J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.

441455, 2000
Cambridge University Press
' 2000 Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
00219630\00 $15.00j0.00

Twenty Years Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial

Maladjustment : A Meta-analytic Review of Cross-sectional Studies
David S. J. Hawker
Warneford Hospital, Oxford, U.K.

Michael J. Boulton
Keele University, U.K.
Cross-sectional quantitative designs are often used to investigate whether peer victimization
is positively related to psychosocial maladjustment. This paper presents a meta-analytic
review of cross-sectional studies, published between 1978 and 1997, of the association of peer
victimization with psychosocial maladjustment. Mean effect sizes were calculated for the
association between peer victimization and each form of maladjustment (depression,
loneliness, generalized and social anxiety, and global and social self-worth) assessed. The
results suggested that victimization is most strongly related to depression, and least strongly
related to anxiety. There was no evidence that victimization is more strongly related to social
than to psychological forms of maladjustment. Effect sizes were stronger when the same
informants were used to assess both victimization and maladjustment than when different
informants were used. There were some design limitations to the studies reviewed, but all
together their results provide a strong background for more complex research into the course
and treatment of victims distress.
Keywords: Bullying, cross-cultural, internalizing disorder, meta-analysis, peer relationships,
victimization.

increasing in number rapidly. At least six were published

in 1998 alone (Craig, 1998 ; Crick & Bigbee, 1998 ; Graham
& Juvonen, 1998 ; Kumpulainen et al., 1998 ; Salmon,
James, & Smith, 1998 ; Stanley & Arora, 1998).
Independently of such studies, converging theoretical
and empirical perspectives suggest that victims may suffer
greater psychosocial maladjustment than nonvictims.
First, a number of theorists have argued that certain
social psychological experiences, reminiscent of peer
victimization, play a central role in the development of
depression and of other forms of psychosocial maladjustment. For example, Gilbert (1992) outlined how
attacks on peer-group rank, with strong similarities to
physical victimization, maintain depression ; Baumeister
and Leary (1995) suggested that threats to social bonds
(cf. relational victimization) can lead to anxiety, loneliness, or depression. Second, empirical research has
shown that certain types of maladjustment (such as
loneliness, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem) are
positively associated with such peer relationship difficulties as submissiveness, social withdrawal, and unpopularity with peers (e.g., Parkhurst & Asher, 1992 ;
Strauss, Lahey, Frick, Frame, & Hynd, 1988 ; Vosk,
Forehand, Parker, & Rickard, 1982 ; Walker & Greene,
1986). These peer relationship difficulties are themselves
positively related to peer victimization (e.g., Bjo$ rkqvist,
Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982 ; Boivin, Hymel, &
Bukowski, 1995 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Perry et al.,
1988 ; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).
Thus there are strong a priori reasons to hypothesize
that the pattern of results, from cross-sectional studies of
peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment, will
show that these two experiences are positively related.

Introduction
Peer victimization is the experience among children of
being a target of the aggressive behaviour of other
children, who are not siblings and not necessarily agemates. Peer victimization is a problem of growing concern
for researchers, educators, and clinicians (e.g., Ambert,
1995 ; Dawkins, 1995 ; Hazler & Hoover, 1996 ; Olweus,
1993a ; Ross, 1996 ; Slee & Rigby, 1994). Children
targeted for peer aggression are variously described as
being bullied (e.g., Olweus, 1993a ; Rigby, 1996 ; Whitney
& Smith, 1993), being victimized (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter,
1996 ; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988), or sometimes as being
rejected (e.g., Vernberg, 1990). In this paper, we refer to
studies which used any of these terms, provided that they
made some measurement of the experience of being a
target of peers aggressive behaviour.
In recent years growing numbers of investigators have
asked whether victims of peer aggression experience
psychosocial maladjustment (depression, anxiety, low
self-esteem, and the like). It is clearly important to know
the answer to this question, so that childrens distress
does not go unrecognized. A common way of addressing
it empirically is with cross-sectional designs. In these
designs quantitative methods are used to investigate the
relation between childrens experiences of peer victimization and maladjustment, both assessed at a single
point in time. Cross-sectional studies of this type are
Request for reprints to : David S. J. Hawker, Oxford Regional
Training Course in Clinical Psychology, Isis Education Centre,
Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, U.K. (E-mail :
David.Hawker!oxmhc-tr.anglox.nhs.uk.)
441

442

Table 1
Forms of Victimization Assessed in Cross-sectional Adjustment Research
Victimization
category
Indirect

Physical

Target sent nasty notes

Lies told about target
Mean things said to others about target
Target talked about behind back
Rumours spread about target
Target not allowed to take part\ be in group
Target kept\ left out
Target sent to Coventry\ no-one would talk to target
Target told that another wont like target unless target does
what the other says
Target rejected
Target hit

Target pushed

Target kicked
Targets hair pulled
Target locked inside a room
Others pick\ start fights with target
Others rough with target
Target shoved
Bullying can be physical
Targets belongings taken

Studies using description to define victimization

Boulton & Underwood (1992)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)
Kupersmidt et al. (1997)
Sharp (1996)
Alsaker (1993)* ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Alsaker (1993)* ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997)
Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Sharp (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Kupersmidt et al. (1997)
Alsaker (1993)* ; Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boivin & Hymel (1997)* ; Boivin et al. (1995)* ;
Boulton & Smith (1994) ; Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ;
self-reported victimization) ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996) ;
Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby &
Slee (1992) ; Sharp (1996) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b) ; Vernberg (1990)
Alsaker (1993)* ; Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boivin & Hymel (1997)* ; Boivin et al. (1995)* ;
Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported victimization) ;
Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ; selfreported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee (1992) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby
(1993b) ; Vernberg (1990)
Alsaker (1993)* ; Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Sharp (1996)
Alsaker (1993)* ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Boulton & Underwood (1992)
Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*
Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*
Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Vernberg (1990)
OMoore & Hillery (1991)
Sharp (1996)

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

Relational

Description of targets experience used in operational

definition of victimization

Verbal

Target teased
Target laughed at\ ridiculed
Target called names\ nasty names

Target bullied
Target harassed or tormented
Others try to hurt targets feelings
Mean\ nasty things done to target
Target exposed to aggression
Target made fun of

PEER VICTIMIZATION

Generic

Nasty\ unpleasant\ mean things said to target

Target threatened
Bullying can be mental
Target picked on

Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boulton & Smith (1994) ; Byrne (1994) ; Callaghan & Joseph
(1995 ; self-reported victimization) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ;
self-reported victimization) ; Olweus (1978)* ; Vernberg (1990)
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Byrne (1994) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported
victimization) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported
victimization) ; Olweus (1978)*
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported victimization) ; Mynard
& Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee
(1992) ; Sharp (1996) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b)
Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)
Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Sharp (1996)
OMoore & Hillery (1991)
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported victimization) ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ;
Neary & Joseph (1994 ; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee (1992) ; Slee (1994b,
1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b) ; Vernberg (1990)
Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995 ; self-reported and peer-reported
victimization) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph
(1994 ; self-reported and peer-reported victimization) ; Rigby (1996) ; Slee (1994a)
Bjo$ rkqvist et al. (1982)* ; Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)* ; Boivin et al. (1995)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)* ; Boivin et al. (1995)* ; Boulton & Smith (1994)
Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*
Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b)

* The reported description of victims experience was a translation into English of a term in another language.

443

444

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

Unfortunately there has been no systematic or metaanalytic review of cross-sectional studies of this type. As
a consequence there is little awareness in the literature
about the strength of empirical evidence concerning
victims distress. Investigators typically cite a small
number of results, from a limited range of studies, which
may not be representative. The absence of evaluative
reviews is unfortunate because many of the forms of
psychosocial maladjustment investigated separately in
these studies are conceptually and empirically related
amongst themselves (see, e.g., Eason, Finch, Brasted, &
Saylor, 1985 ; Leary, 1990 ; West, Kellner, & Moorewest,
1986). In this paper we address the question of victims
psychosocial maladjustment not with a new cross-sectional study, but by collating and evaluating the results of
previous studies in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis offers
a quantitative summary of the effect sizes reported in
quantitative research papers, and reduces the bias inherent in purely qualitative review papers (e.g.,
Rosenthal, 1995).

Forms of Victimization and Adjustment

Cross-sectional studies have typically measured peer
victimization by asking respondents how much they or
others experience being the targets of particular examples
of aggression, such as being harassed, hit, or teased. In
some studies (e.g. OMoore & Hillery, 1991) these
experiences are combined in a single item as examples of
bullying , and children are asked how much they are
bullied. More commonly (e.g., Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ;
Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Slee, 1994b), victimization
experiences are dispersed across several items of a scale
whose summed scores provide an index of victimization.
As several different labels have been used to classify these
examples of victimization, it is useful to consider the
specific examples of experiences that have been used in
single-item and multiple-item measures of victimization.
These examples are listed in Table 1 alongside the studies
in which they were used, and the category in which they
are grouped in the present review. Five categories
(indirect, relational, physical, verbal, and generic victimization) are used to classify them, for the reasons
described below.
Recent European researchers have distinguished
among physical, verbal, and indirect victimization
(Bjo$ rkqvist, 1994 ; Rivers & Smith, 1994). In North
America Crick and colleagues (1999) have influentially
distinguished physical and relational victimization. Relational victimization is similar to indirect victimization
and both share some items in their operational
definitions. But, as Crick et al. pointed out, indirect and
relational aggression are conceptually distinct. Indirect
aggression is defined as aggression which is enacted
through a third party or so that the aggressor cannot be
identified by the victim (Bjo$ rkqvist, 1994). Relational
aggression is defined as behaviour which causes, or
threatens to cause, damage to peer relationships, and
particularly to friendship and acceptance (Crick et al.,
1999). In the present review and in Table 1, therefore, we
have attempted to distinguish indirect and relational
victimization experiences according to the above
definitions.
Alongside relational and indirect victimization, physical victimization is considered here as any form of
victimization in which the victims physical integrity is
attacked. Verbal victimization is considered victimization

in which the victims status is attacked or threatened with

words or vocalizations. There are some conceptual
difficulties in labelling this form of victimization as
verbal , in that words are also used to exclude victims
(relational victimization) or to harm them through third
parties (indirect victimization). But the types of experience grouped as verbal in Table 1 are frequently
described as verbal in the literature (e.g., Bjo$ rkqvist,
1994 ; Perry et al., 1988 ; Rivers & Smith, 1994), and so it
is appropriate to describe them as such here. Finally,
generic victimization denotes nonspecific descriptions of
victimization experiences, which could include any of the
other forms of victimization.
In most of the cross-sectional studies reviewed here,
correlational methods, or tests of difference between
mean scores for victims, nonvictims, and other groups
have been used to express the associations between one or
more of these forms of peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment. The forms of psychosocial maladjustment included here are : depressed or dysphoric mood,
loneliness, low social and global self-esteem and selfworth, and generalized and social anxiety. These are the
principal forms of psychosocial maladjustment which
have been investigated previously. It is not our intention
to present an exhaustive review that would include other
measures which might be described as psychosocial
maladjustment. We will not include generalized measures
of internalizing distress (such as general maladjustment
and inadequacy, as assessed by Olweus, 1978), nonsocial,
nongeneral aspects of childrens self-concepts (such as
academic, physical, or behavioural self-competence, as
assessed by Austin & Joseph, 1996), measures related
mainly to school adjustment (such as school liking, as
assessed by Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), forms of
adjustment which have rarely been investigated in crosssectional studies (such as self-restraint, measured by
Crick & Bigbee, 1998), or behaviourally oriented
measures of internalizing problems (such as social withdrawal or submissiveness).

Source of Informants and Shared Method Variance

The informants who have been asked to make assessments of victimization in cross-sectional studies have
included not only the children in the cohort (giving selfreports), but also their teachers, parents, or peers. In
some of the studies reviewed, victimization and adjustment have been assessed by asking questions of the
same informants ; for instance, both have been assessed
by self-reports (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). In other
studies, separate informants have been used to measure
separate variables ; for example, Boivin and Hymel (1997)
assessed victimization by peer report and loneliness by
self-report.
Recently several studies have compared the adjustment
correlates of peer-assessed and self-assessed victimization
(Crick & Bigbee, 1998 ; Graham & Juvonen, 1998 ;
Haselager, 1997). In these studies, self-reported victimization was more strongly associated than peer-reported
victimization with self-reported maladjustment, and peerreported victimization was more strongly associated than
self-reported victimization with peer-reported maladjustment. In other words, effect sizes were larger when
informants were the same than when they were different.
To explain such findings the investigators proposed a
variety of explanations. The most parsimonious explanation, and the most useful for present purposes, was

PEER VICTIMIZATION

suggested by Crick and Bigbee (1998) and Haselager

(1997), and that is that the results are due to shared
method variance.
When the same method is used to assess outcome and
predictor variables, any resulting correlation between
outcome and predictor could be explained partly by the
fact that measurement variance is shared between the two
variables (e.g., Olweus, 1993b). Thus, a correlation
between how unhappy children feel, and how victimized
they say they are, may not primarily represent the
association between victimization and unhappiness per
se. Instead it may represent the extent to which children
who have negative feelings about one aspect of their life
tend also to have negative feelings about another aspect.
Or it may reflect the tendency of depressives to selectively
recall negative events (cf. Hammen & Glass, 1975). In
contrast, a correlation between childrens own feelings of
unhappiness, and their degree of victimization as assessed
by the reports of other informants, is not so open to such
alternative interpretation. Other investigators in the field
of peer relations have made similar points (e.g., Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991), and recommended that outcome and predictor variables be assessed from different
(or multiple) sources. When victimization is assessed by
different informants from those assessing adjustment, in
the studies reviewed here, it is assumed that shared
method variance has been avoided as an alternative
explanation of significant results.

Summary of Research Aims

Thus, in the present meta-analysis we aimed to collate
the results of cross-sectional studies that have made
separate measurements of peer victimization (of generic,
physical, relational, indirect, or verbal types) and psychosocial maladjustment (in the form of measures of depressive or anxious symptoms, loneliness, and negative
global and social self-concepts). For the theoretical and
empirical reasons outlined earlier, we predicted that
victimization would be positively related to each of these
forms of maladjustment.
As well as summarizing effect sizes across studies, we
aimed to note a number of their attributes which seemed
important for an evaluation. These included participants
sex, age groups, and nationalities ; the subtypes of
victimization measured ; the source of informants (self-,
peer, teacher, or parent reports) ; the presence of shared
method variance in effect sizes ; and the nature of
adjustment measurements used. As shared method variance potentially has a major impact on the magnitude of
effect sizes, we separated effect size summaries according
the degree of shared method variance present in measurements.

Method
Literature Search
We attempted to locate all cross-sectional studies of peer
victimization and psychosocial maladjustment published between 1978, when the influential work of Olweus appeared, and
the end of June 1997. Although it would have been interesting
to add more recent studies, a great number of cross-sectional
investigations were already published by that date. As they are
continually being added to, it was necessary to place a limit on
the time period to be sampled.
Published studies were located using a variety of recursive
methods. We searched electronic databases, PsycLit, BIDS ISI
Social Science Citation Index, and OCLC Firstsearch, using

445

keywords bully* and vict* , and also the names of known

bullying and peer victimization researchers. We consulted
Skinners (1996) bibliography of bullying literature. We sought
relevant publications cited in reviews of the bullying literature
and elsewhere in the peer relations literature. We followed up
citations, in articles and book chapters retrieved by these
methods, that referred to other work on victims adjustment.
We conducted hand searches of journals in which papers on
victims adjustment had previously been published, and we
wrote to authors who had published in the field, asking for any
relevant publications of which we were not aware. Manuscripts
retrieved in this way which remained unpublished by June 1997
were not included in the meta-analysis.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

This meta-analysis followed the procedures outlined by
Rosenthal (1984) and Strube (1985) for calculating effect sizes,
based on Pearsons correlation coefficient (r), and standard
normal deviates (Z-scores), for each study, and one-tailed
probability values (as recommended by Rosenthal) for mean
effect sizes. Pearsons r was chosen as the measure of effect size
(Rosenthal, 1984) for summarizing studies in this meta-analysis.
These rs, based on correlations between a continuum of
victimization and psychosocial maladjustment, amounted to a
comparison of victims with nonvictims.
Direct estimates of r were available from some studies as
Pearsons rs (Alsaker, 1993 ; Austin & Joseph, 1996 ; Boivin &
Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin et al., 1995 ; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995, for
maladjustment of self-assessed victims ; Kochenderfer & Ladd,
1996 ; Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Neary & Joseph, 1994, for
maladjustment of self-assessed victims ; Rigby & Slee, 1992 ;
Slee, 1994a,b, 1995c ; Vernberg, 1990), multiple Rs (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996), or s (Olweus, 1978). When rs were not
available (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ;
Byrne, 1994 ; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995, for maladjustment of
peer-assessed victims ; Neary & Joseph, 1994, for maladjustment
of peer-assessed victims ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ; Sharp,
1996 ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b), we computed rs from the statistics
reported by the authors, according to formulae provided by
Rosenthal (1984). In some studies (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ;
Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Lagerspetz, Bjo$ rkqvist, Berts, & King,
1982 ; Olweus, 1978) victims were compared with tightly defined
groups such as bullies, well-adjusted children, or not-involved
children. In these studies, effect sizes (s, equivalent to rssee
Howell, 1992) were calculated from the omnibus Fs (if available)
from analyses in which data from all groups of participants had
been included. Omnibus Fs were not available in the studies
published by Lagerspetz et al. (1982) and Slee and Rigby
(1993b), but within-group means and standard deviations were.
From these, rs were computed via omnibus Fs (for Lagerspetz et
al., 1982), and Hedges g (Rosenthal, 1984 ; for Slee & Rigby,
1993b).
Mean effect sizes were calculated separately for studies in
which the shared method variance was, and was not, present in
the effect. The first of the present authors calculated Z-statistics,
and mean effect sizes and significance levels, using formulae
provided by Rosenthal (1984) and Strube (1985), and tables for
calculating Fishers transformation of r to transformed rh
(necessary for the computation of unbiased mean effect sizes)
from Howell (1992). When effect sizes were reported separately
for more than one independent group of participants (e.g.,
males and females in Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c), the means of the rs
and Zs reported or computed were displayed in the metaanalysis. When more than one test of the same hypothesis was
carried out, within a single study, on a single group of
participants (Boivin et al., 1995 ; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 ;
Slee, 1994b ; Vernberg, 1990), mean rs were calculated using
Rosenthals formula, and mean Zs using Strubes adjusted
formula for nonindependence of hypotheses. The same procedure was followed to combine effect sizes across subtypes of
victimization, from studies in which effects were reported for
more than one subtype (Alsaker, 1993 ; Crick & Grotpeter,
1996). In these instances, correlations between repeated

446

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

measures were used in adjusting for dependence, as recommended by Strube. There was one instance in which different
analyses of the same data set had been published separately
(Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin et al., 1995). When effect sizes
could be estimated from both publications (as for loneliness)
they were taken from the study with the larger data set (Boivin
& Hymel, 1997). When more than one test had been carried out,
but full details (i.e., statistical values and, if necessary, the
sample size) had not been reported (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ;
Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Olweus, 1978), the first author
computed the smallest possible effect size from the results
available. This was not possible in Callaghan and Josephs
study, as they published only the maximum effect sizes in their
report, and so these were used instead.

Results
Overview of Study Attributes
Variety of participants. The victimization-adjustment
association has been investigated among an impressive
variety of populations. Both boys and girls have been
considered in most studies, although only girls were
included in Neary and Josephs (1994) study, and only
boys in two studies (Olweus, 1978 ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b).
The age range of children studied is also broad : it has
included infant and preschool children (Alsaker, 1993 ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996) and adolescents (Bjo$ rkqvist
et al., 1982 ; Lagerspetz et al., 1982 ; Olweus, 1978 ; Rigby
& Slee, 1992 ; Slee, 1994a, 1995b ; Vernberg, 1990). But
most of the studies participants have been in their middle
childhood (aged between 8 and 13 years : Austin & Joseph,
1996 ; Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin et al., 1995 ; Boulton
& Smith, 1994 ; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996 ; Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Neary &
Joseph, 1994 ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ; Sharp, 1996 ;
Slee, 1994b, 1995c ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b).
Participants have been drawn from a variety of
countries. These include Australia (Rigby, 1996 ; Rigby
& Slee, 1992 ; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995a,b,c ; Slee & Rigby,
1993a,b) ; French Canada (Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin
et al., 1995) ; Northern Ireland (Callaghan & Joseph,
1995) ; the Irish Republic (Byrne, 1994 ; Neary & Joseph,
1994 ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991) ; Finland (Bjo$ rkqvist et
al., 1982 ; Lagerspetz et al., 1982) ; Norway (Alsaker,
1993) ; Sweden (Olweus, 1978) ; the United States (Crick
& Grotpeter, 1996 ; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 ;
Vernberg, 1990) ; and mainland Britain (Austin & Joseph,
1996 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Boulton & Underwood,
1992 ; MacLeod & Morris, 1996 ; Mynard & Joseph,
1997 ; Sharp, 1996 ; Williams, Chambers, Logan, &
Robinson, 1996). With the exception of two studies of a
single French-speaking group of children (Boivin &
Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin et al., 1995), all the participants
have been English-speaking or Scandinavian.
Subtypes of victimization. In most of the studies
reviewed, subtypes of victimization were not assessed
separately. Rather, victimization has been measured as a
composite of two or more subtypes (Austin & Joseph,
1996 ; Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ; Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ;
Boivin et al., 1995 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Byrne, 1994 ;
Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 ;
Lagerspetz et al., 1982 ; Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Neary &
Joseph, 1994 ; Olweus, 1978 ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ;
Rigby & Slee, 1992 ; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee &
Rigby, 1993b ; Vernberg, 1990). Physical and verbal
victimization (or at least forms of victimization approximating their definitions above) have generally been

included in these victimization composites, or when

subtypes were distinguished.
Assessments of victimization have included relational
or indirect victimization in only five of the published
studies reviewed (Alsaker, 1993 : relational victimization
only ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996 ; Kochenderfer & Ladd,
1996 : indirect victimization only ; Sharp, 1996 ; and
Boulton & Underwood, 1992, in which data for the
calculation of effect sizes were not published). Additionally, in some studies (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ; Lagerspetz
et al., 1982 ; Slee, 1994a) only a generic form of
victimization has been assessed, without further specification of the types of victimization that are meant.
Source of informants. Victimization has most commonly been assessed by self-report or peer report (e.g.,
Austin & Joseph, 1996 ; Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ; Boivin &
Hymel, 1997 ; Boivin et al., 1995 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ;
Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996 ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 ; Lagerspetz et al., 1982 ;
Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Neary & Joseph, 1994 ;
OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ; Rigby & Slee, 1992 ; Sharp,
1996 ; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b ;
Vernberg, 1990). Psychosocial maladjustment has usually
been measured by self-report (e.g., Austin & Joseph,
1996 ; Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982 ; Boivin & Hymel, 1997 ;
Boivin et al., 1995 ; Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Byrne, 1994 ;
Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996 ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 ; Lagerspetz et al., 1982 ;
Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Neary & Joseph, 1994 ;
OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ; Rigby & Slee, 1992 ; Sharp,
1996 ; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b ;
Vernberg, 1990).

Effects of Victimization on Contemporaneous

Maladjustment
Overview. Tables 2 to 6 summarize the results of
published studies of the relationship between victimization and each form of psychosocial maladjustment.
The number and age-range of participants contributing
to the effect size are displayed in the second and third
columns of each table. Unless otherwise indicated,
children of both sexes participated in the studies. In the
fourth column is an indications of the type of informants
reports used to assess victimization (self-, peer, teacher,
or parent reports). In the fifth column is a description of
the subtypes of victimization assessed, as far as can be
determined from the authors descriptions, and according
to the classification laid out in Table 1 (generic, physical,
verbal, relational, or indirect). These are noted in abbreviated form, as indicated in the footnotes to each
table.
The effects in each table are separated according to
whether there was shared method variance due to shared
informants present in the effect. For example, if both
victimization and maladjustment were assessed by selfreport, shared method variance was not avoided as an
explanation of effect size. If victimization was assessed by
peer report, and maladjustment by self-report, shared
method variance was avoided as an explanation of effect
size.
In the final columns of Tables 2 to 6 the effect size r and
the corresponding Z-score are reported. Within each
category of effect (with and without shared method
variance) studies are listed in order of increasing effect
size. Mean effect sizes and their overall significance levels

PEER VICTIMIZATION

447

Table 2
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Depression
Study
With shared method variance
Vernberg (1990)
Slee (1995b)
Slee (1994a)
Bjo$ rkqvist et al. (1982)
Austin & Joseph (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Slee (1995c)
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Boivin et al. (1995)
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Mean effect size

Age range
(years)

Victimization
informants

73
220
363
67
425
438
290
120
60

1214
1217
1215
1416
811
812
M l 10.9
1012
1012

Self
Self
Self
Peers
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self

567
63
60

912
1012
1012

Peers
Peers
Peers

Victimization
subtypesa

GPV
GPV
G
G
GPV
PRI
GPV
GPVb
GPVb

.23
.26
.31
.38
.39
.42
.51
.53
.81
.45****

1.80
3.86
5.72
2.33
7.93
8.79
8.60
4.21
6.27

GPV
Gb
Gb

.24
.26
.36
.29****

5.41
2.85
2.79

a G l generic victimization ; P l physical victimization ; V l verbal victimization ; R l relational victimization ; I l indirect

victimization.
b Separate effect sizes were published for peer-reported and self-reported victimization.
c Girls only.
**** p .0001.

are shown separately for studies with and without shared

method variance. In the display of effect sizes, the valence
of negative rs and Zs is reversed when these indicate a
negative relationship between victimization and maladjustment. Thus, the effect sizes presented in Tables 2 to
6, which were all positive, represent the magnitude of
positive associations between victimization and maladjustment found in each study. One-tailed significance
levels, as recommended by Rosenthal (1984), are given
for the overall Z-score, but not for individual Z-scores,
because it is the overall significance level which is of
interest.
Depression. It is clear from the studies presented in
Table 2 that victimization is positively associated with
depression. Mean effect sizes were significantly greater
than zero (p .0001) whether or not there was shared
method variance in the effect. Victims of peer aggression
tended to be more depressed than nonvictims. Effect sizes
were smaller when shared method variance was avoided
than when it was not. When victimization was assessed by
peers, and depression by self-report, the mean effect size
was r l .29, representing 8.4 % shared variance. The
range was .24 to .36. When both victimization and
depression were assessed by self-report, the mean effect
size was r l .45 (20.3 % shared variance), with a range of
.23 to .81. Nevertheless, victimization and depression
were clearly associated independently of shared method
variance.
Similar findings have been made in research which is
not summarized in Table 2, and which used slightly
different dependent measures. MacLeod and Morris
(1996) reported that over 4 % of a sample of children who
called a bullying telephone helpline had expressed suicidal
thoughts. These authors did not make a comparison to
the prevalence of suicidal thoughts in the normal population, or among callers to helplines that are not specifically targeted at victims of peer aggression, however.
Rigby (1996) found that among secondary school children victims were twice as likely as nonvictims to report

suicidal thoughts and other symptoms of depression".

Other researchers have also found that victims rate
themselves as generally less happy (Rigby & Slee, 1992 ;
Williams et al., 1996), or less happy in a school context
(Boulton & Underwood, 1992 ; Slee, 1995a,c ; Slee &
Rigby, 1993a), than nonvictims. Data concerning unhappiness and suicidal ideation are not included in Table
2, as there was an abundance of studies which used wellvalidated measures of depression, such as the Childrens
Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992used by Boivin et
al., 1995 ; and Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) and the Depression Self-Rating Scale (Birleson, 1981used by
Austin & Joseph, 1996 ; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Neary
& Joseph, 1994 ; and Slee, 1995c).
The major limitation of depression-victimization research is in its measurement of victimization. Only one
study measured relational or indirect victimization (Crick
& Grotpeter, 1996), and this study did not include verbal
victimization. Only one study (Boivin et al., 1995) used
more than one item to assess peer-reported victimization.
Loneliness. Fewer studies have been published in which
loneliness was the dependent variable. In these studies the
mean effect size from published studies was smaller for
loneliness than for depression. Nevertheless, it is clear
from the studies presented in Table 3 that loneliness is
positively associated with victimization. Mean effect sizes
were significantly greater than zero ( p .0001), whether
or not shared method variance was avoided. The tendency
was, again, for effects to be smaller when shared method
variance was avoided (mean r l .25, range l .15 to .34)
than when it was not (mean r l .32, range l .14 to .49).
On average, loneliness and victimization shared 6.3 % of
variance when there was no shared method variance, and
10.2 % of variance when there was shared method
variance.
" Rigby (1996) did not report total depression scores that
would allow computation of effect sizes.

448

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

Table 3
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Loneliness
Study
With shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)
Mean effect size

Age range
(years)

120

67

200
438

56
812

120

67

798

810

Victimization
informants

Victimization
subtypesa

Self, teachers, peers,

parents
Self
Self

PVR

.14

1.50

GPVI
PRI

.31
.49
.32****

4.76
10.25

Self, teachers, peers,

parents
Peers

PVR

.15

1.66

GPV

.34
.25****

9.57

a G l generic victimization ; P l physical victimization ; V l verbal victimization ; R l relational victimization ; I l indirect

victimization.
**** p .0001.

Thus, victims were more lonely than nonvictims,

irrespective of shared method variance. Similar conclusions have been drawn from unpublished data cited in
published reports (Boulton & Underwood, 1992 ; Slee &
Rigby, 1994), and can be drawn from an analysis of
Boivin and Hymels (1997) data with a smaller sample
(Boivin et al., 1995). Most of the studies (Boivin &
Hymel, 1997 ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996 ; Slee & Rigby,
1994) employed a well-validated measure of loneliness
the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale (Asher &
Wheeler, 1985), or its equivalent for younger children
(used by Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). It is possible that
other measures of loneliness are not so strongly correlated
with victimization, given the smaller effect sizes calculated
from Alsakers (1993) data. Diverse forms of victimization are fairly well represented in effect sizes, although
none can be calculated from victimization measures
which comprised all four of physical, verbal, relational,
and indirect victimization.
Anxiety and social anxiety. In the literature it is fairly
common to find victimization positively correlated with
some measure of social anxiety (e.g., Alsaker, 1993 ;
Boulton & Smith, 1994 ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996 ; Slee,
1994b), or with constructs that are similar but not
equivalent to anxiety, such as neuroticism (Byrne, 1994 ;
Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Slee & Rigby, 1994) or anxious
self-concept (OMoore & Hillery, 1991). Studies of the
relationship between victimization and generalized
anxiety are less common. In two separate studies, Slee
(1994a, 1995b) found that victimization was positively
correlated with anxiety measured as a subscale of a
published health symptom checklist. Using the same
items from this checklist (but not combining them in a
single index of anxiety), Rigby (1996) also found more
symptoms of anxiety among victims than nonvictims.
Olweus (1978) and Lagerspetz et al. (1982) found that
victimization was positively correlated with unvalidated
measures of anxiety. In unpublished studies Pierce (1990)
and Kupersmidt, Voegler, Sigda, and Sedikides (1997)
have also shown that anxiety was positively related to
victimization.
The studies are summarized separately for social and
generalized anxiety in Table 4, with an indication of the
measures of anxiety used. Table 4 shows that the mean
effect sizes for social and generalized anxiety were barely
different from one another. Victims were more generally

and socially anxious than nonvictims, independently of

shared method variance. The effect sizes were smaller
than for other forms of psychosocial maladjustment,
although they were again clearly greater than zero (p
.01). Across studies in which there was shared method
variance, victimization shared 6.3 % of its variance with
both social and general anxiety. When there was no
shared method variance, victimization shared 4.3 % of its
variance with general anxiety and 2.0 % of its variance
with social anxiety. There are relatively few of these
studies in which validated measures of generalized anxiety
have been employed, and in which the breadth of
victimization experience has been assessed. Only one,
unpublished, study (Kupersmidt et al., 1997) measured
physical, verbal relational, and indirect victimization.
General or global self-esteem. A large number of crosssectional studies have investigated the relation between
peer victimization and childrens global or general selfconcepts. Across these studies, as shown in Table 5,
victimization was correlated with low self-esteem, independently of shared method variance (mean r l .21,
p .0001, representing 4.4 % shared variance), and more
so in studies in which shared method variance was not
avoided (mean r l .39, p .0001, 15.2 % shared variance). It is possible that shared method variance may bias
the mean effect sizes across self-concept studies more
than in the studies involving depression, loneliness, and
anxiety. This bias is due to the results of four studies by
Joseph and his colleagues (Austin & Joseph, 1996 ;
Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ;
Neary & Joseph, 1994). Neary and Joseph (1994) developed a self-report peer victimization scale, which they
immersed in Harters (1985) Self-Perception Profile for
Children such that children were asked to respond to its
items in the same way as they did to other items in
Harters scale. The same peer victimization scale was used
in the other work published by Joseph and colleagues. In
other words, the methods of assessing victimization and
self-concept used by Joseph have even more in common
than they do in other studies where both variables were
self-assessed (such as Alsaker, 1993 ; OMoore & Hillery,
1991 ; Rigby & Slee, 1992 ; Sharp, 1996 ; Slee & Rigby,
1993b). Sure enough, in Josephs work, there are high
correlations among the subscales of Harters measure,
and also between these and Josephs peer victimization
scale. The mean r for global self-concept across his four

Table 4
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Anxiety
Study

Boulton & Smith (1994)

Slee (1994b)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Crick & Grotpeter (1996)
Slee (1994b)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
Overall mean effect sizes for anxiety
a G l generic
b Boys only.

** p

Age range
(years)

Victimization
informants

220
363

1217
1215

Self
Self

GPV
G

239
64

1216
13

Peers
Teachers

120

67

57
114
438
438
114

810
913
812
812
913

120

67

Dependent
measure

Victimization
subtypesa

Anxiety
Anxiety

.20
.29
.25****

2.97
5.53

G
PV

Q-inventory anxiety
Q-sort anxiety

.18
.24
.21**

2.78
1.67

Self, teachers, peers,

parents
Peers
Self
Self
Self
Self

PVR

Fear of peers

.13

1.03

GPV
GPV
PRI
PRI
GPV

Shyness
Social avoidance
Social anxiety
Social avoidance
Fear of negative evaluation

.17
.25
.26
.30
.40
.25****

1.28
2.67
5.44
6.28
4.27

Self, teachers, peers,

parents

PVR

Fear of peers

.14**

2.50

Shared method variance

No shared method variance

PEER VICTIMIZATION

Generalized anxiety
With shared method variance
Slee (1995b)
Slee (1994a)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
Olweus (1978)b
Mean effect size
Social anxiety
With shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)

.25****
.19****

victimization ; P l physical victimization ; V l verbal victimization ; R l relational victimization ; I l indirect victimization.

.01 ; **** p

.0001.

449

450

Table 5
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Global\General Self-Esteem
Study

Austin & Joseph (1996)

Sharp (1996)
Mynard & Joseph (1997)
Slee & Rigby (1993b)b
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Alsaker (1993)
Lagerspetz et al. (1982)
Boulton & Smith (1994)
Byrne (1994)
Olweus (1978)b
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Mean effect size
a G l generic
b Boys only.
c Girls only.

**** p

Age range
(years)

Victimization
informants

783
810
120

713
1218
67

G
GPV
PVR

.12
.22
.24

3.36
6.26
5.13

425
377
179
87
60
120

811
1112
813
713
1012
1012

Self
Self
Self, teachers, peers,
parents
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self

GPV
PVRI
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV

.38
.41
.45
.52
.53
.55
n39****

7.70
7.96
6.02
4.85
4.11
4.26

120

67

PVR

.03

1.75

239
76
177

1216
810
Primary & secondary
school age
13
1012
1012

Self, teachers, peers,

parents
Peers
Peers
Teachers, peers

G
GPV
PV

.17
.17
.23

2.63
1.51
3.00

Teachers
Peers
Peers

PV
G
G

.26
.22
.38
.21****

2.08
1.70
2.94

64
60
63

Victimization
subtypesa

victimization ; P l physical victimization ; V l verbal victimization ; R l relational victimization ; I l indirect victimization.

.0001.

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

With shared method variance

OMoore & Hillery (1991)
Rigby & Slee (1992)
Alsaker (1993)

PEER VICTIMIZATION

451

Table 6
Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Social Self-esteem
Study
With shared method variance
OMoore & Hillery (1991)
Vernberg (1990)
Slee & Rigby (1993b)b
Austin & Joseph (1996)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Mynard & Joseph (1997)
Mean effect size
Avoiding shared method variance
Boulton & Smith (1994)
Callaghan & Joseph (1995)
Boivin & Hymel (1997)
Neary & Joseph (1994)c
Mean effect size
a G l generic
b Boys only.
c Girls only.

**** p

Age range
(years)

Victimization
informants

783
73
87
425
60
120
179

713
1214
713
811
1012
1012
813

Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self

76
63
793
60

810
1012
810
1012

Peers
Peers
Peers
Peers

Victimization
subtypesa

G
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV
GPV

.14
.19
.26
.39
.43
.49
.52
.35****

3.92
1.47
2.43
9.54
3.33
5.37
6.96

GPV
G
GPV
G

.07
.23
.26
.34
.23****

0.59
1.83
7.32
2.63

victimization ; P l physical victimization ; V l verbal victimization.

.0001.

studies summarized in Table 5 was .48. In contrast, the

mean r for global self-concept across the other published
studies in which there was shared method variance
(Alsaker, 1993 ; OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ; Rigby & Slee,
1992 ; Sharp, 1996 ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b) was .31. All
mean rs remained highly significant ( p .0001).
Leaving aside these considerations, one of the strengths
of the cross-sectional studies of global self-concepts is
that they have employed a variety of different, widely
used, and empirically validated self-esteem inventories,
and consistently found that victims have lower selfesteem than other children. One of the limitations is that
relational and indirect victimization, according to
authors reports, have only been assessed by Sharp (1996 ;
relational and indirect victimization) and Alsaker (1993 ;
relational victimization). Another is that, when shared
method variance has been avoided, only one item has
been used to measure victimization (except by Byrne,
1994).
Social self-concept. Measures of childrens social selfconcept index the extent to which they see themselves as
being socially competent, well-accepted by their peers, or
having good social relationships. It has generally been
found that victims tend to have negative views of
themselves in the social domain, as shown in Table 6.
Again, this pattern has been shown with a variety of
widely used and validated instruments. The mean effect
size for published studies with shared method variance
was .35 (12.3 % variance shared between victimization
and social self-esteem), and .23 for those without (5.3 %
variance shared between the variables) ; both were highly
significant ( p .0001). The magnitude of effect sizes in
studies with shared method variance was again affected
by the measure of victimization used. Across Josephs
studies (Austin & Joseph, 1996 ; Callaghan & Joseph,
1995 ; Mynard & Joseph, 1997 ; Neary & Joseph, 1994)
the mean effect size for self-reported victimization and
self-reported social self-worth was .46. Across the remaining studies (OMoore & Hillery, 1991 ; Slee & Rigby,
1993b ; Vernberg, 1990) that relied exclusively on selfreports the mean effect was .20. A major limitation of this
group of studies is that none of them employed a

composite measure of victimization which included either

relational or indirect victimization.

Summary and Discussion

This paper presented the first meta-analysis of the
victimization-adjustment literature. The pattern of results
across cross-sectional studies strongly suggested that
victims of peer aggression experience more negative
affect, and negative thoughts about themselves, than
other children. The strength of previous research is in the
number of studies that have been carried out, using a
variety of methods and with participants drawn from
diverse populations. For ease of comparison of the impact
of different adjustment variables and different informants, mean effect sizes from Tables 2 to 6 are summarized in Table 7. Table 7 demonstrates clearly that
effect sizes were uniformly larger when there was shared
method variance than when there was not. In other
words, victimization was more strongly correlated with
psychosocial maladjustment when both variables were
assessed by asking the same informants (who were usually
the participants themselves), than when different informants were used to assess each variable.

Victimization and Different Forms of Maladjustment

The relative sizes of effects for different forms of
maladjustment are worthy of comment. Several authors
have asserted that victims are typically fearful and
anxious (e.g. Besag, 1989 ; Olweus, 1993a ; Rigby, 1996 ;
Ross, 1996 ; Tattum & Tattum, 1992). Similarly, it is
widely asserted in the bullying literature that victims have
low self-esteem (e.g., by Besag, 1989 ; Farrington, 1993 ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 ; Olweus, 1993a ; Perry,
Perry, & Kennedy, 1992 ; Randall, 1996 ; and Ross, 1996).
In contrast, the largest effect sizes in this meta-analysis
were for depression, and the smallest for anxiety. Effect
sizes for loneliness, and social and global or general selfesteem, were midway between these. Additionally, effects
for social and global self-esteem were substantially
lowered after excluding a group of studies (Austin &

452

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

Table 7
Summary of Published Studies of the Associations between Victimization and
Psychosocial Maladjustment
Mean effect sizes (rs)
Dependent variable

For studies avoiding

shared method variance

For studies with

shared method variance

.29
.25
.21
.23
.14*
.21*
.19

.45
.32
.39
.35
.25
.25
.25

Depression
Loneliness
Global self-esteem
Social self-concept
Social anxiety
Generalized anxiety
Anxiety overall (social\
generalized)
*p

n01. All other rs significant, p

.0001.

Joseph, 1996 ; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995 ; Mynard &

Joseph, 1997 ; Neary & Joseph, 1994) that used similarly
structured victimization and self-concept measures. All
together these results suggest that, while victims are
indeed generally and socially anxious and have low global
and social self-esteem, they are even more strongly
characterized by feelings of loneliness and dysphoria.
This is an important observation, and one which
deserves further investigation. These dysphoric feelings
may find an explanation in social rank theory (Gilbert,
1992), which proposes that social experiences like victimization are implicated particularly in the development of
depression. The associations of victimization with anxiety
and a poor self-concept were first observed in pioneering
research (Olweus, 1978), in which depression and loneliness were not assessed. One might hypothesize that
these associations, being less strong across studies, are
due primarily to the comorbidity of anxiety and low-selfesteem with depression. Unfortunately, the studies reviewed here do not allow a test of this depression
hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, it is necessary to use
more than one adjustment variable as a predictor of
concurrent victimization, while controlling for the correlations between different forms of adjustment. In a
recent study (Hawker & Boulton, 1998) we compared
self-reported depressed mood, loneliness, anxiety, and
social and global self-esteem as predictors of contemporaneous peer victimization among children aged between 8 and 12 years. When intercorrelations between
different forms of maladjustment were controlled, all of
them were related to self-reported victimization, but
depression and loneliness emerged as the strongest
predictors of peer-reported victimization. These results
offer some tentative support to the depression hypothesis.
Replications using similar designs would help show
whether victimization is primarily related to childrens
negative thoughts about themselves and their lives, to
their socially related concerns, to their anxiety-related
cognitions, or to some combination of these.
Another type of comparison available in Table 7 is
between forms of maladjustment that might be described
as primarily social (loneliness, social self-concept, and
social anxiety) and those that might be described as
primarily psychological (depression, global self-concept,
and generalized anxiety). Given that peer victimization is
a social experience, one might expect it to be more
strongly related to social than to psychological forms of
maladjustment. In fact there is no evidence for this
proposition here. If anything it seems the other way

around. Across the studies, victimization was no more

strongly related to social self-worth than to global selfworth. Victimization was marginally less strongly related
to social anxiety than to generalized anxiety, and less
strongly related to loneliness than to depression. It would
be unwise, given the variation in adjustment measures, to
make too much of the greater effects for psychological
maladjustment. But these results make it clear, at least,
that victims emotional suffering is not confined to the
social domain. Again, it is difficult to say whether
victimization is primarily related to social or to psychological forms of maladjustment, without conducting a
study which controls for the relation between different
forms of maladjustment.

General Implications for Future Research

A number of more specific limitations of the studies
reviewed here could be addressed in future research.
First, few previous studies have included relational or
indirect victimization, either in their own right (e.g.,
Alsaker, 1993 ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996 ; Kochenderfer &
Ladd, 1996), or as part of an index of composite
victimization (e.g., Boulton & Underwood, 1992 ; Sharp,
1996). Even when one of these forms of victimization was
assessed, either the other form or verbal victimization
usually was not. It is possible that effect sizes have been
exaggerated or under-estimated as a consequence. Second, although in several studies multiple items have been
used in the self-assessment of victimization, there is a
shortage of studies that have used more than one item in
peer-assessments of victimization. Third, researchers
have generally reported significance levels but not effect
sizes. This practice may encourage the impression that a
single study can show, on the basis of an arbitrary
significance level, whether or not victimization is related
to a particular form of maladjustment. We have
attempted to show in this review that it is more effective
to combine effect sizes across studies than to base
conclusions on the results of significance tests in a single
study. Fourth, there is a need for studies of children from
cultural backgrounds that are not Scandinavian or
English-speaking. Fifth, it would be valuable to investigate moderating effects on victims adjustment of
variables such as disability, age, gender, and sexual
orientation. A recent example, using a slightly different
methodology, is Rivers (in press) retrospective study of
former victims reports of adjustment as a function of
their sexuality.

PEER VICTIMIZATION

In many ways, however, the strengths of cross-sectional

studies outweigh their weaknesses. Together they demonstrate that victims of peer aggression suffer a variety of
feelings of psychosocial distress. They feel more anxious,
socially anxious, depressed, lonely, and worse about
themselves than do nonvictims. The evidence suggests
that these feelings occur among victims of both sexes, of
all age groups, and of all subtypes of aggression. Across
studies in which different informants reports were used
to measure victimization and adjustment, the aggregated
effects show that victims reports of distress cannot be
explained away as an artefact of shared method variance.
That is, children who are seen as victims by their peers
tend to report greater distress than children who are not
seen as victims by their peers. Conclusions such as these
have been drawn before from single empirical studies or
in qualitative review papers. Here they are clearly
demonstrated in a pattern of aggregated quantitative
effects. They are not pleasant conclusions ; they reveal a
pattern of distress that can no longer be ignored.
We suggest that the strongest implication of these
conclusions is that there is little need now for further
cross-sectional studies of peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment. It is clear enough already that
victims are distressed. There is some value in designing
studies which will address some of the limitations of past
research, by accounting for issues such as comorbidity,
the measurement of victimization, and cross-cultural
variability. Otherwise it is time for victimization research
to move on. Early studies of bullying and victimization,
ably reviewed by Farrington (1993), answered questions
about prevalence. More recent studies, including those
reviewed here, focused on the correlates of victimization.
We suggest that it is time for researchers to look at
questions that arise out of the conclusions of the current
meta-analysis. Among these questions are matters of risk,
causation, the differential relation of maladjustment to
subtypes of victimization, the role of victimization in
clinical presentations, and interventions to reduce
victims distress. Some studies have been published which
begin to address these questions (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter,
1996 ; Cunningham et al., 1998 ; Kochenderfer & Ladd,
1996 ; Olweus, 1993a,b ; Salmon, James, Cassidy, &
Javaloyes, 1999 ; Smith & Sharp, 1994). But they are
far fewer in number than the cross-sectional studies
incorporated in this meta-analysis. If more researchers
devote themselves to addressing these more complex
questions, then practitioners may begin to make a
serious impact on the distress that children feel when
they are bullied.
AcknowledgementsThis work was completed with financial
assistance from the University of Keele. Portions of the material
were presented at the biennial meeting of the International
Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Berne, July
1998, and to the British Psychological Society, London,
December 1998. We are grateful to Precilla Y. L. Choi, Susan
A. ONeill, and Peter K. Smith for their comments on earlier
drafts of this manuscript.

References
Data from the asterisked papers were included in the metaanalysis.
* Alsaker, F. D. (1993). Isolement et maltraitance par les pairs
dans les jardins denfants : comment mesurer ces phe! nome' nes

453

et quelles sont leurs conse! quences ? [Isolation and peer abuse

in day-care centres : How can these phenomena be measured
and what are their consequences ?] Enfance, 47, 241260.
Ambert, A.-M. (1995). Toward a theory of peer abuse.
Sociological Studies of Children, 7, 177205.
Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Childrens loneliness : A
comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500505.
* Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully\victim
problems in 8- to 11-year-olds. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 66, 447456.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong :
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497529.
Besag, V. E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. Milton
Keynes, U.K. : Open University.
Birleson, P. (1981). The validity of depressive disorder in
childhood and the development of a self rating scale : A
research report. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
22, 7388.
Bjo$ rkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and
indirect aggression : A review of recent research. Sex Roles,
30, 177188.
* Bjo$ rkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies
and victims : Their ego picture, ideal ego picture and
normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
23, 307313.
* Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social
self-perceptions : A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135145.
* Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles
of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by
peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765685.
* Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully\victim problems
in middle-school children : Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 12, 315329.
Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully\victim
problems among middle school children. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 62, 7387.
* Byrne, B. J. (1994). Bullies and victims in a school setting with
reference to some Dublin schools. The Irish Journal of
Psychology, 15, 574586.
* Callaghan, S., & Joseph, S. (1995). Self-concept and peer
victimization among schoolchildren. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 161163.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary
school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24,
123130.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt
victimization : A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337347.
* Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Childrens treatment
by peers : Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367380.
Crick, N. R., Wellman, N. E., Casas, J. F., OBrien, K. M.,
Nelson, D. A., Grotpeter, J. K., & Markon, K. (1999).
Childhood aggression and gender : A new look at an old
problem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 45. Lincoln, NE : University of Nebraska Press.
Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran,
A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R. (1998). The effects of primary
division student-mediated conflict resolution programs on
playground aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 39, 653662.
Dawkins, J. (1995). Bullying in schools : Doctors responsibilities. British Medical Journal, 310, 274275.
Eason, L. J., Finch, A. J., Jr., Brasted, W., & Saylor, C. F.
(1985). The assessment of depression and anxiety in hospitalized pediatric patients. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 16, 5764.

454

D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice, Vol. 17. Chicago :
University of Chicago.
Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression : The evolution of powerlessness.
Hove, U.K. : Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer
victimization in middle school : An attributional analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 587599.
Hammen, C. L., & Glass, D. R. (1975). Depression, activity
and evaluation of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 718721.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for
Children. Denver, CO : University of Denver.
Haselager, G. J. T. (1997). Classmates : Studies on the development of their relationships and personality in middle childhood. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Catholic University of
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (1998). Peer victimization :
Cause and consequence of psychosocial maladjustment ? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hazler, R. J., & Hoover, J. H. (Eds.). (1996). Putting bullies out
of business. [Special Issue]. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Problems, 5(1).
Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd
ed.). Belmont, CA : Wadsworth.
* Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimisation : Cause or consequence of school maladjustment ?
Child Development, 67, 13051317.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Childrens Depression Inventory Manual.
North Tonawanda, NY : Multi-Health Systems.
Kumpulainen, K., Raesaenen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F.,
Kresanov, K., Linna, S. L., Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Puura, K.,
& Tamminen, T. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptoms
among elementary school-age children. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 22, 705717.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peer
rejection, aggression, withdrawal, and perceived competence
as predictors of self-reported behavior problems in preadolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19,
427449.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Voegler, M. E., Sigda, K. B., & Sedikides,
C. (1997, April). Social self discrepancy theory : Social
self-cognitions as mediators of peer relations problems
and concurrent adjustment. In A. H. N. Cillessen & M. E.
DeRosier (Chairs), Linking peer relations and adjustment :
The role of interpersonal perceptions. Symposium conducted
at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Washington, DC.
* Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjo$ rkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E.
(1982). Group aggression among school children in three
schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 4552.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion : Social
anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221229.
MacLeod, M., & Morris, M. (1996). Why me ? Children talk to
ChildLine about bullying. London : ChildLine.
* Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully\victim problems and
their association with Eysencks personality dimensions in 8to 13-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 5154.
* Neary, A., & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its
relationship to self-concept and depression among schoolgirls. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 183186.
* Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools : Bullies and
whipping boys. Washington, DC : Hemisphere (Wiley).
Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school : What we know and what
we can do. Oxford : Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers : Antecedents and
long-term consequences. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf
(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood.
Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
* OMoore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1991). What do teachers need

to know. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Bullying : A practical guide for

coping in schools. Harlow, U.K. : Longman.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle
school : Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and
interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28,
231241.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer
aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807814.
Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and
the development of antisocial behaviour. In C. U. Shantz &
W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
Pierce, S. (1990). The behavioral attributes of victimized children.
Unpublished masters thesis, Florida Atlantic University.
Randall, P. (1996). A community approach to bullying. Stokeon-Trent, U.K. : Trentham Books.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools : And what to do about it.
London : Jessica Kingsley.
* Rigby, K. & Slee, P. T. (1992). Dimensions of interpersonal
relation among Australian children and implications for
psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology,
133, 3342.
Rivers, I. (in press). The long-term consequences of bullying. In
C. Neal & D. Davies (Eds.), Further client issues in pink
therapy. Buckingham, U.K. : Open University Press.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour
and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359368.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social
research. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183192.
Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing : What
school personnel, other professionals, and parents can do.
Alexandria, VA : American Counselling Association.
Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E. L., & Javaloyes, M. A.
(1999). Bullying ; a review : Clinical presentations to inpatient
and outpatient psychiatric services. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Salmon, G., James, A., & Smith, D. M. (1998). Bullying in
schools : Self-reported anxiety, depression, and self-esteem in
secondary school children. British Medical Journal, 317,
924925.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The
emergence of chronic victimization in boys peer groups.
Child Development, 64, 17551772.
* Sharp, S. (1996). Self-esteem, response style and victimization :
Possible ways of preventing victimization through parenting
and school based training programs. School Psychology
International, 17, 347357.
Skinner, A. (1996). Bullying : An annotated bibliography of
literature and resources (2nd ed.). Leicester, U.K. : Youth
Work Press.
* Slee, P. T. (1994a). Life at school used to be so good. Youth
Studies Australia, 1 (Summer), 2023.
* Slee, P. T. (1994b). Situational and interpersonal correlates of
anxiety associated with peer victimisation. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 25, 97107.
Slee, P. T. (1995a). Bullying in the playground : The impact of
inter-personal violence on Australian childrens perceptions
of their play environment. Childrens Environments, 12,
320327.
* Slee, P. T. (1995b). Bullying : Health concerns of Australian
secondary school students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 5, 215224.
* Slee, P. T. (1995c). Peer victimization and its relationship to
depression among Australian primary school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 5762.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993a). Australian school childrens
self appraisal of interpersonal relations : The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23,
273282.
* Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993b). The relationship of Eysencks

PEER VICTIMIZATION
personality factors and self-esteem to bully-victim behaviour
in Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371373.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1994). Peer victimisation at school.
AECA Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19, 310.
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994). School bullying : Insights
and perspectives. London : Routledge.
Stanley, L., & Arora, T. (1998). Social exclusion amongst
adolescent girls : Their self-esteem and coping strategies.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 14, 94100.
Strauss, C. C., Lahey, B. B., Frick, P., Frame, C. L., & Hynd,
G. W. (1988). Peer social status of children with anxiety
disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
137141.
Strube, M. J. (1985). Combining and comparing significance
levels from nonindependent hypothesis tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 334341.
Tattum, D., & Tattum, E. (1992). Bullying : A whole-school
response. In N. Jones & E. B. Jones (Eds.), Learning to
behave : Curriculum and whole-school management approaches
to discipline. London : Kogan Page.

455

* Vernberg, E. M. (1990). Psychological adjustment and experience with peers during early adolescence : Reciprocal,
incidental, or unidirectional relationships ? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 187198.
Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A
multimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 571575.
Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1986). The social-context of
adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15,
315322.
West, D. A., Kellner, R., & Moorewest, M. (1986). The effects
of lonelinessa review of the literature. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 27, 351363.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and
extent of bullying in junior\middle and secondary schools.
Educational Research, 35, 325.
Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996).
Association of common health symptoms with bullying in
primary school children. British Medical Journal, 313, 1719.
Manuscript accepted 17 September 1999

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.