What Makes Them More Vulnerable Than Others? Obesity,Negative Emotions,and Peer Bullying Victimization

Abstract

Negative impacts resulting from peer bullying victimization include psychological stress, emotional and academic maladjustment, decreased self-esteem, relational problems with peers, and may also lead to suicidal ideation and behavior. Therefore, efforts have been concentrated toward identifying characteristics of victims and perpetrators of bullying to allocate resources for preventive strategies. The current study adds to this ongoing research by using a nationally representative sample of adolescents to identify health-related correlates (obesity and negative emotions) of students vulnerable to peer bullying victimization, as well as exploring individual and school-related characteristics. Findings suggest that negative emotions are related to peer bully victimization, but a relationship between obesity and victimization is not clear. In addition, students attending schools with bullying prevention programs were more likely to report physical victimization. Discussion is offered regarding these findings and suggestions for future research in this area.

Keywords

BMI obesity depression peer victimization HBSC

Introduction

Recent studies have documented numerous negative impacts resulting from peer bullying victimization. Peer bullying victimization has distinguishable features in comparison with general peer victimization. Although general peer victimization can be sporadic and non-repeated, victimization of peer bullying indicates repeated aggression to victims by peers (Kiriakidis, 2011). In addition, peer bullying victimization includes physical (e.g., threatening and physically attacking) as well as verbal and/or psychological aggression (e.g., teasing, name-calling, spreading rumors, etc.) that other types of peer victimization studies have not included (Kiriakidis, 2011). Outcomes of peer bullying victimization may include, but are not limited to, physical/psychological well-being and academic maladjustment (Egan & Perry, 1998; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005), as well as suicidal ideation and behavior (Kaminski & Fang, 2009; Liang, Flisher, & Chalton, 2003). Specifically, students physically or emotionally victimized at school experience higher rates of sadness, depression, and loneliness, and may experience decreased self-esteem. In addition, they may suffer relational problems with their peers (i.e., rejected or isolated by their school peers; Egan & Perry, 1998; Nansel et al., 2001).

Although recent research has begun to focus on individual physical characteristics and victim vulnerability, the relationship remains tenuous and suffers from three major limitations. First, despite findings that the victims generally perceived as physically weaker or smaller in stature are at greater risk (Olweus, 1993), the relationship between physical appearance and vulnerability is still unclear, specifically in relation to obesity. Second, there is an extensive body of research investigating negative emotions and victimization, but little is known about how physical and emotional characteristics may interact to increase victimization. Third, there has been no published research of obesity and peer bullying victimization with data from a nationally representative sample. Janssen, Craig, Boyce, and Pickett (2004), using a Canadian national sample, found that the risk of peer bullying victimization was positively related to obesity; however, using a national sample of adolescents in the United States could help to determine the association between obesity and victimization vulnerability. Such research is imperative for developing effective prevention efforts for peer bullying victimization among adolescents with obesity.

The current study is designed to address these shortcomings. By using a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States, this study attempts to identify health-related correlates (obesity and negative emotions) of student vulnerability to peer bullying victimization. In addition, individual and school-related characteristics are considered in exploring potential vulnerability.

Data for this research were drawn from the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), which is a part of longitudinal and cross-national survey administered in collaboration with World Health Organization (WHO). HBSC is designed to monitor the adolescents’ well-being, health, and social behaviors in 44 countries across Europe and North America. For the purpose of the current research, this research uses only the U.S.-based HBSC in 2005-2006. As with most data sets, if not all, the analytical sample is smaller than the original sample size. This study focused on 6,578 students in the relevant age group from 195 schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Given the limited nationally representative sources of individual- and school-level characteristics on bullying victimization, the HBSC provides a wealth of information that allows researchers to gain insight into adolescents’ behaviors within school contexts. In this reality, the HBSC has been used by a number of criminal justice researchers and is becoming increasingly valuable to policy makers.

Negative Emotions and Peer Bullying Victimization

Research has connected the display of negative emotions by school-aged children with peer bullying victimization for more than two decades. Loneliness, sadness, aggression, depression, and anxiety have been identified as factors of bullying victimization (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2001; Haynie et al., 2001; Klomeck et al., 2007; Schwartz, McFadyen-Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999; Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 2000). Thus, victims may be more likely to be cautious, sensitive, and quiet and show lower levels of self-esteem than other students. Display of these characteristics indicates weakness and aids in selection for victimization (Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1994).

The results of Hawker and Boulton’s (2000) meta-analysis of studies published between 1978 and 1997 support this relationship with their finding that victims of bullying are more likely to display depressive tendencies, increased anxiety, lower self-esteem, and report a more negative self-image than do students uninvolved in bullying victimization. Moreover, Yang, Kim, Kim, Shin, and Yoon (2006) found that 55% of victims in their study displayed depressive symptoms, a finding confirmed by Menesini, Modena, and Tani (2009), whose research found bullying victims indicated internalizing symptoms such as being withdrawn, anxious, and depressed. Baker and Bugay (2011) found that loneliness acts as a mediator for depressive symptoms inasmuch as loneliness “enhances the negative effect of peer bullying victimization that increases the risk of depression” (p. 181). Furthermore, the label applied to children through the display of negative emotion at a young age has shown to be predictive of future victimization (Schwartz et al., 1999; Sourander, Helstela, Helenius, & Piha, 2000). If victim selection is predicated on display of negative emotion such as low self-esteem, loneliness, anxiety, and depression (Schwartz et al., 1999), the experience of being bullied further intensifies these feelings and increases the likelihood of subsequent involvement as a victim of bullying behavior (Matsui, Kakuyama, Tsuzuki, & Onglatco, 1996).

Obesity, Body Image, and Peer Bullying Victimization

It is estimated that nearly one third of American children and adolescents are overweight or obese (Ogden, Carroll, & Flegal, 2008). The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) reported that around 17% of children and adolescents ages 2 to 19 were obese accounting for more than 5 million girls and 7 million boys in 2009-2010 (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2012).¹ Numerous studies have found overweight and obese youth face bias, stigmatization, prejudice, and are frequently victimized (Puhl & Lanter, 2007). Documentation of this abuse comes from peers, parents, educators, and others socially associated with overweight youth (Browne, 2012). Adams and Bukowski (2008) stated that a risk factor for being victimized, such as obesity, plays an important role as it relates to the long-term effects, suggesting obesity is a strong predictor of victimization. Furthermore, Janssen and colleagues (2004), investigated associations between bullying behaviors (physical, verbal, and sexual harassment) with overweight and obesity status; their results indicated that in most age groups, relationships were observed between body mass index (BMI) category and peer bullying victimization, such that overweight and obese youth were at greater relative odds of being victims of aggression than normal-weight youth. This led the authors to conclude that overweight and obese school-aged children have a higher propensity to be victims, and sometimes perpetrators, of bullying behavior than normal-weight peers. For the purposes of this article, overweight and obese will be used interchangeably.

Further considering the link between obesity and victimization, studies indicate that overweight victims reveal a psychological vulnerability that is communicated to their peers through their behavior (Brixval, Rayce, Rasmussen, Holstein, & Due, 2012; Fox & Farrow, 2009; Giletta, Scholte, Engels, & Larsen, 2010; Guo, Ma, Mie, Xu, & Zhang, 2010), similar to the communication of symptoms of negative emotion. In addition, these children may be less likely to defend themselves once victimized, particularly when displaying non-assertive behaviors. Numerous studies have also found that obese children lack the social skills to cope with bullying that further increases victimization (Brixval et al., 2012; Fox & Farrow, 2009; Giletta et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2010). To this end, the pervasiveness among weight-based victimization merits further exploration in the wake of an overweight and obese epidemic.

Individual Characteristics and Peer Bullying Victimization

Considerable attention has been devoted to identifying the general characteristics of victims of peer bullying (Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Olweus, 1993). Research indicates that young and non-White adolescents experience more victimization than older and White adolescents (Whitney & Smith, 1993). Although males experience more victimization in general, it appears to vary by forms of peer bullying victimization (Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Rigby, 2002; Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). Specifically, boys are more likely to experience physical victimization such as being threatened or hurt, whereas girls experience higher rates of emotional or relational victimization by rumor spreading or being rejected from others.

School Bullying Intervention/Prevention Programs and Peer Bullying Victimization

Beyond attention to the individual-level characteristics on bullying victimization, several empirical studies have attempted to examine the effects of a variety of preventive strategies and programs on bullying victimization. Specifically, schools have implemented enhanced school safety strategies (e.g., staff supervision, metal detector, locker check, visitor sign-in, etc.) to decrease the risk of being victimized in school ground (Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005). As a response to bullying at school, schools also took some proactive school-based prevention strategies including anti-bullying programs (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009). Even though effectiveness can vary, results of effectiveness, several researchers have identified school-based anti-bullying programs are often effective.

Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus led the charge in the 1970s with his research on school bullying interventions that led to the development of school prevention and intervention programs in the 1980s and 1990s (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), first implemented in Norway in 1983, has become the most well-known school-based program. Decades of OBPP evaluations have shown sustained positive effects of reducing bullying in Norway, although the U.S. evaluations have been mixed (Olweus & Limber, 2010). A meta-analysis of whole school anti-bullying programs in the United States based on OBPP fundamentals found reductions in a number of bullying cases, but the overall results were inconsistent (Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004). A more recent meta-analysis that included whole school programs as well as smaller school sectors (e.g., small groups of students, individual classrooms, or classroom clusters) found that about one third of school bullying intervention programs, where research was produced between 1980 and 2004, showed meaningful positive effects. This outcome provides limited support to school bullying intervention effectiveness for “enhancing students’ social competence, self-esteem, and peer acceptance; enhancing teachers’ knowledge of effective practices, feelings of efficacy regarding intervention skills, and actual behavior in responding to incidents of bullying at school” (Merrell et al., 2008, p. 38).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Despite the previous findings, less is known about the relationship between obesity, negative emotions, and victimization. There is little doubt that imbalance of power between bully and victim plays a crucial role for understanding victimization vulnerability. Yet, researchers have not identified the mechanism through which health-related problems influence various types of peer bullying victimization. In addition, limited studies have addressed the association between school-level intervention programs, particularly health education and bullying prevention, and peer bullying victimization. In the current study, we focus on these areas by utilizing a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States. Consequently, we examined three types of peer bullying victimization through the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Is there a relationship between obesity and peer bullying victimization?

Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between negative emotions (i.e., anxiety/depression) and peer bullying victimization?

Research Question 3: What is the role of school-level factors, specifically bullying intervention programs, on victimization?

Method

Data and Participants

Data used in the current study were obtained from the U.S.-based HBSC in 2005-2006. In collaboration with WHO, HBSC data have been collected every 4 years beginning in 1985 with the purpose of examining school-based behaviors of adolescents in participating countries. The U.S. sample includes 227 schools with a total of 8,030 students (Grades 6-10) in both public and private schools. In addition to student surveys about school-related issues and health problems, the school administrators’ survey has obtained school-level information on preventing violence and improving health-related issues. A significant aspect of the current study is to examine how school-level responses relate to peer bullying victimization at school. The analyses are restricted to students who attend schools where administrators have completed school-level surveys. Among the 9,227 students who completed the survey through multistage sampling, 2,226 students from 32 schools were excluded based on missing information of school-level indicators. In addition, another 423 students were not included in the analysis due to missing information of peer bullying victimization. Based on a missing data analysis, it was confirmed that the missing observations do not occur randomly, and some independent variables were found to be significantly different between complete and incomplete data. Therefore, multiple imputations or sampling weight options were not appropriate. Hence, the current study is comprised of 6,578 students in the relevant age group from 195 schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Dependent Variable

The analysis of the current study is designed to examine various types of peer bullying victimization. As such, we created a victimization item based on the most widely used criteria (Olweus, 1993): no victimization (0), emotional victimization only (1), and physical victimization with or without emotional victimization (2). Emotional victimization alone is composed of six items including, “I was called mean names, was made fun of, or teased in hurtful way”; “Other students left me out of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends, or completely ignored me”; “Other students told lies or spread false rumors about me and tried to make others dislike me”; “I was bullied with mean names and comments about my race or color”; “I was bullied with mean names and comments about my religion”; and “Other students made sexual jokes, comments, or gestures to me.” To measure physical victimization, a single item was used: “I was hit, kicked, pushed, shoved around, or locked indoors.” Each measure of victimization was based on a 5-point Likert-type scale response indicating the behavior was not experienced or was experienced several times a week. For the purpose of the current study, responses were first coded as experienced or not experienced in each form of victimization. Responses were then categorized into one of the following three groups: no victimization (n = 2,813), emotional victimization only (n = 2,842), and physical victimization with or without emotional victimization (n = 923).²

Independent Variables

The current study examines the relationship of obesity and negative emotions with peer bullying victimization. BMI Categories were used as an indicator of obesity and was computed based on self-reported measures of height and weight for each respondent.³ Because BMI was computed based on the same formula as for adults, BMI percentiles were calculated factoring in gender and age for a correct interpretation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. BMI percentile was then coded into four categories: (a) underweight, less than 5th percentile; (b) healthy weight, 5th percentile to less than the 85th percentile, (c) overweight, 85th to less than the 95th percentile, and (d) obese, equal to or greater than the 95th percentile.⁴

Negative emotion was created based on six questions related to students’ emotions or feelings, and these items were “Were you very sad?” “Were you grouchy or irritable, or in a bad mood?” “Did you feel hopeless about the future?” “Did you sleep a lot more or a lot less than usual?” and “Did you have difficulty concentrating on your schoolwork?” Each item was coded on a five-item scale from 0 = none to 4 = always. The scores were then computed for the total sum of each item (α = .801).

Control Variables

Because prior research indicates that social-demographic individual characteristics are significant indicators of peer bullying victimization, we incorporate two broad clusters of individual-level characteristics including demographic characteristics and warmth support. Demographic characteristics include age (in years), race (White = 1),⁵ and sex (male = 1). In addition, we included two indicators of warmth support by parents and peers. Warmth support has been found to be a protective factor of bullying victimization. Parental support is constructed by a combined scale of six items: Parents “help me as much as I need,” “let me do things I like doing,” “are loving,” “understand my problems,” “like me to make own decisions,” and “make me feel better when upset.” Responses were coded from 1 (almost never) to 3 (almost always). The sum of these responses were collapsed into a new continuous variable where a higher score indicates more warmth support by parents (α = .803). Similarly, we created Peer support by summing six items including students in my class “enjoy being together,” “are kind and helpful,” and “accept me as I am.” Responses of each item were coded on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This measure was also collapsed into a new continuous variable where higher scores indicate a more positive relationship with peers (α = .704).

Measures of school-level strategies are critical to understanding peer bullying victimization. For this analysis, two dichotomous measures (yes = 1)—(a) school bullying prevention program and (b) physical activity and fitness-related health education course—were included to reflect preventive strategies based on school administrators’ survey.

Analytic Strategy

In the current study, we control for school-level characteristics including administrator self-report that the school has a bullying prevention program or a health class. Given that the data collection occurred within 195 different schools, multilevel modeling (i.e., hierarchical linear modeling) could be a powerful technique for treating students who are nested in school-level units. In addition, multilevel modeling allows researchers to address the design effects that are inherent in the HBSC data set, which utilizes a three-stage stratified design, with school districts as the primary sampling unit (Wang, Iannotti, & Luk, 2012). In this reality, we used a multilevel, multinomial model to distinguish different types of bullying victimization. However, our model did not account for any clustering within different schools. Specifically, an analysis of the intraclass correlations reveals that less than 5%of the variance in bullying victimization is accounted for, by differences in the characteristics of the schools. To examine the empirical relationship among the variables, therefore, this study uses a two-step approach. For the initial analysis, we tested the bivariate relationship between peer bullying victimization (overall) and each independent and control variable described earlier. The second analysis, using multinomial regression, examined the relationship between the prevalence of victimization (both emotional only and physical victimization with or without emotional victimization) and covariates. This model is preferable to binary logistic regression analysis because it accounts for the unordered nature of the dependent variable with multiple discrete categories and provides more efficient estimations by producing multiple logits simultaneously (Long, 1997). The reference group in this analysis was students who report no victimization on school grounds.

Results

We report summary statistics for the type of victimization, health-related issues, and other control variables used in the current study (see Table 1). Table 1 reveals that 42.8% of respondents have not been victimized, whereas 43.2% have been emotionally victimized and 14% reported that they have experienced physical victimization with or without emotional victimization. Students who have experienced emotional victimization and physical victimization with or without emotional victimization reported significantly higher levels of both BMI and negative emotions than non-victims. With regard to individual-level covariates, consistent with existing literature, boys were more likely to experience physical/emotional victimization, whereas they were less likely to experience emotional victimization. In addition, victims of both forms of school bullying were slightly younger than non-victims. In regard to family and peer functioning, victims of both forms of bullying reported lower levels of parental and peer support compared with non-victims. In terms of school-level covariates, most students reported that they were attending schools with physical activity and fitness-related health education courses. However, inconsistent with existing literature, victims were more likely to report that they were attending schools with bullying prevention programs.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics of All Variables (N = 6,578).

	All (N = 6,578)	None (n = 2,813)	Emotional (n = 2,842)	Physical/emotional (n = 923)
Independent variables
BMI categories (M)	2.44 (0.77)^a**	2.42 (0.75)^a	2.42 (0.76)^a	2.50 (0.78)^a
Negative emotions (M)	8.54 (5.28)^a**	6.81 (4.79)^a	9.69 (5.13)^a	10.32 (5.68)^a
Individual-level variables
Race: White (%)	3,268 (46.7)^b**	1,332 (48.0)^b	1,402 (49.9)^b	434 (47.6)^b
Sex: Male (%)	3,348 (47.8)^b**	1,507 (53.6)^b	1,049 (36.9)^b	569 (61.8)^b
Age (M)	13.67 (1.47)^a**	13.87 (1.45)^a	13.64 (1.46)^a	13.27 (1.44)^a
Parental support (M)	14.56 (2.76)^a**	15.01 (2.61)^a	14.34 (2.76)^a	13.83 (2.96)^a
Peer support (M)	10.49 (2.55)^a**	11.13 (2.30)^a	10.19 (2.49)^a	9.54 (2.85)^a
School-level variables
Physical activity: Yes (%)	6,279 (89.7)^b**	2,536 (90.2)^b	2,537 (89.3)^b	834 (90.4)^b
Bullying prevention: Yes (%)	4,581 (65.4)^b**	1,746 (62.1)^b	1,857 (65.3)^b	649 (70.3)^b
Peer bullying victimization
1. No victimization	2,813 (42.8)^b**
2. Emotional only	2,842 (43.2)^b**
3. Physical with or without emotional victimization	923 (14.0)^b**

Note. BMI = body mass index.

The mean and standard deviation are reported.

The number and percentage are reported.

p < .05. **p < .01 based on chi-square or ANOVA tests.

As a preliminary analysis, we also conducted bivariate correlation analysis (see Table 2). As expected, negative emotions were significantly related to overall victimization (r = .28). In addition, being male, age, parental support, and peer support were negatively correlated with victimization (r = −.10, −.11, −.14, and −.21, respectively). Notably, bullying prevention programs were positively related to victimization (r = .05).

Table 2.

Correlations of Individual-Level and School-Level Covariates (N = 6,578).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Independent variables
1. BMI categories	1**
2. Negative emotions	.093**	1**
Individual-level variables
3. Race (1 = White)	−.115**	−.050**	1**
4. Sex (1 = male)	.058**	−.228**	.012**	1**
5. Age	−.013**	.062**	.057**	.043**	1**
6. Parental support	−.061**	−.373**	.139**	.032**	−.049**	1**
7. Peer support	−.079**	−.253**	.021**	.011**	.010**	.287**	1**
School-level variables
8. Bullying prevention (1 = yes)	.041**	−.039**	−.059**	.001**	−.259**	.027**	−.025**	1**
9. Health education (1 = yes)	−.005**	−.008**	.057**	.025**	.003**	−.010**	.014**	.074**	1**
Peer bullying victimization
10. Victimization	.018**	.281**	.010**	−.103**	−.111**	−.139**	−.214**	.046**	−.009**	1

Note. As preliminary measure, only overall victimizations were included in bivariate analysis; BMI = body mass index.

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

Table 3 presents results from multinomial logistic regression. The results indicated that negative emotions was found to be a statistically significant factor on overall bullying victimization, Exp(b) = 1.11 and 1.15, respectively. Specifically, students who have higher levels of negative emotions were more likely to report victimization of both emotional bullying and physical bullying with and without emotional bullying. However, we did not see any significant relationships between student’s BMI and peer bullying victimization.

Table 3.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis (N = 6,578).

	Emotional victimization only^a			Physical victimization with or without emotional victimization^a
	β	SE	Exp(b)	β	SE	Exp(b)
Independent variables
BMI categories^b
Underweight	.111	.187	1.117**	−.254	.290	0.776**
Overweight	−.004	.082	0.996**	.123	.114	1.131**
Obese	−.105	.091	0.900**	−.128	.129	0.880**
Negative emotions	.104	.007	1.110**	.139	.010	1.149**
Individual-level variables
Race (1 = White)	.072	.029	1.075**	.141	.051	1.151**
Sex (1 = male)	−.429	.062	0.651**	.722	.094	2.059**
Age	−.152	.023	0.859**	−.327	.032	0.721**
Parental support	−.009	.013	0.991**	−.044	.017	0.957**
Peer support	−.125	.013	0.883**	−.188	.018	0.829**
School-level variables
Bullying prevention (1 = yes)	.103	.064	1.109**	.250	.098	1.284**
Health education (1 = yes)	−.163	.099	0.850**	−.110	.148	0.896**
Constant	2.994	.403	19.965**	4.168	.577	64.567**
Model χ²	1,032.21
Pseudo R²	.10
−2 log likelihood	10,337.3452

Note. BMI = body mass index.

The none-victimization was reference.

The reference group in this analysis was students who have healthy weight (5th percentile to less than the 85th percentile).

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

With regard to individual-level characteristics, White students were more likely than non-Whites to report overall victimization, Exp(b) = 1.08 and 1.15, respectively. In contrast, student’s age and peer support were negatively associated with victimization. In other words, victims were more likely to be younger, Exp(b) = .86 and .72, respectively, and students with healthy peer relations were less vulnerable to victimization than others, Exp(b) = .88 and .83, respectively. Consistent with existing literature, while boys had a greater risk of being physically bullied than girls, Exp(b) = 2.06, boys were less likely to report victimization of emotional bullying than girls, Exp(b) = .65. Notably, if parents provide warmth support, students were less likely to report physical victimization with and without emotional victimization, Exp(b) = .96. However, after controlling for individual-level covariates, the presence of bullying prevention programs in the schools increased the relative risk of physical/emotional victimization, Exp(b) = 1.28. That is, students attending schools with bullying prevention programs were more likely to report physical victimization with and without emotional victimization.

Conclusion and Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine the link between obesity and negative emotions of students and incidence of peer bullying victimization in school. As reported in previous studies (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantaneen, & Rimpela, 2000), the current study demonstrated that student’s level of negative emotions, which includes sadness, hopelessness, and bad mood, was significantly related to victimization. In other words, the result lends further support to efforts to understand this relationship. Emotional deprivation or psychological problems may signal weakness and lack of resistance to bullying behavior, increasing the risk for some children.

Although existing literature describes obesity and body image play crucial role on peer bullying victimization (Brixval et al., 2012; Browne, 2012; Fox & Farrow, 2009; Giletta et al., 2010; Guo et al., 2010; Janssen et al., 2004; Puhl, Fuedicke, & Heuer, 2011), obesity was not significantly related to victimization here. This suggests that there could be other latent or manifest variables accounting for this relationship. However, it should be noted that although BMI is tested here, perceptions of obesity and body image are not adequately represented in this study. Although negative perceptions of body image have been found to have a significant influence on peer bullying victimization (Forste & Moore, 2012), BMI in the current study does not measure negative perception. Thus, it is not clear if students with high BMI feel negatively about themselves. Furthermore, negative self-perception stemming from BMI might be moderated by negative emotions tested here.

The results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis further indicated that victims were White and younger, and had a lack of peer/parental support than non-victims in overall victimization. In addition, the current study supports gendered differences to victimization (Olweus, 1993), specifically that boys were more vulnerable to physical victimization, whereas girls experience emotional victimization at a higher rate. This finding gives further credence to evidence that girls may be more likely to exhibit internalizing symptoms related to anxiety (Yang et al., 2006).

Despite these overall consistencies with common assumptions about victim characteristics and vulnerability of victimization, this analysis provided additional insight. That is, unexpectedly, students attending schools with bullying prevention programs were more likely to report physical victimization with and without emotional victimization. On the surface, this finding could suggest two possibilities. First, exposure to bullying prevention programs could heighten awareness of bullying and increase the reporting of such behavior, irrespective of the behavior being actually more prevalent in schools with bullying programs. Second, schools with an identified bullying problem may be more likely to implement anti-bullying programs. Furthermore, because all programs vary by background and procedure, there is little doubt that the characteristics of bullying prevention programs are more important than the mere existence of such interventions. Quality programs that aim to increase awareness of school violence, improve social cognitive skills, support conflict resolution, and impact policy development are found to be more effective on decreasing bullying and victimization (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007).

Although this study adds to the existing research of bully victimization, it is limited in a number of ways. One of the primary considerations in this study is the extent to which obesity affects the risk of peer bullying victimization. As discussed earlier, our measure of obesity may not capture self-perceived body image. Furthermore, body image and negative emotion may be confounded.

However, it should be noted that it is important to go beyond using weight as a key factor of long-term adjustment and examine the processes and experiences of obese and overweight individuals. As indicated by the current findings, being overweight or obese is not necessarily associated with victimization. Therefore, other variables should be considered such as low self-confidence, isolation, peer anxiety, and perception of self, peers, family, and school (Forste & Moore, 2012). Future observations should also focus on long-term victimization, particularly when it reinforces negative perception, which may lead to stigmatization and victimization (Adams & Bukowski, 2008).

Although the results of the current study do not support a clear relationship between obesity and peer bullying victimization, the results of the current study are encouraging with respect to the role negative emotions play in identifying the risk of peer bullying victimization. Lacking coping skills and emotional stability to deal with daily matters makes it difficult to adjust to life in the school system. That being said, this pattern of findings suggests that bullying intervention and prevention should seriously consider how student’s emotional status affects the risk of victimization. Specifically, in moving beyond the traditional school bullying prevention approach, alternative ways of treating adolescents with negative emotions include approaches that incorporate cognitive-behavioral principles and techniques as well as family and community as functional units. In addition, how those students cope with negative emotions is also an important area for research. Some coping strategies are more effective than others in reducing the level of negative emotions. Consequently, school bullying prevention should focus on how to deal with negative emotions, specifically, educating students on how to effectively handle negative emotions by using a number of coping strategies to ultimately reduce their likelihood of bullying victimization and negative outcomes.

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

References

Adams

R. E.

Bukowski

W. M.

(2008). Peer victimization as a predictor of depression and body mass index in obese and non-obese adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 49, 858-866.

Baker

Bugay

(2011). Mediator and moderator role of loneliness in the relationships between peer victimization and depressive symptoms. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 21, 175-185.

Bond

Carlin

J. B.

Thomas

Rubin

Patton

(2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480-484.

Brixval

C. S.

Rayce

S. L. B.

Rasmussen

Holstein

B. E.

Due

(2012). Overweight, body image and bullying: An epidemiological study of 11- to 15-years olds. European Journal of Public Health, 22, 126-130.

Browne

N. T.

(2012). Weight bias, stigmatization, and bullying of obese youth. Bariatric Nursing and Surgical Patient Care, 7, 107-115.

Craig

W. M.

(1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130.

Egan

S. K.

Perry

D. G.

(1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299-309.

Esbensen

Carson

D. C.

(2009). Consequences of being bullied: Results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of American students. Youth & Society, 41, 209-233.

Espelage

D. L.

Bosworth

Simon

T. R.

(2001). Short-term stability and prospective correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of potential demographic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, 411-426.

10.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Forste

Moore

(2012). Adolescent obesity and life satisfaction: Perceptions of self, peers, family, and school. Economics & Human Biology, 10, 385-394.

12.

Fox

C. L.

Farrow

C. V.

(2009). Global and physical self-esteem and body dissatisfaction as mediators of the relationship between weight status and being a victim of bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 1287-1301.

13.

Giletta

Scholte

R. H.

Engels

R. C.

Larsen

J. K.

(2010). Body mass index and victimization during adolescence: The mediation role of depressive symptoms and self-esteem. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69, 541-547.

14.

Gottfredson

G. D.

Gottfredson

D. C.

Payne

Gottfredson

N. C.

(2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from national delinquency prevention in school. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 42, 421-444.

15.

Guo

Q. Z.

W. J.

Mie

H. F.

Zhang

Y. R.

(2010). Relationships between weight status and bullying victimization among school-aged adolescents in Guangdong Province of China. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 23, 108-112.

16.

Hawker

D. S.

Boulton

M. J.

(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.

17.

Haynie

D. L.

Nansel

Eitel

Crump

A. D.

Saylor

Simons-Morton

(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29-49.

18.

Janssen

Craig

W. M.

Boyce

W. F.

Pickett

(2004). Associations between over-weight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 113, 1187-1194.

19.

Kaltiala-Heino

Rimpela

Rantaneen

Rimpela

(2000). Bullying at school: An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 661-674.

20.

Kaminski

J. W.

Fang

(2009). Victimization by peers and adolescent suicide in three U.S. samples. The Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 683-688.

21.

Kiriakidis

(2011). Bullying among youth: Issues, interventions and theory. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

22.

Klomek

Marrocco

Kleinman

M.m

Schonfeld

Gould

(2007). Bullying, Depression, and Suicidality in Adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40-49.

23.

Liang

Flisher

Chalton

(2003). Violence and substance use in adolescents with increasing severity of suicidal behavior. Archives of Suicide Research, 7, 29-40.

24.

Long

(1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Matsui

Kakuyama

Tsuzuki

Onglatco

(1996). Long-term outcomes of early victimization by peers among Japanese male university students: Models of a vicious cycle. Psychological Reports, 79, 711-720.

26.

Menesini

Modena

Tani

(2009). Bullying and victimization in adolescence: Concurrent and stable roles and psychological health symptoms. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 115-133.

27.

Merrell

K. W.

Gueldner

B. A.

Ross

S. W.

Isava

D. M.

(2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26-42.

28.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

29.

Ogden

C. L.

Carroll

M. D.

Flegal

K. M.

(2008). High body mass index for age among U.S. children and adolescents, 2003-2006. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 2401-2405.

30.

Ogden

C. L.

Carroll

M. D.

Kit

B. K.

Flegal

K. M.

(2012). Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009-2010. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db82.pdf

31.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

32.

Olweus

(1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 1171-1190.

33.

Olweus

Limber

S. P.

(2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus bullying prevention program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124-134.

34.

Puhl

R. M.

Fuedicke

Heuer

(2011). Weight-based victimization toward overweight adolescents: Observations and reactions of peers. The Journal of School Health, 81, 696-703.

35.

Puhl

R. M.

Lanter

J. D.

(2007). Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation’s children. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 557-580.

36.

Rigby

(2002). New perspectives on bullying. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

37.

Schwartz

McFadyen-Ketchum

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(1999). Early behavior problems as a predictor of later peer group victimization: Moderators and mediators in the pathways of social risk. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 191-201.

38.

Smith

J. D.

Schneider

B. H.

Smith

P. K.

Ananiadou

(2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547-560.

39.

Smokowski

P. R.

Kopasz

K. H.

(2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27, 101-110.

40.

Sourander

Helstela

Helenius

Piha

(2000). Persistence of bullying from childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 873-881.

41.

Troop-Gordon

Ladd

G. W.

(2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 1072-1091.

42.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peach Research, 1, 13-24.

43.

Vreeman

R. C.

Carroll

A. E.

(2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78-88.

44.

Wang

Iannotti

Luk

(2012). Patterns of adolescent bullying behaviors: Physical, verbal, exclusion, rumor, and cyber. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 521-534.

45.

Whitney

Smith

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

46.

Wilton

M. M. M.

Craig

W. M.

Pepler

D. J.

(2000). Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 227-245.

47.

Yang

Kim

Shin

Yoon

(2006). Bullying and victimization behaviors in boys and girls at South Korean primary schools. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 69-77.