School ethnic composition and bullying in Canadian schools

Abstract

Bullying in ethnically diverse schools varies as a function of the ethnic composition and degree of diversity in schools. Although Canada is highly multicultural, few researchers have focused on the role of context on ethnic majority and minority youths’ bullying involvement. In the present study, 11,649 European-Canadian/ethnic majority (77%) and non-European Canadian/ethnic minority (23%) students in Grade 4 to Grade 12 completed an online Safe Schools Survey on general, physical, verbal, social, and cyber bullying. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses indicated significant interactions between the proportion of non-European Canadian children in a school (Level 2) and individual ethnicity (Level 1) across most types of bullying victimization. Non-European Canadian students experienced less peer victimization in schools with higher proportions of non-European Canadian students, but ethnic composition was not related to European Canadian students’ peer victimization. No differences in bullying perpetration were found as a function of school ethnic composition across groups. Our findings suggest that ethnic composition in Canadian schools may not be strongly associated with bullying perpetration and that a higher representation of other ethnic minority peers may act as a buffer against peer victimization.

Keywords

bullying school ethnic composition victimization

The increase of immigration and native-born immigrant students in North America and Europe has led to a higher representation of ethnic minorities in schools. In Canada, 20% of the population is comprised of foreign-born individuals and immigrant children account for approximately 19% of newcomers (Statistics Canada, 2011). Ethnic minority groups identifying as South Asian, Chinese, and Black are the three largest visible minority groups in the country, and approximately 45% of visible minority youth were born in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2011). As a result, interethnic peer relationships are becoming more common, and bullying is as likely to occur between ethnic majority and minority youth as it is between ethnic majority students only.

Research on ethnic differences has yielded varying results regarding the prevalence of bullying among groups. For example, findings from Austria and the UK indicate that ethnic minority youth, such as African or Turkish, were less likely to be victimized than native White youth (e.g., Stefanek, Strohmeier, van de Schoot, & Spiel, 2012; Tippett, Wolke, & Platt, 2013), whereas Norwegian findings showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be victimized than ethnic majorities (e.g., Fandrem, Strohmeier, & Jonsdottir, 2012). Nevertheless, ethnicity examined as a demographic (individual-level) variable without taking into consideration contextual factors is not strongly associated with bullying involvement (Vitoroulis & Vaillancourt, 2015).

Considering the large variability in observed findings and the complexity of interethnic relationships in childhood and adolescence, research focus has shifted toward the study of contextual variables and intergroup contact theories to account for differences in bullying (e.g., Agirdag, Demanet, Van Houtte, & Van Avermaet, 2011; Graham, 2006). In particular, ethnic diversity and the numerical representation of ethnic groups in schools have been suggested to influence bullying dynamics between ethnic majorities and minorities (e.g., Graham, 2006; Graham, Bellmore, Nishina, & Juvonen, 2009). In Europe and the US, several studies indicate that numerically smaller ethnic groups in a school setting are more likely to experience peer victimization compared to larger groups (e.g., Agirdag et al., 2011; Hanish & Guerra, 2000), whereas members of larger ethnic groups in the classroom have been rated by peers as more aggressive than as victims (e.g., Graham & Juvonen, 2002). Despite Canada’s multiethnic population and school ethnic diversity, little research has been conducted on the association between ethnicity and bullying, and particularly, school ethnic composition and bullying involvement of ethnic majority and minority students. In the present study, we examined school ethnic composition and students’ reports of general, physical, verbal, social, and cyber bullying perpetration and victimization. Drawing from a large population-based study of over 11,000 students, we examined whether European Canadian (i.e., White) and ethnic minority students experienced or perpetrated more bullying behavior in schools with higher and lower proportions of same-ethnicity peers.

Bullying and intergroup attitudes

Bullying, which is defined as repetitive aggression with the intention to cause harm within a dynamic of power imbalance between the children involved (Olweus, 1999), is often described as a group process (Salmivalli, 2010). At the group level, the norms held by primary and peripheral members influence behavior and attitudes, such that children are more likely to be involved in, support, and hold positive attitudes toward bullying when the peer group holds pro-bullying norms (e.g., Duffy & Nesdale, 2008; Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). Peer relationships are formed based on shared characteristics, including bullying attitudes and ethnicity, and a sense of belongingness and common identity with a group with similar values (Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011; Nesdale, Maass, Griffiths, & Durkin, 2003). Stemming from intergroup contact and social identity theories, children tend to display in-group favoritism and out-group bias in order to preserve their group identity, establish a high status position, or as a defense against perceived threat to the in-group (e.g., McGlothlin & Killen, 2010; Nesdale & Scarlett, 2004). Children and adolescents tend to rate their in-group more positively and hold negative attitudes toward the out-group, particularly when intergroup conflict or comparison emerge and bullying or discrimination against out-groups are used as a means to establish a higher status (Gini, 2006; Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, & Griffiths, 2004; Nesdale & Scarlett, 2004).

Ethnicity is a salient characteristic in peer group formation, and children tend to hold more prejudicial attitudes toward out-groups (Nesdale, Maass, Durkin, & Griffiths, 2005). This in-group preference and out-group discrimination appears to be particularly prominent in ethnic majority youth compared to ethnic minorities. Ethnic majority children have been found to rate their ethnic in-group members more positively than ethnic out-groups (e.g., Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006; Vervoort, Scholte, & Sheepers, 2010) and to select same-ethnicity friends more often than peers of different ethnicities (e.g., Hamm, Brown, & Heck, 2005). In contrast, ethnic minority children rate their ethnic in-group and out-groups equally positive (Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006) and although they identify more strongly with their ethnic in-group than ethnic majority peers do, they report more out-group friendships (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006; Vermeij, van Dujin, & Baerveldt, 2009). In addition, Black students in the US have been found to display same-ethnicity bias for both positive and negative attributes, such as acceptance, rejection, and ‘coolness,’ whereas Hispanic and White students displayed only positive in-group bias (Bellmore, Nishina, Witkow, & Juvonen, 2007). These findings suggest that ethnic bias may be more characteristic of ethnic majorities who might perceive higher threat or be more prejudicial in the presence of ethnic minorities.

Ethnic diversity and bullying

Ethnic diversity inevitably leads to frequent interethnic contact, which may result in positive or negative interactions between students. Research indicates that cross-race friendships are frequently formed, and prejudice and discrimination decrease with increased contact with other-ethnicity peers (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Tropp, O’Brien, & Migacheva, 2014). However, it is often the case that the coexistence of multiple groups in the same setting may result in aggressive or bullying behavior. Although individual ethnicity does not seem to be strongly associated with bullying prevalence rates, numerically disproportionate ethnic diversity has been linked with peer victimization at the classroom and school levels (e.g., Graham, 2006). That is, ethnic minority groups with a smaller numerical representation in a school are more likely to experience peer victimization compared to ethnic majority students who comprise a larger percentage of the school population (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002). Parallel to the definition of bullying, any form of imbalance, such as ethnic representation, may be associated with higher levels of bullying. According to the ethnic composition hypothesis (Graham, 2006), ethnic diversity in schools, where no one group holds the numerical majority, is associated with lower levels of peer victimization and anxiety, and higher perception of school safety (e.g., Bellmore, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2004; Graham, 2006; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006). In contrast, disproportionate numerical ethnic group representation may result in interethnic conflict and bullying regardless of the ethnicity of the numerical minority groups (e.g., Graham & Juvonen, 2002). Bigler and Liben (2007) suggest that because proportionately smaller groups are more distinct than larger groups, they may become the target of stereotypes and prejudice. However, the percentage of ethnic proportions in schools appears to play a twofold role at the mid-point (i.e., around 50% diversity), where moderate levels of ethnic diversity may be associated with more bullying behavior or ethnic discrimination (e.g., Bellmore, Nishina, You, & Ma, 2012). Although a larger gap in numerical proportions (i.e., 80%/20%; Durkin et al., 2012) is more clearly associated with peer victimization, moderate levels of ethnic diversity may exacerbate interethnic conflict in contexts in which groups might strive to achieve a socially dominant position or where group and friendship segregation are more noticeable (e.g., Moody, 2001).

The relation between school ethnic composition and bullying has been supported in the literature, although some studies report no association between ethnic diversity and bullying perpetration or victimization. For example, American and British research showed that ethnic majority-minority status and ethnic diversity were not related to peer victimization (Durkin et al., 2012; Mehari, & Farrell, 2015; Stefanek et al., 2012), except for the discriminatory subtype which was reported more frequently by ethnic minorities as the proportion of ethnic minority peers increased (Durkin et al., 2012). Vervoort, Scholte, and Overbeek (2010) found that ethnic minorities scored significantly higher on bullying than ethnic majority members at the individual level; however, the relation between ethnic minority proportion in class and bullying was not significant. In Belgium, Agirdag and colleagues (2011) found that immigrant children reported less peer victimization than native Belgian students in schools with a higher ethnic minority population, and the relation between school context and peer victimization was mediated by interethnic school climate, such as the number of interethnic friendships and interethnic conflict. More recently, Thijs, Verkuyten, and Grundel (2014) examined the moderating role of in-group bias in peer victimization and classroom ethnic composition, and found that the association between these two variables was moderated by out-group negative attitudes toward the victimized group.

These findings suggest that ethnic context alone may not be sufficient to account for differences in bullying between ethnic groups. Nevertheless, a number of studies support that disproportionate ethnic diversity in classrooms and schools is associated with more bullying victimization. In Europe, Verkuyten and Thijs (2002) found that a higher proportion of native Dutch children was associated with more racist peer victimization for ethnic minorities (Turkish, Moroccan), and a higher proportion of same-ethnicity peers in the classroom was associated with less racism among immigrant children. In contrast, a higher proportion of native Dutch students in the classroom was associated with less racist victimization for Dutch students. Similarly, Vervoort, Scholte, and Overbeek (2010) found that ethnically heterogeneous classes were associated with higher levels of victimization, although native Dutch students reported more peer victimization overall than ethnic minorities regardless of ethnic composition. In the US, Hanish and Guerra (2000) found that Black and White students’ peer victimization rates did not differ; however, White students were more likely to be victimized in predominantly non-White schools than in predominantly White schools. Studies employing peer nominations have also shown that Black and Latino students were more likely to be nominated as aggressive when they were the numerical majority in the classroom (Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006), whereas numerical minority youth, such as White and Persian, were more likely to be nominated as victims (Graham & Juvonen, 2002). Interestingly, White students were more likely to receive favorable peer nominations irrespective of the classroom ethnic composition (Jackson et al., 2006). More recently, Barth and colleagues (2013) reported that White students were nominated as bullies more in schools with a greater proportion of Black students, whereas Black students received more nominations for ‘fights’ and victims with increased percentage of same-ethnicity peers (Barth et al., 2013).

Overall, studies in the US and Europe generally support the association between school or classroom ethnic composition and bullying victimization. Although Canada is a multicultural society with a large percentage of ethnic minorities, few studies have examined bullying in the context of ethnicity. Research suggests that Canadian ethnic minority youth perceived more racial discrimination by teachers and peers than ethnic majority youth (Dyson, 2005; Oxman-Martinez et al., 2012), and perceived peer racial discrimination predicted lower social competence in peer relationships. This may be due to potential difficulties in forming peer relationships with members of other ethnic groups, which may lead to lower perceived social competence, especially in the face of social exclusion or discrimination. In addition, adolescents who recently immigrated to Canada reported greater discrimination, fear of teasing or exclusion and lower school safety compared to adolescents living in Canada for more than 2 years, and racial discrimination reports were negatively associated with the proportion of same-ethnicity peers in schools (Closson, Darwich, Hymel, & Waterhouse, 2014).

With regards to bullying, Canadian studies on ethnicity as an individual-level variable indicate that ethnic minorities report more peer victimization than ethnic majority youth (e.g., Chen & Tse, 2008; Pepler, Connolly, & Craig, 1999), although few studies have examined the role of school or classroom ethnic composition in the prevalence of bullying. Larochette, Murphy, and Craig (2010) investigated individual- and school-level variables in racial bullying among European Canadian and African Canadian adolescents, and found that student and teacher diversity alone, as well as school climate, were not associated with racial bullying or victimization at the school level. At the individual level, African Canadian students engaged in more racial bullying compared to European Canadian students. For victimization, Larochette and colleagues found that being African Canadian, East Asian Canadian, South East Asian Canadian, and Native Canadian was associated with racial victimization at the individual-level; however these effects diminished at the school-level with the exception of African Canadian students. Hoglund and Hosan (2012) examined peer aggression and victimization within ethnically diverse classrooms and found that lower ethnic diversity was associated with higher levels of aggression. In addition, Aboriginal and Asian adolescents who experienced more peer victimization also reported higher levels of depression and anxiety compared to White adolescents. Lastly, Schummann, Craig, and Rosu (2014) found that individual-level factors, such as gender and socioeconomic status, and community-level factors, such as low community involvement, predicted peer victimization for ethnic minority youth.

The current study

Despite the aforementioned findings, there is a lack of large-scale research on ethnic composition and bullying in Canadian schools. In the present study, we examined students’ reported bullying perpetration and victimization within ethnically diverse schools by using a nested model to account for contextual effects. The present study replicates previous American and European research on school ethnic composition and bullying in the Canadian context and extends previous research by including the assessment of separate subtypes of bullying behavior in a large study of over 11,000 participants. Behavior-based measures that include specific bullying behavior and definitions are more accurate at assessing prevalence rates compared to general questions, such as ‘Have you been bullied/bullied others,’ which are more accurate at classifying non-involved students (Vaillancourt et al., 2010). Pertaining specifically to ethnic minorities, Sawyer, Bradshaw, and O’Brennan (2008) found that ethnic minority youth were more likely to endorse peer victimization items when explicitly presented with several subtypes compared to generic questions. Thus, we expected that bullying reports would differ across subtypes. In addition to differences related to measurement specificity, differences exist between direct (i.e., physical) and indirect (i.e., relational) forms of bullying. For example, ethnic minority students are more likely to experience name-calling and social exclusion (e.g., Moran, Smith, Thompson, & Whitney, 1993; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002), whereas physical bullying appears to be the least frequent form of bullying regardless of ethnicity, particularly at older ages (e.g., Rivers & Smith, 1994). Finally, we expected that ethnic minority youth would report more bullying victimization in schools with low levels of ethnic diversity, whereas ethnic majority students were expected to report more bullying perpetration in schools with a higher proportion of same-ethnicity peers. Lastly, the majority of studies on school ethnic composition and bullying have assessed peer victimization but less is known about bullying perpetration specifically and school ethnic composition. In the present study, we examined both bullying perpetration and victimization in the context of school ethnic composition.

Method

Participants

An ethnically diverse sample of 11,649 (5,673 girls and 5,976 boys) was recruited from 114 schools from a large public school district in urban/suburban and rural Southern Ontario. The sample was derived from an entire public school board which included smaller, more rural schools. However, these ‘rural’ schools were within an hour driving distance to the major urban area. Thus they were rural, but not isolated. For the analyses, 96 schools were retained with 20 or more participants with complete data on ethnicity and bullying per school in order to perform the multilevel modelling analyses. At the school level, there were no differences in the proportions of bullying and victimization between the included and excluded schools. The majority of participants were White/European Canadian (76.9%), Asian Canadian (7.5%), South Asian Canadian (5.1%), African Canadian (5.5%), Aboriginal (3.8%), and Other/Biracial (1.2%) in Grades 4 to 12 (age range: 8–20, M = 12.79, SD = 2.49). For the analyses, participants were grouped into European Canadian (ethnic majority/White; n = 8,960) and non-European Canadian (ethnic minority/non-White; n = 2,689).

Procedure

All students with parental permission and who agreed to participate (98% of the sample) completed online a 30-minute Safe School Survey (Vaillancourt et al., 2010), supervised by their classroom (elementary division) and homeroom teachers (secondary division), in the computer labs of their respective schools in January (elementary) and February (secondary) of 2008. Less than 5% of students declined or withdrew from the study.

Measures

Demographics

Participants completed a basic demographic questionnaire on age, sex, and ethnic background. Ethnicity was assessed from a list of options including African/Caribbean (Black), Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc.), European Canadian (White), First Nations (Native, Indian, Aboriginal), South Asian (Indo-Canadian, East Indian, Pakistani, etc.), Other (please describe), ‘I don’t know.’

Bullying

Following recommendations by Vaillancourt et al. (2008), participants were presented with Olweus’ (1996) definition of bullying, adapted by Whitney and Smith (1993, p. 7):
We say a student is being bullied when another student, or a group of students say nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a student is hit, kicked, threatened, locked inside a room, sent nasty notes, when people don’t talk to him or her, and things like that. These things may take place frequently and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend him/herself. It is also bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a negative way. But it is not bullying when two students of about the same strength quarrel or fight.
Students were then asked to report the frequency of their own bullying experiences in the past three months based on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (several times a week). Ten items assessing general (global item), physical (e.g., hit, kicked, pushed), verbal (e.g., name-calling, threatening), social (e.g., gossip, being left out) and cyber (e.g., have you been bullied via email, text messages, or other technological means) bullying perpetration and victimization were adapted from Olweus (1996) (e.g., ‘At school, how often have other students physically bullied you? Examples: hit, kicked, pushed, spat on or otherwise physically hurt you’).

School ethnic composition

We assessed school ethnic diversity based on the proportion of ethnic minority students in the schools. The variable was calculated by taking the number of ethnic minorities in each school over the total number of students in each school. Proportion of ethnic minorities in schools ranged from 2.7% to 85.48% (M = .23 SD = .15), and the variable was used as a Level 2 predictor for school ethnic composition.

Analytic plan

We examined the association between school ethnic composition and ethnic majority (European Canadian) and minority (non-European Canadian) students’ experiences of bullying by constructing two 2-Level multilevel models. Multilevel models draw from the hierarchical nature of the data in which one level is nested within another, for example, students (Level 1 or individual-level) nested within schools (Level 2 or school-level). In particular, we assessed whether non-European Canadian students reported more bullying perpetration or victimization than European Canadians depending on the proportion of other ethnic minorities in the schools. At Level 1, participants’ sex, grade, and bullying perpetration (for the victimization analysis) or victimization (for the bullying analysis) were entered as control variables, and individual ethnicity was examined as a predictor. We controlled for bullying perpetration and victimization in each analysis in order to obtain results on true bullies and victims. At Level 2, school ethnic composition (% ethnic minority/non-White students) was entered as a predictor, and interactions between individual ethnicity and school ethnic composition on each bullying/victimization outcome were examined. We also included school size as a control variable at Level 2 in order to rule out differences between larger and smaller schools. Analyses were conducted in Mplus (v. 6.12; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). A robust maximum likelihood estimator was used in order to correct for the assumption of normality violation. Models were compared using the log likelihood ratio test (Δ-2LL) and evaluated against a chi-squared distribution. Bullying outcome variables were grand-mean centered and control variables were coded using unweighted effects coding (−1 = boy; −1 = ethnic majority). Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs), individual and school-level variances were calculated in order to obtain the amount of variance in bullying accounted for by within-individual and between-school differences.

Results

Means and standard deviations for all outcome variables (bullying perpetration and victimization) are presented in Table 1 and bullying prevalence rates across and within schools are presented in Table 2. European Canadian students reported more social victimization, F(1, 11648) = 5.57, p < .05, d = .05, than non-European Canadian students. Non-European Canadian participants reported more physical, F(1, 11648) = 22.40, p < .001, d = −.10, and cyber, F(1, 11648) = 17.20, p < .001, d = −.09, bullying perpetration than European Canadian participants. No other statistically significant differences between ethnic groups were found.

Table 1.
Descriptive statistics for Level 1 variables

European Canadian (n = 8,960) Non-European Canadian (n = 2,689)

Mean SD Mean SD

Bullying victimization

Physical .36 .65 .40 .70

Verbal .67 .81 .65 .83

Social .47 .70 .43 .71

Cyber .15 .48 .19 .56

General .49 .75 .47 .77

Bullying perpetration

Physical .22 .53 .28 .61

Verbal .44 .67 .44 .69

Social .35 .60 .36 .66

Cyber .12 .44 .15 .53

General .40 .65 .41 .72

Sex (%)

Boys 50.2 55

Girls 49.8 45

Grade (%)

Elementary/middle school 65.4 76.9

High school 34.6 23.1

Note. Bullying victimization and perpetration variables ranged from 0–3 (0 = Not at all in the past 3 months; 1 = A few times in the past 3 months; 2 = Every week in the past 3 months; 3 = Many times a week in the past 3 months).

Table 2.
Bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence across 96 schools

Across schools Within schools

% % (range)

Bullying victimization

Physical 29.9 33.60 (9–62)

Verbal 50.5 51.95 (32–78)

Social 36.9 38.05 (16–64)

Cyber 12.2 11.73 (0–28)

General 37.1 40.04 (19–70)

Bullying perpetration

Physical 19.0 19.18 (5–38)

Verbal 37.0 34.91 (12–53)

Social 29.7 28.26 (4–47)

Cyber 9.8 8.55 (0–23)

General 32.5 30.93 (3–57)

Note. European Canadians n = 8960; non-European Canadians n = 2689

Multilevel models

Multilevel modeling analyses were performed in order to examine differences in bullying between European Canadian (ethnic majority and ethnic minority) students as a function of school ethnic composition. At Level 1, sex, grade, and bullying perpetration subtypes were entered as control variables. School ethnic composition, defined as the percentage of non-European Canadian students in schools, was entered as a Level-2 predictor. Two separate analyses were conducted for bullying perpetration and bullying victimization including physical, verbal, social, cyber and general subtypes. In each analysis, Model 1 included an intercept-only model in order to determine the amount of variance at Level 1 and Level 2. Model 2 included all Level-1 control variables (sex, grade, bullying perpetration, or victimization) to examine the amount of variance accounted for by within-school differences. Model 3 included individual ethnicity (European Canadian, non-European Canadian) at Level 1 and school ethnic composition (% minority) at Level 2, and lastly, Model 4 included interactions between Level-1 and Level-2 variables (individual ethnicity, % non-European Canadian).

A total of 96 schools were included in the analyses, and the average number of students per school was 121 (range: 20–973). Results were not statistically significant for bullying perpetration across both ethnic groups. For bullying victimization, the proportion of non-European Canadians in the schools was a significant predictor for non-European Canadian students (Table 3). The obtained intraclass correlations ranged from ρ = .009–.026, indicating that 0.9%–2.6% of the variability in bullying victimization was accounted by between-school differences (Table 3). In Model 1, results of the null model indicated that 0.2−1.4% of the variance in all victimization outcomes could be accounted for by between-school differences. In Model 2, the addition of sex, grade, and bullying perpetration subtypes improved the model fit for all victimization subtypes, Δ-2LL = 11531.75, df = 60, p < .001. In Model 3, the addition of individual ethnicity and proportion of non-European Canadians at school indicated a better fit for the model Δ-2LL = 40.85, df = 10, p < .001. Proportion of non-European Canadians in schools predicted all peer victimization outcomes except for the general subtype. In Model 4, the interaction term proportion non-European Canadian × individual ethnicity (European Canadian, non-European Canadian) improved the model Δ-2LL = 28.98, df = 5, p < .001.

Table 3.
Hierarchical linear modeling results for bullying victimization

Victimization type Covariates fc Model 1 Intercept only/variance (b, 95% CI) Model 2 Control variables(b, 95% CI) Model 3 Ethnicity (b, 95% CI) Model 4 Interactions ethnicity × % minority (b, 95% CI)

General Fixed effects

Intercept 0.513 (0.48, 0.54) 0.452 (0.43, 0.47) 0.442 (0.42, 0.46) 0.456 (0.42, 0.48)

Individual

Sex 0.027 (0.01, 0.04) 0.026 (0.01, 0.04) 0.026 (0.01, 0.04)

Grade −0.083 (−0.10, −0.06) −0.087 (−0.10, −0.07 −0.086 (−0.10, −0.07)

Bullying perpetration type

Physical 0.097 (0.05, 0.14) 0.098 (0.05, 0.14) 0.097 (0.05, 0.14)

Verbal 0.098 (0.07, 0.13) 0.098 (0.07, 0.13) 0.098 (0.07, 0.13)

Social 0.047 0.01, 0.08) 0.047 (0.01, 0.08) 0.046 (0.01, 0.08)

Cyber 0.055 (0.00, 0.11) 0.057 (0.00, 0.11) 0.056 (0.00, 0.11)

General 0.226 (0.18, 0.27) 0.226 (0.18, 0.27) 0.227 (0.18, 0.27)

Ethnicity −0.019 (−0.04, 0.00) −0.009 (−0.03, 0.01)

School level

School size 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)

Level 2% minority −0.001 (−0.00, 0.00) −0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)

Interaction Level 1 × Level 2% minority −0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)

Random effects

Individual 0.548 (0.51, 0.58) 0.482 (0.44, 0.52) 0.482 (0.44, 0.52) 0.481 (0.44, 0.52)

School 0.014 (0.01, 0.02) 0.007 (0.00, 0.01) 0.006 (0.00, 0.01) 0.007 (0.00, 0.01)

ICC 0.026

Physical Fixed effects

Intercept 0.401 (03.7, 0.42) 0.341 (0.32, 0.36) 0.34 (0.32, 0.36) 0.347 (0.32, 0.37)

Individual

Sex −0.041 (−0.05, −0.03) −0.041 (−0.05, −0.03) −0.041 (−0.05, −0.03)

Grade −0.085 (0.11, −0.06) −0.089 (−0.11, −0.07) −0.088 (−0.11, −0.06)

Bullying perpetration type

Physical 0.305 (0.26, 0.35) 0.306 (0.26, 0.35) 0.305 (0.26, 0.35)

Verbal 0.08 (0.05, 0.11) 0.08 (0.05, 0.11) 0.081 (0.05, 0.11)

Social 0.023 (0.00, 0.05) 0.023 (0.00, 0.04) 0.022 (0.00, 0.04)

Cyber 0.105 (0.06, 0.15) 0.106 (0.006, 0.15) 0.105 (0.06, 0.15)

General 0.08 (0.05, 0.11) 0.081 (0.05, 0.11) 0.082 (0.05, 0.11)

Ethnicity 0.001 (−0.01, 0.01) 0.006 (−0.01, −0.03)

School level

School size 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)

Level 2% minority −0.002 (−0.00, 0.00) −0.002 (−0.00, 0.00)

Interaction Level 1 × Level 2% minority −0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)

Random effects

Individual 0.426 (0.39, 0.46) 0.349 (0.32, 0.38) 0.349 (0.32, 0.38) 0.348 (0.31, 0.38)

School 0.011 (0.00, 0.01) 0.004 (0.00, 0.01) 0.003 (0.00, 0.00) 0.004 (0.00, 0.01)

ICC 0.024

Verbal Fixed effects

Intercept 0.683 (0.65, 0.71) 0.64 (0.62, 0.66) 0.63 (0.61, 0.65) 0.647 (0.62, 0.48)

Individual

Sex 0.027 (0.01, 0.04) 0.026 (0.01, 0.04) 0.026 (0.01, 0.04)

Grade −0.068 (−0.09, −0.04) −0.07 (−0.09, −0.05) −0.07 (−0.09, −0.05)

Bullying perpetration type

Physical 0.066 (0.01, 0.12) 0.067 (0.01, 0.12) 0.065 (0.01, 0.11)

Verbal 0.263 (0.23, 0.29) 0.263 (0.23, 0.29) 0.263 (0.23, 0.29)

Social 0.07 (0.04, 0.10) 0.07 (0.04, 0.10) 0.069 (0.04, 0.10)

Cyber 0.078 (0.03, 0.12) 0.079 (0.03, 0.12) 0.078 (0.03, 0.12)

General 0.166 (0.12, 0.21) 0.166 (0.12, 0.21) 0.166 (0.12, 0.21)

Ethnicity −0.017 (−0.03, 0.00) −0.005 (−0.02, 0.01)

School level

School size 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)

Level 2% minority −0.001 (−0.00, 0.00) −0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)

Interaction Level 1 × Level 2% minority −0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)

Random effects

Individual 0.649 (0.62, 0.68) 0.547 (0.52, 0.57) 0.547 (0.52, 0.57) 0.546 (0.52, 0.57)

School 0.014 (0.01, 0.02) 0.006 (0.00, 0.01) 0.006 (0.00, 0.01) 0.004 (0.00, 0.01)

ICC 0.022

Social Fixed

Intercept 0.467 (0.44, 0.49) 0.451 (0.43, 0.47) 0.442 (0.42, 0.46) 0.453 (0.43, 0.47)

Individual

Sex_c 0.075 (0.06, 0.09) 0.074 (0.06, 0.09) 0.074 (0.06, 0.09)

Grade −0.021 (−0.04, 0.00) −0.027 (−0.05, 0.00) −0.026 (−0.05, 0.00)

Bullying perpetration type

Physical 0.035 (0.00, 0.07) 0.037 (0.00, 0.07) 0.036 (0.00, 0.07)

Verbal 0.099 (0.07, 0.13) 0.099 (0.07, 0.13) 0.099 (0.07, 0.13)

Social 0.195 (0.17, 0.22) 0.194 (0.17, 0.22) 0.194 (0.17, 0.22)

Cyber 0.106 (0.07, 0.14) 0.108 (0.07, 0.15) 0.108 (0.07, 0.15)

General 0.119 (0.09, 0.15) 0.119 (0.09, 0.15) 0.119 (0.10, 0.15)

Ethnicity −0.013 (−0.03, 0.00) −0.006 (−0.02, 0.01)

School level

School size 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)

Level 2% minority −0.002 (−0.00, −0.00) −0.002 (−0.00, 0.00)

Interaction Level 1 × Level 2% minority −0.001 (−0.00, −0.00)

Random effects

Individual 0.485 (0.46, 0.51) 0.414 (0.39, 0.43) 0.414 (0.39, 0.43) 0.414 (0.39, 0.43)

School 0.01 (0.00, 0.01) 0.005 (−0.00, 0.01) 0.003 (−0.00, 0.01) 0.004 (−0.00, 0.01)

ICC 0.019

Cyber Fixed effects

Intercept 0.168 (0.15, 0.18) 0.157 (0.15, 0.17) 0.163 (0.15, 0.17) 0.168 (0.15, 0.18)

Individual

Sex 0.025 (0.01, 0.04) 0.025 (0.01, 0.04) 0.025 (0.01, 0.04)

Grade −0.012 (−0.02, −0.00) −0.013 (−0.02, −0.00) −0.013 (−0.02, −0.00)

Bullying perpetration type

Physical 0.055 (0.02, 0.09) 0.055 (0.02, 0.09) 0.054 (0.02, 0.09)

Verbal 0.03 (0.01, 0.05) 0.03 (0.01, 0.05) 0.031 (0.01, 0.05)

Social 0.048 (0.02, 0.07) 0.048 (0.02, 0.07) 0.048 (0.02, 0.07)

Cyber 0.413 (0.37, 0.46) 0.412 (0.37, 0.46) 0.412 (0.37, 0.45)

General 0.029 (0.01, 0.05) 0.029 (0.00.01, 0.05) 0.029 (0.01, 0.05)

Ethnicity 0.011 (0.00, 0.02) 0.014 (0.00, 0.02)

School level

School size 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00) 0.00 (0.00, 0.00)

Level 2% minority −0.001 (−0.00, 0.00) −0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)

Interaction Level 1 × Level 2% minority −0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)

Random effects

Individual 0.245 (0.22, 0.27) 0.187 (0.17, 0.20) 0.187 (0.17, 0.20) 0.187 (0.17, 0.20)

School 0.002 (0.00, 0.00) 0.001 (0.00, 0.00) 0.001 (0.00, 0.00) 0.001 (0.00, 0.00)

ICC 0.009

Model comparison

change −2LL (df) df 11531.75 (60)* 40.85 (10)* 28.98 (5)*

Note. European Canadians n = 8,960; non-European Canadians n = 2,689.

p < .001. ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; change –LL = Change in log-likelihood ratio. Change in −2LL tested using the Satorra-Bentler scaled Chi-Square for robust standard errors.

We conducted follow-up tests to examine individual ethnicity as a moderator between proportion of non-European Canadians in schools at Level 2 and bullying victimization outcomes. Results indicated that school ethnic composition did not predict increases or decreases in European Canadian students’ bullying victimization for the general (b = 0.00, SE = 0.00, p > .05), physical (b = −0.001, SE = 0.001, p > .05), verbal (b = 0.001, SE = 0.001, p > .05), social (b = −0.001, SE = 0.001, p > .05), and cyber (b = 0.001, SE = 0.001, p > .05) subtypes. For non-European Canadian participants, results indicated that as the proportion of ethnic minorities in schools increased, rates of bullying victimization decreased for the general (b = −0.004, SE = 0.001, p < .01), physical (b = −0.003, SE = 0.001, p < .01), verbal (b = −0.004, SE = 0.001, p < .01), social (b = −0.004, SE = 0.001, p < .001) subtypes, but not for cyber victimization (b = −0.001, SE = 0.001, p =* .05).

Lastly, the proportion of variance accounted for by the full model for each type of victimization was 13.9% for general, 22.4% for physical, 18.8% for verbal, 17.1% for social, and 31% for cyber victimization.

Discussion

The present research is one of the first Canadian studies on school ethnic composition and bullying involvement among European Canadian and non-European Canadian youth. Descriptive mean group differences indicated that non-European Canadian students reported more physical and cyber bullying perpetration than European Canadian students, whereas European Canadian students reported more social victimization—but the effect sizes obtained were small, ranging from .05 to −.10. Differences in the bullying subtypes between groups may be due to intra- or inter-ethnic bullying, such that physical perpetration and victimization may occur between ethnic minority students only or between ethnic majority and minority students; however, we cannot infer inter- or intra-ethnic bullying from our findings. Further research on the ethnicity of the perpetrators and victims of bullying is needed as recent findings indicate that inter-ethnic bullying is less frequent than intra-ethnic bullying in more ethnically diverse classrooms (Tolsma, van Dreuzen, Stark, & Veenstra, 2013). Interestingly, mean differences indicated that non-European Canadian students reported more cyber bullying perpetration than European Canadian students. Cyber bullying has emerged as a new form of bullying and is correlated with involvement in traditional forms of bullying (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). Our results indicated that this form is prevalent among non-European Canadian students as well, although it occurs at lower levels compared to other forms of bullying for most students. Previous research has yielded different prevalence rates in cyber bullying between White and non-White youth, with some findings showing no differences between ethnic groups (Smith, Thompson, & Bhatti, 2012) and others showing that White or ethnic minority students are more likely to cyber-bully (Kupczynski, Mundy, & Green, 2013; Low & Espelage, 2013; Shapka & Law, 2013). Considering the variability in cyberbullying prevalence among ethnic groups, further systematic studies are necessary to examine whether there are true and strong differences between ethnicities.

Similar to European and American findings, results indicated that non-European Canadian (ethnic minority) students experienced less peer victimization in schools with a higher proportion of other non-European Canadian (ethnic minority) peers. However, we did not find any differences in bullying perpetration and school ethnic composition across both ethnic groups. This is consistent with Vervoort, Scholte, and Overbeek’s (2010) study who found no differences in bullying perpetration in relation to classroom ethnic composition.

Non-European Canadian students reported lower levels of bullying victimization across most subtypes in schools with a higher proportion of non-European Canadians. Although no causal relation between bullying and school ethnic composition can be inferred, previous research supports that a higher representation of same-ethnicity or other ethnic minority peers may be associated with more supportive networks that can act as a buffer against bullying. In particular, findings from the Netherlands suggest that Turkish students reported having more friendship networks and higher support from same-ethnicity peers (Baerveldt, Van Duijn, Vermeij, & Hermet, 2004) and minority students also reported having both inter- and intra-ethnic friendships compared to ethnic majority students, who had fewer inter-ethnic friendships (Vermeij et al., 2009). In addition, ethnic minority youth have been found to report lower levels of victimization in ethnically diverse schools, both in Europe and the US (e.g., Agirdag et al., 2011; Graham & Juvonen, 2002) and ethnic diversity may reduce students’ risk of peer victimization (Juvonen et al., 2006). Our results replicate previous studies, and extend findings by including several forms of bullying behavior. In previous studies on peer victimization and ethnic diversity, outcome measures have been combined into a composite score (e.g., Juvonen et al., 2006; Vervoort, Scholte, & Overbeek, 2010), which does not allow for the examination of, or comparison between, specific types of behavior such as verbal, physical, cyber, or social bullying.

The non-significant results on bullying perpetration among ethnic majority and minority students may not be surprising considering that European Canadian youth are members of the national majority group, which may be implicitly associated with higher status and power in the larger society, and thus, ethnic diversity may not pose a direct threat to the ethnic majority. In addition, bullying does not necessarily occur between ethnic majority and minority students but between ethnic majorities or ethnic minorities only. For example, Eslea and Mukhtar (2000) found that South Asian students reported they were more frequently bullied by other South Asian peers, and Tolsma and colleagues (2013) found that both inter- and intra-ethnic bullying are equally common in ethnically diverse classrooms. Thus, although we found no differences in bullying perpetration between groups, it is possible that bullying behavior occurs between members of the same ethnicity rather than ethnic out-groups. Also, recent research indicates that intergroup relations within the context of school ethnic composition may be moderated by personality traits and negative attitudes (Thijs et al., 2014; van Zalk & Kerr, 2014), therefore, ethnic proportions alone may not account for the intergroup processes in bullying between ethnic groups.

Canada has a high level of immigration and diversity, and the multicultural policy established in the 1970s supports cultural maintenance, ethnic diversity, and integration of immigrants into the society (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). Compared to other countries, such as the US, the UK, and France, Canada ranks higher on multiculturalism and acceptance of immigrants (Berry, 2013). Immigrant selection in Canada is based on a point system that screens attributes such as education, age, and job skills (Beiser, 2005), and a large percentage of newcomers are more educated than their Canadian counterparts (Statistics Canada, 2010). Thus, the system of entry to the Canadian society, as well as the positive multicultural attitudes, may be related to lower prevalence rates of bullying against ethnic groups due to the general acceptance and strong ethnic communities. In addition, attitudes toward immigrants are more favorable in Ontario where this study was conducted compared to other provinces in Canada (Berry & Kalin, 1995). These positive attitudes may extend to youth and peer relationships in schools. Indeed, Sabatier and Berry (2008) found that immigrant adolescents in Canada reported lower levels of racial discrimination compared to adolescents in France, a country with moderate levels of ethnic diversity and a lengthier process of obtaining citizenship. Nevertheless, immigrant status was not assessed in the present study, therefore, this discussion point is a general one in order to be inclusive of Canadian and non-Canadian ethnic minority youth.

Growing up in a community that is supportive of cultural diversity creates opportunities for contact early on and intergroup contact has been shown to reduce prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Thus, ethnicity might not necessarily become a target for bullying in ethnically diverse schools. Ethnic majority children exhibit more positive out-group attitudes and tolerance with increased cross-ethnic friendships (Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009; van Zalk & Kerr, 2014), and in the presence of positive intergroup school climate, ethnocentrism and prejudice may decrease (Dejaeghere, Hooghe, & Claes, 2012). Canadian studies with immigrant youth in Ontario have shown no differences in general peer victimization between Canadian non-immigrant and immigrant youth at the individual-level; however, White youth and immigrant youth of Canadian-born parents were grouped into one category (McKenney, Pepler, Craig, & Connolly, 2006). In addition, McKenney and colleagues (2006) reported that their results were positively skewed across all outcome variables, indicating that students did not have significant problems with peer victimization. School-level factors, such as school climate, were also not associated with racial bullying in African Canadian and White students (Larochette et al., 2010). Although Canada ranks high in bullying prevalence rates (UNICEF Office of Research, 2013), ethnic diversity in particular may not be a strong factor in bullying perpetration, and considering the few differences in victimization between European and non-European Canadian students in our study it may be that the rates of bullying perpetration and victimization are not alarmingly high among ethnic minorities.

Nevertheless, there is little research on bullying and ethnicity in Canada, and inter-ethnic bullying may be more prevalent than previously reported. Attitudes toward immigrants or ethnic minorities in Canada are based on a hierarchy of groups, with those of European origin regarded more highly compared to visible minorities (Berry & Kalin, 1995). Hoglund and Hosan (2012) found that aggression levels were higher in less ethnically diverse Canadian classrooms. In addition, visible minority youth reported experiencing more bullying because of their ethnicity. Bullying and racial discrimination may overlap in students’ experiences and not be adequately assessed in research. Future research should incorporate measures of bullying and racial discrimination simultaneously, as well as assessments of perceived reasons for bullying others or being victimized by peers (i.e., because of one’s ethnicity/cultural background). Social support, however, helps youths’ adjustment to the Canadian society, especially friendship formation with peers of immigrant backgrounds (Ochocka, 2006). Therefore, higher ethnic diversity in Canadian schools may provide opportunities for contact with peers of similar backgrounds and consequently may be associated with higher levels of support and lower levels of peer victimization.

The present study is among the first to demonstrate that school ethnic composition is associated with lower bullying victimization rates among ethnic minority students in Canadian schools, and the full model accounted for 13.9%–31% of the variance across victimization types. In addition, our findings are supported across general and specific subtypes of bullying behavior, suggesting that ethnic diversity influences bullying victimization across a large spectrum of behavior. However, we did not assess the association between ethnic diversity and bullying at the classroom level, which may provide a more pragmatic picture of bullying in smaller settings. In addition, the ethnicity of the perpetrators was not assessed, and thus, it was not possible to examine the extent of inter- and intra- ethnic bullying among ethnic majority and minority students. Although ethnic diversity appears to play an important role in bullying, additional factors such as ethnicity of the perpetrator, attitudes toward minorities and the link between discrimination and bullying should be investigated.

	European Canadian (n = 8,960)	Non-European Canadian (n = 2,689)
Bullying victimization
Physical	.36	.65	.40	.70
Verbal	.67	.81	.65	.83
Social	.47	.70	.43	.71
Cyber	.15	.48	.19	.56
General	.49	.75	.47	.77
Bullying perpetration
Physical	.22	.53	.28	.61
Verbal	.44	.67	.44	.69
Social	.35	.60	.36	.66
Cyber	.12	.44	.15	.53
General	.40	.65	.41	.72
Sex (%)
Boys	50.2	55
Girls	49.8	45
Grade (%)
Elementary/middle school	65.4	76.9
High school	34.6	23.1

	Across schools	Within schools
Bullying victimization
Physical	29.9	33.60 (9–62)
Verbal	50.5	51.95 (32–78)
Social	36.9	38.05 (16–64)
Cyber	12.2	11.73 (0–28)
General	37.1	40.04 (19–70)
Bullying perpetration
Physical	19.0	19.18 (5–38)
Verbal	37.0	34.91 (12–53)
Social	29.7	28.26 (4–47)
Cyber	9.8	8.55 (0–23)
General	32.5	30.93 (3–57)

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

References

Aboud

F. E.

Mendelson

M. J.

Purdy

K. T.

(2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173. doi:10.1080/01650250244000164

Agirdag

Demanet

Van Houtte

Van Avermaet

(2011). Ethnic school composition and peer victimization: A focus on the interethnic school climate. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 465–473. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.009

Baerveldt

van Duijn

M. A. J.

Vermeij

van Hemert

D. A.

(2004). Ethnic boundaries and personal choice. Assessing the influence of individual inclinations to choose intra-ethnic relationships on pupils networks. Social Networks, 26, 55–74. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.003

Bagwell

C. L.

Schmidt

M. E.

(2011). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Barth

J. M.

McDonald

K. L.

Lochman

J. E.

Boxmeyer

Powell

Dilon

Sallee

(2013). Racial composition on interracial peer relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 231–243. doi:10.1111/ajop.12026231

Beiser

(2005). The health of immigrants and refugees in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96, S30–S43.

Bellmore

Nishina

You

J. I.

T. L.

(2012). School context protective factors against peer ethnic discrimination across the high school years. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 98–111. doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9443-0

Bellmore

A. D.

Nishina

Witkow

M. R.

Juvonen

(2007). The influence of classroom ethnic composition on same- and other-ethnicity peer nominations in middle school. Social Development, 16, 720–740. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00404.x

Bellmore

A. D.

Witkow

M. R.

Graham

Juvonen

(2004). Beyond the individual: The impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims’ adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1159–1172. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1159

10.

Berry

J. W.

(2013). Research on multiculturalism in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 663–675. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.005

11.

Berry

J. W.

Kalin

(1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 27, 301–320. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.27.3.301

12.

Berry

J. W.

Phinney

J. S.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

(2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

13.

Bigler

R. S.

Liben

L. S.

(2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 162–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00496.x

14.

Chen

Tse

C. H.

(2008). Social functioning and adjustment in Canadian-born children with Chinese and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1184–1189. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1184

15.

Closson

L. M.

Darwich

Hymel

Waterhouse

(2014). Ethnic discrimination among recent immigrant adolescents: Variations as a function of ethnicity and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 608–614. doi:10.1111/jora.12089

16.

Dejaeghere

Hooghe

Claes

(2012). Do ethnically diverse schools reduce ethnocentrism? A two-year panel study among majority group late adolescents in Belgian school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 108–117. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.010

17.

Duffy

A. L.

Nesdale

(2008). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behaviour. Social Development, 18, 121–139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00484.x

18.

Durkin

Hunter

Levin

K. A.

Bergin

Heim

Howe

(2012). Discriminatory peer aggression among children as a function of minority status and group proportion in school context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 243–251. doi:10.1002/ejsp.870

19.

Dyson

L. L.

(2005). The lives of recent Chinese immigrant children in Canadian society: Values, aspirations, and social experiences. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 37, 49–66.

20.

Eslea

Mukhtar

(2000). Bullying and racism among Asian school children in Britain. Educational Research, 2, 202–217. doi:10.1080/001318800363845

21.

Fandrem

Strohemeier

Jonsdottir

K. A.

(2012). Peer groups and victimization among native and immigrant adolescents in Norway. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 273–285. doi:/10.1080/13632752.2012.704308

22.

Feddes

A. R.

Noack

Rutland

(2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, 377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x.

23.

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

24.

Graham

(2006). Peer victimization in school: Exploring the ethnic context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 317–321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00460.x

25.

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

26.

Graham

Bellmore

Nishina

Juvonen

(2009). ‘It must be me’: Ethnic diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 487–499. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9386-4

27.

Griffiths

J. A.

Nesdale

(2006). In-group and out-group attitudes of ethnic majority and minority children. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 735–749. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.05.001

28.

Hamm

J. V.

Brown

B. B.

Heck

D. J.

(2005). Bridging the ethnic divide: Student and school characteristics in African American, Asian-descent, Latino, and White adolescents’ cross-ethnic friend nominations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 21–46. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00085.x

29.

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

30.

Hoglund

W. L. G.

Hosan

N. E.

(2012). The context of ethnicity: Peer victimization and adjustment problems in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 585–609. doi:10.1177/0272431612451925

31.

Jackson

M. F.

Barth

J. M.

Powell

Lochman

J. E.

(2006). Classroom contextual effects of race on children’s peer nominations. Child Development, 77, 1325–1337. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00937.x

32.

Juvonen

Nishina

Graham

(2006). Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17, 393–400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01718.x

33.

Kowalski

R. M.

Giumetti

G. W.

Schroeder

A. N.

Lattanner

M. R.

(2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 14, 1073–137. doi:10.1037/a0035618

34.

Kupczynski

Mundy

M. A.

Green

M. E.

(2013). The prevalence of cyberbullying among ethnic groups of high school students. International Journal of Educational Research, 1, 48–53.

35.

Larochette

A. C.

Murphy

A. N.

Craig

W. M.

(2010). Racial bullying and victimization in Canadian school-aged children: Individual and school level effects. School Psychology International, 31, 389–408. doi:10.1177/0143034310377150

36.

Low

Espelage

(2013). Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from non-physical bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors. Psychology of Violence, 3, 39–52. doi:10.1037/a0030308

37.

McGlothlin

Killen

(2010). How social experience is related to children’s intergroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 625–634. doi:10.1002/ejsp.733

38.

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, 9, 239–264.

39.

Mehari

K. R.

Farrell

A. D.

(2015). The relation between peer victimization and adolescents’ well-being: The moderating role of ethnicity within context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 118–134. doi:10.1111/jora.12095

40.

Modecki

K. L.

Minchin

Harbaugh

A. G.

Guerra

N. G.

Runions

K. C.

(2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 602–611. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.00

41.

Moody

(2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 3, 679–716.

42.

Moran

Smith

P. K.

Thompson

Whitney

(1993). Ethnic differences in experiences of bullying: Asian and White children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 431–440. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01069.x

43.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Múthen & Múthen.

44.

Nesdale

Durkin

Maass

Griffiths

(2004). Group status, outgroup ethnicity and children’s ethnic attitudes. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 237–251. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.02.005

45.

Nesdale

Maass

Durkin

Griffiths

(2005). Group norms, threat, and children’s racial prejudice. Child Development, 76, 652–663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00869.x

46.

Nesdale

Maass

Griffiths

Durkin

(2003). Effects of in-group and out-group ethnicity on children’s attitudes towards members of the in-group and out-group. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 177–192. doi:10.1348/026151003765264039

47.

Nesdale

Scarlett

(2004). Effects of group and situational factors on pre-adolescent children’s attitudes to school bullying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 428–434. doi:10.1080/01650250444000144

48.

Ochocka

(2006). Pathways to success: Immigrant youth in high school. Centre for Community Based Research. Kitchener, Canada: Centre for Research and Education in Human Services, Wilfrid Laurier University.

49.

Ojala

Nesdale

(2004). Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 19–35. doi:10.1348/026151004772901096

50.

Olweus

(1996). Bullying at school: Knowledge base and an effective intervention program. In Ferris

C. F.

Grisso

(Eds.), Understanding aggressive behaviour in children. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 794, pp. 265–276). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb32527.x

51.

Olweus

(1999). Norway. In Smith

P. K.

Morita

Junger-Tas

Olweus

Catalano

Slee

(Eds), The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. London/New York: Routledge.

52.

Oxman-Martinez

Rummens

A. J.

Moreau

Choi

Y. R.

Beiser

Ogilvie

Armstrong

(2012). Perceived ethnic discrimination and social exclusion: Newcomer immigrant children in Canada. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82, 376–388. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01161.x

53.

Pepler

Connolly

Craig

(1999). Bullying and harassment: Experiences of minority and immigrant youth. Research report 1997-98. CERIS-funded project, 980.

54.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

55.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

56.

Rivers

Smith

P. K.

(1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359–368. doi:10.1002/1098-2337

57.

Sabatier

Berry

J. W.

(2008). The role of family acculturation, parental style, and perceived discrimination in the adaptation of second-generation immigrant youth in France and Canada. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 159–185. doi:10.1080/17405620701608739

58.

Salmivalli

(2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

59.

Sawyer

A. L.

Bradshaw

C. P.

O’Brennan

L. M.

(2008). Examining ethnic, gender, and developmental differences in the way children report being a victim of ‘bullying’ on self-report measures. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 106–114. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.12.011

60.

Schumann

Craig

Rosu

, (2014). Power differentials in bullying: Individuals in a community context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 846–865. doi:10.1177/0886260513505708

61.

Shapka

J. D.

Law

D. M.

(2013). Does one size fit all? Ethnic differences in parenting behaviors and motivations for adolescent engagement in cyberbullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 723–738. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9928-2

62.

Smith

P. K.

Thompso

Bhatti

(2012). Ethnicity, gender, bullying and cyberbullying in English secondary school pupils [Bullying i cyberbullying a pochodzenie i płećwśród uczniów angielskiej szkoły]. Studia Edukacyjne, 23, 7–18. Adam Mickiewicz University Press.

63.

Statistics Canada. (2010). Profile of internationally-educated immigrants aged 25 to 64. Catalogue no. 81-595-M No. 084. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2010084/e2-eng.htm

64.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada. Catalogue no. 99-010-X. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm

65.

Stefanek

Strohmeier

van de Schoot

Spiel

(2012). Bullying and victimization in ethnically diverse schools. In Messer

Schroeder

Wodak

(Eds.), Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 79–88). Vienna, Austria: Springer.

66.

Thijs

Verkuyten

Grundel

(2014). Ethnic classroom composition and peer victimization: The moderating role of classroom attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 134–150. doi:10.1111/josi.12051

67.

Tippett

Wolke

Platt

(2013). Ethnicity and bullying involvement in a national UK youth sample. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 639–649. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.013

68.

Tolsma

van Deurzen

Stark

T. H.

Veenstra

(2013). Who is bullying whom in ethnically diverse primary schools? Exploring links between bullying, ethnicity, and ethnic diversity in Dutch primary schools. Social Networks, 35, 51–61. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.12.002

69.

Tropp

L. R.

O’Brien

T. C.

Migacheva

(2014). How peer norms of inclusion and exclusion predict children’s interest in cross-ethnic friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 151–166. doi:10.1111/josi.12052

70.

UNICEF Office of Research. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative review. Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf

71.

Vaillancourt

McDougall

Hymel

Krygsman

Miller

Stiver

Davis

(2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486–495. doi:10.1177/0165025408095553

72.

Vaillancourt

Trinh

McDougall

Duku

Cunningham

… Short

(2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9, 233–250. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.483182

73.

van Zalk

M. H. W.

Kerr

(2014). Developmental trajectories of prejudice and tolerance toward immigrant from early to late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1658–1671. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0164-1

74.

Verkuyten

Martinovic

(2006). Understanding multicultural attitudes: The role of group status, identification, friendships and justifying ideologies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.05.015

75.

Verkuyten

Thijs

(2002). Racist victimization among children in the Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 310–331. doi:10.1080/01419870120109502

76.

Vermeij

van Duijn

M. A. J.

Baerveldt

(2009). Ethnic segregation in context: Social discrimination among native Dutch pupils and their ethnic minority classmates. Social Networks, 31, 230–239. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.06.002

77.

Vervoort

M. H. M

Scholte

R. H. J.

Overbeek

(2010). Bullying and victimization among adolescents: The role of ethnicity and ethnic composition of school class. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9355-y

78.

Vervoort

M. H. M.

Scholte

R. H. J.

Sheepers

P. L. H.

(2010). Ethnic composition of school classes, majority-minority friendships, and adolescents’ intergroup attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.005

79.

Vitoroulis

Vaillancourt

(2015). Meta-analytic results of ethnic group differences in peer victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 149–170. doi:10.1002/AB.21564

80.

Whitney

Smith

P. K.

(1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25. doi:10.1080/0013188930350101

	European Canadian (n = 8,960)		Non-European Canadian (n = 2,689)
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Bullying victimization
Physical	.36	.65	.40	.70
Verbal	.67	.81	.65	.83
Social	.47	.70	.43	.71
Cyber	.15	.48	.19	.56
General	.49	.75	.47	.77
Bullying perpetration
Physical	.22	.53	.28	.61
Verbal	.44	.67	.44	.69
Social	.35	.60	.36	.66
Cyber	.12	.44	.15	.53
General	.40	.65	.41	.72
Sex (%)
Boys	50.2		55
Girls	49.8		45
Grade (%)
Elementary/middle school	65.4		76.9
High school	34.6		23.1

	Across schools	Within schools
	%	% (range)
Bullying victimization
Physical	29.9	33.60 (9–62)
Verbal	50.5	51.95 (32–78)
Social	36.9	38.05 (16–64)
Cyber	12.2	11.73 (0–28)
General	37.1	40.04 (19–70)
Bullying perpetration
Physical	19.0	19.18 (5–38)
Verbal	37.0	34.91 (12–53)
Social	29.7	28.26 (4–47)
Cyber	9.8	8.55 (0–23)
General	32.5	30.93 (3–57)

Victimization type			Covariates fc	Model 1 Intercept only/variance (b, 95% CI)	Model 2 Control variables(b, 95% CI)	Model 3 Ethnicity (b, 95% CI)	Model 4 Interactions ethnicity × % minority (b, 95% CI)
General	Fixed effects
		Intercept		0.513 (0.48, 0.54)	0.452 (0.43, 0.47)	0.442 (0.42, 0.46)	0.456 (0.42, 0.48)
		Individual
			Sex		0.027 (0.01, 0.04)	0.026 (0.01, 0.04)	0.026 (0.01, 0.04)
			Grade		−0.083 (−0.10, −0.06)	−0.087 (−0.10, −0.07	−0.086 (−0.10, −0.07)
			Bullying perpetration type
			Physical		0.097 (0.05, 0.14)	0.098 (0.05, 0.14)	0.097 (0.05, 0.14)
			Verbal		0.098 (0.07, 0.13)	0.098 (0.07, 0.13)	0.098 (0.07, 0.13)
			Social		0.047 0.01, 0.08)	0.047 (0.01, 0.08)	0.046 (0.01, 0.08)
			Cyber		0.055 (0.00, 0.11)	0.057 (0.00, 0.11)	0.056 (0.00, 0.11)
			General		0.226 (0.18, 0.27)	0.226 (0.18, 0.27)	0.227 (0.18, 0.27)
			Ethnicity			−0.019 (−0.04, 0.00)	−0.009 (−0.03, 0.01)
		School level
			School size		0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
			Level 2% minority			−0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)	−0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)
		Interaction	Level 1 × Level 2% minority				−0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)
	Random effects
		Individual		0.548 (0.51, 0.58)	0.482 (0.44, 0.52)	0.482 (0.44, 0.52)	0.481 (0.44, 0.52)
		School		0.014 (0.01, 0.02)	0.007 (0.00, 0.01)	0.006 (0.00, 0.01)	0.007 (0.00, 0.01)
	ICC			0.026

Physical	Fixed effects
		Intercept		0.401 (03.7, 0.42)	0.341 (0.32, 0.36)	0.34 (0.32, 0.36)	0.347 (0.32, 0.37)
		Individual
			Sex		−0.041 (−0.05, −0.03)	−0.041 (−0.05, −0.03)	−0.041 (−0.05, −0.03)
			Grade		−0.085 (0.11, −0.06)	−0.089 (−0.11, −0.07)	−0.088 (−0.11, −0.06)
			Bullying perpetration type
			Physical		0.305 (0.26, 0.35)	0.306 (0.26, 0.35)	0.305 (0.26, 0.35)
			Verbal		0.08 (0.05, 0.11)	0.08 (0.05, 0.11)	0.081 (0.05, 0.11)
			Social		0.023 (0.00, 0.05)	0.023 (0.00, 0.04)	0.022 (0.00, 0.04)
			Cyber		0.105 (0.06, 0.15)	0.106 (0.006, 0.15)	0.105 (0.06, 0.15)
			General		0.08 (0.05, 0.11)	0.081 (0.05, 0.11)	0.082 (0.05, 0.11)
			Ethnicity			0.001 (−0.01, 0.01)	0.006 (−0.01, −0.03)
		School level
			School size		0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
			Level 2% minority			−0.002 (−0.00, 0.00)	−0.002 (−0.00, 0.00)
		Interaction	Level 1 × Level 2% minority				−0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)
	Random effects
		Individual		0.426 (0.39, 0.46)	0.349 (0.32, 0.38)	0.349 (0.32, 0.38)	0.348 (0.31, 0.38)
		School		0.011 (0.00, 0.01)	0.004 (0.00, 0.01)	0.003 (0.00, 0.00)	0.004 (0.00, 0.01)
	ICC			0.024
Verbal	Fixed effects
		Intercept		0.683 (0.65, 0.71)	0.64 (0.62, 0.66)	0.63 (0.61, 0.65)	0.647 (0.62, 0.48)
		Individual
			Sex		0.027 (0.01, 0.04)	0.026 (0.01, 0.04)	0.026 (0.01, 0.04)
			Grade		−0.068 (−0.09, −0.04)	−0.07 (−0.09, −0.05)	−0.07 (−0.09, −0.05)
			Bullying perpetration type
			Physical		0.066 (0.01, 0.12)	0.067 (0.01, 0.12)	0.065 (0.01, 0.11)
			Verbal		0.263 (0.23, 0.29)	0.263 (0.23, 0.29)	0.263 (0.23, 0.29)
			Social		0.07 (0.04, 0.10)	0.07 (0.04, 0.10)	0.069 (0.04, 0.10)
			Cyber		0.078 (0.03, 0.12)	0.079 (0.03, 0.12)	0.078 (0.03, 0.12)
			General		0.166 (0.12, 0.21)	0.166 (0.12, 0.21)	0.166 (0.12, 0.21)
			Ethnicity			−0.017 (−0.03, 0.00)	−0.005 (−0.02, 0.01)
		School level
			School size		0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
			Level 2% minority			−0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)	−0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)
		Interaction	Level 1 × Level 2% minority				−0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)
	Random effects
		Individual		0.649 (0.62, 0.68)	0.547 (0.52, 0.57)	0.547 (0.52, 0.57)	0.546 (0.52, 0.57)
		School		0.014 (0.01, 0.02)	0.006 (0.00, 0.01)	0.006 (0.00, 0.01)	0.004 (0.00, 0.01)
	ICC			0.022
Social	Fixed
		Intercept		0.467 (0.44, 0.49)	0.451 (0.43, 0.47)	0.442 (0.42, 0.46)	0.453 (0.43, 0.47)
		Individual
			Sex_c		0.075 (0.06, 0.09)	0.074 (0.06, 0.09)	0.074 (0.06, 0.09)
			Grade		−0.021 (−0.04, 0.00)	−0.027 (−0.05, 0.00)	−0.026 (−0.05, 0.00)
			Bullying perpetration type
			Physical		0.035 (0.00, 0.07)	0.037 (0.00, 0.07)	0.036 (0.00, 0.07)
			Verbal		0.099 (0.07, 0.13)	0.099 (0.07, 0.13)	0.099 (0.07, 0.13)
			Social		0.195 (0.17, 0.22)	0.194 (0.17, 0.22)	0.194 (0.17, 0.22)
			Cyber		0.106 (0.07, 0.14)	0.108 (0.07, 0.15)	0.108 (0.07, 0.15)
			General		0.119 (0.09, 0.15)	0.119 (0.09, 0.15)	0.119 (0.10, 0.15)
			Ethnicity			−0.013 (−0.03, 0.00)	−0.006 (−0.02, 0.01)
		School level
			School size		0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
			Level 2% minority			−0.002 (−0.00, −0.00)	−0.002 (−0.00, 0.00)
		Interaction	Level 1 × Level 2% minority				−0.001 (−0.00, −0.00)
	Random effects
		Individual		0.485 (0.46, 0.51)	0.414 (0.39, 0.43)	0.414 (0.39, 0.43)	0.414 (0.39, 0.43)
		School		0.01 (0.00, 0.01)	0.005 (−0.00, 0.01)	0.003 (−0.00, 0.01)	0.004 (−0.00, 0.01)
		ICC		0.019
Cyber	Fixed effects
		Intercept		0.168 (0.15, 0.18)	0.157 (0.15, 0.17)	0.163 (0.15, 0.17)	0.168 (0.15, 0.18)
		Individual
			Sex		0.025 (0.01, 0.04)	0.025 (0.01, 0.04)	0.025 (0.01, 0.04)
			Grade		−0.012 (−0.02, −0.00)	−0.013 (−0.02, −0.00)	−0.013 (−0.02, −0.00)
			Bullying perpetration type
			Physical		0.055 (0.02, 0.09)	0.055 (0.02, 0.09)	0.054 (0.02, 0.09)
			Verbal		0.03 (0.01, 0.05)	0.03 (0.01, 0.05)	0.031 (0.01, 0.05)
			Social		0.048 (0.02, 0.07)	0.048 (0.02, 0.07)	0.048 (0.02, 0.07)
			Cyber		0.413 (0.37, 0.46)	0.412 (0.37, 0.46)	0.412 (0.37, 0.45)
			General		0.029 (0.01, 0.05)	0.029 (0.00.01, 0.05)	0.029 (0.01, 0.05)
			Ethnicity			0.011 (0.00, 0.02)	0.014 (0.00, 0.02)
		School level
			School size		0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)	0.00 (0.00, 0.00)
			Level 2% minority			−0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)	−0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)
		Interaction	Level 1 × Level 2% minority				−0.001 (−0.00, 0.00)
	Random effects
		Individual		0.245 (0.22, 0.27)	0.187 (0.17, 0.20)	0.187 (0.17, 0.20)	0.187 (0.17, 0.20)
		School		0.002 (0.00, 0.00)	0.001 (0.00, 0.00)	0.001 (0.00, 0.00)	0.001 (0.00, 0.00)
		ICC		0.009
	Model comparison
		change −2LL (df)		df	11531.75 (60)*	40.85 (10)*	28.98 (5)*