Adolescent Sexual Harassment,Shame,and Depression: Do Experiences of Witnessing Harassment Matter?

Abstract

This preliminary study explored a person-group dissimilarity hypothesis in the context of adolescent sexual harassment. Theory suggests that victimized youth are expected to experience worse outcomes if they perceive victimization to be a rare experience among their peers. This study comprised 435 middle school students who reported on their experiences of sexual harassment (victimization and witnessing), shame, and depressive symptoms. We tested a cross-sectional conditional indirect-effects model, with shame mediating the relationship between victimization and depressive symptoms (the indirect effect) and with witnessing as a moderator of the indirect effect. For all students, shame mediated the relationship between victimization and depressive symptoms. For female students, there was a buffering effect of witnessing, whereby the indirect effect was weaker at high levels of witnessing. These findings have potential implications for theory and intervention, suggesting the importance of examining young people’s social contexts to better understand their responses to sexual harassment.

Keywords

peers peer victimization sexual harassment shame depression

Introduction

Experiences of peer sexual harassment become increasingly prevalent as children enter early adolescence (Birkett & Espelage, 2015; Craig, Pepler, Connolly, & Henderson, 2001; McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002). According to developmental-contextual and critical feminist theories, adolescent sexual harassment can be defined as aggressive behaviors with a sexual or gendered dimension; it can include such behaviors as unwanted sexual attention, homophobic harassment, and gender policing (Conroy, 2013; McMaster et al., 2002; Meyer, 2008). These theories suggest that, in adolescence, sexual harassment perpetration can be understood as youth’s attempts to follow culturally sanctioned scripts for how to behave socially, in relation to their sexuality and gender (Robinson, 2005; Rolfe & Schroeder, 2017). In North American middle school samples (approximately ages 11-14 years), prevalence rates for sexual harassment range from about 8% to about 21% for perpetration and from about 15% to about 43% for victimization (the experience of being targeted; Doty, Gower, Rudi, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2017; Rinehart & Espelage, 2016; Rolfe & Schroeder, 2017; Schnoll, Connolly, Josephson, Pepler, & Simkins-Strong, 2014). Longitudinal studies have identified multiple consequences of sexual harassment victimization on young people’s wellbeing, including increased risk for depression (Kaltiala-Heino, Fröjd, & Marttunen, 2016), disordered eating (Petersen & Hyde, 2012), and problematic substance use (Chiodo, Wolfe, Crooks, Hughes, & Jaffe, 2009). Given the pervasiveness and potential consequences of victimization at this age, a greater understanding of young people’s experiences of sexual harassment, as well as the factors that affect differential responses to it, is needed.

Research in the adolescent bullying literature has examined the role that attributional processes—how people understand the reasons behind their experiences (Weiner, 1986)—play in accounting for the wide variety of potential responses to aggression (see Graham & Juvonen, 2001, for a review). Self-blaming attributions about one’s character (e.g., “I am targeted because of who I am”) may be implicated in the relationship between bullying victimization and poor adjustment (Graham & Juvonen, 1998, 2001). More recently, prospective studies in the bullying literature have identified shame, an emotional experience related to characterological self-blame, as a mediator of the association between peer victimization and wellbeing (Duarte, Pinto-Gouveia, & Rodrigues, 2015; Duarte, Pinto-Gouveia, & Stubbs, 2017; Irwin, Li, Craig, & Hollenstein, 2019). Less is known about how shame relates to sexual harassment in adolescence, but theory and emerging evidence suggest that sexual harassment may be a strong predictor of shame. In this study, we examined shame as a potential mechanism underlying the relationship between sexual harassment victimization and depressive symptoms. In addition, we aimed to understand the experience of witnessing sexual harassment as a contextual factor that may buffer this relationship.

Shame, Sexual Harassment, and Depression

As a construct, shame—the painful self-conscious emotion of global worthlessness and powerlessness (H. B. Lewis, 1971)—is of particular interest to developmental scientists because of its role in driving behaviors and because of its impact on social-emotional wellbeing (M. Lewis, 1995; Mills, 2005; Reimer, 1996). Unlike the similarly self-focused emotion of guilt, shame is characterized by a stable, uncontrollable, and global attributional pattern (Tracy & Robins, 2006). In adolescence, peer sexual harassment may be a particularly salient trigger for shame. The adolescent period is characterized by heightened sensitivity to the peer social environment (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992), increased body self-consciousness (Adams et al., 2000; Lindberg, Grabe, & Hyde, 2007), and the process of identity development (Steensma, Kreukels, de Vries, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). In adolescence, sexual harassment, with its focus on peer perceptions, bodies, and identities, may trigger vulnerabilities that evoke feelings of shame. Experiences of shame may, in turn, increase risk for mental health concerns, such as depression (Andrews, 1995; Andrews, Qian, & Valentine, 2002; Stuewig & McCloskey, 2005). Thus, shame may be a mechanism that underlies the established relationship between sexual harassment victimization and poor psychosocial adjustment (Gruber & Fineran, 2016; Rinehart, Espelage, & Bub, 2017).

Objectified body consciousness, a feminist theory construct proposed by McKinley and Hyde (1996), suggests that women internalize impossible cultural body standards and develop beliefs about their bodies as objects, leading to shame about their body and their self. Extending this research to an early adolescent sample, Lindberg et al. (2007) demonstrated that, for both male and female students, greater peer sexual harassment was indirectly related to greater bodily shame, via greater body self-surveillance. In that study and others (McMaster et al., 2002; Skoog & Bayram Ozdemir, 2015), increased sexual harassment was predicted by pubertal development. These findings suggest a developmental process of objectified body consciousness wherein greater sexual objectification accompanies the entrance into adolescence, leading to an internalization of the meaning of these experiences that then triggers the experience of bodily shame.

Sexual harassment, however, is not solely about bodies. As proposed by critical feminist theories of sexual harassment, this umbrella term can encompass a wide number of behaviors that serve to assert one’s own sexual/gender identities and police peers’ behaviors (Conroy, 2013; Meyer, 2008). From this perspective, all types of peer sexual harassment (including unwanted sexual attention, homophobic harassment, and harassment for gender nonconformity; Conroy, 2013; Meyer, 2008) communicate to youth what they should look like, how they should act, and how they should be. Thus, sexual harassment may be a trigger not just for bodily shame but for other aspects of shame, as well, including behavioral shame (shame about one’s actions and performance) and characterological shame (shame about one’s identity and abilities) (Andrews & Hunter, 1997; Andrews et al., 2002).

Repeated experiences of shame can, in turn, increase risk for depression, through mechanisms that are not yet fully understood (e.g., Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011; Webb, Heisler, Call, Chickering, & Colburn, 2007). According to cognitive theories of depression, the negative internal attributional bias that accompanies shame may become a general negative cognitive style over time, which may then lead to increases in depressive symptomology (Mills, 2005). When memories of shameful experiences become central to adolescents’ identities, they may develop beliefs about their fundamental worthlessness, inferiority, and unattractiveness, which are implicated in the development of depression (Cunha, Matos, Faria, & Zagalo, 2012). Research in the adult literature suggests that shame may also lead to depression via increased rumination over the need to belong (Orth, Berking, & Burkhardt, 2006). More research is needed to understand how, why, and when depression develops in relation to experiences of shame.

The Peer Context of Sexual Harassment

Why might some youth be more prone than others to experience increased shame and, consequently, greater risk for depression following peer victimization? M. Lewis’ (1992) developmental cognitive-attributional model of the self-conscious emotions suggests three cognitive prerequisites for the experience of shame. First, children must have acquired self-consciousness (the capacity to reflect upon the self), which emerges in toddlerhood. Second, the individual must have an understanding of cultural standards, rules, and goals. Through the process of socialization, these standards are learned and internalized across the lifespan. Third, the individual must make attributions about the causes of events. Shame is elicited by negative internal attributions focused on the global self (unlike guilt, which is elicited by negative internal attributions focused on specific actions). Thus, both internal factors (cognitive attributions) and social factors (cultural expectations) contribute to the individual’s experience of shame.

Applying this model, young people’s emotional reaction to sexual harassment will depend on their external or internal attribution for their victimization, and their interpretation of the cultural meaning of the event. One qualitative study demonstrated the range of possible interpretations for victimization. For example, some youth understood bullying and sexual harassment as the perpetrator’s “bad mood or insecurity” (deLara, 2008, p. 85). Such external attributions may help youth manage their reactions following potentially distressing experiences of aggression. In contrast, peer victimization may elicit shame when a young person perceives his or her experience to be a violation of cultural standards and thus makes an internal, global attribution for his or her victimization, such as “I deserved to be targeted because of how I am.” This internalization of the message sent by their harassment, along with the subsequent distress felt by the youth, is how sexual harassment serves to police young people’s sexuality and gender performances (Meyer, 2008).

We posit that young people’s understanding of the cultural meaning of sexual harassment may be informed, in part, by their observations of sexual harassment in their environments. The person-group dissimilarity hypothesis of peer victimization (e.g., Sentse, Scholte, Salmivalli, & Voeten, 2007) suggests that when peer victimization is perceived to be a rare experience in the youth’s social context, targeted youth experience worse outcomes compared with the case when victimization is perceived to be more common among peers (the latter situation is also referred to as the “shared plight” hypothesis; Schacter & Juvonen, 2017). The person-group dissimilarity phenomenon has been captured in multiple studies of bullying, using a variety of methods to operationalize contextual influences. For example, a couple of studies have examined friends’ self-reported experiences of victimization and have found that, among youth who experience high levels of bullying victimization, having friends who are also victimized buffers against depressive symptoms (Brendgen et al., 2013; Schacter & Juvonen, 2017). Other studies have examined rates of victimization in the school context. In classrooms with lower rates of bullying, victimized youth reported lower self-esteem (Huitsing, Veenstra, Sainio, & Salmivalli, 2012) and greater depressive symptomatology (Garandeau, Lee, & Salmivalli, 2018; Huitsing et al., 2012) when classroom rates of victimization decreased over time. Victimized youth also reported greater characterological self-blaming attributions in schools where victimization was less common (Schacter & Juvonen, 2015). Capturing the potential importance of perception of commonality, Nishina and Juvonen (2005) found in a daily-diary study that victimized youth reported significant increases in negative emotions on days when they perceived themselves to be the only target, but did not on days when they also witnessed peer harassment. These findings align with the cognitive-attributional model of shame (M. Lewis, 1992), wherein perceived deviations from the cultural norms lead to self-blaming attributions that induce shame and depressogenic cognitive styles.

When victimization is (or appears to be) a common experience, targeted youth may be more likely to understand that victimization is a cultural norm and thus may be less likely to make internal attributions for their negative peer experiences. Conversely, when peer victimization is (or is perceived to be) rare, youth may believe that their victimization stands in opposition to cultural norms, increasing their likelihood to make internal attributions for their experiences. In early adolescence, when norms around sexual harassment are still being established, perceived group norms around this behavior may be an important determinant of individuals’ experiences following victimization. According to the person-group dissimilarity model, witnessing sexual harassment may, perhaps counterintuitively, actually buffer adolescents from experiencing the full effects of shame following peer victimization. To our knowledge, this phenomenon has not yet been examined with regard to adolescent sexual harassment.

This Study

In this preliminary study, we tested a person-group dissimilarity model of sexual harassment in a cross-sectional early adolescent sample. We examined witnessing sexual harassment as a contextual factor that might affect the associations among experiences of being targeted by sexual harassment, shame, and depressive symptoms. An early adolescent sample was selected because sexual harassment emerges as an increasingly frequent experience during this time (McMaster et al., 2002) and peers becoming an increasingly important context for development at this age (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). We hypothesized that there would be an interaction between victimization and witnessing when predicting shame and depressive symptoms, such that higher levels of witnessing would weaken the associations between victimization and shame, and between victimization and depressive symptoms. We also hypothesized that witnessing would moderate the indirect effect of victimization on depressive symptoms through shame, such that at higher levels of witnessing the indirect effect would be weaker.

We examined conditional indirect-effects models separately for male and female students, given the gendered nature of sexual harassment. No specific hypotheses were made regarding gender, as there are mixed findings about how sexual harassment differentially affects male and female adolescents, with some studies finding no gender differences in predicting depression (Rinehart et al., 2017) and others showing stronger associations for females (Chiodo et al., 2009; Goldstein, Malanchuk, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2007; Zetterström et al., 2016). Furthermore, gender differences on the person-group dissimilarity models of peer victimization experiences have rarely been studied, with one study finding no gender difference in the strength of the interaction between one’s own and other’s bullying victimization in predicting depressive symptoms (Brendgen et al., 2013).

This study aimed to contribute to the adolescent literature on peer victimization in two ways: First, it adds to our understanding of mechanisms underlying the relationship between sexual harassment and wellbeing. Second, while there is a growing body of literature on sexual harassment victimization in adolescence, little is known about the experience of witnessing sexual harassment. Witnessing sexual harassment may serve to socialize young people about cultural norms around sexual harassment and thus may impact the experience of shame following victimization. In one study of middle school students, almost all (96%) had witnessed at least one incident of sexual harassment in the previous year, and, on average, each reported witnessing about 12 different behaviors (Lichty & Campbell, 2011). It is unclear, however, how the experience of witnessing may interact with the experience of being targeted by sexual harassment to predict wellbeing. Knowledge about how witnessing sexual harassment impacts young people can inform individual- and school-level interventions for sexual harassment by demonstrating the ways in which perceived peer norms or school climate impacts individuals’ victimization experiences.

Method

Participants

Participants were students in seventh and eighth grades at six public schools in a large Canadian city. Seven schools were invited to participate in the study as part of an evaluation of a school-board-developed intervention program on healthy relationships. Six schools agreed to participate. The invited schools were selected to represent different city neighborhoods which, according to student census data provided by the school board, would provide a diverse sample in terms of average household incomes, average academic achievement according to standardized tests, and proportion of recent immigrants to Canada. Schools were randomized to the control or intervention condition after agreeing to participate; data from this study were taken from baseline, before the intervention was implemented. Out of 740 eligible students, 504 (68.1%) obtained signed parental consent to participate, 41 (5.5%) returned forms where parents declined to provide consent, while the remainder did not return their consent forms. Of the 504 with parental consent, 435 were present on the day of data collection and assented to completing the survey (58.8% of total eligible students).

Most students (98.9%) were between 12 and 14 years old, with the whole sample ranging in age from 10.9 to 14.4 years (M $\bar{X}$ = 13.1 years). To describe their gender, sexual, and ethnic/cultural identity, students could choose one or more options from a list or write in an answer of their own. Participants identified with the following gender identities: female (53.3%), male (44.8%), nonbinary (0.9%), trans (0.7%), genderqueer (0.9%), and unsure (1.6%). Participants identified with the following sexual identities: straight/heterosexual (73.8%), gay (0.5%), lesbian (0.7%), bisexual (2.8%), queer (0.2%), polysexual (0.5%), pansexual (0.9%), asexual (0.9%), questioning (3.0%), and unsure (3.9%). Finally, students identified with the following ethnic/cultural identities: White (40.9%), South Asian (12.6%), Black (8.3%), and Chinese (6.0%). In total, 3% or less identified with each of the following: Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, Tibetan, Japanese, Filipino, Latin American, and Métis; 20.5% identified as multiracial, selecting two or more ethnic/cultural identities or writing in their own multiracial identity.

Measures

Sexual harassment victimization and witnessing

A modified version of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Sexual Harassment Scale (Hill & Kearl, 2011) measured participants’ experiences with six sexual harassment behaviors both at school and online, for a total of 12 items. Items asked about participants’ experiences being targeted by a peer in the past month. Sample items from the original measure included the following: “A student made unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures to me” and “A student spread unwelcome sexual rumors about me.” Two items were added for this study to reflect gender policing/transphobic harassment at school and online, consistent with Meyer’s (2008) feminist model of sexual harassment: “A student bullied/harassed me for not being as masculine as other guys or for not being as feminine as other girls” (Toomey, McGuire, & Russell, 2012). Due to ethical considerations, items from the original AAUW (Hill & Kearl, 2011) scale that included physical intimidation or assault were not included in the current measure (e.g., “being touched in an unwelcome sexual way”; “being forced to do something sexual”). The modified scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .81). Additional items asked about students’ experiences of witnessing each form of the six forms of sexual harassment, from 0 (never) to 2 (more than once). These items were developed for this study and showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .83).

Shame

A total of 10 items from the Experience of Shame Scale (ESS; Andrews et al., 2002) were included in this study. The original scale included three examples of behavioral shame, three examples of characterological shame, and one example of bodily shame. For this study, the scale was shortened due to time limitations during data collection. One example of behavioral shame (shame about saying something stupid), one example of characterological shame (shame about the sort of person one is), and one example of bodily shame were included. For each subtype, one question addressed each of the three components of shame—experiential, cognitive, and behavioral (avoidance/concealment). An additional question, taken from the original scale, addressed an additional behavioral manifestation of bodily shame (avoidance of mirrors), for a total of 10 questions. Respondents rated the frequency of their feelings in the past year, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Example items include “Have you felt like a bad person when you said something stupid?” (an experiential example of behavioral shame), “Have you worried about what other people think of the sort of person you are?” (a cognitive example of characterological shame), and “Have you wanted to hide your body or any part of it?” (a behavioral example of bodily shame). The original ESS demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .92; Andrews et al., 2002). In this study, the shortened version also had strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Depressive symptoms

Nine items from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD-10; Haroz, Ybarra, & Eaton, 2014) assessed depressive symptoms among youth (e.g., “My appetite was poor”; “I lost interest in my usual activities.”) Respondents ranked the frequency of these symptoms on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all or less than 1 day in the last week) to 4 (nearly every day for 2 weeks). This scale, originally developed for use with adult samples, has been validated with samples of youth and has demonstrated good internal consistency (Haroz et al., 2014). One item from the original scale about suicidality was not used in this study due to ethical concerns. In this study, the scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Procedure

Students in eligible classrooms were given a parent consent form to take home. Students with parental consent to participate were provided with an oral and written explanation of the study by trained research assistants and were assured of the confidential and voluntary nature of the study. They were then asked to provide their written assent to participate. Students completed the tablet-based surveys individually at their desks in their classrooms, under the supervision of their teachers and research assistants. The survey took approximately 30 to 40 minutes to complete. Students were debriefed as a group following their completion of the survey.

Data Analysis

We tested a conditional indirect-effects model using path analyses, with shame mediating the relationship between victimization and depressive symptoms (the indirect effect) and witnessing moderating the relationship between victimization and shame, the relationship between victimization and the outcome, and the indirect effect (see Figure 1). Using the methods recommended by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), we estimated the model in Mplus, version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). All parameters were estimated separately for male- and female-identified students using a multiple-group path model. Due to a low sample size and a lack of statistical power, participants who did not identify as male or female were not included in the main analyses. Victimization, witnessing, shame, and depressive symptoms were group-mean centered by gender, so that observations were expressed relative to other participants with the same gender identity. Dummy-coded demographic variables were entered as covariates predicting the mediator and outcome: grade level (7 or 8), sexual identity (dichotomized as straight/heterosexual or nonstraight/heterosexual), and the four largest ethnic/cultural identities (White, Black, South Asian, and Chinese). Initially, we also included dummy-coded variables for each of the six schools, to account for school-level differences in outcomes; there were no significant associations so these variables were dropped for model parsimony. We used bootstrap resampling procedures (10,000 samples) to obtain empirical standard errors and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) for all parameters. Effects with CIs that did not include zero were considered statistically significant.

Figure 1.

The theoretical conditional indirect-effects model.

We also calculated an index of moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015) for each of the gender groups. The index of moderated mediation quantifies the effect of the moderator (witnessing) on the indirect effect of victimization on depressive symptoms through shame. A significant index of moderated mediation indicates that there is a linear relationship between the moderator and the indirect effect. To further examine the moderated mediation effect, we examined the mediation effect at different levels of the moderator: at the 25th percentile for witnessing scores, at the median, and at the 75th percentile. To examine gender differences, we tested, sequentially, whether constraining each path to be equal between genders resulted in a decreased model fit. A significant Wald test of parameter constraints, χ²(1) > 3.84, indicates that the models have better fit if they are free to vary by gender (i.e., there is a significant difference between genders on that parameter).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics of the focal variables—victimization, witnessing, shame, and depressive symptoms—are shown in Table 1. There was no statistically significant gender difference on either victimization or witnessing. Female students reported significantly higher shame and depressive symptoms than boys. Intercorrelations among the focal variables are shown in Table 2. For female students, all variables were significantly correlated. For male students, victimization and witnessing were not significantly correlated with depressive symptoms, but all other correlations were significant.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Focal Variables by Participant Gender.

Variable (scale range)	Male-identified		Female-identified		Difference test
Variable (scale range)	$\bar{X}$ (SD)	Median	$\bar{X}$ (SD)	Median	z	p
Victimization (0-2)	0.09 (0.21)	0	0.13 (0.25)	0	−0.76	.45
Witnessing (0-2)	0.21 (0.32)	0.08	0.28 (0.36)	0.17	−1.70	.09
Shame (0-3)	0.65 (0.57)	0.50	1.16 (0.77)	1.00	−7.12**	<.001
Depressive symptoms (0-4)	0.58 (0.65)	0.33	1.00 (1.03)	0.67	−3.69**	<.001

Note. Gender differences on variables were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests to compare mean ranks. Standardized z scores for the difference test are shown.

p < .01.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Among Focal Variables by Participant Gender.

	Victimization	Witnessing	Shame	Depressive symptoms
Victimization	—	.60**	.27**	.11
Witnessing	.51**	—	.21**	.02
Shame	.37**	.35**	—	.47**
Depressive symptoms	.38**	.40**	.64**	—

Note. Correlations for male-identified students are above the diagonal; correlations for female-identified students are below the diagonal.

p < .01.

In the previous month, 38.5% of male students, 38.5% of female students, and 81.8% of gender minority students reported victimization by at least one form of sexual harassment. The majority of students reported witnessing at least one form of sexual harassment in the previous month: 62.4% of male students, 65.8% of female students, and 81.8% of gender minority students. Table 3 shows the proportion of students who reported experiencing and witnessing each subtype of sexual harassment (collapsed across in-person and online environments), at least once in the previous month.

Table 3.

Proportions of Students Reporting Each Subtype of Sexual Harassment in the Previous Month, as a Target (Victimization) or Witness.

Subtype	Male-identified youth (n = 180)		Female-identified youth (n = 222)			Gender minority youth (n = 11)
Subtype	Target	Witness	Target	Witness	Target	Witness
Gender policing	16.0	35.4	10.2	45.0	72.7	72.7
Homophobic harassment	14.1	35.0	8.5	37.0	81.8	63.6
Sexual name-calling	9.4	32.4	28.3**	41.7	54.5	81.8
Sexual comments	6.1	19.2	17.1**	24.4	45.5	45.5
Sexual rumors	10.1	21.2	7.7	22.9	27.3	27.3
Sexual pictures	9.5	8.9	7.8	10.6	54.5	18.2
Any of the above	38.6	62.4	38.5	65.8	81.8	81.8

Note. Significant chi-square tests between male- and female-identified students are indicated.

p < .01.

We used chi-square tests to compare proportions of male and female students reporting each subtype of sexual harassment. Female students were significantly more likely than male students to report experiencing being called sexual names, χ²(1, N = 402) = 22.38, p < .001, and having sexual comments made about them, χ²(1, N = 402) = 11.38, p = .001. There was no significant difference between male and female students on gender policing, homophobic harassment, sexual rumors, or being shown sexual pictures (all p > .05). In terms of witnessing, there was no significant difference between male and female students for any subtype of sexual harassment.

Path Analyses

Dummy-coded variables for grade level, racial/ethnic identity, and sexual identity were included as covariates in the models, predicting both shame and depressive symptoms. Among males, none of the demographic covariates were significant predictors of shame or depressive symptoms (all p ≥ .05). Among females, Grade 8 students reported greater shame (b = 0.19, SE = .09, 95% CI = [0.009, 0.38], p = .04) and depressive symptoms (b = 0.25, SE = .11, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.45], p = .02) compared with Grade 7 students; Black students reported lower levels of shame than non-Black students (b = −0.43, SE = .18, 95% CI = [–0.77, −0.07], p = .02); and nonheterosexual students reported greater levels of shame (b = 0.34, SE = .15, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.65], p = .02) and depressive symptoms (b = 0.36, SE = .18, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.70], p = .04) compared with heterosexual students.

The results from the path analyses are presented in Table 4. For male students, there were statistically significant direct paths between victimization and shame, and between shame and depressive symptoms. For female students, there were statistically significant direct paths between all focal variables. All relationships were in the expected positive direction, with greater victimization and witnessing associated with greater shame and depression, and greater shame associated with greater depressive symptoms.

Table 4.

Unstandardized Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals of Path Analyses Predicting Shame and Depressive Symptoms.

Predictor	Males				Females				Test of gender difference
Predictor	b (SE)	Lower 2.5%	Upper 2.5%	p	b (SE)	Lower 2.5%	Upper 2.5%	p	χ²(1)	p
Predicting shame
Victimization	1.27 (.45)**	0.36	2.14	.005	1.40 (.27)**	0.98	2.04	<.001	0.11	.74
Witnessing	0.29 (.21)	−0.11	0.71	.28	0.54 (.16)**	0.22	0.83	.001	2.04	.15
Victimization × Witnessing	−0.74 (.66)	−2.40	−0.16	.26	−1.57 (.41)**	−2.69	−1.05	<.001	3.70	.05
Predicting depressive symptoms
Shame	0.51 (.11)**	0.29	0.73	<.001	0.61 (.10)**	0.42	0.80	<.001	0.69	.41
Victimization	0.47 (.48)	−0.69	1.20	.32	1.02 (.37)**	0.28	1.77	.006	1.31	.25
Witnessing	−0.20 (.17)	−0.54	0.12	.23	0.54 (.21)*	0.09	0.94	.01	9.26**	.002
Victimization × Witnessing	−0.39 (.55)	−1.76	0.53	.48	−1.58 (.55)**	−2.51	−0.28	.004	5.61*	.02

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

In addition, for female students, the interaction between victimization and witnessing significantly predicted shame and depressive symptoms. We probed these significant interaction effects using the Johnson-Neyman technique (Carden, Holtzman, & Strube, 2017). This technique identifies the values of the moderator (i.e., witnessing) for which there was a significant effect of a predictor (i.e., victimization) on an outcome (i.e., shame and depressive symptoms). The effect of victimization on shame was significant for all values of witnessing below 0.92 (93rd percentile). Follow-up simple slopes analyses (shown in Figure 2) revealed that victimization was a stronger predictor of shame at lower levels of witnessing, b (25th percentile) = 1.88, SE = .32, 95% CI = [1.25, 2.51], and a weaker predictor of shame at higher levels of witnessing, b (75th percentile) = 1.22, SE = .24, 95% CI = [0.76, 1.69]. The same pattern applied when predicting depressive symptoms. Victimization was a significant predictor of depressive symptoms at all values of witnessing below 0.77 (90th percentile). Follow-up simple slopes analyses demonstrated that victimization was a stronger predictor of depressive symptoms at lower levels of witnessing, b (25th percentile) = 2.80, SE = .48, 95% CI = [1.85, 3.75], and a weaker predictor of depressive symptoms at higher levels (top 15th percentile) of witnessing, b (75th percentile) = 1.70, SE = .35, 95% CI = [1.03, 2.37].

Figure 2.

Simple slopes indicating the predicted value of shame at low (bottom 25th percentile) and high (upper 25th percentile) levels of witnessing.

We examined the indirect effect of victimization on depressive symptoms via shame, at varying levels of witnessing. For males, the indirect path was significant at all levels of witnessing. The nonsignificant index of moderated mediation indicated that witnessing did not moderate the indirect effect of victimization on depressive symptoms through shame (est. = −0.47, p = .05, 95% CI = [–1.11, 0.08]). For males, regardless of levels of witnessing, there was an indirect effect of victimization on depressive symptoms via increases in shame, for example, at the median level of witnessing (est. = 0.70, 95% CI = [0.18, 1.43], p = .03).

For female students, the index of moderated mediation indicated that witnessing significantly moderated the indirect effect of victimization on depressive symptoms through shame, est. = −1.96, p = .001, 95% CI = [–3.39, −0.77]. As levels of witnessing increased, the strength of the indirect effect decreased. The indirect effect was strongest at low levels of witnessing (25th percentile: est. = 1.12, 95% CI = [0.68, 1.80], p < .001), weaker at the median level of witnessing (est. = 0.96, 95% CI = [0.57, 1.54], p < .001), and weakest at high levels of witnessing (75th percentile: est. = 0.72, 95% CI = [0.41, 1.16], p < .001).

Discussion

Sexual harassment is a common experience in middle school, with about 40% of participants in this study reporting that they had directly experienced sexual harassment in the previous month, and almost twice as many—the majority of participants—reporting that they had witnessed at least one incident in the same time period. Our results provide preliminary evidence that individuals’ direct experiences of sexual harassment, as well as their observations of peers’ experiences of sexual harassment, may simultaneously play a role in young people’s shame reactions and wellbeing.

Consistent with our first hypothesis, shame mediated the relationship between victimization and depression for both male and female students. At all levels of witnessing, victimization was associated with greater shame, which was associated with greater depressive symptoms. This finding extends past research that identifies shame as a mediator of the relationship between bullying victimization and depressive symptoms among adolescents (Duarte et al., 2015; Irwin et al., 2019).

We were further interested in understanding how the social context may affect the emotional experience of shame. To this end, we examined witnessing sexual harassment as a contextual factor that may buffer young people from shame reactions. Consistent with our second hypothesis, there was a moderating effect of witnessing when predicting shame, depression, and the indirect effect of victimization on depression via shame. These moderating effects were found for female students only. The positive associations between victimization and shame, and between victimization and depression, were attenuated among adolescent females who reported high levels of witnessing. The indirect effect was also weaker at higher levels of witnessing. Female adolescents who experienced sexual harassment but did not frequently witness it happening to others were at risk for the highest levels of shame and depression.

These findings lend preliminary support to a person-group dissim-ilarity/“shared plight” model of sexual harassment victimization. Female students in this study who did not frequently witness sexual harassment may have perceived their victimization experiences to be rare and may have felt more isolated by their experiences. In seeking to understand her victimization experience, the adolescent female who does not see harassment happening to others may attribute her experience to something negative about her own self—her character, her behavior, her body—rather than factors related to the perpetrators or to the culture at large. Conversely, while the adolescent female who both experiences and observes harassment may also be distressed by her experience, she may be better able to contextualize her experience within a culture where sexual harassment is common. In this way, witnessing sexual harassment may be one way in which adolescents learn about the cultural meaning of sexual harassment, an experience that informs the attributions they make for their own victimization.

Adolescents who make internal, global, uncontrollable, and stable attributions for their experience may experience greater shame (M. Lewis, 1992; Tracy & Robins, 2006) and may be at risk for negative cognitive styles that increase risk for depression. The current results are consistent with findings from a study of adult heterosexual women that demonstrated that internalization and self-objectification—a construct similar to the shame measured in this study—may underlie the relationship between sexually oppressive experiences and psychological distress (Szymanski & Feltman, 2014). Future research can test, more explicitly, the mechanisms (such as attributions) by which witnessing may moderate the relationship between victimization and wellbeing.

We were interested to find that there was a significant moderating effect of witnessing sexual harassment for female students only. At this developmental stage, the peer context may be particularly important for girls. Although this phenomenon has not been tested explicitly in the context of sexual harassment, research in other domains of adolescent development—including social media use (Nesi & Prinstein, 2015) and body image (Jones, 2001)—suggest that girls may engage in more social comparison than boys. Comparing her experience to others’, the adolescent girl may be more distressed by sexual harassment if she believes she is alone in her experience. Gender differences may also be attributed to differences in experiences of sexual harassment, shame, and depressive symptoms. For example, in this study, female students were more likely than male students to experience sexual name-calling. Experiencing and witnessing different subtypes of sexual harassment may have variable effects on youth, an area for future study. Mean differences from this study also suggest that, consistent with past research, female students experienced greater levels of shame and depressive symptoms than male students, perhaps due to issues of socialization (Grabe, Hyde, & Lindberg, 2007). Witnessing sexual harassment could thus be one of many variables that help explain the greater variability in female students’ development of shame and depressive symptoms, compared with male students. Further research is needed to clarify how and why gender may moderate the relationships between victimization, witnessing, and wellbeing.

The current findings highlight the importance of understanding individuals’ contextualized social cognitions in the development of negative outcomes following victimization, with numerous implications for intervention. As with bullying interventions, sexual harassment interventions can take on the dual tasks of (a) preventing sexual harassment from occurring in the first place and (b) helping young people cope more effectively with it when it does occur. The current findings, as well as other findings on person-group dissimilarity effects, can inform the second goal. One recent longitudinal study, conducted as part of an evaluation of a bullying prevention program, showed that, in classrooms that experienced the greatest reductions in bullying, those students who continued to experience peer victimization had worse outcomes than those classrooms where there were smaller reductions in bullying (Garandeau et al., 2018). That study demonstrated that healthier classroom environments may be, paradoxically, harmful for some students. The person-group dissimilarity hypothesis suggests a potential explanation for these findings: Victimized youth who experience their victimization as rare or isolating may be at risk for the greatest levels of distress. Findings from that study, and this study, suggest that reducing victimization may not be sufficient in addressing the negative outcomes associated with victimization.

Thus, in addition to working on promoting healthier ways to relate to one another, it may be helpful, as part of classroom bullying/harassment interventions and individual counseling, to address self-blaming attributions that may lead to poor adjustment. The moderating effect of witnessing found in this study suggests one potential avenue for such an intervention. If an adolescent’s perception of sexual harassment norms affects their interpretation of their own experiences, then perceived norms may be a viable target for intervention. Intervention can help young people identify the sociocultural reasons for sexual harassment and give young people the platform to share their experiences with one another. Awareness that there are broader cultural reasons for their victimization experiences, and that they are not alone in their experiences, may help young people contextualize their victimization and reduce their likelihood to internalize blame. Interventions must be clear about describing the norms around sexual harassment so that youth feel less alone in their experiences, while also communicating that these behaviors are unacceptable.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study provides some preliminary evidence of a person-group dissimilarity effect in adolescents’ experience of sexual harassment. The study’s current cross-sectional design, however, means that we cannot identify the directionality of effects, and it is possible that the relationships among the focal variables work in the opposite direction or are bidirectional. For example, adolescents who are more shame prone and depressed may be less likely to witness others’ harassment, due to their being more isolated and/or self-focused. Furthermore, recent findings suggest that there may be bidirectional associations among bullying victimization, shame, and depressive symptoms (Irwin et al., 2019) and between sexual harassment victimization and depressive symptoms (Dahlqvist, Landstedt, Young, & Gådin, 2016). Future longitudinal research that measures changes in young people’s environments and changes in experiences of shame and wellbeing will help better understand this phenomenon and the role that witnessing sexual harassment has on these associations.

Another important limitation of this study is that, due to issues of methodology and statistical power, the main analyses only include participants who identified as cisgender male or cisgender female. Although we included all participants in the study in the descriptive sections of the results, gender minority participants were not included in the main analyses due to issues of statistical power. Given that sexual harassment is an inherently gendered phenomenon and that sexual and gender minority youth are at greater risk to experience peer victimization and negative outcomes following peer victimization (Felmlee & Faris, 2016; Mitchell, Ybarra, & Korchmaros, 2014), there was a missed opportunity here to examine how experiences vary by gender identities beyond cisgender male and female. Furthermore, for similar reasons, we used ethnical/cultural identities as statistical controls rather than moderator variables. Developmental science, as a field, is becoming increasingly attuned to the importance of inclusivity and intersectionality in our research, where we consider the complexities by which young people’s experiences may vary along different intersections of identities, including gender, sexuality, race, and social-economic status, while also questioning the means by which we categorize individuals (e.g., Russell, 2016). Future research will require creative approaches to fully understand the wide spectrum of adolescents’ experiences.

Future research could also examine variability among experiences of sexual harassment, in terms of different behaviors (e.g., homophobic harassment vs. sexual name-calling) and contexts (offline vs. online). For this study, because we were interested in sexual harassment experiences in general, we collapsed our data across these experiences. It is likely, however, that these different behaviors and contexts have different meanings for youth. We can speculate, for example, that certain characteristics of the online environment—for example, the persistence of content, the potential for larger and invisible audiences—may impact the intensity of young people’s emotional responses to sexual harassment, as suggested by research comparing in-person and online bullying (Baier, Hong, Kliem, & Bergmann, 2018; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015). In such contexts, young people’s perceptions that these behaviors are common among their peers may be more important for mitigating the sense of shame associated with harassment. In general, there is a need for a better understanding of young people’s experiences of witnessing sexual harassment, for all environments in which they spend time.

Conclusion

This cross-sectional study lends support to the hypothesis that shame may underlie the relationship between peer sexual harassment and depressive symptoms. For adolescent girls, while the experience of witnessing sexual harassment does not buffer that association completely, it does appear to provide some moderating effect. It is possible that knowing that others share a similar experience may help young people contextualize their experiences so that they are less likely to internalize shame for their victimization. Future longitudinal research can clarify the directionality of these associations and examine other individual (e.g., general attributional style) and contextual (e.g., teacher support, school climate) factors that affect young people’s experiences of shame following sexual harassment victimization. This line of research can inform interventions that help young people cope with peer victimization, by targeting shame and social cognitions.

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.

ORCID iD

Joyce Li

Author Biographies

Joyce Li, MSc, is a PhD candidate at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. Her research and clinical interests include adolescent peer relationships, childhood trauma, and school-based interventions.

Wendy M. Craig, PhD, OC, is a professor of psychology at Queen’s University. She is the cofounder and scientific director of the Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network (PREVNet), a national organization promoting safe and healthy relationships across Canada. Her research program focuses on healthy relationships, bullying and victimization, and knowledge mobilization.

References

Adams

Sargent

R. G.

Thompson

S. H.

Richter

Corwin

S. J.

Rogan

T. J.

(2000). A study of body weight concerns and weight control practices of 4th and 7th grade adolescents. Ethnicity and Health, 5, 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850050007374

Andrews

(1995). Bodily shame as a mediator between abusive experiences and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 277-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.104.2.277

Andrews

Hunter

(1997). Shame, early abuse, and course of depression in a clinical sample: A preliminary study. Cognition & Emotion, 11, 373-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999397379845

Andrews

Qian

Valentine

J. D.

(2002). Predicting depressive symptoms with a new measure of shame: The Experience of Shame Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502163778

Baier

Hong

J. S.

Kliem

Bergmann

M. C.

(2018). Consequences of bullying on adolescents’ mental health in Germany: Comparing face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 99, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1181-6

Birkett

Espelage

D. L.

(2015). Homophobic name-calling, peer-groups, and masculinity: The socialization of homophobic behavior in adolescents. Social Development, 24, 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12085

Blakemore

S.-J.

Mills

K. L.

(2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187-207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202

Brendgen

Vitaro

Barker

E. D.

Girard

Dionne

Tremblay

R. E.

Boivin

(2013). Do other people’s plights matter? A genetically informed twin study of the role of social context in the link between peer victimization and children’s aggression and depression symptoms. Developmental Psychology, 49, 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025665

Carden

S. W.

Holtzman

N. S.

Strube

M. J.

(2017). CAHOST: An Excel workbook for facilitating the Johnson-Neyman technique for two-way interactions in multiple regression. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, e1293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01293

10.

Chiodo

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

Hughes

Jaffe

(2009). Impact of sexual harassment victimization by peers on subsequent adolescent victimization and adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 246-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.01.006

11.

Conroy

N. E.

(2013). Rethinking adolescent peer sexual harassment: Contributions of feminist theory. Journal of School Violence, 12, 340-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2013.813391

12.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

Connolly

Henderson

(2001). Developmental context of peer harassment in early adolescence. In Juvonen

Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 242-262). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

13.

Cunha

Matos

Faria

Zagalo

(2012). Shame memories and psychopathology in adolescence: The mediator effect of shame. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 12, 203-218.

14.

Dahlqvist

H. Z.

Landstedt

Young

Gådin

K. G.

(2016). Dimensions of peer sexual harassment victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: A longitudinal cross-lagged study in a Swedish sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 858-873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0446-x

15.

deLara

E. W.

(2008). Developing a philosophy about bullying and sexual harassment: Cognitive coping strategies among high school students. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 72-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220801973862

16.

Doty

J. L.

Gower

A. L.

Rudi

J. H.

McMorris

B. J.

Borowsky

I. W.

(2017). Patterns of bullying and sexual harassment: Connections with parents and teachers as direct protective factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 2289-2304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0698-0

17.

Duarte

Pinto-Gouveia

Rodrigues

(2015). Being bullied and feeling ashamed: Implications for eating psychopathology and depression in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 44, 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.08.005

18.

Duarte

Pinto-Gouveia

Stubbs

R. J.

(2017). The prospective associations between bullying experiences, body image shame and disordered eating in a sample of adolescent girls. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 319-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.003

19.

Felmlee

Faris

(2016). Toxic ties: Networks of friendship, dating, and cyber victimization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79, 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516656585

20.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115.

21.

Garandeau

C. F.

Lee

I. A.

Salmivalli

(2018). Decreases in the proportion of bullying victims in the classroom: Effects on the adjustment of remaining victims. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42, 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416667492

22.

Goldstein

S. E.

Malanchuk

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Eccles

J. S.

(2007). Risk factors of sexual harassment by peers: A longitudinal investigation of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00523.x

23.

Grabe

Hyde

J. S. J.

Lindberg

S. S. M.

(2007). Body objectification and depression in adolescents: The role of gender, shame, and rumination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00350.x

24.

Graham

Juvonen

(1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587

25.

Graham

Juvonen

(2001). An attributional approach to peer victimization. In Graham

Juvonen

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 49-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Gruber

Fineran

(2016). Sexual harassment, bullying, and school outcomes for high school girls and boys. Violence Against Women, 22, 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215599079

27.

Haroz

E. E.

Ybarra

M. L.

Eaton

W. W.

(2014). Psychometric evaluation of a self-report scale to measure adolescent depression: The CESDR-10 in two national adolescent samples in the United States. Journal of Affective Disorders, 158, 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.009

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683

29.

Hill

Kearl

(2011). Crossing the line: Sexual harassment at school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

30.

Huitsing

Veenstra

Sainio

Salmivalli

(2012). “It must be me” or “It could be them?”: The impact of the social network position of bullies and victims on victims’ adjustment. Social Networks, 34, 379-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.07.002

31.

Irwin

Craig

Hollenstein

(2019). The role of shame in the relation between peer victimization and mental health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 156-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516672937

32.

Jones

D. C.

(2001). Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness comparisons to models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 45, 645-664. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014815725852

33.

Kaltiala-Heino

Fröjd

Marttunen

(2016). Sexual harassment and emotional and behavioural symptoms in adolescence: Stronger associations among boys than girls. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51, 1193-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1237-0

34.

Kim

Thibodeau

Jorgensen

R. S.

(2011). Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 68-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021466

35.

Lewis

H. B.

(1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Psychoanalytic Review, 58, 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)61341-8

36.

Lewis

(1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York, NY: Free Press.

37.

Lewis

(1995). Self-conscious emotions. American Scientist, 83, 68-78.

38.

Lichty

L. F.

Campbell

(2011). Targets and witnesses: Middle school students’ sexual harassment experiences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610396090

39.

Lindberg

S. M.

Grabe

Hyde

J. S.

(2007). Gender, pubertal development, and peer sexual harassment predict objectified body consciousness in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 723-742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00544.x

40.

McKinley

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

41.

McMaster

L. E.

Connolly

Pepler

Craig

W. M.

(2002). Peer to peer sexual harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402001050

42.

Meyer

E. J.

(2008). A feminist reframing of bullying and harassment: Transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.7202/019572ar

43.

Mills

R. S. L.

(2005). Taking stock of the developmental literature on shame. Developmental Review, 25, 26-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.001

44.

Mitchell

K. J.

Ybarra

M. L.

Korchmaros

J. D.

(2014). Sexual harassment among adolescents of different sexual orientations and gender identities. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 280-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.09.008

45.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

46.

Nesi

Prinstein

M. J.

(2015). Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking: Gender and popularity moderate associations with depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1427-1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0020-0

47.

Nishina

Juvonen

(2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76, 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00855.x

48.

Orth

Berking

Burkhardt

(2006). Self-conscious emotions and depression: Rumination explains why shame but not guilt is maladaptive. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1608-1619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292958

49.

Petersen

J. L.

Hyde

J. S.

(2012). Peer sexual harassment and disordered eating in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49, 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028247

50.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

51.

Reimer

M. S.

(1996). “Sinking into the ground”: The development and consequences of shame in adolescence. Developmental Review, 16, 321-363. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1996.0015

52.

Rinehart

S. J.

Espelage

D. L.

(2016). A multilevel analysis of school climate, homophobic name-calling, and sexual harassment victimization/perpetration among middle school youth. Psychology of Violence, 6, 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039095

53.

Rinehart

S. J.

Espelage

D. L.

Bub

K. L.

(2017). Longitudinal effects of gendered harassment perpetration and victimization on mental health outcomes in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723746

54.

Robinson

K. H.

(2005). Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: Issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education, 17, 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025042000301285

55.

Rolfe

S. M.

Schroeder

R. D.

(2017). “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”: Verbal sexual harassment among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517709802

56.

Russell

S. T.

(2016). Social justice, research, and adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12249

57.

Schacter

H. L.

Juvonen

(2015). The effects of school-level victimization on self-blame: Evidence for contextualized social cognitions. Developmental Psychology, 51, 841-847. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000016

58.

Schacter

H. L.

Juvonen

(2017). Dynamic changes in peer victimization and adjustment across middle school: Does friends’ victimization alleviate distress? Child Development, 90, 1738-1753. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13038

59.

Schnoll

J. S.

Connolly

Josephson

W. J.

Pepler

Simkins-Strong

(2014). Same- and cross-gender sexual harassment victimization in middle school: A developmental-contextual perspective. Journal of School Violence, 14, 196-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906311

60.

Sentse

Scholte

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009-1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3

61.

Skoog

Bayram Ozdemir

(2016). Explaining why early-maturing girls are more exposed to sexual harassment in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 490-509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614568198

62.

Steensma

T. D.

Kreukels

B. P. C.

de Vries

A. L. C.

Cohen-Kettenis

P. T.

(2013). Gender identity development in adolescence. Hormones and Behavior, 64, 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.02.020

63.

Stuewig

McCloskey

L. A.

(2005). The relation of child maltreatment to shame and guilt among adolescents: Psychological routes to depression and delinquency. Child Maltreatment, 10, 324-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505279308

64.

Szymanski

D. M.

Feltman

C. E.

(2014). Experiencing and coping with sexually objectifying treatment: Internalization and resilience. Sex Roles, 71, 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0392-6

65.

Toomey

R. B.

McGuire

J. K.

Russell

S. T.

(2012). Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.001

66.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1339-1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206290212

67.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 483-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.002

68.

Webb

Heisler

Call

Chickering

S. A.

Colburn

T. A.

(2007). Shame, guilt, symptoms of depression, and reported history of psychological maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1143-1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.09.003

69.

Weiner

(1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.