Maternal Psychological Control and Peer Victimization in Early Adolescence

Abstract

Guided by the family relational schema model, the current study examined the direct and indirect contributions of maternal psychological control to subsequent relational and overt peer victimization, via early adolescents’ conduct problems, fear of negative evaluation, and depressive symptoms. Participants were 499 10- to 14-year-olds (53% female; 77% European American) involved in two waves of a study with 1 year between each wave. Path analyses indicated that depressive symptoms mediated the associations between maternal psychological control and increases in both forms of peer victimization across the 1-year time period. Although conduct problems were concurrently associated with maternal psychological control, and fear of negative evaluation predicted change in both forms of peer victimization, neither variable mediated the maternal psychological control-peer victimization associations. Results were generally consistent across gender, with a few notable differences. Study findings provide partial support for the family relational schema model and implications are discussed.

Keywords

early adolescence maternal psychological control internalizing and externalizing problems relational and overt peer victimization

While research indicates that negative parenting practices contribute to peer victimization in children and adolescents (Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Barker et al., 2008; Georgiou, 2008), limited studies have examined the mechanisms involved in the relationship between parenting and peer victimization (see Yabko, Hokoda, & Ulloa, 2008). Perry, Hodges, and Egan’s (2001) family relational schema model provides a comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms that might explain the role of parenting in their children’s experiences of peer victimization. According to Perry and his colleagues, children exposed to negative and overcontrolling parenting can exhibit a specific “victim schema,” whereby they internalize problems with their parents and carry their negative emotions (i.e., anxiety, depression) into peer interactions that make them easy targets for victimization. Conversely, the authors argue that family relational schemas may also foster aggressive behaviors in children, whereby the parent is seen as aversive and thus the child reacts with defiance that may be in the form of externalizing behaviors. In turn, children who exhibit elevated levels of externalizing problems may provoke their peers and in this way also increase their risk for peer victimization (see Connors, Connolly, & Toplak, 2012; Snyder et al., 2003).

Limited research has sought to apply the family relational schema model to early adolescent outcomes (for exception see Yabko et al., 2008), and no studies to our knowledge have examined the role of parental psychological control, one form of overcontrolling parenting, in this model. Thus, the current study sought to examine both internalizing and externalizing problems as mechanisms that account for the associations between maternal psychological control and change in peer victimization 1 year later. Specifically, we investigated if conduct problems, fear of negative evaluation (FNE; a form of social anxiety), and depressive symptoms mediated the associations between maternal psychological control and subsequent forms of early adolescents’ relational and overt victimization (see Figure 1). Direct contributions of maternal psychological control to both forms of victimization were also assessed, as were early adolescent gender differences in the aforementioned associations.

Figure 1.

Hypothetical model examining direct and indirect effects of Wave 1 maternal psychological control to Wave 2 relational and overt victimization.

Parental Psychological Control and Peer Victimization

At a time when it becomes critical to successfully negotiate personal autonomy and changing relationships with peers and family members, parental psychological control may be especially detrimental to early adolescents’ functioning, including the potential to be victimized by peers (see Barber, 1996; Perry et al., 2001). Unlike behavioral control, which is typically used to regulate children’s behavior through disciplinary strategies and supervisory functions (e.g., setting curfews), psychological control is used to shape children’s behaviors via negative tactics involving manipulation, intrusion, and constraint of children’s thoughts and feelings (Barber, 1996; Steinberg, 2001). Parental psychological control involves guilt or anxiety induction, love withdrawal, personal attacks, and constraint or intrusion over interactions (see Barber & Harmon, 2002). Psychological control may be especially relevant to peer victimization because it undermines a child’s confidence in his/her own thoughts and feelings (see Barber, 1996), while peer victimization undermines an individual’s confidence with his/her peer interactions.

Research demonstrates that peer victimization can occur in multiple forms. Relational victimization consists of being the target of purposeful manipulation and destruction of one’s relationships or friendships, whereas overt victimization is characteristic of being the target of harm through physical actions or threats of such actions (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). Overt victimization includes being hit and cursed at, while relational victimization involves exclusion from peer groups, being gossiped about, and being the target of negative facial expressions such as eye rolling (Paquette & Underwood, 1999). While studies among children and young adolescents have consistently found boys to experience more acts of overt victimization than girls (see Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Scheithauer, Hayer, Petermann, & Jugert, 2006), investigations of relational victimization in early adolescents have produced varying results (see Gini, 2008; Paquette & Underwood, 1999; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). Moreover, of the few studies assessing adolescent gender differences in the associations between parenting practices and peer victimization, findings are conflicting (see Georgiou, 2008; Rigby, Slee, & Martin, 2007; Yabko et al., 2008). For instance, Rigby and his colleagues (2007) found that mothers’ general control was associated with victimization in girls only, whereas Yabko and his colleagues (2008) found that mothers’ power-assertive parenting was linked to victimization in boys only. In addition, the aforementioned studies were limited to the examination of peer victimization as a composite variable, without consideration for relational and overt victimization as separate constructs. Further research examining the role of adolescent gender as a moderator of the associations between parenting practices, such as maternal psychological control, and both forms of peer victimization is therefore needed.

Although there is a lack of research on the direct influences of maternal psychological control on girls’ and boys’ peer victimization, evidence indicates that parents who use similar negative rearing practices (e.g., rejection, overprotection, overreaction) have children who exhibit elevated levels of peer victimization (Barker et al., 2008; Georgiou, 2008). For instance, a recent longitudinal study assessing victimization trajectories in preschool children found that high levels of harsh, reactive parenting contributed to high, chronic peer victimization over and above other child and family variables (Barker et al., 2008). Among a sample of early adolescents, Finnegan and her colleagues (1998) found that girls who reported peer victimization also reported maternal rejection, while boys’ peer victimization was associated with their reports of maternal overprotectiveness. Finnegan and her colleagues suggested that these parenting practices hinder adolescents’ development of salient competencies, such that overprotective parenting might interfere with boys’ development of autonomous behaviors while rejection might threaten girls’ development of social skills. Consequently, both girls and boys become likely targets for peer victimization. In addition to their findings, Finnegan et al. suggested that there might be various routes by which negative parenting leads to peer victimization; however, they did not test any putative mediators, or variables that may account for this association. Thus, the current study sought to extend the literature and seek support for Perry et al.’s (2001) family relational schema model by examining both internalizing and externalizing problems as mechanisms that might explain the relationship between maternal psychological control and subsequent peer victimization.

Links Between Parental Psychological Control and Internalizing/Externalizing Problems

There is evidence indicating that maternal psychological control is linked to depressive symptoms (see Barber & Harmon, 2002; Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001; Seals & Young, 2003), and in turn, depressive symptoms are linked to peer victimization (Sweeting, Young, West, & Der, 2006; Yabko et al., 2008). Recently, Yabko and his colleagues (2008) found support for these associations in one comprehensive model. Yabko et al.’s study assessing a similar parenting practice, mother’s power-assertion (i.e., yelling, inappropriate commands), found that depressive symptoms mediated the concurrent association between maternal power-assertive parenting and peer victimization in a sample of Latino middle school students. Based on these findings, it is possible that adolescents whose mothers withdraw love or constrain their feelings and thoughts may experience negative emotions, such as those characterizing depressive symptoms, and therefore withdraw from other interactions as well. In turn, depressive symptoms in relation to maternal psychological control may make adolescents seem helpless and defeated and therefore likely targets for peer victimization (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Perry et al., 2001).

While most studies have examined depressive symptoms in relation to maternal psychological control, FNE is another type of internalizing problem that may be linked to this parenting practice (see Rodriguez, 2003). Marked by persistent worry or fear of judgments and negative evaluations by others (La Greca & Stone, 1993; Watson & Friend, 1969), FNE is a form of social anxiety that has been found in adolescents with psychologically controlling mothers (Loukas, Paulos, & Robinson, 2005; Rapee, 1997). Perhaps early adolescents who feel threatened by mothers who constantly criticize and ridicule them also feel threatened by others’ negative evaluations, and subsequently, their apparent anxiety makes them likely targets for victimization (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Perry et al., 2001).

In addition to internalizing problems, externalizing problems may also mediate associations between maternal psychological control and both forms of peer victimization in early adolescence. In studies examining parental psychological control and early adolescent adjustment, researchers have found that adolescent-reported parental psychological control is associated with subsequent antisocial behavior and externalizing problems (Barber et al., 2005; Rogers, Buchanan, & Winchell, 2003). In turn, there is evidence that children and early adolescents who demonstrate disruptive, aggressive, and irritable behaviors are at heightened risk for later victimization by peers (Connors et al., 2012; Perren, von Wyl, Stadelmann, Burgin, & von Klitzing, 2006; Pope & Bierman, 1999). Taken together, early adolescents who report controlling and intrusive parenting might also act out and behave aggressively, which in turn can place them at elevated risk for peer victimization (see Perry et al., 2001).

The Current Study

In summary, the current study examined the associations between maternal psychological control, early adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, and subsequent relational and overt peer victimization 1 year later. Guided by Perry et al.’s (2001) family relational schema model, we examined whether maternal psychological control would be directly and indirectly associated with subsequent relational and overt victimization through conduct problems, FNE, and depressive symptoms (see Figure 1). The direct and indirect associations were expected to be significant even after baseline levels of peer victimization were taken into consideration. Given the few mixed studies assessing adolescent gender differences in the associations between parenting practices and peer victimization (see Georgiou, 2008; Rigby et al., 2007; Yabko et al., 2008), we also explored whether the direct and indirect effects varied by gender, but made no hypotheses.

Method

Participants

Participants were 499 10- to 14-year-old students attending three middle schools in a suburban school district in central Texas and involved in the first and second waves of a larger study. At Wave 1 (fall of 2001), students were in the 6th and 7th grades (Mean age = 11.69; SD = 0.76), and Wave 2 occurred 1 year later when students were in the 7th and 8th grades (Mean age = 12.75; SD = 0.72). Fifty-three percent of these students were female; 77% were European American, 16% were Latino, 3.5% were African American and the remainder reported another ethnicity. Data from an additional student missing substantial amounts of information relevant to the present study were eliminated from the final sample.

Procedure

At Wave 1, active parent consent was obtained from 76% (N = 884) of all 6th and 7th grade students attending the three schools. Of the students participating at Wave 1 and who were eligible to participate at Wave 2, 71% received parental permission to participate at Wave 2. However, eight students refused participation and 30 students were absent on the day of the survey and one make-up day; consequently, 66% of the eligible students (n = 500) participated at Wave 2. A questionnaire consisting of 161 items at Wave 1 and 160 items at Wave 2 was group-administered to participating students in one 40-minute homeroom class. A member of the research team read each question aloud to students to maintain compliance and to control for varying levels of reading comprehension.

Attrition Analyses

Analyses were conducted to determine if students who participated at both waves of the study differed from their peers who participated only at Wave 1. Results indicated that in comparison to students who participated at both waves of the study, students who did not participate at Wave 2 reported significantly more Wave 1 maternal psychological control [t(748) = −3.06, p < .01], more relational victimization [t(750) = −2.20, p < .05], more depressive symptoms [t(752) = −3.07, p < .01], and more conduct problems [t(750) = −4.10, p < .001]. There were no significant differences between the two groups on Wave 1 overt victimization and FNE.

Measures

Maternal Psychological Control

Maternal psychological control was assessed at Wave 1 using the 8-item Psychological Control Scale-Youth Self Report (PCS-YSR; Barber, 1996). The PCS-YSR is based on the 10-item psychological control subscale of the Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965) but provides more behavioral specificity than the CRPBI (Barber, 1996). The PCS-YSR assesses the following components: invalidating feelings (e.g., “My mother is always trying to change how I think or feel about things”); constraining verbal expressions (e.g., “My mother often interrupts me”); personal attacks (e.g., “My mother blames me for other family members’ problems”); and love withdrawal (e.g., “My mother will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her”). Adolescents rated their mothers’ behaviors on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (Not Like Her) to 3 (A lot Like Her). All eight items were averaged and higher scores reflect higher maternal psychological control. Barber (1996) reported good internal consistency reliabilities for adolescent reports of maternal psychological control. In the present study, internal consistency reliabilities (coefficient α) for this Wave 1 scale were 0.81 and 0.75 for girls’ and boys’ reports, respectively.

Conduct Problems

The self-report form of the 25-item Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998) was used to assess adolescent conduct problems at Wave 1. The SDQ is a brief behavioral screening questionnaire designed to assess conduct problems, prosocial behaviors, emotional symptoms, hyperactivity, and peer problems among 11- to 16-year-old youth. Only the five-item conduct problems subscale (e.g., ‘‘I fight a lot”) was used in the current study. Each item was scored on a scale ranging from 1 (Not True) to 3 (Certainly True) and averaged so that higher scores reflect more conduct problems. Goodman and colleagues (1998) and Goodman (1997) reported that the conduct problems subscale discriminates between psychiatric and control samples of 11- to 16-year-old adolescents and is reliable. In the current study, the internal consistency reliabilities for this five-item, Wave 1 conduct problems scale were 0.60 for girls’ and 0.70 for boys’ data.

Fear of Negative Evaluation

Adapted from the Social Anxiety Scale-Revised (La Greca & Stone, 1993), the self-report Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A; La Greca & Lopez, 1998) was used to assess FNE at Wave 1. The SAS-A assesses FNE, social avoidance, and distress in new social situations or with unfamiliar peers, and generalized social avoidance and distress. For the purposes of the present study, only the 8-item FNE subscale (e.g., “I worry what others think of me”) was used. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (All the time) with higher scores reflecting more FNE. La Greca and Lopez (1998) have shown that the FNE subscale has satisfactory internal consistency reliability. In the present study, the internal consistency reliabilities for this 8-item, Wave 1 FNE scale were 0.90 and 0.92 for girls’ and boys’ reports, respectively.

Depressive Symptoms

The 27-item Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) was used to measure adolescent depressive symptoms at Wave 1. The CDI is appropriate for children ranging in age from 7 to 17 and assesses the cognitive and somatic aspects of depression. Adolescents are presented with 26 sets of three-response alternatives and asked to pick the one that best described them in the past 2 weeks (e.g., “I do not feel alone,” “I feel alone many times,” “I feel alone all the time”). One item regarding suicidal ideation was not included in the present study at the request of the school principals. The final score was based on the average of the 26 items. Each item was scored on a scale ranging from 0 to 2, with higher scores reflecting more depressive symptoms. The CDI distinguishes between adolescents with major depression and those with no depression diagnosis, and has demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability (Craighead, Curry, & Ilardi, 1995). The internal consistency reliabilities for the 26 items were 0.89 for girls’ and 0.91 for boys’ reports at Wave 1.

Relational Victimization

Peer victimization was assessed with seven items at both waves. Five items were adapted from Crick and Bigbee’s (1998) peer-reported relational victimization scale in the Social Experience Questionnaire-Peer Report (SEQ-PR), by modifying items so that adolescents could provide self-reports of their experiences of victimization. The five items assessed the frequency that students felt that they were the object of lies and rumors (e.g., “How often do other kids tell rumors about you behind your back”), were left out of a group or things because someone was mad at them (e.g., “How often do you get left out of a group because one of your friends is mad at you”), and were ignored when someone was mad at them (e.g., “How often do other kids ignore you when they are mad at you”). Based on Paquette and Underwood’s (1999) research, two other items were added assessing the frequency of being the victim of negative facial expressions (i.e., making mean faces and rolling of the eyes). All seven items were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (All the Time) and were averaged so that higher scores reflect elevated levels of relational victimization. Internal consistency reliabilities for this scale were 0.88 for girls’ and 0.84 for boys’ reports at Wave 1, and 0.89 for girls’ and 0.91 for boys’ reports at Wave 2.

Overt Victimization

Overt victimization was assessed at both waves with the 4-item overt victimization scale from the SEQ-PR (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). The items were modified so that students could self-report how frequently (1 = Not at All to 5 = All the Time) they were picked on, hit, beat up, or yelled at by other students (e.g., “How often do kids beat you up,” “How often do kids hit you”). The four items were averaged so that higher scores reflect elevated levels of overt victimization. Internal consistency reliabilities for the overt victimization scale were 0.72 for girls’ and 0.79 for boys’ reports at Wave 1, and 0.79 for girls’ and 0.86 for boys’ reports at Wave 2.

Data Analysis

To test the hypothesized mediation model presented in Figure 1, a series of multigroup path analyses were conducted. These types of analyses allow for examination of the equivalence of direct and indirect paths across gender. Analyses were conducted with the Mplus 6.1 program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2011) using the Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation procedure, which accommodates missing data. Of the 499 middle school students who participated in the study, only eight participants were missing data. All eight participants were missing data for the Wave 1 maternal psychological control subscale.

To test the model, the Wave 1 exogenous variables of maternal psychological control and both forms of peer victimization were freely correlated, as were the Wave 1 mediator variables and the residuals of the Wave 2 peer victimization outcome variables. Age at Wave 1 was included as a covariate, such that it was also freely correlated with the exogenous variables and had direct paths to the Wave 1 mediator and Wave 2 outcome variables. Direct paths from maternal psychological control to both Wave 2 outcome variables were assessed, as were indirect paths via conduct problems, FNE, and depressive symptoms. Stability paths from the Wave 1 peer victimization variables to their respective Wave 2 outcomes were included to partial out the variance associated with the baseline measures and to provide a stringent test of the Wave 1 influences. Partialling out the variance associated with the baseline measures resulted in the examination of change among the variables across the 1-year period from Wave 1 to Wave 2. Given the inclusion of the baseline peer victimization variables, and research indicating that relational and overt victimization are associated with adjustment problems (Crick & Nelson, 2002), direct paths from the Wave 1 peer victimization variables to all three mediators were also assessed.

Model fit was evaluated using one robust absolute fit index (the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; RMSEA) and one robust incremental fit index (the Comparative Fit Index; CFI). An absolute fit index assesses how well a model reproduces the sample data without comparison to a reference model whereas an incremental fit index compares the target model to a more restricted baseline model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). According to criteria outlined by Hu and Bentler, a good fitting model has an RMSEA smaller than 0.05 and a CFI greater than or equal to 0.95. Model comparisons were conducted using the chi-square (χ²) difference test (Δχ²). Moreover, to test for mediation or indirect effects, 10,000 bootstrapped samples were estimated to obtain the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). According to MacKinnon and his colleagues (2004), estimates with CIs that do not contain 0 in the interval are statistically significant and provide evidence for mediation.

Results

Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables for girls and boys separately. As shown in Table 1, age was not significantly associated with any of the study variables for either girls’ or boys’ data. Wave 1 perceived maternal psychological control was positively associated with girls’ and boys’ Wave 1 conduct problems, FNE, depressive symptoms, relational and overt victimization, and Wave 2 relational victimization. Only boys’ Wave 2 overt victimization was associated positively with Wave 1 maternal psychological control. For both girls and boys, the conduct problems, FNE, and depressive symptoms mediator variables were all positively correlated, and each was associated with concurrent and subsequent forms of victimization, at Waves 1 and 2 respectively. In addition, girls’ and boys’ reports of relational victimization were positively associated with overt victimization at both waves of data collection. Examination of the cross-time stability for relational victimization indicated that the magnitude of the correlations was large (r > 0.50) for girls and boys. For overt victimization, the magnitude of the correlations was medium (r > 0.40) for girls and large (r > 0.50) for boys.

Table 1.

Zero-Order Correlations for All Study Variables Across Girls’ (n = 266) and Boys’ (n = 233) Data.

Study Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Wave 1 early adolescent age	—	−.01	−.06	−.08	.04	−.05	−.08	.04	.06
2. Wave 1 mat psych control	.08	—	.47**	.15*	.40**	.26**	.25**	.13*	.09
3. Wave 1 conduct problems	.00	.44**	—	.22**	.49**	.28**	.34**	.24**	.14*
4. Wave 1 fear of neg eval	−.13	.17*	.36**	—	.48**	.62**	.49**	.48**	.33**
5. Wave 1 depressive symptoms	.04	.39**	.63**	.51**	—	.42**	.43**	.39**	.32**
6. Wave 1 relational victimization	−.02	.33**	.48**	.65**	.60**	—	.66**	.55**	.38**
7. Wave 1 overt victimization	.14	.32**	.39**	.48**	.52**	.66**	—	.45**	.44**
8. Wave 2 relational victimization	−.12	.21**	.32**	.49**	.45**	.63**	.44**	—	.67**
9. Wave 2 overt victimization	−.06	.18**	.28**	.41**	.41**	.47**	.52**	.71**	—
Girls’ mean	11.66	1.34	1.30	2.67	.26	2.06	1.37	1.90	1.28
(SD)	(.75)	(.38)	(.31)	(.83)	(.25)	(.77)	(.51)	(.80)	(.52)
Boys’ mean	11.71	1.34	1.39	2.44	.28	1.96	1.72	1.78	1.54
(SD)	(.76)	(.35)	(.39)	(.81)	(.29)	(.75)	(.78)	(.84)	(.78)

Note: Values above the diagonal are for females and values below the diagonal are for males.

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

Next, the equivalence of the hypothesized model across the two groups (girls and boys) was examined using multigroup analyses. The fit of an unconstrained model, in which all paths were allowed to vary across the two groups, was compared to the fit of a constrained model in which all paths were held invariant (not allowed to vary across the two groups). The unconstrained model represented a good fit to the data [χ²(4,499) = 7.76, n.s.; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.06] and the constrained model also represented a good fit [χ²(28,499) = 47.81, p < .05; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.05]. Comparison of the fit of the two models indicated that constraining the paths to be invariant across the two groups resulted in a deterioration of model fit [Δχ²(24) = 40.06, p < .05]. At least one path was therefore not invariant across the two groups.

To identify the source of invariance, a series of tests was conducted in which the fit of a completely unconstrained model was compared to the fit of a series of models in which only one path was constrained or held invariant. Each of the hypothesized paths was constrained to be equal across the two groups so that separate multigroup models were examined for each path. χ² difference tests comparing the fit of the unconstrained multigroup model to each of the 24 other models in which only one path was constrained showed that five paths significantly differed across the two groups: Wave 1 relational victimization to Wave 1 conduct problems [Δχ²(1) = 10.98, p < .001], Wave 1 relational victimization to Wave 1 depressive symptoms [Δχ²(1) = 9.13, p < .01], Wave 1 relational victimization to Wave 2 relational victimization [Δχ²(1) = 3.90, p < .05], Wave 1 age to Wave 2 relational victimization [Δχ²(1) = 5.73, p < .05], and Wave 1 age to Wave 2 overt victimization [Δχ²(1) = 5.13, p < .01].

A final multigroup model, in which the 19 equivalent paths were held invariant across gender, was then examined (see Figure 2 for the final model excluding age and its associated paths). The five nonequivalent paths were allowed to vary across the groups as were the intercorrelations between variables. The final model represented an excellent fit to the data [χ²(23,499) = 29.23, n.s.; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.03]. For girls, the final model accounted for 34% of the variance in Wave 2 relational victimization and 25% of the variance in Wave 2 overt victimization. For boys, the final model accounted for 38% of the variance in Wave 2 relational victimization and 25% of the variance in Wave 2 overt victimization.

Figure 2.

Standardized solutions for the final two-group model (Girls’ n = 266, Boys’ n = 233). All paths were constrained to be equal across gender, with the exception of three paths that were allowed to freely vary (including two additional paths from Wave 1 age to both Wave 2 outcomes). Coefficients for girls are listed first and coefficients for boys are given in parentheses.

Examination of the final multigroup model shown in Figure 2 indicated that all covariances among the exogenous variables and among the peer victimization outcome variables were significant and in the expected directions. Though age is not depicted in Figure 2, it should be noted that the covariances between age and the exogenous variables were not significant. Regarding the paths from age to the mediators, age was associated negatively with FNE for girls and boys, but with neither conduct problems nor depressive symptoms. Finally, age was associated negatively with subsequent relational and overt victimization, but only for boys. The covariances among the three mediator variables were significant, with the exception of the nonsignificant covariance between conduct problems and FNE for both girls and boys.

Regarding the paths from the baseline peer victimization variables to the mediators, Wave 1 overt victimization was associated positively with all three mediators and Wave 1 relational victimization was associated with both girls’ and boys’ FNE. Based on the two previously mentioned paths that were found to significantly differ across the two groups, Wave 1 relational victimization was associated positively with the conduct problems mediator variable for boys only and associated more strongly with boys’ depressive symptoms than girls’. Additional findings indicated that maternal psychological control was not directly related to either Wave 2 outcome variable. Rather, this parenting practice was associated positively with depressive symptoms (B = 0.16, p < .001), which in turn predicted increases in subsequent relational victimization (B = 0.41, p < .05) and overt victimization (B = 0.38, p < .05) across the 1-year time period. Although maternal psychological control was associated positively with girls’ and boys’ conduct problems (B = 0.31, p < .001), this mediator variable was not associated with residualized change in either peer victimization outcome. Alternatively, maternal psychological control was not associated with girls’ or boys’ FNE. However, the positive paths from FNE to subsequent relational (B = 0.15, p < .01) and overt victimization (B = 0.09, p < .05) were significant.

Given the pattern of findings, only depressive symptoms appeared to mediate the associations between Wave 1 maternal psychological control and change in both forms of peer victimization 1 year later. Although the specific indirect effects for girls’ and boys’ data were small, they were significant, confirming that depressive symptoms mediated the associations between maternal psychological control and subsequent relational victimization (indirect effect, B = 0.07, p < .05, CI = 0.01, 0.14) as well as overt victimization (indirect effect, B = 0.06, p < .05, CI = 0.01, 0.12).

Discussion

According to Perry and his colleagues’ (2001) family relational schema model, children exposed to negative and overcontrolling parenting can exhibit a “victim schema” that impacts their subsequent peer interactions. However, to date limited studies have tested the role of maternal psychological control in early adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization. Thus, the current study examined if maternal psychological control was directly and indirectly associated with subsequent relational and overt victimization 1 year later through early adolescents’ conduct problems, FNE, and depressive symptoms. Although maternal psychological did not contribute directly to change in either form of peer victimization, it was associated with depressive symptoms, which in turn were associated with subsequent peer victimization. Despite the small indirect effects, tests for mediation indicated that depressive symptoms mediated the associations between maternal psychological control and both forms of peer victimization 1 year later. Contrary to expectations and to the findings for depressive symptoms, neither early adolescents’ conduct problems nor their FNE mediated the associations between maternal psychological control and subsequent peer victimization. Moreover, study findings were largely consistent across gender, with a few notable exceptions.

Findings extend the literature by showing that depressive symptoms mediate the associations between maternal psychological control and subsequent relational and overt victimization. Consistent with Perry et al.’s (2001) family relational schema model, early adolescents whose mothers withdraw love and invalidate their feelings may display sadness and withdrawn behavior that then make them easy targets for both relational and overt victimization. The current findings not only support past research indicating that depressive symptoms contribute to peer victimization (Fekkes, Pijpers, Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunnen, Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999), but further demonstrate that such symptoms are associated with maternal psychological control and indirectly contribute to both forms of victimization. Findings also extend Yabko and his colleagues’ (2008) cross-sectional research showing that depression mediated the association between Latino adolescents’ maternal power-assertive parenting and peer victimization, but only for boys. In the current study, depressive symptoms mediated the maternal psychological control effects for both genders. The negative role of mothers’ psychological control is likely relevant for both girls and boys because early adolescence is a critical period for both genders to negotiate personal autonomy and changing relationships with peers and family members (Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Steinberg, 2001).

Contrary to expectations, conduct problems did not mediate the associations between maternal psychological control and both forms of subsequent peer victimization. Although maternal psychological control was associated positively with boys’ and girls’ conduct problems, conduct problems did not predict residualized change in peer victimization. The positive association between maternal psychological control and early adolescents’ conduct problems corroborates Barber’s (2005) research indicating that parental psychological control is associated with elevations in adolescents’ antisocial behavior 1 year later. On the other hand, the lack of associations between conduct problems and subsequent forms of peer victimization corroborates research by Hodges and Perry (1999) indicating that internalizing, but not externalizing, problems contribute to gains in early adolescents’ victimization over a 1-year period. As the authors argued, acting out might not be a factor that by itself leads to increased victimization; rather, children who act out may provoke victimization because they also cry easily or lose disputes (see Perry, Williard, & Perry, 1990). Moreover, as Perry and colleagues’ (2001) family relational schema model indicates, negative parenting may foster aggressive behaviors in children, whereby the parent is seen as aversive and thus the child reacts with defiance in the form of oppositional and intolerant behavior. Instead of becoming a likely target for peer victimization, the child’s behavioral problems might actually lead to aggression.

With regard to FNE (a form of social anxiety), it was surprising that maternal psychological control was not associated with this mediator variable given existing evidence that youth who are socially anxious have mothers who are psychologically controlling (Loukas et al., 2005). Although unexpected, findings are consistent with research using cross-lagged panel analyses showing that maternal psychological control did not contribute to change in early adolescents’ social anxiety 1 year later, once depressive symptoms and baseline levels of social anxiety were taken into account (Loukas, 2009). Other parent-related factors, such as maternal depressive symptoms (see Hughes & Gullone, 2008 for review), may be better predictors of early adolescents’ FNE and should be examined in subsequent studies.

Despite the lack of association between maternal psychological control and early adolescents’ FNE, this form of social anxiety contributed to peer victimization across the 1-year period of time. Perhaps because youth who are socially anxious tend to be characterized as submissive and nondominant in peer contexts (Walters & Inderbitzen, 1998), such characteristics may signal weakness and therefore make socially anxious youth likely targets for exclusion, ridicule, and overt harm from their peers. In contrast to research indicating that internalizing problems are more strongly associated with girls’ outcomes (Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006), the present findings indicate that FNE contributes to relational and overt victimization for both girls and boys.

It is noteworthy that the significant associations depicted in Figure 2 were obtained even after controlling for baseline levels of relational and overt victimization as well as their positive and significant associations with conduct problems, FNE, and depressive symptoms. Other studies have also found that both forms of peer victimization are concurrently associated with adjustment problems (Crick & Nelson, 2002; Crick & Bigbee, 1998). It should be noted, however, that relational victimization was associated only with boys’ conduct problems and more strongly with boys’ than girls’ depressive symptoms. While these findings are inconsistent with previous research suggesting that relational victimization is more relevant to girls’ than boys’ outcomes (Crick & Nelson, 2002; Sullivan et al., 2006), other researchers have also found that relational victimization is equally associated with girls’ and boys’ outcomes (see Siegel, La Greca, & Harrison, 2009; Storch, Brassard, & Maria-Warner, 2003). Taken together, findings from the present study highlight the need for additional research aimed at understanding gender differences in the associations between both forms of peer victimization and early adolescents’ adjustment problems.

Limitations and Implications

While the current study provides insights into the mechanisms leading to peer victimization in early adolescence, the findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, the self-report nature of the design increases the possibility that some of the responses are inflated. Nevertheless, early adolescents may be the best informants of constructs such as FNE, depressive symptoms, and maternal psychological control, given their internal, personal, and covert nature (Barber, 2002; La Greca, 2001). Moreover, self-reports likely reflect the full repertoire of individual experiences, whereas reports by others may be limited to behaviors specific to particular contexts (see Phares, Compas, & Howell, 1989). Nonetheless, because there is only moderate agreement between parents’ and adolescents’ reports of parental psychological control, collection of multiple-rater data could maximize validity and provide a richer perspective of the factors contributing to early adolescents’ peer victimization (see Schwarz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). Second, the present study is limited to early adolescents’ reports of maternal psychological control. Yet, evidence indicates that the relations between adolescent-perceived psychological control and adolescent adjustment vary across parent-child dyads (Barber, 1996; Yabko et al., 2008). Thus, research examining the unique contributions of mothers’ as well as fathers’ psychologically controlling behaviors to early adolescent outcomes is warranted. Third, the study is limited by two waves of data collection. At minimum, three waves of data are necessary to disentangle the temporal associations between maternal psychological control, early adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, and both forms of peer victimization.¹ Given that study variables are likely reciprocally associated, three waves of data would also allow for examination of the reciprocal and dynamic associations among the variables. Fourth, attrition analyses indicated that students who did not participate at Wave 2 were more likely than students who did participate to report maternal psychological control, relational victimization, depressive symptoms, and conduct problems at Wave 1. Retention of these students may have produced stronger associations between variables and thereby strengthened the final mediation model. Finally, the majority of the study sample consisted of adolescents from white, European American families. Thus, study findings may not generalize to different ethnic groups (see Bean, Barber, & Crane, 2006).

Despite the limitations, this study extends the literature and provides partial support for Perry et al.’s (2001) family relational schema model by examining aspects of the mother-adolescent relationship that indirectly contribute to subsequent levels of relational and overt victimization in middle school students. Based on our findings, early adolescents who are exposed to a specific negative parenting practice, maternal psychological control, might internalize problems with their parents in the form of depressive symptoms that they then carry into peer interactions that make them easy targets for victimization. As such, findings highlight the need for family-based interventions that address the associations between mothers’ psychological control and early adolescents’ depressive symptoms, which in turn may influence early adolescents’ interactions with peers. Though it is not optimal that maternal psychological control and depressive symptoms were measured concurrently in the present study, their positive associations for both girls and boys corroborate how critical it is for early adolescents to negotiate their family and changing self. However, because our study is limited to two waves of data, it lays the groundwork for future studies to disentangle the temporal associations between maternal psychological control, early adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems, and both forms of peer victimization. Future studies should also investigate fathers’ parenting practices as well as other maternal variables (e.g., maternal depressive symptoms) in the development of peer victimization. In addition, future research should examine how parental psychological control might contribute to the formation of negative schemas (i.e., how adolescents view themselves), which might consequently lead to peer victimization. Overall, it is critical that interventions and studies alike address the interplay between parent and adolescent effects in peer victimization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Milena D. Batanova received her BA in psychology and critical cultural studies from Macalester College, and her MA in communication from Arizona State University. Currently, she is a doctoral candidate in Health Education at the University of Texas at Austin. She studies individual and social processes related to adolescent moral development, particularly empathy, aggression, and bullying involvement.

Alexandra Loukas received her PhD in developmental psychology from Michigan State University. Currently, she is an associate professor in Health Education at the University of Texas at Austin. She studies the interaction between individual and contextual influences on the development of adolescent problem behaviors, including aggression, and substance use.

References

Baldry

A. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 263-284.

Barber

B. K.

(1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319.

Barber

B. K.

(2002). Reintroducing parental psychological control. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 3-13). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber

B. K.

Harmon

E. L.

(2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber

B. K.

Stolz

H. E.

Olsen

J. A.

(2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70, Serial No. 282.

Barker

E. D.

Boivin

Brendgen

Fontaine

Arseneault

Vitaro

Tremblay

(2008). Predictive validity and early predictors of peer-victimization trajectories in preschool. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65, 1185-1192.

Bean

R. A.

Barber

B. K.

Crane

D. R.

(2006). Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationships to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1335-1355.

Cole

D. A.

Maxwell

S. E.

(2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577.

Connors

L. L.

Connolly

Toplak

M. E.

(2012). Self-reported inattention in early adolescence in a community sample. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16, 60-70.

10.

Craighead

W. E.

Curry

J. F.

Ilardi

S. S.

(1995). Relationship of children’s depression inventory factors to major depression among adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 7, 171-176.

11.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1996). Children treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.

12.

Crick

N. R.

Bigbee

M. A.

(1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347.

13.

Crick

N. R.

Nelson

D. A.

(2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599-607.

14.

Fekkes

Pijpers

F. I. M.

Fredriks

M. A.

Vogels

Verloove-Vanhorick

P. S.

(2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117, 1568-1574.

15.

Finnegan

R. A.

Hodges

E. V.

Perry

D. G.

(1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with children’s reports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076-1086.

16.

Georgiou

S. N.

(2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 109-125.

17.

Gini

(2008). Associations among overt and relational victimization and adolescents’ satisfaction with friends: The moderating role of the need for affective relationships with friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 812-820.

18.

Goodman

(1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology, and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38, 581-586.

19.

Goodman

Meltzer

Bailey

(1998). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125-130.

20.

Hodges

E. V. E.

Perry

D. G.

(1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677-685.

21.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

22.

Hughes

E. K.

Gullone

(2008). Internalizing symptoms and disorders in families of adolescents: A review of family systems literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 92-117.

23.

Inderbitzen-Nolan

H. M.

Walters

K. S.

(2000). Social anxiety scale for adolescents: Normative data and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 360-371.

24.

Kaltiala-Heino

Rimpela

Marttunen

Rimpela

Rantanen

(1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348-351.

25.

Kovacs

(1992). Children’s depression inventory manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

26.

La Greca

A. M.

Stone

W. L.

(1993). The social anxiety scale for children—Revised: Factor structure and concurrent validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 17-27.

27.

La Greca

A. M.

Lopez

(1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 26, 83-94.

28.

La Greca

A. M.

(2001). Friends or foes? Peer influences on anxiety among children and adolescents. In Silverman

W. K.

Treffers

P. D. A.

(Eds.), Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: Research, assessment, and intervention (pp. 159-187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Loukas

Paulos

Robinson

(2005). Early adolescent social and overt aggression: Examining the roles of social anxiety and maternal psychological control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 335-345.

30.

Loukas

(2009). Examining temporal associations between perceived maternal psychological control and early adolescent internalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1113-1122.

31.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.

32.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2011). Mplus user’s guide. Sixth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

33.

Ostrov

J. M.

Keating

C. F.

(2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social Development, 13, 255-275.

34.

Paquette

J.A.

Underwood

M.A.

(1999). Young adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: Gender differences in accounts of social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 233-258.

35.

Perren

von Wyl

Stadelmann

Burgin

von Klitzing

(2006). Associations between behavioral/emotional difficulties in kindergarten children and quality of their peer relationships. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 867-876.

36.

Perry

D. G.

Williard

J. C.

Perry

L. C.

(1990). Peers’ perceptions of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61, 1310-1325.

37.

Perry

D. G.

Hodges

E. V.

Egan

S. K.

(2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and a new model of family influence. In Juvonen

Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 86-92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

38.

Pettit

G. S.

Laird

R. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Criss

M. M.

(2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583-598.

39.

Phares

Compas

B. E.

Howell

D. C.

(1989). Perspectives on child behavior problems: Comparisons of children’s self-reports with parent and teacher reports. Psychological Assessment, 1, 68-71.

40.

Prinstein

M. J.

Boergers

Vernberg

E. M.

(2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological functioning of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 477-489

41.

Pope

A. W.

Bierman

K. L.

(1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 335-346.

42.

Rapee

R. M.

(1997). Potential role of childrearing practices in the development of anxiety and depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 47-67.

43.

Rigby

Slee

P. T.

Martin

(2007). Implications of inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental health. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 801-812.

44.

Rodriguez

C. M.

(2003). Parental discipline and abuse potential affects on child depression, anxiety, and attributions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 809-917.

45.

Rogers

K. N.

Buchanan

C. M.

Winchell

M. E.

(2003). Psychological control during early adolescence: Links to adjustment in differing parent/adolescent dyads. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 349-383.

46.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-off for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131.

47.

Schaefer

E. S.

(1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413-424.

48.

Scheithauer

Hayer

Petermann

Jugert

(2006). Physical, verbal, and relational forms of bullying among German students: Age trends, gender differences, and correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 261-275.

49.

Schwarz

J. C.

Barton-Henry

M. L.

Pruzinsky

(1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 4462-4479.

50.

Seals

Young

(2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.

51.

Siegel

R. S.

La Greca

A. M.

Harrison

H. M.

(2009). Peer victimization and social anxiety in adolescents: Prospective and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1096-1109.

52.

Snyder

Brooker

Patrick

R. M.

Snyder

Schrepferman

Stoolmiller

(2003). Observed peer victimization during early elementary school: Continuity, growth, and relation to risk for child antisocial and depressive behavior. Child Development, 74, 1881-1898.

53.

Steinberg

(2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1-19.

54.

Storch

E. A.

Brassard

M. R.

Masia-Warner

C. L.

(2003). The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1-18.

55.

Sullivan

T. N.

Farrell

A. D.

Kliewer

(2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119-137.

56.

Sweeting

Young

West

Der

(2006). Peer victimization and depression in early-mid adolescence: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 577-594.

57.

Walters

K. S.

Inderbitzen

H. M.

(1998). Social anxiety and peer relations among adolescents: Testing a psychobiological model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12, 183-198.

58.

Watson

Friend

(1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.

59.

Yabko

B. A.

Hokoda

Ulloa

E. C.

(2008). Depression as a mediator between family factors and peer-bullying victimization in Latino adolescents. Violence & Victims, 23, 727-742.