Home | Bio | Resume | Education | Music | Film | Written | Art | Links | Contact

Peer Victimization and Social Interactions

29 April 2004

Research Methods

Instructor: Dr. Laura Hanish

Grade: A

By: Todd Bauerle

Page 1 of 2

Through childhood and into adolescence, peer relationships are often very difficult, confusing, challenging, and at times traumatizing. Why do some children have an easier time relating to their peers, but others are perpetual targets of peer victimization? Some of the most interesting research has been on self- and peer-perceptions of being a victim and on coping and adjustment patters in children and adolescents. This paper will address the interaction between these two areas of research creating three separate categories of social interaction; peer rejection, peer acceptance, and social withdrawal.

Perceptions of Victimization

Self-Identified Victim Status. One significant factor in peer victimization and social acceptance relates to whether or not a child is perceived to be a victim by themselves, their peers, or both (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998). Perceiving oneself as a victim does damage to feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. This occurs because self-identified victims have a tendency to internalize the causes of victimization, blaming themselves (Graham & Juvonen, 1998).

Self-blaming happens in two ways. It is assumed either victimization caused by a character flaw or through behavior that encourages victimization. Both forms of self-blame direct the cause for victimization within the person, which result in a more negative view of self and consequently more discomfort in social situations. Graham and Juvonen (1998) found higher levels of loneliness and social anxiety and lower levels of self-worth with the adolescents who saw themselves as victims. However, they found more significant correlations with adolescents who were more likely to participate in characterological self-blamers than behavioral self-blamers.

Self-identified victims can further be defined as either overt or relational victims. Crick and Bigbee (1998) referred to instances of physical harm or its impending threat as overt victimization and threats of withdrawn friendship, manipulation, and exploitation as relational victimization. They found self-identified overt victims are generally submissive but significantly more distressed and lonelier than any other overtly victimized group. Additionally, relational victims show significant correlations with loneliness across all groups, regardless of self-, peer-, or self-peer identification status.

Peer-Identified Victim Status. Adolescents who are identified as victims by their peers have a tendency to externalize blame for their victimization (Graham and Juvonen, 1998). Although peer-identified victims do not participate in self-blaming behaviors and have better general adjustment, it has obvious costs such as experiencing significant peer rejection (Graham & Juvonen, 1998). Crick and Bigbee (1998) supported these findings stating that overt peer-identified victims showed considerably more rejection and submissiveness. Relationally peer-identified victims tend to show more distress than non-victims.

Self-Peer Identified Victim Status. This group is made up of individuals who are identified as victims by both themselves and peers. Self-peer identified victims have a strong tendency to participate in characterological self-blame (Graham & Juvonen, 1998).  This group has the highest levels of loneliness and social anxiety, and lowest feelings of self-worth. The interaction between self- and peer-identification also rates this group as the most socially rejected overall.  Crick and Bigbee’s (1998) study supported these findings and further observed the overt self-peer identified group as being the most rejected, most avoidant of peers, and most emotionally distressed. They also found the relationally self-peer identified adolescents to be the most submissive group.

Coping Methods and Adjustment

Internalizing. A large aspect of peer victimization that impacts social acceptance are the different coping methods and adjustment following victimization such as internalizing, externalizing, and distancing. The internalizing person seeks to cope with peer victimization by pulling inward and analyzing what has happened, worrying about it, and self-blaming. Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) discovered internalizing was positively related to peer harassment and loneliness. As the frequency of victimization increases, girls who use this method of coping tend to have an rapid increase in social problems (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner, 2002).

Internalizing leads to decreased popularity and lower peer preference (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Hanish & Guerra, 2002) and also correlates with increases in anxiety and depression, as well as higher rates of withdrawal and attention problems (Hanish & Guerra, 2002).  Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) expand noting the positive relationship specifically with boys’ anxiety and depression.  However, girls are more likely to participate in internalizing coping methods more than boys (Hanish & Guerra, 2002).

Externalizing. Externalizing includes behaviors such as yelling or participating in physical acts of aggression, like hitting or pushing. As expected, coping through externalizing is linked with significantly higher levels of aggression and delinquency, and can lead to attention problems (Hanish & Guerra, 2002). This coping method also has a positive relationship with peer harassment and loneliness, however, girls’ peer preference and social problems are negatively related to externalizing (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

A greater variability of adjustment outcomes result from interactions between frequency of victimization and gender. While Hanish and Guerra (2002) found moderate levels of rejection and anxious-depressed symptoms associated with externalizing, Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) discovered higher levels of anxiety and depression in boys specifically when victimization occurred more frequently. This may be attributed to boys exhibiting externalizing coping more often than girls (Hanish & Guerra, 2002).

Distancing. Another coping strategy is distancing, where the person who is victimized withdraws socially.  Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner’s (2002) study revealed a similarity between distancing and externalizing in cases of frequent victimization being positively related to higher levels of anxiety and depression in boys. While boys may more frequently distance themselves as a buffer against low peer preference, distancing is positively correlated with increases in social problems and loneliness in girls (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).