Can Lower Levels of Classroom Victimization be harmful? Healthy Context Paradox Among Chinese Adolescents

Abstract

The healthy context paradox is defined as the phenomenon that victims’ psychological adjustment worsens in a context with a lower rate of victimization. The unexpected pattern was primarily confirmed in children and adolescents from western societies, and it is unclear whether classroom-level victimization could moderate the link between peer victimization and psychological adjustment in the Chinese cultural context, where Confucian philosophies and collectivism are highly valued. Furthermore, most existing research used a single method to assess peer victimization. The current study attempted to examine classroom-level peer victimization as a moderator in the association between individual-level peer victimization and depression, self-esteem, and well-being among 2613 Chinese seventh graders (1237 girls, M_age = 13.00±.61) from 47 classrooms (M_{classroom size} = 55.60, range from 45 to 65) using both self-reported and peer-reported information on peer victimization. At the individual level, the results revealed that both self- and peer-reported victimization were positively related to depression and negatively related to self-esteem and well-being. Most importantly, consistent with past findings documenting the healthy context paradox, self-reported victimized youth experienced a higher level of depression and lower level of self-esteem and well-being in classrooms where the overall level of victimization was relatively low. However, the healthy context paradox was not replicated in the nominated data of peer victimization. These results confirmed the healthy context paradox in Chinese culture to some extent. The findings emphasize the importance of measuring peer victimization from multiple sources and suggest there is a need for additional support to victimized middle school students where the classroom context was relatively healthy.

Keywords

peer victimization classroom victimization depression self-esteem well-being healthy context paradox

Introduction

Peer victimization of adolescents during school years has been a growing concern across the world. Experiencing peer victimization during childhood or adolescence has negative effects on psychological adjustment (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Reijntjes et al., 2010). The person–context fit theoretical model posits that the presence of specific characteristics of individuals alone (i.e., victimized experience) does not necessarily result in maladaptive adjustment because their effects are always dependent on characteristics of the social context (Bellmore et al., 2004). However, the extant peer victimization literature lacks a systematic focus on how contextual factors interact with victimization experiences to influence psychological adjustment. Recent findings suggest that being victimized in settings with lower rates of victimization worsened the plight of victimized children and adolescents, which has been referred to as the healthy context paradox (Huitsing et al., 2019; Salmivalli, 2018). Notably, existing research was conducted primarily in children and adolescents from western societies (Gini et al., 2020; Huitsing et al., 2019; Sentse et al., 2007). It is unclear whether the healthy context paradox can be replicated in the Chinese cultural context, where Confucian philosophies and collectivism are highly valued. In addition, the majority of research used only a single method, particularly self-report, to measure peer victimization (Gini et al., 2020; Morrow et al., 2021; Yun & Juvonen, 2020). Relying on data solely obtained from a single informant may be inadequate and may bring biases, thus it is desirable to assess victimization from multiple sources (Card & Hodges, 2008). Therefore, the primary purpose of the current investigation was to explore whether adjustment difficulties commonly experienced by victims of bullying may be exacerbated in classroom contexts in which less victimization occurs in a sample of Chinese adolescents utilizing both self- and peer-report methods of peer victimization.

Peer victimization and psychological adjustment

Peer victimization is the experience of children being targets of the aggressive behavior of other children (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). It occurs in direct (physical, verbal, or material) and indirect (gossiping, rumor spreading, excluding others, or cyberbullying) forms (Wang et al., 2009). A large-scale survey of 40 countries, including European countries, North American countries, and Israel, showed that 12.6% of adolescents reported being bullied by peers (Craig et al., 2009). In China, the incidence of self-reported bullying victimization is as high as 26.1% according to a nationally representative survey (Han et al., 2017). Research has also widely indicated that peer victimization is concurrently associated with a range of psychological maladjustments, including depression (Brunstein Klomek et al., 2007), low self-esteem (Van Geel et al., 2018), and low well-being (Guhn et al., 2013). It is worth noting that the negative effects of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence can persist through adulthood, which throws a long shadow over affected people’s lives (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015; Wolke et al., 2013).

Healthy Context Paradox

Although the negative consequences of peer victimization have been well established, it is important to consider contextual factors as potential moderators in the victimization-adjustment link given that victimization is often embedded in the larger peer context (Salmivalli, 2018). The person-context fit theoretical model provides a framework for understanding how adjustment is dependent on the specific characteristics of an individual and their social context (Magnusson & Stattin, 1998). According to the goodness-of-fit concept, consonance between individuals and their social contexts (i.e., goodness of fit) is expected to yield positive adjustment, whereas dissonance between individuals and their social contexts (i.e., poorness of fit) is expected to result in negative adjustment (Bellmore et al., 2004). Classroom descriptive norms describe the extent to which most classmates will do so (Henry et al., 2000). The descriptive norm for peer victimization is, for example, the overall level of victimization experience shown by all students in a classroom together. As such, the current study focused on the classroom level of victimization (i.e., the descriptive norm for peer victimization) to characterize the classroom context. Classroom norms were found to influence adolescents’ maladjustments, such as loneliness and feelings of belonging (Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2021). Most importantly, recent empirical findings further indicated that maladjustments associated with individual victimization varied from classroom-level victimization (Gini et al., 2020; Yun & Juvonen, 2020). Specifically, the pattern of interaction suggested that victimized children and adolescents exhibited more adjustment difficulties in classrooms where the overall level of victimization was low, which supported the person–context dissimilarity in predicting psychological adjustment. Similarly, the intervention study also found that children who remain or become victimized in schools receiving anti-bullying intervention (i.e., schools with a low level of peer victimization) experience more depressive symptoms and lower self-esteem than victims in control schools (Huitsing et al., 2019). The inverse association between victimization-related maladjustment and overall classroom victimization levels has been described as the “healthy context paradox” (Garandeau & Salmivalli, 2019; Salmivalli, 2018).

The literature suggests at least two explanations for this paradoxical phenomenon: cognitive processes and interpersonal relationships (Garandeau & Salmivalli, 2019). According to attribution theory (Weiner, 1986) and social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), victims are more likely to engage in self-blaming attributions and compare themselves to nonvictimized peers when their environment features less victimization. In turn, these two cognitive processes could exacerbate their adjustment difficulties. On the other hand, classrooms with few other victims may worsen victims’ adjustment by influencing their social relationships. Targets of bullying are more disliked in peer groups due to the belief in a just world (i.e., other peers tend to believe victims get what they deserve; Lerner, 1970) and similarity effects (i.e., dissimilarity between victims and other peers leads to disliking; Montoya et al., 2008). Thus, victims would be less likely to form friendships that play a key protective role in the victimization-adjustment link.

To date, research has confirmed the adverse effects of healthier classroom contexts on victims’ adjustment among American (Morrow et al., 2019), Canadian (Li & Craig, 2020), Dutch (Huitsing et al., 2019), Italian (Gini et al., 2020), and South Korean (Yun & Juvonen, 2020) children and adolescents, but whether a healthy context paradox also exists in the context of Chinese culture still needs further study. Cultural contexts highly influence children’s social development (Chen & French, 2008). In China, where Confucian philosophies and collectivist values are predominant, individuals attach great importance to interdependence, compliance with collective norms, and harmonious interpersonal relationships (Huang et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010). Under such a cultural background, children and adolescents may be more likely to obey classroom norms and reject victims, which leads to more severe symptoms for victims. However, they may also provide help and support for victimized peers to maintain social relationships, which may alleviate victims’ maladjustment. In view of the two possibilities mentioned above, it is necessary to replicate the healthy context paradox in Chinese culture. To our knowledge, only one study has examined the role of classroom-level victimization in the association between victimization and externalizing problems (Liu et al., 2021). Although the results confirmed the healthy context paradox, little is known about whether classroom-level victimization moderates the link between victimization and psychological maladjustment, such as depression, self-esteem, and well-being, among Chinese youth.

Assessing Peer Victimization with Multiple Sources

In the research field of peer victimization, one of the controversial methodological issues is how to accurately measure peer victimization. The two most widely used methods for assessing peer victimization in the existing literature are self-report and peer nomination (Branson & Cornell, 2009; Tran et al., 2012). Undoubtedly, the child’s report is the most important given that victims are likely most aware of and impacted by their victimization experiences (Card & Hodges, 2008). However, self-reporting of peer victimization could sometimes be problematic due to its inherent subjectivity. For example, some victims may overattribute certain behaviors as bullying, while others may be unwilling to acknowledge their victimized experiences (Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004). Peer reports, on the other hand, provide an opportunity to garner information from external observers who are likely most knowledgeable of incidents of victimization (Card & Hodges, 2008). The peer nomination measure also has its shortcomings. The score derived from peer nomination represents the extent to which victimization is known by many peers, while certain bullying is of a subtle and somewhat covert nature that may be difficult for peers to observe (Olweus, 2013). In addition, peer nominations may be influenced by reputation effects (Volk et al., 2017). Given the strengths and weaknesses of peer victimization information derived from self- and peer reports, this study employs both methods to provide a richer understanding of victimization and examine the healthy context paradox.

The Present Study

Based on the gaps in the existing literature, the current study attempted to replicate the healthy context paradox for depression, self-esteem, and well-being among Chinese adolescents using both self-report and peer-report information on peer victimization. It was hypothesized that the pattern for psychological adjustment would confirm the healthy context paradox, that is, victimized Chinese adolescents would experience more depression and less self-esteem and well-being in classrooms where victimization is less common. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the healthy context paradox would be replicated in self-report as well as peer-report data of peer victimization.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from seven secondary schools in Zhengzhou City, which is located in the middle of China’s Henan province. According to the latest population census of China (Office of the Leading Group of the State Council for the Seventh National Population Census, 2021), the demographic characteristics, including gender, age composition, ethnicity, and educational attainment, of the Henan population are comparable with those among the Chinese population. A total of 2613 students in grade 7 (1376 boys, 1237 girls; mean age = 13.00 years, SD = .61) from 47 classrooms were assessed at the end of the first semester in January 2015. The average classroom size was 55.60 (ranging from 45 to 65). The majority of participants (96.4%) belonged to the Han Chinese ethnicity, the vast majority ethnic group in China. Regarding participants’ parents, a high proportion had a relatively low educational attainment, with 1954 (74.8%) mothers and 1895 (72.5%) fathers possessing a junior secondary education or lower.

Measures

Self-reported peer victimization

Self-reported peer victimization was measured using seven items from the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1993), and the Chinese version was revised by Zhang and Wu (1999). Students reported how often they had been the targets of different types of peer victimization at school (i.e., “made fun of you,” “hit, kicked, or pushed you,” “threatened or intimidated you,” “Other students left you out of things on purpose,” “Your belongings have been vandalized,” “Being robbed or extorted for money or goods,” and “Being spoken ill by others behind”) on a 5-point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = three or four times, 4 = five times or more). Averaging the seven items formed a peer victimization score; higher scores indicated greater self-reported peer victimization. The reliability of the questionnaire was good, and the Cronbach’s α of the scale was .80. To capture the level of self-reported victimization in classrooms, individual self-reported scores for individual-level victimization were aggregated within each classroom.

Peer-reported peer victimization

Three items (i.e., “who gets hit, kicked, and pushed by others?,” “who made fun of by others?,” and “who is threatened or intimidated by others?”) were used to obtain nomination data of peer victimization. Students were asked to nominate at most five classmates who fit each of the descriptors. To assist with this task, adolescents were given a roster of student names alongside the number codes from their own class and instructed to write down the corresponding codes of classmates who fit each question. Confidentiality was assured, and the adolescents were asked to keep their answers covered so that no one else could see them. The mean number of nominations that each participant received was calculated and then divided by the total number of possible nominations in the class, with a higher score corresponding to a higher level of peer-nominated peer victimization. Cronbach’s α for the peer-reported victimization measures based on these three indices was .95. To capture the level of peer-nominated victimization in classrooms, individual nominated scores for individual-level victimization were aggregated within each classroom.

Depression

Adolescent depression was measured by the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 2003). The CDI is a 27-item self-rated scale for children aged 7–17 years that assesses feelings or behaviors associated with depressive symptoms. Each item has three response options (0–2), from which the adolescent selects the one that most closely reflects his or her thoughts and feelings over the past 2 weeks. The CDI consists of five subscales: negative mood, interpersonal problems, ineffectiveness, anhedonia, and negative self-esteem. The mean of the items was taken, with a higher score indicating more severe depression. The CDI showed good internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity among Chinese adolescents (Wu et al., 2010). In the present study, the scale had good reliability as well (α =.87).

Self-esteem

Adolescents’ self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item self-esteem inventory. The scale includes half positively and half negatively worded statements such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I certainly feel useless at times.” Respondents were asked to rate their general feelings related to themselves from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Negative items from the Rosenberg scale were reverse coded. The average scores of all items were used, with higher scores indicating more self-esteem (α =.82).

Well-being

Adolescents’ well-being was measured by the Index of Well-Being scale (Campbell et al., 1976), which includes a two-part self-rated measure assessing general affect and life satisfaction. The index of well-being is a sum of the average score on the index of general affect, composed of eight items in semantic differential format as the opposite poles of 7-point scales, and a single-item assessment of life satisfaction weighed 1.1 in the combination score. The Cronbach’s α of the scale in the current study was .91.

Procedures

Before the survey was administered, approval from the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ affiliated institution and the participants’ written informed consent were obtained. All parents and legal caregivers also provided corresponding written informed consent for their charges’ participation in the study. The questionnaires were anonymous, and all questionnaires only had ID numbers. The research assistants (i.e., trained undergraduate and postgraduate students) read the instructions aloud and ensured that each participant understood them. Throughout the procedure, the children were reminded to keep their responses confidential. Students were assessed collectively, that is, by taking the class as a group, and they completed all the questionnaires in their classroom during school hours.

Analytic Plan

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20.0 and Mplus version 8.3. First, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were conducted in SPSS. Then, a series of multilevel regressions were conducted in Mplus to account for students being nested within classrooms and to examine whether the association between individual victimization and psychological adjustment (i.e., depression, self-esteem, and well-being) varied depending on class victimization levels. Although classrooms are nested within schools, the current study did not control for school nesting because the number of schools was not sufficient to warrant analysis at the school level and it had been advised to include a minimum of 30 cluster units to specify levels in multilevel analysis (Muthén, 2003). The parameters were estimated with maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) to account for the potential nonnormal distribution of the residuals. Unstandardized coefficients were reported in the main text, but both unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients were reported in Tables.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations between the predictor variables and adjustment outcomes are shown in Table 1. As expected, individual-level victimization of self-report and nomination was positively related to depressive symptoms and negatively related to self-esteem and well-being. The coefficients of individual-level victimization with psychological outcomes were higher for self-report than for nomination. Self-reported classroom-level victimization was also positively related to depression and negatively related to self-esteem and well-being. There is no significant correlation between classroom-level victimization of nomination and adjustment outcomes.

Table 1.

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1 Individual-level victimization (self-report)	—
2 Individual-level victimization (nomination)	.29^***	—
3 Classroom-level victimization (self-report)	.27^***	.08^***	—
4 Classroom-level victimization (nomination)	.13^***	.16^***	.48^***	—
5 Depression	.38^***	.11^***	.08^***	.03	—
6 Self-esteem	-.25^***	-.12^***	-.07^***	.01	-.58^***	—
7 Well-being	-.31^***	-.09^***	-.10^***	-.03	-.65^***	.45^***	—
Mean	.67	.03	.67	.03	.49	3.67	10.95
Standard deviation	.73	.07	.20	.01	.29	.67	2.64

Note. ^***p < .001.

The intraclass correlations (ICCs) of all outcome variables were calculated. While the ICC value was not high (.017 for depression, .014 for self-esteem, and .023 for well-being), the chi-square test of between-classroom variance showed meaningful variability in depression (χ² (46) = 86.60, p < .001), self-esteem (χ² (46) = 80.67, p < .01), and well-being (χ² (46) = 110.96, p < .001) across the 47 classrooms.

Main effects of predictors

To explore the main effects of level 1 and level 2 variables, individual-level victimization and classroom-level victimization were added to the model while controlling for gender and classroom size. As shown in the results of Model 1 (see the top of Table 2), both adolescent self-reported victimization (B = .16, SE = .01, p < .001) and classroom self-reported victimization (B = .14, SE = .03, p < .001) were positively related to depression. The model explained 15% of the variance in depression at level 1 and 27% at level 2. Regarding self-esteem, both adolescent self-reported victimization (B = −.24, SE = .02, p < .001) and classroom self-reported victimization (B = −.25, SE = .06, p < .001) were negatively related. The model explained 6% of the variance in self-esteem at level 1 and 33% at level 2. Both adolescent self-reported victimization (B = −1.13, SE = .09, p < .001) and classroom self-reported victimization (B = −1.36, SE = .30, p < .001) were negatively related to well-being. The model explained 9% of the variance in well-being at level 1 and 35% at level 2.

Table 2.

Multilevel Regression Models of Self-Reported Victimization Predicting Depression, Self-Esteem, and Well-Being.

	Depression			Self-Esteem			Well-Being
Model 1 (main effects)	B	B SE	β	B	B SE	β	B	B SE	β
Intercept	.38	.07	−.08	3.87	.13	.05	11.59	.58	.03
L1: Adolescent gender	.05^***	.01	.17	−.07	.03	−.10	−.18	.11	−.07
L1: Adolescent victimization	.16 ^***	.01	.40	-.24 ^***	.02	−.26	−1.13 ^***	.09	−.31
L2: Classroom size	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.00	.01	.01	.02
L2: Classroom victimization	.14 ^***	.03	.10	-.25 ^***	.06	−.07	−1.36 ^***	.30	−.10
Model 2 (interaction effects)
Intercept	.41	.06	−.09	3.85	.14	.05	11.53	.59	.04
L1: Adolescent gender	.05^***	.01	.17	-.07^*	.03	−.10	−.19	.11	−.07
L1: Adolescent victimization	.25^***	.03	.41	-.37^***	.09	−.27	−1.77^***	.28	−.32
L2: Classroom size	.00	.00	−.02	.00	.00	.00	.01	.01	.02
L2: Classroom victimization	.14^***	.03	.10	-.26^***	.06	−.08	−1.37^***	.30	−.10
L1 victimization × L2 victimization	−.13 ^**	.04	−.07	.19 ^ƚ	.11	.04	.89 ^*	.37	.05

Note. ^ƚ p < 0.1, ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01, ^***p < .001.

With regard to the nomination of victimization (see the top of Table 3), adolescent nominated victimization was positively related to depression (B = .50, SE = .10, p < .001) and negatively related to self-esteem (B = −1.23, SE = .27, p < .001) and well-being (B = −3.04, SE = .93, p < .001). The main effects of classroom victimization of nomination were not statistically significant. The model explained 1.3% of the variance in depression at level 1, 1.6% of the variance in self-esteem at level 1, and 0.7% of the variance in well-being at level 1.

Table 3.

Multilevel Regression Models of Peer-Nominated Victimization Predicting Depression, Self-Esteem, and Well-Being.

	Depression			Self-Esteem			Well-Being
Model 1 (Main Effects)	B	B SE	β	B	B SE	β	B	B SE	β
Intercept	.37	.10	−.04	3.73	.18	.02	11.64	.83	−.01
L1: Adolescent gender	.02^*	.01	.08	−.03	.03	−.05	.03	.10	.01
L1: Adolescent victimization	.50 ^***	.10	.12	−1.23 ^***	.27	−.13	−3.04 ^***	.93	−.08
L2: Classroom size	.00	.00	.03	.00	.00	−.01	−.01	.01	−.02
L2: Classroom victimization	.97	.73	.04	.29	1.63	.01	−8.97	7.30	−.04
Model 2 (interaction effects)
Intercept	.38	.10	−.04	3.75	0.18	.03	11.65	.84	.00
L1: Adolescent gender	.02^*	.01	.09	−.05	0.03	−.07	.02	0.10	.01
L1: Adolescent victimization	.81	.43	.14	−3.54^*	1.49	−.19	−4.81	3.37	−.10
L2: Classroom size	.00	.00	.02	.00	.00	−.01	−.01	.01	−.02
L2: Classroom victimization	.93	.74	.04	.23	1.64	.00	−9.01	7.29	−.04
L1 victimization × L2 victimization	−6.94	9.09	−.02	52.18	32.31	.06	33.97	73.46	.01

Note. ^*p < .05, ^*** p < .001.

Cross-Level Interactions

To test the moderator hypothesis about the effects of classroom-level contextual factors, cross-level interactions between classroom-level and individual-level victimization were added. As shown in the results of Model 2 (bottom of Table 2), classroom-level self-reported victimization had significant moderating effects on the relationship between adolescent self-reported victimization and depression (B = −.13, SE = .04, p < .01) and between adolescent self-reported victimization and well-being (B = .89, SE = .37, p < .05). Classroom-level self-reported victimization had marginally significant moderating effects on the relationship between adolescent self-reported victimization and self-esteem (B =.19, SE = .11, p = .088).

To further probe these interactions, follow-up tests of simple slopes were conducted for individuals in classrooms that were either high (+1 SD) or low (−1 SD) on overall peer victimization. The moderating effects of classroom self-reported victimization on level 1 relations are shown in Figures 1 -3. In classrooms with lower (−1 SD) average levels of self-reported peer victimization relative to those in classrooms with higher (+1 SD) average levels, individual self-reported victimization tended to be more positively related to depression (B_(-1SD) = .19, SE = .02, p < .001 and B_(+1SD) = .14, SE = .01, p < .001, respectively), more negatively related to self-esteem (B_(-1SD) = −.29, SE = .04, p < .001 and B_(+1SD) = −.21, SE = .02, p < .001, respectively), and more negatively related to well-being (B_(-1SD) = −1.35, SE = .13, p < .001 and B_(+1SD) = −.99, SE = .10, p < .001, respectively). No significant interaction between nominated individual-level victimization and classroom-level victimization was found (see the bottom of Table 3).

Figure 1.

Interaction between classroom-level victimization and individual self-reported victimization predicting depression.

Figure 2.

Interaction between classroom-level victimization and individual self-reported victimization predicting self-esteem.

Figure 3.

Interaction between classroom-level victimization and individual self-reported victimization predicting well-being.

Additional Analyses

Considering that the self-reported method included more kinds of peer victimization, the present study selected three items of self-report (i.e., “hit, kicked, and pushed you,” “made fun of you,” and “threatened or intimidated you”), which were the same as in peer nomination, to reanalyze the healthy context paradox. Classroom-level self-reported victimization had significant moderating effects on the relationship between adolescent self-reported victimization and depression (B = −.06, SE =.02, p < .05) and between adolescent self-reported victimization and well-being (B = .40, SE = .19, p < .05). Simple slope analysis showed that individual self-reported victimization tended to be more positively related to depression (B_(-1SD) =.12, SE = .01, p < .001 and B_(+1SD) = .08, SE = .01, p < .001, respectively) and negatively related to well-being (B_(-1SD) = −.86, SE = .09, p < .001 and B_(+1SD) = −.64, SE = .07, p < .001, respectively) in classrooms with lower (−1 SD) average levels of self-reported peer victimization relative to those in classrooms with higher (+1 SD) average levels. Regarding self-esteem, no significant interaction was found. This result further verified that the healthy context paradox existed for self-reported peer victimization data.

Discussion

The current study made a meaningful contribution to the literature by examining the healthy context paradox in a sample of Chinese adolescents with multiple assessment methods of peer victimization (i.e., self-report and peer nomination). As detailed below, both self- and peer-reported victimization were related to depression, self-esteem, and well-being. Self-reported victimized youth experienced a higher level of depression and lower levels of self-esteem and well-being in classrooms where the overall level of victimization was relatively low.

Healthy Context Paradox in Chinese Adolescents

Congruent with past work (Brunstein Klomek et al., 2007; Guhn et al., 2013; Sinclair et al., 2012; Van Geel et al., 2018), the individual level of peer victimization was positively linked to depression and negatively linked to self-esteem and well-being. These results further indicated the detrimental effects of peer victimization on adolescents’ psychological adjustment, which reminds policymakers, teachers, and parents to pay more attention to the adaptation of victimized adolescents. Most importantly, the results of cross-level interactions supported the healthy context paradox; that is, the relations between individual victimized experiences and depression, self-esteem, and well-being were stronger in classrooms with lower levels of peer victimization. Consistent with prior research conducted under western cultural backgrounds (Huitsing et al., 2019; Li & Craig, 2020; Morrow et al., 2019), the findings of the present study replicated the healthy context paradox for psychological adjustments among Chinese adolescents for the first time. Although Chinese values emphasize the harmony of interpersonal relationships, high compliance with group norms could lead to Chinese students excluding victimized students. Under such a classroom context, victimized students might be more likely to engage in negative cognitive processes, which, in turn, result in increased feelings of depression and decreased self-esteem and well-being. In addition, these findings supported the person-context fit theoretical model, suggesting that the mismatch between individual characteristics (i.e., victimized experience) and social context would result in poorer adaptation.

Assessing Peer Victimization with Multiple Sources

Given the importance of using multiple informants to assess peer victimization, the current study used both peer nomination and self-report methods to avoid single-source biases and increase the validity of the data obtained. Self-report demonstrated poor correspondence with peer nomination for victimization (r =.29 in the current study). The low level of agreement between these two measures was also revealed in previous bullying research (Branson & Cornell, 2009; Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004; De Los Reyes & Prinstein, 2004). Although regression analyses showed that individual-level peer victimization was significantly related to depression, self-esteem, and well-being no matter what assessment methods used, the healthy context paradox only existed in self-reported victimization data but not in nominated data. From the perspective of the mechanisms accounting for a healthy context paradox (Garandeau & Salmivalli, 2019), victims’ negative perceptions, to a large extent, lead to their maladjustment in a relatively healthier environment. Compared to peer nomination, the self-report method reflected the victims’ actual feelings about peer victimization. This may explain why the health environment paradox only appeared in self-reported data. However, the previous finding revealed that maladjustment is heightened when peer reports of one’s characteristics deviate from what is perceived as normative in a classroom context (Bellmore et al., 2004), which was inconsistent with current results. Taken together, further studies should rely on multiple measures of peer victimization to gather a more comprehensive picture of the healthy context paradox.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations in the current study that should be noted. First, although the present study relied on a multi-informant approach to assess peer victimization more informatively, the nomination procedure only consisted of three items, including physical, verbal, and relational victimization, compared to self-report measurements covering different forms of victimization. This method limitation could explain why the healthy context paradox only emerged in self-reported data to some extent. Further study should include all types of victimization when utilizing self-report and peer nomination methods to better analyze and compare the results obtained by different methods. Second, the data used are concurrent, and thus findings do not speak to the directionality of the association among constructs. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine the causal direction of the relationships between victimization, classroom-level victimization, and psychological adjustment. Third, the participants selected were not representative of Chinese adolescents in general but included early adolescents from Henan Province whose parents had a relatively low educational attainment. This fact raises the issue of generalizability. Hence, future studies should try to replicate the current findings in diverse Chinese samples. Fourth, the current study only controlled for gender and classroom size as confounders in the analysis, and other potential covariates (e.g., peer status) should be included in future studies. Fifth, this study aimed to replicate the healthy context paradox among Chinese adolescents, but the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon need to be explored for anti-bullying intervention.

Implications

The current findings have significant implications for understanding how classroom climate can harm the psychological adjustment of bullied middle school students in China. The results underscore the additional attention and support that should be paid to victimized students. Indeed, the overall decrease in victimization incidences in classroom and school contexts means a healthier and safer environment for most students. However, for a small number of students who continue to be the targets of bullying, such an environment still serves to torment and worsen their plight. Thus, school-based anti-bullying interventions should not only keep pursuing the universal reduction of peer victimization but also identify students who are bullied by peers and provide those students with additional coping strategies and emotional skills to effectively protect them. Moreover, the current study also highlights the importance of collecting peer victimization data from multiple sources, which allows policymakers and educators to estimate and understand bullying from different perspectives.

Conclusions

The current study extended the extant understanding of the role of classroom context in the link between peer victimization experiences and psychological adjustment among Chinese adolescents. The findings indicated that both self-reported and peer-nominated victimized youth suffered from a variety of psychological maladjustments. Most importantly, consistent with the concept that dissonance between individuals and their social contexts results in negative adjustment, self-reported victimization is more likely to be linked to high depression and low self-esteem and well-being when overall classroom victimization is low. These findings further confirmed the healthy context paradox in Chinese culture and called for additional support for victimized students in anti-bullying intervention.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are especially indebted to the schools and adolescents whose participation made this research possible.

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 work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China [Grant Number: 20BSH067].

ORCID iDs

Quanquan Wang

Ping Ren

Author Biographies

Yuke Xiong is a doctoral student in the Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University. Her research concerns how parental and peer factors influence school function of adolescent.

Yue Wang is a postgraduate student in the Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University. Her research interests include peer victimization and aggressive behaviors.

Quanquan Wang is a Lecturer at Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University. Her research expertise includes family processes and adolescent development.

Hui Wang is a doctoral student in the Institute of Developmental Psychology at Beijing Normal University. Her research focuses on depression and self-harm behaviors of adolescents.

Ping Ren is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University. Her research expertise includes school function, anti-bullying intervention, and mental health of children and adolescents.

References

Bellmore

A. D.

Witkow

M. R.

Graham

Juvonen

(2004). Beyond the individual: The impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims’ adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1159–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1159.

Branson

C. E.

Cornell

D. G.

(2009). A comparison of self and peer reports in the assessment of middle school bullying. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377900802484133.

Brunstein Klomek

Marrocco

Kleinman

Schonfeld

I. S.

Gould

M. S.

(2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18.

Campbell

Converse

P. E.

Rodgers

W. L.

(1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. Russell Sage Foundation.

Card

N. A.

Hodges

E. V. E.

(2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012769.

Chen

French

D. C.

(2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 591–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093606.

Cornell

D. G.

Brockenbrough

(2004). Identification of bullies and victims: A comparison of methods. Journal of School Violence, 3(2–3), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v03n02_05.

Craig

Harel-fisch

Fogel-grinvald

Dostaler

Simons-morton

Molcho

de Mato

M. G.

Overpeck

Due

Pickett

HBSC Bullying Writing Group HBSC Violences and Injuries and Prevention Focus group . (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(Suppl 2), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9.

De Los Reyes

Prinstein

M. J.

(2004). Applying depression-distortion hypotheses to the assessment of peer victimization in adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(2), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_14.

10.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.

11.

Garandeau

C. F.

Salmivalli

(2019). Can healthier contexts be harmful? A new perspective on the plight of victims of bullying. Child Development Perspectives, 13(3), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12331.

12.

Gini

Holt

Pozzoli

Marino

(2020). Victimization and somatic problems: The role of class victimization levels. Journal of School Health, 90(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12844.

13.

Guhn

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Gadermann

A. M.

Hymel

Hertzman

(2013). A population study of victimization, relationships, and well-being in middle childhood. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(5), 1529–1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9393-8.

14.

Han

Zhang

(2017). School bullying in Urban China: Prevalence and correlation with school climate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101116.

15.

Hawker

D. S. J.

Boulton

M. J.

(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41(4), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021963099005545.

16.

Henry

Guerra

Huesmann

Tolan

Vanacker

Eron

(2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005142429725.

17.

Huang

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

(2013). Understanding factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in Chinese schools within ecological contexts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(7), 881–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9647-4.

18.

Huitsing

Lodder

G. M. A.

Oldenburg

Schacter

H. L.

Salmivalli

Juvonen

Veenstra

(2019). The healthy context paradox: Victims’ adjustment during an anti-bullying intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2499–2509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1194-1.

19.

Kovacs

(2003). Children’s depression inventory: Technical manual update. Multi-Health Systems.

20.

Laninga-Wijnen

van den Berg

Y. H.

Mainhard

Cillessen

A. H.

(2021). The role of defending norms in victims’ classroom climate perceptions and psychosocial maladjustment in secondary school. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00738-0.

21.

Lerner

M. J.

(1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In Macaulay

Berkowitz

(Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 205–229). Academic Press.

22.

Craig

W. M.

(2020). Adolescent sexual harassment, shame, and depression: Do experiences of witnessing harassment matter? Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(5), 712–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619870610.

23.

Liu

X., W.

Pan

Chen

T., F.

L., Q.

Zhang

W., X.

(2021). Healthy context paradox in the association between bullying victimization and externalizing problems: The mediating role of hostile attribution bias. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(2), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2021.00170.

24.

Wang

Shi

(2010). Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: Intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior, 36(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20341.

25.

Magnusson

Stattin

(1998). Person–context interaction theories. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 685–759). Wiley.

26.

McDougall

Vaillancourt

(2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70(4), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039174.

27.

Montoya

R. M.

Horton

R. S.

Kirchner

(2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700.

28.

Morrow

M. T.

Hubbard

J. A.

Bookhout

M. K.

Docimo

M. A.

Swift

L. E.

Grassetti

S. N.

Cabanas

K. L.

(2021). Lower levels of classroom aggression predict stronger relations between peer victimization and reactive versus proactive aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521997956.

29.

Morrow

M. T.

Hubbard

J. A.

Sharp

M. K.

(2019). Preadolescents’ daily peer victimization and perceived social competence: Moderating effects of classroom aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 48(5), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2017.1416618.

30.

Muthén

(2003). Cluster size [Online discussion group]. http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/12/164.html (Accessed May 1, 2021).

31.

Office of the Leading Group of the State Council for the Seventh National Population Census . (2021). Major Figures on 2020 population census of China. China Statistics Press.

32.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.

33.

Olweus

(2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516.

34.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

J. H.

Prinzie

Telch

M. J.

(2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009.

35.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

36.

Salmivalli

(2018). Peer victimization and adjustment in young adulthood: Commentary on the special section. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0372-8.

37.

Sentse

Scholte

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3.

38.

Sinclair

K. R.

Cole

D. A.

Dukewich

Felton

Weitlauf

A. S.

Maxwell

M. A.

Tilghman-Osborne

Jacky

(2012). Impact of physical and relational peer victimization on depressive cognitions in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41(5), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.704841.

39.

Tran

C. V.

Cole

D. A.

Weiss

(2012). Testing reciprocal longitudinal relations between peer victimization and depressive symptoms in young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.662674.

40.

Van Geel

Goemans

Zwaanswijk

Gini

Vedder

(2018). Does peer victimization predict low self-esteem, or does low self-esteem predict peer victimization? Meta-analyses on longitudinal studies. Developmental Review, 49, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.07.001.

41.

Volk

A. A.

Veenstra

Espelage

D. L.

(2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003.

42.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.

43.

Weiner

(1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In Sorrentino

R. M.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 281–312). Guilford Press.

44.

Wolke

Copeland

W. E.

Angold

Costello

E. J.

(2013). Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1958–1970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613481608.

45.

W. F.

Y. B.

Tan

F. R.

Yao

S. Q.

(2010). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of children’s depression inventory. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 24(10), 775–779.

46.

Yun

H. Y.

Juvonen

(2020). Navigating the healthy context paradox: Identifying classroom characteristics that improve the psychological adjustment of bullying victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(11), 2203–2213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01300-3.

47.

Zhang

W. X.

J. F.

(1999). The Chinese adapted version of the Olweus bullying/victimization questionnaire. Psychological Development and Education, 15(2), 7–11.