Social Bonds and the Role of School-Based Victimization

Abstract

This study explores the impact of school-based victimization on the adolescent’s social bond. Previous research has provided empirical support for Hirschi’s social control theory that the strength of the adolescent’s social bond is associated with the probability that he or she will engage in criminal offending. However, research identifying what factors influence the strength of the adolescent’s social bond is limited. In addition, research has established that school-based victimization is associated with numerous negative outcomes, including diminished educational outcomes and criminal offending. Therefore, it is plausible that school-based victimization undermines the adolescent’s social bonds to school. Using a sample of 10th-grade students from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002, HLM models were developed to explore the relationship between school-based victimization and the adolescent’s social bond to school. The results suggest that school-based victimization has a negative association with three elements of the adolescent’s social bond to school: attachment, commitment, and belief. This study demonstrates the need for further research to identify the determinants of the strength of the adolescent’s social bond to school.

Keywords

bullying social bonds victimization violence youths

Introduction

Victimization research has established that the consequences of being a victim of crime as an adolescent are serious and long-lasting. School-based victimization has been negatively associated with educational achievement, general adolescent development, and the overall educational process (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985, 2002; Olweus, 1993; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002; Welsh, Greene, & Jenkins, 1999). The consequences of school-based victimization extend beyond the school experience and are harmful to student’s life course; these negative consequences include dropping out, drug use, and involvement in delinquency and adult criminal behavior (Finkelhor & Hashima, 2001; Hazler, 2000; Kingery, Pruitt, & Heuberger, 1996; Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996). Prior research has linked school-based victimization to a weakened relationship to school as well as delinquent and criminal behavior, which suggests that school-based victimization is one factor that undermines the adolescent’s social bond to school.

Hirschi’s social control theory is a highly regarded explanation of criminal behavior among adolescents. This theory postulates that the strength of an adolescent’s social bond to conventional individuals and society will determine whether he or she will engage in conforming or delinquent behavior (Hirschi, 1969). The stronger the social bond to conventional individuals and society, the lower the probability that the adolescent will engage in delinquent behavior. Over the past 40 years, social control theory has been rigorously tested with favorable results (Agnew, 1993; Jenkins, 1997; Payne, 2008; Stewart, 2003; Welsh et al., 1999). Although social control theory has received considerable empirical support linking the strength of the social bond to the delinquent behavior, there has not been a corresponding interest in determining what factors are linked to weak social bonds.

This article explores whether experiencing a school-based victimization is related to the strength of the adolescent’s social bond to school. We begin our conceptual argument by discussing the negative consequences associated with experiencing school-based victimization, with an emphasis on diminished educational outcomes. Next, we review social control theory and the limited research exploring the factors that weaken the social bond between adolescents and schools. We argue that school-based victimization is one factor that is responsible for the weakening of the adolescent’s social bond. Finally, the conceptual argument considers the relationship between victimization and criminal offending and whether it is plausible that victimization precedes criminal offending. If school-based victimization precedes criminal offending, then it is plausible that school-based victimization influences the probability of criminal offending via the adolescent’s weakened social bond. In order to examine whether school-based victimization is associated with weakened social bonds, HLM models are analyzed using data drawn from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS, 2002). HLM is an appropriate statistical technique because the ELS data violate the assumption of independent observations. The results and their implications are discussed.

Conceptual Argument

Traditionally, researchers have defined school-based victimization as students who have been a victim of an “official” crime such as assault, robbery, and theft that occurred on school grounds (Muschert & Peguero, 2010). However, in recent years, the definition of school-based victimization has expanded to include noncriminal acts such as peer harassment (physical and verbal), sexual harassment, bullying victimization, and fear (Finkelhor, 2008; Muschert & Peguero, 2010). This broadened definition of school-based victimization reflects the serious, persistent, and detrimental consequences to adolescents associated with these different forms of victimization (Finkelhor, 2008; Muschert & Peguero, 2010). Previously, researchers and school officials viewed behaviors such as bullying victimization and peer harassment as a normal part of the “school experience,” and therefore, these behaviors were tolerated within schools (Olweus, 1991; Spivak & Prothrow-Stith, 2001). As a result of research findings that established the life-long negative consequences associated with bullying victimization and peer harassment, these behaviors are no longer tolerated or viewed as a normal part of the “school experience” (Olweus, 1991; Spivak & Prothrow-Stith, 2001).

School-based victimization is an important and emerging area of research because findings have consistently shown that it undermines the adolescent’s educational outcomes (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985, 2002; Schreck et al., 2002; Welsh et al., 1999); his or her physical, psychological, and social health and well-being (Schwartz & Gorman, 2003; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005); and his or her successful transition to adulthood (Hagan & Foster, 2001; Macmillan, 2001; MacMillan & Hagan, 2004). These negative consequences that are associated with school-based victimization are the result of how school-based victimization affects the adolescent’s relationship with his or her school and his or her commitment to educational achievement. Research suggests that victimization negatively influences adolescent’s attitudes toward school and educational achievement (Hoglund, 2007) and reduces his or her commitment to his or her education (Schreck et al., 2002). As early as kindergarten, students who are victimized report not liking school and engaging in school avoidance behavior (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). Even after the victimization ended, the negative attitude toward school and the avoidance behavior continued (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). In addition, school-based victimization is associated with the student’s withdrawal and disengagement from classroom activities and school (Hoglund, 2007; Ripiski & Gregory, 2009). Student withdrawal and disengagement takes three forms: (1) behavioral disengagement, such as staying away from school and failure to participate in classroom activities; (2) emotional disengagement, including loss of interest and enjoyment in classroom activities; and (3) cognitive disengagement such as reduction in effort and motivation in classroom activities (Hoglund, 2007; Ripiski & Gregory, 2009). Finally, victimization erodes the adolescent’s self-confidence and educational self-efficacy¹; this erosion in the adolescent’s self-confidence and educational self-efficacy results in diminished educational outcomes (MacMillan & Hagan, 2004; Schwartz et al., 2005).

In addition to undermining the adolescent’s educational outcomes, Wilson argues school-based victimization undermines the adolescent’s connectedness to school, where school connectedness is defined as “the degree to which students experience a sense of caring and closeness to teachers and overall school environment” (p. 298). One reason for the adolescent’s weakened connection to school and teachers is that school-based victimization erodes the adolescent’s trust in the teachers’ and the school’s ability to protect the adolescent from his or her peers and future victimization (Ripiski & Gregory, 2009). This loss of trust in the teachers’ and school’s ability to protect students undermines the development of a supportive relationship between the adolescent and his or her teachers (Ripiski & Gregory, 2009). Without these supportive relationships, adolescents will not reach out to their teachers when they are experiencing educational difficulties or other problems. As school connectedness is defined and measured, it is almost synonymous with Hirschi’s concept of attachment (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterie, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Hirschi, 1969; Wilson, 2004), which suggests that school-based victimization is undermining the adolescent’s social bond to school.

Hirschi’s Social Control theory

Social control theory is one of the most frequently used theories to explain juvenile delinquency, especially within the school context. Social control theory begins with the assumption that adolescents are predisposed to engage in nonconforming behavior and, therefore, it is conforming behavior that requires an explanation (Hirschi, 1969). Conforming behavior is influenced by the strength of the adolescent’s social bond to conventional others and institutions (Hirschi, 1969). The stronger the social bond between the individual and society, the more likely he or she will be to engage in conforming behavior.

The social bond consists of four elements: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief (Hirschi, 1969). Attachment refers to the emotional connection between the adolescent and conventional others; the stronger the emotional connection, the more likely the conventional other will be to influence the adolescent’s behavior away from criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Stewart, 2003). Commitment refers to the adolescent’s investment in conforming society; the greater the investment, the less likely he or she will be to engage in criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Stewart, 2003). Involvement in extracurricular activities refers to the adolescent’s participation in conforming activities. Participation in conforming activities reduces the adolescent’s time available for engaging in criminal behavior and increases his or her investment in conforming society; the more the adolescent participates in extracurricular activities, the less likely he or she will be to engage in criminal activities (Hirschi, 1969; Stewart, 2003). Belief refers to whether the adolescent accepts the traditional value system and incorporates it into his or her own moral code; the stronger one’s belief in society’s moral code, the less likely he or she will be to engage in criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Stewart, 2003).

Although each element of the social bond independently influences the adolescent’s propensity toward criminal behavior, the four elements are highly interconnected and their combined effect is greater than their individual effects. If one element of the social bond is broken, the individual is at increased risk of engaging in criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969). In addition, if one element of the social bond is weakened, it is highly likely that other elements of the social bond are also compromised due to their interrelated nature (Hirschi, 1969), and therefore, the individual is at much greater risk of engaging in criminal behavior.

The existing research literature provides strong empirical support for attachment, commitment, and belief while providing almost no support for the involvement (Agnew, 1993; Jenkins, 1997; Payne, 2008; Stewart, 2003; Welsh et al., 1999). Therefore, adolescents with weaker bonds are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. What has not been fully explored by scholars is what factors weaken the adolescent’s social bond. Only one study has examined the factors that are associated with weakened bonds. Jenkins (1997) explored the impact of personal and familial characteristics on the social bond. Although a few of the personal and familial characteristics, such as gender, had direct effects on criminal behavior and misconduct in school, many of these characteristics had only indirect effects, which were mediated through different elements of social bond. Therefore, the demographic characteristics of the adolescents were predictive of the strength of the adolescent’s social bonds, but what remains unclear is what mediating processes link these demographic characteristics to the adolescent’s social bonds.

Although Hirschi (1969) did not explicitly outline the factors affecting the strength of the social bond, research on bullying suggests that school-based victimization hinders the formation of a strong social bond to school. Research exploring the differences between bullies, victims, and bully-victims² has found that victims and bully-victims had weakened social bonds. Haynie and colleagues (2001) found that victims and bully-victims scored lower on school bonding than their nonvictimized peers. Cunningham (2007) finds that bully-victims score lower on attachment and commitment whereas the victim-only group scores lower only on attachment than the comparison group. This research suggests that bullying victimization undermines the adolescent’s social bond and that the weakened social bond may explain the link between victimization and criminal offending.

Link Between Victimization and Criminal Offending

It is a well-established research finding that there is a relationship between criminal offending and criminal victimization (Chen, 2009; Cuevas, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2007; Jennings, Higgins, Tewksbury, Gover, & Piquero, 2010; Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990). However, what is not clear from the research is the causal mechanism that links victimization to criminal offending. The research literature relies on two possible explanations for the relationship between victimization and offending, opportunity theory and social control theory.

Opportunity theory is the most commonly used explanation of the relationship between victimization and offending (Cuevas et al., 2007; Lauritsen et al., 1992; Schreck et al., 2002). Engaging in criminal behavior increases the adolescent’s risk of victimization by amplifying his/her exposure and proximity to crime-prone environments and motivated offenders, by decreasing the level of protection he or she receives from capable guardians and by enhancing his or her suitability as a target. Criminal offending is a “lifestyle” that structures the adolescent’s exposure and proximity to crime-prone environment and other motivated offenders (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986). In the course of engaging in criminal behavior, these adolescents are more likely to interact with other motivated offenders and be in spaces that are conducive to their criminal behavior. In addition, adolescents who engage in criminal behavior actively seek to reduce the level of guardianship they receive in order to avoid detection, but the consequence of this reduced guardianship is increased vulnerability to other motivated offenders. Finally, adolescents who engage in criminal behavior are more likely to be perceived as suitable targets by motivated offenders (Chen, 2009). Their involvement in criminal behavior reduces the threat that they would report the victimization to capable guardians since that would necessitate explaining their own criminal activity.

A few researchers have utilized social control theory as an alternative explanation of the relationship between victimization and offending (Jennings et al., 2010; Schreck et al., 2002). Having a strong social bond to conventional others and institutions insulates the adolescent from engaging criminal behavior and from experiencing a victimization. The adolescent’s desire to maintain his or her social bond will reduce his or her offending behavior, which in turn reduces his or her risk of victimization via a conforming lifestyle, friendships with conforming peers, and enhanced guardianship. Conversely, a weakened social bond increases the adolescent’s likelihood of criminal offending and association with deviant peers, which increases his or her risk of victimization.

Current Study

Research has established that school-based victimization is associated with criminal offending. What we do not know is how being a victim of crime leads to criminal offending. Studies of the effect of school-based victimization suggest that being victimized at school undermines the adolescent’s relationship to school. Furthermore, Hirschi (1969) argues that the adolescent’s social bond to school is a critical component in preventing him or her from engaging in criminal behavior. Therefore, it is plausible that the link between victimization and criminal offending can be explained by a weakened social bond. This research will examine the relationship between school-based victimization and the strength of the adolescent’s social bond. Based on Hirschi’s social control theory and the literature review, we expect school-based victimization to weaken the adolescent’s social bond to school.

Method

Data

Data for this research are drawn from the base year of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS, 2002). The data were collected by a longitudinal survey administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2004) of the United States Department of Education. ELS data are “designed to monitor the transition of a national sample of young people as they progress from tenth grade through high school and on to postsecondary education and/or the world of work” (NCES, 2004, p. 7). These data include information about the experiences and backgrounds of students, parents, and teachers, and descriptions of the schools those students attended. As with most data sets, if not all, the analytical sample is smaller than the original sample of 15,360 students. First, this study focused on 12,790 public school students in the base-year ELS sample. Limiting the sample to students who identified as being Black/African American, Latino American, Asian American, and White American caused the sample to drop to 11,320 cases. Due to the omission of many of the key variables required for the analysis from the abbreviated form of student questionnaires led to the exclusion of an additional the 880 cases and created the final subsample of 10,440 cases for this analysis of consequences of school-based victimization for elements of the social bond.

Dependent Variables: Attachment, Commitment, Involvement, and Belief

This study utilizes Hirschi’s definitions of the four elements of the social bond developed based on social control theory. Attachment is a six-item-count index that measures the student’s self-report of how emotionally connected he or she is to his or her teachers and the school community. The items are (a) students get along well with teachers; (b) there is real school spirit; (c) the teaching is good; (d) teachers are interested in students; (e) “When I work hard on schoolwork, my teachers praise my effort”; and (f) “I go to school because my teachers expect me to succeed.” The items are counted if the students respond they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. The values range from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher levels of attachment. The coefficient alpha for this constructed scale is .93.

Commitment is a five-item-count index that measures the student’s self-report about his or her psychological investment, motivation, and involvement in pursuing and attaining educational advancement, success, and progress. The items are (a) “I go to school because I think the subjects I’m taking are interesting and challenging,” (b) “I go to school because I get a feeling of satisfaction from doing what I’m supposed to do in class,” (c) “I go to school because education is important for getting a job later on,” (d) “I go to school because I’m learning skills that I will need for a job,” and (e) “I go to school to because I play on a team or belong to a club.” The items are counted if the student agreed or strongly agreed with the item to create a scale of commitment. The values ranged from 0 to 5, with higher values indicating higher levels of commitment. The coefficient alpha for this constructed scale is .95.

Involvement is a four-item-count index that measures the student’s self-reported participation in school-based extracurricular activities. The items are (a) interscholastic sports, (b) intramural sports, (c) clubs, and (d) classroom-related activities. The items were counted if the students reported they participated in the activity. The index ranged from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater involvement in school-based extracurricular activities. The coefficient alpha for this constructed scale is .91.

Belief is a 10-item-count index that measures the student’s self-reported perception of the school’s rule environment as not tolerating rule-breaking behavior. The 10 items are (a) other students often disrupt class, (b) disruptions get in way of learning, (c) misbehaving students often get away with it, (d) there are gangs in school, (e) racial and ethnic groups often fight, (f) everyone knows what the school rules are, (g) school rules are fair, (h) punishment same no matter who you are, (i) school rules are strictly enforced, and (j) if a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will follow. The belief index ranges from 0 to 10, with higher values indicating greater belief in the school rules. The coefficient alpha for this constructed scale is .88.

Independent Variables: School-Based Victimization

School-based victimization is operationalized as three distinct forms: bullying, violence, and property victimization. To measure these, students are asked to specify whether they have been victimized while in their school during the first semester or term of the 2001-2002 school year. Bullying is measured by two items: (a) “Someone bullied or picked on me,” and (b) “In class I often feel ‘put down’ by other students.” Violent victimization is measured by three items: (a) “Someone threatened to hurt me at school,” (b) “Someone hit me,” and (c) “Someone used strong-arm or forceful methods to get money or things from me.” Property victimization is measured by two items: (a) “I had something stolen from me at school,” and (b) “Someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings.” The victimization measures are dichotomized to indicate whether the student experienced a articular form of victimization.

Control Variables: Student and School Characteristics

Previous studies have established that both student and school factors are associated with the social bond students develop at school. Individual student characteristics, including educational achievement, gender, family socioeconomic status, family structure, parental involvement, and race and ethnicity are related to the student’s level of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Educational achievement is measured by using the standardized measure developed by RTI and NCES. ELS (2002) included a reading and math composite score based on standardized tests developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The composite score is the average of the math and reading standardized scores, restandardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10 (see NCES, 2004, for further detail). Gender is coded male or female based on the student’s self report of his or her biological sex. Male students serve as the reference group. The preconstructed measure of family socioeconomic status (SES) is a standardized (z score) variable based on five equally weighted, standardized components: father’s/guardian’s education, mother’s/guardian’s education, family income, father’s/guardian’s occupational prestige, and mother’s/guardian’s occupational prestige (see NCES, 2004, for further detail). Family structure is a dichotomous variable that measures whether two parents/guardians are present in the student’s household. A single-parent/guardian household serves as the reference group. Parental involvement is an eight-item-count index that measures how active the student’s parents are in his or her education. The items are (a) checking homework, (b) helping with homework, (c) discussing school courses, (d) discussing school activities, (e) discussing things studied in class, (f) discussing grades, (g) discussing transferring, and (h) discussing college attendance. The count index ranges from 0 to 8, which higher scores indicating higher levels of parental involvement. Race and ethnicity are coded based on the student’s self-reported racial or ethnic identity. Four racial and ethnic groups are considered: White American (reference group), Black/African American, Latino American, and Asian American.

Studies have found that school characteristics, including location, size, diversity, and poverty, are related to the students’ development of social bonds within the school environment. School location indicates whether the school is located in an urban community. School size is measured as the number of 10th-grade students enrolled. School diversity is measured as the percent of students who are racial or ethnic minorities. School poverty is measured by the percent of students who received free or reduce-priced lunches.

Analytic Strategy

Since ELS (2002) data collection is designed as a cluster sample in which schools are sampled with unequal probability and then students are sampled or “nested” within these selected schools, the subsample of ELS data violates the assumption of independent observations. The nested structure of ELS data (i.e., students within schools) makes multilevel modeling an appropriate analytic tool (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004). Hierarchical linear model (HLM) is utilized to analyze the multilevel relationships between victimization and social bonds. All Level 1 (student) and Level 2 (school) predictors have been centered on their group means. This allows us to examine the probability of school-based victimization within each school. We can thus interpret the grand intercept as the probability that the average student will be victimized within each school, while controlling for other pertinent student and school factors. The statistical models in this study explicitly recognize that individuals within a particular school may be more similar to one another than individuals in another school and, therefore, may not provide independent observations.

The analyses proceed in several steps. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the variables in this study. Table 2 displays the HLM results of the relationships between victimization, other pertinent student and school characteristics, and attachment. In Model 1 of Table 2, attachment is regressed on the student and school characteristics. In Model 2, victimization measures are introduced into the analysis. Models 3 and 4 in Table 2 present the results for the commitment analysis, which followed the same analytical strategy as attachment. The analyses for involvement and belief, which is similar to the attachment analysis, are presented in Table 3.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

	Range	M	SD	N
School social bonds
Involvement	0-4	1.48	1.15	10,440
Attachment	0-6	4.17	1.64	10,440
Commitment	0-5	3.46	1.27	10,440
Belief	0-10	6.23	2.10	10,440
School-based victimization
Violent	0-1	0.33	0.47	3,450
Property	0-1	0.43	0.50	4,490
Bullied	0-1	0.29	0.45	3,030
Student characteristics
Educational achievement	21.50-79.94	49.62	10.03	10,440
Female	0-1	0.51	0.50	5,320
Family socioeconomic status	-2.11-1.98	–0.08	0.71	10,440
Family structure (two-parent/guardian)	0-1	0.75	0.43	7,830
Parental involvement	0-8	4.60	2.71	10,440
Black/African American	0-1	0.16	0.36	1,670
Latino American	0-1	0.17	0.37	1,770
Asian American	0-1	0.11	0.32	1,150
White American	0-1	0.57	0.50	5,850
School characteristics
Urban locale	0-1	.28	0.45	580
Size	52-4,631	1,410	839.52	580
Diversity	0-100	36.86	31.59	580
Poverty	0-96	25.03	18.71	580

Table 2.

Regression Coefficients (Standard Errors) for Victimization and Social Bonds: Attachment and Commitment

	Attachment						Commitment
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
Within schools	B		SE	B		SE	B		SE	B		SE
School-based victimization
Violent	—	—	—	−.360	****	.042	—	—	—	−.194	****	.032
Property	—	—	—	−.334	****	.038	—	—	—	−.051	*	.030
Bullying	—	—	—	−.076	*	.047	—	—	—	.021		.036
Student characteristics
Educational achievement	.019	****	.002	.016	****	.002	.009	****	.002	.007	****	.002
Female	.108	***	.037	.026		.036	.181	****	.029	.147	****	.029
Family socioeconomic status	−.079	***	.030	−.068	***	.029	.033		.024	.035		.024
Family structure	.029		.045	.013		.043	.079	**	.035	.076	**	.035
Parental involvement	.063	****	.008	.063	****	.007	.076	****	.006	.076	****	.006
Black/African American	.062		.072	.054		.069	.354	****	.057	.350	****	.057
Latino American	.206	***	.080	.182	**	.078	.280	****	.056	.272	****	.055
Asian American	.352	****	.093	.323	****	.091	.405	****	.073	.392	****	.072
Between schools
Urban locale	−.040		.066	−.038		.066	−.049		.037	-048		.037
Size	.001		.001	.001		.001	.001		.001	.001		.001
Diversity	−.002	*	.001	−.002	*	.001	.002	***	.001	.002	***	.001
Poverty	−.002		.002	−.002		.002	.001		.001	.001		.001
Intercept	4.176	****	.025	4.175	****	.025	3.457	****	.015	3.457	****	.015
Random effects	Variance		χ²	Variance		χ²	Variance		χ²	Variance		χ²
Between schools	.197	****	1484.639	.201	****	1537.605	.041	****	856.491	.041	****	859.015
Within schools	2.369			2.297			1.493			1.485

Note: The omitted categories are no student victimization, male students, single parent/guardian family structures, White American students, and non-urban locales.

****

p ≤ .001; ***p ≤ .01; **p ≤ .05; *p ≤ .10.

Table 3.

Regression Coefficients, (Standard Errors) for Victimization and Social Bonds: Involvement and Belief

	Involvement						Belief
	Model 5			Model 6			Model 7			Model 8
Within schools	B		SE	B		SE	B		SE	B		SE
School-based victimization
Violent	—	—	—	.011		.030	—	—	—	−.610	****	.055
Property	—	—	—	.154	****	.026	—	—	—	−.535	****	.046
Bullying	—	—	—	.017		.028	—	—	—	−.507	****	.054
Student characteristics
Educational achievement	.010	****	.002	.011	****	.001	.019	****	.003	.012	****	.003
Female	.140	****	.026	.155	****	.026	.220	****	.048	.088	**	.047
Family socioeconomic status	.229	****	.021	.225	****	.021	−.063	**	.037	−.043		.035
Family structure	.057	**	.033	.062	**	.033	−.028		.058	−.060		.055
Parental involvement	.047	****	.005	.047	****	.005	.042		.010	.042	****	.009
Black/African American	.249	****	.049	.244	****	.049	.273	****	.081	.217	***	.080
Latino American	.078	*	.048	.082	*	.048	.205	**	.089	.143		.087
Asian American	.092	**	.049	.093	**	.048	.373	****	.110	.303	***	.107
Between schools
Urban locale	−.056		.041	−.057		.041	−.154	***	.085	−.151	***	.085
Size	−.001	****	.001	−.002	****	.001	−.001	****	.001	−.001	****	.001
Diversity	−.001	*	.001	−.001	*	.001	−.005	***	.002	−.005	***	.002
Poverty	−.002	**	.001	−.002	**	.001	−.005	**	.002	−.005	**	.002
Intercept	1.477	****	.017	1.477	****	.017	6.251	****	.033	6.249	****	.033
Random effects	Variance		χ²	Variance		χ²	Variance		χ²	Variance		χ²
Between schools	.070	****	1199.727	0.070	****	1208.670	0.349	****	1599.731	.363	****	1727.703
Within schools	1.104			1.098			3.735			3.446

Note: The omitted categories are no student victimization, male students, single-parent/guardian family structures, White American students, and nonurban locales.

****

p ≤ .001; ***p ≤ .01; **p ≤ .05; *p ≤ .10.

Results

According to Table 1, average level of attachment for students in this sample is 4.17 on a 6-point-count index. For the 5-point commitment index, the mean was 3.46. The average level of involvement is 1.48 on a 4-point-count index. Finally, the mean for belief is 6.23 on a 10-point-count index. Looking at student victimization, 29% of the students reported being bullied, 33% of the students reported experiencing a violent victimization, and 43% reported being a victim of a property offense at school.

Victimization and Attachment

Model 1 of Table 2 establishes the baseline model for attachment by controlling for student and school characteristics. Several student characteristics are related to attachment, including educational achievement, gender, family SES, parental involvement, and race and ethnicity. As expected, higher levels of educational achievement are associated with higher levels of attachment. Female students report higher levels of attachment than their male counterparts. The higher family SES, the lower the student’s reported level of attachment. As parental involvement increases, the student’s attachment increases. Latino American and Asian American students report higher levels of attachment than White American students. There is no difference in the level of attachment between Black/African American and White American students. The only school characteristic to have a statistically significant relationship with attachment is school diversity. As the percent of students who are racial or ethnic minorities increases, the student’s level of attachment decreases.

Model 2 of Table 2 introduces the measures of student victimization to explore their relationship with attachment while controlling for student and school characteristics. All three measures of student victimization are statistically significant. As anticipated, students who experience victimization while at school have lower levels of attachment than their peers who have not been victimized at school. Violent victimization is associated with a .36 reduction in attachment (p ≤ .001). Property victimization reduces a student’s attachment to school by .33 (p ≤ .001). Bullying victimization is associated with a .08 reduction is attachment to school (p ≤ .10). For student and school characteristics, the patterns remain the same as established in Model 1, with one exception. Gender is no longer statistically significant, suggesting that the gender difference in attachment seen earlier may be due to the male student’s greater risk of victimization.

Victimization and Commitment

Model 3 of Table 2 establishes the baseline model for commitment by controlling for student and school characteristics. Several student characteristics are related to commitment, including educational achievement, gender, family structure, parental involvement, and race and ethnicity. As educational achievement increases, commitment increases. Female students report higher levels of commitment than their male counterparts. Students from two-parent/guardian households report higher levels of commitment than students from single-parent/guardian households. As parental involvement increases, the student’s commitment increases. Black/African American, Latino American, and Asian American students report higher levels of commitment than White American students. Only school diversity is related to commitment; as the percent of students who are racial or ethnic minorities increases, the student’s level of commitment increases.

Model 4 of Table 2 introduces the measures of student victimization to explore their relationship with commitment, while controlling for student and school characteristics. Both measures of criminal victimization are statistically significant. Being a victim of violence at school reduces a student’s level of commitment by .19 (p ≤.001), and being a victim of property crime reduces commitment by .05 (p ≤.10). At the student level, the effect of educational achievement, gender, family structure, parental involvement, and race and ethnicity on commitment remains the same. At the school level, the impact of school diversity on commitment is unchanged.

Victimization and Involvement

Model 5 of Table 3 establishes the baseline model by controlling for the impact of student and school characteristics on involvement. All of the student characteristics are related to involvement. As educational achievement increases, student involvement increases. Compared to male students, female students report higher levels of involvement. As family SES increases, student involvement increases. Students from two-parent/guardian households report higher levels of involvement than students from single-parent/guardian households. Higher levels of parental involvement are associated with increased student involvement. Black/African American, Latino American, and Asian American students report higher levels of involvement than White American students. Three school characteristics are associated with involvement: school size, school diversity, and school poverty. As the size of the school increases, the level of student involvement decreases. Higher levels of school diversity are associated with lower levels of student involvement. An increase in the school’s poverty level is related to a decrease in student involvement.

Model 6 of Table 3 introduces the measures of student victimization to explore their relationship with involvement, while controlling for student and school characteristics. Only property victimization is statistically significant. Property victimization is associated with a .15 increase in student involvement (p ≤ .001). The relationships between student and school characteristics and student involvement remain unchanged by the addition of student victimization measures.

Victimization and Belief

Model 7 of Table 3 establishes the baseline model for student belief, while controlling for student and school characteristics. Several student characteristics are associated with student belief, including educational achievement, gender, family SES, and race and ethnicity. As educational achievement increases, there is an associated increase in student belief. Female students report higher levels of belief than their male peers. As the family’s SES increases, student’s belief decreases. Black/African American, Latino American, and Asian American students report higher levels of belief than White American students. All four school characteristics are related to student belief. Schools located in urban communities have lower levels of student belief than schools located in nonurban communities. As school size increases, there is a corresponding decrease in student belief. An increase in school diversity is associated with a decrease in student belief. As school poverty increases, the student’s level of belief decreases.

Model 8 of Table 3 introduces the measures of student victimization to explore their relationship with belief, while controlling for student and school characteristics. All three measures of student victimization are statistically significant. Being a victim of violence at school reduces a student’s level of belief by .61 (p ≤ .001), and being a victim of property crime reduces belief by .54 (p ≤ .001). Bullying victimization is associated with a .51 reduction in student belief (p ≤ .001). For student characteristics, the patterns remain the same as established in Model 7, with three exceptions. First, family SES and Latino American are no longer statistically significant. Second, parental involvement becomes statistically significant; as parental involvement increases, student belief increases. The pattern observed for school characteristics are unchanged by the introduction of victimization measures.

Discussion

School-based victimization has been linked to a number of serious and long-lasting negative consequences. Our study adds to victimization research by identifying another negative consequence of school-based victimization—weak social bonds to school. Adolescents who are victimized while at school are more likely to have a weakened social bond to school. School-based victimization is associated with a decrease in the strength of three elements of the social bond: attachment, commitment, and belief. In addition, the different forms of school-based victimization appear to independently influence the strength of adolescents’ social bond to school. Both violent and property victimization at school negatively influenced adolescents’ attachment, commitment, and belief, whereas bullying victimization reduced the strength of the adolescent’s attachment and belief but not commitment.

The association between school-based victimization and a weakened social bond is important because it suggests a causal mechanism through which victimization contributes to many of the negative consequences associated with it. Research indicates that victimized adolescents are more likely to experience unsuccessful or incomplete social bonding to school and that the unsuccessful or incomplete social bonding is associated with negative educational outcomes (Catalano et al., 2004; Schwartz et al., 2005). Successful social bonding to school encourages the pursuit of educational goals and academic achievement. The connection to teachers and other school personnel represented by attachment will motivate adolescents to pursue educational goals because the adolescents are reluctant to disappoint these adults and the adolescents have a connection to an adult who they can reach out to if they need assistance (Hirschi, 1969; Ripiski & Gregory, 2009; Wilson, 2004). Belief or the internalization of society norms and values as their own norms and values will encourage adolescents to pursue conventional goals such as high school graduation and college attendance and improve educational outcomes as a means to achieve these goals. Finally, commitment to school requires the adolescent to make an investment in terms of time and effort to pursue educational goals. Therefore, the weakening of the social bond to school makes educational failure and other associated negative consequences more likely to occur.

By weakening the adolescent’s social bond, school-based victimization is freeing the adolescent from societal constraints and allowing the adolescent to engage in deviance and criminal behavior. Although the link between victimization and criminal behavior is well established (Chen, 2009; Cuevas et al., 2007; Jennings et al., 2010; Lauritsen et al., 1992; Lauritsen et al., 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990), the causal mechanism has not been determined. A few researchers have argued that it is plausible that victimization occurs first (Chen, 2009; Cuevas et al., 2007). If victimization occurs prior to criminal offending, our research suggests that school-based victimization is increasing the risk of criminal behavior by weakening the adolescent’s social bond to an institution crucial for socialization, the school.

It is imperative that schools consider how to strengthen the social bond between the school and the victimized adolescent to ameliorate the negative consequences associated with school-based victimization. The first step is to reduce school-based victimizations, which hinder the development of a healthy social bond between the adolescent and the school. Research suggests traditional security measures are ineffective so schools need to explore alternative strategies to reduce victimization on campus (Schreck et al., 2002). Next, schools must provide services to adolescents who have experienced a school-based victimization and initiate programs to help the adolescents repair their social bond with the school. Finally, teachers need to be more vigilant in identifying and responding to school-based victimization, particularly bullying victimization, since students consistently report they believe teachers are aware of victimization but do not intervene to end it (Unnever & Cornell, 2003). This perception that teachers are aware of the victimization but do nothing about it undermines the adolescent’s attachment to the teachers and, therefore, is detrimental to the social bond.

The exception to this pattern is involvement, where a positive association exists between school-based victimization and level of involvement. This finding is not surprising since previous research had established this positive association between victimization and involvement (Peguero, Popp, & Koo, 2011; Popp & Peguero, 2011; Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009). Peguero and colleagues have argued that involvement in extracurricular activities leaves adolescents vulnerable to victimization by influencing their exposure and proximity to motivated offenders and the level of guardianship available (Peguero, 2009; Popp, & Koo, 2011; Popp & Peguero, 2011). Adolescents who are involved in extracurricular activities spend more time unsupervised with their peers, thereby increasing their exposure and proximity to motivated offenders and their risk of victimization. In addition, adolescents’ involvement in extracurricular activities reduces the level of guardianship provided by the school by allowing adolescents on campus during off hours.

The association between victimization and involvement highlights one of the limitations of our research. Since many of our study variables were only collected during the first wave of the ELS (2002), our analysis is constrained to be cross-sectional. Ideally, in order to establish causal ordering of variables and to test competing theoretical explanations for the association between school-based victimization and the adolescent’s social bond, longitudinal data are necessary. In addition, the ELS data do not include direct measures of Hirschi’s concept of belief. Instead, belief was measured indirectly through the adolescent’s perception of the school rule environment as fair and strictly enforced. Although this measure of belief is less than ideal, it has been employed in other research utilizing Hirschi’s social control theory, including Jenkins (1997) and Peguero et al. (2011).

Future research should consider whether gender, and race and ethnicity moderate the relationship between school-based victimization and the strength of adolescent’s social bond. Recent research suggests that race and ethnicity moderate the relationship between the student’s social bond and his or her misbehavior (Peguero et al., 2011). The social bond to school did not provide the same level of protection against misbehavior for racial and ethnicity minority students as it did for White Americans. Furthermore, Jenkins (1997) found that an adolescent’s being a racial and/or ethnic minority adolescent had no direct effect on school misbehavior but had an indirect effect through the his or her social bond, specifically, attachment, commitment, and belief. Therefore, it seems plausible that race and ethnicity moderate how school-based victimization influences the strength of the adolescent’s social bond.

Conclusion

Understanding the consequences of school-based victimization is important because victimization impedes the adolescent’s abilities to fulfill his or her potential and to live successful and well-adjusted lives. By identifying the mechanisms through which victimization produces its detrimental effects on the adolescent’s educational careers and adult life, society can begin to consider strategies and programs to ameliorate the effects of school-based victimization. Our research suggests that victimization weakens the adolescent’s social bond to school. The social bond with school is critical in shaping educational outcomes and in preventing criminal behavior. By damaging the adolescent’s social bond with such a critical social institution, school-based victimization undermines the adolescent’s educational experience and sets the adolescent on a downward path.

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

Bios

Ann Marie Popp is an assistant professor of sociology at Duquesne University. Her research interests focus on the causes and consequences of youth victimization; the importance of race, ethnicity, and gender within criminological theory; and investigating the consequences of research design for victimization research. She is a member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network, which holds the dual goals of advancing research on the intersection of race, crime, and justice and of promoting racial democracy within the study of these issues by supporting junior scholars from underrepresented groups.

Anthony A. Peguero is an assistant professor of sociology and research affiliate of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention at Virginia Tech. His research interests involve youth violence, race and ethnicity, youth socialization and marginalization, and the adaptation of the children immigrants. He is also a member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network, which holds the dual goals of advancing research on the intersection of race, crime, and justice and of promoting racial democracy within the study of these issues by supporting junior scholars from underrepresented groups.

References

Agnew

(1993). Why do they do it? An examination of the intervening mechanisms between social control variables and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 245-266.

Catalano

R. F.

Haggerty

K. P.

Oesterie

Fleming

C. B.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2004). The importance of bonding to schools for healthy development: Findings from the social development research group. The Journal of School Health, 74, 252-262.

Chen

(2009). The link between juvenile offending and victimization: The influence of risky lifestyles, social bonding, and individual characteristics. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 119-135.

Cuevas

C. A.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Ormrod

R. K.

(2007). Juvenile delinquency and victimization: A theoretical typology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1581-1602.

Cunningham

N. J.

(2007). Level of bonding to school and perception of the school environment by bullies, victims, and bully victims. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 457-478.

Finkelhor

(2008). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime and abuse in the lives of young people. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Finkelhor

Hashima

(2001). The victimization of children & youth: A comprehensive overview. In White

S. O.

(Ed.), Law and social science perspectives on youth and justice (pp. 49-78). New York, NY: Plenum.

Gottfredson

D. C.

Gottfredson

G. D.

(2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3-39.

Gottfredson

G. D.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(1985). Victimization in schools. New York, NY: Plenum.

10.

Hagan

Foster

(2001). Youth violence and the end of adolescence. American Sociological Review, 66, 874-899.

11.

Haynie

D. L.

Nansel

Eitel

Crump

A. D.

Saylor

Simmons-Morton

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

12.

Hazler

R. J.

(2000). When victims turn aggressors: Factors in the development of deadly school violence. Professional School Counseling, 4, 105-112.

13.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

14.

Hoglund

W. G.

(2007). School functioning in early adolescence: Gender-linked responses to peer victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 683-699.

15.

Jenkins

P. H.

(1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 337-367.

16.

Jennings

W. G.

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

Gover

A. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). A longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2147-2174.

17.

Jensen

G. F.

Brownfield

(1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity. Violence and Victims, 1, 85-99.

18.

Kingery

P. M.

Pruitt

B. E.

Heuberger

(1996). A profile of rural Texas adolescents who carry handguns to school. Journal of School Health, 66, 18-22.

19.

Kochenderfer

B. J.

Ladd

G. W.

(1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment. Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.

20.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7, 91-108.

21.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265-292.

22.

Macmillan

(2001). Violence and the life course: Consequences of victimization for personal and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1-22.

23.

Macmillan

Hagan

(2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood: Adolescent victimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in later life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 127-158.

24.

Muschert

G. W.

Peguero

A. A.

(2010). The Columbine effect and school anti-violence policy. Research in Social Problems & Public Policy, 17, 117-148.

25.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Educational longitudinal study: 2002 base year data file user’s manual. Washington, DC: Author.

26.

Olweus

(1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In Pepler

D. J.

Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411-438). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Olweus

(1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In Rubin

K. H.

Asendorpf

J. B.

(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Osgood

D. W.

Wilson

J. K.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

Johnston

L. D.

(1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635-655.

29.

Payne

A. A.

(2008). A multilevel model of the relationships among communal school disorder, student bonding, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 429-455.

30.

Peguero

A. A.

(2009). Opportunity, involvement, and student exposure to school violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 299-312.

31.

Peguero

A. A.

Popp

A. M.

Koo

D. J.

(2011). Race, ethnicity, and school-based adolescent victimization. Crime and Delinquency.

32.

Peguero

A. A.

Popp

A. M.

Latimore

T. L.

Shekarkhar

Koo

D. J.

(2011). Social control and school misbehavior: Examining the role of race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 259-275.

33.

Popp

A. M.

Peguero

A. A.

(2011). Routine activities and victimization at school: The significance of gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2413-2436.

34.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Congdon

(2004). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling (Ver. 6). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

35.

Ripiski

M. B.

Gregory

(2009). Unfair, unsafe, and unwelcome: Do high school students’ perceptions of unfairness, hostility, and victimization in school predict engagement and achievement? Journal of School Violence, 8, 355-375.

36.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 110-139.

37.

Schreck

C. J.

Wright

Miller

J. M.

(2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159-180.

38.

Schwartz

Gorman

A. H.

(2003). Community violence exposure and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 163-173.

39.

Schwartz

Gorman

A. H.

Nakamoto

Toblin

R. L.

(2005). Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425-435.

40.

Spivak

Prothrow-Stith

(2001). The need to address bullying-an important component of violence prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2131-2132.

41.

Stewart

(2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575-613.

42.

Unnever

Cornell

D. G.

(2003). Culture of bullying in middle school. Journal of School Violence, 2, 5-27.

43.

Welsh

W. N.

Greene

J. R.

Jenkins

P. H.

(1999). School disorder: The influence of individual, institutional, and community factors. Criminology, 37, 601-643.

44.

Wilcox

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

(2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 245-269.

45.

Wilson

(2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships with aggression and victimization. Journal of School Health, 74, 293-299.