TODD L BAUERLE.com

Peer Victimization and Social Interactions

Page 2 of 2

Victimization, Coping, and Social Interaction

Peer Rejection. After examining self-peer victimization status combined with coping methods and their adjustment, three main categories of social interaction take shape: peer rejection, peer acceptance, and social withdrawal. In terms of victimization status, being placed in the peer rejected group relates to the degree peers identify someone as being a victim, and self-peer identified victims have an even greater likelihood of rejection (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998).

Being an overt victim greatly increases the likelihood of peer rejection; in terms of relational victimization, peer- and self-peer identification are more likely indicators of peer rejection than self-identified (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). The overall quantity of victimization can be a predictor of peer rejection, the more someone is victimized the more they will be rejected (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

The peer rejected group tends to have more social dissatisfaction, be the most submissive, most lonely, and most emotionally distressed of all groups (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). Girls in this group suffer from the most social anxiety. Self-blaming is typical of peer rejection, yet it is more likely for the rejected to participate in characterological self-blaming than behavioral self-blaming (Graham & Juvonen, 1998). In terms of coping, the peer rejected group is associated with externalizing and withdrawal (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner, 2002).

Peer Acceptance. While the peer rejected group displays a multitude of characteristics, the peer acceptance group is much simpler to describe. Peer acceptance can be defined by a person’s popularity (Hanish & Guerra, 2002). Graham and Juvonen (1998) stated this in other terms, being perceived by peers as a nonvictim ultimately leads to acceptance. If victimization does occur, distancing may result in higher peer acceptance (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

Social Withdrawal. Those who socially withdraw are a group apart from peer rejection or acceptance, where a large part of research is focused. Inclusion in social groups is dependant upon the peers’ decision; social withdrawal is an internal, conscious choice. For that reason it is classified as its own group. Social withdrawal is associated with an internalizing pattern of coping (Hanish & Guerra, 2002), and when distancing behaviors are employed, victimization is magnified (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002). Interestingly, self-peer identified overt victimized boys are more avoidant of peers than girls (Crick & Bigbee, 1998).

Conclusion

A clear interaction exists between self- and peer-perceptions of victimization and coping methods and adjustment creating three groups of social interaction; peer rejection, peer acceptance, and social withdrawal. However, a large part of the research focuses on peer rejection. Further research exploring peer acceptance and what, other than low victimization and popularity, influences acceptance (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Graham and Juvonen, 1998). Additional research is also needed on social withdrawal and why some children and adolescents choose to socially retreat. For now, the current literature is able to act as stepping stones to more definitive, applied research on peer rejection, peer acceptance, and social withdrawal.

References

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587-599.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., Skinner, K. (2002). Children’s coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38, 267-278.