Peer Victimization: an Integrative Review and Cross-National Test of a Tripartite Model

• Published in: Educational psychology review Vol. 35; no. 2; pp. 46 - 96
• Main Authors: Marsh, Herbert W., Guo, Jiesi, Parker, Philip D., Pekrun, Reinhard, Basarkod, Geetanjali, Dicke, Theresa, Parada, Roberto H., Reeve, Johnmarshall, Craven, Rhonda, Ciarrochi, Joseph, Sahdra, Baljinder, Devine, Emma K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.06.2023; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adolescents; Antisocial Behavior; Attitudes; Bullying; Child and School Psychology; Cultural Influences; Education; Educational aspects; Educational Psychology; Gender Differences; Goodness of Fit; Individualized Instruction; Learning and Instruction; Peer Relationship; Psychological aspects; Review Article; School safety; Structural equation modeling; Validity; Verbal Communication; Victimization; Victims of Crime; Well Being; Australia; Pro-Bully Paradox; Multiple components of victimization; Mental health and well-being; Exploratory structural equation modeling; Anti-bullying attitudes and policies; PISA cross-national comparisons
• ISSN: 1040-726X; 1573-336X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10648-023-09765-x

School victimization issues remain largely unresolved due to over-reliance on unidimensional conceptions of victimization and data from a few developed OECD countries. Thus, support for cross-national generalizability over multiple victimization components (relational, verbal, and physical) is weak. Our substantive–methodological synergy tests the cross-national generalizability of a three-component model (594,196 fifteen-year-olds; nationally -representative samples from 77 countries) compared to competing (unidimensional and two-component) victimization models. We demonstrate the superior explanatory power of the three-component model—goodness-of-fit, component differentiation, and discriminant validity of the three components concerning gender differences, paradoxical anti-bullying attitudes (the Pro-Bully Paradox) whereby victims are more supportive of bullies than of other victims, and multiple indicators of well-being. For example, gender differences varied significantly across the three components, and all 13 well-being indicators were more strongly related to verbal and particularly relational victimization than physical victimization. Collapsing the three components into one or two components undermined discriminant validity. Cross-nationally, systematic differences emerged across the three victimization components regarding country-level means, gender differences, national development, and cultural values. These findings across countries support a tripartite model in which the three components of victimization—relational, verbal, and physical—relate differently to key outcomes. Thus, these findings advance victimization theory and have implications for policy, practice, and intervention. We also discuss directions for further research: the need for simultaneous evaluation of multiple, parallel components of victimization and bullying, theoretical definitions of bullying and victimization and their implications for measurement, conceptual bases of global victimization indices, cyberbullying, anti-bullying policies, and capitalizing on anti-bullying attitudes.