Chat with us, powered by LiveChat An overall summary of all module material is presented. It involves the major themes and ideas of the chapter. Summary Points Includes 3-5 major topics/issues | EssayAbode

An overall summary of all module material is presented. It involves the major themes and ideas of the chapter. Summary Points Includes 3-5 major topics/issues

Aggression Textbook: Social Psychology 11th Edition-Saul Kassin, Markus, & Fein. (Chapter 11) Chadee Theories in Social Psychology 1st Edition (Chapter 11)

Parenting Behavior and the Risk of Becoming a Victim and a Bully/Victim: A Meta-Analysis Study

Subjective Socioeconomic Status Causes Aggression: A Test of the Theory of Social Deprivation

Content Summary: Aggression

Content Summary Grading Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Points

Content

36 to >33.0 pts

33 to >31.0 pts

31 to >0.0 pts

0 pts

36 pts

Advanced

Proficient

Developing

Not Present

The paper meets or exceeds content requirements: Intro Paragraph An overall summary of all module material is presented. It involves the major themes and ideas of the chapter. Summary Points Includes 3-5 major topics/issues of the module. Each point contains at least 1 paragraph and contains at least two sources per topic/issue or more.

Concluding Paragraph All key components from the reading material are included and summarized.

The paper meets most of the content requirements: Intro Paragraph An overall summary of all module material is presented. It involves the major themes and ideas of the chapter. Summary Points Includes 3-5 major topics/issues of the module. Each point contains at least 1 paragraph and contains at least two sources per topic/issue or more.

Concluding Paragraph All key components from the reading material are included and summarized.

The paper meets some of the content requirements: Intro Paragraph An overall summary of all module material is presented. It involves the major themes and ideas of the chapter. Summary Points Includes 3-5 major topics/issues of the module. Each point contains at least 1 paragraph and contains at least two sources per topic/issue or more.

Concluding Paragraph All key components from the reading material are included and summarized.

Structure

14 to >13.0 pts

13 to >11.0 pts

11 to >0.0 pts

0 pts

14 pts

Format and Page Requirement

Advanced

The paper meets or exceeds structure requirements: Current APA format is followed. The required page requirement (1.5-2 pages) is met.

Proficient

The paper meets most of the structure requirements: Current APA format is followed. The required page requirement (1.5-2 pages) is met.

Developing

The paper meets some of the structure requirements: Current APA format is followed.

The required page requirement (1.5-2 pages) is met.

Not Present

Total Points: 50

,

PSYC 512

Content Summary Assignment Instructions

Overview

Before learning how to apply social psychological research and theory in real life scenarios, it is important to be able to synthesize complex information and relay this information in an understandable way. These Content Summary Assignments are a great way to learn how to take several different sources and to synthesize them into a concise and understandable way.

Just as a hint: your Content Summary Assignments will provide you with terrific study guides for the quizzes.

You will complete Content Summary Assignments throughout this course. The Content Summary Assignments are the core learning/building block for this course. As such, be careful to read all of the material and to make worthwhile summaries of the information presented. You will use this information for every other assignment in this course.

The Content Summary tends to confuse students. Synthesize all the material from the week into three main topics. Provide title page in APA format. Introduction (paragraph that briefly explains your overarching theme and the three areas you covered. The three areas will have level 1 headings. The conclusion is a wrap-up of what you wrote above in your paper. Under each area make sure you have two different sources (from our reading do not add other material).

Instructions

Include the following components in your Content Summary Assignments:

1. Content Summary Assignments must be at least 1.5–2 pages

2. Each summary must include an integration of the Kassin et al. text chapters, Chadee theory chapters, and two journal articles related to each module (found in the Learn Section).

· Use your Kassin et al. textbook to navigate the summary. Then, explore specific issues from the text that the Chadee theories book and the required articles also discuss.

3. The Content Summary Assignments must be in current APA format, including a cover page, a reference page, and appropriate subheadings (i.e. introduction, summary points, conclusion, etc.)

4. Using sources outside the required Learn Section reading is allowed, but not required

5. Cite all your sources you used (should include all read items from the Learn Section, as well as any outside sources used) in current APA format

Use the following outline in your Content Summary Assignments:

1. Introduction

a. The introduction should be an overall summary of the Learn Section’s reading material (1–2 paragraphs).

2. Body (Summary Points)

a. The body of your summary should include 3–5 subsections, covering 3–5 of the major points that span across all reading sources in the module.

b. Each subsection should not only summarize a major point, but also integrate the information gleaned from different sources about this major point.

c. Subsections should be about 1–2 paragraphs long.

d. Each subsection should have a minimum of 2 sources cited to support the major points. (This is to ensure that you are integrating the information, rather than summarizing the sources independently.)

3. Conclusion

a. Tie together the major themes you introduced in the body of the summary.

Make sure to check the Content Summary Grading Rubric before you start your Content Summary Assignment.

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

Page 2 of 2

,

P b

S a

b

c

C

A R R A A

K B V M H P

p o p c L

r

0 h

Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

arenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a ully/victim: A meta-analysis study�

uzet Tanya Lereya a,∗, Muthanna Samara b, Dieter Wolke c

Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK Department of Psychology, Kingston University London, Kingston, Upon-Thames KT1 2EE, UK Department of Psychology and Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Warwick Medical School), University of Warwick, Coventry V4 7AL, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 26 July 2012 eceived in revised form 1 March 2013 ccepted 5 March 2013 vailable online 25 April 2013

eywords: ullying ictimization eta-analysis arsh parenting arenting behavior

a b s t r a c t

Objective: Being bullied has adverse effects on children’s health. Children’s family experi- ences and parenting behavior before entering school help shape their capacity to adapt and cope at school and have an impact on children’s peer relationship, hence it is important to identify how parenting styles and parent–child relationship are related to victimization in order to develop intervention programs to prevent or mitigate victimization in childhood and adolescence. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on parenting behavior and peer victimization using MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE from 1970 through the end of December 2012. We included prospective cohort studies and cross- sectional studies that investigated the association between parenting behavior and peer victimization. Results: Both victims and those who both bully and are victims (bully/victims) were more likely to be exposed to negative parenting behavior including abuse and neglect and mal- adaptive parenting. The effects were generally small to moderate for victims (Hedge’s g range: 0.10–0.31) but moderate for bully/victims (0.13–0.68). Positive parenting behavior including good communication of parents with the child, warm and affectionate relation- ship, parental involvement and support, and parental supervision were protective against peer victimization. The protective effects were generally small to moderate for both victims (Hedge’s g: range: −0.12 to −0.22) and bully/victims (−0.17 to −0.42). Conclusions: Negative parenting behavior is related to a moderate increase of risk for becoming a bully/victim and small to moderate effects on victim status at school. Inter- vention programs against bullying should extend their focus beyond schools to include families and start before children enter school.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Victims of bullying are repeatedly exposed to aggressive behavior, perpetrated by an individual or peer group with more ower than the victim (Olweus, 1993, 2002; Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011). Bullying is a global problem with an average f 32% of children being bullied across 38 countries/regions (World Helth Organization, 2012). Victims more often develop

hysical health problems (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001), a range of mental health diffi- ulties including anxiety and depression (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Woods & White, 2005; Zwierzynska, Wolke, & ereya, 2013), psychotic symptoms (Schreier et al., 2009) and borderline personality symptoms (Wolke, Schreier, Zanarini, &

� Drs. Wolke and Lereya’s work on this study was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grant ES/K003593/1. Dr. Samara eceived support from Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) grant NPRP5 – 1134- 3-240. ∗ Corresponding author.

145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001

1092 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108

Winsper, 2012). They are also at highly increased risk of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and attempting and completing suicides (Fisher et al., 2012; Klomek et al., 2009; Winsper, Lereya, Zanarini, & Wolke, 2012). The targets of bullying are victims (Haynie et al., 2001; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000), and those who both bully others and are victims of bullying are called bully/victims (Wolke & Samara, 2004; Wolke et al., 2000). Bully/victims usually display the highest level of conduct, school, and peer relationship problems (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Wolke & Samara, 2004) and may come from the most adverse family backgrounds (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005).

Children’s family experiences before entering school help shape their capacity to adapt and cope at school and have an impact on children’s peer relationships (Ladd, 1992). Thus, it is important to identify which parenting styles and parent–child relationships are related to victimization in order to develop intervention programs to prevent or mitigate victimization in childhood and adolescence. From a social learning perspective, it has been argued that external environment contributes to acquiring and maintaining aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1986), and parents’ child rearing behavior may serve as a model upon which children base their behavior and expectations of future relationships (Ladd, 1992). It was found that maladaptive parenting, marked by high levels of hostility, hitting and shouting, was related to increased risk of peer victimization at school (e.g. Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004). On the other hand, children of authoritative parents (high on demanding and high on responsiveness) were found to do better at school and have less adjustment problems (e.g. Baumrind, 1991; Hay & Meldrum, 2010).

However, global parenting styles may fail to identify distinct aspects of parenting that are associated with childhood adjustments (Linver & Silverberg, 1997). The examination of individual parenting characteristics enable the exploration of relative independent effects of these characteristics on child outcomes (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). For example, previous research identified several factors that are important for the socialization of children. These include the extent of supervision (Georgiou, 2008), warmth (Booth, 1994; Fine, Voydanoff, & Donnelly, 1993) and overprotection (Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1998). Knowing which parenting factors increase or decrease the risk of victimization is necessary in order to develop prevention or intervention programs that go beyond the school context.

The objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically investigate the type and strength of the association between par- enting behavior (i.e. parent–child communication, authoritative parenting, parental involvement and support, supervision, warmth and affection of the parents, abuse and neglect, maladaptive parenting, overprotection) on being bullied. Analyses are conducted separately for victims and bully/victims.

Methods

The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the MOOSE guidelines for systematic reviews of observational studies (see supplementary Table 1; Brugha et al., 2012; Stroup et al., 2000).

Search strategy

We conducted a literature search for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of the association between parenting behav- ior and peer victimization published between January 1970, when the influential work of Olweus on bullying appeared, and the end of December 2012. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE. The following keywords were used ‘bully*’, ‘bulli*’ and ‘victim*’ in conjunction with ‘parent*’, ‘authoritarian’, ‘authoritative’, ‘per- missive’, ‘hostility’, ‘warmth’, ‘punitive’, ‘indulgent’, ‘neglectful’, ‘overprotection’, ‘discipline’, ‘control’, ‘dominance’, ‘accept*’, ‘reject*’, ‘sensitive’, ‘insensitive’, ‘communication’, ‘affect*’, ‘encouragement’, ‘interaction’, ‘monitor*’, ‘responsive’, ‘family’, and ‘famili*’. The parenting keywords were chosen from Holden and Miller’s meta-analysis (1999) on enduring parents’ child rearing styles.

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

The online MEDLINE search yielded 6,123 articles, the PsychINFO yielded 4,401 articles, Eric yielded 2,104 articles and EMBASE yielded 4,039 articles. The overall systematic literature search included 16,667 articles. There was an overlap of 4,926 articles. Duplicate articles were excluded from subsequent searches and the final literature search included 11,741 articles (see Fig. 1).

In order to be included in the analysis, the study had to meet three criteria. Firstly, the study had to include measures of peer victimization at school and parenting behavior that was directly related to the child. Guided by pre- vious meta-analyses on peer victimization (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010) studies that assessed relational, physical, verbal and/or cyber victimization were included. The studies could use self-report (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004), peer nominations (Cenkseven Onder & Yurtal, 2008), or teacher (Shin & Kim, 2008) or parent reports (Bowes et al., 2009). Secondly, the authors should report (or provide after request) sufficient statistical information (correlations, means and standard deviations, odds ratio, F or t values)

in order to allow the use of meta-analytic techniques. Finally, the studies needed to come from published sources in English, such as journals, book chapters, or books. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the sam- ple was from a clinical population; (2) it was a qualitative study; (3) it was an experimental study; (4) it included only distal family variables that are indirectly related to the child (e.g. domestic violence); or (5) there was not suf-

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 1091–1108 1093

fi c

r t a a 1 F a y

S

a h y c p

Fig. 1. Description of the systematic review.

cient statistical information for the computation of effects and it was not provided by the authors despite being ontacted.

We reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles found (N = 11,741), resulting in 291 full text articles for additional eview. Two of the authors independently screened the full-text articles according to the selection and inclusion criteria. A otal of 72 articles were further excluded. For studies where data were missing, authors were contacted to obtain information bout the relationship between victimization and parenting factors or moderator variables. However, some authors were not ble to provide missing data (e.g. Baldry, 2003; Rigby, 1993; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001), could not be reached (e.g. Lowenstein, 977, 1978) or did not reply (e.g. Curtner-Smith, 2000). These studies were, therefore, not included in the meta-analysis. inally, 70 studies (N = 119 samples for victims; N = 55 samples for bully/victims) were included in the meta-analysis and re shown in Table 1. The final meta-analytic sample contained a total of 208,778 children with an age range of 4–25 ears.

election of parenting behavior variables and coding

Two coders independently constructed categories for the parenting variables that were then jointly reviewed nd decided with the help of a senior reviewer. Because, merging variables into very few categories might

ave obstructed any systematic patterns or too many categories that might reveal insufficient data for the anal- sis, considerable attention was given to determine the appropriate categories (Holden & Miller, 1999). Eight ategories of parenting behavior were created (see supplementary Table 2 for rationale behind the categories): ositive parenting behavior: authoritative parenting, parent–child communication, parental involvement and support,

1 0

9 4

S.T.Lerey a

et a l./

C h

ild A

b u

se &

N eglect

3 7

(2 0

1 3

) 1

0 9

1 –

1 1

0 8

Table 1 Summary of studies examining parenting behavior and peer victimization.

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Accordino and Accordino (2011)

124 7.5–12 Self-report General & cyber

Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection

Ahmed and Braithwaite (2004)

610 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Authoritative parenting, maladaptive parenting

Alikasifoglu, Erginoz, Ercan, Uysal, and Albayrak-Kaymak (2007)

3,519 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Communication

Aman-Back and Bjorkqvist (2007)

773 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, communication

Baldry and Farrington (1998)

238 12+ Self-report General Bully/victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Baldry (2004) 661 12+ Self-report Overt & relational

Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support

Baldry and Farrington (2005)

679 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Bender and Lösel (2011) 1,163 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting Beran (2009) 4,293 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Warmth & affection,

maladaptive parenting Beran, Hughes, and Lupart

(2008) 2,084 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &

support Bowes et al. (2009) 2,232 4–7 Mixed General Victim

bully/victim Longitudinal Europe Abuse & neglect, warmth &

affection Brighi, Guarini, Melotti,

Galli, and Genta (2012) 2,326 12+ Self-report Direct, indirect,

& cyber Victim Cross-sectional Europe Warmth & affection

Burk et al. (2008) 238 7.5–12 Mixed General Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Cassidy (2009) 461 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support

Cava, Musitu, and Murgui (2007)

1,319 12+ Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, parental involvement & support

Cenkseven Onder and Yurtal (2008)

273 12+ Peer nomination

General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, parental involvement & support warmth & affection

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011)

5,807 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting

Chaux, Molano, and Podlesky (2009)

53,316 12+ Self-report Overt Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting

Cheng, Cheung, and Cheung (2008)

712 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Cheng et al. (2010) 9,015 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

S.T.Lerey a

et a l./

C h

ild A

b u

se &

N eglect

3 7

(2 0

1 3

) 1

0 9

1 –

1 1

0 8

1 0

9 5

Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Coleman (2003) 67 7.5–12 Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection Dehue, Bolman, Vollink,

and Pouwelse (2012) 1,184 7.5–12 Self-report General &

cyber Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, abuse & neglect, maladaptive parenting

Demanet and Van Houtte (2012)

11,872 12+ Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support, warmth & affection

Demaray and Malecki (2003)

499 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Duong, Schwartz, Chang, Kelly, and Tom (2009)

211 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting

Fanti, Demetriou, and Hawa (2012)

1,416 12+ Self-report General & cyber

Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal Europe Parental involvement & support

Finnegan et al. (1998) 184 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting, overprotection, warmth & affection

Franic et al. (2011) 803 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, parental involvement & support, warmth & affection

Hay and Meldrum (2010) 426 12+ Self-report General & cyber

Victim Cross-sectional America Authoritative parenting

Hazemba, Siziya, Muula, and Rudatsikira (2008)

2,348 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Helweg-Larsen, Schutt, and Larsen (2012)

3,707 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, supervision

Herba et al. (2008) 1,526 12+ Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting

Holt and Espelage (2007) 1,501 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Holt, Kaufman Kantor, and Finkelhor (2009)

205 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision

Jimenez, Musitu, Ramos, and Murgui (2009)

565 12+ Self-report Verbal, physical & relational

Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication

Johnson et al. (2011) 832 12+ Self-report Verbal, relational & cyber

Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection

Kelleher et al. (2008) 211 12+ Mixed General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Abuse & neglect Kokkinos and Panayiotou

(2007) 186 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim

bully/victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting

1 0

9 6

S.T.Lerey a

et a l./

C h

ild A

b u

se &

N eglect

3 7

(2 0

1 3

) 1

0 9

1 –

1 1

0 8

Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Lemstra, Nielsen, Rogers, Thompson, and Moraros (2012)

4,197 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting

Ma, Phelps, Lerner, and Lerner (2009)

776 7.5–12 Self-report General Victim Longitudinal America Warmth & affection

Ma and Bellmore (2012) 831 12+ Peer nomination

Overt & relational

Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting

Ma (2001) 13,751 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Marini et al. (2006) 7,290 12+ Self-report Overt & relational

Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support, supervision, warmth & affection

Mesch (2009) 935 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri,

Gadalla, and Daciuk (2012)

2,186 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Mohr (2006) 733 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Abuse & neglect, warmth & affection

Muula, Herring, Siziya, and Rudatsikira (2009)

2,249 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Murray-Harvey and Slee (2010)

888 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement & support

Perren and Hournung (2005)

1,107 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support

Rigby, Slee, and Martin (2007)

1,432 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Overprotection, warmth & affection

Rothon, Head, Klineberg, and Stansfeld (2011)

2,790 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement & support

Rudatsikira, Mataya, Siziya, and Muula (2008)

7,338 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Rudatsikira, Muula, and Siziya (2007)

1,197 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Rudatsikira, Muula, and Siziya (2008)

2,111 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Rudatsikira, Siziya, Kazembe, and Muula (2007)

6,283 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1997)

198 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting

S.T.Lerey a

et a l./

C h

ild A

b u

se &

N eglect

3 7

(2 0

1 3

) 1

0 9

1 –

1 1

0 8

1 0

9 7

Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization informantsb

Victimization subtypes

Victimization status

Designc National settingd

Parenting behavior variable

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (2000) (Study 1)

389 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Longitudinal America Abuse & neglect, maladaptive parenting

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (2000) (Study 2)

243 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting

Segrin, Nevarez, Arroyo, and Harwood (2012)

111 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Communication

Shin and Kim (2008) 297 4–7 Teacher report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Abuse & neglect, maladaptive parenting, warmth & affection

Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, and Haynie (2007)

11,033 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Communication, parental involvement & support

Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, and Van Oost (2002)

1,719 7.5–12 Mixed General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Communication, maladaptive parenting, overprotection, parental involvement & support, warmth & affection

Tanigawa, Furlong, Felix, and Sharkey (2011)

544 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Totura et al. (2009) 2,506 12+ Self-report General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Veenstra et al. (2005) 1,065 7.5–12 Peer nomination

General Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting, overprotection, warmth & affection

Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009)

7,182 12+ Self-report Physical, relational, verbal & cyber

Victim bully/victim

Cross-sectional America Parental involvement & support

Wilson, Bovet, Viswanathan, and Suris (2012)

1,427 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Pare

Related Tags

Academic APA Assignment Business Capstone College Conclusion Course Day Discussion Double Spaced Essay English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature Management Market Masters Math Minimum MLA Nursing Organizational Outline Pages Paper Presentation Questions Questionnaire Reference Response Response School Subject Slides Sources Student Support Times New Roman Title Topics Word Write Writing