See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303092890

The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining

child stress and hopelessness as mediators

Article  in  Asia Pacific Education Review · May 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s12564-016-9434-9

CITATIONS READS

9 204

4 authors, including:

Haejin Shin DH Lee

Seoul National University of Science and Technology pllllllll
4 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    292 PUBLICATIONS   2,701 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kumlan Yu
Catholic University of Korea
28 PUBLICATIONS   300 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PRDX-6 Mechanism R&D View project

Thiacremonoe Druggability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Haejin Shin on 28 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2016) 17:637–650
DOI 10.1007/s12564-016-9434-9
The relationship between parental bonding and peer
victimization: examining child stress and hopelessness
as mediators
HaeJin Shin1 • Dong Hun Lee2 • Kumlan Yu3 • KyongAe Ham4
Received: 11 November 2015 / Revised: 3 May 2016 / Accepted: 4 May 2016 / Published online: 13 May 2016
 Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2016
Abstract The purpose of the current study was to investigate
a two-stage model in which parent-related stress and hope-
lessness each served as mediators of the relationship between
perceived parental bonding and South Korean adolescent peer
victimization. This study also examined whether the medi-
ating relationships differed by the gender of parents and
adolescents. A casual chain with three links and four sets of
variables were analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Data were collected from 800 adolescents attending 10 mid-
dle schools in the Busan region of South Korea. Results
indicated that both maternal and paternal parental bonding
were negatively associated with stress, stress was positively
associated with hopelessness, and hopelessness was posi-
tively associated with South Korean adolescent peer victim-
ization. Most importantly, the significant negative
associations between both maternal and paternal parental
bonding and peer victimization were mediated by both stress
and hopelessness. Furthermore, gender differences in these
relationships existed for both parents and adolescents. Limi-
tations and implications to practice were discussed.
Keywords Parental bonding  Peer victimization  Stress 
Hopelessness
& Dong Hun Lee
dhlawrence05@gmail.com
1
Department of Liberal Arts, Seoul National University of
Science and Technology, Seoul, South Korea
2
Department of Education, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul,
South Korea
3
Department of Psychology, The Catholic University of
Korea, Seoul, South Korea
4
Yonsei University Institute of Human Behavior, Seoul,
South Korea
Introduction
Findings from the national survey indicate that a great
number of South Korean students perceive peer victim-
ization as a serious problem in school (in 2011, 41.7 %; in
2012, 40.8 %) (Lee et al. 2014). Another nationwide sur-
vey highlighted the prevalence of victimization by peers or
classmates in South Korea (National Statistics Office
2008). Almost 14.2 % of middle and high school students
experienced verbal threats, 26.5 % reported another student
being verbally attacked or threatened, and 19.3 % wit-
nessed a peer’s experience of constant exclusion (National
Statistics Office 2008). Recently, the Foundation for
Preventing Youth Violence (FPYV) has been conducting
annual surveys to investigate the prevalence of school
bullying among students from 5th to 12th grades. Exam-
ining annual reports from 2006 to 2012, based on samples
of around 4,000 participating students every year, the
percentage of victims ranged from 9.4 to 17.3 % (Kwak
and Lee 2016). Almost half of victims experienced con-
tinued victimization, where 16 % of victims reported that
their victimization lasted 2 weeks to 3 months, and another
16 % of victims for 3–6 months, and 14 % for more than
6 months (FPYV 2012). ‘‘Peer victimization’’ is generally
defined as an individual or a group who is victimized
(physically/verbally) or socially excluded by peers (Hong
and Eamon 2009). However, there is a cultural difference
regarding the terms of ‘‘peer victimization’’ between
Western and South Korean societies. Bully victims in
Western countries often involve a younger student intimi-
dated by an older student, whereas peer victimization in
South Korea is more likely to involve a group of students
targeting a single student (wang-ta) from the same class
(Shin et al. 2014, p. 1934). The current study aims to
examine the specific mechanism of how perceived parental
123
638
bonding and the resulting South Korean adolescents’ psy-
chosocial characteristics affect their experiences of peer
victimization.
One of the most immediate and crucial influences on
peer victimization is the quality of parent–child interac-
tions (Hong et al. 2012; Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias
2013; Rigby et al. 2007). Examining South Korean ele-
mentary school students, Doh (2002) identified overpro-
tectiveness, excessively interfering in children’s daily
activities, as well as parental verbal abuse as factors that
increase children’s vulnerability to peer victimization.
Choi and Chae (2000) also found that victimized South
Korean children have parents who are less accommodating
to their children’s needs. Based on an extensive literature
review, Perry et al. (2001) and Hong et al. (2014) con-
cluded that children who experience victimization prob-
lems at school are more likely than non-victimized peers to
‘‘come from families with histories of child abuse, poor
attachment, and poorly managed conflicts (Perry et al.
2001, p. 322).’’
Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969), which underlines
the formation of emotional bonds between children and
their caregivers, supports the above notion that parents who
are emotionally distant and restrictive contribute to their
children’s peer victimization. The major premise of
attachment theory is that the security of the early parent–
child bond is reflected in the child’s interpersonal rela-
tionships across their lifespan (Bowlby 1969). Children
with a secure emotional bond with their parents relate more
positively with others (Kennedy and Kennedy 2004).
Conversely, children with an insecure emotional bond with
their parents tend to perceive themselves as unworthy,
helpless, and incompetent. An insecure attachment is
known to be an important risk factor for peer victimization
(Cassidy and Berlin 1994).
In particular, Parker et al. (1979) identified two
dimensions of parental bonding: parental care and par-
ental control. The former indicates emotional warmth,
empathy, and closeness, as opposed to coldness, indiffer-
ence, and neglect. The latter describes parents who are
intrusive, overprotective, and engage in excessive contact
with their children, which prevents the development of
independence and autonomy (Parker et al. 1979). Studies
using the parental care/control framework report that
‘‘warm’’ caring relations with parent figures can provide a
child with the emotional security and confidence to interact
effectively with others and thus to avoid being victimized
by peers (Ngai and Cheung 2009). In contrast, ‘‘cold’’
parenting leads a child to both be bullied and experience
maladjustment at school (Rigby et al. 2007, p. 803). For
example, Bowers et al. (1994) found that children who are
overcontrolled by their parents are more likely than others
to be victimized by peers. Restrictive parenting practices
123
H. Shin et al.
have children ‘‘not only feel unconfident when they interact
with their peers at school, but also lack the social skills
needed to cope with those who would bully them (Mit-
sopoulou and Giovazolias 2013, p. 3).’’
While the association between inadequate parental
bonding and peer victimization is well documented (Hong
et al. 2012; Hong et al. 2014; Schneider et al. 2001), what
is less clear from previous studies is the mechanism
underlying this parental bonding and peer victimization
link. One plausible mediator is the level of stress that
adolescents experience due to negative parenting practices
(indicated by rejection, control, or excessive interference)
(Rigby et al. 2007). Indeed, studies have consistently
shown that inadequate parental bonding becomes a source
of stress that can be detrimental to adolescent social and
emotional functioning (e.g., low self-esteem, elevated
social anxiety, and depression) (Bond et al. 2001; Hamilton
et al. 2013; Hong et al. 2014; Jeon and Lee 2002). For
instance, Jeon and Lee (2002) found that South Korean
adolescents who report a history of weak emotional bonds
with their mothers also experience a higher level of per-
ceived stress and report lower scores on overall life satis-
faction compared to their counterparts. Cho and Seo (2010)
also found that maternal overprotection predicts psycho-
logical distress and subsequent maladjustment at school
among South Korean students. In contrast, higher levels of
maternal and paternal bonding have been found to be
associated with lower levels of perceived stress and greater
confidence in students’ ability to regulate negative moods
(McCarthy et al. 2001), as well as less frequent use of an
avoidant coping strategy (Seiffge-Krenke 2011).
Increased stress, in turn, may place adolescents at
greater risk of peer victimization. Stress symptoms typi-
cally take the form of emotional exhaustion (Schaufeli and
Enzmann 1998), which involves experiencing a lack of
energy during social interaction (Schraml et al. 2011).
Stressed adolescents who exhibit feelings of inadequacy
and worry may be providing a signal to aggressors that they
are unable to defend themselves (Bernstein and Watson
1997). In fact, researchers highlight that adolescents may
become easy targets for victimization when they appear to
be withdrawn and submissive (Fekkes et al. 2005; Haynie
et al. 2001).
Another mediator worthy of investigation is hopeless-
ness. When a person views himself as worthless and
helpless, presuming the consequences are unchangeable
and uncontrollable, this often creates a sense of hopeless-
ness (Abramson et al. 1989). It is possible that poor par-
ental bonds provoke adolescent hopelessness, which in turn
results in peer victimization. According to Perry and his
colleagues’ family relational schema model (2001), inept
parental bonding threatens children’s self-esteem by mak-
ing them feel helpless and defeated. This increases the
The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining child stress and…
likelihood of children implementing ‘‘victim-like schema,’’
where children become hopeless during peer interactions,
yielding power to peers and infusing negative affect in self.
Such ‘‘victim-like reactions are expected not only to be
communicated to the peer, thereby inviting aggressive
behavior, but also to prevent cognitive processing by the
child that might lead to more effective behavior (Perry
et al. 2001, p. 87).’’ Other studies provide further empirical
evidence that hopelessness increases the risk of adolescent
peer victimization. Carney et al. (2002) asked school pro-
fessionals and experts about the main characteristics of
victimized children. Respondents designated hopelessness
as a common descriptor, reporting that victimized children
tended to believe that their environment was uncontrollable
and others were more capable of handling various situa-
tions (Carney et al. 2002). Similarly, Swearer et al. (2004)
identified hopelessness among victims: ‘‘They give up
because they believe that their behavior cannot influence
their environment (p. 66).’’
In addition to directly mediating the relationship
between parental bonding and peer victimization, hope-
lessness may mediate the same link as an outcome of
parent-related stress. Hopelessness has been considered as
a natural outcome of chronic and uncontrollable stressors
(Abramson et al. 1989; Griffith 1992; Landis et al. 2007;
Seligman 1972). In the face of chronic and uncontrollable
stressors, subjects will withdraw attempts to overcome the
stressors and eventually exhibit passive or apathetic
behavior (Abramson et al. 1989; Seligman 1972). Ongoing
exposure to intrusive and restrictive parenting practices and
the resulting poor parental bonding can serve as chronic
and uncontrollable stressors (Manly et al. 1994), which
deprive adolescents of the emotional support necessary to
deal with various challenges in interpersonal relationships
(Hamilton et al. 2013). This lack of resources leads ado-
lescents to feel overwhelmed and creates a sense of
hopelessness during peer conflicts (Rose and Abramson
1992). Ultimately, these adolescents are more likely to be
victimized by peers.
On the basis of the theoretical underpinnings and
empirical evidence reviewed above, it appears that there
may be causal connections between parental bonding,
stress, a sense of hopelessness, and adolescent peer vic-
timization. However, to the best of our knowledge, no
published studies exist in which the links among all these
variables are considered in a single model. Most studies
have focused on adolescent mental health status as the
outcome of peer victimization. Little is known about how
poor parental bonding aggravates adolescent psychosocial
functioning, which is associated with their vulnerability to
peer victimization (Chan and Wong 2015b; Hanish and
Guerra 2000; Hodges and Perry 1999). In particular, South
Korean adolescents have been reported to show the lowest
639
scores on the subjective happiness among Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development nations (The
Korea Herald 2014). A recent report from the Ministry of
Health and Welfare indicted that 33.4 % of South Korean
middle school students are faced with severe stress (Korean
Statistical Information Service 2014). Furthermore, the
same survey (KOSIS 2014) revealed that 26.7 % of South
Korean adolescents experience feeling sad or hopeless for
at least 2 weeks over a 12-month period. Given the
prevalence of stress and hopelessness among South Korean
adolescents, it may be particularly imperative to examine
these two variables as potential mediating risk factors for
South Korean adolescent peer victimization. Accordingly,
the main purpose of the current study was to investigate the
model as shown in Fig. 1. By addressing whether stress and
hopelessness mediate the relationship between parental
bonding and peer victimization, we may better understand
the specific psychological process through which victim-
ized South Korean adolescents experience the parent–child
relationship that is characterized by a lack of parental care
and excessive parental control. This would be of both
theoretical and practical significance in that it would help
provide insight into the processes involved in victimization
and allow for more tailored interventions for victimization
prevention (e.g., interventions to address hope).
In addition, we tested whether gender differences exis-
ted for adolescents and parents. Of particular interest
concerning research on the parental bonding–peer relations
link is that the effects of parental bonding may differ for
mothers and fathers, or they may have different effects on
daughters and sons. For example, Updegraff et al. (2001,
2002) examined how friendship intimacy was associated
with several distinct features of the parent–child bond
among 5th- and 6th-grade European American and Latino
youths. For boys, fathers’ acceptance and involvement in
open communication with their sons were positively
associated with the level of intimacy in adolescent
friendships, but only for European American youths. For
girls, acceptance by both their mothers and fathers was
associated with friendship intimacy levels. Another study
also indicates that especially for adolescent girls, their
Fig. 1 Research model
123
640
relationship with their father is more powerful in explain-
ing their expectations of peer interaction (Liu 2008). Chan
and Chui (2013) found in their research on peer victim-
ization among Macanese male adolescents that the pres-
ence of paternal criminality is significantly related to boys’
peer victimization since fathers with criminal backgrounds
are more likely to adopt inept parenting practices such as
coercion. These dyad-specific dynamics suggest the need to
consider the gender of both the adolescent and the parent in
the present study.
For the purpose of this study, there were four research
questions to test. First, would parental bonding have a
direct negative association on peer victimization? Second,
would stress and hopelessness mediate parental bonding
and peer victimization? Third, would hopelessness play a
mediating role in the relationship between stress and peer
victimization? Fourth, are there gender differences in the
research model in terms of both adolescent and parent
gender?
Methods
Sample
Data were collected from 800 students (500 males, 300
females) attending 10 middle schools in the Busan region
of South Korea. The survey was conducted for 50 days
from the June 1 to the July 20, 2013. A total of 716 subjects
were used for the current study after excluding incomplete
survey packets. The final sample consisted of 319 (44.6 %)
7th graders, 247 (34.5 %) 8th graders, and 80 (11.2 %) 9th
graders at the middle school level. A greater number of
male than female participants were sampled with 472
(65.9 %) male and 244 (34.1 %) female students.
Measures
Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) This self-report survey
consists of 25 items designed to measure parental behav-
ioral dimensions of Care and Overprotection. The scale
scores of the PBI are well correlated with other measures of
perceived parental characteristics, as well as with inde-
pendent ratings of actual parental characteristics (Parker
et al. 1979). The current study used the Korean version of
the PBI (PBI-K), which has been validated for South
Korean youth (Song 1992). The PBI-K captures adolescent
perception of parent–child relationships before the age of
16 years. The Care dimension is measured by 12 items
such as ‘‘My mother (father) speak to me with a warm and
friendly voice.’’ Low scores on the maternal/paternal care
scale reflect the perception of parental neglect and rejec-
tion, while high scores indicate a perception of the parents
123
H. Shin et al.
as warm and understanding. Using a 4-point Likert scale,
respondents rate each item about their relationships with
their mothers and fathers (or their caregivers) as they were
growing up. Respondents rate items from 0 ‘‘Never’’ to 3
‘‘Very true.’’ The Overprotection dimension is assessed by
13 items such as ‘‘My mother (father) try to control
everything I did.’’ For the current study, all the 13 items
assessing Overprotection were recoded from 0 ‘‘Very true’’
to 3 ‘‘Never.’’ Low scores on the maternal/paternal over-
protection scale suggest excessive parental control and
intrusion, whereas high scores point to parental acceptance
of the respondents’ independence and autonomy. Cron-
bach’s alpha was 0.93 for Care and 0.89 for
Overprotection.
Peer Victimization Questionnaire (PVQ) This self-report
scale was developed in combination with the Bully/Victim
Questionnaire (BVQ; Olweus 1993) and Cho (2000)’s
Korean version of the PVQ. The current PVQ consists of
21 items that ask students about their experiences of vic-
timization in peer relations. Respondents rate items on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘‘Never’’ to 5 ‘‘Almost
every day.’’ Higher scores on the measure reflect a higher
level of victimization in their peer relations. For this study,
the reliability coefficient was 0.89.
Daily Hassles Scale for Children in Korea (DHSCK)
This scale was used to measure levels of adolescent and
parent-related daily stress. The Daily Hassles Scale for
Children in South Korea (DHSCK) was originally devel-
oped by Han and Yoo (1995). Kim and Lee (1996) vali-
dated and standardized the instrument for South Korean
youth. Bae (2002) additionally refined the scale. The
DHSCK consists of 42 items and 6 subcategories (parents,
home environment, friends, academic achievement, tea-
cher/school, and circumstances). For the purposes of the
study, only the parent and home environment subscales
were used since these two subscales cover the major par-
ent-related stressors for South Korean youth (Han and Yoo
1995). Higher scores on the measure reflect higher levels of
stress. Respondents rate items on a 4-point Likert scale
from 0 ‘‘Not at all’’ to 3 ‘‘Very true.’’ In Han and Yoo
(1995)’s study, the reliability coefficient for the total score
was 0.92. The reliability coefficient for each subscale was
0.78 for parents, 0.84 for the home environment, 0.87 for
friends, 0.82 for academic achievement, and 0.78 for tea-
cher/school. In Bae (2002)’s study, the reliability coeffi-
cient for the total score was 0.92. The reliability coefficient
for each subscale was 0.86 for parents, 0.86 for friends,
0.85 for academic achievement, and 0.77 for circum-
stances. In the current study, the reliability coefficient for
the total score was 0.89, 0.86 for parents, and 0.86 for the
home environment.
Hopelessness The Korean version of the Beck Hope-
lessness Scale (Beck and Weissmann 1974; validated by
The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining child stress and… 641

Won 1986) was used to measure students’ level of hope- the stress variable was positively correlated with the
lessness. For the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), hopelessness and peer victimization variables.
respondents answer 20 true or false statements about their
positive and negative beliefs about the future. Each state- Test of model fitness
ment is scored 0 ‘‘Hopeful’’ or 1 ‘‘Hopeless.’’ The total
BHS score ranges from 0 to 20. A higher score indicates To test the overall model, goodness-of-fit index computa-
greater hopelessness. The questionnaire includes items tions were completed. The current study examined the
such as ‘‘I look forward to the future with hope and following indices to test the model fitness: (a) x2,
enthusiasm’’ and ‘‘I might as well give up because there is (b) SRMR, (c) RMSEA, (d) TLI, and (e) CFI. As shown in
nothing I can do about making things better for myself.’’ Table 2, the x2 value 102.10 at the p \ 0.001 level is
The Cronbach’s alpha for this study was 0.87. considered significant, which indicates the model is rejec-
ted. However, SRMR (0.03), RMSEA (0.07), TLI (0.95),
and CFI (0.98) values were above the recommended cri-
Statistical analysis procedures
terion. Given that it is well known that x2 is sensitive to
sample size, the rest of the criterion values suggested that
All statistical analyses in the current study were conducted
the model for the data was acceptable.
using SPSS version 20.0 and AMOS version 20.0 software.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to evaluate
Parameter estimates
the predicted mediating roles of parent-related stress and
hopelessness in the relationships between parental bonding
Table 3 and Fig. 2 show the parameter estimates to assess
and peer victimization. In the hypothesized model, the
the fit of individual parameters in the model. The results
independent variables (maternal/paternal parental bonding)
indicated that parameters of parental bonding (father:
affected the mediators (adolescent stress and hopelessness),
b = -0.346 and mother: b = -0.492) to stress were sta-
which, in turn, affected the dependent variable (peer vic-
tistically significant, but not for hopelessness. In addition,
timization). To check for non-normality, skewness and
only maternal bonding (b = -0.235) was statistically
kurtosis were evaluated for each variable. West et al.
significant for peer victimization. Stress was statistically
(1995) asserted that concern should be raised when using
significant for hopelessness (b = 0.580), but not for peer
SEM if skewness is greater than 2 and kurtosis is greater
victimization (b = -0.005). Lastly, hopelessness was sta-
than 7. In addition, an item parceling technique was applied
tistically significant for peer victimization (b = 0.204).
to hopelessness and peer victimization variables because
each of the variables consists of a single subscale (Russell
Bootstrap analysis for the significant level of indirect
et al. 1998). Model fitness and regression coefficients were
effects
also examined. An acceptable model fit was indicated by
Chi-square value v2, a root-mean-square error of approxi-
The results of the bootstrapping analyses with parental
mation (RMSEA) B0.08, a comparative fit index (CFI)
bonding (father and mother) and stress as the independent
C0.90, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) C0.90 (Hair et al. 2006),
variables are shown in Table 4. Stress was found to
and a standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR)B
mediate the relationship between parental bonding and
0.08 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1996). Finally, t test and multi-
hopelessness. In addition, hopelessness mediated the rela-
group analyses were conducted to examine whether gender
tionship between stress and peer victimization.
differences exist in the pathways.
Testing for invariant patterns of causal structure
on peer victimization by gender
Results
Mean differences by adolescent gender
Table 1 displays the results of the descriptive statistics and
correlations of variables. Results indicated that the distri- A t test was used to examine whether mean differences
butions of the scores were under the normal curve. Skew- exist for parental bonding, stress, hopelessness, and peer
ness ranged from -0.58 to 2.10, and kurtosis ranged from victimization by adolescent gender. As shown in Table 5,
-0.22 to 5.34. According to correlation analysis, subvari- there were significant differences between boys and girls in
ables of paternal bonding were positively correlated with maternal bonding (t = -2.736, p \ 0.01) and peer vic-
maternal bonding. These parental bonding subscales (father timization (t = 8.167, p \ 0.001). Girls perceived a higher
and mother) were also negatively correlated with stress, level of parental bonding with their mothers, and boys
hopelessness, and peer victimization variables. In addition, perceived a higher level of peer victimization.

123
642 H. Shin et al.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlation of variables (n = 716)

PPB MPB Stress Hopelessness Peer victimization
1.C 2.OP 3.C 4.OP 5.Parent 6.FE 7.H1 8.H2 9.PV1 10.PV2

PPB 1 1
2 0.574** 1
MPB 3 0.542** 0.378** 1
4 0.379** 0.588** 0.600** 1
Stress 5 -0.339** -0.411** -0.423** -0.520** 1
6 -0.429** -0.356** -0.366** -0.306** 0.556** 1
H 7 -0.212** -0.160** -0.222** -0.244** 0.352** 0.325** 1
8 -0.214** -0.121** -0.215** -0.180** 0.312** 0.321** 0.765** 1
PV 9 -0.188** -0.131** -0.259** -0.210** 0.178** 0.247** 0.253** 0.239** 1
10 -0.174** -0.154** -0.239** -0.201** 0.133** 0.182** 0.168** 0.166** 0.783** 1
DS M 24.18 26.23 26.37 25.78 10.25 4.14 0.78 0.93 18.98 16.80
SD 7.38 5.54 6.88 5.91 5.80 4.23 1.19 1.60 6.13 6.00
S -0.37 -0.34 -0.58 -0.04 0.33 1.14 2.07 2.10 1.26 1.08
K 0.03 0.28 0.65 -0.15 -0.22 1.19 5.34 5.06 1.71 0.63
PPB paternal parental bonding, MPB maternal parental bonding, C care, OP overprotection, FE family environment, H hopelessness, PV peer
victimization, DS descriptive statistics, S skewness, K kurtosis
** p \ 0.01

Table 2 Goodness-of-fit
x2 df x2/df SRMR RMSEA TLI CFI
statistics of the model
(90 % CI)

Model 102.095 23 4.439 0.031 0.069 (0.056–0.083) 0.952 0.975

Table 3 Parameter estimates RMSEA = 0.061, TLI = 0.925, CFI = 0.942 for con-
straints model). The Chi-squared difference tests for the
Regression weights Estimate S.E. C.R.
two models showed that the free model (Dv2 = 35.415)
PPB ? Stress -0.377 0.069 -5.439*** was a better fit to the data than the constraints model
MPB ? Stress -0.485 0.064 -7.624*** (Dv2 = 122.797).
PPB ? Hopelessness 0.027 0.018 1.474 Table 6 shows that the connection between parental
MPB ? Hopelessness 0.005 0.018 0.274 bonding to peer victimization was not equal for boys and
Stress ? Hopelessness 0.136 0.024 5.737*** girls. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 3, the direct effect of
Stress ? Peer victimization -0.007 0.125 -0.057 maternal bonding toward peer victimization was significant
MPB ? Peer victimization -0.305 0.097 -3.147** in girls (b = -0.331), but not in boys. The direct effect of
PPB ? Peer victimization -0.016 0.097 -0.166 paternal bonding on stress was significant for both groups
Hopelessness ? Peer victimization 1.15 0.276 4.167*** (b = -0.362 for boys; b = -0.303 for girls). The direct
effect of maternal bonding on stress was significant for
** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001
both groups (b = -0.450 for boys; b = -0.588 for girls).
In addition, the direct effect of parental bonding (father and
Multi-group analysis on causal structure of peer mother) on hopelessness and the direct effect of stress on
victimization by adolescent gender peer victimization were not significant for both groups.
However, the direct effect of stress on hopelessness
Table 6 displays goodness-of-fit statistics for the equality (b = 0.512 for boys; b = 0.650 for girls) and the direct
constraints model and free model (with no equality con- effect of hopelessness on peer victimization (b = 0.236 for
straints). Statistics showed that both models were boys; b = 0.194 for girls) were significant for both groups.
acceptable (SRMR = 0.031, RMSEA = 0.051, TLI = Lastly, all parameters from parental bonding to peer
0.947, CFI = 0.97 for free model; SRMR = 0.050, victimization between the free model and constraints

123
The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining child stress and… 643

Fig. 2 Parameter estimates of

the model (N = 716).
**p \ 0.01; ***p \ 0.001

Table 4 Bootstrap analysis of the structural model and magnitude of indirect effects
Path/effect Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
(95 % CI)

P_Parental Bonding Stress, Hopelessness Peer victimization -0.016 -0.025 -0.041















!
(-0.153 to 0.081)
P_Parental Bonding Stress Hopelessness 0.027 -.051*** -0.024



!
(-0.089 to -0.027)
M_Parental Bonding Stress, Hopelessness Peer victimization -0.305** -0.066 -0.371***














!
(-0.19 to -0.072)
M_Parental Bonding Stress Hopelessness 0.005 -0.066*** -.061***



!
(-0.101 to 0.043)
Stress Hopelessness Peer victimization -0.007 0.156*** 0.149









!
(0.076 to 0.287)
** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001

Table 5 Mean differences in

Boys (n = 472) Girls (n = 244) t
variables by adolescent gender
(n = 716) M SD M SD

P_Parental Bonding 50.11 11.43 51.00 11.60 -0.991

M_Parental Bonding 51.31 11.49 53.77 11.22 -2.736**
Stress 14.28 8.54 14.59 9.50 -0.443
Hopelessness 1.65 2.40 1.82 3.00 -0.824
Peer victimization 37.95 12.17 31.57 8.49 8.167***
** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001

model were estimated to examine whether any differences nine parameters were compared for both groups, and sta-
existed by gender (Table 7). Chi-squared difference values tistically significant differences on those values represented
from the free model to the equality constraints model for different paths for boys and girls. The results indicated that

123
644 H. Shin et al.

Table 6 Goodness-of-fit statistics by adolescent gender

Model v2 df v2/df SRMR RMSEA TLI CFI Dv2(df) p
(90 % CI)

Free model 131.334 46 2.855 0.031 0.051 (0.041–0.061) 0.947 0.973 36.415 (24)
Constraints model 254.131 70 3.732 0.050 0.061 (0.053–0.069) 0.925 0.942 122.797 (24) 0.05

Fig. 3 Parameter estimates of

the model by adolescent gender.
Note ( ) is standardized
parameter estimates for girls
group. *p \ 0.05; **p \ 0.01;
***p \ 0.001

Table 7 Comparative analysis between boys and girls for nine parameters of the model
Path Parameter estimates No equality constraints model Dv2 Acceptance
2
Boys Girls v df

P_PB ? Stress -0.323 -0.478 252.123 69 2.008 x

M_PB ? Stress -0.423 -0.644 249.036 69 5.095 s
P_PB ? Hopelessness 0.034 0.005 252.764 69 1.368 x
M_PB ? Hopelessness 0.014 -0.019 251.823 69 2.308 x
Stress ? Hopelessness 0.113 0.154 250.670 69 3.461 x
Stress ? Peer victimization 0.112 -0.231 243.774 69 10.358 s
M_PB ? Peer victimization -0.438 -0.258 251.490 69 2.641 x
F_PB ? Peer victimization -0.147 0.023 252.268 69 1.863 x
Hopelessness ? Peer victimization 1.924 0.493 242.338 69 11.793 s

the parameter from maternal bonding to stress was signif- stress on peer victimization was positive for boys, but
icantly greater for girls than for boys (Dv2 = 5.095). In negative for girls. The parameter from hopelessness to peer
addition, the parameter from stress to peer victimization victimization also differed where boys were greater than
was significantly different (Dv2 = 10.358). The effect of girls (Dv2 = 511.793).

123
The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining child stress and…
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to examine the
mediating roles of parent-related stress and hopelessness in
the relationships between parental bonding and peer vic-
timization for a sample of South Korean adolescents. In
addition, this study sought to explain how the gender of
both adolescents and parents contributes to differences in
the hypothesized paths. SEM analysis (see Table 3)
indicted that the direct and negative relationships between
parental bonding and adolescent peer victimization were
replicated in this study, but only for mothers. Parental
bonding for both mothers and fathers also had direct neg-
ative relationships with adolescent stress. Yet, there were
no direct relationships between stress and peer victimiza-
tion or parental bonding and hopelessness. This pattern
shifts attention to the indirect effects of stress and hope-
lessness in the relationships between parental bonding and
South Korean adolescents experiencing peer victimization.
With regard to indirect effects, results from the boot-
strapping analysis confirmed the proposed two-stage model
in which stress and hopelessness each and subsequently
serves as a mediator in the relationship between parental
bonding and peer victimization (see Table 4). When
hopelessness was treated as an outcome and stress as a
mediator, stress played a mediating role in the relationship
between parental bonding and hopelessness. In addition,
hopelessness mediated the relationship between stress and
South Korean adolescents’ peer victimization (see Fig. 2).
That is, a lack of caring and warmth from mothers or
fathers was positively associated with elevated adolescent
stress, which, in turn, was positively associated with a
sense of hopelessness and thereby increased experiences of
peer victimization.
Taken together, these results suggest that parental
warmth and emotional closeness, by alleviating adolescent
stress and the resulting hopelessness, may serve as pro-
tective factors against peer victimization. To be specific,
South Korean adolescents who perceive their parents as
caring and accepting, to the extent that these parental bonds
promote low stress, are less likely to feel hopeless and thus
appear able to reduce their vulnerability to peer victim-
ization. These findings echo the basic premise of attach-
ment theory (Bowlby 1988) in that the quality of emotional
connections with their caregivers (e.g., parents) is trans-
ferred to peer relationships in early and middle adolescence
(Laible and Carlo 2004; Han and Grogan-Kaylor 2013;
Hong et al. 2012). The literature on parent–child attach-
ment and youth peer relations indicates that children who
do not establish secure bonding with their caregivers tend
to display social withdrawal, which alienates their peers
(Brown and Bakken 2011; Hong et al. 2012; Schneider
645
et al. 2001). Results from the present study also provide
empirical evidence supporting the assumptions of Perry
and his colleagues’ family relational schema model (Perry
et al. 2001). The model argues that when parents are not
emotionally available, children perceive themselves as
worthless, yielding power to their peers, and thus, they feel
helpless in peer conflicts. Such ‘‘victim-like reactions’’ are
more likely to be communicated to the peer, thereby
inviting aggressive behavior (Perry et al. 2001). Indeed,
other studies have consistently suggested that overprotec-
tive and controlling parent–child relationships not only
undermine a child’s confidence in his/her own thoughts and
feelings (Barber 1996; Batanava and Loukas 2014; Yabko
et al. 2008), they also inhibit children from developing the
appropriate social skills for interpersonal conflict resolu-
tion (Ladd 1992). This subsequently makes such children
easy targets for bullies.
Findings supporting the proposed two-stage model
(Fig. 2) suggest that inadequate parental bonding becomes
a great source of South Korean adolescents’ stress. These
results are congruent with another previous study in which
South Korean children who developed an insecure attach-
ment to their mothers perceived higher levels of stress than
their more securely attached counterparts (Jeon and Lee
2002). Similarly, the present results support previous
findings of higher levels of maternal and paternal bonding
being associated with lower levels of perceived stress and
greater confidence in students’ ability to regulate negative
moods (McCarthy et al. 2001). In fact, researchers pinpoint
that negative parenting such as psychological control may
hinder a child’s development of autonomy, resulting in
poor psychosocial adjustment in children and adolescents.
We found a significant, positive relationship between
parent-related stress and a resulting sense of hopelessness,
which empirically supports the possibility that inadequate
parental bonding function as a chronic and uncontrollable
stressor. Indeed, researchers pinpoint negative parenting
practices such as psychological control not only as a
stressor (Barber 1996), but also as a factor that influences
children’s responses to stress (Abaied and Rudolph 2011;
Abaied and Emond 2013). Seiffe-Krenke (2006), for
example, found that college students’ secure attachment to
their parents was associated with lower levels of disen-
gagement coping, whereas the opposite pattern was found
for students with an insecure attachment. Ongoing expo-
sure to intrusive and restrictive parenting practices may
socialize adolescents to view active coping as an unfeasible
strategy and instead, to avoid or withdraw from the stressor
(i.e., disengagement coping) (Abaied and Emond 2013).
When both adults and children view stressors in their life as
being out of their control, they are more likely to
123
646
experience a sense of hopelessness (Miller and Seligman
1975; Nolen-Hoeksema et al. 1986; Presson and Benassi
1996).
More importantly, this study extended the literature by
examining adolescent mental health status not as a conse-
quence, but as a precursor of peer victimization. A great
deal of prior research has investigated the negative effects
of peer victimization on adolescent mental health (Bond
et al. 2001; Egan and Perry 1998; Hamilton et al. 2013).
Less is known about the role of poor mental health in
leading to peer victimization (Rigby et al. 2007; Turner
et al. 2010). The few studies investigating the effects of
adolescent mental health on peer victimization focus only
on symptoms of depression (Batanava and Loukas 2014)
and social anxiety (Yabko et al. 2008). The findings of the
current study clearly demonstrate that poor adolescent
mental health other than depression and/or anxiety as
indicated by elevated parent-related stress and the resulting
hopelessness creates risk of peer victimization. Indeed,
earlier research on bullying suggests that bullies tend to
seek out and value distressed and defeated characteristics
from their victims and such features serve to reinforce the
aggressor’s behavior (Perry et al. 2001; Schwartz et al.
1993). It is also worth noting that hopelessness in this study
indirectly mediated parental bonding and peer victimiza-
tion as an outcome variable of adolescent stress, suggesting
that the sense of hopelessness could be an important risk
factor for South Korean adolescent peer victimization.
These findings provide empirical evidence for prior studies
where children experiencing peer victimization showed a
tendency to believe their environment was uncontrollable
and others were being more capable of handling various
situations (Carney et al. 2002; Swearer et al. 2004).
Some gender differences found in this study are of
interest. As mentioned earlier, the results of bootstrapping
analysis indicated that maternal parental bonding had a
direct and greater impact on peer victimization for both
boys and girls than paternal parental bonding. These find-
ings suggest that a mother’s parenting practices are more
likely to influence an adolescent than a father’s. This is
perhaps because the mother, in general, is more often the
primary caregiver and with whom middle school-aged
adolescents still have the most interaction (Rogers et al.
2003). Particularly in Confucian East Asian cultures,
including South Korean culture, fathers are generally
breadwinners and mothers tend to socialize and care for the
children (Hong and Eamon 2009). Previous empirical
evidence also supports the importance of mother–adoles-
cent relationships compared to those of the father–adoles-
cent. For instance, Baron and MacGillivray (1989) found
that maternal psychological control accounted for 13 % of
variance in adolescent depression, while paternal psycho-
logical control did not significantly predict adolescent
123
H. Shin et al.
depression. Likewise, Rogers et al. (2003) found that
higher levels of paternal psychological control were asso-
ciated with adolescent internalizing symptoms only when
maternal psychological control was also high.
Furthermore, our results showed that paths differ across
adolescent gender. To be specific, a stronger and more
negative relationship between maternal bonding and ado-
lescent levels of stress was found among girls compared to
boys. This suggests that girls appear to be more affected by
inadequate maternal bonding than boys. In contrast, no
gender difference was found for the effects of paternal
bonding on adolescent stress. One researcher argues that
the relationship with the father is more powerful in
explaining an adolescent’s expectation of quality peer
interaction, especially for adolescent girls (Liu 2008).
However, other previous findings still support the power of
the mother–daughter relationship. For example, victimized
girls report a negative relationship with their mothers
(Rigby 1993) and more hostility toward their mothers
(Rican et al. 1993) than boys. Studies also report that girls
are more likely to respond to parent-related stressors with
internalizing symptoms (e.g., distress and depression) than
boys (Rosenfield et al. 2000). Research suggests that dif-
ferences in the interactive style of girls and boys may cause
such gender differences in stress levels because girls gen-
erally attempt to maintain harmonious relationships with
their meaningful others (e.g., mothers), whereas boys tend
to be self-assertive (Rosenfield et al. 2000; Rogers et al.
2003). That is, girls may be more likely than boys to
respond to intrusive parental control in a way that sup-
presses their feelings and thoughts, which may result in
elevated stress. In contrast, boys may be more likely than
girls to react with overt efforts to establish their own points
of view (Maccoby 1990; Rosenfield et al. 2000). This may
possibly alleviate stress levels among boys.
Lastly, a stronger and positive relationship between
adolescent levels of hopelessness and experiences of peer
victimization was found among boys compared to girls.
This gender difference is likely related to several unique
aspects of the male adolescent peer relationship. In terms
of boys’ peer groups, studies report that boys tend to
engage in rough play and competitive games (Rose and
Rudolph 2006; Schwartz et al. 1993). Consequently, boys
tend to focus more on dominance hierarchies than girls
(Rose and Rudolph 2006). Boys are also more likely to
experience physical forms of bullying, whereas girls are
more likely to be involved in relational and verbal forms of
bullying (Hanish and Guerra 2000; Huang et al. 2013). In
particular, Moon et al. (2007) conducted a qualitative
analysis using 473 cases of South Korean adolescent vic-
tims and found that physically and/or sociopsychologically
‘‘weak’’ was the main term used to describe characteristics
of male victims, while female victims were described as
The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining child stress and…
having ‘‘provocative’’ characteristics (Moon et al. 2007).
Because hopeless individuals typically exhibit pessimistic
beliefs about the future, have a negative self-image, and
display helpless responses when challenged (e.g., peer
conflicts) (Duke et al. 2011), such characteristics can make
hopeless male adolescents appear psychosocially and
physically weak in their peer groups. In summary, findings
from this study empirically demonstrate the mechanism
through which South Korean middle school-aged adoles-
cents experience peer victimization. Not only do environ-
mental factors (e.g., perceived parental bonding based on
the quality of the parent–child relationship) play a pre-
cursor role in peer victimization, but also child mental
health status (e.g., levels of stress and hopelessness) and
gender influence vulnerability to peer victimization as well.
Practical implications
The current results suggest several practical implications.
First, school personnel including teachers and school
counselors need to give special attention to adolescents
showing poor mental health (e.g., symptoms of being
stressed or feeling hopeless). School counselors could
administer school-wide mental health screening, including
assessing for stress and hopelessness in order to identify
students who display characteristics that place them at risk
of victimization. The early identification of adolescents
displaying psychosocial risk factors associated with vic-
timization may help school counselors effectively provide
preventive interventions. Teachers who interact with stu-
dents on a daily basis can observe students’ behaviors
firsthand, allowing them to refer students exhibiting mental
health problems and/or experiencing victimization to
school counselors for further follow-up. The multidimen-
sional whole-school approach can be a particularly effec-
tive prevention strategy, whereby all school staffs are
professionally trained to develop responsiveness and skills
in order to timely intervene for bullying incidents by col-
lectively using the school regulations, systematic moni-
toring, classroom curriculum, and collaboration with other
professionals and parents (Chan and Wong 2015a).
Second, parents of adolescents who are at risk of peer
victimization would benefit from reminders to use caution
when attempting to exert control over their children. Par-
ents may also need to be educated on the negative effects
of intrusive overprotection. Teachers and school counselors
need to help parents understand the importance of devel-
oping warm and supportive parent–child relationships in
order to prevent their children from feeling stressed and
hopeless and thus protect from subsequent potential risk of
peer victimization. School counselors may implement
parent education programs designed to introduce effective
communication skills and parenting practices. For
647
example, parents can learn to become good listeners, to be
empathetic of and respect their children’s feelings and
thoughts, and to use ‘‘I’’ messages in order to express their
care and support (Kwok et al. 2010).
Third, intervention for adolescents at risk of peer vic-
timization should target cultivation of cognitive and psy-
chosocial assets. While some intervention programs include
psychosocial constructs, fewer programs involve strategies
for reducing adolescent parent-related stress, hopelessness,
and a negative cognitive style. Based on the results from this
study, adolescents at risk of peer victimization may benefit
from guided training in stress management, active engage-
ment coping, and restructuring negative cognitive styles
particularly in the context of peer conflicts. For example,
classroom-wide guidance lessons designed to build problem-
solving skills may allow participants to better understand
their cognitive–affective responses to adversity (e.g., peer
conflicts) and to develop the ability to take advantage of life
opportunities (Bolland 2003). Cognitive behavioral therapy
(CBT) and rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) can be
used to improve irrational beliefs and their external locus of
control (Radliff et al. 2015). Through assertiveness training,
students become able to be assertive in reporting any bul-
lying incidents (Chan and Wong 2015a). In addition, ado-
lescents whose parents are controlling and overprotective
may be at a disadvantage in terms of accessing their emo-
tional resources for active coping in the face of stressful
situations such as conflicts with peers. Therefore, helping
adolescents develop other supportive interpersonal rela-
tionships (e.g., friends outside school, mentoring relation-
ships) may also offset the negative effects of controlling
parenting (Abaied and Emond 2013). In this vein, peer
support system is another tool for preventing school bully-
ing. Students who are unconfident about their social skills are
selected and trained to be peer supporters with the knowl-
edge and skills to handle peer conflicts. Students who have
good relationships with their peers are less likely to be vic-
timized (Chan and Wong 2015a).
Fourth, prevention efforts should consider a child’s
gender. For instance, school counselors might recommend
that girls who appear distressed or display interpersonal
difficulties (e.g., parent-related and/or peer-related diffi-
culties) participate in counseling groups that emphasize the
development of communal social skills in order to prevent
victimization (D’Esposito et al. 2011). As shown in this
study, maternal bonding was a significant predictor of
stress levels among girls. In particular, previous studies
suggest that girls developing coercive relations with their
parents are likely to exhibit provocative behavior in the
peer group, which may lead to victimization in girls (Fin-
negan et al. 1998; Perry et al. 2001). For boys believed to
be at risk of experiencing peer victimization, school
counselors might focus on overcoming boys’ perceived
123
648
limitations of hopelessness. Exemplary counseling pro-
grams especially for boys feeling hopeless should ‘‘help
participants to better understand their cognitive–affective
responses to adversity and to develop ability to take
advantage of life opportunities that they encounter (Bol-
land 2003, p. 156).’’
Limitations and recommendations for future
research
The current study is not without its limitations. First, data
were collected from 10 middle schools in the Busan area of
South Korea. While this was a broad sample, it was not a
representative sample of all adolescents in Korea. Several
empirical studies have documented significant differences
in peer victimization and student mental health status
among different regions (e.g., city vs rural areas) and
schools (Smokowski et al. 2013). More studies are needed
to understand the effects of other demographic variables
(e.g., geographic location and school climate). Second, it is
possible that our results reflect social desirability. Partici-
pants provided data using self-report measures. Third, all
data were collected at one time point using a cross-sec-
tional research design. Thus, the results of the study are
subject to correlation inflation. In the future, longitudinal or
experimental studies are needed to justify actual causal
mediation. Fourth, the current study did not conduct anal-
yses classifying two different types of victims: passive and
provocative victims. The latter appears both aggressive and
helpless, while the former seems merely submissive.
Researchers argue that provocative victims favor aggres-
sive behaviors yet are physically weak and emotionally
unstable and thus are easily victimized during peer con-
flicts (Perry et al. 2001). Further research is needed to
investigate how parental bonding and subsequent mental
health status differentially interact in predicting victim-
ization between passive and provocative victims.
References
Abaied, J. L., & Emond, C. (2013). Parent psychological control and
responses to interpersonal stress in emerging adulthood moder-
ating effects of behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation.
Emerging Adulthood, 1, 258–270.
Abaied, J. L., & Rudolph, K. D. (2011). Maternal influences on youth
responses to peer stress. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1776.
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopeless-
ness depression: A theory based subtype of depression. Psycho-
logical Review, 96, 358–372.
Bae, A. (2002). Mental health status of adolescents in Chonnam.
Paper presented at the symposium on Construction of a
Community Based Mental Health Management System for
Adolescents, Kwangju, Chonnam.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a
neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319.
123
H. Shin et al.
Baron, P., & MacGillivray, R. G. (1989). Depressive symptoms in
adolescents as a function of perceived parental behavior. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 4, 50–62.
Batanava, M. D., & Loukas, A. (2014). Maternal psychological
control and peer victimization in early adolescence: An appli-
cation of the family relationship schema model. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 34, 206–228.
Beck, A. T., & Weissmann, A. (1974). The measurement of
pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 861–865.
Bernstein, J. Y., & Watson, M. W. (1997). Children who are targets of
bullying: A victim pattern. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
12, 483–498.
Bolland, J. M. (2003). Hopelessness and risk behavior among
adolescents living in high-poverty inner-city neighborhoods.
Journal of Adolescence, 26, 145–158.
Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001).
Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of
young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480–484.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family
relationships of bullies, victims, and bully/victims in middle
childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,
215–232.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1–2). New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Brown, B. B., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). Parenting and peer
relationships: Reinvigorating research on family–peer linkages
in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21,
153–165.
Carney, J. V., Hazier, R. J., & Higgins, J. (2002). Characteristics of
school bullies and victims as perceived by public school
professionals. Journal of School Violence, 1, 91–106.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of
attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65,
971–991.
Chan, H. C. O., & Chui, W. H. (2013). Social bonds and school
bullying: A study of Macanese male adolescents on bullying
perpetration and peer victimization. Child & Youth Care Forum,
42, 599–616.
Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. W. (2015a). Traditional school
bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese societies: Prevalence and
a review of the whole-school intervention approach. Aggression
and Violent Behaviors, 23, 98–108.
Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. W. (2015b). The overlap between
school bullying perpetration and victimization: Assessing the
psychological familial and school factors of Chinese adolescents
in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Studies, 24, 3224–3234.
Cho, E. (2000). A study of psychological factors associated with
bullying. Unpublished master thesis, Sogang University, Seoul,
Korea.
Cho, H., & Seo, Y. (2010). Parental attachment, separation-individ-
uation adult attachment college adjustment and psychological
distress among college freshmen. The Korean Journal of
Counseling and Psychotherapy, 22, 385–411.
Choi, E. S., & Chae, J. H. (2000). A study of psychological factors
associated with bullying. Understanding People, 21, 109–137.
D’Esposito, S., Blake, J., & Riccio, C. (2011). Adolescents’
vulnerability to peer victimization: Interpersonal and intraper-
sonal predictors. Professional School Counseling, 14, 299–309.
Doh, H. S. (2002). A study on victimized children: Demographic
characteristics and parenting behaviors. Human Life Environ-
ment Research, 1, 57–71.
Duke, N. N., Borowsky, I. W., Pettingell, S. L., & McMorris, B. J.
(2011). Examining youth hopelessness as an independent risk
The relationship between parental bonding and peer victimization: examining child stress and…
correlate for adolescent delinquency and violence. Maternal and
Child Health Journal, 15, 87–97.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite
victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005).
Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of
children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health
Education Research, 20, 81–91.
Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization
by peers: Associations with children’s reports of mother–child
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1076–1086.
FPYV (Foundation for Preventing Youth Violence). (2012). The
national research of school violence. Seoul: Foundation for
Preventing Youth violence.
Griffith, M. A. (1992). Developmental differences in adolescent
coping with family, school, and peer stressors. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling
Green, OH.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, L., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Hamilton, J. L., Shapero, B. G., Stange, J. P., Hamlat, E. J.,
Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2013). Emotional maltreat-
ment, peer victimization, and depressive versus anxiety symp-
toms during adolescence: Hopelessness as a mediator. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42, 332–347.
Han, Y., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2013). Parenting and youth
psychosocial well-being in South Korea using fixed-effects
models. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 689–715.
Han, M., & Yoo, A. (1995). Development of daily hassles scale for
children in Korea. Family and Environment Research, 33, 49–64.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). Children who get victimized at
school: What is known? What can be done? Professional School
Counseling, 4, 113–119.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K.,
& Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/
victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 21, 29–49.
Hodges, E. V., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal
antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685.
Hong, J. S., & Eamon, M. K. (2009). An ecological approach to
understanding peer victimization in South Korea. The Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 611–625.
Hong, J. S., Espelage, D. L., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Allen-Meares, P.
(2012). Identifying potential mediators and moderators of the
association between child maltreatment and bullying perpetra-
tion and victimization in school. Educational Psychology
Review, 24, 167–186.
Hong, J. S., Lee, C. H., Lee, J., Lee, N. Y., & Garbarino, J. (2014). A
review of bullying prevention and intervention in South Korean
schools: An application of the social-ecological framework.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45, 433–442.
Huang, H., Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Understanding
factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in
Chinese schools within ecological contexts. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 22, 881–892.
Jeon, H., & Lee, K. (2002). The effects of early attachment history
with mother on adolescent attachment formation and stress
perception. Korean Journal of Youth Studies., 9, 191–210.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User reference
guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kennedy, J. H., & Kennedy, C. E. (2004). Attachment theory:
Implications for school psychology. Psychology in the Schools,
41, 247–259.
649
Kim, J. H., & Lee, D. W. (1996). A study on strain and juvenile
delinquency. Seoul: Korean Institution of Criminology.
Korean Statistical Information Service. (2014). Result of statistics for
Korea youth risk behavior web-based survey. Retrieved October
20, 2015 from: http://www.kosis.kr/.
Kwak, K., & Lee, S. (2016). The Korean research tradition on wang-
ta. In P. K. Smith, K. Kwak, & Y. Toda (Eds.), School bullying
in different cultures: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp.
93–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kwok, L., Sylvia, Y. C., & Shek, D. T. (2010). Hopelessness, parent-
adolescent communication, and suicidal ideation among Chinese
adolescents in Hong Kong. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 40, 224–233.
Ladd, G. W. (1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes
in family-peer relationships. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),
Family peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 3–34).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of
maternal and paternal support and control to adolescent social
competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 19, 759–782.
Landis, D., Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Malinowdukdukduki, S. L.,
Grant, K. E., Carleton, R. A., & Ford, R. E. (2007). Urban
adolescent stress and hopelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 30,
1051–1070.
Lee, K., Ji, S., Oh, I., Song, M., Chang, J., Chung, J., et al. (2014).
The theory and practice of bullying prevention. Seoul: Hakjisa
Publishing. (in Korean).
Liu, Y. L. (2008). An examination of three models of the relationships
between parental attachments and adolescents’ social function-
ing and depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 37, 941–952.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental
account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.
Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of
subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child maltreat-
ment on social competence and behavior problems. Development
and Psychopathology, 6, 121–143.
McCarthy, C. J., Moller, N. P., & Fouladi, R. T. (2001). Continued
attachment to parents: Its relationship to affect regulation and
perceived stress among college students. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 198–213.
Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Depression and learned
helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84,
228–238.
Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2013). The relationship between
perceived parental bonding and bullying: The mediating role of
empathy. The European Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2,
1–16.
Moon, Y., Choi, J., Paek, S., & Kim, Y. (2007). Gender difference in
the occurrence of school violence analyzing victim’s counseling
cases. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 21,
703–722.
National Statistics Office. (2008). Youth violence victimization. In
Youth statistics: 2008 youth statistics. Seoul: Korean Statistical
Information Service.
Ngai, S., & Cheung, C. K. (2009). The effects of parental care and
parental control on the internal assets of adolescent children in
Hong Kong. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15,
235–255.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986).
Learned helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of
depression, achievement, and explanatory style. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435–442.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bully/victims problems among school-children:
Long-term consequences and an effective intervention program.
123
650
In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 317–349).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.
Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of
chronic victimization by peers: A review and new model of
family influence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer
harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimized (pp. 73–104). New York: Guilford.
Presson, P. K., & Benassi, V. A. (1996). Locus of control orientation
and depressive symptomatology: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 201–212.
Radliff, K. M., Wang, C., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Bullying and peer
victimization an examination of cognitive and psychosocial
constructs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,. doi:10.1177/
0886260515572476.
Rican, P., Klicperova, M., & Koucka, T. (1993). Families of bullies
and their victims: A children’s view. Studia Psychologica, 35,
261–265.
Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and
parents as a function of peer relations. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 154, 501–513.
Rigby, K., Slee, P. T., & Martin, G. (2007). Implications of
inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adoles-
cent mental health. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 801–812.
Rogers, K. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Winchell, M. E. (2003).
Psychological control during early adolescence: Links to
adjustment in differing parent/adolescent dyads. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 23, 349–383.
Rose, D. T., & Abramson, L. (1992). Developmental predictors of
depressive cognitive style: Research and theory. In D. Cicchetti
& S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental
psychopathology (Vol. 4, pp. 323–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in
peer relationship processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional
and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Rosenfield, S., Vertefuille, J., & McAlpine, D. D. (2000). Gender
stratification and mental health: An exploration of dimensions of
the self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 208–223.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998).
Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable
structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45, 18–29.
Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to
study and practice: A critical analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, S. (2001). Child-parent
attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100.
Schraml, K., Perski, A., Grossi, G., & Simonsson-Sarnecki, M.
(2011). Stress symptoms among adolescents: The role of
subjective psychosocial conditions, lifestyle, and self-esteem.
Journal of Adolescence, 34, 987–996.
123
View publication stats
H. Shin et al.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of
chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Devel-
opment, 64, 1755–1772.
Seiffe-Krenke, I. (2006). Leaving home or still in the nest? Parent-
child relationships and psychological health as predictors of
different leaving home patterns. Developmental Psychology, 42,
864–876.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2011). Coping with relationship stressors: A
decade review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21,
196–210.
Seligman, M. E. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of
Medicine, 23, 407–412.
Shin, J., Hong, J. S., Yoon, J., & Espelage, D. L. (2014). Interparental
conflict, parenting behavior, and children’s friendship quality as
correlates of peer aggression and peer victimization among
aggressor/victim subgroups in South Korea. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 29, 1933–1952.
Smokowski, P. R., Cotter, K. L., Robertson, C., & Guo, S. (2013).
Demographic, psychological, and school environment correlates
of bullying victimization and school hassles in rural youth.
Journal of Criminology,. doi:10.1155/2013/137583.
Song, J. (1992). The development of the parental bonding instrument-
Korea version: Evaluation of the test reliability and validity.
Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association, 31, 979–992.
Swearer, W. M., Grills, A. E., Haye, K. M., & Cary, P. T. (2004).
Internalizing problems in students involved in bullying and
victimization: Implications for intervention. In D. L. Espelage &
S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-
ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp.
63–83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
The Korea Herald. (2014). Korean children least happy in OECD.
Retrieved from September 10, 2015 from http://www.koreaher
ald.com/view.php?ud=20141105000701.
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2010). Child mental
health problems as risk factors for victimization. Child Mal-
treatment, 15, 132–143.
Updegraff, K. A., Madden-Derdich, D. A., Estrada, A. U., Sales, L. J.,
& Leonard, S. A. (2002). Young adolescents’ experiences with
parents and friends: Exploring the connections. Family Rela-
tions, 51, 72–80.
Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Kupanoff, K.
(2001). Parents’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships:
A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63, 655–668.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation
modeling with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In
R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yabko, B. A., Hokoda, A., & Ulloa, E. C. (2008). Depression as a
mediator between family factors and peer-bullying victimization
in Latino adolescents. Violence and Victims, 23, 727–742.