Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

The relation between bullying, victimization, and adolescents’ level

of hopelessness
Sinem Siyahhan a, *, O. Tolga Aricak b, Nur Cayirdag-Acar c
a
Arizona State University, School of Social and Family Dynamics, PO Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287-3701, USA
b
Fatih University, Department of Psychology, Buyukcekmece 34500, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Middle East Technical University, School of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Ankara 06531, Turkey

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: In this study, 419 Turkish middle school students (203 girls, 216 boys) were surveyed on
Bullying their exposure to and engagement in bullying, and their level of hopelessness. Our findings
Victimization suggest that girls were victims of indirect (e.g. gossiping) bullying more than boys. Boys
Hopelessness
reported being victims of physical (e.g. damaging property) and verbal (e.g. teasing)
Adolescents
bullying more than girls. While the level of hopelessness among victims of physical and
Youth’s psychological health
verbal bullying was higher than non-victims, no difference was found between the victims
of indirect bullying and non-victims. Students who never talked to their teachers and
parents about bullying reported higher levels of hopelessness than others. The implica-
tions of the study for intervention and prevention programs are discussed.
Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Foundation for Professionals in Services for
Adolescents.

Introduction

During the last twenty years, our understanding of the relation between bullying, victimization and children’s psycho-
logical health has broadened significantly. It is now well documented that peer victimization and bullying has negative effects
on adolescents’ psychological health (Baldry, 2004; Roland, 2002) including increased anxiety, depression, low self-esteem,
and in some cases, suicide. Despite a large number of studies on the relation between bullying and depression, few were
conducted on the relation between hopelessness and bullying when in fact hopelessness was found to be a key factor linking
depression to suicidal behavior (Beck, Kovacs, & Weissman, 1975). The National Institute of Mental Health (2011) defines
depression, the persistent feeling of sadness, as a “serious illness” that is manifested through various symptoms that inter-
feres with daily functioning of the individual. These symptoms can be a combination of physical, emotional, and social
symptoms such as anxiety, social withdrawal, and fatigue. Hopelessness, the cognitive dimension of depression, is associated
with individuals’ perceptions of lacking control over future event outcomes, and is found to play an important role in pre-
dicting depression (Marshall & Lang, 1990; McLaughlin, Miller, & Warwick, 1996). While previous studies suggest that
depression and suicidal thoughts are high among both bullies and victims (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Marttunen, Rimpelä, &
Rantanen, 1999; West & Salmon, 2000), it is unclear what aspect(s) of depression are more salient for bullying prevention and
intervention programs. This paper examines the relation between bullying, victimization, and hopelessness among Turkish
adolescents (ages 12–14) to understand the relation between depression and bullying, and how to improve prevention and
intervention programs to address the issues of mental health surrounding bullying and victimization.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 480 965 6156; fax: þ1 480 965 6779.
E-mail addresses: sinem.siyahhan@asu.edu (S. Siyahhan), aricaktolga@yahoo.com (O.T. Aricak), cayirdag@hotmail.com (N. Cayirdag-Acar).

0140-1971/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.011
1054 S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059

Bullying, victimization, and depression

Children engage in two types of bullying depending on the overt or covert ways of displaying an aggressive behavior.
Direct bullying, the display of overt aggressive behavior(s), is defined as harassing others through either direct physical
contact or verbal attack such as pushing, hitting, and teasing (Woods & Wolke, 2004). Indirect bullying, also called relational
bullying, is defined as a person’s covert aggressive behavior(s) that is intended to harass others by damaging the victim’s
social relations. It includes gossiping, rumor spreading, and excluding someone from the group (Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006).
Research suggests that boys are more likely to engage in and be exposed to direct bullying than girls, and girls are more likely
to engage in indirect bullying than boys (Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Smith & Gross, 2006).
Both victimization and bullying is associated with depression, anxiety, and somatic complains (Baldry, 2004; Craig, 1998).
In their study, Marini, Dane, Bosacki, and YLC-CURA (2006) found that indirect bully-victims, those who bully others and are
bullied by others, and victims, those who are bullied by others only, reported higher level of depression than bullies and
uninvolved adolescents. While the level of depression of direct bullies and bully-victims were same, the victims reported
lower levels of depression compared to the other two groups. In addition, previous studies suggest that bullies and victims
display symptoms of depression and have suicidal thoughts more than those who are neither a bully nor a victim (Gini, 2008).
Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, and Gillberg (2005) found that children who were victims or bully-victims have higher suicide
attempts than bullies and those who were neither victims nor bully-victims.
Parents, peers and teachers, play an important role in children’s ability to cope with bullying and mediate the development
of depression. For instance, the positive relationship with peers, teachers, and parents play a buffering role between
victimization and its negative psychological effects on the person who is been bullied (Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Idsoe, Solli,
& Cosmovici, 2008). Studies found that teachers’ beliefs about bullying determine whether they intervene in a bullying
situation and how well the child copes with victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Interestingly, teachers and
parents perceive physical bullying as being more serious and harmful than verbal and indirect (relational) bullying and are
less likely to intervene when children experience indirect bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green,
2001).

Bullying, victimization and hopelessness

Depression designates a complex pattern of deviation in feelings, cognitive processes, and behavior (Beck, 1969). While
early studies conceptualized depression as a result of different pathologies caused by one factor, researchers developed
multidimensional models that explained different characteristics of depression (Craighead, 1980). According to theory of
hopelessness (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974), the person’s negative attributions to the event, the future and the self determine
his level of hopelessness. People who are hopeless make three kinds of inferences in the face of a negative event: (a) they
attribute the cause of a negative event to stable and global causes (b) they believe that the consequences are unchangeable
and have big impacts, and (c) view themselves as worthless and inferior (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989). Thus, inter-
pretation of the negative event, not the negative event itself, presumed to contribute to the development of hopelessness
depression. While hopelessness depression is conceptualized having all three inferential styles, Abela and Sarin (2002) found
that they are relatively independent for younger children but are interrelated in adolescence.
The theory of helplessness, a similar cognitive model of depression, also suggests that people’s attribution to the causes of
events to uncontrollable factors results in the development of chronic self-handicapping behaviors in the face of a new
situation (e.g. learned helplessness). Furthermore, the expectation of failure results in adaptation of negative self-image. Thus,
people who expect negative events are more likely to have low self-esteem and feel helpless, consequentially, more
vulnerable to depression than those who do not have negative expectations (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
Together, the theory of hopelessness and the theory of helplessness is the basis of cognitive vulnerability-stress framework
model that focuses on the cognitive rather than emotional and behavioral characteristics of depression (e.g. negative attri-
butional styles). According to this model, hopelessness and helplessness moderate the relationship between the negative life
events and the development of depression (Hankin & Abramson, 2001); individuals with cognitive vulnerability are more
likely to be depressed when faced with negative events than those who are not cognitively vulnerable. However, some studies
suggest that hopelessness has a mediator effect (Cole & Turner, 1993). For instance, in their longitudinal study with 4th and
5th-grade children, Gibb and Alloy (2006) found that the level of children’s hopelessness was a mediator between verbal
victimization and the development of depression for both 4th and 5th-graders, while it was a moderator for only 5th-graders.
Although the findings of this study are important in understanding hopelessness phenomenon, they do not address the
relation between hopelessness and different kinds of victimization (e.g. physical) and bullying behaviors.

Methods

Participants

419 middle school students (203 girls, 216 boys), ages between 12 and 14, were surveyed on their exposure to and
engagement in direct (physical and verbal) and indirect bullying and their level of hopelessness in their regular classrooms.
Four middle schools in Istanbul, Turkey were randomly selected from two different school districts that vary according to
 S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059 1055

family income, education, and profession. 247 students were from high socio-economic schools and 172 students were from
low socio-economic schools.

Procedure

One of the researchers contacted the principal of the schools for permission and teacher introductions and then visited the
classroom of the teachers who agreed to let their students to participate in the study. In each classroom, the researcher
explained the goal of the study and procedures for data collection during a regular class period to the students. Only students
who volunteered to participate in the study filled out the questionnaires and were included in the data collection. There is no
review board for research in Turkey. It is a standard method for researchers who are affiliated with a university to obtain
teacher permission and student verbal consent to collect data. The researcher explained the definition of bullying, victimi-
zation and hopelessness to students before they started filling out the questionnaires. Students spent 35 min in total to fill out
both questionnaires.

Instruments

Two instruments were used in this study. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ) (Olweus, 1996; adapted by
Dolek, 2002) was used to measure the students’ bullying behaviors. The Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck, Steer, & Carbin, 1988;
adapted by Savasir & Sahin, 1997) was used to measure students’ level of hopelessness. In the Olweus Bully/Victim Ques-
tionnaire, students answered 40 questions on the extent to which they were exposed to and engaged in various forms of
bullying. Sample questions include: “Have you bullied others in the past two months?”, “How often have you been bullied at
school in the past couple of months?”, “I was called mean names, was made fun of, or teased in a hurtful way.”, “Other
students left me out of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends, or completely ignored me.”. Students also
answered questions on the extent to which they inform their parents and teachers about their bullying experience.
The Rasch model was used to test the validity of the questionnaire. The Rasch model is based on the assumption that the
difference between item difficulty and person ability should govern the probability of any person being successful on any
particular item. Data revealed that the items have a good fit to the measurement model, indicating strong mutual consistency
in the responses of the 335 pupils located at different positions on the scale. The item difficulties ranged from 2.08 to 3.04
logits. Reliability was calculated by the Item Separation Index and the Person Separation Index. Data revealed that for the
whole sample and for each group the indices of cases and item separation (i.e. reliability) were higher than .85 indicating that
the separability of each scale was relatively satisfactory. The internal consistency reliability coefficient was .98 which is very
high (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006; Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
On the Beck Hopelessness Scale, students answered 20 true–false statements about their positive and negative beliefs
about the future. Each statement is scored 0 or 1. A total score is calculated by summing the pessimistic responses for each of
the 20 items. The total BHS score ranges from 0 to 20. The questionnaire takes approximately 5 min to complete. Moderate
internal reliability (a ¼ .69, Beck & Steer, 1988) and high test–retest reliability (r ¼ .85, Holden & Fekken, 1988) was reported.
Sample items include: “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”, “I might as well give up because there is
nothing I can do about making things better for myself”, “I can’t imagine what my life would be like in ten years.”, “I have
enough time to accomplish the things I want to do.”

Data analysis

The statistical package data of SPSS 15 for windows was used to analyze the data. One-Way ANOVA was used to analyze the
affects of victimization and bullying on the level of hopelessness. MANCOVA was performed to assess the interaction effects of
independent variables on the dependent variable, level of hopelessness. Stepwise regression was used to examine the relative
predictive power of independent variables on level of hopelessness. Additionally, we conducted two separate Chi-square tests
to understand the differences between males and females with respect to victimization and bullying.

Results

Consistent with previous research, our findings suggest that both boys and girls were victims of bullying. As seen in Table 1,
students reported mostly being victims of verbal bullying (e.g. name calling, teasing) at 47% (23.63% males, 23.39% females),
followed by being victims of indirect (or relational) bullying (e.g. gossiping) at 26.3% (9.78% males, 16.47% females), and
physical bullying (e.g. hitting, damaging belongings) at 27.96% (15.06% males, 12.90% females). There were no differences
between boys and girls in terms of victimization (see Table 1), except that girls (16.47%) were victims of gossiping more than
that of boys (9.78%) [c2(1) ¼ 12.18, p ¼ .000].
In terms of bullying, 43.7% of students bullied others verbally (name calling and teasing), 16.55% of students bullied others
indirectly (rejecting from group and gossiping), and only 10.35% of students bullied others physically (hitting and damaging
belongings). Boys were verbal bullies with 29.53% [c2(1) ¼ 14.25 for “name calling” and 10.31, p < .01 for “teasing”,
respectively] and physical bullies more than that of girls (2.89%) [c2(1) ¼ 4.21 for “hitting” and 4.24, p < .05 for “damaging
belongings”, respectively] (see Table 2).
1056 S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059

Table 1
Observed victimization in male and females.

Victimization Male Female c2

Non-victim Victim Non-victim Victim
Name calling 117(27.92%) 99(23.63%) 105(25.06%) 98(23.39%) .25
Teasing 157(37.47%) 59(14.08%) 140(33.41%) 63(15.04%) .70
Rejecting from group 168(40.09%) 48(11.46%) 155(36.99%) 48(11.46%) .12
Gossiping 175(41.77%) 41(9.78%) 134(31.98%) 69(16.47%) 12.18**
Hitting 182(43.54%) 33(7.90%) 180(43.06%) 23(5.50%) 1.45
Damaging belongings 186(44.39%) 30(7.16%) 172(41.05%) 31(7.40%) .16

**p < .01.

Table 2
Observed bully behaviors in male and females.

Bullying Male Female c2

Non-bully Bully Non-bully Bully
Name calling 142(33.97%) 73(17.46%) 167(39.95%) 36(8.61%) 14.25**
Teasing 163(39.37%) 50(12.07%) 178(43%) 23(5.56%) 10.31**
Rejecting from group 192(46.04%) 22(5.28%) 174(41.73%) 29(6.95%) 1.56
Gossiping 201(48.20%) 13(3.12%) 198(47.48%) 5(1.2%) 3.29
Hitting 191(46.02%) 22(5.30%) 192(46.27%) 10(2.41%) 4.21*
Damaging belongings 204(49.04%) 9(2.16%) 201(48.32%) 2(.48%) 4.24*

*p < .05; **p < .01.

By using cross-tabs, we identified students who were pure verbal bully (9.9%), pure indirect bully (2.4%), and pure physical
bully (1.2%). Students were also categorized as pure verbal victim (22.9%), pure indirect victim (12.2%), and pure physical
victim (6.2%). Additionally, 16.5% of students were verbal bully-victim, 3.8% were indirect bully-victim, and 1.7% of students
were physical bully-victim. A pure victim is a person who is victimized by others but never bully others. A pure bully is
a person who bullies others but never been victimized by others. A bully-victim is a person who bullies others and is
victimized by others. Our findings suggest that more students were pure victims than pure bullies and bully-victims.
Overall, boys (M ¼ 5.91, SD ¼ 3.93) reported higher levels of hopelessness than girls (M ¼ 5.10, SD ¼ 3.80), [t(417) ¼ 2.13,
p ¼ .034]. Further, students who were victims of name calling (M ¼ 6.07, SD ¼ 3.76) and teasing (M ¼ 6.42, SD ¼ 3.82) reported
higher levels of hopelessness than non-victim students (MName Calling ¼ 5.03, SD ¼ 3.93; MTeasing ¼ 5.15, SD ¼ 3.85),
[t(417) ¼ 2.74; 3.07, p < .01, respectively]. Similarly, the level of hopelessness of pure physical victims (MHitting ¼ 6.61,
SD ¼ 4.11; MDamaging belongings ¼ 6.69, SD ¼ 3.94) was higher than those non-victims (MHitting ¼ 5.36, SD ¼ 3.83; MDamaging
belongings ¼ 5.32, SD ¼ 3.84), [t(417) ¼ 2.25; 2.56, p < .05, respectively]. However, no difference was found in the level of
hopelessness between non-victims and pure indirect victims [t(417) ¼ 1.24; 1.84, p > .05, respectively]. We performed
General Linear Model Multivariate Analysis of Co-Variance (GLM MANCOVA) to see the effect of interaction between bullying
and victimization on the level of hopelessness. Gender, education levels of mother and father were taken as co-variates in the
analysis. As seen in Table 3, results showed that the interaction between bullying and victimization had a significant effect on
the level of hopelessness, [F(4, 403) ¼ 3.49, p ¼ .008, ƞ2 ¼ .034]. Students who engaged in bully behaviors every week
(M ¼ 9.52, SD ¼ 4.13) reported higher levels of hopeless than non-bully students (M ¼ 5.45, SD ¼ 3.77), [F(2, 403) ¼ 11.01,
p ¼ .000, ƞ2 ¼ .052]. Effect sizes (ƞ) can be interpreted as small (ƞ < .20) in the result. Students who reported never talking to
teachers and parents about victimization had more hopelessness than other students [F(2, 416) ¼ 3.42; F(2, 416) ¼ 7.04,
p < .05, respectively].

Table 3
Bullying and victimization interaction on hopelessness.

Source Type III SS df MS F p ƞ2

a
Corrected model 749,211 11 68,110 4982 .000 .120
Intercept 964,636 1 964,636 70,555 .000 .149
Gender (covariate) 33,119 1 33,119 2422 .120 .006
Mother’s education (covariate) 13,564 1 13,564 .992 .320 .002
Father’s education (covariate) 29,635 1 29,635 2168 .142 .005
Victimization 12,960 2 6480 .474 .623 .002
Bullying 301,159 2 150,579 11,014 .000 .052
Victimization  bullying 191,009 4 47,752 3493 .008 .034
Error 5509,883 403 13,672
Total 18995,000 415
Corrected total 6259,094 414
a
R2 ¼ .120 (adjusted R2 ¼ .096).
 S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059 1057

Table 4
Bullying, victimization, and school SES interaction on hopelessness.

Source Type III SS df MS F p ƞ2

a
Corrected model 855,413 20 42,771 3119 .000 .137
Intercept 918,877 1 918,877 66,998 .000 .145
Gender (covariate) 20,474 1 20,474 1493 .223 .004
Mother’s education (covariate) 15,577 1 15,577 1136 .287 .003
Father’s education (covariate) 53,641 1 53,641 3911 .049 .010
Bullying 260,557 2 130,278 9499 .000 .046
Victimization 29,723 2 14,862 1084 .339 .005
School SES 65,609 1 65,609 4784 .029 .012
Bullying  victimization  school SES 25,989 4 6497 .474 .755 .005
Error 5403,681 394 13,715
Total 18995,000 415
Corrected total 6259,094 414
a
R2 ¼ .137 (adjusted R2 ¼ .093).

We also performed GLM MANCOVA to see the effect of interaction between schools from low and high SES, bullying, and
victimization on the level of hopelessness (see Table 4). Gender, education levels of mother and father were taken as co-
variates in the analysis. Data revealed that there was no significant effect of interaction between SES (schools), bullying,
and victimization on the hopelessness [F(4, 414) ¼ .47, p ¼ .755, ƞ2 ¼ .005].
We could not find any significant difference between schools from low and high SES according to hopelessness level [F(1,
418) ¼ 2.31, p ¼ .129, ƞ2 ¼ .006]. In addition, we performed stepwise regression analysis to predict hopelessness level. All
verbal, indirect, and physical bullying and victimization variables were included in the analysis as independent variable, and
hopelessness was included as a dependent variable. The regression analysis yielded two models. In the first model, being
a victim of teasing was the only variable that predicted hopelessness directly (R2 ¼ .018, b ¼ .14, F(1, 408) ¼ 8.56, p ¼ .004). In
the second model, being a victim and being a bully of teasing independently were the two variables that predicted hope-
lessness (R2 ¼ .030, bvictim ¼ .12, bbully ¼ .12, F(2, 407) ¼ 7.38, p ¼ .001).

Discussion

It is well documented that bullying and victimization are prominent among adolescents (Olweus, 1993). Previous studies
found that girls are likely to be engaged in and exposed to indirect (or relational) bullying (e.g. gossiping) while boys are more
likely to engage in and be exposed to physical bullying (Baldry & Farrington, 1999; Smith & Gross, 2006). Our findings also
suggest that girls were victims and bullies of indirect bullying (e.g. gossiping) more so than boys. However, we found that both
physical and verbal bullying is a problem among boys more so than among girls. With 47% of students reporting being a victim
of verbal bullying, verbal bullying seems to be the kind of bullying that is most prevalent among Turkish adolescents.
One possible explanation for the high levels of verbal bullying among Turkish adolescents is that there are differences in
the kinds of bullying behaviors adolescent children experience across different socio-cultural contexts. Future cross-cultural
studies can shed light onto the cultural differences in bullying and victimization. It is also possible that Turkish adolescents
might have considered amicable teasing or joking as “bullying” as well. This suggests a challenge for researchers and
educators in identifying and intervening bullying and victimization because the boundaries of verbal bullying are more
difficult to draw than physical and indirect (relational) bullying. Considering that teachers and parents are more likely to
intervene in a physical bullying situation than situations that involve other kinds of bullying, it is important to educate both
children and adults about the nature of verbal bullying and how it is different than amicable teasing or joking.
We found that boys, who were more likely to be victims of verbal and physical bullying, have higher levels of hopelessness
than those of girls, and that there were no difference between indirect bullying victims and non-victims in their level of
hopelessness. This suggests that boys are more vulnerable to be depressed when experiencing bullying than girls. This is
interesting given that previous studies found that indirect (or relational) bullying contribute to depression, especially among
girls, more than other forms of bullying (Paquette & Underwood, 1999). We found that there is no relation between indirect
bullying and hopelessness. The gender differences in exposure to different kinds of bullying and hopelessness suggest that
intervention or prevention programs need to pay attention to gender specific issues when addressing the issues of bullying in
schools.
The univariate ANOVA suggests that while neither bullying nor victimization independently has a significant effect on
hopelessness, bullying and victimization together has a significant effect on hopelessness. This supports the previous findings
that bully-victims are the most at risk for developing psychological problems such as depression and suicidal thoughts
(Ivarsson et al., 2005; Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007). Our findings suggest that bully-victims are at
the risk of feeling hopeless compared to that of bullies or victims. One possible explanation is that both engaging in and
exposing to bullying make it so that bully-victims feel that there is no way to break a vicious cycle of bullying. This suggests
that intervention and prevention programs need to target changing the perceptions of both victims and bullies about their
control over negative events, in this case bullying. Helping children understand that they have agency is changing the
1058 S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059

situation can help (a) bullies to gain more self-control and take responsibility of their actions, and (b) victims to pursue ways
to change their situations.
While this study has limitations in that the findings are based on retrospective self-reports of participants, it has important
implications for future research. First, the prevalence of verbal bullying among youth combined with parents’ and teachers’
lack of attention to this form bullying suggest that prevention and intervention programs need to raise awareness around
more subtle forms of bullying. Second, hopelessness seems to be associated more with physical and verbal bullying, sug-
gesting that children who are exposed to overt forms of aggression may be more vulnerable to depression than those who are
exposed to covert forms of aggression. Third, boys and bully-victims, in particular, are vulnerable to depression. Programs that
focus on teaching children the individuals’ ability to change negative events can prevent depression among children who are
exposed to bullying.

References

Abela, J. R. Z., & Sarin, S. (2002). Cognitive vulnerability to hopelessness depression: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 26(6), 811–829.
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96(2), 358–372.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
87(1), 49–74.
Baldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 343–355.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Types of bullying among Italian school children. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423–426.
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: comparing physical, verbal and indirect bullying. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219–231.
Beck, A. T. (1969). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: the depression inventory. InPichot, P., & Olivier-Marton, R. (Eds.). (1974). Psychological
measurements in psychopharmacology, Vol. 7 (pp. 151–169). Switzerland: Karger Press.
Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, A. (1975). Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 234(11), 1146–1149.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Carbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the beck depression inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology
Review, 8(1), 77–100.
Cole, D. A., & Turner, J. E., Jr. (1993). Models of cognitive mediation and moderation in child depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(2),
271–281.
Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2006). “We’re not friends anymore! Unless.”: the frequency and harmfulness of indirect, indirect, and social aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 32, 294–307.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and
Individual Differences, 24, 123–130.
Craighead, W. E. (1980). Away from a unitary model of depression. Behavior Therapy, 11, 122–128.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: a multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
66(2), 337–347.
Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School
Psychology Review, 36(3), 383–405.
Dolek, N. (2002). Ilk _ ve ortaögretim okullarındaki ög renciler arasında zorbaca davranışların incelenmesi ve zorbalıg
ı önleme tutumu geliştirmek için hazırlanan
_
bir programın etkisinin araştırılması. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul.
Gibb, B. E., & Alloy, L. B. (2006). A prospective test of the hopelessness theory of depression in children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,
35(2), 264–274.
Gini, G. (2008). Associations between bullying behavior, psychosomatic complains, emotional and behavioral problems. Journal of Paediatrics and Child
Health, 44, 492–497.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression: an elaborated cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 773–796.
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research, 43(2), 133–146.
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, C. (1988). Test-retest reliability of the hopelessness scale and its items in a university population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44,
40–43.
Idsoe, T., Solli, E., & Cosmovici, E. M. (2008). Social psychological processes in family and school: more evidence on their relative etiological significance for
bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 460–474.
Ivarsson, T., Broberg, A. G., Arvidsson, T., & Gillberg, C. (2005). Bullying in adolescence: psychiatric problems in victims and bullies as measured by the Youth
Self Report (YSR) and the Depression Self-Rating Scale (DSRS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59(5), 365–373.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpelä, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: school
survey. British Medical Journal, 319(7206), 348–351.
Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 40–49.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying: influences on classroom management strategies and students’
coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 431–453.
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.
Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct-indirect bully-victims: differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents
involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551–569.
Marshall, G. N., & Lang, E. L. (1990). Optimism, self-mastery, and symptoms of depression in women professionals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(1), 132–139.
McLaughlin, J., Miller, P., & Warwick, H. (1996). Deliberate self-harm in adolescents: hopelessness, depression, problems and problem-solving. Journal of
Adolescence, 19, 523–532.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University
of Bergen.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: social and physical aggression.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(2), 242–266.
Roland, E. (2002). Aggression, depression, and bullying others. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 198–206.
Savasir, I., & Sahin, N. H. (1997). Bilissel davranisci terapilerde degerlendirme: Sik kullanilan olcekler. Ankara: Turk Psikologlar Dernegi Yayinlari.
Smith, R. G., & Gross, A. M. (2006). Bullying: prevalence and the effect of age and gender. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 28(4), 13–37.
 S. Siyahhan et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 1053–1059 1059

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.
The National Institute of Health. (2011, November 15). Depression. Retrieved from. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/depression-
booklet.pdf.
West, G., & Salmon, A. (2000). Bullying and depression: a case report. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 4(1), 73–75.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and indirect bullying among primary school children and academic school. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2),
135–155.