Adult Consequences of Bully

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2017, Vol. 15(4) 441-464
ª The Author(s) 2016
Adult Consequences of Bully Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Victimization: Are Children DOI: 10.1177/1541204016650004
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
or Adolescents More
Vulnerable to the
Victimization Experience?
Chrystina Y. Hoffman1, Matthew D. Phillips2,

Leah E. Daigle1, and Michael G. Turner2
Abstract
Although evidence exists that bully victimizations are related to a range of negative outcomes later
in the life course, existing research has largely ignored the timing of the victimization experience.
Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, the present study uses pro-
pensity score matching to investigate the adult consequences of victims experiencing repeated
bullying in childhood, adolescence, or both developmental periods. Individuals victimized as
children reported higher instances of arrests, convictions, violence, and substance use than child
nonvictims. The results point to the importance of implementing effective prevention programs
early in the life course.
Keywords
bullying, victimization, life course, consequences
Bullying remains a significant public concern among school-aged youth. Identified as repetitive
abusive behaviors with specific intent to harm the victim and accompanied by an imbalance of
power between the offender and the victim (Olweus, 1993), prevalence rates of bully victimization
remain high and significantly vary across age (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Nansel et al.,
2001). As evidence, research has documented that bullying is most prevalent in younger school-aged
children where data indicate that approximately 20% of students in elementary schools report being
victimized by a bully (Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Ma, Stewin, &
Mah, 2001). Prevalence rates of bullying tend to decrease as students age into middle and high
1
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
GA, USA
2
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina–Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Leah E. Daigle, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State
University, 1224 Urban Life, PO Box 4018, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA.
Email: ldaigle@gsu.edu
442 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(4)
school, where national data have revealed that 8.5% of students were bullied ‘‘sometimes,’’ and
8.4% of students were bullied once a week or more (Nansel et al., 2001). A recent meta-analysis
conducted by Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, and Runions (2014) estimates victimization
prevalence rates at 15.2% for cyberbullying and 36% for traditional bullying for adolescents (i.e.,
12- to 18-year-olds).
The growth in public interest surrounding bullying has ushered in an area of research focused on
the effects that victims of bullying experience later in the life course. Research has documented a
variety of adverse consequences related to individuals experiencing bully victimization. Victims of
bullies have reported experiencing maladjustment problems such as fighting and other violent
behaviors, substance use, poor relationships with peers, increased loneliness, low self-esteem or
self-concept, and lacking the ability to make friends (Juvonen et al., 2003; Kochenderfer & Ladd,
1996; Ma et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001; Valdebenito, Ttofi, & Eisner, 2015). Compared to
nonvictims, victims were also more likely to report higher levels of anxiety, report a significantly
greater number of physical health symptoms, engage in avoidance behaviors, suffer more significant
depressive symptoms, and report severe suicidal ideations (Dake et al., 2003; Juvonen et al., 2003;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Lereya, Copeland, Costello, & Wolke, 2015; Ma et al., 2001; Nansel
et al., 2001; Sigurdson, Undheim, Wallander, Lydersen, & Sund, 2015; Takizawa, Maughan, &
Arseneault, 2014; Turner, Exum, Brame, & Holt, 2013).
Although important contributions to the knowledge base have been made regarding the conse-
quences of bullying, significant gaps in the research have yet to be addressed. One question that
research has yet to explore is whether the timing of the victimization experience (i.e., childhood vs.
adolescence) has similar (or different) consequences of individuals once they reach adulthood. That
is, are children who experience bully victimization more vulnerable to its effects and therefore
experience greater levels of adverse consequences in adulthood compared to adolescents who
experience bully victimization? Based on the tenets of life-course theory, it is expected that the
timing of bullying victimization will play a role in its consequences. According to this perspective,
events that occur during a person’s life have the capacity to influence the life trajectory (Elder,
1994)—these key turning points may be potent enough to shape a person’s life long term. Bullying
victimization occurring during early childhood may be more impactful, given that this develop-
mental time period is when children are developing key characteristics that will shape their future
interactions (Clausen, 1991).
As such, understanding whether the consequences of bullying victimization are different for
children and adolescents is important because if differences do occur, effective interventions focus-
ing on the physical, emotional, and psychological trauma associated with the experience can be more
efficiently targeted toward a particular age-group. Better understanding of the long-term conse-
quences of bullying can also aid in deciding when and how to intervene in response to bullying
victimization. The purpose of the present study is to fill this void in the literature and investigate
whether adult consequences of bully victimization differ depending on whether the individual was
victimized as a child or as an adolescent. To contextualize these questions, the literature investigat-
ing the effects of bully victimization is reviewed below.
Bully Victimization Over the Life Course

As identified above, prevalence rates of bully victimization vary over the life course. On the
individual level, it follows that there exists variability in one’s probability of experiencing a
bully victimization. Some individuals might be victimized in childhood, some individuals might
be victimized in adolescence, and some may be victimized over both developmental periods.
Since victimization may occur at different points during the life course, it is important to
Hoffman et al. 443
acknowledge that the consequences of victimization may vary depending on the age at which
individuals are victimized.
The life-course perspective is rooted in the notion that events that occur during key develop-
mental time points in the life course are capable of changing the trajectory of a person’s life (Elder,
1994). Experiences such as bullying may be salient enough to carry significant consequences and
influence a person’s life-course trajectory. When during the life course the bullying occurs will
likely determine the influence on the trajectory, given that experiencing this type of victimization
during certain developmental time periods is likely to be more harmful than others. Childhood and
adolescence are the developmental periods in which individuals develop personal and psychological
resources that enable them to problem solve and make good decisions (Clausen, 1991). When
considering the nature of victimization and what it does to a person, it is likely that after being
bullied, a person has their perceptions of agency and self-efficacy affected (Macmillan, 2001).
Further, beliefs and perceptions about others are also influenced as individuals are seen as sources
of harm (Macmillan, 2001). When bullying happens earlier in the life course (i.e., childhood rather
than adolescence), these perceptions and beliefs may be altered in ways that create other, and
perhaps different, long-term negative consequences. If children or adolescents do not believe that
they can trust others to provide support and care, that they are able to protect themselves, or that their
future can be different than their past, their life-course trajectory may appear quite different from
others (Macmillan, 2001).
Another consideration in how bullying behavior may shape a person’s trajectory is the type of
bullying that a person experiences. Differential victimization experiences are likely to produce
different (or more pronounced) consequences across the life course. Although relatively unexplored
in the bullying literature, a few studies have examined the effects of different forms of bullying on a
single outcome—depression (Turner et al., 2013; van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003). Turner,
Exum, Brame, and Holt (2013) found that levels of depression varied across the type of bully
victimization, and gender differences emerged among victims of cyberbullying where females were
more adversely affected than males. Similarly, van der Wal, de Wit, and Hirasing (2003) found that
levels of depression were higher for indirect rather than for direct forms of bullying, suggesting that
indirect and covert forms of bullying, such as social isolation, may cause more psychological harm
to the victim than direct, physical forms of bullying. It is possible, then, that bullying at different
time periods may carry different consequences insomuch as the type of bullying experienced may be
different across time (Craig et al., 2009).
Consequences of Bully Victimization

In addition to recognizing that the consequences of bullying may vary depending on the develop-
mental time period in which it occurs, the different types of consequences that may occur for
children and adolescent victims are also important to examine. The existing literature has deter-
mined that depression and suicidality (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Lereya et al.,
2015; Lund et al., 2008; Sigurdson et al., 2015; Silberg et al., 2016; Takizawa et al., 2014), antisocial
behaviors (Luk, Wang, & Simons-Morton, 2010; Mitchell, Ybarra, & Finkelhor, 2007; Sullivan,
Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006; Valdebenito et al., 2015), academic competence (Cornell, Gregory,
Huang, & Fan, 2013; Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005; Juvonen, Wang, & Espinoza,
2011), and psychosomatic symptoms (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2004; Natvig,
Albrektsen, & Qvarnstrøm, 2001) are consequences of bully victimization. Each of these factors
is discussed below.
Depression and Suicidality. Children who are victims of bullying experience more depressive symp-
toms and are at higher risk of suicide than children who are not bullied (Copeland et al., 2013;
Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007; Lund et al., 2008). Using a sample of
9th- through 12th-grade students in New York, Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, and
Gould (2007) found that students who were frequent victims of bullying were 7 times more likely
to be depressed compared to students who had never been victimized, and students who were
infrequently bullied were still approximately 2–3 times more likely to be depressed. Being a
victim of bullying does not only lead to childhood depression, rather the elevated risk of suffering
from depression extends into early adulthood and later in life as well (Copeland et al., 2013;
Lereya et al., 2015; Lund et al., 2008; Takizawa et al., 2014). High intensity or high duration of
bullying results in a significant increase in the odds of having, or having had, depression during the
ages of 31–51 years (Lund et al., 2008).
Antisocial behaviors. Childhood bullying can have long-term repercussions on behavior, including
violence (Liang, Flisher, & Lombard, 2007; Sullivan et al., 2006), substance use (Luk et al., 2010;
Mitchell et al., 2007; Sullivan et al., 2006; Valdebenito et al., 2015), and delinquency (Mitchell
et al., 2007; Sullivan et al., 2006). Although the current literature shows that bully victims (those
who have bullied and who have experienced bullying) have a higher likelihood of engaging in these
behaviors (Kim, Catalano, Haggerty, & Abbott, 2011; Liang et al., 2007), victims of bullying remain
at risk (Liang et al., 2007; Luk et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2007; Sullivan et al., 2006).
Compared to nonvictims, victims of bullying have been found to be more likely to be involved in
violence, such as fighting (Liang et al., 2007). Youth who were victimized reported engaging in
criminal offenses such as theft, vandalism, traffic violations, and other property crimes (Liang et al.,
2007; Sourander et al., 2007). Involvement in illicit behavior has been shown to extend into early
adulthood (Sourander et al., 2007). Bully victimization is also positively associated with substance
use (Luk et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2007) including alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and inhalants
(Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, & D’Amico, 2009). In one study that examined delinquency, violence, and
other antisocial behaviors into adulthood, bullying was not found to be related to these outcomes
(Bender & Losel, 2011). These relationships, however, were only examined at age 25 among a small
sample of males.
Academic competence. Current research documents that there is a significant association between
bully victimization and academic competence (Cornell et al., 2013; Glew et al., 2005; Juvonen et al.,
2011; Ma, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005). A victim’s
academic achievement can be mediated by a variety of factors: depressive symptoms, difficulties with
attention regulation and concentration, experiencing extreme stress in the school environment, and
avoidance behaviors, such as skipping school to avoid being bullied (Ma et al., 2009). The association
between bully victimization and poor academic functioning, as measured by grade point averages and
achievement test scores, has been demonstrated in samples of elementary school children as well as the
sixth graders (Glew et al., 2005; Juvoven et al., 2011; Schwartz et al., 2005). Furthermore, prevalence
rates of bullying as perceived by the ninth graders and their teachers were found to be predictive of high
school dropout rates for the same cohort of students (Cornell et al., 2013).
Psychosomatic symptoms. In addition to harm academically, bully victimization may be associated

with negative health outcomes. Psychosomatic symptoms refer to physical health complaints includ-
ing, but not limited to, headaches, abdominal pain, sleeping problems, dizziness, fatigue, bed-
wetting, and loss of appetite (Fekkes et al., 2004; Gini, 2008; Natvig et al., 2001). These physical
ailments are thought to arise due to the stress experienced by victims of bullying (Fekkes et al., 2004;
Natvig et al., 2001). Studies have found that elementary-aged children who were bullied had a higher
risk of experiencing a variety of psychosomatic complaints such as headaches, abdominal pain,
sleeping problems, poor appetite, bed-wetting, dizziness, and feeling tense compared to children
Hoffman et al. 445
who were uninvolved in bullying behaviors (Fekkes et al., 2004; Gini, 2008). Additionally, Natvig,
Albrektsen, and Qvarnstrøm (2001) explored this relationship using a sample of adolescents between
the ages of 13 and 15. They found that compared to students who reported that they were never
bullied, students who reported being bullied had significantly higher odds of experiencing every
psychosomatic symptom measured (physical complaints included headache, stomachache, back-
ache, and dizziness, while psychological complaints included feeling low, irritability, nervousness,
and difficulty getting to sleep), except sleeplessness. Some studies have examined the link between
childhood bullying and adult health. The existing evidence suggests that individuals who were
bullied in childhood suffered from worse physical health or poorer perceived quality of life in
adulthood than those who had not experienced childhood bullying (Allison, Roeger, & Reinfeld-
Kirkman, 2009; Takizawa et al., 2014). Whether adolescent bullying victims also experience poor
health outcomes into adulthood and whether these outcomes are the same as childhood bullying
victims have yet to be investigated.
Current Focus
Despite the existing scholarly contributions, little, if any, research has focused on thoroughly under-
standing the similarities and differences in bully victimization that occur during different develop-
mental periods. Although current research explores the causes and consequences of bully victimization
in childhood and in adolescence separately, the research is relatively silent when it comes to systematic
comparison of the effects of victimization experienced across these two developmental periods. We fill
this void in the literature using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)
cohort. Specifically, we address three research questions: First, to what extent, do individuals expe-
rience bullying victimization as children only, as adolescents only, or during both childhood and
adolescence? Second, do victim groups (childhood, adolescent, chronic) differ in characteristics such
that the factors that correlate with membership in them vary? Third, are the consequences of victi-
mization (measured in adulthood) similar or different for individuals victimized in childhood, in
adolescence, and those who were chronically bullied during both developmental periods?
Method
Data
The data used for this study are extracted from the NLSY97. The NLSY97 is part of a series of
surveys funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to investigate
how youths transition into the labor force. The NLSY97 is comprised of a nationally representative
sample of 8,984 individuals born between the years 1980 and 1984. More specifically, the NLSY97
cohort is comprised of two independent probability subsamples: (1) a cross-sectional sample of
6,748 individuals and (2) a supplemental sample of 2,236 individuals designed to oversample for
African Americans and Hispanics.
The NLSY97 cohort was selected in two separate phases (Moore, Pedlow, Krishnamurty, &
Wolter, 2000). In the first phase, 96,512 households were identified as eligible housing units from
147 nonoverlapping primary sampling units chosen from the National Opinion Research Center’s
1990 master probability sample of the United States. The second phase identified individuals within
the 96,512 households who were eligible for inclusion in the NLSY97 cohort. Individuals who were
NLSY97 eligible were, at the time of the first interview, between the ages of 12 and 16 as of
December 31, 1996. A total of 9,907 individuals were selected for interview during the household
screening phase, and a total of 8,984 (90.7%) individuals were ultimately interviewed in Wave 1.
Participants were between the ages of 27 and 29 during the most recent wave (i.e., Wave 15) of data
used in the analysis.
Sample
The current study utilizes the cross-sectional sample of 6,748 individuals. The supplemental sample
is excluded from analysis to make the results of this study generalizable to the larger U.S. popula-
tion, while avoiding the complexities related to sample weighting (see Brame, Bushway, Paternos-
ter, & Turner, 2014; Brame, Turner, Paternoster, & Bushway, 2012). In the cross-sectional sample,
there were 3,459 (51%) males and 3,289 (49%) females in the initial interview, with the following
racial and ethnic breakdown: non-Black/non-Hispanic: 4,665 (69.1%), Black non-Hispanic: 1,081
(16%), Hispanic or Latino: 921 (13.6%), and mixed race/ethnicity: 81 (1.2%).
Due to age-specific covariates, the NLSY97 excluded a number of participants by only applying
specific variables to certain ages. To maximize the number of valid cases, the sample was restricted
to participants between the ages of 12 and 14 at Wave 1. These restrictions resulted in a final sample
of 3,655 participants.
Measures
Bully victimization. Our first objective is to identify whether individuals experienced bully victimiza-
tion during childhood, adolescence, or both developmental periods. To accomplish this task, we
relied on two sets of survey questions. At Wave 1 in 1997, when individuals were between the ages
of 12 and 14, each subject was asked, ‘‘Before you turned age 12, were you ever the victim of
repeated bullying?’’ Response options were no (¼ 0) and yes (¼ 1). When subjects reached the age
of 18, they were asked, ‘‘Between the ages of 12 and 18, were you ever the victim of repeated
bullying?’’ This survey item was administered from Wave 3 to Wave 7 (1999–2003), but each
participant was only asked this question one time upon reaching the age of 18. Response options
were no (¼ 0) and yes (¼ 1). Respondents who answered ‘‘yes’’ to the first question only were coded
as child victims. Respondents who answered yes to the second question only were coded as ado-
lescent victims. Respondents reporting they were victimized in childhood and adolescence were
coded as chronic victims. Finally, respondents who indicated that they were victimized neither in
childhood nor in adolescence were coded as nonvictims.
Depression. Beginning in Wave 8 when individuals were between the ages of 20 and 22 and con-
tinuing until Wave 14 when individuals were between the ages of 26 and 28, the NLSY97 included a
question to measure depression: ‘‘How much of the time during the last month have you felt so down
in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up?’’ Respondents were able to answer with one of the
following: all of the time (¼ 3), most of the time (¼ 2), some of the time (¼ 1), and none of the time
(¼ 0). Our final measure of depression was created by summing the valid depression scores and
dividing this value by the total number of valid waves.
Antisocial behaviors. The NLSY97 captured violent tendencies in participants through the following
question administered during Waves 7–15 (2003–2011): ‘‘Since the last interview on [date of last
interview], have you attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them or have had a
situation end up in a serious fight or assault of some kind?’’ The response options were yes (¼ 1)
or no (¼ 0). A violence measure was created by counting the waves that the participant answered
yes. A higher score indicated more frequent annual involvement in violence. Only measures of
violence after the age of 18 were included as outcomes in the analysis.
Substance use was measured by two survey questions that were administered from Waves 7 to 15.
The first question asked respondents, ‘‘Since the date of last interview, have you used marijuana,
even if only once, for example, grass or pot?,’’ and the second question was ‘‘Excluding marijuana
and alcohol, since the date of last interview, have you used any drugs like cocaine, crack, heroin, or
Hoffman et al. 447
crystal meth, or any other substance not prescribed by a doctor, in order to get high or to achieve an
altered state?’’ The response options for these 2 items were yes (¼ 1) or no (¼ 0). A substance use
measure was created by summing the yes responses. A higher score indicated more frequent annual
involvement in substance use. Only measures of substance use after the age of 18 were included as
outcomes in the analysis.
Formal involvement in the criminal justice system was measured using 2 separate self-report
items. The first item measuring arrest included the following: ‘‘Since the date of last interview on
[date of last interview], have you been arrested by the police or taken into custody for an illegal or
delinquent offense (do not include arrests for minor traffic violations)?’’ This question was admi-
nistered during Waves 7 through 15, and response options were yes (¼ 1) or no (¼ 0). The arrest
measure was created by summing the waves that the participant answered yes. Higher scores
indicated more frequent involvement in the criminal justice system. The second item measuring
conviction, also administered during Waves 7 through 15, included the following: ‘‘Since the date of
last interview on [date of last interview], were you convicted of, or found delinquent (adjudicated
delinquent) of any charges, or did you plead guilty to any charges?’’ Again, response options were
yes (¼ 1) and no (¼ 0). A measure of self-reported convictions was created by summing the number
of times a participant answered yes. Higher scores indicated more frequent involvement in the
criminal justice system. Only measures of arrests and convictions after the age of 18 were included
as outcomes in the analysis.
Academic competence. Academic competence was measured by a single question during the final
wave: ‘‘What is the highest educational degree you have ever received?’’ Respondents were given
the following response options: none, General Education Development (GED), high school diploma
(regular 12-year program), associate/junior college (associates of arts), bachelor’s degree (bachelor
of arts, bachelor of science), master’s degree (master of arts, master of science), doctor of philoso-
phy, and professional degree (doctor of dental surgery, juris doctor, medical doctor). Individuals
who did not receive any type of degree or obtained a GED were coded as not academically
competent (¼ 1) and those who earned a high school diploma or higher were coded as academically
competent (¼ 0).
Psychosomatic symptoms. The NLSY97 includes psychosomatic consequences related to sleep. In

Waves 11 through 15 (2007–2011), participants were asked: ‘‘On a typical week night, how many
hours of sleep do you usually get?’’ Answers ranged from 0 to 10þ hours. Research has documented
the desired average sleep quota for an adult is 7.5 hours of sleep per night (Ferrara & De Gennaro,
2001). Therefore, responses were coded where participants with 0–7 hours of sleep had sleep
difficulties (¼ 1) and those with 8–10þ hours of sleep did not have sleep difficulties (¼ 0). This
procedure was repeated for all five waves of data. An aggregate sleep difficulty score was created by
summing the valid sleep difficulty scores from Waves 11 through 15 and dividing this value by the
total number of valid waves. Only measures of sleep deprivation after the age of 18 were included as
outcomes in the analysis.
Control Variables
As discussed in more detail below, we use a propensity score matching (PSM) design to address our
research questions. Therefore, we match participants as closely as possible on several variables, so
that we can achieve balance among respondents receiving the treatment (bullying victims) and those
not receiving the treatment (nonvictims). Specifically, individuals were matched on the following
variables: age, race, sex, socioeconomic status (SES), parental monitoring, parenting style, family/
home risk, exceptionalities, body mass index (BMI), height, school type, urbanity, and delinquency
score. Age is a continuous variable measured in years. Measures for sex (male ¼ 0 and female ¼ 1)
and race (White ¼ 0 and non-White ¼ 1) are also included. The SES variable was created by
standardizing and then summing the following 3 items: (1) gross household income in 1997, (2)
highest grade completed by biological father, and (3) highest grade completed by biological mother
(Cronbach’s a ¼ .56). Scores above 0 indicate the SES were higher than the sample mean (Powell,
Wada, Krauss, & Wang, 2012).
Parental monitoring contained four questions answered by the residential mother that were
measured on a 5-point scale. Youths were asked, (1) ‘‘How much does she know about your close
friends, that is, who they are?’’ (2) ‘‘How much does he or she know about your close friends’
parents, that is, who they are?’’ (3) ‘‘How much does he or she know about who you are with when
you are not at home?’’ and (4) ‘‘How much does she know about who your teachers are and what you
are doing in school?’’ Response options included knows nothing (¼ 0), knows just a little (¼ 1),
knows some things (¼ 2), knows most things (¼ 3), and knows everything (¼ 4). The parental
monitoring index was scored by summing all of the questions and ranged from 0 to 16, where
higher scores indicated a greater degree of parental monitoring (Cronbach’s a ¼ .71).
Parenting style was measured in Wave 1 by the residential mother who was presented with the
following two questions: (1) ‘‘When you think about how she acts toward you, in general, would
you say that she is very supportive, somewhat supportive, or not very supportive?’’ and (2) ‘‘In
general, would you say that she is permissive or strict about making sure you did what you were
supposed to do?’’ The supportive responses were measured on a 3-point scale (very supportive ¼
1, somewhat supportive ¼ 2, not very supportive ¼ 3), and the strictness responses were measured
on a 2-point scale (permissive ¼ 1, strict ¼ 2). These two variables were then combined to produce
a parenting style variable with four categories: (1) uninvolved (permissive and not very or some-
what supportive), (2) authoritarian (strict and not very or somewhat supportive), (3) permissive
(permissive and very supportive), and (4) authoritative (strict and very supportive), which served
as the reference category.
Family home/risk was measured in Wave 1 by the family/home risk index. The family/home risk
index is a 30-item measure that addressed potential areas of risk including home physical environment,
neighborhood, enriching activities, religious behavior, school involvement, family routines, parent
characteristics, and parenting. Each item (or set of items) was coded into risk categories (risk ¼ 1 and
no risk ¼ 0). These items were then summed and resulted in a composite score on the family/home risk
index, where higher scores indicated more risk in the family and home environment.
Exceptionalities were measured via questions capturing the existence of the following condi-
tions: (1) learning disability (i.e., dyslexia) or attention disorder and (2) mental retardation. Our
exceptionality measure was a dichotomous indicator, where absence of exceptionalities was coded
as ‘‘0’’ and presence of exceptionalities was coded as ‘‘1.’’
Weight and obesity were measured in Wave 1 by calculating the participant’s BMI. According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children and adolescents whose weights are less
than the 5th percentile are underweight, children and adolescents whose weights are greater than the
5th but less than the 85th percentile are a healthy weight, children and adolescents whose weights are
greater than the 85th percentile but less than the 95th percentile are overweight, and children and
adolescents whose weights are equal to or greater than the 95th percentile are obese. In the present
study, individuals scoring between the upper and lower deciles were coded as healthy weight (¼ 0),
while those in the lower decile were underweight (¼ 1) and those in the upper decile were over-
weight (¼ 2). Healthy weight individuals were treated as the reference category in the multivariate
analyses. The height variable is a continuous variable measured in inches. The school type variable
in this study took the original school type measure in the NLSY97 and modified the 11 available
values down to 3 (1 ¼ public school, 2 ¼ private school, 3 ¼ other1), with public schools acting as
the reference category.
Hoffman et al. 449
Urbanity is a nominal variable, where rural was coded as ‘‘0,’’ urban was coded as ‘‘1,’’ and
unknown was coded as ‘‘2.’’ Urban environments were excluded as the referent. The NLSY97
provided a delinquency score index containing 10 dichotomous indicators of the respondent’s
self-reported involvement in specific delinquent behaviors. The delinquency score measure for the
present study was calculated using 7 of the original 10 variables. Participants were asked if they had
ever carried a handgun, purposely destroyed or damaged property, stolen anything less than US$50,
stolen anything greater than US$50 including a car, committed other property crimes, purposely
attacked someone with the intent to hurt or fight, or helped sell illegal drugs (yes ¼ 1, no ¼ 0).
Responses were summed for a total count ranging from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicative of
greater incidents of delinquency.
Analytical Strategy
The primary goal of this research is to examine the effect of childhood, adolescent, and chronic
bullying on seven outcomes (academic competence, arrests, convictions, depression, sleeping diffi-
culties, substance abuse, and violence), whose measures are described above. In pursuit of this goal,
we employ a PSM analysis. PSM is a quasiexperimental design that reduces the bias due to confound-
ing variables by approximating the experimental conditions of random assignment to treatment.
Drawing on the experimental logic of the estimation of a counterfactual, PSM pairs cases in the
treatment condition to cases in the untreated condition to serve as the counterfactual comparison (Apel
& Sweeten, 2010), where treatment can be defined as any intentional intervention. Here, we are
defining treatment as one’s status as a childhood bullying victim, an adolescent bullying victim, or
a chronic victim who was victimized in childhood and adolescence. A propensity score is defined as
‘‘the conditional probability of assignment to a particular treatment, given a vector of observed
covariates’’ (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983, p. 41). In other words, one can use multiple observed
variables to estimate the propensity of having received treatment, in this case one of the bullying
conditions. Cases in the treated and untreated conditions can then be paired based on equivalent
propensity for having received treatment in order to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE).
Using the NLSY97 sample described above, we use PSM to estimate the ATE of childhood,
adolescent, and chronic bullying on seven outcomes. We therefore perform a total of 21 PSM
analyses. Analyses were performed in R Version 3.2.2 using the matching package created by
Sekhon (2011). For robustness, we use a one-to-one, three-to-one, and five-to-one nearest neighbor
matching protocol where one, three, and five nonvictims were matched to each victim, such that
participants who were victimized in childhood were matched with participants who were not victi-
mized in childhood. Similarly, PSM was also utilized to match participants who were victimized in
adolescence with participants who were not victimized in adolescence, and chronic victims were
matched to nonchronic victims. The ATEs of childhood, adolescent, and chronic bully victimization
were then estimated. Missing cases were most often the result of noninterview and were, therefore,
excluded from the analysis. To maximize the number of valid cases, PSM models for each dependent
variable were run separately.
For both childhood and adolescent bullying, we estimated the propensity score, P(xi), using the
logistic distribution function.2 The crucial output from this model of treatment status, P(xi), is the
predicted probability of experiencing childhood, adolescent, or chronic bullying. This predicted
probability is used as the propensity score in the subsequent matching procedures.
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the subsamples used in predicting the consequences of
childhood, adolescent, and chronic bully victimization, while Tables 2–4 depict the propensity score
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Subsample 1 (Used in Predicting Academic Competence, Arrests, Convic-
tions, Substance Use, and Violence), Subsample 2 (Used in Predicting Depression Score), and Subsample 3
(Used in Predicting Sleep Difficulties Score).
Subsample 1 Subsample 2 Subsample 3

Variables Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Age 13.13 (0.787) 13.120 (0.787) 13.120 (0.782)

Non-White 0.287 (0.453) 0.291 (0.454) 0.300 (0.458)
Male 0.524 (0.499) 0.524 (0.499) 0.512 (0.500)
SES 0.286 (1.669) 0.2825 (1.670) 0.285 (1.665)
Parental monitoring 10.570 (3.109) 10.560 (3.116) 10.590 (3.102)
Parenting style
Uninvolved 0.104 (0.309) 0.104 (0.306) 0.104 (0.305)
Permissive 0.328 (0.469) 0.324 (0.468) 0.324 (0.468)
Authoritarian 0.131 (0.338) 0.132 (0.338) 0.128 (0.334)
Authoritative 0.437 (0.496) 0.440 (0.496) 0.444 (0.497)
Family/home risk index 23.060 (19.953) 23.160 (20.043) 23.010 (20.041)
Exceptionalities 0.017 (0.130) 0.018 (0.133) 0.018 (0.135)
BMI
Healthy weight 0.766 (0.424) 0.767 (0.423) 0.768 (0.422)
Underweight 0.170 (0.246) 0.169 (0.374) 0.166 (0.372)
Overweight 0.064 (0.376) 0.064 (0.245) 0.066 (0.249)
Height 63.630 (3.911) 63.610 (3.939) 63.630 (3.952)
School type
Public 0.899 (0.301) 0.901 (0.299) 0.903 (0.297)
Private 0.089 (0.285) 0.088 (0.283) 0.087 (0.282)
Other 0.011 (0.107) 0.012 (0.109) 0.010 (0.100)
Urbanity
Urban 0.691 (0.462) 0.691 (0.462) 0.691 (0.462)
Rural 0.266 (0.442) 0.266 (0.442) 0.272 (0.444)
Unknown 0.043 (0.202) 0.043 (0.202) 0.038 (0.190)
Delinquency scale 0.935 (1.319) 0.932 (1.318) 0.922 (1.288)
Total ‘‘treated’’ observations in each subsample
Child victims 580 561 442
Adolescent victims 96 92 79
Chronic victims 68 66 52
Total subsample size (n) 2,962 2,845 2,259
Note. SES ¼ socioeconomic status; BMI ¼ body mass index.
models and balance diagnostics of the subsamples. Because of missing data, separate subsamples
were required for estimating the treatment effect of bullying on sleep difficulty and depression, and
these subsamples are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. For the main subsample in Table 2,
results from the logistic regression equations predicting childhood, adolescent, and chronic bullying
are shown. The model predicting the probability of experiencing childhood bullying indicates that
childhood bullying victims are likely to be younger, are more likely to be male, have a higher family/
home risk index, are more likely to be overweight, and have higher scores on the delinquency scale
than those who do not experience childhood bullying. The models predicting adolescent and chronic
bullying are less robust, only indicating that adolescent bullying victims are likely to be older and
less likely to be White, while chronic victims are likely to be older, attend schools that are neither
public nor private, and have higher scores on the delinquency scale than nonvictims.
The logistic regression predicting probability of childhood bullying for the depression subsample
(Table 3) indicated that childhood bullying victims are likely to be younger, are more likely to be
Hoffman et al. 451
Table 2. Propensity Score Models for Subsample Used in Predicting Academic Competence, Arrests,
Convictions, Substance Use, and Violence.
Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Variables b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
Age –0.210 (0.067)** 0.799 (0.164)*** 0.900 (0.209)***

Non-White –0.075 (0.111) –0.585 (0.265)* –0.471 (0.306)
Male 0.316 (0.103)** 0.080 (0.213) 0.102 (0.263)
SES –0.044 (0.029) 0.031 (0.065) –0.003 (0.074)
Parental monitoring –0.012 (0.018) –0.002 (0.039) 0.002 (0.046)
Parenting style
Uninvolved 0.043 (0.172) –0.336 (0.387) 0.392 (0.414)
Permissive –0.091 (0.115) –0.333 (0.236) 0.072 (0.293)
Authoritarian 0.184 (0.151) –0.350 (0.346) 0.130 (0.391)
Authoritative — — —
Family/home risk 0.009 (0.003)** 0.007 (0.006) –0.001 (0.007)
BMI
Healthy weight — — —
Underweight 0.064 (0.134) –0.195 (0.322) –0.404 (0.439)
Overweight 0.488 (0.179)** 0.120 (0.391) 0.437 (0.411)
Height 0.003 (0.013) –0.010 (0.028) –0.0511 (0.034)
School type
Public — — —
Private 0.049 (0.177) –0.495 (0.416) –0.338 (0.516)
Other 0.580 (0.405) –0.389 (0.982) 1.837 (0.515)***
Urbanity
Urban — — —
Rural –0.072 (0.115) –0.233 (0.241) –0.079 (0.287)
Unknown 0.147 (0.228) 0.203 (0.460) –0.439 (0.717)
Delinquency scale 0.801 (0.087)*** –0.348 (0.197) 0.627 (0.217)**
Intercept 0.379 (1.017) –13.026 (2.541)*** –12.844 (3.075)***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
male, are more likely to be overweight, and have higher scores on the delinquency scale. The
adolescent bullying model for the depression subsample indicated that victims were likely to be
older and less likely to be non-White than nonvictims. Finally, the chronic bullying model for the
depression subsample indicated that victims were likely to be older, attend schools of other types,
and have higher delinquency scores. The pattern of low sample size for adolescent and chronic
bullying victims continued in these models. Only 92 respondents were adolescent bullying victims,
and only 66 were chronic bullying victims.
The logistic regression predicting childhood bullying for the sleep difficulties subsample (Table
4) is quite similar to the model for the larger subsample. Here, childhood bullying victims are likely
to be younger, are more likely to be male, come from lower SES, and have a higher family/home risk
index and higher delinquency scores than nonvictims. As with the larger subsample, the model
predicting the probability of adolescent bullying suffered from low sample size; of the 2,259
included respondents, only 79 were adolescent bullying victims. The model indicated these indi-
viduals were likely to be older than nonvictims. The chronic victim model also suffered from low
sample size; only 52 respondents were chronic bullying victims. This model duplicated the results
from the main sample, suggesting victims were likely to be older, are more likely to attend schools of
other types, and have higher delinquency scores.
Table 3. Propensity Score Models for Subsample Used in Predicting Depression Score.

Age –0.198 (0.069)** 0.810 (0.166)*** 0.891 (0.209)***

Non-White –0.095 (0.113) –0.577 (0.268)* –0.439 (0.306)
Male 0.331 (0.104)** 0.047 (0.217) 0.123 (0.265)
SES –0.048 (0.030) 0.021 (0.066) –0.006 (0.075)
Parental monitoring –0.008 (0.018) –0.010 (0.039) –0.007 (0.047)
Parenting style
Uninvolved 0.053 (0.175) –0.316 (0.387) 0.307 (0.425)
Permissive –0.078 (0.117) –0.414 (0.246) 0.087 (0.292)
Authoritarian 0.198 (0.154) –0.332 (0.348) 0.015 (0.405)
Family/home risk 0.009 (0.002)** 0.006 (0.006) –0.003 (0.008)
BMI
Underweight 0.090 (0.136) –0.120 (0.324) –0.392 (0.437)
Overweight 0.486 (0.184)** 0.193 (0.393) 0.321 (0.437)
Height 0.003 (0.013) –0.014 (0.028) –0.050 (0.034)
School type
Public — — —
Private 0.055 (0.182) –0.643 (0.453) –0.308 (0.515)
Other 0.573 (0.405) –0.412 (0.983) 1.811 (0.513)***
Urbanity
Urban — — —
Rural –0.068 (0.116) –0.253 (0.246) –0.109 (0.294)
Unknown 0.188 (0.232) 0.067 (0.509) –0.378 (0.718)
Delinquency scale 0.787 (0.088)*** –0.383 (0.203) 0.588 (0.220)**
Intercept 0.190 (1.031) –12.734 (2.496) *** –12.626 (3.082)***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
To assess the balance on included covariates between the treated and untreated cases, we have
included the standardized bias (SB) measures before and after matching for each treatment condition
for each of the three subsamples in Tables 5–7. Conventionally, covariates with |SB| > 20 are
considered imbalanced. For the childhood bullying models in all three subsamples, four variables
were imbalanced prior to matching. These four variables were consistently found to be sex, parental
monitoring, family/home risk, and delinquency. After matching, there were no longer any SBs
greater than 20, indicating that the matching procedure achieved balance. In the PSM models for
adolescent bullying victimization prior to matching, treated and untreated cases were imbalanced on
age and race.3 The matching procedure greatly improved balance on age but failed to achieve
balance, while achieving balance on race. This was likely due to the weak model fit stemming from
low variation on the dependent variable but nonetheless presents a limitation. In the chronic bullying
models, age, parental monitoring, underweight BMI, schools of other types, and delinquency were
imbalanced prior to matching, and the matching procedure was able to achieve balance on most but
not all of these covariates. Some measures additionally became imbalanced after matching, high-
lighting the problems resulting from low variation on the dependent variable.
We assessed the distributions of the propensity scores for treated and untreated cases. Consid-
ering the three treatment conditions separately, we plotted the proportion of treated and untreated
cases in each of 20 equally sized bins. There was substantial overlap between treated and untreated
Hoffman et al. 453
Table 4. Propensity Score Models for Subsample Used in Predicting Sleeping Difficulties Score.

Age –0.221 (0.078)** 0.826 (0.181)*** 0.784 (0.221)***

Non-White –0.189 (0.128) –0.547 (0.285) –0.607 (0.339)
Male 0.342 (0.117)** –0.028 (0.237) 0.067 (0.339)
SES –0.068 (0.033)* 0.013 (0.073) 0.015 (0.085)
Parental monitoring –0.019 (0.021) –0.009 (0.043) –0.005 (0.051)
Parenting style
Uninvolved –0.135 (0.199) –0.346 (0.413) –0.215 (0.500)
Permissive –0.133 (0.132) –0.517 (0.275) –0.132 (0.322)
Authoritarian 0.058 (0.176) –0.313 (0.371) –0.126 (0.430)
Family/home risk 0.011 (0.003)*** 0.007 (0.007) 0.002 (0.008)
Exceptionalities –0.016 (0.379) 0.804 (0.530) –0.073 (0.395)
BMI
Underweight 0.047 (0.154) 0.008 (0.347) –0.511 (0.517)
Overweight 0.371 (0.207) 0.342 (0.401) 0.571 (0.439)
Height 0.005 (0.015) –0.014 (0.030) –0.067 (0.037)
School type
Public — — —
Private 0.124 (0.202) –0.426 (0.462) –0.303 (0.582)
Other 0.279 (0.513) –0.061 (1.007) 1.752 (0.655)**
Urbanity
Urban — — —
Rural –0.018 (0.129) –0.166 (0.263) –0.135 (0.320)
Unknown –0.028 (0.285) –0.382 (0.708) –0.809 (0.983)
Delinquency scale 0.822 (0.101)*** –0.227 (0.218) 0.837 (0.250)***
Intercept 0.488 (1.164) –12.989 (2.727)*** 10.120 (3.281)**
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
cases for all three bullying conditions, demonstrating common support (results shown in Figure 1).
These distributions are based on the largest subsample seen in Table 2, but results from the two
smaller subsamples mirror these and have not been included in the interest of space. Lastly, the
diagnostics for balance on covariates presented here have all been based on a three-to-one nearest
neighbor matching protocol with no caliper. Balance diagnostics for one-to-one and five-to-one
nearest neighbor matching protocols replicate the conclusions detailed above.
Table 8 reports the ATEs of childhood, adolescent, and chronic bully victimization on each of the
dependent variables. For robustness, we estimated the ATEs of each bullying condition on each of
the seven outcomes using three model specifications. We estimated the ATE using a one-to-one
nearest neighbor match with no caliper, a three-to-one nearest neighbor match with no caliper, and a
five-to-one nearest neighbor match with no caliper. Results from these models are consistent across
model specification, supporting the contention that results are not contingent on the choice of
matching strategy. The results show that child victims are consistently shown to experience negative
residual effects as a result of their bully victimization experience. Child victims had higher instances
of arrests, depression, substance abuse, and violence compared to childhood bullying nonvictims.
These findings are consistent with the current literature: Individuals who are victims of bullying
engage in problem behaviors such as violence, substance use, and criminal offending (Liang et al.,
2007; Luk et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2007; Sourander et al., 2007). It is worthwhile to note that no
significant differences emerged when investigating the impact of bully victimization on sleep
Table 5. Balance Diagnostics for Subsample Used in Predicting Academic Competence, Arrests, Convictions,
Substance Use, and Violence.
Before After Before After Before After

Balance Diagnostics: Standardized Bias (BS) Matching Matching Matching Matching Matching Matching
Age –7.795 0.297 84.180 43.989 97.433 40.246

Non-White 5.187 0.062 –23.153 8.685 –16.43 1.192
Male 25.229 3.356 –0.645 –11.984 10.181 1.474
SES –14.065 –2.746 5.305 12.043 –2.597 6.512
Parental monitoring –28.765 3.013 –3.377 2.567 –27.623 –8.958
Parenting style
Uninvolved 13.455 –0.502 0.175 –14.552 16.035 19.487
Permissive –10.852 3.057 –10.572 –9.609 –4.103 –8.090
Authoritarian 13.402 –1.477 –5.514 35.005 4.415 –12.028
Authoritative — — — —
Family/home risk 31.510 –0.409 5.036 –27.953 16.008 32.047
Exceptionalities 6.070 2.529 12.517 2.573 5.228 –7.143
BMI
Healthy weight — — — —
Underweight –1.438 2.187 –17.828 –24.289 –29.222 –15.518
Overweight 11.597 –0.084 3.335 –2.842 12.857 7.210
Height 5.741 3.075 16.179 16.285 19.909 45.965
School type
Public — — — — —
Private –4.514 –0.900 –11.310 –23.277 –13.085 0.200
Other 5.500 0.158 –1.075 –0.945 24.153 –4.929
Urbanity
Urban — — — —
Rural –6.642 1.765 –6.372 19.439 –3.763 –3.748
Unknown 4.253 –3.672 3.825 –16.542 –7.893 21.519
Delinquency scale 53.073 –0.317 –11.848 10.428 46.709 1.243
difficulty. The consequences of childhood bully victimization seem to appear primarily in the form
of externalizing behaviors, not internalizing behaviors.
Unlike childhood victims, adolescent victims did not significantly differ from adolescent non-
victims in terms of adverse consequences. No ATE for adolescent bullying on any of the considered
outcomes reached the conventional level of statistical significance. The lack of significant findings
for adolescent victims may be due, in part, to the extremely low instances of adolescent victimiza-
tion. Furthermore, the total treated observations for adolescent victims were consistently smaller
than the total treated observations for child victims. As noted above, chronic victims also had
consistently smaller number of total treated observations. Despite this limitation, chronic victims
showed a significant ATE for higher levels of depression and violence compared to nonvictims. Two
of the three model specifications also showed a significant ATE for substance abuse, suggesting that
chronic bullying victims may be more prone to using illegal substances. Due to low sample size,
further research into this possibility is warranted.
Discussion
Exploring the long-term consequences of individuals who had experienced being victimized by a
bully has captured the attention of scholars. Research has documented that adverse consequences
Hoffman et al. 455
Table 6. Balance Diagnostics for Subsample Used in Predicting Depression Score.

Age –7.382 0.680 84.011 41.879 96.319 40.690

Non-White 4.105 1.216 –21.547 –17.981 –15.544 12.258
Male 25.732 4.680 –2.643 –8.071 10.696 –8.113
SES –14.553 –1.696 3.801 5.097 –2.665 9.041
Parental monitoring –27.703 3.553 –5.247 8.379 –26.566 2.075
Parenting style
Uninvolved 12.907 0.007 1.305 –10.753 13.252 5.902
Permissive –10.204 0.086 –14.795 –2.860 –1.286 –9.572
Authoritarian 13.640 1.186 –3.767 34.493 1.452 –9.994
Family/home risk 31.447 –1.971 5.401 –26.654 13.105 16.777
Exceptionalities 6.091 0.151 12.986 1.083 5.236 –5.965
BMI
Underweight –0.386 –0.921 –15.570 –28.338 –27.498 –15.115
Overweight 10.834 –1.221 4.560 –15.886 9.396 23.185
Height 5.905 2.973 13.812 13.641 18.912 50.927
School type
Public — — —
Private –4.208 1.590 –15.040 –30.288 –11.461 20.275
Other 5.525 0.343 –1.071 4.398 24.498 –4.851
Urbanity
Urban — — —
Rural –6.744 –2.235 –6.833 23.266 –5.942 –1.553
Unknown 4.820 –3.039 1.009 –4.578 –6.622 1.579
occur not only proximate to the victimization incident, but also they emerge several years later in
adulthood (Kim et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2013). The goal of the current study was to identify
whether the long-term consequences of bully victimization were similar (or different) depending on
the developmental period (i.e., childhood, adolescence, or chronic victimization) in which the
bullying incidents occurred. Three important findings in alignment with our research questions
emerge from our efforts.
First, we were able to identify the extent to which individuals experience bully victimizations
during childhood and adolescence. Despite the concerns with using a retrospective, single-item
repeat bully victimization measure, a significant proportion of individuals reported experiencing
victimization incidents during childhood and adolescence. To be sure, one in five children below the
age of 12 reported that they had experienced bully victimization; about 1 in 30 adolescents between
the ages of 12 and 18 reported bully victimization, and 1 in 50 reported chronic bullying across
childhood and adolescence. Although a significant majority of individuals reported they never
experienced bully victimizations, it is worth noting that the measures used in this study are doc-
umenting repeated bully victimizations. These victims are not reporting an isolated incident that
occurred on a playground or bus ride to school. Rather, these individuals are reporting they were
repeatedly victimized over a period of time. Second, significant differences emerged in the char-
acteristics across the victim and nonvictim groupings. These differences included age at Wave 1,
Table 7. Balance Diagnostics for Subsample Used in Predicting Sleeping Difficulties Score.

Age –7.437 2.484 84.400 41.404 84.556 30.525

Non-White 2.034 1.048 –17.745 –15.984 –16.688 22.223
Male 27.066 –1.288 –3.719 –2.349 9.381 –20.986
SES –18.078 –0.487 2.903 12.543 –2.098 –21.810
Parental monitoring –29.344 –0.302 –8.981 7.744 –27.475 10.906
Parenting style
Uninvolved 10.165 –1.803 3.351 –1.379 3.744 –20.063
Permissive –9.431 –4.774 –20.124 7.626 –3.590 16.343
Authoritarian 11.609 2.548 –0.555 19.373 7.156 –7.612
Family/home risk 31.903 2.597 9.548 –20.861 15.266 30.150
Exceptionalities 4.025 4.607 15.129 4.022 0.000 0.000
BMI
Underweight –1.045 –3.685 –12.207 –23.761 –33.887 –20.270
Overweight 8.670 3.033 8.046 –5.327 15.542 –0.834
Height 6.876 6.250 13.559 37.584 8.975 42.462
School type
Public — — —
Private –2.615 –0.940 –10.113 –25.452 –12.831 –10.804
Other 3.642 –1.055 2.281 4.839 20.655 –3.346
Urbanity
Urban — — —
Rural –3.289 –1.774 –4.413 6.571 –5.104 2.577
Unknown 1.946 –8.044 –8.070 –10.882 –13.579 –52.679
sex, SES, parental monitoring, parenting style, family/home risk, and presence of exceptionalities.
These results not only suggest that nonvictims differ from victims but that individuals who are
victimized at different ages differ from one another. Particularly of note was that childhood victims
were more likely than the other victim groups to be male. This finding suggests that gender plays a
role in early childhood victimization.
Finally, we identified that there were differences in the consequences experienced by the differ-
ent victim groups. Compared to adolescent or chronic victims, childhood victims were significantly
more likely to endure negative residual consequences in adulthood as a result of their bullying
experience. Individuals victimized as children reported higher instances of arrests, convictions,
depression, violence, and substance use than child nonvictims. Alternatively, adolescent victims
did not significantly differ from adolescent nonvictims in terms of residual consequences, and
chronic victims differed only with respect to substance abuse and violence.
In line with the life-course perspective, these results seem to convey an important point. That is,
repeated bully victimization experienced in childhood appears to have more impactful adverse
effects in adulthood than bully victimization occurring in adolescence. The enhanced vulnerability
in childhood may be due to it being a sensitive developmental period in the life course. Indeed,
research suggests that childhood is a developmental period during which vulnerability and suscept-
ibility to risk are enhanced (Turner, Hartman, Exum, & Cullen, 2007). Therefore, those who are
Figure 1. Propensity score distributions by treatment conditions.
457
Table 8. Average Treatment Effect (ATE) of Bullying Conditions on Included Outcomes.
Treatment Condition
Outcome Childhood Bullying Adolescent Bullying Chronic Bullying
Academic competence ATE (SE) ATE (SE) ATE (SE)

1 Nearest neighbor* .020 (.028) –.206 (.143) 0.136 (.115)
3 Nearest neighbors .016 (.027) –.105 (.099) 0.024 (.096)
5 Nearest neighbors .021 (.026) –.080 (.086) 0.031 (.089)
Arrests
1 Nearest neighbor .088 (.048)* –.174 (.173) 0.059 (.210)
3 Nearest neighbors .103 (.043)** –.149 (.124) 0.056 (.170)
5 Nearest neighbors .088 (.042)* –.152 (.107) 0.166 (.165)
Convictions
1 Nearest neighbor .029 (.043) –.132 (.160) 0.002 (.163)
3 Nearest neighbors .035 (.039) –.116 (.115) –0.022 (.128)
5 Nearest neighbors .030 (.038) –.114 (.099) –0.011 (.122)
Depression
1 Nearest neighbor .132 (.057)** .394 (.269) 0.543 (.223)*
3 Nearest neighbors .121 (.052)** .017 (.185) 0.416 (.190)*
5 Nearest neighbors .138 (.050)** .098 (.159) 0.518 (.179)**
Sleeping difficulties
1 Nearest neighbor –.025 (.018) –.027 (.058) –0.096 (.058)
3 Nearest neighbors –.014 (.015) –.049 (.045) –0.041 (.055)
5 Nearest neighbors –.018 (.015) –.032 (.039) –0.049 (.048)
Substance abuse
1 Nearest neighbor .588 (.214)** –.832 (.875) 1.998 (.921)*
3 Nearest neighbors .655 (.200)*** –.182 (.646) 1.305 (.738)y
5 Nearest neighbors .580 (.194)** –.256 (.558) 1.537 (.676)*
Violence
1 Nearest Neighbor .050 (.031)y –.004 (.148) 0.474 (.189)*
3 Nearest Neighbors .062 (.029)* .026 (.106) 0.354 (.153)*
5 Nearest Neighbors .054 (.028)* .019 (.091) 0.436 (.157)**
Note. All nearest neighbor specifications are without caliper.

y
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
victimized in childhood, compared to those who are victimized in adolescence, may not be able to
adequately cope with their bullying experience (see Garmezy, 1985; Werner, 1989). Developmental
psychologists refer to the variability in the influence of risks as ‘‘sensitive periods’’ in development
where vulnerabilities to the causal influences of a risk are heightened compared with other periods in
the life course (Bateson & Hinde, 1987). As such, individuals possess a greater susceptibility to the
risk if it were to occur during the sensitive period, such as childhood, as opposed to some other point
in time. This finding is especially poignant in light of the more varied negative consequences of
bullying in childhood only compared to chronic victimization. The lack of significant findings for
chronic victims may have been a result of low base rates of victimization (discussed below), or it
may be that a confirmation that childhood bullying victimization indeed creates a severe vulner-
ability, compared to other time periods.
Policy Implications
Because those who experience repeated bully victimization during childhood are likely to expe-
rience negative consequences, and these consequences are relatively serious in nature, prevention
Hoffman et al. 459
and intervention are particularly important for this age-group. That is, prevention programs
should be implemented early to target individuals in elementary and secondary school to inter-
vene before bullying occurs. Many early intervention programs have been shown to be effective
at reducing the occurrence of bullying (see Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Olweus & Limber,
2010)—promising programs should be expanded to target the types of bullying younger children
are likely to experience and should be targeted especially at younger children. Our findings from
the PSM analysis also indicate that the correlates of being a childhood bullying victim, an
adolescent bullying victim, and a chronic victim differ somewhat. Insomuch as these factors are
different, they should be targets for change for individuals during those specific developmental
time periods. In this way, prevention programs should be age-specific. Not only should they be
age-specific, but our findings indicate the childhood victims are more likely to be male than be
female. This finding shows that prevention programs may be specially designed for young males.
Future research should explore if risk factors operate the same for male and female childhood
victims. In addition, programs should be designed to address bullying after it occurs, so that
victims can receive resources to hopefully assuage the negative consequences of their victimiza-
tion experience. For example, research on coping after bullying suggests that youth who use
problem-solving styles of coping experience lower psychological distress than those with an
avoidant coping style (Hunter, Nora-Merchan, & Ortega, 2004). Teaching such coping strategies
can be incorporated into intervention programs. In addition, teachers, parents, and other children
need to be taught to effectively intervene when they see bullying behaviors. Such bullying
prevention programs that incorporate bystander intervention have been shown to increase
responses by individuals witnessing the victimization, but the effects are larger for high school
students compared with kindergarten through eighth-grade students (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott,
2012). Future research should consider the different types of bullying victimization that younger
children may experience, as research suggests that coping strategies are differentially effective for
different types of bullying (Hunter et al., 2004).
Limitations and Future Directions

Notwithstanding these findings, it is important to identify the limitations of our research. First,
the findings of this project are based entirely on secondary data. The NLSY97 was funded with
the intent to examine youths entering the workforce and their transition into and out of the
workforce. Although using secondary data is often beneficial in terms of time and finances, the
use of the NLSY97 constrains the scope of the current study because the measures are limited.
For example, age-specific predictor variables caused the sample to be restricted to participants
between the ages of 12 and 14 during Wave 1, which reduced the sample size. Future research
with larger samples should be conducted. In addition, we were unable to explore whether
differences existed among bullies and/or bully victims (i.e., individuals who both bullied and
were victimized). Consistent with past research, it is possible that the negative consequences are
more severe for those both who are bullied and who bully—this avenue of research should be
explored in the future (see Nansel et al., 2001). Second, repeat bully victimization was measured
with a single item, which only asked if the participant was ever the victim of repeated bullying
(either before the age of 12 or between the ages of 12–18). It is unfortunate that the method by
which the individual was victimized (i.e., physical, verbal, relational, and cyber) was not included
in the measure. Future research should focus on capturing different types of bullying to inves-
tigate whether different types of bullying have different consequences later in the life course (see
Turner et al., 2013). Third, the base rates of adolescent-only and chronic victimization in the
sample were extremely low. This also suggests that victimization during adolescence virtually
requires victimization during childhood—a modification of Robins’ paradox as it pertains to
delinquency and crime. As previously discussed, research with larger samples may allow for the
identification of a greater number of adolescence-only and chronic bullying victimization.
Finally, some scholars might believe that the NLSY97 data are old and perhaps might not apply
to the adolescents of today. We should point out, however, that the nature of our research
question demanded that we assess individuals over an extended period of time that includes
three developmental periods (i.e., childhood, adolescence, and adulthood). Because of this, we
could not investigate our questions with individuals who are currently being victimized. We
encourage future scholars to explore these issues using more contemporary data.
Conclusion
In closing, bullying is a complex social problem that affects a large proportion of youths. Bully
victimization is an important behavior to examine, especially due to the long-term negative
consequences that arise from childhood victimization. It is of great concern that child victims
have higher instances of arrests, convictions, violence, and substance use as a result of being
bullied. It is important for future researchers to contribute to the victimization literature, in
general, and specifically to contribute to furthering knowledge on the consequences of bully
victimization.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. The original variable was coded into four categories. However, no respondent in the subsample fell into the
‘‘no information’’ category, and therefore, it was excluded from all models. We proceed using three school
type categories; public, private, or other, with public schools serving as the reference category.
2.
exp½b0 þ b1 ðAÞ þ b2 ðNWÞ þ b3 ðMÞ þ b4 ðSESÞ þ b5 ðPMÞ þ b6 ðUÞ þ b7 ðPÞ
þ b8 ðAuÞ þ b9 ðFHRÞ þ b10 ðExÞ þ b11 ðUBMIÞ þ b12 ðOBMIÞ þ b13 ðHtÞ þ b14 ðPSÞ
þ b15 ðOSÞ þ b16 ðRÞ þ b17 ðUnkÞ þ b18 ðDSÞ
Pðxi Þ ¼
1 þ exp½b0 þ b1 ðAÞ þ b2 ðNWÞ þ b3 ðMÞ þ b4 ðSESÞ þ b5 ðPMÞ þ b6 ðUÞ þ b7 ðPÞ
þ b8 ðAuÞ þ b9 ðFHRÞ þ b10 ðExÞ þ b11 ðUBMIÞ þ b12 ðOBMIÞ þ b13 ðHtÞ þ b14 ðPSÞ
þ b15 ðOSÞ þ b16 ðRÞ þ b17 ðUnkÞ þ b18 ðDSÞ
where A ¼ age, NW ¼ non-White, M ¼ male, SES ¼ socioeconomic status, PM ¼ level of
parental monitoring, U ¼ uninvolved parenting style, P ¼ permissive parenting style, Au ¼
authoritarian parenting style, FHR ¼ family/home risk index, Ex ¼ exceptionality, UBMI ¼
underweight BMI, OBMI ¼ overweight BMI, Ht ¼ height, PS ¼ private school, OS ¼ other
school, R ¼ rural, Unk ¼ unknown level of urbanity, and DS ¼ logged delinquency scale.
3. Prior to matching, race was balanced in the sleeping difficulties subsample.
Hoffman et al. 461
References
Allison, S., Roeger, L., & Reinfeld-Kirkman, N. (2009). Does school bullying affect adult health? Population
survey of health-related quality of life and past victimization. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 43, 1163–1170.
Apel, R. J., & Sweeten, G. (2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In A. R. Piquero
& D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 543–562). New York, NY: Springer.
Bateson, P., & Hinde, R. A. (1987). Developmental changes in sensitivity to experience. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 19–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bender, D., & Lösel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social
behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 99–106.
Brame, R., Bushway, S. D., Paternoster, R., & Turner, M. G. (2014). Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest
prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 471–486.
Brame, R., Turner, M. G., Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2012). Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages
8 to 23 in a national sample. Pediatrics, 129, 21–27.
Clausen, J. (1991). Adolescent competence and the shaping of the life course. American Journal of Sociology,
96, 805–842.
Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and
being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 419–426.
Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and bullying predicts
high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 138.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., . . . Pickett, W.
(2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. Interna-
tional Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224.
Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of
School Health, 73, 173–180.
Elder, G. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 57, 4–15.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective
on prevention and intervention. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2004). Bullying behavior and associations with
psychosomatic complaints and depression in victims. The Journal of Pediatrics, 144, 17–22.
Ferrara, M., & De Gennaro, L. (2001). How much sleep do we need? Sleep Medicine Reviews, 5,
155–179.
Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search of protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent
research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 213–233). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Gini, G. (2008). Associations between bullying behaviour, psychosomatic complaints, emotional and beha-
vioural problems. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 44, 492–497.
Glew, G. M., Fan, M.-Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and
academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.
Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchan, J., & Ortega, R. (2004). The long-term effects of coping strategy use in victims of
bullying. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 7, 3–12.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak,
and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance
across middle school grades. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 152–173.
Kim, M. J., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2011). Bullying at elementary school and
problem behaviour in young adulthood: A study of bullying, violence and substance use from age 11 to age
21. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 136–144.
Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and
suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40–49.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment?
Child Development, 67, 1305–1317.
Lereya, S. T., Copeland, W. E., Costello, E. J., & Wolke, D. (2015). Adult mental health consequences of peer
bullying and maltreatment in childhood: Two cohorts in two countries. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 524–531.
Liang, H., Flisher, A. J., & Lombard, C. J. (2007). Bullying, violence, and risk behavior in South African school
students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 161–171.
Luk, J. W., Wang, J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2010). Bullying victimization and substance use among U.S.
adolescents: Mediation by depression. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Preven-
tion Research, 11, 355–359.
Lund, R., Nielsen, K. K., Hansen, D. H., Kriegbaum, M., Molbo, D., Due, P., & Christensen, U. (2008).
Exposure to bullying at school and depression in adulthood: A study of Danish men born in 1953. The
European Journal of Public Health, 19, 111–116.
Ma, L., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Academic competence for adolescents who bully and
who are bullied: Findings from the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence,
29, 862–897.
Ma, X., Stewin, L., & Mah, D. (2001). Bullying in school: Nature, effects and remedies. Research Papers in
Education, 16, 247–270.
Macmillan, R. (2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal and social
development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1–22.
Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative importance of online victimization in under-
standing depression, delinquency, and substance use. Child Maltreatment, 12, 314–324.
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence
across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health,
55, 602–611.
Moore, W., Pedlow, S., Krishnamurty, P., & Wolter, K. (2000). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997
(NLSY97) technical sampling report. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying
behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
Natvig, G. K., Albreksten, G., & Qvarnstrøm, F. (2001). Psychosomatic symptoms among victims of school
bullying. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 365–377.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell
Publishers.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Olweus bullying prevention program. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, &
D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 377–401).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Polanin, J. R., Epelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention
programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.
Powell, L. M., Wada, R., Krauss, R. C., & Wang, Y. (2012). Ethnic disparities in adolescent body mass index in
the United States: The role of parental socioeconomic status and economic contextual factors. Social
Science & Medicine, 75, 469–476.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for
causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and
children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425–435.
Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimiza-
tion: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–52.
Hoffman et al. 463
Sigurdson, J. F., Undheim, A. M., Wallander, J. L., Lydersen, S., & Sund, A. M. (2015). The long-term effects
of being bullied or a bully in adolescence on externalizing and internalizing mental health problems in
adulthood. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 9, 1–13.
Silberg, J. L., Copeland, W., Linker, J., Moore, A. A., Roberson-Nay, R., & York, T. P. (2016). Psychiatric
outcomes of bullying victimization: A study of discordant monozygotic twins. Psychological Medicine.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716000362
Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Rönning, J. A., Elonheimo, H., Niemelä, S., Helenius, H., . . . Almqvist, F. (2007).
Childhood bullies and victims and their risk of criminality in late adolescence: The Finnish from a boy to a
man study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 546–552.
Sullivan, T., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between
physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban
middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119–137.
Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization:
Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 777–784.
Tharp-Taylor, S., Haviland, A., & D’Amico, E. J. (2009). Victimization from mental and physical bullying and
substance use in early adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 34, 561–567.
Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying victimization and adolescent mental
health: General and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 53–59.
Turner, M. G., Hartman, J. L., Exum, M. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). Examining the cumulative effects of
protective factors: Resiliency among a national sample of high-risk youths. Journal of Offender Rehabilita-
tion, 46, 81–111.
Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M., & Eisner, M. (2015). Prevalence rates of drug use among school bullies and victims:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23,
137–146.
van der Wal, M. F., de Wit, C. A., & Hirasing, R. A. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and
offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312–1317.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to 32 years.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72–81.
Author Biographies
Chrystina Y. Hoffman is a PhD student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology in
the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. She received her master’s
degree in criminal justice at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte (UNCC). Her main areas of
research include bullying victimization and sexual victimization, with a specific focus on sexual
victimization and revictimization of college women.
Matthew D. Phillips, PhD, is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at UNC
Charlotte. His principal research interests are quantitative and quasi-experimental methods, vio-
lence, and transnational organized crime. He has recently published in Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, Intelligence and National Security, and Journal of Criminological Research, Policy,
and Practice.
Leah E. Daigle, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice in the Andrew
Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. Her most recent research has centered
on repeat sexual victimization of college women and the development and continuation of victimi-
zation across the life course. She is coauthor of Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life
Course (2nd ed.) and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women, which
was awarded the 2011 Outstanding Book Award by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and
author of Victimology: A Text/Reader and Victimology: The Essentials. Her research has also
appeared in peer-reviewed journals including Justice Quarterly, Victims and Offenders, the Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, and the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Michael G. Turner, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at
the UNC Charlotte. His research is focused on understanding offending and victimization as it
occurs over the life course.

Adult Consequences of Bully

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adult Consequences of Bully

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Chrystina Y. Hoffman1, Matthew D. Phillips2,

Bully Victimization Over the Life Course

Consequences of Bully Victimization

Psychosomatic symptoms. In addition to harm academically, bully victimization may be associated

Psychosomatic symptoms. The NLSY97 includes psychosomatic consequences related to sleep. In

Subsample 1 Subsample 2 Subsample 3

Age 13.13 (0.787) 13.120 (0.787) 13.120 (0.782)

Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Age –0.210 (0.067)** 0.799 (0.164)*** 0.900 (0.209)***

Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Age –0.198 (0.069)** 0.810 (0.166)*** 0.891 (0.209)***

Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Age –0.221 (0.078)** 0.826 (0.181)*** 0.784 (0.221)***

Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Before After Before After Before After

Age –7.795 0.297 84.180 43.989 97.433 40.246

Note. SES ¼ socioeconomic status; BMI ¼ body mass index.

Table 6. Balance Diagnostics for Subsample Used in Predicting Depression Score.

Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Before After Before After Before After

Age –7.382 0.680 84.011 41.879 96.319 40.690

Childhood Victims Adolescent Victims Chronic Victims

Before After Before After Before After

Age –7.437 2.484 84.400 41.404 84.556 30.525

Table 8. Average Treatment Effect (ATE) of Bullying Conditions on Included Outcomes.

Outcome Childhood Bullying Adolescent Bullying Chronic Bullying

Academic competence ATE (SE) ATE (SE) ATE (SE)

Note. All nearest neighbor specifications are without caliper.

Limitations and Future Directions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like

Age –0.210 (0.067) 0.799 (0.164)* 0.900 (0.209)***

Age –0.198 (0.069) 0.810 (0.166)* 0.891 (0.209)***

Age –0.221 (0.078) 0.826 (0.181)* 0.784 (0.221)***