Forgiveness and Loneliness in Peer-Victimized Adolescents

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the relationships between forgiveness, motivations for revenge, avoidance, and benevolence; loneliness, emotional loneliness and positive subjective evaluation of the social network; and peer victimization in schools, relational, overt physical, and overt verbal, based on gender. A battery of instruments was administered to 617 Spanish students (50.7% boys and 49.3% girls), aged between 10 and 16 years (M = 13.04 years, SD = 1.80 years) from primary and secondary education. A multivariate analysis of variance and a multiple block regression for data analysis was used. Study results revealed that the most victimized students showed greater motivation for revenge and avoidance, as well as a greater perception of emotional loneliness and less positive subjective evaluation of their social network. In addition, the findings obtained in the regression analysis (stepwise) indicated that being a boy between 11 and 13 years old and having a high level of emotional loneliness and high avoidance motivation were the most important predictors of peer victimization. Finally, the findings and their possible implications in the design of intervention projects that encourage forgiveness in interpersonal conflicts and integration in social networks as preventive strategies of peer victimization were discussed.

Keywords

forgiveness loneliness peer victimization adolescence ex post facto study

Introduction

An increasing number of studies have explored the role of forgiveness in the quality of peer relationships in adolescents (Barcaccia, Howard, Pallini, & Baiocco, 2017; Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018; Quintana-Orts & Rey, 2018). Forgiveness is defined as an emotional, behavioral, and cognitive predisposition in which the victims of a conflict or a transgression substitute negative emotion, such as anger and hatred, for positive emotions, such as empathy and compassion (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2005; Quintana-Orts & Rey, 2018). Forgiveness is associated with a lower probability of engaging in violent behavior (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2006) and a higher probability of using constructive strategies of conflict resolution (Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018; Guzmán, 2010).

The present study followed the theory developed by McCullough, Worthington, and Rachal (1997), who considered that forgiveness is a multidimensional motivational transformation that implies the reduction of the motivations of revenge and avoidance. Revenge motivation refers to “the search for personal satisfaction through the harm or injury to the other (or close persons) as a measure of reprisal” (Govier, 2002, p. 2). Avoidance motivation refers to the desire to avoid the transgressor with the purpose of preventing a conflict from occurring or aggravating the existing one (Beltrán-Morillas, Valor-Segura, & Expósito, 2015). Later, McCullough and Hoyt (2002) added a third dimension, benevolence motivation, which refers to those feelings, cognitions, and positive behaviors toward the transgressor aimed at solving a problem and maintaining the previous relationship. Thus, forgiveness is the outcome of a high motivation toward benevolence and a low motivation toward transgression and avoidance after a conflict (McCullough & Hoyt, 2002).

The effects of forgiveness have been particularly analyzed in schools, especially in situations of peer victimization (Barcaccia, Milioni, Pallini, & Vecchio, 2018; Quintana-Orts & Rey, 2018; Watson, Rapee, & Todorov, 2016a), which is defined as an intentional physical, verbal, or psychological abuse that takes place in and around school, especially in places where adult supervision is minimal (Graham, 2006; Olweus, 1994). Peer victimization has negative effects on school climate (Ortega-Barón, Buelga, & Cava, 2016; Wang, La Salle, Wu, Do, & Sullivan, 2018) and on the health and well-being of adolescents (Cava, Povedano, Buelga, & Musitu, 2015; Randa, Reyns, & Nobles, 2019; Watson, Rapee, & Todorov, 2016b).

Another important variable considered in this study for its links to forgiveness is loneliness, understood as a negative emotional state generated by the absence or loss of affective and social bonds (Expósito & Moya, 2000). This feeling is expressed in two dimensions: emotional loneliness and subjective evaluation of the social network (Borges, Prieto, Ricchetti, Hernández-Jorge, & Rodríguez-Naveiras, 2008; Yárnoz-Yaben, 2008). Emotional loneliness refers to the perception of the absence of meaningful relationships, whereas the subjective evaluation of the social network refers to the quality of social interactions and relationships and the lack of affiliative relationships (Expósito & Moya, 2000). Previous studies have found that victims report a greater feeling of loneliness (Pouwels, Van Noorden, Lansu, & Cillessen, 2018; Van Der Ploeg, Steglich, Salmivalli, & Veenstra, 2015) which, in turn, is related to other adjustment problems, such as anxiety (Acquah, Topalli, Wilson, Junttila, & Niemi, 2016; Yuchang, Junyi, Junxiu, Jing, & Mingcheng, 2019), depressive symptomatology (Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012; Oriol et al., 2017), and suicidal ideation (Lucas-Molina, Pérez-Albéniz, Fonseca-Pedrero, & Giménez-Dasí, 2018; Vergara, Stewart, Cosby, Lincoln, & Auerbach, 2019). Furthermore, the positive assessment of the social network is associated with psychosocial adjustment and less involvement in violent behavior as aggressor or victim (Crespo, Romero-Abrio, Martínez-Ferrer, Musitu, 2017; Garaigordobil, 2017; Huitsing, Veenstra, Sainio, & Salmivalli, 2012; Povedano, Cava, Monreal, Varela, & Musitu, 2015).

It has been pointed out that forgiveness improves the quality of peer relationships because it increases the likelihood of successfully resolving a conflict and re-establishing prior interpersonal relationships (Barcaccia et al., 2018; Beltrán-Morillas et al., 2015; Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018; Watson et al., 2016a). Prior studies concluded that the poor quality relationships are related to loneliness. In other words, forgiveness encourages positive interpersonal relationships and interpersonal resources (Allemand, Amberg, Zimprich, & Fincham, 2007; Denham, Neal, Wilson, Pickering, & Boyatzis, 2005). Conversely, difficulties to forgive others’ transgressions are associated with a withdrawal from social relationships, which in turn is associated with emotional loneliness and a negative assessment of social networks (Day & Maltby, 2005).

However, there are few studies that have analyzed the relationships between forgiveness, the motivations of revenge, avoidance, and benevolence, and the feeling of loneliness in peer victimized adolescents. Nevertheless, one recent study found that forgiveness and friendships and peer relationships moderate the adverse effects of peer victimization, whereas difficulties to forgive and loneliness are associated with greater social maladjustment, which, in turn, increases the risk of being a victim (Barcaccia et al., 2018).

Regarding gender, few studies have analyzed the relationships between forgiveness and peer victimization in boys and girls, and with inconclusive results. For example, it has been highlighted that female victims tend to forgive more frequently than boys (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010). In a meta-analysis conducted by Miller, Worthington, and McDaniel (2008), it was highlighted that girls tend to forgive more than boys. These authors hypothesized that these differences may be explained by the fact that girls attribute more value to interpersonal relationships and are more predisposed to maintaining established relationships. Moreover, boys and girls seem to perceive and respond differently to others’ transgressions (Sani et al., 2007). Thus, boys seem to be more drawn to respond to others’ transgression using strategies that involve fighting, vengeance, or justice, whereas girls are more drawn to warmth-based virtues and utilize tend-and-befriend and emotional coping strategies (Matud, 2004; Miller et al., 2008). However, previous research did not find any gender difference in forgiveness (see Ghaemmaghami, Allemand, & Martin, 2011; Ogurlu & Sarıçam, 2018).

In fact, a recent study concluded that benevolence motivation, the one most linked to forgiveness, was more frequent in boys (León-Moreno, Martínez-Ferrer, Musitu-Ochoa, & Moreno-Ruiz, 2019), although these differences have not been confirmed by other authors (Flanagan, Vanden Hoek, Ranter, & Reich, 2012).

Considering this background, the first objective of this study was to analyze the existing relationships between forgiveness, loneliness, and peer victimization based on gender in adolescents. The second objective was to examine the weight of the dimensions of forgiveness and loneliness in the prediction of peer victimization at school, taking into account gender and age. The starting hypotheses were the following:

Hypothesis 1: Forgiveness (low revenge motivation, low avoidance motivation, and high benevolence motivation) and loneliness (emotional loneliness and subjective evaluation of the social network) are related to greater peer victimization.

Hypothesis 2: Gender differences in the relationships between forgiveness, loneliness, and peer victimization are expected, so highly peer victimized girls show higher levels of forgiveness and less loneliness than highly peer victimized boys.

Hypothesis 3: Forgiveness and loneliness are associated with greater peer victimization.

Materials and Methods

Participants

A multistage sampling by conglomerates was carried out to select a random sample (n = 594) from a total population of 58,679 adolescents of both sexes aged from 10 to 16 years, residing in the province of Córdoba. The final sample was 671 adolescents of both sexes (50.7% boys and 49.3% girls), aged between 10 and 16 years (M = 13.04 years, SD = 1.80 years), who were enrolled in primary education (5th and 6th grade) and compulsory secondary education (ESO) in six schools, four public and two private/subsidized, in the province of Córdoba (Andalusia). For the sample selection, a random sampling by conglomerates was used. The primary sampling unit was the geographic area: rural (74%) and urban (26%). The secondary unit was ownership: public (75%) and private/subsidized (25%). The analyses of the mean differences based on the location of the school and its public or private status in the study objective variables were not significant; hence, these variables were not included in the subsequent analyses. No exclusion criteria were established to select the sample. All students were suitable to participate in the study, regardless of their peer victimization status.

The average of missing data was 2.5% and never higher than 5% for an individual measure. Therefore, the estimates are accurate in relation to the expected values in the population (Graham, 2006). The missing values on the scales or subscales were processed by the regression imputation method. In addition, the criterion of treatment of the outliers of Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016) has been followed. A multivariate outlier was identified if the probability associated with a Mahalanobis distance is 0.001 or less (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Procedure and Ethics Statement

First, an informative meeting was held with the teachers and families to explain the objectives, the scope of the study, and the procedure to be followed. Next, parental consent was requested from school management and parents were also required to give their active consent for their children to participate in the study. Active consent was also requested from the participants. The instruments were administered voluntarily, anonymously and supervised in two different sessions of approximately 45 min of class time. The participants were guaranteed the confidentiality of the information obtained. Participation in the study was voluntary and neither the adolescents nor their parents received any compensation. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the hosting University and met the ethical standards of research on human beings, respecting the fundamental principles included in the Helsinki Declaration (1964), in its updates and in current regulations: informed consent and right to information, protection of personal data and guarantees of confidentiality, non-discrimination, gratuity, and the option of withdrawing from the study in any of its phases.

Measures

Forgiveness

The Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM-18; McCullough & Hoyt, 2002) was used, adapted to Spanish by Guzmán, Tapia, Tejada, and Valenzuela (2014). This Likert-type scale consists of 18 items that measure forgiving and unforgiving motivations when the adolescent has experienced violent behavior, with a response range from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The scale consists of three dimensions: motivation for revenge (e.g., “I want something bad to happen to him or her”), avoidance motivation (e.g., “I withdraw from him or her”), and motivation of benevolence (e.g., “Even though his or her actions hurt me, I have goodwill for him or her”). The psychometric properties of the scale are adequate (see Table 1). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) had a good model fit to the data (SBχ² = 220.74, df = 13, p < .001, comparative fit index [CFI] = .97, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .04 [.033-.052]).

Table 1.

Reliability, Validity Indexes, Mean, and Standard Deviation.

	Reliability		Validity
	Cronbach’s α	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted	McDonald’s Omega	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Forgiveness	.88	.93	.52	.95	2.80	0.52	1.11	4
RM	.86	.82	.53	.87	1.60	0.61	1	4
AM	.86	.84	.52	.88	2.08	0.71	1	4
BM	.84	.78	.50	.83	2.17	0.73	1	4
Loneliness	.89	.94	.51	.95	1.80	0.45	1	3.60
EL	.86	.89	.50	.92	1.68	0.47	1	3.64
SESN	.90	.87	.51	.90	3.06	0.61	1	4
Peer victimization	.93	.94	.51	.95	1.50	0.39	1	3.18
RV	.90	.88	.57	.91	1.56	0.48	1	3.70
OPV	.71	.74	.51	.80	1.27	0.34	1	3.25
OVV	.84	.81	.51	.86	1.67	0.50	1	3.83

Note. RM = Revenge Motivation; AM = Avoidance Motivation; BM = Benevolence Motivation; EL = Emotional Loneliness; SESN = Subjective Evaluation of the Social Network; RV = Relational Peer Victimization; OPV = Overt Physical Peer Victimization; OVV = Overt Verbal Peer Victimization.

Loneliness

Russell’s Loneliness Scale was used, adapted to Spanish by Expósito and Moya (1999). This Likert-type scale consists of 20 items that evaluate the feeling of loneliness experienced by the adolescent within the past year, with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The scale consists of two factors (Borges et al., 2008): emotional loneliness (e.g., “how often do you feel isolated from others?”), and the subjective evaluation of the social network (e.g., “How often do you feel that there are people you can ask for help?”). The psychometric properties of the scale are adequate (see Table 1). The CFA showed a good model fit to the data (SBχ² = 258.51, df = 167, p < .01, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .035 [.026-.042]).

Peer victimization

The School Victimization Scale (Mynard & Joseph, 2000) was used, adapted to Spanish by Martínez-Ferrer, Moreno-Ruiz, and Musitu (2018). This Likert-type scale is composed of 25 items, rated from 1 (never) to 4 (always), that measure the frequency of violent behavior experienced by the adolescent. The scale consists of three dimensions: relational victimization (e.g., “a fellow student has told my secrets to others”), physical overt victimization (e.g., “a classmate has hit or beaten me”), and verbal overt victimization (e.g., “a classmate has insulted me”). The psychometric properties of the scale are adequate (see Table 1). The CFA showed a good model fit to the data (SBχ² = 313.56, df = 17, p < .001, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .04 [.036-.050]).

Table 1 shows the reliability and validity indexes (Cronbach’s α, composite reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), and McDonald’s omega) for the scales and subscales used. As shown in this table, the scales have adequate indices of reliability and validity.

Data Analysis

To examine the construct validity, a CFA was performed for each scale with the EQS program 6.1 (Bentler, 2006). We used the maximum likelihood estimation method and the Satorra–Bentler chi-square test for data that do not conform to normality (Yuan, Chan, & Bentler, 2000). To examine the convergent validity, the AVE and McDonald’s omega coefficient were calculated. Regarding reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were calculated. Results showed adequate reliability indexes.

Next, peer victimization groups were formed. As shown in Table 1, three groups were identified: (a) low peer victimization, with scores less than or equal to the first quartile (M = 1.09, SD = 0.07); (b) average peer victimization, with scores in the interquartile range (M = 1.43, SD = 0.11); and (c) high peer victimization, with scores equal to or greater than the third quartile (M = 2.02, SD = 0.34). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine whether the three groups differed significantly in terms of the degree of peer victimization. Results showed significant differences between low, average, and high peer victimization, F(2, 668) = 1,022.97, p < .001.

Subsequently, a multivariate factorial design (multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA], 3 × 2) was carried out with the statistical program SPSS (version 20), on peer victimization (low, medium, and high) and gender (boy and girl) as fixed factors to analyze the possible interaction effects. The three dimensions on the forgiveness scale (revenge, avoidance, and benevolence) and the two dimensions on the loneliness scale (emotional loneliness and subjective evaluation of the social network) were considered as dependent variables. Univariate tests (ANOVAs) were conducted to study the differences in the statistically significant variables and the Bonferroni post hoc test was performed (α = .05). Finally, a multiple linear stepwise regression was carried out, with the objective of analyzing the predictive capacity in the criterion variable (peer victimization) of the variables under study (revenge motivation, avoidance motivation, benevolence motivation, emotional loneliness, subjective evaluation of the social network), taking into account gender and age.

Results

Next, we examined whether the groups were similar in terms of sociodemographic variables. As shown in Table 2, significant differences relating to group age were found, χ²(4) = 23.2, p < .001, where high victimization was overrepresented in 11- to 13-year-olds. As for gender, nonsignificant differences were found, χ²(2) = 5.39, p > .05.

Table 2.

Sociodemographic Variables.

Variables	Total Sample	Peer Victimization		HighN = 167	χ²
Variables	Total Sample	LowN = 165	MediumN = 339	HighN = 167	χ²
Gender					χ²(2) = 5.39
Boys	340 (50.7%)	71 (43%)	183 (54%)	86 (51.5%)
Girls	331 (49.3%)	94 (57%)	156 (46%)	81 (48.5%)
Group age (years)					χ²(4) = 23.2***
11-13	381 (56.8%)	81 (49.1%)	182 (53.7%)	118 (70.7%)
14-15	228 (34%)	60 (36.4%)	125 (36.9%)	43 (25.7%)
16	62 (9.2%)	24 (14.5%)	32 (9.4%)	6 (3.6%)

Note. χ² = chi-square.

***

p < .001.

Multivariate Analyses

In the MANOVA, statistically significant differences were found in the main effects of school victimization, Λ = .811, F(10, 1322) = 14.582, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 099,$ and gender, Λ = .891, F(5, 661) = 16.211, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 109 .$ In addition, a statistically significant interaction effect between peer victimization and gender was obtained, Λ = .969, F(10, 1322) = 2.109, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 016 .$

Peer Victimization

The ANOVA showed significant differences in revenge motivation, F(2, 668) = 5.07, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 015;$ avoidance motivation, F(2, 668) = 9.92, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 029;$ emotional loneliness, F(2, 668) = 64.95, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 163;$ and the subjective evaluation of the social network, F(2, 668) = 12.84, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 037 .$ As shown in Table 3, the Bonferroni tests (α = .05) indicated that adolescents experiencing high levels of peer victimization scored statistically higher on revenge motivation than those with low levels of victimization. Adolescents experiencing high and medium levels of victimization obtained higher scores in avoidance motivation than adolescents with low levels of victimization. Adolescents experiencing high levels of victimization showed higher levels in the emotional loneliness variable, followed by adolescents from the group of medium and low victimization, respectively. Adolescents belonging to the group with high victimization also presented a poor subjective evaluation of the social network lower than those adolescents with medium and low levels of peer victimization. Therefore, the group scoring higher in victimization reported a greater desire for revenge and avoidance, as well as greater emotional loneliness and a lower subjective evaluation of their social network.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Differences on Peer Victimization, Forgiveness, Loneliness, and Gender.

Peer Victimization						Gender
	Low	Average	High	F(2, 668)	$η_{p}^{2}$	Boys	Girls	F(1, 669)	$η_{p}^{2}$
RM	1.49	1.59	1.71	5.07**	.015	1.72	1.47	27.17***	.039
RM	(.69)^b	(.55)	(.62)^a	5.07**	.015	(.65)	(.54)	27.17***	.039
AM	1.90	2.08	2.24	9.92***	.029	1.99	2.17	11.19**	.016
AM	(.71)^b	(.64)^a	(.82)^a	9.92***	.029	(.67)	(.74)	11.19**	.016
BM	2.13	2.16	2.21	0.44	.001	2.14	2.19	0.65	.001
BM	(.81)	(.67)	(.79)	0.44	.001	(.73)	(.74)	0.65	.001
EL	1.47	1.62	1.98	64.95***	.163	1.64	1.71	4.04*	.006
EL	(.42)^c	(.35)^b	(.56)^a	64.95***	.163	(.42)	(.51)	4.04*	.006
SESN	3.19	3.09	2.87	12.84***	.037	3.01	3.11	3.82*	.006
SESN	(.69)^a	(.57)^a	(.56)^b	12.84***	.037	(.63)	(.59)	3.82*	.006

Note. RM = Revenge Motivation; AM = Avoidance Motivation; BM = Benevolence Motivation; EL = Emotional Loneliness; SESN = Subjective Evaluation of the Social Network.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001; a > b > c.

Demographic Variable: Gender

The ANOVA showed significant differences between genders in the motivation variables of revenge, F(1, 669) = 27.17, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 039;$ avoidance motivation, F(1, 669) = 11.19, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 016;$ emotional loneliness, F(1, 669) = 4.04, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 006;$ and subjective evaluation of the social network, F(1, 669) = 3.82, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 006 .$ As shown in Table 3, the Bonferroni tests (α = .05) revealed that boys obtained higher scores in revenge motivation compared with girls, whereas girls obtained higher scores in avoidance motivation, in the perception of emotional loneliness and in the subjective evaluation of the social network.

Analysis of Interactions

Two statistically significant interaction effects between peer victimization and gender were obtained in the benevolence motivation variable, F(5, 665) = 2.69, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 020,$ and the subjective evaluation of the social network, F(5, 665) = 7.08, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 051 .$ With regard to the first interaction, the posteriori analyses demonstrated that girls at low levels of victimization are more benevolent than boys; at medium and high levels of victimization, boys and girls do not differ in benevolence; and boys at high levels of victimization show the same degree of benevolence as girls at low levels of victimization and both have a greater level of benevolence than boys at low levels of victimization. Regarding the second interaction, it was observed that girls at low levels of peer victimization presented a positive subjective evaluation of the social network than boys and girls at medium and high levels of victimization (see Table 4; Figures 1 and 2).

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Differences on Peer Victimization, and Gender, BM, SESN.

	Gender	Peer Victimization			F(5, 665)	$η_{p}^{2}$	Post hoc
	Gender	Low	Average	High	F(5, 665)	$η_{p}^{2}$	Post hoc
BM	Boys	1.94	2.15	2.31	2.69*	.020	c, d > a
	Boys	(.79)^a	(.66)^b	(.78)^c
	Girls	2.28	2.19	2.10
	Girls	(.79)^d	(.68)^e	(.80)^f
SESN	Boys	3.04	3.06	2.90	7.08***	.051	d > a, b, c, fe > f
	Boys	(.76)^a	(.60)^b	(.54)^c
	Girls	3.31	3.11	2.85
	Girls	(.60)^d	(.53)^e	(.59)^f

Note. Significant level test on Bonferroni post hoc test comparison was indicated by α = .05. BM = Benevolence Motivation; SESN = Subjective Evaluation of the Social Network.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Interaction effect Peer Victimization × Gender and Benevolence Motivation.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect Peer Victimization × Gender and Subjective Evaluation of the Social Network.

Regression Analysis

Table 5 shows the results of the regression analysis (stepwise). In the first step, gender and age variables were included. The model obtained was significant, F(3, 667) = 10,255, p < .001. The fact of being a boy (β = .09, p < .05) and between 11 and 13 years old (β = .29, p < .001) explained 4.4% of the variance in victimization (R² = .04). The second step included the forgiveness dimensions, increasing the percentage of variance explained by 6.7%. The fact of being a boy and between 11 and 13 years old (β = .11, p < .01 and β = .29, p < .001), respectively, together with being 14 to 15 years old (β = .13, p <.05) and with avoidance motivation (β = .25, p < .001), contributed to the prediction of model, F(6, 664) = 13.808, p <.001, which explains 11.1% of the variance. Finally, in the third step, the loneliness dimensions were included, increasing the percentage of variance explained by 14.5%. Again, the fact of being a boy and between 11 and 13 years old (β = .13, p < .001 and β = .25, p < .001), respectively, together with avoidance motivation (β = .16, p < .001) and emotional loneliness (β = .39, p < .001), contributed to the prediction of model, F(8, 662) = 28,525, p < .001, which explains 25.6% of the variance in school victimization.

Table 5.

Linear Regression Analysis.

Variables	B	SE	β	p	R ²
Step 1					.04
Boys	.07	.03	.09	.025*
11-13 years	.23	.05	.29	.000***
14-15 years	.11	.05	.13	.052
Step 2					.11
Boys	.08	.03	.11	.005**
11-13 years	.23	.05	.29	.000***
14-15 years	.11	.05	.13	.047*
RM	.04	.03	.06	.152
AM	.14	.02	.25	.000***
BM	.04	.02	.08	.060
Step 3					.25
Boys	.10	.03	.13	.000***
11-13 years	.20	.05	.25	.000***
14-15 years	.08	.05	.10	.100
RM	.01	.02	.02	.573
AM	.09	.02	.16	.000***
BM	.02	.02	.05	.255
EL	.32	.03	.39	.000***
SESN	−.02	.03	−.02	.562

Note. RM = Revenge Motivation; AM = Avoidance Motivation; BM = Benevolence Motivation; EL = Emotional Loneliness; SESN = Subjective Evaluation of the Social Network.

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

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to analyze the relationships between forgiveness, loneliness, and peer victimization, based on gender. Results indicated that the most peer-victimized adolescents showed higher levels of revenge motivation, avoidance motivation, and emotional loneliness and a negative evaluation of their social network. These findings allow us to partly confirm the Hypothesis 1, to the extent that no significant differences were found in the benevolence motivation in terms of peer victimization. Previous studies have pointed out that peer-victimized adolescents have more desire for revenge (Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018; León-Moreno, Musitu-Ferrer, & Cañas-Pardo, 2019) and avoidance of conflict (Randa et al., 2019; Runions, Salmivalli, Shaw, Burns, & Cross, 2018), which is associated with the negative dimensions of forgiveness, according to McCullough and Hoyt (2002). The emotional states emerging after an episode of victimization seem to enhance the desire for revenge rather than restore a positive relationship through forgiveness (Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018; Runions et al., 2018). In the case of the most victimized adolescents, the feeling of helplessness is added because of the difficulty of leaving the situation, which is also reinforced by their perception of a lack of social support (Còrdoba Alcaide, Del Rey Alamillo, Casas Bolaños, & Ortega Ruiz, 2016; Didaskalou, Roussi-Vergou, & Andreou, 2017; León-Moreno & Musitu-Ferrer, 2019; Oriol et al., 2017). In fact, our findings showed that the most victimized adolescents have a poor evaluation of their social network, and they may choose to keep their distance from the aggressor to cope with this situation (Hutzell & Payne, 2018; Runions et al., 2018). However, for some authors, this strategy of avoidance may aggravate the situation of victimization (Watson, Rapee, & Todorov, 2016b) and increase their feelings of fear (Randa et al., 2019) and loneliness (Fox & Boulton, 2006; León-Moreno, Musitu-Ferrer, & Cañas-Pardo, 2019) because avoidance is not always effective long-term (Hellström & Beckman, 2020; Hutzell & Payne, 2018). According to the Worthington and Wades (1999) model of forgiveness, the choice between vengeance or forgiveness in the event of transgression depends on the interaction of intrapersonal (e.g., gender), interpersonal factors (e.g., the quality of victim–offender relationships), and contextual factors (e.g., whether justice can be restored). Avoidance seems to be the most frequent response when the predominant emotions of the victims are shame, fear, or guiltiness (Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018).

Focusing on gender differences, it has been observed that when victimization is low, girls are more benevolent than boys. However, when the victimization is high, boys and girls do not differ; hence, the Hypothesis 2 was partly confirmed. Results highlight that victimization has a more negative effect on benevolence motivation in girls than in boys. In other words, faced with an initial situation of low victimization, girls are more benevolent than boys, whereas in a situation of high victimization, boys and girls do not differ, which indicates that the impact of a painful and stressful situation is greater in girls. The fact that the high level of victimization in girls has a more negative effect on benevolence than in boys may very probably be attributed precisely to its importance for these relationships between peers (Miller et al., 2008). Future studies on forgiveness in response to peer victimization should incorporate offense intensity.

Our findings also revealed that girls report more positive evaluation of their social network when victimization was low than when victimization was high, confirming the findings obtained in other studies which found that girls value their social network more positive than boys (Martínez-Ferrer et al., 2018; Van Deursen, Van Dijk, & Ten Klooster, 2015). However, when the victimization was high, boys and girls did not differ in the subjective evaluation of the social network. This result brings us back again to the notion that for girls, victimization is more associated with social disconnection, meaning greater isolation as well as less participation in interpersonal social networks (Muñiz, 2016).

Another likely explanation for this result could be attributable to the type of victimization among boys and girls. Recent studies have indicated that relational violence, understood as a behavior or act aimed at damaging the social reputation or social status of victims and isolating them from their group of friends, even using their peers (e.g., exclusion, social rejection, or the spreading of rumors; Juvonen & Graham, 2014), is more common in girls (Ettekal & Ladd, 2015), which could explain the decrease in the subjective evaluation of the social network together with less participation. However, the prevalence of relational violence in girls is a controversial aspect because while some authors note that girls participate more in relational violence behaviors (Ettekal & Ladd, 2015), other authors have observed that it is an more frequent behavior in boys (McDonald, Putallaz, Grimes, Kupersmidt, & Coie, 2007), and other authors have concluded that the involvement in relational violence is the same in boys and girls (Pitula, Murray-Close, Banny, & Crick, 2015; Romero-Abrio, Martínez-Ferrer, Sánchez-Sosa, & Musitu, 2019).

An interesting nuance taken from the regression analysis is the relative importance of gender, age, emotional loneliness, and avoidance motivation in the prediction of victimization. Avoidance motivation and emotional loneliness are relevant predictors of peer victimization, which partly confirms Hypothesis 3. From these results, it seems that due to their feelings of loneliness and isolation, victims might perceive revenge as quite ineffective because, in the absence of support, they fear possible reprisals (Randa & Reyns, 2014; Randa et al., 2019). We believe that these results could also be linked to the way in which adolescents interpret benevolence and attributions of restorative justice (Barcaccia et al., 2017; Frias-Armentia, Rodríguez-Macías, Corral-Verdugo, Caso-Niebla, & García-Arizmendi, 2019). In other words, in a situation of recurrent peer victimization, far from trying to maintain a positive relationship, adolescents choose to avoid social interactions with their aggressors, likely aggravating their isolation. Moreover, some adolescents could consider that the act of forgiveness would imply justification and tolerance of the harm suffered. In this case, avoidance motivation, which is associated with less short-term stress, could be a more positive alternative than revenge and benevolence (Didaskalou et al., 2017; Watson et al., 2016b). Future studies should explore this hypothesis and incorporate the victims’ interpretation of benevolence motivation.

Limitations

These findings should be interpreted with caution, due mainly to the cross-sectional nature of the data. Future investigations incorporating the temporal dimension would allow us to elaborate on the results obtained. In addition, the use of self-report measures could lead to some biases and effects of social desirability. This limitation could be resolved by including different types of information sources (such as peer groups, teachers, and family). Finally, future research should consider certain potential mediators or moderators that may better explain the link between forgiveness and loneliness.

Implications

From our results, we suggest that these variables be taken into account in the field of social and educational intervention, with the aim of promoting forgiveness as a positive strategy to improve school coexistence. Moreover, it is equally important for the victims to feel that they have access to an interpersonal support network, especially in cases of high victimization. Another practical implication of this study is the need to develop intervention programs geared to reducing peer victimization that are sensitive to gender differences and take into account the different strategies used by boys and girls to face such situations. The findings revealed the importance of intervention strategies that foster social support, especially in victimized girls. Finally, the results highlighted the need to explore the short- and long-term consequences of avoidance as a coping response to peer victimization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the project “Cyberviolence, social centrality, and sociometric status among peers”—reference: PPI1802—by university Pablo de Olavide. This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation via a doctoral grant to the first author.

ORCID iDs

Celeste León-Moreno

Belén Martínez-Ferrer

Author Biographies

Celeste León-Moreno is research staff member in the Department of Education and Social Psychology at the Pablo de Olavide University (Andalusia). Her research interests focus on the study of the psychosocial adjustment of children and adolescents in school contexts, as well as the development of intervention strategies aimed at preventing school violence.

Belén Martínez-Ferrer received her PhD in social psychology from the University of Valencia and is lecturer in the Pablo de Olavide University (Andalusia). She is a member of the research group, Lisis, and PAIDI (SEJ-468) “Values, family, Equality and intergenerational relations” research groups. She is also a member of the Ibero-American Network for the Study of Violence in Adolescents (RIEVA).

David Moreno-Ruiz received his PhD in social psychology from the Pablo de Olavide University (Andalusia) and is lecturer in the University of Valencia. He is member of the Lisis research group specializing in the study of adolescence and school coexistence. His scientific works analyze primarily the role of family and school climate, social reputation, and violence in the psychosocial adjustment in adolescents.

Daniel Musitu-Ferrer is member of the research team of the Department of Education and Social Psychology of the Pablo de Olavide University (Andalusia). His research interests are focused on the study and application of environmental education in school contexts, as well as the relationship between empathy, connectivity, and environmental attitudes with school adjustment, parental socialization, and satisfaction with life.

References

Acquah

E. O.

Topalli

P.-Z.

Wilson

M. L.

Junttila

Niemi

P. M.

(2016). Adolescent loneliness and social anxiety as predictors of bullying victimisation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21, 320-331. doi:10.1080/02673843.2015.1083449

Allemand

Amberg

Zimprich

Fincham

F. D.

(2007). The role of trait forgiveness and relationship satisfaction in episodic forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 199-217. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.199

Barcaccia

Howard

Pallini

Baiocco

(2017). Bullying and the detrimental role of un-forgiveness in adolescents’ wellbeing. Psicothema, 29, 217-222. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.251

Barcaccia

Milioni

Pallini

Vecchio

G. M.

(2018). Resentment or forgiveness? The assessment of forgivingness among Italian adolescents. Child Indicators Research, 11, 1407-1423. doi:10.1007/s12187-017-9483-6

Barcaccia

Pallini

Baiocco

Salvati

Saliani

A. M.

Schneider

B. H.

(2018). Forgiveness and friendship protect adolescent victims of bullying. Psicothema, 30, 427-433. doi:10.7334/psicothema2018.11

Beltrán-Morillas

A. M.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

(2015). Forgiveness for transgressions in interpersonal relationships. Psychosocial Intervention, 24, 71-78. doi:10.1016/j.psi.2015.05.001

Bentler

P. M.

(2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Borges

Á.

Prieto

Ricchetti

Hernández-Jorge

Rodríguez-Naveiras

. (2008). Cross validity of the UCLA Loneliness Scale factorization. Psicothema, 20, 924-927. doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-3569-4

Cava

M. J.

Povedano

Buelga

Musitu

(2015). Psychometric analysis of the Scale of Teacher’s Perception of School Adjustment (PROF-A). Psychosocial Intervention, 24, 63-69. doi:10.1016/j.psi.2015.04.001

10.

Còrdoba Alcaide

Del Rey Alamillo

Casas Bolaños

J. A.

Ortega Ruiz

. (2016). Students’ rating of school climate in elementary schools: The value of peer networks. Psicoperspectivas: Individuo y Sociedad, 15, 78-89.

11.

Crespo

Romero-Abrio

Martínez-Ferrer

Musitu

(2017). Psychosocial variables and overt school violence among adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 26, 125-130. doi:10.1016/j.psi.2017.05.002

12.

Day

Maltby

(2005). Forgiveness and social loneliness. Journal of Psychology, 139, 553-555. doi:10.3200/JRLP.139.6.553

13.

Denham

Neal

Wilson

Pickering

Boyatzis

(2005). Emotional development and forgiveness in children: Emerging evidence. In Worthington

H. T.

(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 127-142). New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Didaskalou

Roussi-Vergou

Andreou

(2017). School belongingness and coping with victimisation in bullied and non-bullied students: A discriminant analysis approach [Special issue]. Journal of Modern Greek Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 110-124. Retrieved from https://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/37394

15.

Ettekal

Ladd

G. W.

(2015). Costs and benefits of children’s physical and relational aggression trajectories on peer rejection, acceptance, and friendships: Variations by aggression subtypes, gender, and age. Developmental Psychology, 51, 1756-1770. doi:10.1037/dev0000057

16.

Expósito

Moya

(1999). Social support and loneliness. Revista de Psicología Social, 14, 297-316. doi:10.1174/021347499760260000

17.

Expósito

Moya

(2000). Perception of the loneliness. Psicothema, 12, 579-585.

18.

Fehr

Gelfand

M. J.

Nag

(2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914. doi:10.1037/a0019993

19.

Fincham

F. D.

Hall

J. H.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2005). “Til lack of forgiveness doth us part”: Forgiveness and marriage. In Worthington

E. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 207-226). New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Fincham

F. D.

Hall

J. H.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2006). Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55, 415-427. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.callf.x-i1

21.

Flanagan

K. S.

Van den Hoek

K. K.

Ranter

J. M.

Reich

H. A.

(2012). The potential of forgiveness as a response for coping with negative peer experiences. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1215-1223. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.04.004

22.

Fox

Boulton

(2006). Friendship as a moderator of the relationship between social skills problems and peer victimisation. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 110-121. doi:10.1002/ab.20114

23.

Frias-Armentia

Rodríguez-Macías

J. C.

Corral-Verdugo

Caso-Niebla

García-Arizmendi

(2019). Restorative justice: A model of school violence prevention. Science Journal of Education, 6, 39-45. doi:10.11648/j.sjedu.20180601.15

24.

Garaigordobil

(2017). Antisocial behavior: Connection with bullying/cyberbullying and conflict resolution. Psychosocial Intervention, 26, 47-54. doi:10.1016/j.psi.2015.12.002

25.

Gerlsma

Lugtmeyer

(2018). Offense type as determinant of revenge and forgiveness after victimization: Adolescents’ responses to injustice and aggression. Journal of School Violence, 17, 16-27. doi:10.1080/15388220.2016.1193741

26.

Ghaemmaghami

Allemand

Martin

(2011). Forgiveness in younger, middle-aged and older adults: Age and gender matters. Journal of Adult Development, 18, 192-203. doi:10.1007/s10804-011-9127-x

27.

Govier

(2002). Forgiveness and revenge. London, England: Routledge.

28.

Graham

(2006). Peer victimization in school: Exploring the ethnic context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 317-321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00460.x

29.

Guzmán

(2010). Forgiveness in close relationships: Conceptualization from a psychological perspective and implications for the clinical practice. Psykhe, 19, 19-30. doi:10.4067/S0718-22282010000100002

30.

Guzmán

Tapia

M. J.

Tejada

Valenzuela

(2014). Measuring forgiveness in couple relationships: Psychometric properties of the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations inventory (TRIM-18) in a Chilean Context. Psykhe, 26, 211-226. doi:10.7764/psykhe.23.2.623

31.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Hellström

Beckman

(2020). Adolescents’ perception of gender differences in bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 90-96. doi:10.1111/sjop.12523

33.

Huitsing

Veenstra

Sainio

Salmivalli

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

34.

Hutzell

K. L.

Payne

A. A.

(2018). The relationship between bullying victimization and school avoidance: An examination of direct associations, protective influences, and aggravating factors. Journal of School Violence, 17, 210-226. doi:10.1080/15388220.2017.1296771

35.

Juvonen

Graham

(2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 159-185. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115030

36.

Kochel

K. P.

Ladd

G. W.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2012). Longitudinal associations among youth depressive symptoms, peer victimization, and low peer acceptance: An interpersonal process perspective. Child Development, 83, 637-650. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01722.x

37.

León-Moreno

Martínez-Ferrer

Musitu-Ochoa

Moreno-Ruiz

(2019). Victimisation and school violence: The role of the motivation of revenge, avoidance, and benevolence in adolescents. Journal of Psychodidactics, 24, 88-94. doi:10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.01.001

38.

León-Moreno

Musitu-Ferrer

(2019). Family communication patterns, school and family self-concept, and motivation of revenge among adolescents. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 9, 51-58. doi:10.30552/ejihpe.v9i1.316

39.

León-Moreno

Musitu-Ferrer

Cañas-Pardo

(2019). Sociometric status: The role of the motivation of revenge, avoidance, and benevolence in adolescents. In Gázquez

J. J.

Pérez

M. C.

Molero

M. M.

Parra

(Eds.), Investigación en el ámbito escolar: Un acercamiento multidimensional a las variables psicológicas y educativas (Vol. IV, pp. 303-307). Spain: ASUNIVEP.

40.

Lucas-Molina

Pérez-Albéniz

Fonseca-Pedrero

Giménez-Dasí

(2018). Bullying, defending, and outsider behaviors: The moderating role of social status and gender in their relationship with empathy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59, 473-482. doi:10.1111/sjop.12453

41.

Martínez-Ferrer

Moreno-Ruiz

Musitu

(2018). Are adolescents engaged in the problematic use of social networking sites more involved in peer aggression and victimization? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 801. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00801

42.

Matud

M. P.

(2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1401-1415. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010

43.

McCullough

M. E.

Hoyt

W. T.

(2002). Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1556-1573. doi:10.1177/014616702237583

44.

McCullough

M. E.

Worthington

E. L.

Rachal

K. C.

(1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

45.

McDonald

K. L.

Putallaz

Grimes

C. L.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Coie

J. D.

(2007). Girl talk: Gossip, friendship, and sociometric status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 381-411. doi:10.1353/mpq.2007.0017

46.

Miller

A. J.

Worthington

E. L.

McDaniel

M. A.

(2008). Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 843-876. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.843

47.

Muñiz

(2016). Virtual violence and psychosocial adjustment from a gender perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Pablo de Olavide University). Retrieved from https://rio.upo.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10433/4246/mu%C3%B1iz-rivas-tesis-16-17.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

48.

Mynard

Joseph

(2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169-178. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:2<169::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-A

49.

Ogurlu

Sarıçam

(2018). Bullying, forgiveness and submissive behaviors in gifted students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 2833-2843. doi:10.1007/s10826-018-1138-9

50.

Olweus

(1994). Bullying at school. In Huesmann

L. R.

(Ed.), Aggressive behavior (The Plenum Series in social/clinical psychology, pp. 97-130). Boston, MA: Springer.

51.

Oriol

Miranda

Amutio

Acosta

H. C.

Mendoza

M. C.

Torres-Vallejos

(2017). Violent relationships at the social-ecological level: A multi-mediation model to predict adolescent victimization by peers, bullying and depression in early and late adolescence. PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0174139. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174139

52.

Ortega-Barón

Buelga

Cava

M. J.

(2016). The influence of school and family environment on adolescent victims of cyberbullying. Comunicar, 24, 57-65. doi:10.3916/C46-2016-06

53.

Pitula

Murray-Close

Banny

Crick

(2015). Prospective associations between peer aggression and victimization: The moderating roles of physiological stress reactivity and gender. Social Development, 24, 621-639. doi:10.1111/sode.12110

54.

Pouwels

Van Noorden

Lansu

Cillessen

(2018). The participant roles of bullying in different grades: Prevalence and social status profiles. Social Development, 27, 732-747. doi:10.1111/sode.12294

55.

Povedano

Cava

Monreal

Varela

Musitu

(2015). Victimization, loneliness, overt and relational violence at the school from a gender perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15, 44-51. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.09.001

56.

Quintana-Orts

Rey

(2018). Traditional bullying, cyberbullying and mental health in early adolescents: Forgiveness as a protective factor of peer victimisation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), Article E2389. doi:10.3390/ijerph15112389

57.

Randa

Reyns

B. W.

(2014). Cyberbullying victimization and adaptive avoidance behaviors at school. Victims and Offenders, 9, 255-275. doi:10.1080/15564886.2013.877411

58.

Randa

Reyns

B. W.

Nobles

M. R.

(2019). Measuring the effects of limited and persistent school bullying victimization: Repeat victimization, fear, and adaptive behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 392-415. doi:10.1177/0886260516641279

59.

Romero-Abrio

Martínez-Ferrer

Sánchez-Sosa

J. C.

Musitu

(2019). A psychosocial analysis of relational aggression in Mexican adolescents based on sex and age. Psicothema, 31, 88-93. doi:10.7334/psicothema2018.151

60.

Runions

K. C.

Salmivalli

Shaw

Burns

Cross

(2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 501-511. doi:10.1002/ab.21770

61.

Sani

et al (2007, June). Gender differences in brain activity associated with imaginary elicited forgiving and unforgiving behavior in humans as assessed by fMRI. Poster presented at the 12th International Conference on Functional Mapping of Human Brain Mapping, Florence, Italy.

62.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

63.

Van Der Ploeg

Steglich

Salmivalli

Veenstra

. (2015). The intensity of victimization: Associations with children’s psychosocial well-being and social standing in the classroom. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0141490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141490

64.

Van Deursen

A. J.

Van Dijk

J. A.

Ten Klooster

P. M

. (2015). Increasing inequalities in what we do online: A longitudinal cross sectional analysis of Internet activities among the Dutch population (2010 to 2013) over gender, age, education, and income. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 259-272. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.09.003

65.

Vergara

G. A.

Stewart

J. G.

Cosby

E. A.

Lincoln

S. H.

Auerbach

R. P.

(2019). Non-suicidal self-injury and suicide in depressed adolescents: Impact of peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 744-749. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.084

66.

Wang

La Salle

K. A.

Sullivan

K. E.

(2018). School climate and parental involvement buffer the risk of peer victimization on suicidal thoughts and behaviors among Asian American middle school students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 9, 296-307. doi:10.1037/aap0000138

67.

Watson

Rapee

Todorov

(2016a). Forgiveness reduces anger in a school bullying context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 1642-1657. doi:10.1177/0886260515589931

68.

Watson

Rapee

Todorov

(2016b). Imagery rescripting of revenge, avoidance, and forgiveness for past bullying experiences in young adults. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 45, 73-89. doi:10.1080/16506073.2015.1108360

69.

Worthington

E. L.

Wade

N. G.

(1999). The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 385-418. doi:10.1521/jscp.1999.18.4.385

70.

Yárnoz-Yaben

(2008). Spanish adaptation of the scale for evaluation of social and emotional loneliness in adults SESLA-S. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 103-116.

71.

Yuan

Chan

Bentler

P. M.

(2000). Robust transformation with applications to structural equation modelling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 53, 31-50.

72.

Yuchang

Junyi

Junxiu

Jing

Mingcheng

(2019). The differential victimization associated with depression and anxiety in cross-cultural perspective: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(4), 560-573. doi:10.1177/1524838017726426