Fifth-Grade Children s Daily Experiences of Peer Victimization and ...€¦ · tive emotions (e.g., anxiety, sadness, shame, anger, and gen-eral negative emotionality). However, a

Fifth-Grade Children’s Daily Experiences of Peer Victimizationand Negative Emotions: Moderating Effects of Sex and PeerRejection

Michael T. Morrow & Julie A. Hubbard &

Lydia J. Barhight & Amanda K. Thomson

Published online: 27 March 2014# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This study examined the relations of fifth-gradechildren’s (181 boys and girls) daily experiences of peervictimization with their daily negative emotions. Childrencompleted daily reports of peer victimization and negativeemotions (sadness, anger, embarrassment, and nervousness)on up to eight school days. The daily peer victimizationchecklist was best represented by five factors: physical vic-timization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, propertyattacks, and social rebuff. All five types were associated withincreased negative daily emotions, and several types wereindependently linked to increased daily negative emotions,particularly physical victimization. Girls demonstrated greateremotional reactivity in sadness to social manipulation than didboys, and higher levels of peer rejection were linked to greateremotional reactivity to multiple types of victimization. Sexand peer rejection also interacted, such that greater rejectionwas a stronger indicator of emotional reactivity to victimiza-tion in boys than in girls.

Keywords Daily diary . Peer victimization . Negativeemotion . Peer rejection

Peer victimization is a common and painful experience in thedaily lives of many children. Roughly 10 % of youth areregularly victimized by peers (Olweus 1993; Perry et al.

1988), and these experiences appear increasingly stable bylate elementary school (Perry et al. 2001). Moreover, decadesof research reveal that peer victimization is linked to numer-ous adjustment problems (Card and Hodges 2008; Grills andOllendick 2002; Hawker and Boulton 2000) and several psy-chiatric disorders (Kumpulainen 2008). However, few theo-rists have articulated the process through which peer victim-ization contributes to psychopathology. Previous research hasalso shed scant light on the nature and impact of children’sday-to-day experiences of victimization.

Background on Peer Victimization and EmotionalFunctioning

Despite these limitations, Coie (1990) offers a helpful frame-work for conceptualizing a pathway between children’s dailypeer victimization and daily psychological functioning. In thismodel, peer rejection (the experience of being disliked and notliked by peers) promotes negative treatment by peers, whichin turn, impairs daily psychological functioning. With repeat-ed exposure, the daily effects of these experiences give rise tointernalizing and externalizing patterns of psychopathology.Thus, recurrent experiences of peer victimization may con-tribute to serious and stable adjustment problems through theircumulative impact on daily functioning.

With regard to daily emotional functioning, children aretheorized to experience and engage in a variety of affectiveprocesses during social encounters (Lemerise and Arsenio2000). While some processes occur automatically (e.g., in-creased arousal when physically threatened), others resultfrom effortful processing (e.g., modulating the expression offear to save face among peers). Negative social experiencesare likely to activate basic emotions (e.g., sadness, anger, orfear; Izard 2007), as well as self-conscious emotions (e.g.,embarrassment or shame; Lewis 1992). When peer

M. T. Morrow (*) :A. K. ThomsonDepartment of Psychology, Arcadia University, 124 Boyer Hall, 450S. Easton Road, Glenside, PA 19038, USAe-mail: [email protected]

J. A. HubbardDepartment of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE,USA

L. J. BarhightBehavior Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’sHospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42:1089–1102DOI 10.1007/s10802-014-9870-0

victimization recurs, repeated negative daily emotions maycumulate to contribute to stable maladaptive patterns of emo-tional functioning.

Numerous studies have linked peer victimization to nega-tive emotions (e.g., anxiety, sadness, shame, anger, and gen-eral negative emotionality). However, a majority of this re-search assessed children’s emotional experiences retrospec-tively for the past few weeks or months or as stable, trait-likedimensions (e.g., Dill et al. 2004; Hanish et al. 2004; Hawkerand Boulton 2000). Therefore, we are unable to draw conclu-sions from this work regarding the daily connections of peervictimization and emotions, which is important for under-standing the day-to-day process through which peer victimi-zation may give rise to emotional maladjustment.

The Present Study

In this study, we build on past research by adopting a daily-report methodology to assess children’s daily experiences ofpeer victimization and negative emotions. Compared to tradi-tional self-report tools, daily reports offer a more fine-grainedand ecologically valid assessment of daily events (Iida et al.2012). They also reduce retrospective bias by minimizing thetime between participants’ experiences and their reports ofthese events (Bolger et al. 2003). Thus, daily measurement islikely to offer a more comprehensive and reliable snapshot ofchildren’s experiences of victimization and emotions.

We also expand upon past work by addressing three nota-ble gaps. First, we examine multiple types of daily peervictimization and evaluate their distinguishability as uniqueexperiences. Second, we explore the daily relations of multi-ple types of victimization with several negative emotions. Indoing so, we hope to offer a clearer picture of the relations ofspecific types of peer victimization with certain negativeemotions. Third, we evaluate two potential moderators ofemotional reactivity to peer victimization in order to identifychild characteristics linked to stronger emotional reactions topeer victimization.

Multiple Types of Daily Peer Victimization A majority of theresearch reviewed above assessed peer victimization as asingular construct; however, theorists have argued the impor-tance of studying multiple types of peer victimization(Sandstrom and Cillessen 2003). Several researchers haveperformed factor analyses to distinguish different subtypesof victimization (e.g., Crick et al. 1999; Crick and Grotpeter1996; Mynard and Joseph 2000; Sandstrom and Cillessen2003). Collectively, they have identified four subtypes: phys-ical victimization, verbal victimization, social victimization,and property attacks.

Regarding social victimization, multiple terms (e.g., indi-rect, relational, social) have been used to characterize peer

aggression aimed to harm children’s social functioning thatoccurs directly or indirectly (for a discussion, see Card et al.2008). In this study, we examine two potential subtypes: socialmanipulation and social rebuff. Social manipulation isintended to damage children’s peer relations or social statusand occurs indirectly (Mynard and Joseph 2000); that is, it isorchestrated by peers who influence others to treat children innegative ways (e.g., peers make a child’s friends turn againsthim). In contrast, social rebuff occurs directly between perpe-trators and targets and captures experiences of being ignored,left out, and excluded (Dodge et al. 1982; Putallaz andWasserman 1989).

For the current study, we assessed the five types of peervictimization experiences outlined above (physical victimiza-tion, verbal victimization, property attacks, social manipula-tion, and social rebuff) at the daily level. To accomplish this,we constructed a new checklist to capture day-to-day variationin children’s experiences of each type of peer victimization. Inevaluating this measure, we hypothesized that the five types ofvictimization would co-occur on a daily basis, yet also emergeas distinct daily experiences.

Daily Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions At least twostudies have simultaneously assessed children’s daily peervictimization and daily emotional functioning. Nishina andJuvonen (2005) collected daily reports of sixth-graders’ peervictimization and negative emotions over four or five schooldays. Across two samples, they found that children reportedgreater anxiety, anger, and humiliation on days they alsoreported peer victimization. Nishina (2012) assessed sixth-and ninth-graders’ daily experiences of peer victimization,worry, and humiliation. Students reported greater humiliationand worry on days they experienced victimization by peers.Accordingly, children’s daily negative emotions appear tofluctuate with their daily experiences of peer victimization;however, these studies do not reveal whether different types ofvictimization are more strongly associated with specificemotions.

If certain types of daily peer victimization are more pow-erful predictors of children’s daily negative emotions, theseexperiences may confer greater risk for long-term emotionaldifficulties. This information could guide prevention pro-grams to target the most potent types of peer victimization.Accordingly, we evaluated the daily relations of the fivevictimization subtypes with four negative emotions (sadness,anger, embarrassment, and nervousness). We carefullyassessed the separate relations of each type of victimizationwith every negative emotion, as well as their relative associ-ations, by simultaneously testing the relations of all fivesubtypes with each emotion. As a result, we were able toassess whether certain daily victimization experiences areuniquely linked to day-to-day variation in particular negativeemotions. We generally hypothesized that children would

1090 J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42:1089–1102

report greater negative emotion on days they encounteredmore instances of peer victimization.

Moderators of Emotional Reactivity to Daily PeerVictimization When faced with peer stress, some children aremore likely to experience negative emotions or feel them moreintensely (Lemerise and Arsenio 2000). Studies have linkedpeer victimization to abnormal emotional functioning, includ-ing elevated physiological arousal, heightened anger intensity,and emotion dysregulation (Champion and Clay 2007; Hanishet al. 2004; Shields and Cicchetti 2001; Woods and White2005). However, little is known about the specific factors thatinfluence emotional reactivity to peer victimization. By ex-ploring such factors, it may be possible to identify childrenwho are more susceptible to the emotional impact of peervictimization and require greater support in coping with theirvictimization experiences.

We evaluated whether two child characteristics, sex andpeer rejection, moderate the daily relations of peer victimiza-tion with negative emotions. Specifically, we tested whethercertain types of victimization are more strongly linked to dailyreactivity in negative emotions for boys versus girls andacross children at different levels of peer rejection. We alsoexamined the interactive effect of these two characteristics toassess whether peer rejection is associated with differinglevels of emotional reactivity to victimization across gender.These tests allowed us to examine whether gender, peer rejec-tion, and their combination, may be helpful in identifyingchildren at greatest risk for the emotional maladjustmentlinked to peer victimization. We investigated these variablesbecause both have been found to moderate various relationsbetween peer relations and psychosocial adjustment (Coie1990; Rose and Rudolph 2006).

Sex Rose and Rudolph (2006) theorize that boys and girls aresocialized via same-sex interactions to react and respond tostressful peer encounters in distinct ways. Research indicatesthat girls value friendships, hold communal goals, and receiveemotional benefits from relationships more than boys do(Benenson and Benarroch 1998; Bukowski et al. 1994;Chung and Asher 1996; Rose and Asher 2004). In contrast,boys value strength and dominance and hold more self-interested goals (Chung and Asher 1996; Jarvinen andNicholls 1996; Rose and Asher 2004). Accordingly, girlsmay be more concerned about the status of their relationshipsand peers’ evaluations of them (Rose and Rudolph 2006),whereas boys may be more concerned with their statusin the larger peer group (Bakker et al. 2010). Therefore,peer victimization aimed to damage relationships (e.g.,social manipulation) may be more distressing to girls,while victimization intended to challenge strength anddominance (e.g., physical victimization) may be moreupsetting to boys.

In line with these ideas, Galen and Underwood (1997)found that girls rated hypothetical vignettes of social victim-ization, which included experiences of social manipulationand social rebuff, as more hurtful than boys did. However,girls rated social and physical victimization as equally hurtful,whereas boys rated physical victimization asmore hurtful thansocial victimization. Additionally, Paquette and Underwood(1999) observed that girls rated social victimization as moreemotionally distressing than boys, and the relation betweensocial victimization and self-concept was stronger for girlsthan for boys. However, Rudolph (2002) found that socialand overt (physical and verbal) types of peer victimizationboth contribute to greater emotional difficulties in girls than inboys. Despite these mixed findings, we hypothesized that girlswould display greater reactivity in their negative emotions tosocial manipulation, while boys would show more emotionalreactivity to physical victimization.

Peer Rejection Peer-rejected children are often excluded frompeer interaction (Buhs et al. 2006), which may limit theiropportunities to practice and develop critical social skills(Hartup 1983), such as modulating their emotions amongpeers. According to multiple theorists, rejected children tendto be more reactive and less able to self-regulate duringdistressing social situations (Coie 1990; Halberstadt et al.2001; Hubbard and Dearing 2004). The links between peerrejection and emotional functioning may be bidirectional innature (Underwood 1997); for instance, strong emotionaldisplays may invite rejection by peers, which in turn, mayexacerbate future emotional reactivity.

According to research, peer-rejected children tend to ex-press more anger in response to peer-induced stress thanaverage-status children (Hubbard 2001). Peer rejection hasalso been linked to less adaptive emotion regulation, as ratedby others (Maszk et al. 1999) and observed during a stressfultask (Trentacosta and Shaw 2009). In addition, short-termlongitudinal studies point toward two-way paths between peerrejection and emotional functioning (e.g., Dill et al. 2004;Maszk et al. 1999). Based on this theory and research, wehypothesized that children higher in peer rejection woulddisplay greater reactivity to peer victimization in their nega-tive daily emotions.

Sex by Peer Rejection Finally, we explored whether sex andpeer rejection interact to moderate emotional reactivity to peervictimization. That is, we tested whether peer rejection is astronger indicator of emotional reactivity to different types ofvictimization for one sex versus the other. While boys andgirls both experience rejection by peers, boys tend to experi-ence higher rates of peer rejection (Coie et al. 1990). Differentpatterns of social cognitions and social behaviors are alsoassociated with peer rejection in boys than in girls (Dodgeand Feldman 1990). However, we were unable to locate

J Abnorm Child Psychol (2014) 42:1089–1102 1091

studies that specifically assessed the relations among chil-dren’s sex, peer rejection, and emotional functioning.

Per Rose and Rudolph (2006), certain social behaviorshave different consequences across sex. Specifically, sex-deviant behaviors are more likely to contribute to problematicpeer relations. Pertaining to this study, if certain emotionaldisplays are less normative for one sex, such as crying by boys(Zeman and Garber 1996) or angry outbursts by girls(Hubbard 2001), they may be more strongly associated withpeer rejection for that sex. For instance, intense displays ofanger could be a stronger correlate of peer rejection in girls,while prominent fear responses could be a stronger correlatein boys. Thus, peer rejection might be a marker of elevatedreactivity to peer victimization in different emotions for boysand girls. Given this complexity and lack of previous research,we explored whether sex and peer rejection interacted tomoderate emotional reactivity to victimization, without mak-ing specific hypotheses.

Summary of Study Aims and Hypotheses

The current study had three aims. First, we first tested ourhypothesis that the five proposed types of peer victimizationwould emerge as separate yet co-occurring daily experiences.Second, we evaluated our prediction that a variety of dailypeer victimization experiences would be linked to increasednegative emotion during the school day. Third, we examinedwhether sex and peer rejection moderate children’s emotionalreactivity to daily victimization. We specifically tested wheth-er girls would be more reactive to social manipulation, whileboys would be more reactive to physical victimization, andthat children higher in peer rejection would be generally morereactive to peer victimization.

Method

Participants were recruited from eight fifth-grade publicschool classrooms from four schools in one school districtwithin a Mid-Atlantic state. Two schools are located in sub-urban areas, while the other two are situated in more urbansettings. Consent forms were distributed to 225 children, and201 returned them. Of these children, 188 received theirparents’ permission to participate. Prior to data collection,six of the children transferred out of the participating class-rooms, and one child was removed due tomissing backgroundinformation.

The final sample consisted of 181 children (104 boys and77 girls). The following racial/ethnic groups were reported:35 % White, 31 % Black, 17 % Hispanic, 9 % Mixed, 3 %Asian, and 1 % American Indian; 4 % of the children were

missing data on race-ethnicity due to their parents’ decision toskip this question on a demographics questionnaire. Acrossthe school district, 39 % of students qualified for free orreduced-price lunch, and all participating schools were desig-nated by the district as low income.

Procedure

Data collection took place in the late fall and early winter ofone school year. We spent 4 to 5 weeks collecting data fromeach classroom. In the first 2 weeks, daily data were gatheredfrom each child for up to 8 days. A majority of these data werecollected across consecutive school days; however, severalchildren missed daily collections. We returned to their schoolsover the next 1 or 2 weeks to collect as many daily observa-tions as possible (up to eight total). Overall, 166 childrenprovided data on eight school days, whereas 15 childrenprovided data on at least three (but fewer than 8) days. Inthe 4th or 5th week, we returned to each classroom one finaltime to collect peer nominations of peer rejection.

The principal investigator or a graduate-level research as-sistant (accompanied by two undergraduate assistants) group-administered all measures to participating children in eachclassroom. The undergraduate assistants circulated withinthe classrooms to answer questions or read measures aloudto small groups of children identified by their teachers ashaving reading difficulties. Approximately 10 to 15 childrenrequired assistance with reading. All measures were collectedin the final 30min of each school day and took roughly 10minto complete. A child assent form was administered on the firstdaily collection, and we verbally reminded participants oftheir right to withdraw during each subsequent collection.

Measures

Daily Negative Emotions Four items were used to assesschildren’s daily sadness, anger, embarrassment, and nervous-ness. Three items (sad, mad, and nervous) were drawn fromthe Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children(PANAS-C; Laurent et al. 1999) and adapted to assess dailysadness, anger, and nervousness, respectively. The PANAS-Chas been adapted for daily reporting in several previous stud-ies involving preadolescents (e.g., Silk et al. 2003). Oneadditional item (embarrassed) was added to capture feelingsof daily embarrassment. Children were asked to rate thedegree to which they felt each emotion today at school on afive-point scale: 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (some), 4 (prettymuch), and 5 (very much). Higher scores indicate strongerfeelings of each negative emotion.

Daily Peer Victimization Children reported their daily peervictimization experiences using a newly developed checklistwith five proposed subscales: physical victimization, verbal


victimization, social manipulation, property attacks, and so-cial rebuff. To construct this checklist, we borrowed 16 itemsfrom Mynard and Joseph’s (2000) self-report scale, whichincludes four, four-item subscales (physical victimization,verbal victimization, social manipulation, and property at-tacks). Because these items were developed for English youth,we reworded several to sound more familiar to U.S. children.We borrowed three items from Sandstrom and Cillessen’s(2003) checklist to create a social rebuff subscale and movedone of Mynard and Joseph’s social manipulation items (A kidrefused to talk to me) to our social rebuff subscale. Finally, weadded one item (When I tried to play with one kid, another kidwould not let me) from Sandstrom and Cillessen’s checklist toour social manipulation subscale.

By taking these steps, the daily checklist included five,four-item subscales representing each of the five proposedsubtypes of peer victimization (Table 1). For each item, chil-dren were asked to circle the number of times (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ormore) that they experienced a victimization event today atschool. As described in the Results section, we conducted aconfirmatory factor analysis of this measure at the level ofdaily items, which supported our hypothesized five-factorsolution. Accordingly, daily scores were computed for eachsubtype of peer victimization by summing children’s re-sponses within subscale for each day.

We examined the reliability of the daily peer victimizationsubscales using two methods (Table 2). First, we calculated an

aggregate index of internal consistency by averaging the dailyalphas for each subscale. The average daily internal consis-tency was acceptable for all five types of peer victimization(average daily α=0.71–0.84). Second, we performed a novelprocedure to evaluate the psychometric properties of dailyreport measures (Cranford et al. 2006; Wenze et al. 2009).The first step is to run an analysis of variance model todecompose the variance of a daily measure into four compo-nents: between-person, within-person, item, and error. Next,these variances are used to compute reliability estimatesutilizing formulas developed by Cranford and colleagues(2006).

We computed between- and within-person reliability coef-ficients for each victimization subscale. The between-personcoefficients represent how reliably each scale captured child-level differences in peer victimization between children, whilethe within-person coefficients reflect how reliably each scalemeasured day-to-day fluctuation of peer victimization withinchildren. Both coefficients were acceptable for all five types ofvictimization (Iida et al. 2012). More specifically, 70 to 79 %of between-child variation in victimization was reliably cap-tured by the subscales, while 62 to 79 % of daily change invictimization was captured reliably.

Peer Rejection Peer rejection was assessed using unlimitedpeer nominations of liking and disliking. Children nominatedclassmates whom they like a lot and those whom they don’t

Table 1 Daily peer victimizationitems Type Number Item

Physical victimization 1 A kid hit or pushed me.

2 A kid kicked me.

3 Another kid beat me up.

4 A kid hurt my body in some other way.

Verbal victimization 5 A kid called me mean names.

6 A kid said something mean about me.

7 A kid made fun of the way I look.

8 A kid made fun of me for other some reason.

Social manipulation 9 A kid tried to get me in trouble with my friends.

10 A kid tried to make my friends turn against me.

11 When I tried to play with one kid, another kid wouldnot let me.

12 A kid made other people not talk to me.

Property attacks 13 A kid took something of mine without permission.

14 A kid tried to break something of mine.

15 Another kid stole something from me.

16 A kid damaged something of mine on purpose.

Social rebuff 17 A kid ignored me.

18 A kid refused to talk to me.

19 Kids wouldn’t let me join their game.

20 Kids had a secret and would not tell me.


like very much. These nominations have been validated inmany previous studies (e.g., Parker and Asher 1993). A classparticipation rate of at least 50 % is indicated to collectaccurate data for sociometric rejection (McKown et al.2011). In this study, at least 72 % of the children in eachclassroom completed these nominations.

Peer rejection scores were computed following proceduresvalidated by multiple researchers (e.g., Coie and Dodge 1983;Crick and Grotpeter 1995). First, we tallied the number ofliking and disliking nominations received by each child andthen standardized these scores within each classroom. Next,we calculated social preference scores by subtracting chil-dren’s standardized disliking score from their standardizedliking scores. Lastly, we multiplied the social preferencescores by negative one and re-standardized them in eachclassroom; higher scores indicate greater levels of peerrejection.

Results

Our data are organized in two levels. Level 1 (daily level)includes 1,413 daily reports, and Level 2 (child level)includes 181 children who provided the daily reports. Thus,the daily observations are nested within children. Nesteddata are typically interdependent; that is, data from thesame higher-level unit (e.g., within one child) tend tocorrelate more strongly than data from different units(e.g., between two children). Failure to account for interde-pendence yields biased standard error estimates and in-creased risk of Type I errors (Raudenbush and Bryk2002). Therefore, we took multiple steps in our analysesto account for interdependence in our data.

Multiple Types of Daily Peer Victimization

We investigated the factor structure of the daily peer victim-ization measure by performing several confirmatory factoranalyses (CFA) in Mplus 5.1 (Muthén and Muthén 2007).Each model included 20 indicators corresponding to the 20daily items. To account for the nested structure of our data, wegroup centered all daily items by subtracting children’s meanitem scores (aggregated across all available days) from theirdaily item scores. This approach removed Level-2 variationfrom each indicator and allowed us to examine a single matrixof daily data that included only Level-1 variation (for adiscussion, see Thompson and Bolger 1999). With this ap-proach, it was not necessary to run separate models for eachindividual day.

All 20 indicators were significantly skewed (skewness =1.87–6.55); we attempted to normalize them with three trans-formations (logarithmic, square root, and negative reciprocal),but none reduced skewness across all indicators. Therefore,we tested each model with the raw indicators using maximumlikelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). Thisapproach allowed us to obtain parameter estimates, standarderrors, and chi-square statistics that were robust to non-normality. To evaluate model fit, we examined the chi-square statistic, along with three alternate indices: the RootMean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Com-parative Fit Index (CFI), and the standardized root meansquare residual (SRMR). RMSEA values less than or equalto 0.06, CFI values greater than or equal to 0.95, and SRMRvalues less than 0.08 indicate reasonable model fit (Hu andBentler 1999).

We began by testing our hypothesized model (Fig. 1) thatincluded five correlated factors each measured by four

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates

Level-1 (Daily)M (SD)

Level-2 (Child)M (SD)

Level-2 (Child)Range

Level-2 (Child)Skewness

Internalconsistency

Between-personreliability

Within-personreliability

Sadness 1.33 (0.83) 1.33 (0.50) 1.00–4.50 2.68 – – –

Anger 1.64 (1.12) 1.64 (0.71) 1.00–4.33 1.47 – – –

Embarrassment 1.20 (0.62) 1.20 (0.37) 1.00–3.25 3.05 – – –

Nervousness 1.34 (0.81) 1.33 (0.50) 1.00–4.38 2.59 – – –

Physical victimization 0.55 (1.69) 0.57 (1.24) 0.00–8.13 3.51 0.71 0.70 0.65

Verbal victimization 0.94 (2.54) 0.98 (1.94) 0.00–13.17 3.52 0.84 0.79 0.79

Social manipulation 0.52 (1.74) 0.53 (1.36) 0.00–11.00 4.99 0.82 0.77 0.64

Property attacks 0.50 (1.58) 0.51 (1.17) 0.00–9.75 5.06 0.78 0.72 0.62

Social rebuff 0.72 (1.99) 0.74 (1.58) 0.00–12.33 4.19 0.74 0.77 0.65

Peer rejection – −0.03 (1.00) −2.12–2.51 0.39 – – –

At Level 1, descriptive statistics were computed from the full matrix of daily data. At Level 2, descriptive statistics were computed after aggregating allavailable daily data within each child to yield one average daily score for each variable for every child. Internal consistency was estimated by calculatingseparate alphas for all eight days and then averaging these values. Between-person reliability is an estimate of how reliably a daily scale captures trait-level variability; within-person reliability is an estimate of reliably a scale captures within-person variability across days (Cranford et al. 2006)


indicators. This model fit the data relatively well, χ2(160)=338.81, p<0.001; RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.88; SRMR=0.06.All standardized factor loadings were significant and greaterthan 0.40. Additionally, all factor correlations were positiveand significant, yet did not indicate excessive overlap (0.18–0.64). We then tested two competing models and comparedthem to the hypothesized model using Satorra and Bentler’s(2001) formula for evaluating chi-square differences withMLR (SB Δχ2).

In the first competing model, all 20 indicators loaded onto asingle factor, χ2(170)=732.30, p<0.001; RMSEA=0.05;CFI=0.62; SRMR=0.08. In this model, six standardized load-ings fell below 0.40. Additionally, the hypothesized model fitsignificantly better, SB Δχ2(10)=250.78, p<0.001. In thesecond competing model, social manipulation and social re-buff were merged into one factor due to their conceptualsimilarity. This model fit the data relatively well, χ2(164)=

384.97, p<0.001; RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.85; SRMR=0.06;however, the hypothesized model again fit significantly better,SB Δχ2(4)=34.11, p<0.001. Collectively, these results sug-gest that the hypothesized five-factor model provides a rea-sonable representation of the structure of the daily peer vic-timization measure. Thus, we summed the daily items withineach of the five victimization subtypes and used these vari-ables for all subsequent analyses.

Descriptive Analyses, Demographic Tests, and Correlations

Descriptive statistics are provided for all variables in Table 2.Means and standard deviations are presented at both levels forthe daily peer victimization and negative emotion variables.To compute these descriptive statistics at Level 2, we firstaggregated the available daily data to yield one average dailyscore for each variable for every child. For instance, weaggregated children’s daily reports of sadness to find theiraverage daily sadness scores, from which we computedLevel-2 descriptive statistics.

Next, we explored sex differences by conductingindependent-sample t tests for variables at Level 2. There wereno significant differences for peer victimization, but two sig-nificant differences emerged for negative emotions. Girls re-ported higher levels of sadness (girls’ M=1.42; boys’ M=1.26; t(179)=−2.23, p<0.05) and nervousness (girls’ M=1.42; boys’ M=1.26; t(179)=−2.15, p<0.05). Boys werenominated by peers as significantly higher in peer rejection(boys’ M=0.16; girls’ M=−0.30; t(179)=3.15, p<0.01).

A one-way ANOVAwas conducted to explore racial/ethnicdifferences for all of the variables at Level 2. Eight childrenwere excluded from this analysis; seven were missing data forrace/ethnicity, and one was removed because he was the onlyNative American child. No significant racial/ethnic differ-ences appeared in any of the daily variables or peer rejection.

Finally, we computed bivariate correlations between peerrejection and all of the victimization and emotion variablesaggregated at Level 2. Peer rejection evidenced positive cor-relations with just three other variables: embarrassment(r=0.21, p<0.01), nervousness (r=0.18, p<0.05), and verbalvictimization (r=0.16, p<0.05).

Daily Peer Victimization and Negative Emotions

For the remainder of our analyses, we utilized multilevelregression via HLM 7 (Raudenbush et al. 2011). Multilevelregression accounts for interdependence in nested data bypartitioning the variance of a dependent variable across eachlevel (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). This approach allowed usto model the unique effect of peer victimization on negativeemotion for each child and then obtain an overall estimate ofthe degree to which daily negative emotion covaries with dailyvictimization.

Fig. 1 Hypothesized five-factor CFA model for the daily peer victimi-zation checklist. Indicator labels correspond with the item numbers inTable 1. Factor loadings are standardized. All loadings and correlationsare significant at p<0.01


First, we tested a series of two-level models to estimate therelations of each type of victimization with every emotion(Table 3). In each model, one negative emotion was specifiedas the dependent variable, and one type of victimization wasentered as a Level-1 predictor with a random slope. Based onour previous findings, sex was included as a Level-2 covariatepredicting sadness and nervousness, and peer rejection wasincluded as a Level-2 covariate predicting embarrassment andnervousness. Sex was dummy coded (boys = 0; girls = 1). Allpredictors were entered uncentered for all subsequentanalyses.

Intercepts and slopes were estimated for each model. Inter-cept represents the average level of negative emotion when novictimization experiences are reported and the two covariates(if included) equal zero. When sex is included, the interceptreflects the average level of negative emotion for boys (boys =0). Because peer rejection was standardized, when it is includ-ed in a model, the intercept reflects the average level ofnegative emotion for children with the mean level of peerrejection for their class. The victimization slopes representthe average change in daily negative emotion for one addi-tional victimization experience.

Each peer victimization variable positively predicted everynegative emotion. Therefore, children reported higher levelsof each emotion on days they reported higher frequencies ofeach type of victimization. As an example, the estimatedintercept for the model of physical victimization on angersuggests that children report an average anger level of 1.56on days they report no instances of physical victimization. Theslope estimate indicates that children report an average in-crease of 0.14 in daily anger for every additional experience ofphysical victimization. We then calculated the proportion ofvariance explained at Level 1 in each model (Raudenbush andBryk 2002). The following percentages indicate the amount ofvariation in daily emotions explained by daily victimization.Physical victimization accounted for the following: sadness(7 %), anger (4 %), embarrassment (8 %), and nervousness(14 %). Verbal victimization accounted for the following:sadness (13 %), anger (8 %), embarrassment (20 %), andnervousness (7 %). Social manipulation accounted for thefollowing: sadness (2 %), anger (6 %), embarrassment(18 %), and nervousness (7 %). Property attacks accountedfor the following: sadness (5 %), anger (3 %), embarrassment(9 %), and nervousness (8 %). Social rebuff accounted for the

Table 3 Multilevel regression: separate relations of daily peer victimization with daily negative emotions

Sadness Anger Embarrassment Nervousness

B SE B SE B SE B SE

Physical victimization Intercept

Average daily emotion 1.21** 0.04 1.56** 0.05 1.16** 0.03 1.19** 0.05

Slope

Average physical victimization slope 0.10** 0.03 0.14** 0.03 0.07* 0.02 0.17** 0.04

Verbal victimization Intercept


Slope

Average verbal victimization slope 0.07** 0.02 0.11** 0.02 0.07** 0.02 0.05* 0.02

Social manipulation Intercept


Slope

Average social manipulation slope 0.07* 0.02 0.16** 0.03 0.12** 0.04 0.12** 0.03

Property attacks Intercept


Slope

Average property attacks slope 0.07* 0.03 0.12** 0.03 0.08* 0.03 0.11* 0.03

Social rebuff Intercept


Slope

Average social rebuff slope 0.09** 0.02 0.13** 0.03 0.06* 0.02 0.09** 0.02

B unstandardized coefficient. SE standard error. Degrees of freedom ranged from 178 to 180. *p<0.01. **p<0.001. Sex was included as a covariate ofthe intercept for all models of sadness and nervousness. Peer rejection was included as a covariate of the intercept for all models of embarrassment andnervousness


following: sadness (6 %), anger (5 %), embarrassment (6 %),and nervousness (5 %).

Next, we examined the relative relations of the peer vic-timization variables with each negative emotion to determinewhether certain victimization experiences account for greatervariation in children’s daily negative emotions (Table 4). Weran four two-level models, in which one negative emotion wasspecified as the dependent variable, and the five victimizationvariables were simultaneously entered as Level-1 predictorswith random slopes. Again, sex was included as a Level-2covariate predicting sadness and nervousness, while peer re-jection was included as a Level-2 covariate predicting embar-rassment and nervousness.

The intercepts for these models represent the averagelevel of negative emotion when none of the five types ofvictimization are reported and all covariates (if included)equal zero. Five slopes were estimated for each model,which reflect the average change in daily negative emotionfor one additional victimization experience, while account-ing for the effects of every other type of victimization.Physical victimization positively predicted all four negativeemotions, verbal victimization positively predicted angerand embarrassment, and social rebuff positively predictednervousness. For example, the estimated intercept for theanger model suggests that children report an average angerlevel of 1.47 on days they report no victimization of anytype. The significant slope estimates indicate that childrenreport an average increase of 0.08 in daily anger for everyadditional physical victimization experience and an averageincrease of 0.05 for every additional instance of verbalvictimization.

Finally, we calculated the proportion of variance explainedat Level 1 by the five peer victimization variables in eachmodel (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). These percentages re-flect the amount of Level-1 variance jointly accounted for byall five types of peer victimization. Together the victimizationsubtypes accounted for the following percentages of Level-1variance: sadness (21 %), anger (15 %), embarrassment(39 %), and nervousness (30 %).

Moderators of Emotional Reactivity to Daily PeerVictimization

Finally, we examined whether sex or peer rejection moderatedthe relations of peer victimization with negative emotions(Table 5). That is, we tested whether sex or peer rejectionmoderated emotional reactivity to peer victimization. We test-ed two sets of two-level models. In the first set, we examinedwhether sex and peer rejection individually moderated emo-tional reactivity to victimization; in the second set, we ex-plored whether sex and peer rejection interactively moderatedemotional reactivity to victimization. By testing the models inthis sequence, we sought to mirror the process of block-entryregression in HLM 7. Notably, we did not calculate propor-tions of variance explained for these models due to the com-plications that arise when testing complex multilevel models(Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).

In the first set of models, one negative emotion was spec-ified as the dependent variable, and one victimization subtypewas entered as a Level-1 predictor with a random slope. Sexand peer rejection were included as Level-2 covariates of thenegative emotion intercept and as Level-2 predictors of the

Table 4 Multilevel regression: Relative relations of daily peer victimization with daily negative emotions


B SE B SE B SE B SE

Intercept

Average daily emotion 1.16*** 0.04 1.47*** 0.05 1.12** 0.02 1.15** 0.03

Physical victimization slope

Average physical victimization slope 0.08* 0.03 0.08** 0.03 0.05* 0.02 0.14** 0.04

Verbal victimization slope

Average verbal victimization slope 0.04 0.02 0.05* 0.02 0.03* 0.02 −0.00 0.02

Social manipulation slope

Average social manipulation slope 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.03

Property attacks slope

Average property attacks slope 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04

Social rebuff slope

Average social rebuff slope 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.07* 0.03

B unstandardized coefficient. SE standard error. Degrees of freedom ranged from 178 to 180. *p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p<0.001. Sex was included as acovariate of the intercept for all models of sadness and nervousness. Peer rejection was included as a covariate of the intercept for all models ofembarrassment and nervousness


victimization slope. In contrast with the previous models, weincluded sex and peer rejection as Level-2 covariates in allmodels to permit us to explore significant interactions in thenext set of models (Preacher et al. 2006). As Level-2 predic-tors of the victimization slopes, sex and peer rejection reflecttwo-way cross-level interaction terms (Bauer and Curran2005). By including these interactions, we tested whethersex or peer rejection account for individual differences in thedaily covariation of victimization and emotion. This allowed

us to test our hypotheses that boys and girls would vary intheir emotional reactivity to certain types of victimization, aswould children who differ in their rejection by peers.

We then tested a second set of models by adding theinteraction of sex and peer rejection to the first set. Specifi-cally, we entered this interaction (sex X peer rejection) as aLevel-2 covariate of the negative emotion intercept and asLevel-2 predictor of the victimization slope. As a Level-2predictor of the victimization slopes, sex X peer rejection

Table 5 Multilevel regression: Moderating effects of sex and peer rejection on the relations between peer victimization and negative emotions


B SE B SE B SE B SE

Intercept

Average daily emotion 1.21*** 0.04 1.56*** 0.07 1.14*** 0.03 1.20*** 0.05

Physical victimization (PV) slope

Average PV slope 0.05 0.03 0.06* 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.13** 0.04

Effect of sex on PV slope 0.10 0.06 0.11** 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.07

Effect of peer rejection on PV slope 0.11** 0.04 0.11*** 0.02 0.08** 0.03 0.11** 0.03

Effect of sex X peer rejection on PV slope −0.14* 0.06 −0.17*** 0.04 −0.10* 0.04 – –

Intercept

Average daily emotion 1.18** 0.04 1.52*** 0.07 1.13*** 0.03 1.21*** 0.04

Verbal victimization (VV) slope

Average VV slope 0.05 0.03 0.10*** 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02

Effect of sex on VV slope −0.02 0.04 −0.01 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04

Effect of peer rejection on VV slope 0.08** 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08*** 0.02 0.04* 0.02

Effect of sex X peer rejection on VV slope −0.12** 0.03 – – −0.09** 0.03 – –

Intercept


Social manipulation (SM) slope

Average SM slope 0.02 0.03 0.15*** 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04

Effect of sex on SM slope 0.10* 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.06

Effect of peer rejection on SM slope 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.10** 0.03 0.06* 0.03

Effect of sex X peer rejection on SM slope – – – – – – – –

Intercept


Property attacks (PA) slope

Average PA slope 0.05 0.03 0.16*** 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.08* 0.04

Effect of sex on PA slope 0.03 0.06 −0.10 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.06

Effect of peer rejection on PA slope 0.06* 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05* 0.02 0.11*** 0.03

Effect of sex X peer rejection on PA slope – – – – – – – –

Intercept


Social rebuff (SR) slope

Average SR slope 0.04 0.04 0.10** 0.03 0.07* 0.03 0.07* 0.03

Effect of sex on SR slope 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 −0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05

Effect of peer rejection on SR slope 0.08* 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Effect of sex X peer rejection on SR slope −0.09* 0.05 – – – – – –

B unstandardized coefficient. SE standard error. Degrees of freedom ranged from 177 to 178. *p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p<0.001. Sex was dummy coded(boys = 0; girls = 1). Sex and peer rejection were included as a covariates of the daily emotion intercept in all models


represents a three-way cross-level interaction term (Bauer andCurran 2005) that allowed us to explore whether peer rejectionmoderates emotional reactivity to victimization in distinctways for boys and girls. In Table 5, we present results ofmodels including the three-way interaction only when it wassignificant. Otherwise, we display the results of the first set ofmodels.

In these models, the intercepts reflect the average level ofnegative emotion for boys of average peer rejection on dayswhen no peer victimization is reported. The victimizationslopes represent the average change in negative emotion forevery additional experience of victimization, while accountingfor the effects of sex, peer rejection, and their interaction.These models also yield estimates of the effects of sex, peerrejection, and sex X peer rejection on the victimization slopes,which indicated whether these variables moderated children’semotional reactivity to victimization.We examined significantcross-level interactions with an online tool designed to probeinteractive effects in multilevel regression (Preacher et al.2006); we did not interpret significant two-way interactionswhen three-way interactions were significant.

Sex Accounting for peer rejection, sex moderated children’semotional reactivity in just one model. Specifically, sex mod-erated the degree to which children’s daily sadness covariedwith their social manipulation experiences. An analysis ofsimple slopes indicated that the daily relation of social manip-ulation and sadness was positive and significant for girls(b=0.12, t(178)=3.45, p<0.001) but nonsignificant for boys(b=0.02, t(178)=0.79, p=0.43). Thus, girls displayed reactiv-ity in daily sadness to social manipulation, whereas boys didnot.

Peer Rejection Accounting for sex, peer rejection moderatedreactivity in nervousness to four types of victimization (physicalvictimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, andproperty attacks), in embarrassment to two types (social manip-ulation and property attacks), and in sadness to property attacks.To probe these effects, we tested and graphed simple slopes forpeer rejection values falling one standard deviation above andbelow the mean (high and low peer rejection, respectively). Forall significant interactions, the victimization slope was positiveand significant for high peer rejection (b=0.07–0.24, t(178)=2.81–4.87, p<0.01) but nonsignificant for low peer rejection(b=−0.03–0.02, t(178)=−0.68–0.35, p>0.50). Compared tolow-rejected children, high-rejected children appear more reac-tive in several negative emotions to multiple types of victimiza-tion, particularly to property attacks.

Sex by Peer Rejection Lastly, we explored whether sex andpeer rejection interacted to moderate emotional reactivity topeer victimization. That is, we tested whether peer rejection isa stronger indicator of emotional reactivity to victimization for

one sex than the other. Together, sex and peer rejection mod-erated reactivity in sadness to three types of victimization(physical victimization, verbal victimization, and social re-buff), in embarrassment to two types (physical and verbalvictimization), and in anger to physical victimization. Toprobe the models with significant three-way interactions, wetested six corresponding models separately for boys and girls.In each model, one negative emotion was specified as thedependent variable, and one victimization variable was en-tered as a Level-1 predictor with a random slope. Peer rejec-tion was included as a Level-2 covariate of the emotionintercept and as a Level-2 predictor of the victimization slope.These models allowed us to examine the moderating effect ofpeer rejection on emotional reactivity to victimization inde-pendently for boys and girls.

Peer rejection was a significant moderator in each modelfor boys (B=0.08–0.12, t(102)=2.62–4.71 , p<0.01) but non-significant for girls (B=−0.07–−0.003, t(75)=−1.41–−0.16,p>0.10). We then tested simple slopes for high and low peerrejection for boys using Preacher and colleagues’ (2006) tool.Post-hoc analyses revealed that peer rejection moderated thesix victimization slopes for boys, such that every slope waspositive and significant at high levels of peer rejection(b=0.12–0.17, t(177)=3.20–7.27, p<0.01) but nonsignificantat low levels (b=−0.06–−0.03, t(177)=−1.06–−0.63, p>0.29).Therefore, boys high in peer rejection evidenced emotionalreactivity to victimization, whereas boys low in peer rejectiondid not. Conversely, peer rejection was not a significant mod-erator for girls; thus, high- and low-rejected girls did not varyin their emotional reactivity to victimization.

Discussion

The current study aimed to advance our understanding ofpreadolescents’ day-to-day encounters with peer victimiza-tion. First, we used daily-report methods to assess a widerange of peer victimization experiences and test the distinc-tiveness of multiple subtypes of victimization. Second, weexamined the daily connections of peer victimization andemotional functioning by evaluating the degree to whichchildren’s daily negative emotions fluctuated with their dailyvictimization experiences. Third, we explored whether twochild variables (sex and peer rejection) moderated children’sdaily emotional reactivity to peer victimization.

Consistent with our hypothesis, the daily peer victimizationchecklist was reasonably represented by five factors: physicalvictimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, prop-erty attacks, and social rebuff. By testing a series of competingmodels, we found support for distinction among the fivevictimization subtypes. In line with previous studies (e.g.,Mynard and Joseph 2000), verbal victimization was reportedmost frequently. All five types of victimization were


positively correlated at the daily level, indicating that theyoften co-occur in the same school day. These findings buildupon previous research investigating the typology of peervictimization (Crick et al. 1999; Mynard and Joseph 2000;Sandstrom and Cillessen 2003) by offering a day-to-day snap-shot of children’s diverse experiences of victimization bypeers.

As predicted, we observed consistent relations betweenpreadolescents’ daily peer victimization and daily negativeemotions. Children reported greater sadness, anger, embar-rassment, and nervousness on days they reported higher fre-quencies of each type of victimization. These results supporttheoretical models linking negative peer treatment to de-creased daily functioning (Coie 1990), along with previousstudies documenting relations between peer victimization andnegative emotional processes at the general (Dill et al. 2004;Hanish et al. 2004; Hawker and Boulton 2000) and dailylevels (Nishina 2012; Nishina and Juvonen 2005). Further-more, they enrich past work by demonstrating connections ofmultiple types of peer victimization with several specificnegative emotions.

Additionally, we found that certain types of peer victimi-zation are more strongly tied to daily emotional functioningthan others. While simultaneously accounting for the effectsof each type of victimization, physical victimization predictedall four negative emotions, verbal victimization predictedanger and embarrassment, and social rebuff predicted ner-vousness. These findings contribute to the growing base ofstudies exploring unique correlates of different peer victimi-zation subtypes (Hawker and Boulton 2001); they also offer ahelpful foundation for conceptualizing potential pathwaysbetween serious emotional difficulties and specific types ofpeer victimization. Based on our results, chronic physicalvictimization may confer general risk for emotional difficul-ties, while repeated social rebuff might contribute specific riskfor anxiety.

It is impressive that physical victimization independentlypredicted all four negative emotions. Physical victimizationmay be more emotionally distressing than other victimizationexperiences for several reasons. First, physical forms of ha-rassment decline as children grow older (Crick et al. 1999;Crick and Grotpeter 1995), which potentially makes themmore salient experiences. Second, physical victimizationplaces children at risk of bodily injury, and thus, may be morelikely than other types of victimization to activate an imme-diate fear response, along with lingering worry about physicalsafety. Third, children may view it as a stronger moral viola-tion than other types of peer victimization (Murray-Close et al.2006), which could engender stronger feelings of hostility andresentment toward perpetrators.

In examining children’s emotional reactivity to victimiza-tion, we predicted that girls would be more reactive to socialmanipulation, and boys would be more reactive to physical

victimization. This hypothesis was modestly supported; girlswere more reactive than boys to social manipulation in theirdaily sadness, but not in any other negative emotions. In fact,there were no additional main effects of sex on emotionalreactivity to victimization. Accordingly, our findings suggestthat preadolescent boys and girls generally display similarlevels of daily reactivity in their negative emotions to peervictimization. These findings largely diverge from previousstudies suggesting that girls perceive social forms of victimi-zation to be more hurtful and distressing than boys do (Galenand Underwood 1997; Paquette and Underwood 1999). How-ever, this past research primarily utilized hypothetical victim-ization scenarios rather than assessing children’s unique ex-periences of victimization by peers.

Consistent with our hypothesis, we found strong supportfor peer rejection as a moderator of emotional reactivity toseveral types of peer victimization. These findings supportprior work documenting links between peer rejection andmaladaptive emotional functioning (e.g., Coie 1990; Dillet al. 2004; Hubbard 2001; Trentacosta and Shaw 2009).However, in many cases, the connection between rejectionand reactivity to victimization was qualified by children’s sex.Specifically, sex and peer rejection interacted to moderatereactivity in sadness to three types of victimization (physicalvictimization, verbal victimization, and social rebuff), in em-barrassment to two types of victimization (physical and verbalvictimization), and in anger to physical victimization. In eachcase, reactivity varied by peer rejection for boys but not forgirls.

Post-hoc analyses revealed that girls were equally reactiveto peer victimization at low and high levels of peer rejection.In contrast, only boys high in peer rejection were emotionallyreactive to peer victimization; boys low in peer rejection werenot. Several explanations may account for the lack of reactiv-ity in low-rejected boys. In general, boys tend to care less thangirls about peer stressors (Rose and Rudolph 2006), whichmay be more pronounced in boys low in peer rejection. Low-rejected boys may feel quite confident about their peer status,and thus, are less disturbed by peer victimization.

It is also possible that low-rejected boys interpret theirvictimization experiences differently than girls and high-rejected boys. Boys low in peer rejection may be more likelyto appraise victimization as a challenge that they have suffi-cient resources to meet, as opposed to a threat, for which theylack adequate resources. According to Blascovich andBerry Mendes (2000), threat appraisals are characterized byhigh negative affect, whereas challenge appraisals are markedby low negative affect or positive affect. Related, self-efficacyappears higher in non-rejected children (Toner and Munro1996), and boys report wanting less help for peer victimiza-tion (Nishina 2012). Accordingly, low-rejected boys may bemore likely than other children to believe that they can effec-tively manage their victimization on their own.


Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, thesample was limited to fifth-grade children; thus, the findingsshould not be generalized outside of this developmental peri-od. Second, we relied heavily upon self-report methods; twomain constructs (peer victimization and negative emotions)were assessed with daily child-report measures. While this iscommon practice in daily-report research (Bolger et al. 2003),shared method variance may have influenced our findings.Third, each daily negative emotion was measured by a singleitem, which precluded us from evaluating their reliability.Fourth, although daily-report methods were used, this studywas concurrent; thus, it is not possible to draw conclusionsabout temporal relations among the constructs studied. Forinstance, earlier daily victimization may predict later dailynegative emotion, but the reverse is just as plausible(Hodges and Perry 1999). Finally, we tested a large numberof models, which inflated our risk of Type 1 errors; thus, ourresults should be interpreted with some caution, and replica-tion is needed to confirm them.

In conclusion, the current study contributes to our under-standing of the taxonomy of preadolescents’ day-to-day ex-periences of peer victimization. It also highlights daily con-nections between children’s peer victimization and negativeemotions and offers a foundation for theorizing potentialrelations among recurrent victimization, impaired daily emo-tional functioning, and serious affective maladjustment. Final-ly, it illustrates the importance of considering children’s sex,peer rejection, and their interaction when exploring linksbetween children’s peer victimization and emotionaladjustment.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by a grant from theSpencer Foundation. We would like to thank Jean-Phillipe Laurenceaufor his statistical consultation, as well as all of the project’s undergraduateresearch assistants. Most of all, we appreciate the children, parents,teachers, and principals who made this project possible.

References

Bakker, M. P., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2010). Peerstressors and gender differences in adolescents’ mental health. TheTRAILS study. J Adolesc Health, 46, 444–450.

Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed andmultilevel regression: inferential and graphical techniques.MultivarBehav Res, 40, 373–400.

Benenson, J. F., & Benarroch, D. (1998). Gender differences in responsesto friends’ hypothetical greater success. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 18, 192–208.

Blascovich, J., & Berry Mendes, W. (2000). Challenge and threat ap-praisals: The role of affective cues. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling andthinking: The role of affect in social cognition. Studies in emotionand social interaction (pp. 59–82). New York: Cambridge.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Dairy methods: capturing lifeas it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol, 54, 579–616.

Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion andvictimization: processes that mediate the relation between peergroup rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achieve-ment? J Educ Psychol, 98, 1–13.

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendshipquality during pre- and early adolescence: the development andpsychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. J SocPers Relat, 11, 471–484.

Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. (2008). Peer victimization amongschoolchildren: correlations, causes, consequences, and consider-ations in assessment and intervention. Sch Psychol Q, 23, 451–461.

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G.M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Directand indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relationsto maladjustment. Child Dev, 79, 1185–1229.

Champion, K. M., & Clay, D. L. (2007). Individual differences in re-sponses to provocation and frequent victimization by peers. ChildPsychiatry Hum Dev, 37, 205–220.

Chung, T., & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s goals and strategies in peerconflict situations. Merrill-Palmer Q, 42, 125–147.

Coie, J. D. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 365–398).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in chil-dren’s social status: a five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-PalmerQ, 29, 261–282.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer groupbehavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.),Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge.

Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N.(2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-personchange: can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably?Personal Soc Psychol Bull, 32, 917–929.

Crick, N. R., &Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, andsocial-psychological adjustment. Child Dev, 66, 710–722.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers:victims of relational and overt aggression. Dev Psychopathol, 8,367–380.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. (1999). Relational and physical formsof peer victimization in preschool. Dev Psychol, 35, 376–385.

Dill, E. J., Vernberg, E. M., Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., & Gamm, B. K.(2004). Negative affect in victimized children: the roles of socialwithdrawal, peer rejection, and attitudes toward bullying. J AbnormChild Psychol, 32, 159–173.

Dodge, K. A., & Feldman, E. (1990). Issues in social cognition andsociometric status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejectionin childhood (pp. 119–155). New York: Cambridge.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns ofsocially rejected and neglected preadolescents: the roles of socialapproach and aggression. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 10, 389–410.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation ofsocial aggression among children. Dev Psychol, 33, 589–600.

Grills, A. E., & Ollendick, T. H. (2002). Peer victimization, global self-worth, and anxiety in middle school children. Journal of ClinicalChild & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 59–68.

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affectivesocial competence. Soc Dev, 10, 79–119.

Hanish, L. D., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Spinrad, T. L., Ryan, P., &Schmidt, S. (2004). The expression and regulation of negativeemotions: risk factors for young children’s peer victimization. DevPsychopathol, 16, 335–353.

Hartup, W.W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H.Mussen (Ed.),Handbook ofchild psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and socialdevelopment (pp. 103–196). New York: Wiley.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton,M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peervictimization and psychosocial maladjustment: a meta-analytic


review of cross-sectional studies. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 41,441–455.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2001). Subtypes of peerharassment and their correlates: A social dominance perspec-tive. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment inschool: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 378–397). New York: Guilford.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonalantecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. J PersSoc Psychol, 76, 677–685.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-ance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Struct Equ Model, 6, 1–55.

Hubbard, J. A. (2001). Emotion expression processes in children’s peerinteraction: the role of peer rejection, aggression, and gender. ChildDev, 72, 1426–1438.

Hubbard, J. A., & Dearing, K. (2004). Children’s understandingand regulation of emotion in the context of their peer rela-tions. In J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’speer relations: From development to intervention (pp. 81–99).Washington, DC: APA.

Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Usingdiary methods in psychological research. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic,D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APAhandbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 277–305).Washington, DC: APA.

zard, C. E. (2007). Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and anew paradigm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 260–280.

Jarvinen, D., & Nicholls, J. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefsabout the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer relations.Dev Psychol, 32, 435–441.

Kumpulainen, K. (2008). Psychiatric conditions associated with bullying.International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 121–132.

Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K., Potter, K. I.,Lambert, S., et al. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affectfor children: scale development and preliminary validation. PsycholAssess, 11, 326–338.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model ofemotion processes and cognition in social information processing.Child Dev, 71, 107–118.

Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The exposed self. New York: The Free Press.Maszk, P., Eisenberg, N., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Relations of children’s

social status to their emotionality and regulation: a short-term lon-gitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Q, 45, 468–492.

McKown, C., Gumbiner, L. M., & Johnson, J. (2011). Diagnostic effi-ciency of several methods of identifying socially rejected childrenand effect of participation rate on classification accuracy. J SchPsychol, 49, 573–595.

Murray-Close, D., Crick, N. R., & Galotti, K. M. (2006). Children’smoral reasoning regarding physical and relational aggression. SocDev, 15, 345–372.

Muthén, L. K., &Muthén, B. O. (2007).Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). LosAngeles: Authors.

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensionalpeer-victimization scale. Aggress Behav, 26, 169–178.

Nishina, A. (2012). Microcontextual characteristics of peer victimizationexperiences and adolescents’ daily well-being. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 41, 191–201.

Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing andexperiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Dev, 76,435–450.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we cando. Oxford: Blackwell.

Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Sex differences in adoles-cent’s experiences of peer victimization: social and physical aggres-sion. Merrill-Palmer Q, 45, 242–266.

Parker, J. G., &Asher, S. R. (1993). Beyond group acceptance: friendshipand friendship quality as distinct dimensions of children’s peeradjustment. Advances in Personal Relationships, 4, 261–294.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peeraggression. Dev Psychol, 24, 807–814.

Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants ofchronic victimization by peers: A review and a new model of familyinfluence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment inschool: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73–104).New York: The Guilford Press.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational toolsfor probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multi-level modeling, and latent curve analysis. J Educ Behav Stat, 31,437–448.

Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children’s naturalistic entrybehavior and sociometric status: a developmental perspective. DevPsychol, 25, 1–9.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M.(2011). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling.Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2004). Children’s strategies and goals inresponse to help-giving and help-seeking tasks within a friendship.Child Dev, 75, 749–763.

Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of gender differences inpeer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotionaland behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychol Bull, 132,98–131.

Rudolph, K. D. (2002). Gender differences in emotional responses tointerpersonal stress during adolescence. J Adolesc Health, 30, 3–13.

Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Sociometric status andchildren’s peer experiences: use of the daily diary method. Merrill-Palmer Q, 49, 427–452.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square teststatistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotiondysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middlechildhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349–363.

Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotionregulation in daily life: links to depressive symptoms and problembehavior. Child Dev, 74, 1869–1880.

Thompson, A., & Bolger, N. (1999). Emotional transmission in couplesunder stress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 38–48.

Toner, M. A., & Munro, D. (1996). Peer-social attributions and self-efficacy of peer-rejected preadolescents. Merrill-Palmer Q, 42,339–357.

Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2009). Emotional self-regulation, peerrejection, and antisocial behavior: associations from early childhoodto early adolescence. J Appl Dev Psychol, 30, 356–365.

Underwood, M. K. (1997). Peer social status and children’s understand-ing of the expression and control of positive and negative emotions.Merrill-Palmer Q, 43, 610–634.

Wenze, S. J., Gunthert, K. C., Forand, N. R., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2009).The influence of dysphoria on reactivity to daily naturalistic fluctu-ations in anger. J Pers, 77, 795–824.

Woods, S., &White, E. (2005). The association between bullying behav-iour, arousal levels and behaviour problems. J Adolesc, 28, 381–395.

Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain:it depends on who is watching. Child Dev, 67, 957–973.


Documents

Fifth-Grade Children s Daily Experiences of Peer Victimization and ...€¦ · tive emotions (e.g., anxiety, sadness, shame, anger, and gen-eral negative emotionality). However, a