Bullying Victimization Among Peruvian Children: The Predictive Role of Parental Maltreatment

Abstract

Bullying among schoolchildren is increasingly being recognized as a major problem. Although previous studies have examined parental maltreatment as a risk factor for bullying, the evidence on this topic remains limited in Latin America. The aim of this study was then to measure the prevalence of bullying victimization among a nationally representative sample of Peruvian children and to test the association between bullying victimization and parental maltreatment in Peru. This study used a pooled data set from the 2013 and 2015 Peru National Surveys on social relations. Participants were Peruvian children aged from 9 years to 11 years in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade of primary in both public and private schools nationwide. The results indicated that almost one third of Peruvian children have experienced physical bullying and nearly half of them psychological bullying. However, only a small percentage reported experiencing bullying very frequently. Furthermore, it was found that parental maltreatment in any form—physical or psychological—was strongly and positively associated with physical and psychological bullying victimization. The results also showed that the probabilities of being physically or psychologically bullied were higher among children who experienced physical or psychological parental maltreatment than among children who have not experienced such violence. The probabilities of being bullied were even higher among children who experienced both types of parental maltreatment. Consistent with previous research, these findings suggest that the relationship that children establish with their parents will largely determine how they interact with their peers.

Keywords

bullying child abuse Peru parental maltreatment

Bullying among schoolchildren is increasingly being recognized as a major problem. Several studies have shown significant associations between being bullied and subsequently internalizing problems such as anxiety, depression, suicidality, and low self-esteem (Lereya, Copeland, Costello, & Wolke, 2015; O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001; Sourander et al., 2007). Furthermore, bullying victimization is reported to have adverse effects on academic achievement (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005; Juvonen, Wang, & Espinoza, 2011; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). The victims may even present worse long-term adverse effects on mental health than those who experience parental maltreatment (Lereya et al., 2015). Although, the negative effects of bullying also affect the children that perpetrate the violence (i.e., bullies), this study will only focus on children who are the target of this systematic violence: the victims.¹

Researchers have defined bullying as a specific type of violence in which the action has a hostile intent, is repeated over time, and involves a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim (UNICEF, 2014). Although school administrators and teachers are often held responsible for the bullying among schoolchildren, research has highlighted the key role is played by the family. A growing body of evidence has consistently found that parental maltreatment increases children’s risk of becoming victims of bullying (Bowes et al., 2009; Dussich & Maekoya, 2007; Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001). Thus, children who were victims of physical or psychological maltreatment by their parents are more likely to become victims (Duncan, 1999). Other negative parenting behaviors, such as maladaptive parenting and overprotection also increase children’s risk of being bullied (Lereya et al., 2013). Moreover, research has identified that parental maltreatment and bullying victimization were associated even after controlling for children’s internalizing and externalizing problems (Bowes et al., 2009).

The literature has proposed some mechanisms to explain this association. In the first place, it is necessary to point out that, as a general principle, individuals who are victims of violence are usually attacked by people who are stronger than them, whether in physical or emotional terms (Collins, 2008). This pattern also applies for bullying. Thus, several studies have found that victims of bullying show higher levels of introversion (Slee & Rigby, 1993) and low self-concept (Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Salmivalli, 1998). The evidence has also shown that those who are bullied are more prone to show withdrawn-submissive behaviors (Schwartz, 2000). Similarly, the study conducted by Nansel et al. (2001) found that the victims demonstrated poorer social and emotional adjustment, greater loneliness, and poorer relationships with classmates. By contrast, having friends and being liked by peers were found to be protective factors against victimization (Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999). Evans and Eder (1993) argued that children who are isolated will become the main victims of aggression and rejection by their peers who will seek to distinguish themselves from the victims. In sum, the lack of social skills and self-confidence increase the vulnerability of children to being bullied.

Considering the above, research has suggested that the violence experienced at home increases children’s risk of becoming victims of bullying because of its social and emotional consequences. Several studies have demonstrated that parental maltreatment has a negative impact on protective variables against bullying victimization, such as self-esteem and social skills (Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). For example, maltreated children are more likely than nonmaltreated children to be rejected by peers and to present a more withdrawn behavior (Anthonysamy & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998). Some studies have even suggested depression as a mediator in the relationship between power assertive parenting and bullying victimization (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001; Yabko, Hokoda, & Ulloa, 2008). Many theories have argued that the relationships that children establish and experience within their homes have a decisive impact on their confidence and on the social skills needed to interact successfully with their peers (Duncan, 2004; Ladd, 1992).

Although an extensive body of research has examined parental maltreatment as a risk factor for bullying, most of the available evidence comes from studies conducted in North America and Europe (see Lereya et al. [2013] for a systematic review on parenting behavior and bullying victimization). Although some studies conducted in Latin America have explored the relationship between bullying and harsh parenting (Chaux, Molano, & Podlesky, 2009; Zottis, Salum, Manfro, Isolan, & Heldt, 2013), the evidence on this topic remains limited in the region. The situation in Peru is of particular concern. The evidence shows that Peruvian children experience high levels of violence both at home (Bardales & Huallpa, 2005; Benavides & León, 2013) and in schools (Fry et al., 2016; Oliveros et al., 2008). This can be happening in Peruvian schools, because it has been found that teachers not only ignore students’ violent behavior (e.g., ridicule, use of nicknames, among others), but they also celebrate them (Callirgos, 1995).

In addition, the available data report that Peru presents one of the highest rates of bullying victimization among young people in the region (Soto & Trucco, 2015). However, the association between the violence that children experience in these two settings has not yet been examined in Peru. Moreover, no study has measured the prevalence of bullying victimization among Peruvian children using a nationally representative sample.² Research conducted at the local level have had problems measuring bullying. The main problem is that the information available in the data set used by those studies did not have information on the recurrence of bullying-related violence. Therefore, bullying was measured only considering the types of violent situations that the child has experienced (DEVIDA, 2013; Oliveros et al., 2009; Romaní & Gutiérrez, 2010). Even a recent study by Fry et al. (2016), for example, has also measured school violence in Peru without considering the recurrence of violence.

The high levels of violence experienced by children in Peru point to the need for additional research on the subject. Therefore, this study measures the prevalence of bullying victimization using a nationally representative sample of Peruvian children; and, it tests the association between bullying victimization and parental maltreatment in Peru. The hypothesis that guided the analysis was that children who had experienced parental maltreatment would be more likely to report being bullied. The study findings, therefore, fill the existing gap on the associated factors on bullying victimization for Latin American countries.

Method

Participants

This study used a pooled data set from the 2013 and 2015 Peru National Surveys on Social Relations (ENARES, its acronym in Spanish), which was conducted by the Peruvian National Institute for Statistics and Information (INEI, its acronym in Spanish).³ The purpose of the survey was to provide data on three main topics: (a) violence against women, (b) attitudes toward violence against women and against children and adolescents, and (c) violence against children and adolescents both within households and schools. For this study, we used the nationally representative sample of children aged from 9 years to 11 years (M = 10.19; SD = 0.77) in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade of primary in both public and private schools nationwide. As part of the ENARES, children were asked to report general information regarding their background (their age, the district in where they live, who they live with, if their parents work, the language their family mainly use, among others), and the violence they have experienced both within their households and schools.

The ENARES used a multistage stratified clustered sampling design. In the first stage, the schools were selected. In the second sampling stage, the grade class sections were selected, and finally, in the third and last stage, schoolchildren were selected. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in the schools. A total of 3,187 children were interviewed (1,586 in 2013 and 1,601 in 2015). However, only those who had complete information on all the variables of interest were considered for this study (n = 2,971). The characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Sample (Percentages).

	Sample
	Total	Analytical
	(n = 3,187)	(n = 2,971)
Sex
Male	49.83%	49.88%
Female	50.17%	50.12%
School location
Rural	33.27%	32.65%
Urban	66.73%	67.35%
Family’s language
Spanish	86.49%	86.67%
Indigenous	13.51%	13.33%
Grade
Fourth	36.18%	35.95%
Fifth	35.99%	35.88%
Sixth	27.83%	28.17%
Type of school
Private	16.88%	16.22%
Public	83.12%	83.78%
Physical parental maltreatment
Nonmaltreated	48.01%	47.73%
Maltreated	51.99%	52.27%
Psychological parental maltreatment
Nonmaltreated	56.92%	56.78%
Maltreated	43.08%	43.22%
Total	100%	93.22%

The children verbally gave their consent to be interviewed. They were informed that the information they would provide would be treated confidentially. Likewise, they were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could choose not to answer any question if they so wished. All the interviewers were women and were properly trained. Interviews were conducted within the school in environments that provided the necessary privacy conditions, that is, spaces in which other people could not observe or listen to the interview. It should be noted that the information used was collected before the use of corporal punishment against children was legally prohibited in Peru.⁴

In addition, to have information on school characteristics, the ENARES data were linked to the National School Census of 2013 and 2015, an administrative data set gathered by the National Statistical Office of the Ministry of Education in Peru (MINEDU, its acronym in Spanish). This census collects data provided by the school principal of each educational institution and contains information of public and private educational institutions for all levels and types of educational institutions—except higher education—throughout the country. The census aims to provide information on topics, such as school enrollment, school resources, educational infrastructure, school outcomes, among others.

Measures

Bullying victimization

Children were asked a series of questions to assess if they have ever experienced violence at school. These questions were preceded with the following words:

For some of us, when we were kids our classmates or kids from our school sometimes or quite often hit us or insulted us making us feel bad. So, let’s talk about how you get along with your peers. Remember everything we talk here is going to be kept a secret, not even the people you live with, nor your friends or teachers will find out.

The questions asked included different events to assess whether schoolmates had ever attacked the child physically or psychologically. Children answered independently to each of these questions with a “yes” or “no.”

If the children reported having experienced any of these violent events during the past 12 months, the frequency of occurrence of these events was then asked. The possible answers were (a) “rarely,” (b) “sometimes,” and (c) “always/almost always.” Bullying was then created as an ordinal variable taking the value of 1 if the child never experienced any of the events, 2 if the child reported experiencing these events “rarely” or “sometimes,” and 3 if the child reported experiencing these events “always/almost always.” This scale intended to capture the recurrence of acts of violence against children. Physical and psychological bullying were analyzed separately. There were no missing problems for this variable as only three missings were registered.

Parental maltreatment

Several questions were asked to assess the presence or absence of parental maltreatment as reported by the child. These questions were preceded with the following words:

For some of us, when we were kids our parents or other persons who take care of us hit us or tell us things that made us feel bad. So, let’s talk about how you get along with the people you live with at home (shelter). Remember everything we talk here is going to be kept a secret, not even the people you live with, nor your friends or teachers will find out. If at any time during your interview you do not wish to answer any questions or do not wish to continue answering you are at liberty to do so.

The questions asked included different events to assess whether parents had ever attacked the child physically or psychologically.

If the children reported having experienced any act of violence by either their father, mother, stepfather, or stepmother, the variable of parental maltreatment by the parent was coded with 1, and with a 0 otherwise. Physical and psychological maltreatment were analyzed separately.

The control variables used in the present study were divided into three groups: (a) individual characteristics, (b) academic characteristics, and (c) school characteristics. The individual characteristics used in the analysis were age, sex, family’s language, family structure, and number of siblings. Family’s language was based on a question that asked children for the language usually spoken by the people with whom they live. This variable was dichotomous and was coded as 1 if the child’s response was Quechua, Aymara, or other native language, and 0 if the response was Spanish. Family structure indicated the composition of the children’s family and was divided into three groups: “nuclear family,” if both parents live with the child (reference group), “single-parent family,” if only one parent lives with the child, and “no-parent,” if none of the parents live in the house. The academic characteristics used in the analysis were the grade in which the child was currently in, whether the child failed a course in the previous year, whether the child has ever repeated a grade or has ever been expelled from school. These variables are proxys of school achievement. Due to the significant association between school achievement and bullying (Hammig & Jozkowski, 2013; Strøm, Thoresen, Wentzel-Larsen, & Dyb, 2013) we decided to use them as control for the multivariate analysis. Finally, the school characteristics used in the analysis were type of school, students per teacher, certified-teacher/student ratio, proportion of primary students who drop out, school’s infrastructure,⁵ school location, and proportion of school’s indigenous population. These last set of variables were constructed with information from the National School Census.

Statistical Analysis

The aim of this study was to estimate the association between parental maltreatment and bullying victimization in Peru. However, our dependent variables were categorical variables where each value indicated the frequency of the violence episodes in school. Therefore, to consider the ordinal nature of our dependent variables, we used an ordered logistic regression model, which assumes that our dependent variables have a natural ordering. Thus, this model assumes that we have a latent variable (y*) that is associated with a set of predictors (X_k):

y^{*} = β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i}

Thus, our latent variable y* is the frequency of bullying (physical or psychological) suffered by the students, but we do observe that y is an ordinal variable with three possible results: 0 = not bullied, 1 = occasionally bullied, and 2 = frequently bullied. Then, y takes each of aforementioned discrete values according the following rule:

\begin{array}{l} y = 0 if y * \leq α_{1} = β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i} \leq α_{1} \\ y = 1 if α_{1} < y * \leq α_{2} = α_{1} < β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i} \leq α_{2} \\ y = 2 i f α_{2} < y * = α_{2} < β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i} \end{array}

Thus, the predicted probability in each category was as follows:

\begin{array}{l} P (y = 0 | X) = P (y * \leq α_{1}) = P (β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i} \leq α_{1}) \\ P (y = 1 | X) = P (α_{1} < y * \leq α_{2}) = P (α_{1} < β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i} \leq α_{2}) \\ P (y = 2 | X) = P (α_{2} < y *) = P (α_{2} < β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i}) \end{array}

And, the cumulative probability P(y ≤ J) = F(α_j–X’β), where J was the number of categories in our ordinal variables and F() was the cumulative distribution. Finally, as we used a logistic distribution as link function, the equation we estimated for each type of bullying victimization was as follows:

l n (y_{j}) = l n (\frac{π_{j} (x)}{1 - π_{j} (x)}) = α_{j} + β_{1} X_{1 i} + \dots + β_{k} X_{k i} + ε_{i}

Results

Prevalence of Bullying Victimization

Tables 2 and 3 present the prevalence of bullying victimization as reported by the children. Regarding psychological bullying, more than half of the sample (52%) was classified as nonbullied, 38% as occasionally bullied, and 10% as frequently bullied. Experiencing physical bullying was reported less among the children of the sample, with 70% of them classified as nonbullied, 26% as occasionally bullied, and 4% as frequently bullied.

Table 2.

Percentage of Children Who Reported Being Physically Bullied (n = 3,187).

	Physical Bullying
	None Bullied (n = 2,239)	Occasionally Bullied (n = 815)	Frequently Bullied (n = 130)
Sex
Male	70.89%	26.15%	2.96%
Female	69.76%	25.05%	5.20%
Family’s language
Spanish	71.33%	24.73%	3.94%
Indigenous	63.32%	31.54%	5.14%
Grade
Fourth	68.20%	26.24%	5.56%
Fifth	70.42%	26.09%	3.49%
Sixth	72.94%	24.13%	2.93%
Physical parental maltreatment
Nonmaltreated	79.91%	16.95%	3.14%
Maltreated	61.47%	33.57%	4.95%
Psychological parental maltreatment
Nonmaltreated	79.25%	17.99%	2.76%
Maltreated	58.53%	35.64%	5.83%
Total	70.32%	25.60%	4.08%

Table 3.

Percentage of Children Who Reported Being Psychologically Bullied (n = 3,187).

	Psychological Bullying
	None Bullied (n = 1,650)	Occasionally Bullied (n = 1,211)	Frequently Bullied (n = 326)
Sex
Male	51.51%	39.99%	8.50%
Female	52.03%	36.02%	11.95%
Family’s language
Spanish	52.17%	37.25%	10.58%
Indigenous	48.60%	43.46%	7.94%
Grade
Fourth	52.56%	36.25%	11.19%
Fifth	51.87%	37.84%	10.29%
Sixth	50.62%	40.47%	8.91%
Physical parental maltreatment
Nonmaltreated	63.14%	29.35%	7.52%
Maltreated	41.28%	45.99%	12.73%
Psychological parental maltreatment
Nonmaltreated	61.36%	31.04%	7.61%
Maltreated	39.11%	47.20%	13.69%
Total	51.77%	38.00%	10.23%

Also, the children’s responses presented the variation in the frequency of victimization according to different children characteristics. The prevalence of bullying was similar among males and females for both physical and psychological bullying. Differences among the frequency of bullying according to the language the family speaks at home were also noted. Children whose families usually speak an indigenous language reported having experienced higher rates of bullying than those whose families speak Spanish. Thus, while 25% of children whose family background is Spanish reported having been victims of occasional or frequent bullying, those whose family background is indigenous reported higher rates of victimization (32%). Also, the results show that the prevalence of physical bullying (occasional and frequent) slightly increased from fourth through sixth grade.

Regarding our main independent variable (parental maltreatment), there were remarkable differences of prevalence of bullying victimization. The frequency of children who reported being bullied was more prevalent among children who had been victims of physical or psychological maltreatment by their parents than among children who had not. The rates of bullying among children who were maltreated were higher for both physical and psychological bullying. There was a 20-point difference on the prevalence rate of bullying victimization between children who were maltreated and those who were not.

The Net Association Between Parental Maltreatment and Bullying Victimization

Table 4 presents the marginal effects for each independent variable that are statistically significant for each category in our dependent variable.⁶ Regarding individual and family characteristics, the results show some significant associations. Living in a nonnuclear family was significantly associated with reporting being a victim of both physical, β = .597, p = .002, 95% CI = [0.214, 0.981]; and psychological bullying, β = .667, p = .003, 95% CI = [0.221, 1.114]. This means that living in a single-parent family increases the probability of being an occasional victim of physical bullying by 12%, as well as the probability of being a frequent victim by 2%.⁷ Similarly, in the case of psychological bullying, being in this type of family increases the probability of belonging to the group of occasional victims by almost 9%, while the probability of being a frequent victim increases by 6%. The number of siblings was positively associated only with physical bullying victimization. Each additional sibling increased the probability of being physically bullied occasionally by almost 1%, β = .056, p = .013, 95% CI = [0.012, 0.099]. This result was not significant for psychological bullying, β = .008, p = .727, 95% CI = [–0.035, 0.050].

Table 4.

Marginal Effects of Physical and Psychological Bullying Victimization in Percentages (n = 2,971).

	Physical Bullying			Psychological Bullying
	Nonbullied	Occasionally Bullied	Frequently Bullied	Nonbullied	Occasionally Bullied	Frequently Bullied
Individual and family characteristics
Family’s language (indigenous)	−5.1	4.3	0.8	−4.9	3.2	1.7
Type of household (reference nuclear)
Single parent	−15	12.2	2.8	−14.7	8.5	6.2
Other	−3.5	3	0.5	−5.8	3.8	2
Number of siblings	−1.1	0.9	0.2
Academic background
Failed a course last year	1.2	−1	−0.2	2.4	−1.6	−0.8
Parental maltreatment
Victim of physical maltreatment	−14.1	11.9	2.2	−16.3	10.8	5.4
Victim of psychological maltreatment	−15.3	12.9	2.4	−16.4	10.7	5.7

Note. Adjusted for school characteristics: type of school (public or private), students per teacher, proportion of certified teachers, proportion of primary students who dropout, proportion of school’s indigenous population, quintiles of school’s infrastructure, school located in Lima, school location (urban or rural).

Regarding our variable of main interest, the results indicate that parental maltreatment in any form—physical (for physical bullying: β = .708, p = .000, 95% CI = [0.537, 0.880]; and for psychological bullying: β = .657, p = .000, 95% CI = [0.491, 0.823]) or psychological (for physical bullying: β = .749, p = .000, 95% CI = [0.557, 0.941]; and for psychological bullying: β = .661, p = .000, 95% CI = [0.486, 0.835])—was strongly and positively associated with bullying victimization. The association was strong for both physical and psychological victimization. The results indicate that experiencing physical parental maltreatment increased the probability of being an occasional victim of physical bullying by almost 12%, whereas the probability of being a frequent victim increased by 2%. Furthermore, children who were victims of psychological parental maltreatment increased their probability of being occasional victims of physical bullying by about 13%, and the probability of being frequent victims by 2%. Finally, regarding psychological bullying, results indicated that any kind of parental maltreatment increased the probability of being bullied occasionally or frequently by about 11% and 5%, respectively.

Effect of Parental Maltreatment on the Probability of Being Bullied

Finally, different scenarios were proposed to assess the impact of parental maltreatment on the probability of being bullied. Tables 5 and 6 show the predicted probabilities by the kind of parental maltreatment experienced by the child: “non-maltreated,” “physical maltreatment only,” “psychological maltreatment only,” and “both” (physical and psychological maltreatment). The probabilities were calculated for each of the following groups: “not bullied,” “occasionally bullied,” and “frequently bullied.”

Table 5.

Predicted Probabilities of Being Physically Bullied by Parental Maltreatment (n = 2,971).

Parental Maltreatment	None Bullied	Occasionally Bullied	Frequently Bullied
Nonmaltreated	76.8%	15.5%	7.8%
Physical maltreatment only	61.9%	23.4%	14.6%
Psychological maltreatment only	61.0%	23.9%	15.1%
Both	43.5%	29.9%	26.6%

Table 6.

Predicted Probabilities of Being Psychological Bullied by Parental Maltreatment (n = 2,971).

Parental Maltreatment	None Bullied	Occasionally Bullied	Frequently Bullied
Nonmaltreated	55.1%	26.4%	18.5%
Physical maltreatment only	38.8%	30.7%	30.5%
Psychological maltreatment only	38.7%	30.7%	30.6%
Both	24.7%	29.4%	45.9%

The results show that the likelihood of being bullied varied depending on whether or not children have experienced parental maltreatment. For both groups (“occasionally bullied” and “frequently bullied”), the probabilities of being physically or psychologically bullied were higher among children who experienced some kind of parental maltreatment than among children who have not experienced such violence. Experiencing only physical or psychological maltreatment had similar effects on the probabilities of being bullied in any form.

In addition, the results showed that the probabilities of being bullied were even higher among children who experienced both types of parental maltreatment than among those who only experienced physical or psychological parental maltreatment. For example, for the case of psychological bullying, the probability of being “frequently bullied” was 19% among nonmaltreated children; 31% among those who have experienced only physical or psychological maltreatment; and 46% among those who have experienced both types of maltreatment. At the same time, parental maltreatment had a stronger positive effect on the probability of being “frequently bullied” than on the probability of being “occasionally bullied” for both physical and psychological bullying. For instance, in the case of physical bullying, while the probabilities of being “frequently bullied” increased from 8% among nonmaltreated children to 27% among children who have experienced both types of maltreatment, the probabilities of being “occasionally bullied” increased only from 16% to 30%. This pattern was even stronger for the case of psychological maltreatment.

Discussion

The study results showed that bullying is a major problem among Peruvian children. The results indicated that almost one third of Peruvian children have experienced physical bullying and nearly half of them psychological bullying. However, only a small minority of them were categorized as “frequently bullied.” Thus, despite the significant rates of bullying registered, only a small percentage of children reported experiencing bullying very frequently. Studies conducted in other countries have also found similar results (Nansel et al., 2001). The reigning school culture explains the high levels of bullying due to the demands on students to use violence as a mechanism to “fit in” (Espelage, 2002; Pellegrini et al., 1999). As several studies have suggested, schoolchildren use violence to demonstrate superiority and thereby gain recognition and status among their peers (Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Espelage, 2002; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000).

In addition, consistent with previous research, this study found a strong relationship between parental maltreatment and bullying victimization. Our analysis showed that children who experienced physical or psychological parental maltreatment were more likely to become victims of bullying than those who did not experience it. To understand this relationship, it is necessary to take into account that in a school culture that seeks to promote the use of violence, the main targets of bullying will be those with lesser social skills and self-confidence (Collins, 2008; Nansel et al., 2001; Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997). That said, extensive evidence has registered the negative effects of parental maltreatment on such variables (Anthonysamy & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007; Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). Thus, parental maltreatment will increase children’s vulnerability because of its negative impact on protective variables against bullying. In this regard, parenting seems to have a key impact on children’s subsequent behavior and emotional problems. Moreover, having experienced violence both at home and at school has particularly harmful effects. A growing body of evidence suggests that children who have experienced multiple types of violence present even greater internalizing problems than those who have experienced only one type of violence (Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011; Holt, Finkelhor, & Kantor, 2007). Therefore, the association between parental maltreatment and bullying is particularly worrisome.

The results of this study suggest the need to strengthen strategies to deal with bullying. On one hand, considering the strong association between bullying and parental maltreatment, it is important to consider parents within these strategies. The measures to be implemented should include raising awareness among parents about the negative consequences of poor parenting practices, as well as education on positive ways to discipline children. Although Peruvian legislature has banned the use of corporal punishment against children since 2015 (Law Nº 30403), the results of the study still show a high incidence of parental maltreatment among Peruvian children. On the other hand, teachers, as authority figures within the school, will play a central role in any policy against bullying. However, the well-known study of Callirgos (1995) registered that some Peruvian teachers, instead of fulfilling their function of making the school a safe space for children, allow and legitimize violent practices. In this regard, teachers require training and awareness about this topic to (a) make the rejection and prevention of bullying a central topic of interest within the school environment; and (b) identify students at risk of being bullied, prioritizing their supervision and accompaniment. Likewise, an effective antibullying policy should include strategies to combat this deeply entrenched cultural practice that incites students to use violence as a strategy to gain recognition and status among their peers. This would delegitimize and reduce the use of violence in schools.

Strengths and Limitations

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to estimate the prevalence of bullying victimization using a nationally representative sample of Peruvian children. Unlike other studies conducted at the local level, this study incorporated information on the recurrence of violence when measuring bullying, which allowed us to report rates of bullying in Peru comparable with those reported in developed countries (UNICEF, 2014). Furthermore, although previous studies have estimated the association between parental maltreatment and bullying victimization, almost none have been conducted in Latin America (Lereya et al., 2013). Finally, the data set (ENARES) used for the analysis collected the information about parental maltreatment from the children themselves, instead of using parents’ report that might underestimate the use of violence on children.

This study has some limitations that should be considered. First, the data did not allow distinguishing between pure victims and bully victims. The ENARES has limited information on the violence perpetrated by children and there was a lack of data on its recurrence. This prevented an analysis of the characteristics of the specific types of victims. Second, the response options for the question about school victimization did not allowed us to identify those who have been victimized just once. In the ENARES questionnaire, the possible answers for the question regarding the recurrence of the violence were “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “always/almost always.” Third, ENARES was a cross-sectional study and, therefore, did not enable for any causal analysis on the relationship between bullying victimization and parental maltreatment. Finally, according to the literature, internalization or externalization problems constitute risk factors for bullying and parental maltreatment. However, the analysis did not control for these variables as they were not available in the data set used. Future research should consider these factors in the analysis. Despite the mentioned limitations, this study is an important contribution to the studies of violence against children in Latin American countries.

Footnotes

Appendix

Ordinal Regression Results.

Predictive Variables of Physical and Psychological Bullying Victimization, Ordinal Regression Analysis (n = 2,971).

	Physical	OR	Psychological	OR
Individual and family characteristics
Age	−0.06 (0.09)	0.94	0.01 (0.08)	1.01
Sex (female)	0.13 (0.09)	1.14	0.08 (0.07)	1.08
Home language (indigenous)	0.25 (0.17)	1.28	0.20 (0.12)	1.22
Type of household (reference nuclear)
Single parent	0.67** (0.23)	1.95	0.60** (0.20)	1.82
Other	0.17^† (0.10)	1.19	0.23* (0.09)	1.26
Number of siblings	0.06* (0.02)	1.06	0.01 (0.02)	1.01
Academic background
Grade (reference sixth)
Fourth	0.19 (0.17)	1.21	0.07 (0.16)	1.07
Fifth	0.08 (0.11)	1.08	0.04 (0.11)	1.04
Failed a course last year	0.25** (0.09)	1.28	0.14^† (0.08)	1.15
Ever repeated a grade	−0.06 (0.14)	0.94	−0.10 (0.14)	0.9
Ever been expelled	0.65 (0.42)	1.92	−0.10 (0.39)	0.9
Parental maltreatment
Physical maltreatment	0.71*** (0.09)	2.03	0.66*** (0.08)	1.93
Psychological maltreatment	0.75*** (0.10)	2.12	0.66*** (0.09)	1.93
Cut 1	0.70 (1.05)	2.01	0.75 (0.89)	2.12
Cut 2	3.17** (1.04)	23.8	2.98*** (0.89)	19.7
Pseudo R²	0.07		0.04
Log-likelihood	−2,011		−2,681

Note. Also adjusted for school characteristics: type of school (public or private), students per teacher, proportion of certified teachers, proportion of primary students who dropout, proportion of school’s indigenous population, quintiles of school’s infrastructure, school located in Lima, school location (urban or rural). Standard errors in parenthesis. OR = odds ratio.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded through a grant from the Bernard Van Leer Foundation.

Notes

Author Biographies

Carlos Martin Benavides Abanto holds a PhD in sociology, an MA in education policy both from Pennsylvania State University, and a BA in Sociology from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, and has been a visiting student on issues of social mobility and inequality at Nuffield College at the University of Oxford in England. He is currently a senior researcher at GRADE and also works as a professor in the Department of Social Science at the Pontifical Catholic University.

Juan Leon Jara-Almonte holds a PhD in educational theory and policy and comparative and international education from Pennsylvania State University, and a BA in economics from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. He is currently a senior researcher at GRADE and also works as a lecturer in the Department of Social Science at the Pontifical Catholic University.

Jimena Stuart holds a BA in sociology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. Currently, she is a research assistant at GRADE.

Diana La Riva holds a BA economics at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. Currently, she is a research assistant at GRADE.

References

Anthonysamy

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2007). Peer status and behaviors of maltreated children and their classmates in the early years of school. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 971-991. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.04.004

Bardales

Huallpa

(2005). Maltrato y abuso sexual en niños, niñas y adolescentes: estudio realizado en San Martín de Porres, Cusco e Iquitos [Mistreatment and sexual abuse of children and adolescents: a case study of three Peruvian cities]. Lima, Peru: Ministerio de la Mujer y Poblaciones Vulnerables.

Benavides

León

(2013). Una mirada a la violencia física contra los niños y niñas en los hogares peruanos: magnitudes, factores asociados y transmisión de la violencia de madres a hijos e hijas [A look at physical violence against children in Peruvian households: Prevalence, associated factors and intergenerational transmission of violence] (Documento de Investigación N° 71). Lima, Peru: Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo.

Bolger

K. E.

Patterson

C. J.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

(1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171-1197. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06166.x

Bowes

Arseneault

Maughan

Taylor

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

(2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 545-553. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819cb017

Callaghan

Joseph

(1995). Self-concept and peer victimization among schoolchildren. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 161-163. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)00127-E

Callirgos

J. C.

(1995). La discriminación en la socialización escolar [Discrimination in school socialization]. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

Chaux

Molano

Podlesky

(2009). Socio-economic, socio-political and socio-emotional variables explaining school bullying: A country-wide multilevel analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 520-529.

Collins

(2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Corsaro

W. A.

Eder

(1990). Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 197-220. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001213

11.

DEVIDA. (2013). Informe Regional—IV Estudio nacional: Prevención y consumo de drogas en estudiantes de secundaria 2012 [IV National Study: Prevention and drug use among secondary students 2012]. Retrieved from http://www.devida.gob.pe/documents/20182/97548/Informes-Regionales-prevencion-consumo-drogas-estudiantes-secundaria-2012.pdf

12.

Duncan

R. D.

(1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: The relationship between child abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child Maltreatment, 4, 45-55. doi:10.1177/1077559599004001005

13.

Duncan

R. D.

(2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and victims. In Espelage

Swearer

(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and Intervention (pp. 227-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Dussich

J. P.

Maekoya

(2007). Physical child harm and bullying-related behaviors a comparative study in Japan, South Africa, and the United States. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 495-509. doi:10.1177/0306624X06298463

15.

Espelage

D. L.

(2002). Bullying in early adolescence: The role of the peer group. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

16.

Evans

Eder

(1993). “NO EXIT” processes of social isolation in the middle school. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 139-170.

17.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Ormrod

R. K.

(2011). Poly-victimization: Children’s exposure of multiple types of violence, crime, and abuse (OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, NCJ235504). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=ccrc

18.

Fry

Anderson

Hidalgo

R. J.

Elizalde

Casey

Rodriguez

. . . Fang

(2016). Prevalence of violence in childhood and adolescence and the impact on educational outcomes: Evidence from the 2013 Peruvian national survey on social relations. International Health, 8, 44-52. doi:10.1093/inthealth/ihv075

19.

Glew

G. M.

Fan

Katon

Rivara

F. P.

Kernic

M. A.

(2005). Bullying, psychological adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026-1031.

20.

Hammig

Jozkowski

(2013). Academic achievement, violent victimization, and bullying among US high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1424-1436.

21.

Holt

M. K.

Finkelhor

Kantor

G. K.

(2007). Multiple victimization experiences of urban elementary school students: Associations with psychosocial functioning and academic performance. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 503-515. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.006

22.

Juvonen

Wang

Espinoza

(2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance across middle school grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 152-173. doi:10.1177/0272431610379415

23.

Kaufman

Cicchetti

(1989). Effects of maltreatment on school-age children’s socioemotional development: Assessments in a day-camp setting. Developmental Psychology, 25, 516-524. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.4.516

24.

Ladd

G. W.

(1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family peer relationships. In Parke

R. D.

Ladd

G. W.

(Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 3-34). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

Lereya

S. T.

Copeland

W. E.

Costello

E. J.

Wolke

(2015). Adult mental health consequences of peer bullying and maltreatment in childhood: Two cohorts in two countries. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 524-531. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00165-0

26.

Lereya

S. T.

Samara

Wolke

(2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1091-1108. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001

27.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

(2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.445

28.

Ministerio de Salud del Perú (MINSA). (2011). Encuesta global de salud escolar. Resultados—Perú 2010 [Global School—based Student Health Survey (GSHS). Results—Perú 2010]. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/ncds/surveillance/gshs/GSHS_Report_Peru_2010.pdf

29.

Nakamoto

Schwartz

(2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221-242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x

30.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094

31.

Oliveros

Figueroa

Mayorga

Cano

Quispe

Barrientos

(2008). Violencia escolar (bullying) en colegios estatales de primaria en el Perú [Bullying in public primary Peruvian schools]. Revista Peruana de Pediatría, 61(4), 215-220.

32.

Oliveros

Figueroa

Mayorga

Cano

Quispe

Barrientos

(2009). Intimidación en colegios estatales de secundaria del Perú [School violence in public secondary Peruvian schools]. Revista Peruana de Pediatría, 62(2), 68-78.

33.

O’Moore

Kirkham

(2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269-283. doi:10.1002/ab.1010

34.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Bartini

Brooks

(1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216-224. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.216

35.

Perry

D. G.

Hodges

E. V.

Egan

S. K.

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

Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73-104). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

36.

Rodkin

P. C.

Farmer

T. W.

Pearl

Van Acker

(2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14

37.

Romaní

Gutiérrez

(2010). Auto-reporte de victimización escolar y factores asociados en escolares peruanos de educación secundaria, año 2007 [Self-report of school victimization and associated factors among secondary Peruvian students, 2007]. Revista Peruana de Epidemiología, 14(3), 201-209.

38.

Salmivalli

(1998). Intelligent, attractive, well-behaving, unhappy: The structure of adolescents’ self-concept and its relations to their social behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 333-354. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0803_3

39.

Salmivalli

Huttunen

Lagerspetz

K. M.

(1997). Peer networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 305-312. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00040

40.

Schwartz

(2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192. doi:10.1023/A:1005174831561

41.

Shields

Cicchetti

(2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349-363. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_7

42.

Shonk

S. M.

Cicchetti

(2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits, and risk for academic and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 3-17. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.3

43.

Slee

P. T.

Rigby

(1993). The relationship of Eysenck’s personality factors and self-esteem to bully-victim behaviour in Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371-373. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90136-Q

44.

Smokowski

P. R.

Kopasz

K. H.

(2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27, 101-110. doi:10.1093/cs/27.2.101

45.

Soto

Trucco

(2015). Inclusión y contextos de violencia [Inclusion and contexts of violence]. In Trucco

Ullman

(Eds.), Juventud: realidades y retos para un desarrollo con igualdad (pp. 115-170). Santiago, Chile: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).

46.

Sourander

Jensen

Rönning

J. A.

Niemelä

Helenius

Sillanmäki

. . . Almqvist

(2007). What is the early adulthood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The Finnish “from a boy to a man” study. Pediatrics, 120, 397-404. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2704

47.

Strøm

I. F.

Thoresen

Wentzel-Larsen

Dyb

(2013). Violence, bullying and academic achievement: A study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school environment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 243-251. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.10.010

48.

UNICEF. (2014). Hidden in plain sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children. New York, NY: Author.

49.

Yabko

B. A.

Hokoda

Ulloa

E. C.

(2008). Depression as a mediator between family factors and peer-bullying victimization in Latino adolescents. Violence and Victims, 23, 727-742. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.23.6.727

50.

Zottis

G. H.

Salum

G. A.

Manfro

G. G.

Isolan

Heldt

(2013). 2369–Learning how to bully? Associations between parental punitive discipline and bullying behavior at school in adolescents. European Psychiatry, 28, 1. doi:10.1016/S0924-9338(13)77207-9