Interparental Conflict,Parenting Behavior,and Children’s Friendship Quality as Correlates of Peer Aggression and Peer Victimization Among Aggressor/Victim Subgroups in South Korea

Abstract

The focus of this study was to examine whether interparental conflict, maternal parenting behaviors, and children’s friendship quality varied as a function of peer aggression/victim subgroups among a sample of 227 elementary school children and their mothers in South Korea. Both self-report and peer-report data indicated that the majority of the students were uninvolved in peer aggression situations, and the number of participants in the subgroups (aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims) varied depending on the source of report. According to the self-report data, victims and aggressor-victims reported a higher level of maternal rejection than uninvolved youth. Aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims reported higher maternal neglect than uninvolved youth. The highest level of interparental conflict was reported by victims, followed by aggressors. Interestingly, no significant differences were found in positive functioning of friendship quality among the subgroups, although results indicated a significant difference among groups in negative friendship quality.

Keywords

aggression children friendship interparental conflict parenting behavior

Introduction

Bullying perpetration and victimization among children and adolescents are pervasive social problems in many countries (Hong & Espelage, 2012). In South Korea, “bullying” was a focus of research studies in the mid-1990s when several students committed suicide due to persistent victimization by classmates and peers in school (Kwon, 1999). Although “bullying” is a ubiquitous problem, the word is derived from the English language, which may not fully capture the nature of “bullying” in South Korea. Rather, “peer aggression” (jipdan goerop’him; literally “group aggression/harassment”) and “peer victimization” appear to better capture the meaning of the concept in South Korea. Peer aggressors are characterized as those who engage in deliberate acts of aggression perpetrated repeatedly against someone who cannot easily defend themselves (Koo, Kwak, & Smith, 2008). Likewise, peer victims are characterized as an individual or a group of individuals who are victimized (either physically or verbally) or socially excluded by classmates and peers (Hong & Eamon, 2009). Although the definition appears to be semantically congruent with school bullying in Western societies, there are notable differences. In contrast to bully victims in Western societies (e.g., the United States), which may involve an older student harming a younger child, peer aggressors and victims in South Korea normally involve a group of youth targeting a particular youth (jipdan ttadol’lim) who is typically labeled as wang-tta (a pejorative term that is ascribed to peer victims). In addition, Koo et al.’s (2008) review found that the majority of peer aggressors in South Korea come from the same classroom as the victims, which is dissimilar to Western societies, where a sizable proportion of school bullies come from higher grades.

Researchers in South Korea have focused primarily on perpetrators and/or victims. However, considering the importance of understanding peer aggressor/victim subgroups, recent research has also examined the frequency of perpetrator/victim, uninvolved, and bystander (i.e., children who witnessed peer aggression) subgroups (B. Park, 2002; Seo & Kim, 2004). Studies focused on the prevalence of these subgroups have yielded inconsistent results. According to Seo and Kim (2004), 52.1% of the sample in their study identified themselves as uninvolved, 18.3% as aggressor-victims, 15.2% as victims, and 14.4% as perpetrators. B. Park (2002), on the other hand, found that uninvolved comprised 75.0% of the sample, while 9.9% were perpetrators, 9.3% were victims, and 5.8% were aggressor-victims. Interestingly, researchers focusing on middle school students (H. H. Lee & Kim, 2000; C. J. Lee & Kwak, 2000) reported that the majority of the students were identified as uninvolved, followed by aggressors, aggressor-victims, and victims.

Studies found considerable support for the association between children’s exposure to interparental conflict/violence and peer aggression in school (Baldry, 2003; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; Espelage, Low, Rao, Hong, & Little, 2013). Interparental conflict/violence is a salient risk factor for children identified as aggressors (S. I. Kim, 2005; J. O. Kim & Park, 2002), aggressor-victims (Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; B. Park, Han, Choi, & Doh, 2004), and victims (Hwang, 2000; Shim, 2000). Witnessing interparental conflict/violence can be damaging to children’s development and personal ability (Erel & Kissil, 2003), which is a significant predictor for social maladjustment (Jouriles et al., 1991).

A number of research findings reported higher rates of interparental conflict and violence among parents of peer-victimized children than those in the uninvolved group (Hwang, 2000; Shim, 2000). For instance, Hwang’s (2000) findings indicated that parents of children identified as victims used physical violence and nonphysical aggression (e.g., yelling) in marital conflict situations more frequently than parents of children in aggressor, aggressor-victim, and uninvolved subgroups. Several researchers in South Korea (e.g., M. J. Kim, 2001; S. M. Kim, 2005) and in other countries have also reported a significant association between negative parenting behavior and children’s aggression (Baldry, 2003; Espelage et al., 2012). Researchers consistently report that physical punishment and restrictive parenting behaviors are significant correlates of aggressive behaviors. Whether a child’s exposure to interparental conflict/violence at home leads to increased levels of aggressive behavior may depend on the characteristics of the parents, as well as parenting behaviors. For instance, Baldry (2003) reported from a sample of 1,059 Italian elementary and middle school students that girls who witnessed father’s violence against their mother and those exposed to mother’s violence against their father were among the most likely to aggress compared with girls who had not been exposed to any types of interparental violence. Research in South Korea found support for this finding. In South Korea, parenting practices that have been characterized as neglectful or harsh (S. Y. Park & Ko, 2004), psychologically controlling (M. J. Kim & Doh, 2001), or overly permissive (Youn, Kang, & Lee, 2005), and negative parenting behaviors, such as physically punitive, neglectful, overly permissive/uninvolved, and rejecting attitudes are significantly correlated with young children’s aggressive behaviors and peer victimization (Ahn & Lee, 2002; Y. S. Lee & Lee, 2004). Parents of victimized children are characterized as lacking affection (Jeon, 2000) and support (H. H. Lee & Kim, 2000), having little or no communications with their child (Choi & Doh, 2001), and displaying rejecting/restrictive and permissive/neglectful parenting behaviors (Ro & Sim, 2004). Moreover, neglected children are reportedly at significant risk of peer victimization (S. M. Kim, 2005).

In summary, there are a number of studies on parental characteristics associated with peer aggression and peer victimization. These studies portray a pattern of negative parenting practices and interactions that are associated with high levels of aggression or victimization. However, it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of parental characteristics specific to each aggressor/victim subgroup (victims, aggressors, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved) based on the extant literature. Studies are often limited to one or two subgroups of peer aggression and do not include all the subgroups of the aggressor-victim continuum, further limiting our ability to discern family influences on the subgroups.

Friendship quality has long been implicated in influencing children’s social behaviors at school (Hartup, 1983). As explained by the homophily hypothesis, aggressive children befriend peers who possess similar characteristics that reflect independence (e.g., delinquency, antisocial behavior; Kandel, 1978). Aggressive children are also more likely to befriend individuals who exhibit aggressive attitudes and behaviors (Espelage, Green, & Polanin, 2012; Espelage, Green, & Wasserman, 2007; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003). They are less attracted to those who possess characteristics, such as compliance and obedience (Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000). Unlike Western societies, which emphasize the value of individualism and self-determination, South Korean children are taught about the importance of maintaining group harmony and avoiding interpersonal conflicts in the home and in school (Rubin et al., 2006; Schwartz, Farver, Chang, & Lee-Shin, 2002). Group harmony and interpersonal relationships, however, can be undermined in cases where children engage in aggressive and socially maladjusted behaviors. South Korean researchers consistently report that compared with children in the general population, children identified as aggressive are less trustful of their friends and are less satisfied with the quality of their friendships (C. J. Lee & Kwak, 2000; Rhee & Koh, 2004). Interestingly, these studies also found that the quality of friendships of aggressive youth is similar to those identified as aggressor-victims. Peer-victimized children may lack social skills to establish positive friendships. For aggressor-victims, these children may be victimized by their friends and peers, and may retaliate when faced with aggressive situations. There is also substantial evidence that the quality of friendships is low for children in the aggressor/victim subgroups, given these children are frequently rejected by children in the uninvolved or bystander subgroups (Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).

Present Study

To address the research gaps, this study examines parental and peer-level correlates of four subgroups of children across the aggressor-victim continuum (aggressors, victims, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved) in a sample of sixth graders in South Korea. Specifically, for family-level correlates, we focus on interparental conflict and maternal parenting behaviors (affection/acceptance, rejection, neglect, and overprotection). Although a pattern of negative parenting is associated with aggression and victimization as summarized earlier, it is not clear whether there are parenting characteristics specific to each aggressor/victim subgroup.

We also investigated the frequency and interparental conflict, maternal parenting behaviors, and children’s friendship quality among aggressor/victim subgroups. More specifically, we investigated whether these correlates varied as a function of aggressor/victim peer groups. We hypothesized that maternal rejection, maternal neglect, and interparental conflict would be higher among aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims than for uninvolved youth. We also hypothesized that positive friendship quality would be higher among uninvolved youth than for aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims, whereas negative friendship quality would be higher among aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims than among uninvolved youth.

Method

Participants

A total of 227 sixth-grade students (121 boys and 106 girls) from three elementary schools in Gyeonggi Province were recruited for this study. In South Korea, elementary schools consist of students in first through sixth grade. Because universities and research organizations in South Korea do not formally have Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements in the field of social science, formal IRB procedures were not taken. However, we made all efforts to ensure that our study met all required ethical standards of IRB in the United States, such as informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and no more than minimal risk. The survey used in this study also stipulates that participation was strictly voluntary and confidentiality would be ensured. Participants were told that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Students completed a survey questionnaire on their experiences with peer aggression/peer victimization, interparental conflicts and parenting behavior, and the quality of their friendships. Peer aggression/peer victimization was based on self-report and peer-report assessments, interparental conflicts, and parenting behavior, and quality of friendships were based on self-reports.

Measures

Peer aggression/peer victimization

Peer aggression and victimization was assessed with items used in Crick and Werner’s (1998) study, which were translated into Korean by the first author and back translated into English by a bilingual research assistant to ensure that specific terms in the translated measurement have culturally equivalent meanings (Brislin, 1970). The original scale consists of direct aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior subscales. For this study, five items from the direct aggression (e.g., “hit or punch other kids,” “call other kids names”) subscale and five items from the relational aggression (e.g., “spread rumors or say something bad about someone so that others wouldn’t like him/her”) subscales were used. Variables for both direct and relational aggression are closely related, as indicated in several studies (Camodeca, Goossens, Terwogt, & Schuengel, 2002; Nelson, Hart, Yang, Olsen, & Jin, 2006; B. Park, 2002); thus, they were combined and analyzed as one factor for this study. Items were based on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 4 = always), and the Cronbach’s α was .84.

For peer-report, students were given a copy of a class roster and were asked to nominate three classmates who were aggressors (i.e., picks on or excludes other kids). They then completed the 10 items on direct and relational items for each of the three nominated students. Children were asked not to include their names on the questionnaire. Items on aggressive behaviors from both self-report and peer-report were modestly correlated (r = .28, p < .01). This modest correlation is likely due to the limited nomination procedure, which yielded a zero-inflated distribution. This distribution would be more normally distributed if students evaluated all their peers on the perpetration items.

Items on peer victimization were derived from the Social Experience Questionnaire Peer-Report (SEQ-P) by Crick and Bigbee (1998), which was translated into Korean. SEQ-P includes three subscales—direct victimization, relational victimization, and prosocial behaviors. For this study, four items from the direct victimization subscale and five items from the relational victimization subscale were used. The direct victimization subscale consisted of items, such as “other kids hit me” and “other kids make fun of me.” The relational victimization subscale included items, such as “other kids are mad at me and reject me as a group” and “other kids talk about me behind my back.” Both direct and relational victimization were combined and analyzed as one factor. Items on the self-report were based on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 4 = always), and the Cronbach’s α was .89.

For peer-report, students received a copy of a class roster and then were asked to nominate three classmates who are wang-tta, or victims of peer aggression (i.e., X is picked on physically or is socially excluded by other kids). For each nominated student, they then completed the 10 victimization items. Items on victimization from both self-reports and peer-reports were also significantly correlated (r = .42, p < .01). This modest correlation is likely due to the limited number of peers that students can nominate; thus, students are likely nominating students who are the most publicly victimized.

For each child, aggression perpetration score was calculated from the total number of the nominations received for the perpetration items, and a victimization score was calculated from the sum of the victimization items. Scores were then standardized within each classroom (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997). Students whose score on the self-report peer aggression scale was at least .8 and less than .8 on the peer victimization scale were considered aggressors. Victims were students whose peer victimization score was at least .8 and whose peer aggression score was less than .8. Aggressor-victims were students whose peer aggression and peer victimization scores were at least .8 (i.e., students who were well above the mean on the numbers of peer nominations received for both peer aggression and peer victimization). Uninvolved youth were students whose peer aggression and peer victimization scores were each less than .8. Similar classification systems have been used by several researchers (Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1994; Schwartz et al., 1997). Similar to Schwartz et al., a somewhat lenient cutoff criterion was used in the current study (i.e., 0.8 SD above/below the mean instead of 1 SD above/below the mean). As a result, the respondents were classified as “aggressors,” “victims,” “aggressor-victims,” or “uninvolved.”

Interparental conflict

Interparental conflict was assessed with items from the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict (CPIC) scale (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992), which were translated into Korean and back translated into English. The participants completed the survey, which contained nine items on frequency (e.g., “My parents frequently argue as a couple”) and intensity (e.g., “My parents break or throw things when they argue”) subscales of the Conflict Properties scale, which were based on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 4 = always). The Cronbach’s α coefficient was .75 for both frequency and intensity.

Parenting behavior

Parenting behavior was assessed with 39 items across four subscales, which were translated into Korean and back translated into English. The four subscales were affectionate/accepting behavior (e.g., “My mother tries to listen to my opinions,” “My mother understands my feelings”), rejecting/restrictive behavior (e.g., “I am not allowed to do many things,” “My mother frequently tells me she doesn’t want to see me”), permissive/neglectful behavior (e.g., “I am frequently left alone,” “My mother doesn’t pay attention to me even if I do something wrong”), and overprotective behavior (e.g., “I get help even on things that I can do by myself”). The first three subscales were derived from Y. A. Park (1995), and the final scale overprotective behavior was taken from Doh and Falbo’s (1999) study. Each item was measured on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 4 = always); a higher score indicated greater frequency of the behavior. Cronbach’s α coefficient was .89 for affectionate/accepting behavior (n = 10), .81 for rejecting/restrictive behavior (n = 10), .76 for permissive/neglectful behavior (n = 10), and .79 for overprotective behavior (n = 9).

Friendship quality

Friendship quality was assessed with items from Furman & Buhrmester (1985) Friendship Quality Scale (FQS), which were translated into Korean and back translated into English. A total of 36 items (28 items from positive functioning and 8 items from negative functioning) were used. Students completed the questionnaire in reference to their “best friend.” The positive functioning subscale included items such as “emotional stability,” “trust,” “closeness,” and “sharing happiness,” and the negative functioning subscale included items such as “conflict” and “competitiveness.” For the positive functioning subscale, respondents were asked questions such as “I am happy to be X’s friend” and “X gives me reassurance when I’m sad.” For the negative functioning subscale, questions such as “I always get into argument with X” and “X gets on my nerves” were used. Items were measured on a four-point Likert-type scale. Items 1 to 28 were measured on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = very little, 4 = very much); Items 29 to 36 were measured on a scale of 1 = never, 4 = always. Cronbach’s α coefficient of .96 was calculated for positive functioning and coefficient of .79 for negative functioning.

Procedure

Surveys were administered from March 5 to March 15, 2008, to students in three elementary schools located in the Gyeonggi province. The first author contacted and made visits to the elementary schools to obtain consent by stating the aims and rationale of the study and ensuring participants of the issues of privacy and anonymity. Upon receiving permission from the principals of the schools, parental consent forms were sent out to the parents of each sixth-grade student. Following parental consent, survey questionnaires were administered to the students to check whether the items were linguistically appropriate. Students were administered the survey in the classroom by the first author and research assistants. A total of 227 surveys were collected.

Results

Frequency of Aggressors, Victims, Aggressor-Victims, and Uninvolved

As indicated in Table 1, four distinct subgroups were identified: aggressors, victims, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved. According to self-reports using the above criteria, 19 children (8.4%) were identified as aggressors, 35 (15.4%) were identified as victims, 22 (9.7%) were identified as aggressor-victims, and 151 (66.5%) were identified in the uninvolved youth. However, peer-reports indicated that 23 (10.1%) were aggressors, 12 (5.3%) were victims, 15 (6.6%) were aggressor-victims, and 177 (78%) were uninvolved youth (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Crosstabs for the Differences Between Self-Reports and Peer-Reports (n = 227).

	Peer-Report
	Aggressors	Victims	Aggressor-Victims	Uninvolved	Total
Self-report
Aggressors	5	0	2	12	19 (8.4%)
Victims	2	4	3	26	35 (15.4%)
Aggressor-victims	5	2	4	11	22 (9.7%)
Uninvolved	11	6	6	128	151 (66.5%)
Total	23 (10.1%)	12 (5.3%)	15 (6.6%)	177 (78.0%)	227 (100%)

Differences Between Self-Reports and Peer-Reports

In addition to the frequency of aggressors, victims, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved subgroups, differences between self-report and peer-report are presented in Table 1. As the cross-tabulation results suggest, both self-reports and peer-reports identified different sets of children as aggressors, victims, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved subgroups.

Bivariate Correlations Among the Study Variables

Bivariate correlations of the variables are presented in Table 2. Self-reports and peer-reports of peer aggression and peer victimization are listed first, followed by parenting variables and friendship variables. The intercorrelations indicate that self-report of peer aggression correlated moderately with self-report of peer victimization (r = .49) and two parenting variable measures, such as self-report of maternal rejection (r = .41) and self-report of maternal neglect (r = .40). Self-report of peer victimization also correlated moderately with peer-report of peer victimization (r = .42), as well as several parenting variable measures, such as self-report of parental conflict (r = .31), self-report of maternal rejection (r = .37), and self-report of maternal neglect (r = .38). Peer-reports of aggression also correlated moderately with peer-reports of peer victimization (r = .45). Several other parenting variables also correlated moderately, in the .30 to .50 range, with other parenting variable measures, and positive functioning of friendship quality also correlated moderately with negative functioning of friendship quality (r = .49).

Table 2.

Pearson’s Correlation Matrix of the Study Variables (n = 227).

	Self Agg	Self Vict	Peer Agg	Peer Vict	OProt SR	OProt MR	PConf SR	PConf MR	Aff SR	Aff MR	Reject SR	Reject MR	Neglec SR	Neglec MR	Fr Pos	Fr Neg
Self Agg	—
Self Vict	.49***	—
Peer Agg	.28***	.22**	—
Peer Vict	.06	.42***	.45***	—
OProt SR	.12	.20**	.05	.00	—
OProt MR	−.03	.03	−.03	.02	.04	—
PConf SR	.25***	.31***	.03	.04	.19**	.08	—
PConf MR	.22**	.12	.22**	.16*	.03	.11	.21**	—
Aff SR	−.11	.03	.04	−.06	.33***	.10	−.15*	−.04	—
Aff MR	−.03	−.06	.01	−.14*	.01	.06	−.01	−.15*	.14*	—
Reject SR	.41***	.37***	.06	.06	−.09	−.04	.45***	.16*	−.33***	−.14*	—
Reject MR	.10	.08	.16*	.12	.07	.07	.07	.37***	−.04	−.59***	.23***	—
Neglec SR	.40***	.38***	.14*	.10	.26***	.06	.31***	.07	−.08	−.04	.33***	−.01	—
Neglec MR	.12	.13*	.12	.21**	.04	.24***	−.01	.36***	−.06	−.39***	.06	.47***	.17**	—
Fr Pos	.03	−.11	.20**	−.02	.16*	−.05	−.04	−.10	.24***	.08	−.14*	−.14*	−.05	−.21**	—
Fr Neg	.14*	.04	.21**	−.00	.10	.00	−.00	−.05	.23**	.02	−.04	−.06	.04	−.10	.49***	—

Note. PConf = interparental conflict; Aff = maternal affection/acceptance; Reject = maternal rejection; Neglec = maternal neglect; OProt = maternal overprotection; Fr Pos = positive functioning of friendship quality; Fr Neg = negative functioning of friendship quality; Self Agg = peer aggression (self-report); Self Vict = peer victimization (Self-Report); Peer Agg = peer aggression (Peer-Report); Peer Vict = peer victimization (Peer-Report); SR = self-report; MR = mother-report.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .0001.

Parental Characteristics and Friendship Quality

To examine group differences in mean scores on parental characteristics (interparental conflicts, four maternal parenting behaviors) and friendship quality, we conducted two one-way MANOVAs with subgroups identified by peer-report (Table 3) and self-report (Table 4) of aggression/victimization experiences separately (Table 3). When peer-reports were used for the participants’ group, the full model was not statistically significant: Wilks’s Lambda = .87, F = 1.51, p > .05, η² = .05. When self-reports were used for the group membership, the full model was significant: Wilks’s Lambda = .66, F = 4.616, p < .001, η² = .13. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that the subgroups differed on maternal rejection, F(3, 220) = 14.34, p < .001, η² = .16; maternal neglect, F(3, 220) = 13.05, p < .001, η² = .15; maternal overprotection, F(3, 220) = 2.98, p < .05, η² = .04; interparental conflicts, F(3, 220) = 6.76, p < .001, η² = .08; and negative functioning of friendship quality, F (3, 220) = 3.19, p < .05, η² = .04.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations, and MANOVA for Effects of Group on Maternal Parenting Behaviors, Interparental Conflicts, and Friendship Quality: Peer-Report (n = 227).

	Peer-Report (Wilks’s Lambda = .87, F = 1.51, p > .05. η² = .05)
	Aggressors		Victims		Aggressor-Victims		Uninvolved		Between Subjects
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F (3, 220)	p	η²
PConf	−0.38	0.79	0.25	1.09	0.18	1.27	0.03	0.99	1.52	.21	.02
Aff	0.43	1.21	0.13	0.89	−0.35	1.09	−0.03	0.96	2.14	.09	.03
Reject	0.05	1.17	0.16	1.24	0.18	1.14	−0.05	0.96	0.34	.80	.01
Neglec	−0.05	0.86	0.10	0.99	0.58	1.17	−0.05	0.99	1.92	.13	.03
OProt	−0.12	1.07	0.26	1.16	−0.07	0.75	−0.01	1.00	0.39	.76	.01
Fr Pos	0.38	0.73	−0.33	0.93	0.04	0.92	−0.03	0.84	2.33	.08	.03
Fr Neg	0.19	0.46	−0.40	0.47	0.14	0.52	−0.01	0.66	2.54	.06	.03

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .0001.

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations, and MANOVA for Effects of Group on Maternal Parenting Behaviors, Interparental Conflicts, and Friendship Quality: Self-Report (n = 227).

	Self-Report (Wilks’s Lambda = .66, F = 4.616, p < .001, η² = .13)
	Aggressors		Victims		Aggressor-Victims		Uninvolved		Between Subjects
Measure	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F (3, 220)	p	η²
PConf	0.26	1.49	0.59	0.94	0.19	1.01	−0.19	0.88	6.76	.00***	.08
Aff	−0.28	1.34	0.02	1.01	−0.01	1.00	0.03	0.96	0.54	.65	.01
Reject	0.32	1.23	0.58	0.86	0.73	0.94	−0.28	0.90	14.33	.00***	.16
Neglec	0.46	1.39	0.57	0.90	0.58	1.23	−0.28	0.81	13.05	.00***	.15
OProt	−0.17	1.41	0.30	0.93	0.38	0.99	−0.11	0.93	2.98	.03*	.04
Fr Pos	0.46	0.88	−.16	0.83	0.09	0.73	−0.04	0.85	2.47	.06	.03
Fr Neg	0.28	0.46	0.08	0.66	0.20	0.66	−0.09	0.64	3.19	.02*	.04

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .0001.

Scheffe’s post hoc analysis results indicated significant subgroup differences in maternal rejection, maternal neglect, and interparental conflict. The victim (M = 0.58) and aggressor-victim groups (M = 0.73) did not differ on maternal rejection, but both reported greater maternal rejection than the uninvolved group (M = −0.28). The differences were both significant at p < .001. The aggressor group (M = 0.32) did not differ from the other three groups on maternal rejection. On maternal neglect, the aggressor (M = 0.46), aggressor-victim (M = 0.58), and victim groups (M = 0.57) did not differ, but reported greater neglect than the uninvolved group (M = −0.28). For interparental conflicts, only one significant difference was found between the victim (M = 0.59) and the uninvolved group (M = −0.19), p < .001. The overall subgroup difference in maternal affection was not significant, F(3, 220) = .54, p > .05. Although negative functioning of friendship quality was significant in the overall model, no significant group differences were observed in the post hoc analyses.

Discussion

The present study used both self-reports and peer-reports of peer aggression and peer victimization scores in identification of aggressors, victims, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved in South Korea. Subgroup differences were examined in relation to interparental conflict, parenting behavior, and children’s friendship quality. As our results indicate, the frequency of aggressors, victims, aggressor-victims, and uninvolved youth differed when self-reports versus peer-reports were used. This discrepancy is likely due to the limited number of peers that could be nominated for both perpetrators and victims. That is, students could report only three students as perpetrators and victims, and it is probable that they nominated students who are consistently victimized by their peers or are frequent perpetrators of their peers. In this sample, about 20% were identified as aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims although studies outside South Korea reported higher percentages of peer aggression (39% in Espelage & Holt, 2007, and 35% in Schwartz, 2000). This may reflect a difference not only in distribution of aggression/victim subgroups but also in the measurement of peer aggression/victimization and/or the criteria used to create the subgroups. For example, Schwartz (2000) used a peer nomination based on traits of aggression and victimization, and Espelage and Holt (2007) used the criteria of the top 25 percentile on perpetration and victimization.

When these four subgroups were examined in the domains of parental characteristics, they differed significantly in their perceptions of maternal rejection and neglect. Specifically, the uninvolved group perceived lower maternal rejection and neglect than victims, aggressors, and aggressor-victims. However, no significant differences in maternal parenting behaviors and interparental conflicts were found between these subgroups. It is possible that maternal rejection and neglect are aspects of the underlying dynamic that explains both peer aggression and peer victimization, and that there might be other parenting variables or parental characteristics associated with specific peer aggression status. It is also possible that specific child characteristics interact with these maternal characteristics, accounting for different social behaviors and aggression status. Further investigations are needed to investigate parental influences specific to peer aggression/victimization subtypes and the interaction between parental influences and child characteristics. It is interesting to note that these three subgroups did not differ from the uninvolved group in the level of maternal overprotective and maternal affectionate/accepting behaviors. Previous studies reported that overprotective and highly sensitive parenting (e.g., Georgiou, 2008) and mothers’ overinvolvement (Bowers et al., 1994) were characteristic of the parents of the victims.

Without understanding the nature of parental conflicts, it is difficult to speculate how parental conflicts are linked to the victim group. The highest level of parental conflict for the victim group may reflect negative family context that the victims experience. Because the levels of aggression or violence in parental conflict were not assessed in the current study, specific aspects of parental conflict that may be associated with peer aggressor or aggressor-victim status versus peer victim status are unknown at this point.

Inconsistent with the hypothesis, the subgroups did not differ in positive and negative aspects of friendship quality, similar to Demaray and Malecki’s (2003) findings, which reported no subgroup difference in terms of level of support by close friends. Children, regardless of their aggressor-victim status, experience a certain level of support from close friends.

Although the percentage of aggressors, victims, and aggressor-victims was comparable between self-report and peer-report, it appears that these two reports identified different sets of children for each subgroup. Studies report a low to moderate correlation between peer and self-reports of peer aggression and peer victimization (Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002), supporting a notion that two reports identify different children in the aggressor-victim status. It is also believed that these two methods of assessing peer aggression and peer victimization predict different outcomes: Self-report is associated with internalizing problems whereas peer-report is associated with social adjustment issues. Given this, it would be important to include multi-informant reports of peer aggression and peer victimization as future studies examine other family level or parenting characteristics of aggressor/victim subgroups.

Although this study makes a significant contribution by investigating peer aggression and peer victimization among a South Korean youth sample, this study is not without limitations. One limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the study design, which limits the interpretation of the results, as causation between peer aggression/peer victimization and correlates cannot be established. In addition, despite the use of reports from multiple informants, the self-reports and peer-reports found a different number of children for the victim group. This is not surprising, considering that children have different views, which might not always be in agreement (Elliott, Sheridan, & Gresham, 1989). In addition, peer-report measures of the bully/victim subgroup did not appear to correlate with the self-report measure or with parenting or peer measures. However, it is important to consider multiple informants rather than using self-reports exclusively when examining children’s experiences in peer aggression and peer victimization. It is also important to use other relevant informants, such as teachers, given that teachers can provide valuable information about children with peer problems. To truly show concordance between self- and peer-reports of peer aggression and peer victimization, it would be important for students to report on each of their peers rather than using a peer nomination task. We should also note that despite the significance, as indicated in the chi-square test, this appears to be driven by the large portion of consensus among the “uninvolved” group. Considering this and the lack of differences between the peer-rated subgroups, it seems that any differences found between the self-reported subgroups need to be interpreted with caution. Moreover, interparental conflict and parenting behavior were based on children’s report, which might have introduced unmeasured biases. And finally, replication is needed with more diverse and representative school samples to ascertain whether the findings are generalizable.

These limitations aside, this study is an important step in extending the research that examines the subtypes of peer aggression and peer victimization. Findings reported here that maternal rejection and neglect is higher among children identified as aggressors or victims offer some important areas to explore in subsequent, longitudinal studies. Future studies should explore potential mediators that explain the link between mother/child interactions and peer aggression/victimization, such as attachment, anger, and emotion dysregulation.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Dr. Shin conceived the study, secured the data, and contributed to the writing. Dr. Hong and Dr. Yoon contributed equally to the literature review, data analyses, and writing. Dr. Espelage contributed to our understanding of peer aggression and peer victimization, and contributed to the writing.

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.

Author Biographies

Jung-Hee Shin, PhD, is an adjunct lecturer in the Department of Child Development at Ewha Womans [Women’s] University in Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Jun Sung Hong, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

Jina Yoon, PhD, is an associate professor and the doctoral program director, School Psychology concentration in Educational Psychology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

Dorothy L. Espelage, PhD, is the Edward William Gutgsell & Jane Marr Gutgsell Endowed Professor & Hardie Professor of Education in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.

References

Ahn

J. J.

Lee

K. N.

(2002). The individual and environmental variables that affect victimization by peer harassment among children. Korean Home Management Association, 20, 9-20.

Baldry

A. C.

(2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713-732.

Bowers

Smith

P. K.

Binney

(1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims, and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social Personal Relationship, 11, 215-232.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.

Bukowski

W. M.

Sippola

L. A.

Newcomb

A. F.

(2000). Variations in patterns of attraction to same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36, 147-154.

Camodeca

Goossens

F. A.

Terwogt

M. M.

Schuengel

(2002). Bullying and victimization among school-age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Social Development, 11, 332-345.

Choi

M. K.

Doh

H. S.

(2001). The in-depth interview of victims who has experienced peer victimization. Korean Home Management Association, 19, 31-46.

Cornell

D. G.

Brockenbrough

(2004). Identification of bullies and victims: A comparison of methods. Journal of School Violence, 3, 63-87.

Crick

N. R.

Bigbee

M. A.

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

10.

Crick

N. R.

Werner

N. E.

(1998). Response decision processes in relational and overt aggression. Child Development, 69, 1630-1639.

11.

Demaray

M. K.

Malecki

C. K.

(2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471-489.

12.

Doh

Falbo

(1999). Social competence, maternal attentiveness, and overprotectiveness: Only children in Korea. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 149-162.

13.

Elliott

Sheridan

S. M.

Gresham

F. M.

(1989). Assessing and treating social skills deficits: A case for the scientist-practitioner. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 197-222.

14.

Erel

Kissil

(2003). The linkage between multiple perspectives of the marital relationship and preschoolers’ adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 411-423.

15.

Espelage

D. L.

Bosworth

Simon

T. R.

(2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 326-333.

16.

Espelage

D. L.

Green

H. D.

Polanin

(2012). Willingness to intervene in bullying episodes among middle school students: Individual and peer-group influences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 776-801.

17.

Espelage

D. L.

Green

H. D.

Wasserman

(2007). Statistical analysis of friendship patterns and bullying behaviors among youth. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 61-75.

18.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984-994.

19.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

Henkel

R. R.

(2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220.

20.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

De La Rue

(2012). Relations between peer victimization subtypes, family violence, and psychological outcomes during adolescence. Psychology of Violence, 2, 313-324.

21.

Espelage

D. L.

Low

Rao

M. A.

Hong

J. S.

Little

(2013). Family violence, bullying, fighting, and substance use among adolescents: A longitudinal transactional model. Journal of Research on Adolescence. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/jora.12060.

22.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024.

23.

Georgiou

S. N.

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

24.

Grych

J. H.

Seid

Fincham

F. D.

(1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.

25.

Hartup

W.W.

(1983). Peer relations. In Mussen

P.H.

(Series Ed.) & Hetherington

E.M.

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume IV: Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 103–196). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Hong

J. S.

Eamon

M. K.

(2009). An ecological approach to understanding peer victimization in South Korea. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 611-625.

27.

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

(2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311-322.

28.

Hwang

(2000). Children’s peer aggression, victimization and related variables (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea.

29.

Jeon

J. C.

(2000). The relations among the bullying the elementary school students and parent’s raising attitude and the children’s adaptation to school life (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

30.

Jouriles

E. N.

Murphy

C. M.

Farris

A. M.

Smith

D. A.

Richters

J. E.

Waters

(1991). Marital adjustment, parental disagreements about child rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing the specificity of the marital assessment. Child Development, 62, 1424-1433.

31.

Kandel

D. B.

(1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.

32.

Kim

J. O.

Park

G. G.

(2002). A study of the relation between family violence and adolescents’ violence in the school. Journal of Family Relations, 7, 93-115.

33.

Kim

M. J.

(2001). Relations of parenting behaviors, marital conflict, and sibling relations to aggression in children (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

34.

Kim

M. J.

Doh

H. S.

(2001). The influence of parenting behaviors, marital conflict, and sibling relations on aggression in children. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 22, 149-166.

35.

Kim

S. I.

(2005). Relations of family violence, gender role socialization, and school violence. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 12, 215-241.

36.

Kim

S. M.

(2005). Eomeoni ui yang’yuk haengdong mit nam’nyo adong ui ja’a jon’jung’gam gwa ttorae goerop’im gan ui gwan’gye [The relations between maternal parenting, children’s self-esteem and peer victimization] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

37.

Koo

Kwak

Smith

P. K.

(2008). Victimization in Korean schools: The nature, incidence, and distinctive features of Korean bullying or wang-ta. Journal of School Violence, 7, 119-139.

38.

Kwon

J. M.

(1999). Methodological review of school bullying research. The Journal of Educational Research, 15, 45-56.

39.

Ladd

G. W.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74-96.

40.

Lee

C. J.

Kwak

K. J.

(2000). Self-concept and social support according to bullying types. The Korean Journal of Development Psychology, 13, 65-80.

41.

Lee

H. H.

Kim

H. W.

(2000). Social and psychological variables affecting the behaviors of bullies and victims at school bullying. The Korean Journal of Social and Personal Psychology, 14, 45-64.

42.

Lee

Y. S.

Lee

K. N.

(2004). The individual variables, family and school environmental variables that affect victimization by peer aggression among adolescents. Korean Living Science Association, 13, 659-672.

43.

Nelson

D. A.

Hart

C. H.

Yang

Olsen

J. A.

Jin

(2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression. Child Development, 77, 554-572.

44.

Park

(2002). Children’s personality traits, parent-child relationship, marital conflict, and peer victimization (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

45.

Park

Han

S. Y.

Choi

M. K.

Doh

H. S.

(2004). Children’s personality traits, parent attachment, parents marital conflict, and aggression/victimization status. Journal of the Korean Home Management Association, 22, 45-54.

46.

Park

S. Y.

E. J.

(2004). The effect of day-care, child’s characteristics and maternal behavior on child aggression. Journal of Korean Home Economics Association, 22, 23-36.

47.

Park

Y. A.

(1995). Bumo yang’yuk haengdong mit hyeongje gwan’gye wa adong ui jajon’gam gwa’ui gwan’gye [A relationship between parenting behavior and sibling relations on children’s self-esteem] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

48.

Rhee

Koh

Y. J.

(2004). Children’s friendship and self-perception in relation to peer bullying and victimization. Korean Association of Child Studies, 25, 1-16.

49.

K. S.

Sim

H. O.

(2004). Bullying and victimization with perception of parenting behaviors among elementary school children. Korean Association of Child Studies, 25, 241-257.

50.

Rubin

K. H.

Hemphill

S. A.

Chen

Hastings

Sanson

Coco

A. L.

. . .Cui

(2006). A cross-cultural study of behavioral inhibition in toddlers: East-West-North-South. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 219-226.

51.

Schwartz

(2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192.

52.

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

Coie

J. D.

(1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755-1772.

53.

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

(1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 66, 665-675.

54.

Schwartz

Farver

Chang

Lee-Shin

(2002). Victimization in South Korean children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 113-125.

55.

Seo

M. J.

Kim

K. Y.

(2004). Personality and environmental characteristics of children who are bullies and/or victims. Korean Association of Child Studies, 25, 93-108.

56.

Shim

(2000). The relationships among family factors, psychosocial factors, and bullying types (Unpublished master’s thesis). The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

57.

Youn

J. J.

Kang

S. Y.

Lee

B. J.

(2005). A study for young children’s aggression and relationship of relative factors: Concentrating on young children’s temperament, self-regulation and mother’s parenting efficacy, parenting behaviors. Journal of Korean Living Science Association, 14, 761-771.