Troubling Secondary Victimization of Bullying Victims: The Role of Gender and Ethnicity

Abstract

Bullying is a severe public health problem, and bystanders’ reactions are a key variable in its perpetration and maintenance. This study aimed to assess the level of secondary victimization of bullying victims as a function of the student’s sex and the victim’s category (nonnormative vs. normative) in three experimental conditions (feminine, masculine, and ethnicity) from a socioecological perspective. Specifically, two dimensions of secondary victimization were evaluated: avoidance and devaluation/blaming of the victim. A sequence of mixed-design ANOVAs was performed with a sample of 553 Spanish (53.3%) and Portuguese (46.7%) students, aged between 14 and 19 years. Results show that nonnormative victims, those who transgress feminine and masculine gender stereotypes, and those who belong to a minority ethnic group (gypsies) are avoided more than normative victims; and that boys perpetrate more secondary victimization than girls. These results reveal the situation of vulnerability suffered by adolescents who transgress the gender norm as well as those who belong to minority ethnic groups, and highlight that the motivations concealed by the secondary victimization of bullying victims originate in the group processes of identity construction and categorization that configure the boundaries of “legitimacy” and are strongly influenced by social beliefs about normative and nonnormative identities. This socioecological approach could guide prevention strategies, so generic antibullying policies that do not explicitly address biases about gender, sexual, and cultural identity can be overcome to reduce the high levels of stigma occurring in the schools through critical and culturally responsive pedagogy.

Keywords

secondary victimization bullying victims normative and nonnormative identities gender ethnicity

Introduction

The greater sensitivity and attention currently granted to bullying highlight that this phenomenon is not just a school problem, but also a severe public health problem (United Nations, 2016, 2017), affecting at least 246 million children and adolescents worldwide (United Nations, 2016). Moreover, the United Nations (2017) underlines that students who suffer bullying have more difficulties in their interpersonal relations and are more likely to suffer depression, loneliness, anxiety, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation. In spite of having been little studied until relatively recently, bullying motivated by prejudice and stigma is one of the most prevalent types (Earnshaw et al., 2018). Therefore, to understand and achieve a comprehensive approach to the phenomenon of bullying, we must also take into account the situational and sociocultural dimensions of power and identity (Carrera et al., 2011) across different dependent dimensions such as gender (Carrera et al., 2011, 2013, 2019), ethnicity, or social class (Carrera et al., 2019; Galloway & Roland, 2004). Moreover, it has also been underscored that, for victims, not having anyone who defends them is even more traumatic and negative than the bullying itself; and that bystanders’ intervention/nonintervention is crucial for the occurrence and maintenance of bullying (Salmivalli, 2014). This fact is especially relevant for the prevention of bullying, and it acquires a key role in secondary victimization. This phenomenon refers to others’ negative or unresponsive behaviors towards a victim of bullying, who experiences these responses as a further violation of his/her rights (Rivera et al., 2012). However, to our knowledge, no empirical study has analyzed the joint influence of the perception of identitary categories of the victim’s gender and ethnicity and the secondary victimization suffered. This is the central purpose of this investigation.

Secondary Victimization: “The Second Rape”

Secondary victimization has been studied especially with female sexual assault survivors and has received the designation of “the second rape” or “the second assault” (Campbell, 2008). In general, the phenomenon of secondary victimization can be defined, as previously mentioned, as the lack of protection or the negative behaviors of the group of bystanders towards a victim of abuse (Rivera et al., 2012).

Moreover, secondary victimization, which means additional trauma for the victims, is associated with increased posttraumatic stress symptomatology (Campbell, 2008), affecting victims’ self-esteem and their trust in the future and a just world (Orth, 2002) and hindering their subsequent recovery (Brown, 1991). Some works also point out that secondary victimization is more painful and traumatic than the primary precipitating incident because it is carried out by those people who are supposed to care for and protect the victim by recognizing his/her vulnerability (Brown, 1991).

Among the factors that seem to influence secondary victimization, some studies highlight the victim’s categorization (Correia et al., 2007) and the perception of the victim as innocent or not innocent, such that bystanders’ perception of the victim will influence their secondary reaction to the abusive situation. In general, victims perceived as innocent suffer less secondary victimization, as well as victims of the ingroup versus those of the outgroup (Aguiar et al., 2008).

Secondary victimization of victims can assume several forms, which can be divided into four dimensions: avoidance of the victim (Hattendorf & Tollerud, 1997), minimization of the victim’s suffering (Rosenberg, 1994), blaming the victim (Hattendorf & Tollerud, 1997), and devaluation/derogation of the victim (Lerner & Simmons, 1966). In this study, three of these four dimensions are analyzed: avoidance, blaming, and devaluation.

Based on these premises, we highlight the importance of analyzing the phenomenon of secondary victimization in bullying victims, paying special attention to the potential bystanders.

Secondary Victimization of Bullying Victims: The Bystander’s Role

We know a lot about the primary victimization suffered by children, but very little about their secondary victimization, in spite of the fact that they are more vulnerable to secondary victimization than adults (Ben-Arich & Windman, 2007). Like victims of other types of abuse, victims of bullying are rejected by their peers and doubly victimized (Correia et al., 2010): primarily, by the situation of primary bullying victimization itself and secondarily, by the negative reactions of the environment. Hence, besides the consequences directly derived from episodes of bullying or primary victimization, they also subsequently suffer negative reactions from their social environment (e.g., family, friends, classmates, teachers, and other people in charge at school, or neighborhood), or secondary victimization (Brickman et al., 1982).

Despite this, the first studies on bullying, among which we highlight the contributions of Olweus, marked the dualist and individualized approach to traditional bullying research (Canty et al., 2016), mostly focused on the victim and the bully, while neglecting the bystander’s role. This was subsequently complemented with other works that have emphasized the group and dynamic nature of bullying, paying special attention to the bystander (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

From these more inclusive studies, the bystander’s role has been shown to be essential in the comprehension and prevention of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011) because their passivity is construed as tacit support for bullying (Gini et al., 2008). Thus, bullying, usually oriented to the acquisition of power and status within the peer group would make no sense unless there is a public (Salmivalli, 2014).

In addition, according to the homophily hypothesis, members of a given group tend to respond similarly to bullying situations, either reinforcing or rejecting these behaviors (Carrera et al., 2011). This tendency is particularly dangerous in groups where bullying is the norm (Swearer et al., 2009), revealing that, although bullying almost always occurs in the presence of bystanders (Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005), witnesses intervene less than 20% of the time (Salmivalli et al., 1996). This majority response drastically reduces the prevention and resolution of the bullying situation, as it has been shown that bullying is less frequent (Salmivalli et al., 2011) and even decreases (Pepler et al., 2010) in schools where bystanders are more prone to defend the victims.

In general, works analyzing the factors that influence bystanders’ responses observe the following: Firstly, girls are more likely to take up the position of defender (Salmivalli et al., 1996) or to simply refuse to be involved (Espelage & Holt, 2007); secondly, defender behavior is associated with high empathy (Saarento & Salmivalli, 2015), low moral disengagement (Thornberg et al., 2015), high social status in the classroom, high self-efficacy for defender behavior (Pöyhönen et al., 2012), high perception of support or social capital and a sense of belonging (Evans & Smokowski, 2015), and positive expectations that the victim will feel better as a result of being defended and will value such an outcome (Saarento & Salmivalli, 2015).

In any event, bystanders’ behavior when witnessing the bullying is a key element for the victim. Thus, the studies indicate that, regardless of the type and frequency of the bullying received, victims who have classmates who support and defend them feel less rejected and have higher self-esteem (Sainio et al., 2011). Likewise, the defenders of the victim also have a great impact on the dynamics of the bullying situations, contributing with their explicit disapproval to its discontinuation. Thus, when the majority reinforces the bully and does not support the victim, it is easier for bullying to take place, and vice versa (Sainio et al., 2011; Salmivalli, 2014).

Nevertheless, this extensive investigation of the bystanders in the dynamics of bullying usually includes the immediate response of the direct bystanders and neglects the subsequent responses of bystanders who either watched the situation or may have found out about it indirectly, through the victim or some other means. In this way, bystanders contribute to the victimization process through a range of possible responses of secondary victimization. Thus, authors like Stueve et al. (2006) or Jones et al. (2015) underline the need to expand the definition of bystander, including not only direct bystanders, but also the victim’s confidants or other people who are aware of the victimization.

In the same vein, it would be interesting to analyze, as we do in this study, the influence of bystanders’ perception of victims’ key identitary categories such as gender or ethnicity, which are perceived as normative (that is, in the line of the majority group) or nonnormative (in the line of the minority groups), on their reactions to bullying situations.

Secondary Victimization as a Function of the Perception of the Victim as Normative and Nonnormative

The influence of Olweus, which led to a dualist and individualized approach to the study of bullying, focused excessively on victim and aggressor (Canty et al., 2016), also promoted the study of the phenomenon from a perspective of deficit (Duncan, 2013). This restrictive and pathologizing perspective simplifies the problem and places the effectiveness of prevention and intervention policies at risk (Carrera et al., 2011). One of these limitations is related to the imbalance of power from a dualist and individualized analysis of the problem, which is geared primarily to victims’ and aggressors’ individual features (emotional, cognitive, and behavioral) or to the more immediate social context (family or school factors) while ignoring the relational nature of the phenomenon, as well as the broader contextual and sociocultural factors. This helps to reinforce the idea that only the victim and the aggressor—who are “pathologized” and contextualized in a deficit and deviant model of personal variables (Duncan, 2013)—suffer the problem, and ultimately are the ones who should receive the intervention.

This approach, which has been found to be totally ineffective (Carrera et al., 2011; Espelage & Swearer, 2010), barely surpassed by works that underscore the group and dynamic nature of bullying, among which are included the above-mentioned works that underscore the importance of the bystander’s figure (Salmivalli et al., 1996), as well as by the relational approach. This latter approach also transcends group analysis and indicates that vulnerability emerges from the complex social interpersonal mechanisms of dominance-submission, rather than from the individual characteristics of the involved students. Thus, the power imbalance between the one who abuses and the one who is victimized—no doubt, one of the defining criteria of a bullying situation—must be interpreted as more than a deliberate act of aggression by the aggressor towards the victim (Bansel et al., 2009). Therefore, as noted above, sociocultural values concerning the different identitary categories, such as gender (Carrera et al., 2011, 2013, 2019), ethnicity, or social class (Carrera et al., 2019; Galloway & Roland, 2004) should be analyzed.

Concerning gender, the classic discourse of bullying was developed from a positivist paradigm, moving along a continuum that ranged between “gender blindness” and the essentialization of gender differences (Carrera et al., 2011). Thus, from this perspective, the analysis of bullying has gone from indicating that boys engage significantly more in the phenomenon while ignoring girls’ problems (Keddie, 2009) to recognizing boys’ greater involvement in more direct and explicit bullying situations, and girls’ engagement in more indirect and relational ones.

Subsequently, this essentialist paradigm began to be tentatively overcome by the constructivist approach, in which the link between bullying and gender is no longer sex as a biological condition, but gender as a cultural construct resulting from the differential socialization processes of gender. Young and Sweeting (2004) or Gini and Pozzoli (2006) and more recent works like those of Navarro et al. (2011), Carrera et al. (2013), or Morales et al. (2016) analyze the relations between gender stereotypes associated with personality (specifically, with instrumentality and expressiveness) and participation as victim or aggressor in bullying situations. They also highlight that masculinity-instrumentality is related to greater participation as the aggressor, and expressiveness-femininity is related to lower engagement as the aggressor, especially for girls (Morales et al., 2016), and to experiencing more victimization, especially for boys (Young & Sweeting, 2004). This underscores that boys’ transgression of masculinity-instrumentality is more negatively perceived than girls’ transgression of femininity-expressiveness. In a similar vein, other even more scarce works have also included in this analysis the variables of sexism (DeSouza & Ribeiro, 2005) and homophobia (Carrera et al., 2013, 2019), showing that students who are more sexist and more homophobic engage significantly more in aggression.

Although these works focused especially on the aggressors, their conclusions also indicate the vulnerability of victims who transgress gender norms more or less explicitly. Accordingly, many studies stress the difficult bullying situation suffered more significantly by LGBTI-Q adolescents or those who are perceived as such by their peers, in comparison with their gender-conforming classmates (Brockenbrough, 2016; Kosciw et al., 2010; Robinson & Espelage, 2011). These situations explain, at least in a significant percentage, the especially high incidents of suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, and unjustified absences from school in these groups (McDermott, 2015; Robinson & Espelage, 2012).

Complementarily, along with the constructivist perspective and reinforcing its findings, are the noteworthy studies carried out from the poststructuralist perspective of gender. This perspective points to the performative nature of gender (Butler, 1990, 1993), highlighting that gender is a “doing” or a process made up of practices consisting of repeating the roles and traits traditionally and discursively associated with each sex, which excludes the people who transgress them (Butler, 1990). Thus, bullying is also portrayed as a way of doing gender, consisting of repeating the gender norm in violent actions and of excluding those who transgress the gender norm. From this perspective, it is observed that girls, and especially boys, who do not perform their gender according to the roles and stereotypes traditionally associated with femininity and masculinity are punished by their classmates (Carrera et al., 2018a; Forsberg & Thornberg, 2016; Ringrose & Renold, 2010; Youdell, 2006).

Concerning cultural diversity, ethnicity and nationality constitute identitary categories that generate discrimination in the school setting and the broader social setting (Calvo-Buezas, 2012; Park, 2011). Both in Spain and Portugal, prejudiced attitudes towards the Gypsy, Maghreb, and sub-Saharan ethnic groups are noteworthy (Calvo-Buezas, 2012). In addition, rejection of the Muslim religion has increased dramatically (Instituto de la Juventud Española [Spanish Youth Institute] 2013). Specifically, concerning the Gypsy ethnic group, we note a study of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018), an independent organism that advises the States Members of the EU in issues concerning human rights. This report points out that this is the majority ethnic minority in the European Union, with approximately six million Gypsy citizens. Despite this, this report claims that the situation of discrimination they suffer is pervasive, and they are the most discriminated minority in the EU area, where this group survives in conditions similar to how they would live in underdeveloped countries. Likewise, Spain and Portugal stand out among the countries where social rejection towards this collective has increased the most, especially regarding their access to housing.

Nevertheless, ethnicity and nationality or immigrant status have scarcely been analyzed in studies on bullying (Spriggs et al., 2007), in contrast to gender, which was always present, at least in the biologistic aspect. However, in the last ten years, these variables have begun to receive more attention to comprehend the bullying phenomenon. Thus, different studies indicate that students of minority ethnic and/or immigrant groups suffer significantly more bullying than their native peers and/or members of majority ethnic groups (Maynard et al., 2016; McKenney et al., 2006; Strohmeier et al., 2011), which is confirmed in ten different countries, both for first- and second-generation adolescent immigrants. They are also at more risk of suffering from emotional and behavioral problems, as well as lower life satisfaction (Gonneke et al., 2015). These data contrast with those obtained in other works in which either no differences were found (Vitoroulis & Vaillancourt, 2015) or the opposite pattern was found, with immigrant male students being the ones who engaged in more peer violence (Graham & Juvonen, 2002).

Along these lines, other noteworthy works are those that show that anti-Gypsyism is one of the causes explaining the bullying suffered by the children, adolescents, and youth of the Gypsy ethnic group in English (Searle, 2017), Irish (Bloomer et al., 2014), Spanish (Gómez et al., 2014), or Portuguese schools (Mendes, 2012). Also, other works, such as those of Díaz-Aguado et al. (2004), the Observatorio Estatal de la Convivencia Escolar [State Observatory of School Life] (2010) or Carrera et al. (2019), carried out in Spain, point out the close relationship between discriminatory attitudes toward cultural diversity and participation as an aggressor in bullying situations.

The above-cited works do not address the secondary victimization experienced by victims who do not conform to the gender norm and who belong to a minority cultural group, but rather they focus especially on primary victimization. However, from them, we can infer that the secondary victimization suffered by these adolescents and youths may be significantly greater than that experienced by normative victims. In this sense, works examining secondary victimization in different violence situations point out that, among the factors mediating the “bystander effect” is included the perception of the victims’ identity as different, especially when they are perceived as transgressors of gender norms (Byers, 2013; Masser & Moffat, 2006) or as belonging to minority ethnic groups (Piliavin et al., 1981).

In addition, if we consider that identity consists of a constellation of categories, it is not surprising that people live with multiple socially devalued identitary categories. Intersectionality refers to particular forms of intersecting oppressions that work concurrently, such as intersections of race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, among other identitary categories. Thus, intersectionality emphasizes that oppression cannot be analyzed only attending to an identitary category or the sum of the different identitary categories, but their intersection (Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 2017). In the same vein, victims of bullying can suffer violence based simultaneously on their race/ethnicity, and gender and sexual orientation, among other categories (Rosenthal, 2016), so studying the intersection between multiple identities is a key aspect of the bullying phenomenon (King et al., 2018). Thus, like with primary victimization, secondary victimization of bullying victims cannot be adequately analyzed without recognizing the victim’s place in categories such as gender, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation, among others. Accordingly, one might think that victims with multiple socially devalued identities would suffer more secondary victimization.

All in all, as noted above, the bystander role has been shown to be essential for the comprehension and prevention of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011) because, besides suffering the situation of primary bullying victimization, bullying victims also suffer secondary victimization from their environment (Correia et al. 2010). Moreover, such secondary victimization can be perpetrated immediately by the direct bystanders of the bullying situation, as well as subsequently by these same bystanders or by others who have found out about the situation either through the victim or through third parties. Nevertheless, studies analyzing secondary victimization in bullying situations are scarce, and most of them focus on the direct reaction of the bystander (Stueve et al., 2006). Likewise, when secondary victimization of bullying victims has been studied, behavioral avoidance has not been differentiated from behaviors of devaluation/blaming (Correia et al., 2010).

In addition, the influence of the bystanders’ perception of the victim’s identity on their reaction to the bullying victimization has also been underscored (Correia et al., 2007), especially with regard to the categories of gender identity and ethnicity. These categories are essential in the bullying phenomenon, as noted in the most recent studies within the framework of the socioecological model (Brockenbrough, 2016; Morales et al., 2016; Robinson & Espelage, 2012). Nevertheless, these variables have not been studied empirically in relation to the secondary victimization of bullying victims, either separately or concurrently.

The Present Study

The experimental conditions included in this study (feminine, masculine, and ethnicity) allow us to compare the secondary victimization suffered by adolescents who conform versus transgress femininity, and by adolescents who conform versus transgress masculinity, as well as by adolescents who belong to a minority ethnic group, Gypsies versus the majority “payos” (the term used in Spain by Gypsy people to refer to “non-Gypsy people”). The situation of total discrimination experienced by the Gypsy collective in Europe (United Nations, 2016) makes it a key group to be included in the third experimental condition of this investigation.

To our knowledge, no empirical study has investigated these factors in the secondary victimization of bullying victims, which, from our point of view, is an important gap in the literature. Hence, the experimental study presented herein constitutes the first attempt to investigate how the perception of the victim as normative versus nonnormative with regard to the identitary dimensions of gender and ethnicity influences the reaction of potential bystanders. Thus, the aim of the current study was to assess the level of secondary victimization as a function of the victim’s category (nonnormative vs. normative) and the sex of the students (girls vs. boys) in three experimental conditions (feminine, masculine, and ethnicity). In the line of the studies presented, we expect the following: Hypothesis (1) Secondary victimization, in its two modalities (devaluation/blaming and avoidance) will be significantly greater in nonnormative victims than in normative victims in the three experimental conditions; and Hypothesis (2) The levels of secondary victimization, in its two modalities (devaluation/blaming and avoidance) will be perpetrated more significantly by boys than by girls.

Method

Participants

A sample of 553 Spanish and Portuguese students from the last two years of Compulsory Secondary Education in 27 schools participated in the study. Of these, 295 participants (53.3%) were from the region of Galicia and 258 (46.7%) were from the region of Minho (transborder regions in the northwest of Spain and Portugal, respectively). Of the participants, 53% were girls and 47% were boys. Age ranged from 14 to 19 years, with a mean age of 15.19 years (SD = 0.87). Of the sample, 87.3% attended public schools, and 12.7% attended private or state-subsidized schools. Sample size was determined before any data analysis. Specifically, for sample selection, stratified random cluster sampling was used, with the sampling units being the schools and the units of analysis the students. In both regions, the design of the sample draws on a double stratified universe: by province—in Galicia—and by municipalities—in the region of Minho—, according to the population size of the municipalities and towns (respectively, for the two countries). Twenty-seven Secondary Education schools (16 Spanish schools and 11 Portuguese schools) were randomly selected, respectively, from each country’s regional lists that reflect the total number of schools that offer Compulsory Secondary Education. Each school randomly selected a class from one of the last two courses of Compulsory Secondary Education. Spain and Portugal are two neighboring countries that share a territory and many years of history. The European Commission’s latest report on discrimination at the Union level highlights that 54% of the Spaniards and 67% of the Portuguese people interviewed consider discrimination due to ethnic origin to be widespread in their country, especially towards the Gypsy population (62% and 63%, respectively), with similar percentages concerning perceived discrimination towards the trans collective (58% and 59%, respectively) and the LGB collective (54% and 71%, respectively) (European Commission, 2019). In line with this, in both countries, attitudes towards adolescents’ and youths’ sexual and gender diversity are especially negative in boys (Carrera et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2013) who consider themselves Catholic, of conservative ideology, and with few nonheterosexual friends (Lopes et al., 2017). In terms of school bullying, although the data are inconsistent, the prevalence is higher in Portugal (39%) than in Spain (15.4%) (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2019), with the bullying of LGBTI-Q people who do not conform to the gender norms or who are perceived as such being a significant reality in both countries, and which does not receive the necessary attention (Carrera et al., 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2016), as also occurs with the bullying of minority ethnic groups (Carrera et al., 2019). Although there is a national bullying prevention strategy in both countries (Downes & Cefai, 2016), educational laws allow, but do not guarantee, training in positive attitudes towards sexual and cultural diversity.

Procedure, Design, and Materials

This study was carried out in Spain and in Portugal, where it received approval from the Ministry of Education and from the National Commission of Data Protection (in Spain, there is no such requirement). In both regions, the design of the sample was made from a double stratified universe: by provinces and municipalities, according to the population size of the latter. We randomly selected 27 Secondary Education schools: 16 Spanish schools and 11 Portuguese schools.

Once the schools had been selected, letters were sent to the principals, explaining the study, and requesting their collaboration. School principals were later contacted by telephone to confirm their participation. If the school principal agreed to participate in the study, the assessment was conducted. Otherwise, a new school was selected. Active informed consent of parents or legal tutors was required, and all students whose parents or tutors refused participation were excluded from the study.

The self-reported assessment was individual, anonymous, and voluntary, and was administered during class hours by specially trained researchers. All participants in the study were provided with unspecific information about the investigation to minimize any possible biases: they were told that its objective was to learn about relationships among adolescents in schools. We designed three pairs of stories, one for each experimental condition. In each of the conditions, we separately presented two differentially described characters who were the protagonists of an identical bullying situation. At the beginning of the questionnaire, we explained that a situation that had happened at school to adolescents of their age would be presented, and they were requested to carefully read the story.

The first pair of stories (feminine experimental condition) describes Paula, an adolescent who does not reproduce female gender stereotypes (“Paula is 15 years old and studies in a secondary education center. She isn’t a very good student and is not interested in schoolwork, but she still gets good grades. She hates feminine clothes and usually dresses in loose black shirts and trousers. In her free time, she listens to heavy metal music and practices boxing. She does not like boys and says that she will never have a relationship with any boy…”). Next, a situation of bullying is presented (“One day, during a change of class, some classmates approached Paula’s table and said: ‘Slut! Ugly! Your clothes are disgusting! Beat it! We don’t want people like you in our class’”). Subsequently, students were asked, “What would you do after witnessing or finding out about that situation?” and we included the Secondary Victimization of Bullying Victims Index (SVBVI) (Correia et al. 2010) made up of 7 items. Responses are given on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (I would never do that) to 6 (I would always do that), with higher scores indicating a higher level of secondary victimization. The structure of this scale was evaluated with the data of the normative subjects of the sample from the two countries. Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were run, and two factors were extracted and rotated in both cases. Each factor included three items. Item 6 was removed because only values > .40 should be included (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). The final models contained a clear and identical factor structure, which included three items on Factor 1 and three items on Factor 2. The two factors were titled: Devaluation/Blaming (including the items: “You laugh at him/her,” “You tell him/her that it is all his/her fault,” and “You tell him/her: ‘you’re worthless’”) and Avoidance (including the items: “You approach him/her so that he/she feels better”—reverse coded—, “You do not say anything to him/her” and “You go away and do not say anything to him/her.” The two factors obtain acceptable reliabilities (with Cronbach’s alphas between .77. and .70 for Devaluation/Blaming, respectively, for Spain and Portugal; and Cronbach´s alphas between .68 and .67 for Avoidance, respectively, for Spain and Portugal). This structure was confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the nonnormative data of both samples. The indices confirmed that the hypothesized structure of the scale fit the data well for the samples from Spain, χ²(8) = 16.2, p < .04, χ²/df= 2.02, GFI= .971, IFI= .985, CFI= .985, and from Portugal, χ²(8) = 25.9, p < .01, χ2/df = 3.24, GFI= .181, IFI= .942, CFI= .941.

After presenting Paula’s story, this part of the questionnaire was collected, and the students continued with their regular classes. One hour later, we presented the homologous story of Andrea, with an identical situation to that of Paula, but with one difference because, in this case, the female character reproduces the feminine gender stereotypes (“Andrea is 15 years old and studies at a secondary school center. She is pretty, studious, and affectionate. She helps her classmates whenever she can and cares for them. In her spare time, she is a volunteer for the protection of animals in her neighborhood. She has been going out with a male classmate for three months”). And we again administered the Secondary Victimization Scale.

The second pair of stories (masculine experimental condition) described Marcos, who transgresses the masculine gender stereotypes and roles (“Marcos is 15 years old and studies at a secondary school. He is a studious and responsible adolescent. He dances ballet in his spare time. His family considers him sensitive, tender, and affectionate. He has been going out with Daniel, a male classmate, for six months”); and Bruno, who reproduces the masculine gender norm (“Bruno is 15 years old and studies at a secondary center. He is handsome, tall, and strong. In his spare time, he practices football and athletics. Since second grade of Compulsory Secondary Education, his grades have dropped, but he still passes everything. His family considers him intelligent, independent, and with a strong personality. He has gone out with various girls from the school but has had no serious romantic relationship”).

Lastly, the third pair of stories (ethnicity experimental condition) described Antonio, who belongs to a minority ethnic group (“Antonio is 14 years old and studies at a secondary school. He belongs to the Gypsy ethnicity and his family is engaged in street selling. Sometimes he accompanies his parents to the fairs, so occasionally he misses class. When he grows up, he would like to be a traveling salesman or a farmer”); versus Ivan, who belongs to a majority ethnic group—“payo”—(“Ivan is 15 years old and studies in a secondary school. His father is a doctor and his mother is a lawyer. He likes school, especially science subjects. When he grows up, he wants to be an engineer”).

The analyzed situation for each protagonist was identical to that of Paula/Andrea presented above, except for the insult used in the situation of bullying: “¡Up yours, you fag!” / “Up yours, stupid!” (respectively, to Marcos and Bruno); and “Up yours, Gypsy!”/“Up yours, retard!” (respectively, to Antonio and Ivan).

Allocation of the participants to the different experimental conditions was random, attending to a similar distribution by country, province, population size of the municipality, and academic year. Each of the experimental conditions (formed by their two stories) was administered to the entire class, such that each participant read and exclusively completed one of the experimental conditions. In all cases, the story of the nonnormative adolescent was presented first (mean duration 8 minutes), and then, the story of the normative adolescent (mean duration 8 minutes). A code was included in each questionnaire to identify the different parts of the questionnaire of each participant while respecting their anonymity.

Data Analysis

We performed a series of analyses of variance (ANOVA) to explore how adolescent participants reacted in each of the proposed experimental situations. First, we conducted a two-way mixed-design ANOVA (2 × 2) using as within-subject factors: victim category (2: nonnormative/normative); and as between-subject factors: sex (2: girls/boys). Then, independent-sample t-tests and paired-sample t-tests were conducted to explore possible significant relationships between variables in greater depth.

Results

Feminine Experimental Condition: Paula Versus Andrea

To analyze the level of secondary victimization with regard to victim category and sex in both dimensions, Devaluation/Blaming and Avoidance, a two-way mixed-design ANOVA (2 x 2) was conducted, using victim category as a within-subject factor and sex as a between-subject factor.

In relation to Devaluation/Blaming, results confirmed a significant main effect for sex, but not for victim category or for their interaction (Table 1a). It was observed that boys devalued/blamed Paula (nonnormative victim) more significantly than girls did (t = –3.19, p < .01), and that boys more significantly devalued/blamed Paula than Andrea (normative victim) (t = –2.18, p < .05).

Table 1.

Model ANOVAs for Experimental Conditions.

1a. Feminine experimental condition
	df	F	η_p²
Devaluation/blaming
Gender	1.192	10.09**	.050
Victim category	1. 192	3.76	.019
Gender × victim category	1.192	2.96	.015
Avoidance
Gender	1.194	9.94**	.049
Victim category	1. 194	44.36***	.188
Gender × victim category	1.194	6.26*	.032
1b. Masculine experimental condition
	df	F	η_p²
Devaluation/blaming
Gender	1.174	23.92***	.121
Victim category	1.174	.134	.001
Gender × victim category	1.174	6.91**	.038
Avoidance
Gender	1.174	14.54***	.077
Victim category	1.174	10.89***	.059
Gender × victim category	1.174	7.58**	.042
1c. Ethnicity experimental condition
	df	F	η_p²
Devaluation/blaming
Gender	1.181	10.38***	.097
Victim category	1.181	3.17	.017
Gender × victim category	1.181	.79	.004
Avoidance
Gender	1.181	10.67***	.056
Victim category	1.181	62.49***	.257
Gender × victim category	1.181	3.75	.020

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

With regard to the level of Avoidance, results confirmed a significant main effect for sex, victim category, and their interaction (Table 1a). Statistical tests to analyze the relationship between these variables showed that boys avoided victims more significantly than girls did (t = –2.99, p < .01) and that the nonnormative victim suffered significantly more secondary victimization than the normative victim (t = –2.99, p < .01). Specifically, boys avoided the nonnormative victim more significantly than girls did (t = –3.76, p < .001). We also confirmed that boys (t = –5.51, p < .001) and girls (t = –3.62, p < .001) both avoided Andrea (nonnormative victim) significantly more than they avoided Paula (normative victim) (Figure 1a).

Figure 1a.

Interaction effects of gender and victim category on avoidance. Feminine experimental condition.

Masculine Experimental Condition: Marcos Versus Bruno

Again, in this experimental condition, to analyze the level of secondary victimization as a function of victim category by sex in both dimensions, Devaluation/Blaming and Avoidance, a two-way mixed-design ANOVA (2 x 2) was conducted. Concerning Devaluation/Blaming, sex and the Sex x Victim Category interaction were significant (Table 1b). Statistical tests to analyze the relationship between these variables showed that boys devalued/blamed victims more significantly than girls did (t = –5.00, p < .001), with males devaluating/blaming victims—both Marcos, nonnormative (t = –5.42, p < .001) and Bruno, normative (t = –2.78, p < .01)—more than their female classmates did. Girls victimized Bruno, normative victim, more significantly than they victimized Marcos, nonnormative victim (t = 2.86, p < .05) (Figure 1b).

Figure 1b.

Interaction effects of gender and victim category on devaluation/blaming. Masculine experimental condition.

In relation to the level of Avoidance, results confirmed a significant main effect for sex, victim category, and their interaction (Table 1b). Statistical tests showed that boys avoided victims more significantly than girls did (t = –3.82, p < .001) and that the nonnormative victim suffered significantly more secondary victimization than the normative victim (t = –3.22, p < .01). Boys avoided victims —both Marcos, nonnormative (t = –4.75, p < .001) and Bruno, normative (t = –1.98, p < .05)—the most. We also confirmed that boys (t = –4.16, p < .001) avoided Marcos (nonnormative victim) significantly more than they avoided Bruno (normative victims) (Figure 1c).

Figure 1c.

Interaction effects of gender and victim category on avoidance. Masculine experimental condition.

Ethniciy Experimental Condition: Antonio Versus Ivan

A two-way mixed-design ANOVA (2 x 2) was applied to analyze the level of secondary victimization of bullying victim, using again as within-subject factor: victim category, and as between-subject factor: sex. In relation to Devaluation/Blaming, sex was significant (Table 1c) with males devaluating/blaming victims more than their female classmates (t = –4.42, p < .001). This is confirmed both for Antonio, nonnormative victim (t = –3.76, p < .001), and for Ivan, normative victim (t = –2.18, p < .001) (Table 1c). In relation to the level of Avoidance, results confirmed a significant main effect for sex and victim category, but not for their interaction (Table 1c). Statistical tests showed that boys avoided victims more significantly than girls did (t = –3.16, p < .01), which was confirmed both for Antonio, nonnormative victim (t = –3.77, p < .001) and for Ivan, normative victim (t = –2.15, p < .05). The results also showed that Antonio (nonnormative victim) suffered more secondary victimization than Ivan (normative victim) (t = –7.78, p < .001), and this was observed both for boys (t = –6.67, p < .001) and girls (t = –4.71, p < .001).

Discussion

The present study assesses the level of secondary victimization of bullying victims as a function of sex and victim category (nonnormative vs. normative), in the dimensions of devaluation/blaming and avoidance, in three experimental conditions (feminine, masculine, and ethnicity) from a socioecological perspective. In general, results show that nonnormative victims are avoided significantly more than normative victims, and that boys perpetrate more secondary victimization than girls do.

Specifically, in the victim category, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed in the dimension “avoidance,” with a minor exception, but not in the dimension “devaluation/blaming.” Thus, in general, nonnormative victims (Paula, Marcos, and Antonio) were avoided more significantly than normative victims (Andrea, Bruno, and Ivan), except for girls in the masculine experimental condition. That is, in all cases, students avoided the nonnormative victim more significantly, except for girls, where we found no significant differences in the avoidance of Marcos compared to that of Bruno. Concerning devaluation/blaming, we found no significant differences in the secondary victimization of nonnormative victims compared to normative victims, except in the feminine experimental condition for boys, who victimized Paula more significantly than they did Andrea; and in the experimental masculine condition for girls who, contrary to our expectations, devalued the normative victim (Bruno) more significantly than they devalued the nonnormative victim (Marcos).

The fact that secondary victimization is greater for nonnormative victims than for normative victims in avoidance, but not in devaluation/blaming, is in line with the studies that have observed that when bullying is perceived as less “severe” (for example verbal bullying vs. physical bullying), the victim’s secondary victimization is greater (Correia et al., 2010). In this case, the increased harshness and hostility of the dimension “devaluation/blaming,” added to the perception of greater social vulnerability of the nonnormative victim, could allay the secondary victimization exercised on the victim. In the same line, concerning the specific results obtained in girls, the fact that they more significantly devalued/blamed Bruno, a normative victim who reproduces the gender norm, than Marcos, a nonnormative victim who transgresses hegemonic masculinity, could be related to girls’ greater sensitivity towards the vulnerability of nonnormative victims, especially towards boys who violate the rigid gender norms of masculinity, and which especially affects devaluation/blaming because of its more hostile and explicit nature than avoidance. Girls’ higher sensitivity compared to their male classmates is consistent with most of the research on bullying and with girls’ engagement, confirming that girls engage less as aggressors (Olweus, 2010), they have more negative attitudes towards bullying, and more positive attitudes towards the victim (Espelage & Holt, 2007; Salmivalli et al., 1996). In contrast to the instrumental traits, expressive personality traits (related to traditional femininity) favor a positive and proactive attitude towards victims (Gini & Pozzoli, 2006; Morales et al., 2016; Young & Sweeting, 2004), in this case, towards Marcos, nonnormative victim in the masculine experimental condition, who could be perceived by girls as being more vulnerable.

In any case, the fact that, in general, nonnormative victims of bullying are avoided more than normative victims reveals the situation of vulnerability suffered by adolescents who transgress the gender norms (Carrera et al., 2013; Brockenbrough, 2016), as well as those who belong to minority ethnic groups (Carrera et al., 2019; Gonneke et al., 2015; Maynard et al., 2016). In this case, the transgression of the femininity gender norms by Paula, who adheres more to instrumental traits (traditionally associated with masculinity) than to expressive traits (traditionally associated with femininity); as well as the subversion of the rigid gender norms of masculinity exemplified by Marcos, who even transgresses mandatory heterosexuality—the greatest transgression for a male adolescent (Byers, 2013; Ringrose & Renold 2010); or Antonio’s membership in a minority ethnic group as despised as the Gypsy ethnicity (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2018) places these adolescents in a vulnerable situation in an exclusive society that rejects cultural and gender diversity. In this sense, although our work discretely analyses the secondary victimization suffered by adolescents who transgress what is traditionally considered a normative identity, both concerning gender and ethnicity, these results allow us to hypothesize, from an intersectional perspective, that adolescents and young people who embody various nonnormative identitary categories (e.g., being Gypsy and homosexual) will suffer more secondary victimization in school.

On another hand, greater victimization of nonnormative victims could also be a self-defense strategy to avoid the cost of an intervention that could place the bystander at risk of being identified as gay or lesbian, or simply being identified with the vulnerability of Marcos, Andrea, or Antonio within the group (Byers, 2013).

Concerning sex, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed with a small exception. Thus, we observe that boys devalued/blamed and avoided all victims, both normative and nonnormative, more significantly than did their female classmates, except in the case of Andrea, a normative victim in the feminine experimental condition, where no significant differences were identified in devaluation/blaming. In general, these results are consistent with studies of bullying that observed girls’ lower involvement in and greater disapproval of the phenomenon (Carrera et al., 2013; Olweus, 2010; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), as mentioned previously. The fact that boys’ devaluation/blaming of Andrea was not significantly higher than that carried out by girls could respond to the performative nature of the gender, because for a male adolescent to victimize a classmate who, in this case, reproduces the gender norm, especially in the harshest dimension of “devaluation/blaming,” would not be a good way to “do” and “reaffirm his masculinity” but instead would turn him into a coward or even an aggressor, performing “toxic masculinity” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Ringrose & Renold, 2010). This would not occur with the victimization of Paula, who transgresses normative femininity, with Mark, who transgresses hegemonic masculinity, or with Antonio, who belongs to a minority ethnic group, because, in all cases, “punishing” the transgression of the rigid gender (Carrera et al., 2018a; Ringrose & Renold, 2010) or ethnicity boundaries would contribute to the performance of intelligible masculinity (Carrera et al, 2019). Nor would it happen with the victimization of Bruno or Ivan, who reproduce the gender and ethnicity norms respectively and with whom they could measure their strength (Carrera et al., 2018a), or whom they could also “punish” for not being able to defend themselves.

In any case, it seems that the masculine socialization that promotes instrumental gender stereotypes in boys contributes to their toughness and their distancing from the victim, as has been observed in the works that analyze boys’ participation as aggressors in the phenomenon of bullying (Carrera et al., 2013, 2019; Gini & Pozzoli, 2006; Morales et al., 2016; Navarro et al., 2011).

In this line, some authors warn that the risk that the “bullying” category might silence the crude reality of racism, sexism, and homophobia in the classroom (Brown et al., 2007), concealing the motivations underlying such acts (Byers, 2013). This way, school and society would recognize the violence occurring within educational institutions but not the nature and true meaning of this violence (Loach & Bloor, 1995). Therefore, examining in greater depth the causes of bullying and secondary victimization of bullying victims is essential to win the battle against this severe problem of public health.

Limitations and Future Research

With regard to the dimensions of secondary victimization analyzed, it would be interesting to conjointly evaluate the dimensions included in this study (avoidance and devaluation/blaming) and the dimension “minimization of the victim’s suffering” to determine whether it behaves the same as the dimension avoidance compared to the dimension devaluation/blaming; that is, whether secondary victimization is greater in this dimension than in the devaluation/blaming dimension, as occurs with avoidance. This is in line with the above studies highlighting that when bullying is perceived as less severe, secondary victimization is greater, such that, in the dimensions “avoidance” and “minimization of the victim’s suffering,” which are perceived as less hostile than the dimension of “devaluation/blaming,” the level of secondary victimization would be higher. Closely related to this, it would also be interesting to analyze different types of victimization in different scenarios, including not only verbal violence but also physical violence or sexual violence with varying degrees of severity, to determine whether, in fact, bystanders would perform less secondary victimization in those incidents of abuse perceived as more severe.

Regarding the experimental design, it would be interesting for future research to analyze differences in secondary victimization as a function of whether or not normative and nonnormative victims belong to their group, for which a sexually and ethnically diverse sample of participants would be needed, as well as the identification of these participant dimensions. In the feminine experimental condition, testing other types of “transgression of hegemonic femininity.” such as overstepping the continuum of decency—for example, a girl perceived as being “too sexy” —or identifying with/being perceived as a lesbian (Youdell, 2006) could provide interesting data about the victimization of students perceived as nonnormative about their gender. The sad and well-known incident of Catherine Genovese, who lived with her female partner and who was raped and murdered in 1964 while 38 neighbors witnessed the event and did nothing to stop it or relieve her suffering, suggests the influence that such a perception of the victim may have on secondary victimization. Also, comparing secondary victimization of victims who simultaneously possess diverse socially devalued identitary categories could help us to move forward from the perspective of intersectionality. Of course, it would be interesting to analyze the real situation of secondary victimization by combining the perspectives of the students and the teachers.

Conclusions and Implications for Educational Practice

Despite the aforementioned limitations, in general, the results highlight that nonnormative victims are avoided more significantly than normative victims, and that boys perpetrate more secondary victimization than girls. Being a nonnormative girl or a nonnormative boy, like Paula and Marcos, or belonging to a minority ethnic group—Gypsy—like Antonio, is related to suffering more secondary victimization. This is in a similar vein as the works reporting that transgressing heteronormativity in a heteronormative society (Carrera et al., 2013, 2018a), and being an immigrant or belonging to a minority ethnic group in an ethnocentric society and school are risk factors for victimization (Díaz-Aguado et al., 2004; Garandeau et al., 2010). Thus, as with homophobia and rejection of transgression of the gender norm (Carrera et al., 2013, 2018a, 2019), anti-Gypsyism is also a key variable to understand and prevent bullying, as denounced in the works of Searle (2017), Bloomer et al. (2014), Gómez et al. (2014), or Mendes (2012), carried out in different European schools, including Spanish and Portuguese schools. Likewise, as identified in this work, heteronormativity and anti-Gypsyism (and, by extension, negative attitudes towards cultural diversity) are key variables to understand secondary victimization.

Thus, it can be concluded that the motivations concealed by the secondary victimization of bullying victims and, in general, underlying the practice of bullying originate in the group processes of identity construction and categorization that configure the boundaries of “legitimacy”—and with them, group inclusions and exclusions—and are strongly influenced by sociocultural values of power and identity, as well as social beliefs about normative and nonnormative identities. Thus, gender and ethnicity inequality in school may be a reflection of gender and ethnicity issues in society at large, so that if one particular group enjoys greater power in the broader community, this may impact peer ecology at school (Carrera et al., 2011; Garandeau et al., 2010).

This socioecological approach should also guide prevention strategies, so generic antibullying policies that do not explicitly address biases about gender, sexual and cultural identity can be overcome in order to reduce the high levels of stigma occurring in the schools (Byers, 2013; Robinson & Espelage, 2012) by means of critical and culturally responsive pedagogy (Brockenbrough, 2016; Forsberg & Thornberg, 2016). In the context of this critical pedagogy, the inclusion of an educative queer practice is particularly relevant. Queer pedagogy is born in the philosophical framework of the queer theory (Britzman, 1995), which denounces the violence generated by the heteronormativity, ethnocentrism, and capacitism and, more broadly, any division between I/we (the center and the norm) and “other” norm transgressors, who are located on the margins and perceived as unintelligible and abject (Butler, 1990, 1993; Carrera et al., 2018b). In short, queer pedagogy problematizes the specific objective of education when asking, as Spivak (1992) notes, how institutionalized educational practices influence or determine the empowerment of subaltern populations and their subordination. The main strategies of queer pedagogy, which could help prevent primary and secondary victimization in socioeducational spaces, are therefore not aimed at encouraging hegemonic and normative groups (the center) to tolerate nonnormative others (the margins), but to blurring the boundaries that artificially separate them, transforming the classroom into a space that favors social change. It is therefore necessary to deconstruct the naturalized (and standardized) nature of sexual, gender, and cultural identities, break the normal/abnormal binary and problematize violence, addressing its underlying conditions (Carrera et al., 2018b, 2019; Kumashiro, 2002). For these strategies to be effective, it is necessary not only to allow, but to ensure an education in values oriented to the valuing of diversity and using a double approach: transversal, involving all areas of the curriculum, and systematized in a specific subject or curriculum area.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statements

This study was approved by the Ministry of Education and by the National Commission of Data Protection of Portugal. All aspects of data collection in this study, including participant involvement based on active informed consent of parents/legal tutors, were conducted in full compliance with standards articulated in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments.

ORCID iD

María Victoria Carrera-Fernández

Author Biographies

María Victoria Carrera-Fernández, PhD, received her PhD in 2010 from University of Vigo, Spain, where she is currently working as a lecturer. Her research and teaching have focused on bullying and cyberbullying from a socioecological perspective, gender, heteronormativity, and ethnicity.

Ana Almeida, PhD, received her PhD in 1997 from University of Minho, Portugal, where she is currently working as professor. Her research and teaching have focused on bullying, cyberbullying, and positive parenting.

Xosé Manuel Cid-Fernández, PhD, received his PhD in 1987 from University of Santiago, Spain, and is currently working as a professor in the University of Vigo. His research and teaching have focused on multicultural education, critical pedagogy, culture, politics, and education.

Antonio González-Fernández, PhD, received his PhD in 1991 from University Complutense of Madrid, Spain, and is currently working as a professor in the University of Vigo. His research and teaching have focused on cognitive processes, motivation, emotions, and learning strategies.

Jesús Deibe Fernández-Simo, PhD, received her PhD in 2014 from University of Vigo, Spain, where he is currently working as a lecturer. His research and teaching have focused on social education, vulnerable youth, child residential centers, and social inclusion.

References

Aguiar

, Vala

, Correia

, & Pereira

(2008). Justice in our world and in other’s world: Belief in a just world and reactions to victims. Social Justice Research , 21(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0059-3

Bansel

, Davies

, Laws

, & Linnell

(2009). Bullies, bullying and power in the contexts of schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 30(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690802514391

Ben-Arich

, & Windman

(2007). Secondary victimization of children in Israel and the child’s perspective. International Review of Victimology , 14(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800701400303

Bloomer

, Potter

, & Hamilton

(2014). Challenges and barriers in primary school education: The experiences of traveller children and young people in Northern Ireland. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice , 9(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197913475767

Brickman

, Rabinowitz

V. C.

, Karuza

, Coates

, Cohen

, & Kidder

(1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist , 37(4), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.4.368

Britzman

D. P.

(1995). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight. Educational Theory , 45(2), 151–165.

Brockenbrough

(2016). Becoming queerly responsive: Culturally responsive pedagogy for Black and Latino urban queer youth. Urban Education , 51(2), 170–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914549261

Brown

L.M.

, Chesney-Lind

, & Stein

(2007). Patriarchy matters: Toward a gendered theory of teen violence and victimization. Violence Against Women , 13(12), 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207310430

Brown

(1991). Counseling victims of violence . American Association for Counseling and Development.

10.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity . Routledge.

11.

Butler

(1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.” Routledge.

12.

Byers

D.S.

(2013). “Do they see nothing wrong with this?”: Bullying, bystander complicity, and the role of homophobic bias in the Tyler Clementi case. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services , 94, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4325.

13.

Calvo-Buezas

(2012). Migraciones y racismo: Actitudes de adolescentes españoles y portugueses ante otros pueblos y culturas [Migrations and racism: Spanish and Portuguese adolescents’ attitudes toward other peoples and cultures]. Revista Antropológicas , 10, 43–68.

14.

Campbell

(2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist , 63(2), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702

15.

Canty

, Stubbe

, Steers

, & Collings

(2016). The trouble with bullying-deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centred investigation into children’s use of social media. Children & Society , 30(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12103

16.

Carrera

M. V.

, Cid

X. M.

, Almeida

, González

, & Lameiras

(2019). Me and us versus the others: Troubling the bullying phenomenon. Youth & Society , 53(3), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X19857868

17.

Carrera

M. V.

, Cid

X. M.

, & Lameiras

(2018b). El status queer o la utopía posible: Aportaciones de la pedagogía queer para la construcción de nuevos imaginarios identitarios [The status queer or possible utopia: Contributions of queer pedagogy to the building of new imaginations of identity]. In Ocampo

(Ed.), Pedagogías Queer: Diálogos críticamente subversivos sobre la domesticación educativa [Queer pedagogies: Critically subversive dialogues about educational domestication] (pp. 48–70). Ediciones CELEI.

18.

Carrera

M. V.

, DePalma

, & Lameiras

(2011). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of bullying in school settings. Educational Psychology Review , 23(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10648-011-9171-x

19.

Carrera

M. V.

, Lameiras

, & Rodríguez

(2018a). Performing intelligible genders through violence: Bullying as gender practice and heteronormative control. Gender and Education , 30(3), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1203884

20.

Carrera

M. V.

, Lameiras

, Rodríguez

, & Vallejo

(2013). Bullying among Spanish secondary education students: The role of gender traits, sexism, and homophobia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 28(14), 2915–2940. https://doi.org/0.1177/0886260513488695

21.

Carrera

M. V.

, Lameiras

, Rodríguez

, & Vallejo

P. (2014)

Spanish adolescents’ attitudes toward transpeople: Proposal and validation of a short form of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Journal of Sex Research , 51(6), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.773577

22.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

23.

Connell

R. W.

, & Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Socıety , 19(6), 829–859.

24.

Correia

, Alvés

, Ameida

A.M.

, & García

(2010). Norms regarding secondary victimization of bullying victims: Do they differ according to the victim’s categorization? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 51(2), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00732.x

25.

Correia

, Vala

J. &

, & Aguiar

(2007). Victim’s innocence, social categorization and the threat to the belief in a just world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 43(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.010.

26.

Crenshaw

(2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings . The New Press.

27.

DeSouza

E. R.

, & Ribeiro

(2005). Bullying and sexual harassment among Brazilian high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 20(9), 1018–1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505277731

28.

Díaz-Aguado

M. J.

, Martínez

, & Martín

(2004). La violencia entre iguales en la escuela y en el ocio. Estudios comparativos e instrumentos de evaluación [The peer violence at school and in leisure: Comparative studies and assessment tools]. Instituto de la Juventud.

29.

Downes

, & Cefai

(2016). How to prevent and tackle bullying and school violence: Evidence and practices for strategies for inclusive and safe schools . Publications Office of the European Union.

30.

Duncan

(2013). Using disability models to rethink bullying in schools. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice , 8(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1746197913486250

31.

Earnshaw

V. A.

, Reisner

S. L.

, Menino

, Poteat

, Bogart

, Barnes

, & Schuster

(2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic review. Developmental Review , 48, 178–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001

32.

Espelage

D. L.

, & Holt

M. K.

(2007). Dating violence and sexual harassment across the bully-victim continumm among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 36(6), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9109-7

33.

Espelage

D. L.

, & Swearer

S. M.

(2010). A social-ecological model form bullying prevention and intervention: understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In Jimerson

S. R.

, Swearer

S. M.

, & Espelage

D. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp. 61–72). Routledge.

34.

European Commission. (2019). Discrimination in the European Union. Special Eurobarometer, 493 . Publications Office of the European Union.

35.

Rights

European Union Agency for Fundamental

(2018). A persisting concern: Anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion . Publications Office of the European Union.

36.

Evans

, & Smokowski

(2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44, 2289–2307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5

37.

Fandrem

, Ertesvag

S. K.

, Strohmeier

, & Roland

(2010). Bullying and affiliation: A study of peer groups in native and immigrant adolescents in Norway. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 7(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620802335075

38.

Forsberg

, & Thornberg

(2016). The social ordering of belonging: Children’s perspectives on bullying. International Journal of Educational Research , 78, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.008

39.

Galloway

D. M.

, & Roland

(2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always best? In Smith

P. K.

, Pepler

& Rigby

(Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be (pp. 37–53). Cambridge University Press.

40.

Garandeau

C. F.

, Wilson

, & Rodkin

P.C.

(2010). The popularity of elementary school bullies in gender and racial context. In Jimerson

S. R.

, Swearer

S. M.

, & Espelage

D. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp. 119–136). Routledge.

41.

Gini

, & Pozzoli

(2006). The role of masculinity in children’s bullying. Sex Roles , 54(7), 585–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9015-1

42.

Gini

, Pozzoli

, Borghi

, & Franzoni

(2008). The role of bystanders in students’ perceptions of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology , 46(6), 617–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.02.001

43.

Gómez

, Munte

, & Sorde

(2014). Transforming schools through minority males’ participation: Overcoming cultural stereotypes and preventing violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 29(11), 2002–2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513515949

44.

Gonneke

, Stevens

J. M.

, Walsh

, Huijts

, Maes

, Madsen

, Cavallo

, & Molcho

(2015). An internationally comparative study of immigration and adolescent emotional and behavioral problems: Effects of generation and gender. Journal of Adolescent Health , 57(6), 587–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.07.001

45.

Graham

, & Juvonen

(2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence , 22(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431602022002003

46.

Hattendorf

, & Tollerud

T. R.

(1997). Domestic violence: Counseling strategies that minimize the impact of secondary victimization. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care , 33(1), 14–23.

47.

Instituto de la Juventud Española (2013). Youth in Spain Report 2012 . Author.

48.

Jones

L. M.

, Mitchell

K. J.

, & Turner

H. A.

(2015). Victim reports of bystander reactions to in-person and online peer harassment: A national survey of adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44(12), 2308–2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0342-9

49.

Keddie

(2009). Some of those girls can be real drama queens: Issues of gender, sexual harassment and schooling. Sex Education , 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810802639863

50.

King

M. T.

, Merrim

, Espelage

D. L.

, Grant

N. J.

, & Bub

K. L.

(2018). Suicidality and intersectionality among students identifying as nonheterosexual and with a disability. Exceptional Children , 84(2) 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917736261

51.

Kosciw

J. G.

, Greytak

E. A.

, Diaz

E. M.

, & Bartkiewicz

M. J.

(2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . GLSEN.

52.

Kumashiro

(2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive pedagogy . Routledge Falmer.

53.

Lerner

M. J.

, & Simmons

C. H.

(1966). The observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 4(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023562

54.

Lloret-Segura

, Ferreres-Traver

, Hernandez-Baeza

, & Tomas-Marco

(2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología , 30(3), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361

55.

Loach

, & Bloor

(1995). Dropping the bully to find the racist. Multicultural Teaching , 13(2), 18–20.

56.

Lodge

, & Frydenberg

(2005). The role of peer bystanders in school bullying: Positive steps toward promoting peaceful schools. Theory into Practice , 44(4), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4404_6

57.

Lopes

, Oliveira

J. M.

, Nogueira

, & Grave

(2017). The social determinants of polymorphous prejudice against lesbian and gay individuals: The case of Portugal. Sexuality Research and Social Policy , 14(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0230-4

58.

Masser

, & Moffat

K. B.

(2006). With friends like these … The role of prejudice and situational norms on discriminatory helping behavior. Journal of Homosexuality , 51(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n02_07

59.

Maynard

, Vaughn

, Salas-Wright

, & Vaugh

(2016). Bullying victimization among school-aged immigrant youth in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health , 58(3), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.11.013

60.

McDermott

(2015). Asking for help online: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans youth, self-harm and articulating the ‘failed’ self. Health , 19(6), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459314557967

61.

McKenney

K. S.

, Pepler

, Craig

, & Connolly

(2006). Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment: The experiences of Canadian immigrant youth. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology , 9(4), 239–264.

62.

Mendes

M. M.

(2012). Representations about discrimination practices in the education system built by gypsies (ciganos) in the Lisbon metropolitan area (Portugal). SAGE Open , 2(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012441005

63.

Morales

J. F.

, Yubero

, & Larrañaga

(2016). Gender and bullying: Application of a three-factor model of gender stereotyping. Sex Roles , 74(3–4), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0463-3

64.

Navarro

, Larrañaga

, & Yubero

(2011). Bullying-victimization problems and aggressive tendencies in Spanish secondary school students: The role of gender stereotypical traits. Social Psychology of Education , 14(4), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9163-1.

65.

Escolar

Observatorio Estatal de la Convivencia

(2010). Estudio estatal sobre la convivencia escolar en la educación secundaria obligatoria [National study of school coexistence in compulsory secondary education]. Author.

66.

Olweus

(2010). Understanding and researching bullying. Some critical issues. In Jimerson

S. R.

, Swearer

S. M.

, & Espelage

D. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective (pp. 9–33). Routledge.

67.

Orth

(2002). Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Social Justice Research , 15(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021210323461

68.

Park

(2011). Young children making sense of racial and ethnic differences: A sociocultural approach. American Educational Research Journal , 48(2), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382889

69.

Pepler

, Craig

, & O’Connell

(2010). Peer processes in bullying: Informing prevention and intervention strategies. In Jimerson

S. R.

, Swearer

S. M.

, & Espelage

D. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 469–479). Routledge.

70.

Piliavin

J. A.

, Dovidio

, Gaertner

, & Clark

R. D.

(1981). Emergency intervention . Academic Press.

71.

Pöyhönen

, Juvonen

, & Salmivalli

(2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development , 21(4), 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x.

72.

Ringrose

, & Renold

(2010). Normative cruelties and gender deviants: The performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys in school. British Educational Research Journal , 36(4), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903018117

73.

Rivera

E. A.

, Sullivan

C. M.

, & Zeoli

A. M.

(2012). Secondary victimization of abused mothers by family court mediators. Feminist Criminology , 7(3) 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430827

74.

Robinson

, & Espelage

D. L.

(2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQ—heterosexual risk disparities: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Researcher , 41(8), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12457023

75.

Robinson

J. P.

, & Espelage

D. L.

(2011). Inequities in educational and psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher , 40(7), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11422112

76.

Rodrigues

, Grave

, de Oliveira

J. M.

, & Nogueira

(2016). Study on homophobic bullying in Portugal using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología , 48(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2016.04.001

77.

Rodríguez

, Lameiras

, Carrera

M. V.

, & Vallejo

(2013). Validación de la Escala Moderna de Homofobia en una muestra de adolescentes [Validation of the Modern Scale of Homophobia in a sample of adolescents]. Anales de Psicología , 29, 523–533. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.2.137931

78.

Rosenberg

(1994). A life span perspective of domestic abuse and neglect. Sociological Viewpoints , 10, 25–34.

79.

Rosenthal

(2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity. American Psychologist , 71(6), 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040323

80.

Saarento

, & Salmivalli

(2015). The role of classroom peer ecology and bystanders’ responses in bullying. Child Development Perspectives , 9(4), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12140

81.

Sainio

, Veenstra

, Huitsing

, & Salmivalli

(2011). Victims and their defenders: A dyadic approach. The International Journal of Behavioral Development , 35(2), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410378068

82.

Salmivalli

, & Voeten

(2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 28(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000488

83.

Salmivalli

(2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory into Practice , 53(4), 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947222

84.

Salmivalli

, Lagerspetz

, Björkqvist

, Österman

, & Kaukiainen

(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior , 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T

85.

Salmivalli

, Voeten

, & Poskiparta

(2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 40(5), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090

86.

Searle

(2017). Xeno-racism and the scourge of Roma school exclusión. Race & Class , 59(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396817701671

87.

Spivak

(1992). Acting bits/Identity talk. Critical Inquiry , 18(4), 770–803.

88.

Spriggs

, Iannoti

, Nansel

, & Haynie

(2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health , 41(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009

89.

Stafford

(2017). European map of implicit racial bias . https://theconversation.com/this-map-shows-what-white-europeans-associate-with-race-and-it-makes-for-uncomfortable-reading-76661

90.

Strohmeier

, Kärnä

, & Salmivalli

(2011). Intrapersonal and interpersonal risk factors for peer victimization in immigrant youth in Finland. Developmental Psychology , 47(1), 248–258.

91.

Stueve

, Dash

, O’Donnell

, Tehranifar

, Wilson-Simmons

R. W.

, Slaby

R. G.

, & Link

B. G.

(2006). Rethinking the bystander role in school violence prevention. Health Promotion Practice , 7(1), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839905278454

92.

Swearer

S. M.

, Espelage

D. L.

, & Napolitano

S. A.

(2009). Bullying prevention and intervention: Realistic strategies for schools . Guilford.

93.

Thornberg

, Pozzolli

, Gini

, & Jungert

(2015). Unique and interactive effects of moral emotions and moral disengagement on bullying and defending among school children. Elementary School Journal , 116(2), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/683985

94.

Thornberg

, Tenenbaum

, Varjas

, Meyers

, Jungert

, & Venegas

(2012). Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene? Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , 13(3), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2012.3.11792

95.

United Nations. (2016). Ending the torment: Tackling bullying from the schoolyard to cyberspace . https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210583244.

96.

United Nations. (2017). School violence and bullying global status report . https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/school-violence-and-bullying-global-status-report

97.

Educational

United Nations

Scientific Organization

Cultural

(2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying . https://www.unicef.org/media/66496/file/Behind-the-Numbers.pdf

98.

Vitoroulis

, & Vaillancourt

(2015). Meta-analytic results of ethnic group differences in peer victimization. Aggressive Behavior , 41(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/AB.21564

99.

Youdell

(2006). Impossible bodies, impossible selves: exclusions and student subjectivities . Springer

100.

Young

, & Sweeting

(2004). Adolescent bullying, relationships, psychological well-being and gender-atypical behavior: A gender diagnostic approach. Sex Roles , 50(7), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023072.53886.86