked away	75 (37)	843 (34)	1.05 (.02)	57 (28)	387 (16)	22.41** (.09)
I told an adult at home	98 (49)	1286 (52)	.62 (.02)	34 (17)	169 (7)	27.36** (.10)
I told an adult at school	105 (54)	1710 (69)	17.83** (.08)	36 (19)	187 (8)	28.76** (.10)
I told a friend	75 (38)	803 (32)	2.35 (.03)	42 (21)	230 (9)	28.24** (.10)
I made a joke	117 (59)	1446 (58)	.04 (.00)	31 (16)	154 (6)	25.35** (.10)
	Nothing changed			It made things better
I pretend that I'm not bothered	56 (26)	984 (38)	12.59** (.07)	33 (15)	542 (21)	3.96* (.04)
I made plans to get back at the aggressor	10 (4)	204 (8)	2.76 (.03)	19 (7)	224 (9)	.03 (.00)
I hit the aggressor	10 (4)	113 (5)	.10 (.01)	20 (7)	176 (7)	2.39 (.03)
I told the aggressor to stop	39 (20)	789 (31)	11.22** (.06)	29 (15)	370 (15)	.00 (.00)
I told the aggressor how I felt	37 (13)	414 (17)	.40 (.01)	22 (8)	228 (9)	.68 (.01)
I walked away	37 (13)	743 (30)	11.63** (.07)	32 (16)	525 (21)	2.95 (.03)
I told an adult at home	32 (16)	590 (24)	6.33* (.05)	37 (18)	445 (18)	.04 (.00)
I told an adult at school	17 (9)	284 (11)	1.28 (.02)	35 (18)	293 (12)	6.57* (.05)
I told a friend	42 (21)	850 (34)	14.35** (.07)	41 (21)	609 (24)	1.57 (.02)
I made a joke	21 (11)	412 (17)	4.91* (.04)	30 (15)	477 (19)	2.01 (.03)

Note: V = Cramer’s V measure of effect size.

p < .05.

p < .01.

Across all response categories, youth from immigrant families reported that their responses to peer aggression were more likely to ‘make things worse’ compared to non-immigrant youth. On the other hand, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that telling an adult ‘made things better’, whereas youth from non-immigrant families were more likely to report that pretending that they were not bothered by being victimized tended to ‘make things better’. Lastly, compared to youth from immigrant families, youth from non-immigrant families were more likely to report that ‘nothing changed’ as a result of pretending that they were not bothered, telling the aggressor to stop, walking away, telling an adult at home, telling a friend, and making a joke in response to being victimized.

Efficacy of bystander strategies

Table 3 (see Supplementary Material at http://spi.sagepub.com/supplemental) displays differences between youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families with respect to how bystanders responded to incidents of peer aggression involving them. Compared to non-immigrant youth, youth from immigrant families reported that bystanders were less likely to listen to them. Conversely, non-immigrant youth reported that bystanders were less likely to ignore the incident, blame the victim for being victimized, make fun of the victim for being treated badly, tell an adult, help the victim to tell an adult, help the victim get away from the situation, and distract the perpetrator compared to youth from immigrant families.

Table 3.

Differences between how bystanders respond to bullying situations involving youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families.

	No one did this			Other students did this and it got worse
	Immigrant N (%)	Non-Immigrant N (%)	χ² (V)	Immigrant N (%)	Non-Immigrant N (%)	χ² (V)
Told person to stop in an angry way	113 (61)	1516 (66)	1.86 (.02)	27 (15)	202 (9)	6.87** (.05)
Listened to me	89 (50)	822 (36)	13.50** (.07)	19 (11)	124 (5)	8.18** (.06)
Asked the person to stop in a friendly way	101 (56)	1331 (59)	.49 (.01)	28 (16)	208 (9)	7.75** (.06)
Ignored what was happening	94 (52)	1342 (60)	3.61** (.04)	46 (26)	260 (12)	29.91** (.11)
Spent time or hung out with me	88 (49)	1046 (46)	.48 (.01)	20 (11)	103 (5)	15.02** (.08)
Gave me advice about what I should do	85 (48)	1122 (50)	.27 (.01)	26 (14)	130 (6)	21.49** (.09)
Blamed me for what was happening	115 (65)	1804 (80)	24.14** (.10)	32 (18)	245 (11)	8.20** (.06)
Made fun of me for being treated badly	111 (63)	1831 (82)	36.86** (.12)	36 (20)	227 (10)	17.71** (.09)
Told an adult	101 (58)	1678 (75)	25.91** (.10)	24 (14)	126 (6)	18.04** (.09)
Helped me tell an adult	105 (61)	1667 (75)	15.68** (.08)	23 (14)	100 (5)	25.99** (.10)
Helped me get away from the situation	97 (55)	1401 (63)	4.51** (.04)	20 (11)	98 (4)	16.79** (.08)
Distracted the people who were treating me badly	107 (63)	1624 (74)	10.29** (.07)	26 (15)	114 (5)	28.72** (.11)
	Other students did this and nothing changed			Other students did this and it got better
Told person to stop in an angry way	17 (9)	294 (13)	2.04* (.03)	28 (15)	284 (12)	1.29 (.02)
Listened to me	34 (19)	679 (30)	9.26** (.06)	661 (29)	37 (21)	5.56** (.05)
Asked the person to stop in a friendly way	26 (14)	396 (18)	1.08 (.02)	25 (14)	329 (15)	.06 (.00)
Ignored what was happening	20 (11)	494 (22)	11.63** (.07)	14 (8)	161 (7)	.84 (.01)
Spent time or hung out with me	34 (19)	411 (18)	.06 (.01)	38 (21)	704 (31)	7.87** (.06)
Gave me advice about what I should do	31 (17)	443 (20)	.53 (.02)	37 (21)	574 (25)	1.92* (.03)
Blamed me for what was happening	19 (11)	141 (6)	5.21** (.05)	8 (4)	60 (3)	1.10 (.01)
Made fun of me for being treated badly	18 (10)	111 (5)	8.87** (.06)	9 (5)	75 (3)	1.02 (.01)
Told an adult	18 (10)	191 (9)	.61 (.01)	32 (18)	235 (11)	9.87** (.06)
Helped me tell an adult	17 (10)	174 (8)	.95 (.02)	26 (15)	277 (13)	1.06 (.02)
Helped me get away from the situation	31 (18)	259 (12)	5.40** (.05)	28 (16)	460 (21)	2.34** (.03)
Distracted the people who were treating me badly	14 (8)	173 (8)	.02 (.00)	23 (14)	277 (13)	.11 (.01)

Note: V = Cramer’s V measure of effect size.

p < .05.

p < .01.

The perceived effects of bystander responses to incidents of peer aggression were more variable for youth from immigrant families when compared to youth from non-immigrant families. Across all included responses, compared to non-immigrant youth, youth from immigrant families reported that bystander responses were more likely to result in things ‘getting worse’ for them. However, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that when a bystander angrily told the perpetrator to stop, listened to them, and told an adult about the bullying incident, things were more likely to ‘get better’ for them compared to non-immigrant youth. Conversely, compared to youth from immigrant families, non-immigrant youth were more likely to report that when bystanders spent time time/hanging out with them, gave them advice on how to handle the incident, and helped them get away from the situation things got better. Youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that nothing changed when bystanders made fun of them for being treated badly, blamed them for being victimized, and helped them get away from the situation when compared to non-immigrant youth. On the other hand, youth from non-immigrant families were more likely than youth from immigrant families to report that nothing changed when bystanders listened to them and ignored incidents of peer aggression.

Discussion

Youth from families who had recently immigrated to the US (i.e. within the past two years) were more likely to report being victimized because of their race, religion, and family income when compared to their non-immigrant peers in the current study. These results are worrisome and suggest that immigrant youth may be particularly vulnerable to peer victimization and its harmful effects. Thus, in addition to being impacted by developmentally normal stressors, youth from immigrant families often have to contend with distress associated with adjusting to a new culture, learning a new language, having limited social supports, and being victimized by peer aggression because of their immigrant status.

Differences in peer victimization experience

Results of the current study can be contextualized within aspects of social identity theory. Within this framework, compared to their non-immigrant peers, youth from immigrant families would be more likely to be victimized by members of a dominant in-group whose members seek to maintain their hegemony and group identity through denigrating members of perceived out-groups (Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Gini, 2006). Moreover, as out-group members, youth from immigrant families can be expected to be victimized due to factors that commonly are associated with having an immigrant identity such as having a different culture, religion, and social status. In support of this presumption, youth from immigrant families reported being more likely than their non-immigrant peers to be victimized because of their race, religion, and family income in the current study—all of which are associated with immigrant identity or status (Phinney et al., 2001; Wiley et al., 2008; Zhou, 1997).

However, no differences were observed between groups in their reports of being victimized because of their physical appearance (i.e. with a focus on their looks and body shape). Although this finding may be surprising and seem incompatible with the previous findings, within the US context, a society that is hyper-focused on physical appearance (Judge & Cable, 2010), significant percentages of youth may be at-risk to be victimized around issues related to their physical appearance or looks independent of their perceived immigrant identity. In support of this notion, in a large (N = 821 youth) longitudinal study, Lumeng, Forrest, Appugliese, Kaciroti, Corwyn, and Bradley (2010) found a significant relationship between being bullied and a child’s perceived body style (e.g. being perceived to be overweight) that existed over and beyond being victimized because of other reasons such as grade level, gender, race, and family income. Furthermore, the largest percentages of youth from immigrant families (46%) and non-immigrant youth (42%) also reported being victimized because of their looks in the current study, which suggests that being victimized is a relatively common experience among youth, independent of one’s perceived immigrant status.

Similar to results obtained in a study by Peguero (2009) that included children of Latino and Asian American immigrants, in the current study, youth from families who have recently immigrated to the US reported that they were more likely than their non-immigrant to be victimized by physical aggression. However, it is notable that these youth were not more likely than non-immigrant youth to report being victimized by relational or verbal forms of peer aggression (e.g. social exclusion, being called names). Although future research is needed on this phenomenon, several explanations exist for this finding. First, inconspicuous forms of aggression that often are understood within a complex social network may be less apparent to youth from immigrant families who may be adjusting to cultural norms that influence social interactions (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000). For example, understanding malicious incidents of name-calling, teasing, and other forms of verbal aggression often requires a level of familiarity with native slang that may escape some non-native language speaking immigrants. Second, consistent with social identity theory, if a child is perceived as being from an outside group or identifies with the former, he or she might not feel bonded enough to members of the inside group to feel socially excluded by them (Duffy & Nesdale, 2009). Similarly, because relational aggression involves manipulating interpersonal relationships, immigrant youth with a low degree of social belongingness may not be targeted by this form of aggressive behavior because of their status as relative outsiders. Lastly, an emerging body of research indicates that a negative reciprocal relationship can develop between immigrant and non-immigrant youth that can escalate into incidents of physical aggression (e.g. Fandrem, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2009; Strohmeier, Fandrem, Stefanek, & Spiel, 2012). In this vein, immigrant youth who desire to be accepted by members of an inside group have been found to display elevated rates of reactive aggression in response to overt aggressive behaviors, which can result in them being victimized by retaliatory incidents of physical aggression, yet not by other forms of aggressive behavior (Strohmeier et al., 2012).

Differences in responses to peer victimization

Differences between youth from immigrant and non-immigrant families in how they respond to being victimized by their peers and the perceived efficacy of their responses also were investigated in the current study. Although differences were observed in the responses that these groups employed and the perceived efficacy of these responses, compared to non-immigrant youth, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that every employed response was less effective or more likely to result in things ‘getting worse’ for them. Thus, pretending that one is not bothered by peer aggression, making plans to get back at the aggressor, hitting the aggressor, telling the aggressor to stop, telling the aggressor how one feels, walking away, telling an adult at home about being victimized, telling an adult at school about being victimized, confiding in a friend, and telling a joke in response to being victimized all were more likely to result in negative outcomes for youth from immigrant families than they were for youth from non-immigrant families.

Similarly, and equally troubling, results from the current study indicate that youth from immigrant families are also more likely to report that bystanders do not effectively respond to incidents of victimization that involve them. In this regard, when compared to non-immigrant youth, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that every measured bystander response to peer aggression was less effective or more likely to result in things getting worse. This finding highlights a salient problem in that a significant percentage of youth from immigrant families are more likely to be victimized, feel generally ineffective in their efforts to respond to incidents of peer aggression, and also believe that the efforts of bystanders are limited—even if these efforts are well-intentioned. Moreover, youth from immigrant families even rated some bystander responses to incidents of peer aggression as harmful. For example, compared to their non-immigrant peers, youth from immigrant families were more likely to report that bystanders’ efforts to tell the perpetrator to ‘stop in a nice way’ and ‘help them tell an adult about being victimized’ were more likely to ‘make things worse’ for them in the future.

Implications for intervention

Results of the current study have important implications for educators and mental health practitioners such as school psychologists who encounter youth from immigrant families. First, because these youth feel relatively unable to effectively respond to incidents of peer aggression themselves and because current peer bystander efforts to assist these youth are inadequate, the onus is then on adults to intervene on their behalf (Flanagan, Hoek, Shelton, Kelly, Morrison, & Young, 2013). However, studies that have been conducted in a range of countries around the world (e.g. the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland, the Netherlanders, South Korea), indicate that educators and mental health professionals often are either unaware of the occurrence of incidents of peer victimization or employ ineffective responses to these incidents (Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008; Boulton et al., 2012; Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2011; Craig et al., 2000; Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005; Rigby & Barnes, 2002; Sairanen & Pfeffer, 2011; Yoon, Bauman, Choi, & Hutchinson, 2011; Yoon & Kerber, 2003).

Therefore, efforts are needed to help adults who interact with youth to identify and respond to incidents of peer aggression better. With this aim, Craig et al. (2000) recommended that mental health professionals provide training to educators so that they can better identify incidents of peer victimization that often are difficult to fully conceptualize or understand such as social exclusion and seemingly innocuous yet malicious teasing. To do so, Craig et al. (2000) recommended teaching educators to identify subtle cues that students may be being victimized that focus on their body language and non-verbal cues as well as identifying high-risk settings (e.g. unstructured environments at school) and interactions (e.g. rough-and-tumble play) in which victimization is likely to occur. Furthermore, to more effectively respond to incidents of peer victimization that specifically involve immigrant youth, members of school communities should redouble their efforts to reach out to and directly ask about their experiences with interacting with peers while also taking a more proactive stance that bullying of any kind will not be tolerated at school and that it is inconsistent with the behavioral expectations that exist for all students, independent of their background. In support of this recommendation, results of a relatively recent investigation highlight the importance of teacher support for fostering positive outcomes among immigrant students. Specifically, Walsh, Harel-Fisch, and Fogel-Grinvald (2010) found that teacher support for immigrant youth has a robust effect on their well-being even when these youth are subjected to a range of risk factors such as peer victimization.

Study results also indicate that effort is needed to help peers be more effective bystanders to incidents of peer aggression involving youth from immigrant families. In doing so, potential peer bystanders to these incidents may need to be provided with information that challenges any prevailing biases, stereotypes, and nativist beliefs that they may have. Essentially, if potentially harmful beliefs that feed nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment are not obviated, the task of irradiating aggressive behavior toward immigrant youth will be formidable if not impossible. However, if students are taught to accept, celebrate, and support all of their peers, they can effectively support immigrant youth through protecting them from peer aggression. In support of this notion, a study by Salmivalli, Voeten, and Poskiparta (2011) found that peer efforts to defend victims of peer aggression are negatively associated with future bullying incidents of these victims. Thus, if students are taught to defend all of their peers—including immigrant youth—from being victimized, youth from immigrant families may find greater utility in the responses of their peers to protect them from peer aggression.

Lastly, although it is unfair for youth from immigrant families to be expected to prevent themselves from being victimized as this would be consistent with a ‘blame-the-victim’ mentality, they may be able to enhance their ability to protect themselves when they are unfairly exposed to these negative experiences. For example, a recent study by Sulkowski, Bauman, Dinner, Nixon, and Davis (2014) found that youths’ responses to incidents of peer aggression were variable in their efficacy and that certain responses such as using humor in response to being victimized (especially among males) may be an effective yet underutilized response as it was found to be the most robust predictor of mitigating future incidents of victimization. Moreover, results of the aforementioned study highlight the importance of maintaining open and positive relationships between students and adults at school, as it was found that distress associated with being victimized can attenuate feelings of school connectedness that can then further reduce the likelihood that students in general will report their victimization experiences to adults at school, which was established as a problem in the current study. Thus, although speculative, perhaps youth from immigrant families and invested members of school communities can work together to support these youth while helping to foster their development of higher-order social skills such as humor that may help them to protect themselves from incidents of peer aggression.

Results of the current study should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, participants’ immigrant status was self-reported and not directly observed. Second, all data were collected from participants residing in the US, which means that study results may not be generalize to youth in other countries. Third, although data were collected from 280 youth from immigrant families, more participants would be needed to have sufficient power to test more nuanced within-subjects effects as well as to further investigate how the phenomenon of peer victimization might differ between various immigrant groups. Fourth, collected data did not allow for an analysis of concomitant within- and between-group differences among victims and perpetrators of peer aggression, which precludes more sophisticated understanding of potential interactions between groups of youth across various roles. Fifth, participants only contributed self-report data, which indicates the presence of a mono-method bias. Sixth, constructs of interest were represented by single indicators and all data were cross-sectional in nature. Finally, victims and bystanders may employ other responses to peer victimization that were not assessed in the current study; further, other factors may influence the observed differences in the variables of interest to the current study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, results of this study highlight specific risks and vulnerabilities to peer victimization that are experienced by youth from families who have recently immigrated to the US. In addition to being perceived as outsiders and subjected to anti-immigrant sentiment (Androff et al., 2011; Massey et al., 2003; McDevitt et al., 2011; Potok, 2008), these youth also appear to be vulnerable to being physically victimized by their peers. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that youth from immigrant families report that their own responses to peer aggression are largely ineffective and that they perceive little assistance from bystander responses that often benefit their non-immigrant peers. These results starkly contrast with findings from other studies that have included similar variables yet have focused mostly on non-immigrant youth (e.g. Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012; Salmivalli et al., 2011). Thus, in light of the results of this study, youth from immigrant families who are at-risk for peer victimization clearly need additional help and support; they need this from concerned adults who can help to mitigate their victimization experiences. As implied by a sonnet written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, they are worthy of fulgent lamplight and unbridled access to a hypothetical golden door; they are worthy of access to a safe and secure education.

Footnotes

Author biographies

Michael L. Sulkowski, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology Program at the University of Arizona. His research program focuses on how risk and resiliency factors influence the academic and psychosocial outcomes of youth who have been victimized, impacted by adverse circumstances such as becoming homeless, or are socially disenfranchised.

Sheri Bauman, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies at the University of Arizona and she is the director of the School Counseling master’s degree program. Her research focuses on bullying, cyberbullying, peer victimization, and reducing incidents of school violence. In particular, she is interested in how teachers and bystanders respond to incidents of peer aggression and in the use of innovative technologies to reduce the negative impact of peer aggression on youth.

Savannah Wright, BS, is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Program at the University of Arizona. Her research interests focus on understanding an addressing internalizing psychopathology in students. Her clinical interests focus on treating forms of internalizing psychopathology using evidence-based treatments.

Charisse Nixon, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at Pennsylvania State University––Erie. Her primary research interest focuses on all forms of peer mistreatment, including both relational and physical mistreatment. She is currently studying effective prevention and intervention efforts designed to reduce peer mistreatment and its associated harm. She also is a co-leader of the Youth Voice Research Project.

Stan Davis, PhD, has spent over 30 years working with mistreated and vulnerable youth as a school counselor. He retired from daily school-based mental health practice in 2011 yet he has since devoted himself to helping schools reduce bullying and its deleterious impact on students. He also is a co-leader of the Youth Voice Research Project.

References

Androff

D. K.

Ayon

Becerra

Gurrola

(2011) US immigration policy and immigrant children’s well-being: The impact of policy shifts. Journal Sociology and Social Welfare 38: 77–98.

Bauman

Rigby

Hoppa

(2008) US teachers’ and school counselors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology 28: 837–856. doi: 10.1080/01443410802379085.

Berry

J. W.

(2001) A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues 57: 615–631. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00231.

Borjas

G. J.

(2008) Issues in the economics of immigration, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Boulton

Woodmansey

Williams

Spells

Nicholas

Laxton

(2012) Associations between peer bullying and classroom concentration: Evidence for mediation by perceived personal safety and relationship with teacher. Educational Psychology 32: 277–294. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2011.648903.

Brown

(2000) Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 745–778. doi: 10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-O.

Capps, R., Castanada, R. M., Chaudry, A., & Santos, R. (2007). Paying the price:The impact of immigration raids on America’s children. Urban Institute. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411566_immigration_raids.pdf.

Card

N. A.

Stucky

B. D.

Sawalani

G. M.

Little

T. D.

(2008) Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development 79: 1185–1229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.

Cardoso

J. B.

Thompson

S. J.

(2010) Common themes of resilience among Latino immigrant families: A systematic review of the literature. Families in Society 91: 257–265. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4003.

10.

Cassidy

Brown

Jackson

(2012) ‘Under the radar’: Educators and cyberbullying in schools. School Psychology International 33: 520–532.

11.

Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995). Bullying at school: A Canadian perspective. Education Canada, 35(1), 12–18.

12.

Cornelius

W. A.

(2005) Controlling ‘unwanted’ immigration: Lessons from the United States, 1993–2004. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31: 775–794.

13.

Craig

W. M.

Henderson

Murphy

J. G.

(2000) Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International 21: 5–21.

14.

Davis

Nixon

(2011) What students say about bullying. Educational Leadership 69: 18–23.

15.

De La Rosa

(2002) Acculturation and Latino adolescents’ substance use: A research agenda for the future. Substance Use and Misuse 37: 429–456. doi: 10.1081/JA120002804.

16.

Duffy

A. L.

Nesdale

(2009) Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development 18: 121–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00484.x.

17.

Fandrem

Strohmeier

Roland

(2009) Bullying and victimization among native and immigrant adolescents in Norway: The role of proactive and reactive aggressiveness. Journal of Early Adolescence 29: 898–923. doi: 10.1177/0272431609332935.

18.

Fekkes

Pijpers

Verloove-Vanhorick

(2005) Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research 20: 81–91. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg100.

19.

Finch

B. K.

Frank

Vega

W. A.

(2004) Acculturation and acculturation stress: A social-epidemiological approach to Mexican migrant farmworkers' health. International Migration Review 43: 471–495. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00195.x.

20.

Flanagan

K. S.

Hoek

K. K. V.

Shelton

Kelly

S. L.

Morrison

C. M.

Young

A. M.

(2013) Coping with bullying: What answers does children’s literature provide? School Psychology International 34: 691–706.

21.

García Coll, C.T., & Magnuson, K. (1997). The psychological experience of immigration: A developmental perspective. In A. Booth (Ed.), Immigration and the family: Research and policy on US immigrants (pp. 91–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Gini

(2006) Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in students’ perception of inter-group aggression at school. Journal of School Psychology 44: 51–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.12.002.

23.

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.

24.

Hanish

L. D.

Guerra

N. G.

(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.

25.

Haynie

D. L.

Nasel

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.

26.

Jaret

(1999) Troubled by newcomers: Anti-immigrant attitudes and action during two eras of mass immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History 18: 9–39.

27.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Liebkind

Perhoniemi

(2006) Perceived discrimination and well-being: A victim study of different immigrant groups. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 16: 267–284. doi: 10.1002/casp.865.

28.

Judge

T. A.

Cable

D. M.

(2011) When it comes to pay, do the thin win? The effect of weight on pay for men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 95–112. doi: 10.1037/a0020860.

29.

Juvonen

Nishina

Graham

(2006) Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science 17: 393–400. doi: 10.1111/j.14679280.2006.01718.x.

30.

Kesler

Bloemraad

(2010) Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19 countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science 43: 319–347. doi: 10.1017/S0008423910000077.

31.

Liebkind

Jasinskaja-Lahti

(2000) Acculturation and psychological well-being among immigrant adolescents in Finland: A comparative study of adolescents from different cultural backgrounds. Journal of Adolescent Research 15: 446–469. doi: 10.1177/0743558400154002.

32.

Lumeng

J. C.

Forrest

Appugliese

D. P.

Kaciroti

Corwyn

R. F.

Bradley

R. H.

(2010) Weight status as a predictor of being bullied in third through sixth grades. Pediatrics 125: e1301–e1307. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0774.

33.

Massey

D. S.

Durand

Malone

N. J.

(2003) Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immigration in an era of economic integration, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

34.

McDevitt

Shively

Subramanian

(2011) Research briefing: Understanding trends in hate crimes against immigrants and Hispanic-Americans, NCJ 234632, Washington, DC: Abt Associates.

35.

Mendez

Bauman

Guillory

(2012) Bullying of Mexican-immigrant students by Mexican-American students: An examination of intra-cultural bullying. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 34: 279–304. doi: 10.1177/0739986311435970.

36.

Messinger

A. M.

Nieri

T. A.

Villar

Luengo

M. A.

(2012) Acculturation stress and bullying among immigrant youths in Spain. Journal of School Violence 11: 306–322. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.706875.

37.

McKenney

K. S.

Pepler

Craig

Connolly

(2006) Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment: The experiences of Canadian immigrant youth. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 4: 239–264.

38.

Monks

Ortega-Ruiz

Rodriguez-Hidalgo

A. J.

(2008) Peer victimization in multicultural schools in Spain and England. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 5: 507–535. doi: 10.1080/17405620701307316.

39.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001) Bullying behaviors among US youth. JAMA 285: 2094–2100. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.

40.

Olweus

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

41.

Peguero

A. A.

(2009) Victimizing the children of immigrants: Latino and Asian American student victimization. Youth and Society 41: 186–208. doi: 10.1177/0044118X09333646.

42.

Perez

Espinoza

Ramos

Coronado

Cortes

(2009) Academic resilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 31: 149–181. doi: 10.1177/0739986309333020.

43.

Pew Research Center (2006). No consensus on immigration problem or proposed fixes: America’s immigration quandary. Retrieved on October 18, 2013 from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/274.pdf.

44.

Phinney

J. S.

Romero

Nava

Huang

(2001) The role of language, parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30: 135–153. doi: 10.1023/A:1010389607319.

45.

Polanin

J. R.

Espelage

D. L.

Pigott

T. D.

(2012) A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review 41: 47–65.

46.

Potok, M. (2008). Anti-Latino hate crimes rise for fourth year in a row. Retrieved October 18, 2013 from http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/10/29/anti-Latino-hate-crimes-rise-for-fourth-year/.

47.

Rigby

Barnes

(2002) Victimized student’s dilemma: To tell or not to tell. Youth Studies Australia 21: 33–36.

48.

Ross

D. M.

(2002) Bullying. In: Sandoval

(ed.) Handbook of crisis counseling, intervention, and prevention in schools, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 105–135.

49.

Sairanen

Pfeffer

(2011) Self-reported handling of bullying among junior high school teachers in Finland. School Psychology International 32: 330–344.

50.

Salmivalli

Voeten

Poskiparta

(2011) Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 40: 668–676. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.597090.

51.

Scherr

T. G.

Larson

(2010) Bullying dynamics associated with race, ethnicity, and immigration status. In: Jimerson

S. R.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

(eds) Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 223–234.

52.

Schwartz

Proctor

L. J.

Chien

D. H.

(2001) The aggressive victim of bullying. In: Juvonen

Graham

(eds) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 147–174.

53.

Severson

Biglan

(1989) Rationale for the use of passive consent in smoking prevention research: politics, policy, and pragmatics. Preventive Medicine 18: 267–279. doi: 10.1016/0091-7435(89)90074-1.

54.

Staubli

Killias

(2011) Long-term outcomes of passive bullying during childhood: Suicide attempts, victimization and offending. European Journal of Criminology 8: 377–385. doi: 10.1177/1477370811415761.

55.

Strohmeier

Fandrem

Stefanek

Spiel

(2012) The goal to be accepted by friends as underlying function of overt aggressive behaviour in immigrant adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53: 80–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00910.x.

56.

Strohmeier

Spiel

Gradinger

(2008) Social relationships in multicultural schools: Bullying and victimization. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 5: 262–285. doi: 10.1080/17405620701556664.

57.

Suaez-Orozco

Pimentel

Martin

(2009) The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. Teachers College Record 111: 712–749.

58.

Suárez-Orozco

M. M.

(2001) Children of immigration, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

59.

Sulkowski

M. L.

Bauman

S. A.

Dinner

Nixon

Davis

(2014) An investigation into how students respond to being victimized by peer aggression. Journal of School Violence 13: 339–358. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2013.857344.

60.

Szalacha

L. A.

Erkut

Coll

C. G.

Alarcon

Fields

J. P.

Ceder

(2004) Discrimination and Puerto Rican children's and adolescents’ mental health. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 9: 141–155. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.141.

61.

Vega

W. A.

Gil

A. G.

Wagner

(1998) Cultural adjustment and Hispanic adolescent drug use. In: Vega

W. A.

Gil

A. G.

(eds) Drug use and ethnicity in early adolescence, New York, NY: Plenum, pp. 125–148.

62.

von Grünigen

Perren

Nägele

Alsaker

F. D.

(2010) Immigrant children’s peer acceptance and victimization in kindergarten: The role of local language competence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28: 679–697. doi: 10.1348/026151009X470582.

63.

Walsh

S. D.

Harel-Fisch

Fogel-Grinvald

(2010) Parents, teachers and peer relations as predictors of risk behaviors and mental well-being among immigrant and Israeli born adolescents. Social Science and Medicine 70: 976–984. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.010.

64.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009) School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health 45: 368–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.

65.

Werner

N. E.

Nixon

C. L.

(2005) Normative beliefs and relational aggression: An investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34: 229–243. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-4306-3.

66.

Wiley

Perkins

Deaux

(2008) Through the looking glass: Ethnic and generational patterns of immigrant identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32: 385–398. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.002.

67.

Yoon

Bauman

Choi

Hutchinson

A. S.

(2011) How South Korean teachers handle an incident of school bullying. School Psychology International 32: 312–329.

68.

Yoon

J. S.

Kerber

(2003) Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention strategies. Research in Education 69: 27–35.

69.

Zhou

(1997) Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 63–95. doi: 10.2307/2952544.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB