Peer Victimization and Subjective Well-Being Among Chinese Adolescents: Moderated Mediation by Forgiveness and Self-Esteem

Abstract

Considerable developmental research has shown an association between peer victimization and subjective well-being among adolescents. However, the mediating processes and protective factors that constrain this association are less understood. To fill these gaps, we investigated whether self-esteem mediates the association between peer victimization and subjective well-being and whether forgiveness moderates the direct and indirect associations of peer victimization with adolescents’ subjective well-being via self-esteem. A large sample of 2,758 adolescents (M_age = 13.53 years, SD = 1.06) from 10 middle schools in China participated in this study. Participants provided data on demographic variables, peer victimization, self-esteem, forgiveness, and subjective well-being by answering anonymous questionnaires. After controlling for demographic covariates, we found that self-esteem mediated the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being. Furthermore, as a protective factor, forgiveness moderated the relationship between peer victimization and self-esteem. Consistent with the protective-reactive model, when adolescents experienced more peer victimization, those with higher forgiveness levels exhibited a greater decline in self-esteem, and low self-esteem was then associated with decreased subjective well-being. These findings demonstrate the utility of examining both mediating and moderating factors in this relationship and highlight the negative impact of peer victimization on adolescent self-worth and the limited role of forgiveness as a protective factor.

Keywords

peer victimization self-esteem forgiveness subjective well-being adolescents moderated mediation

Peer victimization refers to exposure to intentional and repeated aggression from similar-aged peers, which has become a global public health problem due to its high prevalence and severe adverse effects (Christina et al., 2021). According to the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF, 2018), globally, more than one in three students aged 13 to 15 years have experienced peer violence in and around school. A recent national survey conducted in the United States found that approximately 20% of middle school students reported being victimized by their peers within a year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Similar data from China showed that approximately 25% of adolescents experienced moderate or higher levels of peer victimization (Yang et al., 2020). In addition, meta-analyses have shown that peer victimization can severely affect adolescents’ academic performance as well as their physical and mental health globally, regardless of country (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010; Reijntjes et al., 2010, 2011).

Considerable research in the field of positive psychology has examined the impact of peer victimization on adolescents’ subjective well-being. Subjective well-being refers to how people evaluate their lives, which often includes affective evaluations and cognitive judgments (Diener et al., 2003). Adolescents who experience peer victimization often exhibit a decrease in positive affect such as happiness, hope, and optimism (Martin & Huebner, 2007), an increase in negative affect such as sadness, fear, and anxiety (Casper & Card, 2017), and a decrease in life satisfaction (Gini et al., 2018). To our knowledge, however, few studies have simultaneously examined potential mediators (i.e., why) and moderators (i.e., under what condition) underlying this association. This is important because the pressing task of second- and third-generation research on this topic is to extend beyond the investigation of direct relationships and to explore the mediating processes and protective factors underlying these associations, so as to provide guidance for targeted prevention and intervention efforts (Cummings & Valentino, 2015). Therefore, to address these significant gaps, the main purpose of this study was to test a moderated mediation model among Chinese adolescents. Specifically, we sought to examine whether self-esteem mediates the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being. Meanwhile, we examined whether forgiveness moderates the negative impact of peer victimization on adolescents’ subjective well-being.

Self-Esteem as a Mediator

The association between peer victimization and well-being among adolescents has received extensive attention and is well-supported (Gini et al., 2018; Huang, 2021; Mehari & Farrell, 2015). For example, in a sample of 12,058 Chinese adolescents, Huang (2021) found that peer victimization was positively associated with negative feelings and negatively associated with positive feelings and life satisfaction. Recent process-oriented research has emphasized the need to examine the underlying mediating processes among variables. Accordingly, to better understand the psychological processes by which peer victimization impacts subjective well-being, we examined the mediating role of self-esteem. Self-esteem refers to an individual’s overall evaluation of his or her own value (Donnellan et al., 2011). According to the sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), the self-esteem system is a meter developed to monitor the quality of interpersonal relationships to meet needs for belonging. When one’s relational deficiencies are detected, self-esteem, as an “internal monitor,” will be negatively affected in an automatic, unconscious way. A loss of self-esteem will then send out signals of emotional distress (e.g., leading to depression, anxiety, and hurt feelings, just as physical pain is a sign of possible damage to the body). In line with this model, we examined self-esteem as a critical mediator that may connect peer victimization and subjective well-being.

Indeed, the mediating role of self-esteem may be particularly important in the Chinese cultural context. According to cultural relativism, adolescents in Chinese culture typically have lower positive self-perceptions than adolescents in western cultures due to the strong restrictions of cultural norms such as modesty and naive dialecticism (Heine & Buchtel, 2009). In addition, Chinese adolescents rely more on others’ evaluations than on objective self-awareness when evaluating themselves (Heine & Buchtel, 2009). Therefore, when they are victimized by peers, which implies strong negative evaluations, their self-esteem will be more damaged and they will experience more severe adverse effects.

Regarding the first link in the mediational path, adolescents often define themselves by internalizing peers’ evaluations of themselves (known as reflected self-appraisals; Yue et al., 2020), and victimization conveys a negative evaluation by their peers. Furthermore, adolescents may develop negative self-schemas through self-attribution. For instance, victimization experiences may make adolescents feel inadequate in their social skills and lead to self-doubt about their behavior and appearance, thereby increasing negative self-appraisal (Lopez & Dubois, 2005). Indeed, previous studies have found that experiencing different types of victimization is negatively associated with adolescent self-esteem (Nepon et al., 2021; Turner et al., 2017; van Geel et al., 2018).

There are also conceptual and empirical grounds for the second link in the mediational path (i.e., the linkage between self-esteem and subjective well-being). The sociometer theory proposes that low self-esteem is a risk factor for negative mental health outcomes (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). This may be because, to prevent further decline in self-esteem, adolescents with low self-esteem usually avoid threatening/challenging activities, but this may make them miss out on opportunities for success and happiness. Moreover, low self-esteem can also act as a distracting alarm, consuming individuals’ psychological resources and preventing them from effectively dealing with challenges (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). In supporting these views, meta-analysis studies reported that low self-esteem may be negatively associated with many aspects of adolescent well-being (Orth et al., 2018; Sowislo & Orth, 2013). For example, Marshall et al. (2014) conducted a 4-year longitudinal study of adolescents and found that self-esteem was a significant predictor of social support quality and social well-being. Likewise, a prospective longitudinal study (Trzesniewski et al., 2006) showed that low self-esteem during adolescence predicted poor mental and physical health during adulthood.

To our knowledge, although no studies have directly examined the mediating role of self-esteem between peer victimization and subjective well-being, several studies have confirmed the mediating role of self-esteem between victimization and psychological adjustment (Duru et al., 2019; Nepon et al., 2021; Norrington, 2021). However, the majority of these studies only focused on adolescents in western cultural contexts. Therefore, in response to the call for increasing cultural and contextual diversity of study samples (Thalmayer et al., 2021), our first purpose was to test the mediating role of self-esteem between peer victimization and subjective well-being among Chinese adolescents.

Forgiveness as a Moderator

Adolescents can differ in their responses to peer victimization, emphasizing the importance of identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. Based on the stress-and-coping model of forgiveness (Strelan, 2020; Worthington, 2006), we propose that in both western and eastern cultural contexts, forgiveness may be the key to explaining this heterogeneity. Specifically, forgiveness is a positive psychological response to interpersonal harm, and it refers to the transformation of a victim’s prosocial attitude from hostility to friendliness (Forster et al., 2020). The stress-and-coping model of forgiveness argues that forgiveness plays a protective role in interpersonal harm and transgressions (Ghobari Bonab et al., 2021) and helps adolescents broaden their thoughts and behaviors when experiencing victimization, for instance, attributing multiple perspectives to victims, not just negative internal attributions, and proactively responding to challenging activities rather than avoiding them, thereby maintaining their self-esteem and subjective well-being. Empirical studies conducted in western countries such as the United States and Italy have suggested that forgiveness can mitigate the negative emotional impacts of interpersonal stressors such as discrimination, bullying, and relationship breakdown (Barcaccia et al., 2018; McCarthy, 2008; McCullough et al., 2011).

The protective role of forgiveness in the context of peer victimization may be particularly prominent in countries with collectivist cultures such as China. This is because adolescents in a collectivist culture tend to develop an interdependent self-construal, embracing benevolence, grace, forbearance, and harmony as common virtues to maintain social relationships (Ho & Worthington, 2020). These characteristics can be reflected in the traditional Chinese proverb, “Ocean accepts all rivers to reach its profundity (hai na bai chuan, you rong nai da [海纳百川, 有容乃大]).” Indeed, Karremans et al. (2011) and Zhang et al. (2015) have found cultural differences in forgiveness tendencies, with adolescents in collectivist cultures forgiving offenders more than those in individualist cultures and possibly perceiving themselves as powerful because of their forgiveness. This may then attenuate the potential harm of peer victimization on self-esteem and well-being. Thus, in the context of this study, there is an urgent need to examine the moderating role of forgiveness on adolescent peer victimization in a collectivist culture like China. In addition, forgiveness as a personal attribute is relatively malleable. It develops and fluctuates over time, and can, for example, be activated by subtle and implicit contextual cues (Karremans & Van Lange, 2008). Thus, psychological and educational practitioners are paying attention to the cultivation of forgiveness knowledge and skills in adolescents (Rapp et al., 2022), and a better understanding of its protective role can provide valuable guidance for the development of forgiveness education.

However, theorists disagree about the nature of the peer victimization × forgiveness interaction. The protective-stabilizing model (Figure 1a; Luthar et al., 2000) presumes that forgiveness might attenuate the associations of peer victimization with self-esteem and subjective well-being. According to this model, forgiveness will confer stability to self-esteem or subjective well-being, even if the risk of peer victimization increases. In other words, forgiveness has the ability to protect against victimization under even severe peer victimization. For example, in the broader psychological literature, Brooks et al. (2021) found that the relationship between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms among African American adults is significant for those who had low forgiveness but not for those who had high forgiveness. Similarly, there is evidence that for adolescents with a high rather than low tendency to forgive, harsh parenting is not associated with emotional dysregulation (Wang & Qi, 2017). By contrast, the protective-reactive model (Figure 1b; Luthar et al., 2000) assumes that forgiveness might magnify the associations of peer victimization with self-esteem and subjective well-being. According to this model, forgiveness will confer advantages to self-esteem or subjective well-being, but its beneficial effect begins to wane when peer victimization increases to a certain extent. This is because when faced with higher levels of adversity, the beneficial effects of forgiveness may be offset by the risk of adversity, which compromises the ability of forgiveness to mitigate risks (Masten, 2014). For instance, in the broader psychological literature, Cowden et al. (2019) found that forgiveness amplified the relationship between psychological abuse perpetrated by intimate partners and depressive symptoms among South African women in romantic relationships. That is, when the underlying psychological abuse was severe and persistent, forgiveness was no longer a protective factor—the protective effect was significantly diminished. Because the two complementary models each have their own justification, we sought to conduct an exploratory rather than a directional analysis to test which of the two potential types of forgiveness moderation was most feasible in the mediational pathway.

Figure 1.

Illustrative effects of peer victimization on self-esteem (SE) or subjective well-being (SWB) in the interaction with forgiveness: (a) protective-stabilizing model, an interaction in which the effect of peer victimization is much stronger for adolescents lower in forgiveness, and (b) protective-reactive model, an interaction in which the effect of peer victimization is much stronger for adolescents higher in forgiveness.

Developmental Considerations

Given several developmental considerations, the current study sampled junior high school students as research participants to test our moderated mediation model. First, adolescents exposed to peer victimization may be especially likely to undergo a decline in subjective well-being and develop mental health problems. In contrast to young children, adolescents attach more importance to peer relationships and expect to be recognized, making rejection or victimization by peers more impactful (Casper & Card, 2017). Second, from a developmental perspective, the frequency of victimization follows an inverted U-shaped curve throughout childhood and adolescence, reaching its peak in early adolescence (i.e., junior high school; Nansel et al., 2001). Third, early adolescence is at a crucial stage for the development of self-esteem, and self-esteem has been conceptualized as an internal asset that facilitates successful adjustment during adolescence (DuBois et al., 2002; Pan et al., 2020). However, adolescents who have experienced traumatic interpersonal events such as peer victimization are especially prone to developing low self-esteem. Fourth, although children and adolescents have gradually learned the value of forgiveness and acquired the ability to forgive others during their socialization process (Enright & The Human Development Study Group, 1991; van der Wal et al., 2017), current empirical research on forgiveness has focused primarily on adults, and few studies have focused on how forgiveness can be protective against the adverse impact of peer victimization on subjective well-being among middle school students.

Covariates

We controlled for several important demographic variables in our analyses, including gender, age, family structure, and family socioeconomic status, as these variables may confound the relationship among peer victimization, self-esteem, forgiveness, and subjective well-being. First, the literature has documented that boys reported significantly more peer victimization (Cheng et al., 2008) and have higher levels of self-esteem than girls (Yan et al., 2021), although the gender difference in forgiveness and subjective well-being is inconsistent (Huebner, 2004; Ma & Jiang, 2020; Ma et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2008). In addition, compared with older adolescents, younger adolescents are more likely to experience peer victimization (Huang et al., 2013), have low levels of self-esteem (Bleidorn et al., 2016) but high levels of forgiveness and subjective well-being (Casas & González-Carrasco, 2019; Chiaramello et al. 2008). Finally, adolescents from non-intact families and low socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to experience peer victimization (Huang et al., 2013; Wang & Liu, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022), have low levels of self-esteem and subjective well-being than their counterparts from intact and high socioeconomic families (Chen et al., 2016; Shek, 2008). Therefore, to ensure that any significant moderated mediation effect is not a byproduct of these demographic factors, we included them as covariates in our analyses.

The Present Study

Taken together, the present study aims at testing a moderated mediation model of forgiveness and self-esteem in the association between peer victimization and subjective well-being among Chinese adolescents. The conceptual model shown in Figure 2 provides an overview of our research questions. As depicted in Paths 1a and 1b, our first aim was to explore whether adolescents’ self-esteem mediated the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being. Based on the sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), we anticipated that self-esteem would play a mediating role in the relationship between peer victimization and adolescent subjective well-being (Hypothesis 1). As denoted in Paths 2a and 2b, our second goal was to examine whether adolescent forgiveness moderated the associations of peer victimization with self-esteem and subjective well-being. We anticipated that forgiveness would act as a protective factor in these relationships (Hypothesis 2). However, as for the moderation pattern, due to the inconsistency of previous research, we did not make specific assumptions, but rather, tested for the feasibility of two forms of moderation (i.e., protective-stabilizing and protective-reactive) to reconcile contradictory findings in existing research. At a higher level of forgiveness, finding a weaker path would support the protective-stabilizing model. By comparison, a stronger effect at a higher level of forgiveness would align with the protective-reactive model. Finally, to confirm the robustness of the findings, we further examined whether our moderated mediation model differed across two important demographic indicators (adolescent age and gender).

Figure 2.

A conceptual model diagram for the moderated mediation framework.

Method

Participants

Data were drawn from the larger Ecological Risk Factors and Adolescents’ Social Adaptation study project (Li, 2012), which aimed to explore the association between environmental factors and problem behaviors among adolescents. By adopting a stratified cluster sampling method, 2,758 adolescents from Southern China participated in this study. Specifically, they were recruited from 10 middle schools, with 34.99% in Grade 7, 32.49% in Grade 8, and 32.52% in Grade 9. On average, adolescents were 13.53 years (SD = 1.06, range = 10–19 years), and 53.92% of the participants were girls. The median education of adolescents’ parents was between junior and senior high school diploma, which is similar to the national average data released by the sixth national census of China (National Bureau of Statistics, 2011).

Procedures

The research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the corresponding author’s university. The questionnaire method, which measures individuals’ behaviors and attitudes through rigorously designed written questionnaires (Bradburn & Sudman, 1979), was used to collect the data. The research team worked closely with each school and, with the informed consent of schoolteachers and students, the survey was conducted by well-trained graduate students in the adolescents’ regular classrooms in November 2011. Prior to answering the questionnaire, adolescents were given standardized instructions and asked to complete all the questions independently within 45 min. Considering that anonymous questionnaires facilitate greater disclosure of sensitive information (Durant et al., 2002; Ong & Weiss, 2000), the entire survey was conducted anonymously. Meanwhile, much work has been done to improve the reliability of self-reports and reduce measurement error, including establishing a trusting relationship with participants to encourage cooperation, explaining the meaning of items to participants in advance, choosing appropriate wording of questions, and making questionnaire layouts more user-friendly (Schwarz, 1999).

Measures

Peer victimization

Peer victimization was assessed using the Adolescent Peer Victimization Questionnaire (Li et al., 2015). This questionnaire was adapted from previously validated instruments (e.g., Olweus, 1993) to ensure its cultural, linguistic, and age appropriateness. This questionnaire consists of seven items, assessing physical, verbal, relational, and financial forms of victimization. A sample item is “My own belongings were deliberately damaged by my schoolmates.” Similar items have been used in National Children’s Study of China (Dong & Lin, 2011). Each of the seven items was significantly related to self-esteem (rs = −.24 to −.08, ps < .001) and subjective well-being (rs = −.23 to −.07, ps < .001). Adolescents rated the frequency of peer victimization they experienced in school during the past 12 months using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (5 or more times). The higher the average score of all items, the higher the frequency of peer victimization. Moreover, significant associations with theoretically relevant constructs such as negative perception of school climate (r = .33, p < .001), depression (r = .33, p < .001), and delinquency (r = .25, p < .001) were found, indicating that the measure has good predictive validity. In the present study, Cronbach’s α was .77.

Self-esteem

Self-esteem was measured by the Chinese version (Wang et al., 1999) of Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. The scale consists of 10 items (e.g., “Ultimately, I tend to consider myself as a failure,” reverse scored). Adolescents rated their degree of self-worth and self-acceptance using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The higher the average score of all items, the more positive the self-evaluation. This scale is the most representative instrument in the field of self-esteem research and has excellent psychometric properties among Chinese adolescents (Yan et al., 2021). The Cronbach’s α in this study was .84.

Forgiveness

Forgiveness was assessed using the Forgiveness Scale, which was adapted from two widely used and well-validated scales for assessing dispositional forgiveness (Brown, 2003; Thompson et al., 2005). The items were translated, back-translated, and adapted to ensure their cultural, linguistic, and age appropriateness. The scale consists of eight items, assessing three major motivational elements of forgiveness: rumination (e.g., “If someone wrongs me, I often think about it a lot afterward,” reverse scored), revenge (e.g., “I continue to be hard on others who have hurt me,” reverse scored), and benevolence (e.g., “Although others have hurt me in the past, I have eventually been able to see them as good people”). Adolescents rated the degree of forgiveness using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The higher the average score of all items, the stronger the tendency to forgive. Significant associations were observed with theoretically relevant constructs such as prosocial behavior (r = .36, p < .001), resilience (r = .22, p < .001), and classmate relations (r = .42, p < .001), indicating good predictive validity. In the present study, Cronbach’s α was .82.

Subjective well-being

Subjective well-being was assessed using the Chinese version (Li, 2012) of Campbell’s (1976) Subjective Well-Being Scale. The scale consists of nine items, of which eight evaluate negative versus positive affections (e.g., “bored vs. interested,” “frustrated vs. enthusiastic”), and one evaluates overall life satisfaction (i.e., “not at all satisfied vs. completely satisfied”) over the past few weeks. In general, these items describe how an individual feels about his or her current life. Adolescents rated the degree of subjective well-being using a 7-point scale. The higher the average score of all items, the higher level of perceived well-being. The scale has been demonstrated to have good test-retest reliability and validity among Chinese adolescents (Li & Feng, 2018). The Cronbach’s α in this study was .93.

Demographic covariates

Because of documented associations with subjective well-being, seven covariates of demographic characteristics were included: (a) school, which was converted into nine dummy variables; (b) gender, where 0 = girl and 1 = boy; (c) age; (d) family structure, where 0 = non-intact family and 1 = intact family (i.e., living with biological father and mother); (e) education level of parents, where adolescents reported the education level of their parents from the following seven options: 1 = never attended school, 2 = primary school, 3 = junior high school, 4 = high school, 5 = junior college, 6 = undergraduate college, and 7 = postgraduate; (f) occupation of parents, where the occupation of parents was rated according to Li’s (2005) occupational prestige rankings, from 1 to 7 (1 = high occupational prestige, 7 = low occupational prestige); and (g) family financial stress, which was based on a 5-item scale (e.g., “My family has no money left over for entertainment during the past 12 months”). Adolescents rated the degree of financial stress faced by the family using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The higher the average score of the items, the greater the severity of financial difficulties.

Analysis Plan

Missing data (<1%) in the sample were imputed using the mean imputation method. When the missing rate is very low (<5%), this method can obtain unbiased estimates that are similar to other missing value processing methods (Little & Rubin, 2002). Because students were nested in schools, the fixed effect approach was utilized to handle the nesting effect (Cohen et al., 2003). All mediating and moderating effect analyses were conducted in SPSS 25.0 with the PROCESS macro v3.3 (a plug-in for SPSS; Hayes, 2018). Specifically, this study first used Model 4 to test the mediating effect of self-esteem, and then used Model 8 to test the moderated mediation effect of forgiveness. Models 4 and 8 are both pre-determined models among the 70+ models provided by PROCESS. Due to the simplification advantages of PROCESS in analyzing conditional process models, the analysis process requires only simultaneous input of predictors, mediators, moderators, outcomes, and covariates, in addition to a selection of the appropriate model, in order to generate the results of estimated mediation and moderation models. Bootstrapping, a nonparametric approach that requires no specific assumptions about sample distribution was utilized, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs; Hayes, 2018) were computed with 10,000 resamples. The parameter estimates are considered statistically significant if the 95% CI does not contain zero.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the primary study variables are presented in Table 1. As expected, peer victimization was negatively associated with self-esteem (r = −.26, p < .001) and subjective well-being (r = −.26, p < .001). Moreover, self-esteem was positively associated with subjective well-being (r = .49, p < .001). Finally, forgiveness was positively associated with self-esteem (r = .27, p < .001) and subjective well-being (r = .35, p < .001).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among the Variables in the Primary Analyses of the Study.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	0.46	0.50	—
2. Age	13.53	1.06	.00	—
3. Family structure	0.07	0.25	−.05^*	.01	—
4. Parental educational level	3.42	1.11	.00	−.17^***	.01	—
5. Parental occupation	4.99	1.27	−.04	.13^***	.00	−.56^***	—
6. Family financial stress	1.41	0.45	−.09^***	.15^***	.11^***	−.29^***	.29^***	—
7. Peer victimization	1.52	0.65	.09^***	−.03	.03	−.08^***	.08^***	.17^***	—
8. Self-esteem	2.83	0.51	.08^***	−.08^***	−.05^**	.16^***	−.13^***	−.20^***	−.26^***	—
9. Forgiveness	4.72	1.22	−.09^***	−.01	−.03	.02	−.04^*	−.11^***	−.31^***	.27^***	—
10. Subjective well-being	4.73	1.28	.03	−.10^***	−.05^**	.12^***	−.13^***	−.20^***	−.26^***	.49^***	.35^***	—

Note. N = 2,758. Gender: 0 = girls; 1 = boys. Family structure: 0 = non-intact family; 1 = intact family. Parental occupation: 1 = high occupational prestige; 7 = low occupational prestige.

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

Testing for Mediation (Primary Analysis I)

In the first primary analysis, Model 4 in the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018) was used to test the hypothesis that self-esteem mediates the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being. The result indicated that self-esteem significantly mediated the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being, even after controlling for demographic covariates. Specifically, peer victimization was negatively associated with self-esteem (b = −0.19, p < .001), which in turn was positively associated with subjective well-being (b = 1.08, p < .001). There was also a significant direct relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being (b = −0.26, p < .001), which indicated that self-esteem only partially mediated the relation between peer victimization and subjective well-being (indirect effect = −0.20, 95% CI [−0.24, −0.16]). This mediation model accounted for 27.30% of the total effect of peer victimization on subjective well-being. Thus, our results provide support for Hypothesis 1. It is important to note that we only use the term “mediation” in a statistical sense, given that the cross-sectional nature of the current study does not allow causal inference.

Testing for Moderated Mediation (Primary Analysis II)

In the second primary analysis, Model 8 in the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018) was used to test the hypothesis that forgiveness moderated the direct and indirect relationships between peer victimization and subjective well-being via self-esteem. To reduce problems with multicollinearity in the moderation analysis, we centralized the main effect terms that constitute the product term. As shown in Table 2, the interaction between peer victimization and forgiveness on self-esteem was significant (b = −0.02, p = .024), even after controlling for the demographic covariates. To further explore the moderation pattern, we conducted simple slope analyses. As shown in Figure 3, the nature of the moderation was consistent with the protective-reactive model (Luthar et al., 2000). Specifically, while peer victimization had a significant effect on self-esteem among adolescents low in forgiveness (b = −0.12, p < .001), the effect was stronger among those high in forgiveness (b = −0.18, p < .001). Therefore, the negative impact of peer victimization on self-esteem was stronger for adolescents with higher forgiveness. Finally, contrary to our expectations, the direct effect of peer victimization on subjective well-being was not moderated by forgiveness (b = 0.01, p = .745). This moderated mediation model accounted for 31.31% of the variance in adolescent subjective well-being. Our analyses provided partial support for Hypothesis 2.

Table 2.

Testing the Moderated Mediation Effect of Peer Victimization on Subjective Well-Being.

Predictors	b	SE	t	p
Self-esteem
Gender	0.11^***	0.02	5.85	<.001
Age	−0.02^**	0.01	−2.67	.008
Family structure	−0.04	0.04	−1.24	.214
Parental educational level	0.05^***	0.01	4.03	<.001
Parental occupation	−0.01	0.01	−0.99	.321
Family financial stress	−0.12^***	0.02	−5.32	<.001
Peer victimization	−0.15^***	0.02	−9.61	<.001
Forgiveness	0.08^***	0.01	11.01	<.001
Peer victimization × Forgiveness	−0.02^*	0.01	−2.26	.024
R²	.16
F	28.72^***
Subjective well-being
Gender	0.04	0.04	1.02	.310
Age	−0.06^**	0.02	−3.25	.001
Family structure	−0.07	0.08	−0.85	.400
Parental educational level	−0.03	0.03	−1.33	.185
Parental occupation	−0.03	0.02	−1.52	.129
Family financial stress	−0.15^**	0.05	−3.02	.003
Peer victimization	−0.15^***	0.04	−4.08	<.001
Self-esteem	0.97^***	0.04	22.26	<.001
Forgiveness	0.23^***	0.02	12.62	<.001
Peer victimization × Forgiveness	0.01	0.02	0.33	.745
R²	.31
F	65.69^***

Note. N = 2,758. SE = standard error; LLCI = lower limit of the 95% confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. All continuous predictor variables were mean-centered before analysis.

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

Figure 3.

A graphical plot depicting the interaction between peer victimization and forgiveness in predicting self-esteem.

Supplementary Analyses

To determine any age/gender differences in the results, we conducted supplementary analyses to assess the three-way interaction among peer victimization, forgiveness, and adolescent age/gender. Specifically, Model 12 (a model for testing three-way interactions of moderators W₁ and W₂ on the relationships between X and M, and between X and Y; Hayes, 2018) in the PROCESS macro was used to test age and gender differences. The results indicated that no significant moderation effects emerged—that is, our results did not differ by age or gender (age: b = −0.00, p = .804 for the relation between peer victimization and self-esteem, and b = −0.04, p = .139 for the relation between peer victimization and subjective well-being; gender: b = −0.04, p = .076 for the relation between peer victimization and self-esteem, and b = 0.00, p = .944 for the relation between peer victimization and subjective well-being).

In addition, pseudo-forgiveness and true forgiveness are easily confused when measured. Specifically, researchers have argued that “move on” or “never bring it up again” would fall under pseudo-forgiveness (i.e., acknowledging the transgression, but instead of entirely resolving it, the decision is made to suppress or ignore it) rather than true forgiveness (Sheldon & Antony, 2019). Although our Forgiveness Scale was adapted from widely used instruments, to be conservative, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to see if the two items that included the meaning of “move on” or “never bring it up again” (i.e., “When people wrong me, my approach is just to forgive and forget” “I tend to get over it quickly when someone hurts my feelings”) affected our results. Therefore, we removed the two items from the Forgiveness Scale and reanalyzed the data. The results were not substantially different from those reported here.

Discussion

Although the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being has been confirmed in a range of empirical studies (Casper & Card, 2017; Gini et al., 2018; Martin & Huebner, 2007), few studies have simultaneously examined the mediating processes and protective factors underlying this association. Our study was designed to test a moderated mediation model to investigate the mediating role of self-esteem and the moderating role of forgiveness. Consistent with the sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), the results showed that self-esteem mediated the relation between peer victimization and subjective well-being among Chinese adolescents. Furthermore, as a protective factor, forgiveness moderated the first part of the mediational chain from peer victimization to self-esteem. Consistent with the protective-reactive model (Luthar et al., 2000), adolescents higher in forgiveness exhibited a greater decline in self-esteem with increased peer victimization, and low self-esteem was further associated with decreased subjective well-being. These findings emphasize the negative impact of peer victimization on adolescent self-worth system and the limited role of forgiveness as a protective factor.

Self-Esteem as a Mediator

Mediation analyses showed that self-esteem as a mediating factor accounted for the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being. Therefore, our findings align with the sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), which posits that when individuals are devalued by peers, the “internal barometer” (self-esteem) will decline, in turn contributing to negative emotions.

First, as mentioned previously, peer victimization experiences enable adolescents to develop negative self-images through their reflective self-evaluation (Yue et al., 2020) and self-blame attributions (Lopez & Dubois, 2005). Social comparisons may also operate in these processes (adolescents likely compare themselves to peers who are not victimized; Kaufman et al., 2020). Moreover, peer victimization often threatens adolescent peer status in the group, which also increases victims’ negative self-evaluations. Second, low self-esteem induced by peer victimization will decrease adolescents’ subjective well-being. This is because low self-esteem consumes the emotional and cognitive resources of adolescents and makes them unable to effectively cope with challenges (i.e., avoiding being involved in potential threats) in their life (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). As a result, adolescents with low self-esteem tend to perceive themselves as worthless and life as boring.

Our findings were also consistent with previous studies in a western context, which have shown that self-esteem serves as a mediator between peer victimization and psychological adjustment (Duru et al., 2019; Nepon et al., 2021; Norrington, 2021). Therefore, a cultural universalistic perspective—which suggests that self-esteem is a fundamental psychological need and manifests similarly across different cultures—was supported by our research (Heine & Buchtel, 2009). In addition, because individuals in collectivist cultures are more dependent on others in self-evaluation, interventions aimed at enhancing self-esteem are especially critical in the context of interpersonal harm in China.

Forgiveness as a Moderator

Existing theoretical and empirical studies have yet to elucidate whether and how forgiveness alters the direct and indirect associations of peer victimization with adolescent subjective well-being via self-esteem. Our findings demonstrate that forgiveness, as a protective factor, moderated the relationship between peer victimization and self-esteem. The form of moderation favored hypotheses that emerge from the protective-reactive model (Luthar et al., 2000). That is, with greater peer victimization, adolescents with higher forgiveness exhibited a greater decrease in self-esteem.

There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, in the case of low victimization, adolescents with high forgiveness could mobilize their “cold” cognition to reflect on the behavioral motivation of the transgressors (Ghobari Bonab et al., 2021; Oostenbroek & Vaish, 2019), which enables them to adopt multifaceted attributions (e.g., transgressors’ negative mood, misunderstanding) as opposed to relying solely on negative internal attributions, and thus, self-esteem is less affected. However, when suffering from high levels of peer victimization, the protective role of forgiveness is weakened (Masten, 2014). In other words, frequent victimization experiences could leave deep scars on individuals’ self-esteem that are difficult to erase. Second, when victimized, adolescents with high levels of forgiveness are more likely to “return good for evil” rather than seek revenge (Flanagan et al., 2012), so they seem less aggressive and may incur more subsequent victimization. Meanwhile, the perpetrators are more likely to continue or even escalate their victimization behaviors—forgiveness becomes a negative reinforcement toward the perpetrators—because they have never experienced the criticism, guilt, or loneliness that arise from not being forgiven (McNulty, 2010), thereby leading to a more dramatic reduction in victims’ self-esteem. Taken together, this finding may reflect a “healthy individual paradox”—in the victimization context, some bullying victims with positive personal qualities such as forgiveness are more vulnerable than others. Therefore, as suggested by McNulty and Fincham (2012), certain traditionally positive psychological traits such as forgiveness are not always beneficial; rather, their effects depend on the context in which they operate.

Limitations and Future Directions

Though this study contributes to the literature, several limitations still merit caution in interpreting the results. First, although the present study had a sound theoretical and empirical basis, it cannot reveal any bidirectional or dynamic processes among the constructs due to its cross-sectional nature. For example, studies have shown that low self-esteem is not only a result but also a cause of peer victimization and forgiveness (van Geel et al., 2018; Yao et al., 2017). Therefore, a longitudinal cross-lagged panel design could be used in the future to provide more information on these complex associations and to develop and extend relevant theories. Second, although self-report may be accurate in revealing some covert victimization experiences (Gromann et al., 2013), the common method variance in this study was not serious (Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first factor could only explain 19.90% of the variance, far less than the recommended 40%; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), it is necessary for future studies to assess relevant variables from multiple sources. Third, peer victimization in the current study was analyzed in terms of the total scores. Although this facilitates exploration of the cumulative effect of different forms of victimization, more research is needed to examine the unique contributions of individual victimization subtypes (e.g., physical, verbal, or financial victimization). Fourth, our study was conducted with a sample of Chinese middle school students, so caution should be exercised in generalizing the findings to other cultures, developmental stages, and clinical samples. Future studies could use a more inclusive and diverse sample design to test the generalizability of our findings. Fifth, although it is important to examine peer victimization as a risk factor, adolescents may also experience low self-esteem and well-being due to other factors such as poor parent-child relationship and teacher-student relationship. Future research could examine the impact of multiple factors on self-esteem and well-being and reveal their unique contributions. Sixth, we cannot dismiss the possibility that other mediators and moderators act on the relationship between peer victimization and subjective well-being. Future studies may benefit from exploring other important mediators (e.g., psychological security) and moderators (e.g., family functioning). Finally, researchers have argued that forgiveness includes both forgiveness of others and forgiveness of self (Griffin et al., 2020); however, we only focused on the forgiveness of others as a moderator in the present study. Future research could explore the moderating role of forgiveness of self, for example, whether forgiveness of self attenuates the adverse impact of low self-esteem on one’s own subjective well-being.

Practical Implications

Although the current findings require replication, they have significant implications for practice. First, given that self-esteem is a mediator in the relation between peer victimization and subjective well-being, the cultivation of positive self-beliefs may have a protective function against adverse effects of peer victimization. For example, developing self-affirmation interventions that require adolescents to write down their core values in different domains in order to affirm their self-worth might be a worthwhile approach. Such interventions can trigger an adaptive cycle between adolescent self-systems and social systems (e.g., school) and ultimately benefit long-term global self-worth (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). As such, it has great potential to be integrated into daily instruction and implemented on a large scale in schools.

Second, the moderating role of forgiveness is consistent with the protective-reactive model, suggesting that high forgiveness is protective under low peer victimization, but its protective role is diminished under high peer victimization. This does not mean that adolescents who have experienced high peer victimization cannot benefit from forgiveness interventions that equip individuals with empathy, cooperation, and emotion management skills (Rapp et al., 2022). Rather, the benefits are not as pronounced as in cases of low peer victimization, and therefore, the beneficial role of forgiveness interventions should not be exaggerated. If adolescents experience serious peer victimization, targeted psychological intervention should be implemented promptly, regardless of their levels of forgiveness.

Finally, peer victimization should remain a fundamental intervention goal. Indeed, anti-bullying campaigns have been launched in many countries worldwide. In China, for instance, specific initiatives include carrying out thorough investigations to disclose bullying incidents; students who perpetrate bullying will be punished according to the seriousness of their offenses; diversified education guidance (e.g., moral, legal, mental health, and family education) will be promoted to reduce school bullying; and so on (The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2021). These anti-bullying initiatives could be cross-referenced, further promoted, and examined in different countries and regions.

Conclusions

The present study was the first to test a moderated mediation model of forgiveness and self-esteem in the association between peer victimization and subjective well-being among Chinese adolescents. The findings revealed that self-esteem mediates the association between peer victimization and subjective well-being. Furthermore, consistent with the protective-reactive model, forgiveness exacerbates the relationship between peer victimization and self-esteem, which in turn is related to subjective well-being. By using a moderated mediation model, the present study demonstrates the significance of simultaneously examining mediation and moderation factors. This study moves one step forward in the broader literature on peer victimization, representing important progress toward preventing and developing interventions aimed at improving subjective well-being among adolescents at risk of peer victimization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Dongping Li

Author Biographies

Jiaoyu Liu is a member of the research team in the School of Psychology at Central China Normal University. Her research interests focus on studying disadvantaged adolescents and their psychological adjustment, as well as improving the mental health of children and adolescents through multidisciplinary and multicultural collaborative interventions.

Dongping Li, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the School of Psychology at Central China Normal University. He is the principal investigator of the “Ecological Risk Factors and Adolescents’ Social Adaptation” project. His scientific work focuses on the role of family and school factors in adolescent problem behaviors.

Jichao Jia is a Ph.D. student in the Faculty of Psychology at Beijing Normal University. Her research interests focus on the study of risk factors, protective mechanisms, prevention and intervention of adolescent internet addiction, the role of family and school factors in adolescent problem behaviors, and marital and family problems and treatment.

Yuxiao Liu is a member of the research team in the School of Psychology at Central China Normal University. Her research interests focus on the study of peer relationships in children and adolescents’ social interactions, the study of adolescents’ cyberpsychology and behavior, and the role of family and school factors in adolescent problem behaviors.

Yaxin Lv is a member of the research team in the School of Psychology at Central China Normal University. Her research interests focus on studying the impacts of bullying and victimization on adolescents’ psychological adjustment. She is also interested in how to improve the mental health literacy of children and adolescents through mental health education.

Boyu Zhai is a Ph.D. student at the Institute of Psychology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests focus on adolescent internet addictive behaviors and related brain and neurophysiological mechanisms, peer relationships in adolescent social interactions, and the role of family and school factors in adolescent problem behaviors.

References

Barcaccia

Pallini

Baiocco

Salvati

Saliani

A. M.

Schneider

B. H.

(2018). Forgiveness and friendship protect adolescent victims of bullying from emotional maladjustment. Psicothema, 30(4), 427–433.

Bleidorn

Arslan

R. C.

Denissen

J. J.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Gebauer

J. E.

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410.

Bradburn

N. M.

Sudman

(1979). Improving interview method and questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass.

Brooks

J. R.

Hong

J. H.

Madubata

I. J.

Odafe

M. O.

Cheref

Walker

R. L.

(2021). The moderating effect of dispositional forgiveness on perceived racial discrimination and depression for African American adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(3), 511–520.

Brown

R. P.

(2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 759–771.

Campbell

(1976). Subjective measures of well-being. American Psychologist, 31(2), 117–124.

Casas

González-Carrasco

(2019). Subjective well-being decreasing with age: New research on children over 8. Child Development, 90(2), 375–394.

Casper

D. M.

Card

N. A.

(2017). Overt and relational victimization: A meta-analytic review of their overlap and associations with social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 88(2), 466–483.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Trends in the prevalence of behaviors that contribute to violence national YRBS: 1991–2019. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trends/2019_violence_trend_yrbs.pdf

10.

Cheng

S. T.

Cheung

K. C. C.

Cheung

(2008). Peer victimization and depression among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 766–776.

11.

Chen

Niu

G. F.

Zhang

D. J.

Fan

C. Y.

Tian

Zhou

Z. K.

(2016). Socioeconomic status and life satisfaction in Chinese adolescents: Analysis of self-esteem as a mediator and optimism as a moderator. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 105–109.

12.

Chiaramello

Mesnil

Muñoz Sastre

M. T.

Mullet

(2008). Dispositional forgiveness among adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(3), 326–337.

13.

Christina

Magson

N. R.

Kakar

Rapee

R. M.

(2021). The bidirectional relationships between peer victimization and internalizing problems in school-aged children: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 101979.

14.

Cohen

G. L.

Sherman

D. K.

(2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371.

15.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.

16.

Cowden

R. G.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr Griffin

B. J.

Garthe

R. C.

(2019). Forgiveness moderates relations between psychological abuse and indicators of psychological distress among women in romantic relationships. South African Journal of Science, 115, 1–7.

17.

Cummings

E. M.

Valentino

(2015). Developmental psychopathology. In Overton

W. F.

Molenaar

P. C. M.

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method (vol. 1, 7th ed., pp. 566–606). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

18.

Diener

Oishi

Lucas

R. E.

(2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.

19.

Dong

Lin

C. D.

(2011). Key indicators of psychological development and evaluation of Chinese children and adolescents aged 6 to 15. Science Press.

20.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Robins

R. W.

(2011). Self-esteem: Enduring issues and controversies. In Chamorro-Premuzic

von Stumm

Furnham

(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 718–746). Wiley Blackwell.

21.

DuBois

D. L.

Burk-Braxton

Swenson

L. P.

Tevendale

H. D.

Lockerd

E. M.

Moran

B. L.

(2002). Getting by with a little help from self and others: Self-esteem and social support as resources during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 822–839.

22.

Durant

L. E.

Carey

M. P.

Schroder

(2002). Effects of anonymity, gender, and erotophilia on the quality of data obtained from self-reports of socially sensitive behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(5), 439–467.

23.

Duru

Balkis

Turkdoğan

(2019). Relational violence, social support, self-esteem, depression and anxiety: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 28(9), 2404–2414.

24.

Enright

R. D.

, & The Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In Kurtines

Gewritz

(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 123–152). Erlbaum.

25.

Flanagan

K. S.

Vanden Hoek

K. K.

Ranter

J. M.

Reich

H. A.

(2012). The potential of forgiveness as a response for coping with negative peer experiences. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1215–1223.

26.

Forster

D. E.

Billingsley

Russell

V. M.

McCauley

T. G.

Smith

Burnette

J. L.

Ohtsubo

Schug

Lieberman

McCullough

M. E.

(2020). Forgiveness takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 861–880.

27.

Ghobari Bonab

Khodayarifard

Geshnigani

R. H.

Khoei

Nosrati

Song

M. J.

Enright

R. D

. (2021). Effectiveness of forgiveness education with adolescents in reducing anger and ethnic prejudice in Iran. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 846–860.

28.

Gini

Marino

Pozzoli

Holt

(2018). Associations between peer victimization, perceived teacher unfairness, and adolescents’ adjustment and well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 56–68.

29.

Griffin

B. J.

Cowden

R. G.

Shawkey

(2020). Bibliography of narrative reviews and meta-analyses on forgiveness (2004–2018). In Worthington

E. L.

Wade

N. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (2nd ed., pp. 335–344). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

30.

Gromann

P. M.

Goossens

F. A.

Olthof

Pronk

Krabbendam

(2013). Self-perception but not peer reputation of bullying victimization is associated with non-clinical psychotic experiences in adolescents. Psychological Medicine, 43(4), 781–787.

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

32.

Heine

S. J.

Buchtel

E. E.

(2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369–394.

33.

M. Y.

Worthington

E. L.

(2020). Is the concept of forgiveness universal? A cross-cultural perspective comparing western and eastern cultures. Current Psychology, 39(5), 1749–1756.

34.

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.

35.

Huang

(2021). Bullying victimization, self-efficacy, fear of failure, and adolescents’ subjective well-being in China. Children and Youth Services Review, 127, 106084.

36.

Huebner

E. S.

(2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 66(1–2), 3–33.

37.

Karremans

J. C.

Regalia

Paleari

F. G.

Fincham

F. D.

Cui

Takada

Ohbuchi

K. I.

Terzino

Cross

S. E.

Uskul

A. K.

(2011). Maintaining harmony across the globe: The cross-cultural association between closeness and interpersonal forgiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 443–451.

38.

Karremans

J. C.

Van Lange

P. A.

(2008). Forgiveness in personal relationships: Its malleability and powerful consequences. European Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 202–241.

39.

Kaufman

T. M. L.

Lee

H. Y.

Benner

A. D.

Yeager

D. S.

(2020). How school contexts shape the relations among adolescents’ beliefs, peer victimization, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(3), 769–786.

40.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 32, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.

41.

(2005). Prestige stratification in the contemporary China: Occupational prestige measures and socio-economic index. Sociological Studies, 2, 74–102.

42.

(2012). Multiple ecological risk factors and adolescents’ social adaptation: How risks should be modeled and what are their mechanisms [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. South China Normal University.

43.

Chen

Bao

Wang

Zhao

(2015). School climate and adolescent problem behaviors: The mediating role of peer victimization. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(4), 896–904.

44.

Feng

(2018). Goal content, well-being, and psychological needs satisfaction in Chinese adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(4), 541–550.

45.

Little

R. J.

Rubin

D. B.

(2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Wiley.

46.

Lopez

Dubois

D. L.

(2005). Peer victimization and rejection: Investigation of an integrative model of effects on emotional, behavioral, and academic adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 25–36.

47.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

(2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562.

48.

Jiang

(2020). Empathy mediates the relationship between motivations after transgression and forgiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1466.

49.

Marshall

S. L.

Parker

P. D.

Ciarrochi

Heaven

P. C. L.

(2014). Is self-esteem a cause or consequence of social support? A 4-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 85(3), 1275–1291.

50.

Martin

K. M.

Huebner

E. S.

(2007). Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional well-being of middle school students. Psychology in the Schools, 44(2), 199–208.

51.

Masten

A. S.

(2014). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. Guilford Press.

52.

Z. W.

Zeng

W. N.

K. Y.

(2015). Gender differences in Chinese adolescents’ subjective well-being: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Psychological Reports, 116(1), 311–321.

53.

McCarthy

S. K.

(2008). The adjustment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) older adolescents who experience minority stress: The role of religious coping, struggle, and forgiveness (Publication No. 3375059) [Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

54.

McCullough

M. E.

Kurzban

Tabak

B. A.

(2011). Evolved mechanisms for revenge and forgiveness. In Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

(Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 221–239). American Psychological Association.

55.

McNulty

J. K.

(2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 787–790.

56.

McNulty

J. K.

Fincham

F. D.

(2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67(2), 101–110.

57.

Mehari

K. R.

Farrell

A. D.

(2015). The relation between peer victimization and adolescents’ well-being: The moderating role of ethnicity within context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 118–134.

58.

Miller

A. J.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr McDaniel

M. A.

(2008). Gender and forgiveness: A meta–analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8), 843–876.

59.

Nakamoto

Schwartz

(2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19(2), 221–242.

60.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094–2100.

61.

National Bureau of Statistics. (2011, November). The sixth national census long table. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm

62.

Nepon

Pepler

D. J.

Craig

W. M.

Connolly

Flett

G. L.

(2021). A longitudinal analysis of peer victimization, self-esteem, and rejection sensitivity in mental health and substance use among adolescents. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 1135–1148.

63.

Norrington

(2021). Adolescent peer victimization, self-concept, and psychological distress in emerging adulthood. Youth & Society, 53(2), 273–295.

64.

Olweus

(1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In Rubin

K. H.

Asendorf

J. B.

(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341). University of Chicago Press.

65.

Ong

A. D.

Weiss

D. J.

(2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1691–1708.

66.

Oostenbroek

Vaish

(2019). The emergence of forgiveness in young children. Child Development, 90(6), 1969–1986.

67.

Orth

Erol

R. Y.

Luciano

E. C.

(2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1045–1080.

68.

Pan

Yang

Liu

Chan

Liu

Zhang

(2020). Peer victimization and problem behaviors: The roles of self-esteem and parental attachment among Chinese adolescents. Child Development, 91(4), e968–e983.

69.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

70.

Rapp

J. W.

Enright

R. D.

(2022). A meta-analysis of forgiveness education interventions’ effects on forgiveness and anger in children and adolescents. Child Development, 93(5), 1249–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13771

71.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

J. H.

Prinzie

Boelen

P. A.

Van der Schoot

Telch

M. J.

(2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 37(3), 215–222.

72.

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.

73.

Rosenberg

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

74.

Schwarz

(1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.

75.

Shek

D. T.

(2008). Perceived parental control processes, parent–child relational qualities, and adolescent psychological well-being in intact and nonintact families: Longitudinal findings in the Chinese culture. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49, 171–189.

76.

Sheldon

Antony

M. G.

(2019). Forgive and forget: A typology of transgressions and forgiveness strategies in married and dating relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 83(2), 232–251.

77.

Sowislo

J. F.

Orth

(2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240.

78.

Strelan

(2020). The stress-and-coping model of forgiveness: Theory, research, and the potential of dyadic coping. In Worthington

E. L.

Jr. Wade

N. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness (2nd ed., pp. 63–73). Taylor & Francis Group.

79.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Toscanelli

Arnett

J. J.

(2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129.

80.

The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2021, January). The Ministry of Education launched a special campaign to prevent bullying among primary and middle school students. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202101/t20210127_511342.html

81.

Thompson

L. Y.

Snyder

C. R.

Hoffman

Michael

S. T.

Rasmussen

H. N.

Billings

L. S.

Heinze

Neufeld

J. E.

Shorey

H. S.

Roberts

J. C.

Roberts

D. E.

(2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73(2), 313–360.

82.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Donnellan

M. B.

Moffitt

T. E.

Robins

R. W.

Poulton

Caspi

(2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 381–390.

83.

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Finkelhor

Hamby

(2017). Effects of poly-victimization on adolescent social support, self-concept, and psychological distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 755–780.

84.

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. (2018, September). Half of world’s teens experience peer violence in and around school. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/half-worlds-teens-experience-peer-violence-and-around-school-unicef

85.

van der Wal

R. C.

Karremans

J. C.

Cillessen

A. H

. (2017). Causes and consequences of children’s forgiveness. Child Development Perspectives, 11(2), 97–101.

86.

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.

87.

Wang

(2017). Harsh parenting and problematic internet use in Chinese adolescents: Child emotional dysregulation as mediator and child forgiveness as moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 211–219.

88.

Wang

Liu

(2021). Peer victimization and nonsuicidal self-injury among Chinese left-behind children: The moderating roles of subjective socioeconomic status and social support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 11165–11187.

89.

Wang

(1999). Rating scales for mental health (updated ver., pp. 280–282). Chinese Journal of Mental Health.

90.

Worthington

E. L.

Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. Routledge.

91.

Yang

Chen

Cao

Chen

Zhang

(2020). Peer victimization during early adolescence: Person centered analysis. Psychological Development and Education, 36(2), 146–156.

92.

Yan

Xie

Gai

Chen

Wang

(2021). Assessment results of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) in middle school and college students in China. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 35(10), 863–868.

93.

Yao

Chen

Sang

(2017). Mediator roles of interpersonal forgiveness and self-forgiveness between self-esteem and subjective well-being. Current Psychology, 36(3), 585–592.

94.

Yue

Yang

Yue

Pan

(2020). The memory effect of reflected self-appraisals on different types of others. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 553585.

95.

Zhang

Ting-Toomey

Oetzel

J. G.

Zhang

(2015). The emotional side of forgiveness: A cross-cultural investigation of the role of anger and compassion and face threat in interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 8(4), 311–329.

96.

Zhang

Hong

Hou

Liu

(2022). A prospective study of peer victimization and depressive symptoms among left-behind children in rural China: The mediating effect of stressful life events. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 16(1), 1–11.