J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
DOI 10.1007/s10964-017-0677-5
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Continued Bullying Victimization in Adolescents: Maladaptive
Schemas as a Mediational Mechanism
Esther Calvete 1 Liria Fernández-González1 Joaquín M. González-Cabrera2
● ●
Manuel Gámez-Guadix3
Received: 13 April 2017 / Accepted: 17 April 2017 / Published online: 22 April 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Bullying victimization in adolescence is a sig-
nificant social problem that can become persistent over time
for some victims. However, there is an overall paucity of
research examining the factors that contribute to continued
bullying victimization. Schema therapy proposes a model
that can help us understand why bullying victimization can
be persistent for some victims. This study examines the role
of maladaptive schemas, the key concept in schema therapy,
as a mechanism of continued bullying victimization. The
hypothesis was that maladaptive schemas of rejection
mediate the predictive association between victimization in
both the family and at school and future bullying victimi-
zation. Social anxiety was also considered, as previous
research suggests that it can increase the risk of victimiza-
tion. The participants were 1328 adolescents (45% female)
with a mean age of 15.05 years (SD = 1.37), who com-
pleted questionnaires at three time points with a 6-month
interval between them. Time 2 maladaptive schemas of
rejection significantly mediated the predictive association
from Time 1 bullying victimization, family abuse and social
anxiety to Time 3 bullying victimization. The findings
pertaining to potentially malleable factors, such as mala-
daptive schemas that maintain continued interpersonal vic-
timization, have important implications for prevention and
treatment strategies with adolescents.
* Esther Calvete
esther.calvete@deusto.es
1
University of Deusto, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain
2
International University of la Rioja, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain
3
Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
●
Keywords Bullying victimization Maladaptive schemas
● ●
Social anxiety Family emotional abuse
●
Introduction
Bullying victimization is a severe problem in schools. A
student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is
exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on
the part of one or more students (Olweus 2013). Devel-
opmentally, bullying peaks during the middle school years
and declines somewhat by the end of high school (Hymel
and Swearer 2015; Kljakovic and Hunt 2016). As a con-
sequence of bullying victimization, victims can experience
adjustment difficulties, including depression and social
anxiety (e.g., Calvete et al. 2016b; Sigurdson et al. 2015;
Turner et al. 2013). Bullying victimization can become
persistent over time for some adolescents. The results of a
recent meta-analysis indicated that chronic victimization
ranges from 8 to 43%, depending on study characteristics,
and that it increases with age (Pouwels et al. 2016). The
perpetuation of victimization seems to be similar in both
boys and girls (Benedini et al. 2016).
Chronic victimization can lead to more severe symptoms
of maladjustment, as compared to transient victimization
(Rueger et al. 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to identify
the factors that increase the risk of ongoing bullying victi-
mization for some adolescents. Although previous research
suggests that some characteristics of the victims, such as
social anxiety (Storch et al. 2005), can perpetuate the risk of
being a victim, there is an overall paucity of research
examining the factors that contribute to continued bullying
victimization. Schema therapy (Young et al. 2003) proposes
a model that can help us understand why bullying victi-
mization can be persistent for some victims. In this study,
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
we examined the role of maladaptive schemas, the key
concept in schema therapy, as a mechanism of continued
bullying victimization.
Maladaptive Schemas and Continued Bullying
Victimization
Developmental models of psychopathology propose that
victimization experiences in childhood can threaten the
security of attachment relationships and lead to maladaptive
schemas related to how victims feel about themselves and
how they perceive relationships with others (Hankin et al.
2013). Maladaptive schemas are defined in schema therapy
as broad, dysfunctional and pervasive patterns, consisting of
memories, emotions, cognitions and bodily sensations about
oneself and one’s relationships with others (Young et al.
2003). Maladaptive schemas are relevant for developmental
science because they are hypothesized to originate early in
childhood and to be developed throughout one’s lifetime.
The construct of maladaptive schemas maintains the
cognitive processing component that is central to earlier
definitions of cognitive schemas (Beck 1967), but it also
includes several other components (i.e., feelings, bodily
sensations) and is more focused on thematic content
(Zeigler-Hill et al. 2011). The schema therapy model has
proposed the existence of five maladaptive schema domains
or categories, according to the unmet emotional needs of the
child: rejection, impaired autonomy, other-directedness,
impaired limits and unrelenting standards. Among them, the
maladaptive schemas of rejection are particularly relevant in
the context of victimization, as previous studies have found
that these schemas can be an outcome of victimization both
in the family (Gay et al. 2013) and at school (Calvete 2014;
Calvete et al. 2015). Maladaptive schemas of rejection
involve the expectation that one’s needs for acceptance and
respect will not be fulfilled. They include contents such as
defectiveness, which manifests as a feeling of unworthiness
and the belief that one is defective in some way, and mis-
trust, which is expressed as the belief that others are abusers
who intentionally do harm. Girls usually score higher on
maladaptive schemas of rejection than boys (Calvete et al.
2013a).
How can maladaptive schemas contribute to explaining
continued victimization? Schema therapy provides a theo-
retical model to explain why endorsing certain schemas can
contribute to generating new situations of victimization. As
indicated above, early negative experiences in the family
and at school, such as victimization, are proposed to act as
origins of maladaptive schemas. Once the schemas develop,
they tend to be perpetuated. Maladaptive schemas, although
very negative, manage to survive because of the human
need for consistency. Specifically, schema therapy proposes
three maladaptive coping styles to adapt to schemas. The
651
first is schema surrender. When individuals surrender to a
schema, they accept that the content of the schema is true
and act in ways that confirm the schema (Young et al.
2003). For example, an adolescent scoring high in the
schemas of rejection could more easily make hostile attri-
butions to the behavior of peers in ambiguous contexts and
react aggressively (Calvete and Orue 2012). This aggressive
reaction may, in turn, increase the likelihood of being
rejected by peers. The second maladaptive coping style is
schema avoidance, which involves cognitive, behavioral
and emotional strategies to avoid the activation of the
schema. For example, an adolescent with the same schemas
of rejection could avoid interacting with others in order to
avoid being rejected. This isolation can lead other peers to
interpret that he/she is unfriendly and arrogant, thus invo-
luntarily making the adolescent a target for abuse by others.
The last coping style is schema overcompensation, which
consists of behaviors and thoughts that seek to compensate
for the limitations or weaknesses implicit in the schemas.
Following the same example, an adolescent endorsing the
schemas of rejection can abuse others to avoid being
rejected and abused by them (“get them before they get
you”; Young et al. 2003). The adolescent’s own aggressive
behaviors toward peers would, in turn, increase the risk of
becoming a victim of bullying. This is consistent with
studies indicating that reactive aggression can increase the
risk of victimization, particularly in bully-victims (Yang
and Salmivalli 2015). Thus, from the theory of schema
therapy, it can be surmised that victimization in the school
and in the family can lead to the development of mala-
daptive schemas in the victims, and that these schemas in
turn increase the likelihood of future victimization.
Maladaptive Schemas as a Mediational Mechanism
between Family Maltreatment and Bullying
Victimization
It has been suggested that victimization in one context (e.g.,
in the family) may increase the risk of victimization in other
contexts. For instance, a link has been found between
maltreatment by parents during childhood and later peer
victimization (Benedini et al. 2016; Lereya et al. 2013). The
identification of mechanisms that act as a bridge between
different forms of victimization is important because
experiencing victimization across multiple contexts is rela-
ted to severe negative outcomes (e.g., Turner et al. 2016).
However, little is known about the mechanisms explaining
the link between victimization in the family and school
settings. As maladaptive schemas have been found to
worsen as a consequence of victimization in both the family
and at school (Calvete 2014; Gay et al. 2013), they may act
not only as a mechanism for the continuity of bullying
victimization over time, but also as a mediating mechanism
652
that accounts for the predictive relationship between victi-
mization in the family and bullying victimization.
Social Anxiety, Bullying Victimization and Maladaptive
Schemas
Symptoms of social anxiety have been found to be asso-
ciated with experiences of abuse in the school (Calvete
2014; Turner et al. 2013; Wichstrøm et al. 2013) and in the
family setting (Bruce et al. 2012; Simon et al. 2009). In
addition, social anxiety symptoms may contribute to mak-
ing some adolescents more vulnerable to bullying victimi-
zation and, therefore, to continued victimization (Pabian
and Vandebosch 2016; Storch et al. 2005). For instance,
symptoms of social anxiety could encourage bullies to
choose them as victims, believing that they will have more
difficulty defending themselves. Thus, social anxiety could
not only be a consequence of victimization, it could also act
as a factor that increases the risk of future bullying victi-
mization. Moreover, the role of social anxiety in bullying
victimization could be stronger among girls because they
usually score higher than boys on social anxiety (Caballo
et al. 2014).
Importantly, several maladaptive schemas are present in
adolescents with social anxiety symptoms (Calvete et al.
2013b). Previous research indicates that maladaptive sche-
mas mediate between experiences of bullying victimization
and the increase of social anxiety symptoms (Calvete 2014)
and that social anxiety accounts for the relationship between
some maladaptive schemas and social functioning (Cohen
et al. 2015). Thus, both social anxiety and maladaptive
schemas could be involved as mediational mechanisms of
continued bullying victimization.
The Current Study
Continued bullying victimization is associated with severe
negative consequences for victims (Rueger et al. 2011).
However, little research has been done on the factors that
may contribute to chronic victimization. Although multiple
factors are involved in bullying in schools (e.g., attitudes
justifying aggression, exposure to violence, etc.), in this
study we focused on maladaptive schemas. Grounded on the
assumptions of schema therapy (Young et al. 2003), we
proposed that experiences of victimization in both the family
environment and at school can contribute to the development
of maladaptive schemas in adolescents, and that these sche-
mas, in turn, can lead to the increased likelihood of new
experiences of victimization, thus contributing to the stability
of victimization over time. We expected this hypothetical
mediating mechanism to be specific to maladaptive schemas
of rejection, which include contents such as mistrust,
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
defectiveness and emotional deprivation. Thus, we expected
that maladaptive schemas of a different category (impaired
autonomy) would not mediate the predictive association
between victimization in the past and future victimization.
We also included measures of social anxiety in the study,
as it has been found that social anxiety can be both a
consequence of abuse in the family/at school (Bruce et al.
2012; Turner et al. 2013) and an antecedent of bullying
victimization (Wichstrøm et al. 2013), and that maladaptive
schemas are present in adolescents who are socially anxious
(Calvete et al. 2013b). Thus, we hypothesized that social
anxiety symptoms could also act as a mediating mechanism
between prior victimization in the family/at school and
future bullying victimization, and that maladaptive schemas
would mediate the association between social anxiety and
future bullying victimization, thus contributing to prolonged
victimization over time.
Finally, gender differences were examined. Although
previous studies suggest that perpetuation of victimization
is similar in both boys and girls (Benedini et al. 2016) and
that other cognitive styles lead to victimization in both boys
and girls (Hamilton et al. 2013), the mediational paths could
be different, as girls traditionally score higher than boys on
maladaptive schemas of rejection (Calvete et al. 2013a, b)
and social anxiety (Caballo et al. 2014).
To evaluate the above hypotheses, we conducted a three-
wave longitudinal study with a large sample of adolescents
who completed measures of bullying victimization, mala-
daptive schemas and social anxiety symptoms. In addition,
family emotional abuse was assessed at the beginning of the
study, and thus the study also contributes to expanding
knowledge about the association between victimization in
different contexts in adolescence, a developmental stage
when victimization experiences are associated with severe
negative outcomes (Turner et al. 2016).
Method
Participants
The total sample consisted of 1460 adolescents who were
invited to participate in the study. They came from 51
classrooms at 8 educational centers in Bizkaia (Spain). The
schools were randomly selected from the list of available
schools in Bizkaia. Of the 1460 adolescents, 1311 adoles-
cents completed measures at T1 (participation rate:
89.79%), 1197 completed measures at T1 and T2 (partici-
pation rate: 81.99%), and 1001 completed measures during
all three waves of the study (participation rate: 68.56%).
The attrition rate was the result of absences from school due
to illness and mistakes in the codes used to pair measures
over time. For this study, 1328 adolescents who completed
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
measures in at least two of the three waves of the study were
selected (597 girls, 729 boys, and 2 subjects who did not
indicate their gender). Participants were between 12 and 17
years of age at the beginning of the study (M = 15.05; SD
= 1.37). The socio-economic levels were determined
according to the criteria recommended by the Spanish
Society of Epidemiology (2000) for parental education and
income. The socio-economic levels showed the following
distribution: 6% low, 17.8% low-medium, 28.4% medium,
24.1% high-medium, and 23.7% high.
Instruments
Bullying victimization
The 7-item victimization subscale of the Peer Relations
Questionnaire for Children (PRQ; Rigby 1996) was used to
assess victimization by peers. One item described physical
victimization (e.g., “They hit me or push me”), and the
remaining items described emotional victimization (e.g.,
“They pick on me at school”, “They exclude me from the
group on purpose”). Participants were asked to indicate the
frequency with which this type of experience had occurred in
the last 6 months on a 4-point response scale ranging from 1
(never) to 4 (very often). The Spanish version was developed
by means of a translation and back-translation procedure, and
its structure was confirmed (Calvete 2014). Studies have
shown this questionnaire to be an adequate measure of the
bullying experience, with good validity and reliability (e.g.,
Bond et al. 2007). In the current study, the alpha coefficients
were .84, .85, and .83 at T1, T2 and T3, respectively.
Emotional abuse by parents
A Spanish adaptation of the Psychological Abuse Scale of the
Conflict Tactics Scales-Parent-to-Child Version (CTS-PC;
Straus et al. 1998) was used to measure parent-to-child emo-
tional abuse. The scale is composed of 5 items that are asked
twice, once referring to the mother and once again referring to
the father (e.g., “At home, my mother/my father makes me feel
worthless”). In the Spanish version, participants were asked to
indicate the frequency with which these experiences had
occurred in the past on a 4-point response scale ranging from 1
(never) to 4 (very often). The Spanish version was developed
by means of a translation and back-translation procedure and
has been shown to have adequate psychometric properties
(Calvete 2014). In this study, the alpha coefficient was .78.
Maladaptive schemas
The Young Schema Questionnaire-3 (YSQ-3; Young 2006)
was used to assess maladaptive schemas. Although the
YSQ-3 consists of 90 items and assesses five maladaptive
653
schema categories, we only used 30 items to assess schemas
of rejection and schemas of impaired autonomy. The
schemas of rejection included items with these contents:
mistrust, emotional deprivation, defectiveness, and aban-
donment. Mistrust describes the expectation that others will
hurt, abuse or humiliate the individual (e.g., “I feel that
people will take advantage of me”). Emotional deprivation
involves the belief that others will not adequately meet
one’s need for emotional support (e.g., “For much of my
life, I haven’t felt that I am special to anyone”). Defective-
ness describes the feeling that one is defective, unwanted, or
invalid in significant aspects (e.g., “I feel that I’m not
lovable”). Abandonment refers to the perception that sig-
nificant others will not continue to provide emotional sup-
port because they will abandon the individual in favor of
someone better (e.g., “I need other people so much that I
worry about losing them”). The schemas of impaired
autonomy included contents related to vulnerability to
harm, which involves an exaggerated fear that a random
catastrophe could strike at any time and that one will be
unable to prevent it (e.g., “I worry about being attacked”),
and failure, which involves the belief that one has failed,
will inevitably fail or is fundamentally inadequate as com-
pared to one’s peers in different areas of achievement (e.g.,
“I’m incompetent when it comes to achievement”). Partici-
pants rated each item on a 6-point scale ranging from 1
(completely untrue of me) to 6 (describes me perfectly). The
Spanish version of the YSQ-3 has shown good psycho-
metric properties, with confirmation of the factor structure
and adequate alpha coefficients for the scales (Calvete et al.
2013a). Alpha coefficients in this study were .89 and .91 for
the schemas of rejection, and .81 and .84 for the schemas of
impaired autonomy at T1 and T2, respectively.
Social anxiety
The 18-item Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A,
La Greca and López 1998) was used to assess symptoms of
social anxiety in terms of the fear of negative evaluation,
social avoidance or distress specific to new situations and
general social avoidance. The items are described in the
form of self-statements (e.g., “I get nervous when I talk to
peers that I don’t know very well”) to which participants
must respond according to a 5-point response scale ranging
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). The SAS-A is an
adaptation of the SAS-Revised (La Greca and Stone 1993),
and has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Inder-
bitzen-Nolan and Walters 2000). The Spanish version of the
questionnaire has also shown good psychometric properties
(Olivares et al. 2005). In the current study, the alpha coef-
ficients were .89 and .92 for T1 and T2, respectively.
654
Procedure
The adolescents completed the questionnaires in their
classrooms at three different time points, which were spaced
6 months apart. They completed measures of bullying vic-
timization at all three times, measures of anxious automatic
thoughts and maladaptive schemas at T1 and T2, and
measures of parental abuse at T1. In order to pair the
questionnaires of T1, T2, and T3, a code known only by the
participant was used. Participation was voluntary, and the
adolescents were informed that their responses were con-
fidential and would only be read by the research team. A
trained psychologist guided the data collection in the
classrooms. The Ethics Committee of the University of
[masked name of the university] approved this study.
Because there were no student names included on the sur-
veys, the school staff chose to collect passive consent from
parents. Thus, parents were informed and given the option
of refusing to allow their child’s participation. No parent
refused to allow their child’s participation.
Data Analytic Plan
As participants in this study were nested in classrooms, we
estimated the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for all
the variables in the study. ICC values were small and ranged
from .028 to .046, which indicates that variability between
classrooms is small, and thus it is not necessary to include a
multilevel approach to the hypothesized model of the study.
To test the study hypotheses, Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) was used, with LISREL 9.2, with Full Information
Maximum Likelihood (FIML) to manage missing values.
Three item-parcels were used as indicators of the latent
variables of schemas and social anxiety. Two item-parcels
were used for bullying and family emotional abuse because
these variables include few items. Items were assigned to
parcels after conducting an exploratory factor analysis, with
all the items corresponding to a latent variable in such a way
that factor loadings were balanced within parcels. To do
this, we used a procedure described by Little et al. (2002).
For instance, for the schemas of rejection, using the load-
ings as a guide, we started by employing the three items
with the highest loadings to anchor the three parcels. The
three items with the next highest item-to-construct loadings
were added to the anchors in reverse order. The highest
loaded item from among the anchor items was matched with
the lowest loaded item from among the second selections. If
more items were available, the basic procedure was con-
tinued by placing lower loaded items with higher loaded
parcels. The error terms of the same variable assessed on
different occasions were treated as correlated.
We estimated the hypothesized model after examining the
invariance of the model over time. The steps proposed by
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
Little (2013) were followed. First, the configural invariance,
which implies that the relations between each indicator and
its construct have the same pattern of fixed and freed load-
ings at each wave, was tested. Second, the configural model
was compared to a more restrictive model (a weak factorial
invariance model), which implies that factor loadings within
constructs across time points are equal. Third, the weak
factorial invariance model was compared to a more restrictive
model (a strong factorial invariance model), which implies
that each intercept is specified to be mathematically equal
over time. Next, we tested the hypothesized model, which
included autoregressive paths for bullying victimization from
T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3, and for maladaptive schemas
and social anxiety from T1 to T2. In addition, the model
included predictive paths from all variables measured at T1
to all T2 and T3 variables, and from all T2 variables to T3
bullying victimization. Age was included in the model to
control its associations with the rest of the variables.
Lastly, we examined whether the mediational model was
invariant across male and female subsamples through a
multiple-group analysis. These analyses involved several
steps. First, we estimated the model for boys and girls
separately. Second, we tested the configural invariance of
the model to demonstrate that the pattern of fixed and free
parameters was equivalent across subsamples. Third, we
tested the weak factorial invariance, which involves speci-
fying factor loadings as equal in boys and girls. Finally, we
tested the invariance of the paths linking the longitudinal
latent variables of the model.
The goodness of the model fit was evaluated using the
comparative fit index (CFI), the non-normative fit index
(NNFI) and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). Generally, CFI and NNFI values of .90 or higher
reflect a good fit. RMSEA values lower than .06 indicate an
excellent fit (Little 2013). We used ΔCFI to compare nested
models as change in χ2 is highly influenced by sample size.
A value of ΔCFI smaller than or equal to .01 indicates that
the null hypothesis of invariance should not be rejected
(Cheung and Rensvold 2002).
Results
Descriptive Analyses
Around half of the adolescents had suffered at least one act
of bullying victimization in the last 6 months. Specifically,
the percentage of participants who had been victims of
some type of bullying behavior was 57.7% at T1, 52.9% at
T2, and 48.1% at T3. The prevalence of bullying victimi-
zation was slightly higher for boys than girls at all waves
(57.8 and 57.5% at T1; 55.0 and 50.3% at T2; and 48.9 and
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660 655

47.4% at T3), although differences were only marginally
significant at T2: χ2 (1, N = 1260) = 2.74, p = .098.
Table 1 displays the correlation coefficients among all
the variables of the study, as well as the means and standard
deviations for T1, T2, and T3. As can be seen, all the
coefficients were statistically significant, and several of
them were particularly strong (r ≥ .6). The pattern of coef-
ficients between T1 variables was very similar to the pattern
of coefficients between T2 variables. Adolescent girls
scored higher on social anxiety and maladaptive schemas at
both T1 and T2, whereas adolescent boys scored slightly
higher on the frequency of bullying victimization at all three
waves (Table 2). There were no significant differences in
family abuse as a function of gender.
Predictive Model
Measurement invariance over time
In the first step, we found that the configural invariance
model fits the data well: FIML χ2(144, N = 1328) = 317, p
< .001, RMSEA = .035 (90% CI[.030, .041]), NNFI
= .982, and CFI = .988. In the second step, the invariance
of factor loadings was tested. This constriction involved a
change in CFI of .002, which is therefore within the cut-off
proposed by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). Thus, the
invariance in the factor loadings over time was tenable. In
the third step, we tested the strong factorial invariance of the
model. This constriction involved a change in CFI of .004,
which suggested that the invariance in the intercepts over
time was tenable.
Hypothesized mediational model
Building on the above model, we tested the hypothesized
structural model. The findings indicated that all
autoregressive paths were statistically significant, pointing
to the stability of the measures over time. In addition, all T1
variables (i.e., abuse in the family, bullying victimization,
and social anxiety) predicted an increase in the schemas of
rejection at T2, and the schemas in turn predicted an
increase of bullying victimization at T3. In addition, the
schemas of rejection at T1 predicted an increase in bullying
victimization at T2 and both bullying victimization and
schemas at T1 predicted an increase in social anxiety at T2
(Figure 1). The model fits the data well: FIML χ2(159, N =
1328) = 440, p < .001, RMSEA = .043 (90% CI[.038,
.048]), NNFI = .974, and CFI = .980. Next, the significance
of the mediational paths was examined via 5000 boot-
strapping samples. The results indicated that the schemas of
rejection acted as a mediating variable between T1 family
abuse and T3 bullying victimization (0.231; 95% CI[0.067,
0.395]), between T1 bullying victimization and T3 bullying
victimization (0.215; 95% CI[0.075, 0.355]), and between
T1 social anxiety and T3 bullying victimization (0.398;
95% CI[0.114, 0.682]).
Alternative model
We tested an alternative model with the schemas of
impaired autonomy. The findings indicated that these
schemas did not mediate the association between T1 and T3
bullying victimization. In the impaired autonomy model,
most of the paths were similar to those obtained for schemas
of rejection. However, the schemas of impaired autonomy
did not predict an increase in bullying victimization from
either T1 to T2 or from T2 to T3. Fit indexes were good:
FIML χ2(159, N = 1328) = 397, p < .001, RMSEA = .040
(90% CI[.035,.044]), NNFI = .975, and CFI = .981.

Table 1 Correlation coefficients between the study variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean SD

1. T1 Family emotional abuse 1 0.48 0.49

2. T1 Bullying victimization .171** 1 1.81 2.49
3. T1 Schemas of rejection .310** .425** 1 2.32 0.82
4. T1 Social anxiety .157** .364** .671** 1 41.44 12.79
5. T1 Schemas of impaired autonomy .290** .310** .702** .474** 1 2.50 0.95
6. T2 Bullying victimization .154** .631** .353** .263** .239** 1 1.69 2.65
7. T2 Schemas of rejection .279** .389** .681** .550** .498** .446** 1 2.20 0.85
8. T2 Social anxiety .168** .331** .516** .597** .376** .380** .708** 1 40.50 13.25
9. T2 Schemas of impaired autonomy .282** .304** .540** .408** .659** .360** .755** .582** 1 2.38 0.99
10. T3 Bullying victimization .202** .530** .298** .189** .216** .594** .346** .307** .248** 1.49 2.40
T1 Time 1 (n = 1311), T2 Time 2 (n = 1197), T3 Time 3 (n = 1001)
**p < .001
656 J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660

Table 2 Sex differences in the

Girls Boys Differences
variables of the study
Mean SD Mean SD t p d

T1 Family emotional abuse 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.230 .818 0.02
T1 Bullying victimization 1.57 2.13 1.96 2.75 −2.291 .020 −0.16
T1 Schemas of rejection 2.41 0.80 2.22 0.83 3.478 .001 0.23
T1 Social anxiety 42.91 12.51 39.94 12.7 3.598 <.001 0.24
T1 Schemas of impaired autonomy 2.672 0.960 2.362 0.921 5.900 <.001 0.34
T2 Bullying victimization 1.39 2.15 1.88 2.94 −2.581 .010 −0.19
T2 Schemas of rejection 2.28 0.81 2.11 0.86 3.363 <.001 0.20
T2 Social anxiety 42.19 12.80 38.90 13.44 3.941 <.001 0.25
T2 Schemas of impaired autonomy 2.494 0.997 2.276 0.977 3.962 <.001 0.22
T3 Bullying victimization 1.30 1.99 1.58 2.58 −1.504 .133 −0.12
T1 Time 1 (n = 1311), T2 Time 2 (n = 1197), T3 Time 3 (n = 1001)

Fig. 1 Longitudinal paths for

continued bullying
victimization. Note: The values
represent standardized
coefficients. T1 Time 1,
T2 Time 2, T3 Time 3, *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001

Gender Differences for the Predictive Model
We examined whether the hypothesized model was invar-
iant for boys and girls. The model was estimated separately
for boys (FIML χ2(159, N = 729) = 381, p < .001, RMSEA
= .052 (90% CI[.046, .059]), NNFI = .963 and CFI = .972)
and girls (FIML χ2(159, N = 597) = 266, p < .001,
RMSEA = .039 (90% CI[.030, .047]), NNFI = .977 and
CFI = .983). The path from family abuse to the schemas of
rejection was not significant in the sample of boys. We then
tested the configural invariance of the model to demonstrate
that the pattern of fixed and free parameters was equivalent
across subsamples. This model displayed good fit indexes:
FIML χ2(308, N = 1326) = 661, p < .001, RMSEA = .042
(90% CI[.037, .046]), NNFI = .972 and CFI = .964. Next,
we estimated a model in which factor loadings were con-
stricted to be equal across both subsamples. This imposition
was tenable, as CFI change was 0. Finally, we tested
whether longitudinal paths between latent variables were
equal across both subsamples. This imposition involved a
ΔCFI of .002, which was acceptable according to the cri-
terion of Cheung and Rensvold (2002). Thus, although the
path from family abuse to maladaptive schemas was sig-
nificant only in girls, the general pattern of longitudinal
paths was similar for both boys and girls.
Discussion
Bullying victimization can be a persistent problem over
time for some adolescents with severe negative con-
sequences. The identification of the factors that contribute
to chronic victimization is of great relevance for interven-
tions. However, prior research to this end has been
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
relatively scarce. Although multiple factors may increase
the risk of continued victimization (e.g., school context,
perpetrator characteristics, exposure to environmental vio-
lence), this study focused on some characteristics of victims
that can be modified. In particular, this study examined
whether maladaptive schemas act as a mediating mechan-
ism between prior victimization at home and at school and
future bullying victimization. Given that previous research
indicates that social anxiety can be both an antecedent and a
consequence of victimization (Wichstrøm et al. 2013) and
because maladaptive schemas are highly prevalent in ado-
lescents with social anxiety (Calvete et al. 2013b), we also
examined maladaptive schemas as a mediating mechanism
between social anxiety and bullying victimization, as well
as social anxiety symptoms as a potential mechanism of
continued victimization.
In accordance with our hypothesis, the findings indicate
that maladaptive schemas play a significant role in con-
tinued bullying victimization over time, as they mediate the
predictive association from T1 to T3 bullying victimization.
Moreover, this finding was specific to maladaptive schemas
of rejection, as the mediation was not replicated for the
schemas of impaired autonomy, which are less relevant for
victimization. These findings are consistent with the results
of previous studies that indicate that bullying and cyber
bullying deteriorate the victims’ cognitive styles (Calvete
et al. 2015; Gibb and Abela 2008; Padilla and Calvete
2014). Moreover, the findings extend those of previous
studies by showing that maladaptive schemas can contribute
to perpetuating victimization. Thus, adolescents who are
rejected by peers and experience insults and humiliation can
develop cognitions and feelings that are characteristic of the
maladaptive schemas of rejection (for example, feeling
defective and rejected and believing that others will inten-
tionally harm them). These schemas, in turn, can influence
the victims’ behaviors. As reviewed in this manuscript,
schema therapy proposes several maladaptive coping styles
(i.e., schema surrender, avoidance and overcompensation)
to adapt to schemas (Young et al. 2003). These maladaptive
coping responses could have the undesired effect for victims
of being chosen again as targets for new abusive acts.
Future research should extend the current study by includ-
ing measures of coping responses in order to elucidate the
mechanisms through which the schemas contribute to
maintain victimization.
Furthermore, consistent with our hypotheses, maladap-
tive schemas of rejection also mediated the predictive
association between emotional abuse in the family and later
bullying victimization. Thus, maladaptive schemas seem to
be one of the mechanisms involved in the transmission of
the risk of being a victim from the family context to the
school context. This finding is relevant because previous
studies have obtained evidence mainly of the predictive
657
association of exposure to violence in the family with the
perpetration of violence (e.g., Calvete et al. 2016a; Duke
et al. 2010). In contrast, longitudinal evidence for the per-
petuation of victimization from one context to another is
scarcer (see, for a recent review, Benedini et al. 2016). Our
study is one of the few providing support for the role of
victimization in the family as risk factor for future victi-
mization in school, indicating that this association is par-
tially explained by the development of maladaptive
schemas. The understanding of the mechanisms explaining
the link among different forms of victimization is of great
relevance, given that adolescence is a critical stage in which
multiple victimizations can have deleterious consequences
(Turner et al. 2016). Moreover, these findings suggest that
family interventions aimed at promoting appropriate par-
enting styles may help to prevent bullying victimization
during adolescence.
Consistent with previous research (Calvete 2014; Turner
et al. 2013), bullying victimization predicted an increase in
social anxiety from T1 to T2. However, in contrast with the
findings of other studies (Bruce et al. 2012; Simon et al.
2009), family abuse did not predict changes in social
anxiety. In addition, contrary to our hypothesis, social
anxiety did not act as a mediating mechanism for the con-
tinuity of bullying victimization over time, as the predictive
paths from social anxiety to bullying victimization between
T1 and T2 and between T2 and T3 were not statistically
significant. Instead, in our study, T1 social anxiety indir-
ectly predicted the increase of bullying victimization at T3
through a worsening of maladaptive schemas of rejection.
Thus, these maladaptive schemas are also one of the
mechanisms that explain why adolescents who are socially
anxious are at higher risk of peer victimization.
The findings of this study have developmental implica-
tions. Maladaptive schemas can be the result of experiences
of victimization in childhood and adolescence that then
contribute to the exposure to new experiences of victimi-
zation. This process is important to understand the devel-
opment of psychopathology in adolescence. It is important
to note that although effect sizes for the cross-lagged
longitudinal associations were small, they are relevant
because they represent the prediction of residual change in
the outcomes beyond the variance explained by baseline
levels of the variables.
The findings indicate that age did not predict changes
over time in any variable. However, a younger age was
associated with less family emotional abuse at T1, but
greater social anxiety and bullying victimization. Although
these associations were small, they are consistent with the
results of previous research, which has evidenced a peak in
bullying behaviors during middle school (Hymel and
Swearer 2015). Social anxiety has also been found to be
greater during early adolescence (Parker et al. 2006). The
658
positive association between age and family abuse could be
explained by increased conflicts in child-to-parent rela-
tionships during adolescence, as the adolescent strives for
greater autonomy. Overall, these findings suggest that pre-
vention efforts should be implemented earlier in adoles-
cence, when adolescents are more exposed to bullying and
its consequences, and before family victimization increases.
Gender differences in victimization were small for bul-
lying victimization and null for emotional abuse in the
family. Moreover, gender did not moderate the longitudinal
associations between previous abuse and future victimiza-
tion. This finding is consistent with the results of previous
studies (Benedini et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2009; Tyler and
Johnson 2006), which also found that the relationship
between abuse and revictimization was similar for boys and
girls. Although girls displayed higher scores on social
anxiety and disconnection and rejection schemas than boys,
the role of these variables in victimization was similar for
both boys and girls.
The study has some limitations. The main limitation is
that all measures were based exclusively on self-reports.
Although self-reports are adequate to assess the variables in
this study, peer reports of victimization at school would
have improved the validity of the measures. In addition, the
measure of bullying victimization refers mainly to psy-
chological abuse and only included only one item of phy-
sical abuse. Although psychological abuse is the most
prevalent form during adolescence, future studies should
examine whether the findings of the current study are dif-
ferent for physical and psychological abuse. Similarly,
future studies should assess whether these findings are
generalizable to other types of family abuse, such as phy-
sical abuse, since some studies indicate that the probability
of being involved in bullying both as a victim and as a bully
is greater in adolescents who have experienced physical
abuse at home (e.g., Shields and Cicchetti 2001). Finally,
we only measured family abuse at T1, and thus we could
not examine whether maladaptive schemas, bullying victi-
mization or social anxiety increased the risk of victimization
in the family.
Conclusions
The findings contribute to developmental science by eluci-
dating some of the mechanisms involved in the perpetuation
of victimization in adolescence. As a result of victimization
in both the family and at school, adolescents can develop
maladaptive schemas that put them at a higher risk for new
episodes of victimization. This is important to understand
the development of psychopathology, as both maladaptive
schemas and victimization are important risk factors for
psychological problems (Hankin et al. 2013).
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
In addition, the findings have important implications for
policy because maladaptive schemas can be modified
through interventions. The role that maladaptive schemas
play in this process is relevant and opens up interesting
channels for prevention. Working on these schemas with
victims could help them reduce the risk of re-victimization.
Moreover, adolescents who develop maladaptive schemas
may interpret ambiguous social situations as rejection,
threats or bullying (i.e., schema surrender). Interventions
should take into account this possibility. In addition, as the
findings suggest that maladaptive schemas can contribute to
social anxiety symptoms and vice versa, intervention pro-
grams should consider the interplay between these variables
to improve psychosocial adjustment during adolescence.
Moreover, because bullying victimization predicts an
increase in social anxiety, bullying victimization interven-
tions should help victims reduce anxiety.
Beyond interventions targeting specific symptomatology,
prevention programs should favor the acceptance by the
group of each adolescent as she/he is (for example, more
introverted). This includes intervention in the social norms
of the group to raise awareness and prevent aggression
against adolescents who are perceived to be weaker or just
different. Moreover, the results of this study should not be
interpreted as a causal attribution to the victims of the
victimization they suffer. Bullying victimization should be
considered the result of multiple factors (Cook et al. 2010).
Bullies are responsible for the abuse, and the main pre-
vention efforts should be directed at them. Addressing
individual variables that increase perpetration, such as
psychopathic traits or moral disengagement (Orue and
Calvete 2016), could make a major contribution to the
prevention of bullying. Our results are consistent with this
assumption.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by a grant from
the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spanish Government,
Ref. PSI2015-68426-R) and from the Basque Country (Ref. IT982-16
and Ref. PI_2016_1_0023).
Author Contributions E.C. conceived of the study, participated in
its design, performed the analyses and prepared the initial draft of
introduction and discussion; L.F-G. completed part of the introduction
and discussion; J.G-C. participated in the review of the literature,
prepared the tables of general statistics, and revised references; M.G-
G. completed part of the introduction, prepared the figure. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no compet-
ing interests.
Ethical Approval Participation was voluntary and participants were
informed that their responses were confidential and would only be read
by the research team. The procedure always followed the standards of
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethics Committee of University of
Deusto approved this study (no reference number provided).
Informed Consent The school staff chose to collect passive consent
from parents because there were no student names included on the
surveys. Parents were informed and given the option of refusing to
allow their child’s participation. No parent refused to allow their child’s
participation.
References
Beck, A. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Benedini, K. M., Fagan, A. A., & Gibson, C. L. (2016). The cycle of
victimization: The relationship between childhood maltreatment
and adolescent peer victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 59,
111–121. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.08.003.
Bond, L., Wolfe, S., Tollit, M., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (2007). A
comparison of the Gatehouse bullying scale and the peer relations
questionnaire for students in secondary school. The Journal of
School Health, 77(2), 75–79. doi:10.1515/ijamh-2012-0106.
Bruce, L. C., Heimberg, R. G., Blanco, C., Schneier, F. R., & Lie-
bowitz, M. R. (2012). Childhood maltreatment and social anxiety
disorder: Implications for symptom severity and response to
pharmacotherapy. Depression and Anxiety, 29(2), 131–138.
doi:10.1002/da.20909.
Caballo, V. E., Salazar, I. C., Irurtia, M. J., Arias, B., Hofmann, S. G.,
Barinaga, E., & Vivas, E. (2014). Differences in social anxiety
between men and women across 18 countries. Personality and
Individual Differences, 64, 35–40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.
013.
Calvete, E. (2014). Emotional abuse as a predictor of early maladap-
tive schemas in adolescents: Contributions to the development of
depressive and social anxiety symptoms. Child Abuse & Neglect,
38(4), 735–746. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.014.
Calvete, E., Fernández-González, L., Orue, I., & Little, T.D. (2016a).
Exposure to family violence and dating violence perpetration in
adolescents: Potential cognitive and emotional mechanisms.
Psychology of Violence, doi:10.1037/vio0000076.
Calvete, E., & Orue, I. (2012). Social information processing as a
mediator between cognitive schemas and aggressive behavior in
adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(1),
105–117. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9546-y.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gamez-Guadix, M. (2016b). Do extraversion
and neuroticism moderate the association between bullying vic-
timization and internalizing symptoms? A three-wave long-
itudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 56, 1–11. doi:10.
1016/j.jsp.2016.02.003.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & González-Diez, Z. (2013a). An examination of
the structure and stability of early maladaptive schemas by means
of the Young schema questionnaire-3. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 29, 283–290. doi:10.1027/1015-
5759/a000158.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2015). Cyberbullying
victimization and depression in adolescents: The mediating role
of body image and cognitive schemas in a one-year prospective
study. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22,
271–284. doi:10.1007/s10610-015-9292-8.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Hankin, B. L. (2013b). Early maladaptive
schemas and social anxiety in adolescents: The mediating role of
anxious automatic thoughts. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27(3),
278–288. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.02.011.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
659
Cohen, J. N., Jensen, D., Dryman, M. T., & Heimberg, R. G. (2015).
Enmeshment schema and quality of life deficits: The mediating
role of social anxiety. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29(1),
20–31. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.29.1.20.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S.
(2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 25, 65–83.
Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W.
(2010). Adolescent violence perpetration: Associations with
multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125,
778–786. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
Gay, L. E., Harding, H. G., Jackson, J. L., Burns, E. E., & Baker, B. D.
(2013). Attachment style and early maladaptive schemas as
mediators of the relationship between childhood emotional abuse
and intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreat-
ment & Trauma, 22(4), 408–424. doi:10.1080/10926771.2013.
775982.
Gibb, B. E., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2008). Emotional abuse, peer victi-
mization and the development of children´s negative inferential
styles and depressive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 32, 161–176. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9106-x.
Hamilton, J. L., Stange, J. P., Shapero, B. G., Connolly, S. L.,
Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2013). Cognitive vulnerabilities
as predictors of stress generation in early adolescence: Pathway to
depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41
(7), 1027–1039. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9742-z.
Hankin, B. L., Snyder, H. R., & Gulley, L. D. (2013). Cognitive risks
in developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.),
Developmental psychopathology Wiley, Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on
school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70,
293–299. doi:10.1037/a0038928.
Inderbitzen-Nolan, H. M., & Walters, K. S. (2000). Social anxiety
scale for adolescents: Normative data and further evidence of
construct validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29,
360–371. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP2903_7.
Kim, M. J., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Huang, B. (2009).
Early child maltreatment, runaway youths, and risk of delin-
quency and victimization in adolescence: A mediational model.
Social Work Research, 33, 19–28. doi:10.1093/swr/33.1.19.
Kljakovic, M., & Hunt, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of predictors of
bullying and victimisation in adolescence. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 49, 134–145. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.03.002.
La Greca, A. M., & López, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adoles-
cents: Linkage with peer relations and friendships. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 83–94. doi:10.1023/A:
1022684520514.
La Greca, A. M., & Stone, W. L. (1993). Social anxiety scale for
children-revised: Factor structure and concurrent validity. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(1), 17–27. doi:10.1207/
s15374424jccp2201_2.
Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior
and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-
analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1091–1108. doi:10.
1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New
York: Guilford Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F.
(2002). To parcel or not toparcel: Exploring the question,
weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
Olivares, J., Ruiz, J., Hidalgo, M. D., García-López, L. J., Rosa, A. I.,
& Piqueras, J. A. (2005). Social anxiety scale for adolescents
(SAS-A): Psychometric properties in a Spanish-speaking
660
population. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psy-
chology, 5, 85–97.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important
challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.
Orue, I. & Calvete, E. (2016). Psychopathic traits and moral disen-
gagement interact to predict bullying and cyberbullying among
adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/
0886260516660302
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2016). An investigation of short-term
longitudinal associations between social anxiety and victimiza-
tion and perpetration of traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 328–339. doi:10.1007/
s10964-015-0259-3.
Padilla, P., & Calvete, E. (2014). Cognitive vulnerabilities as media-
tors between emotional abuse and depressive symptoms. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 743–753. doi:10.1007/
s10802-013-9828-7.
Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S. A., Wojslawowicz, J. C., &
Buskirk, A. A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and
adjustment: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In D.
Cicchetti, D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology:
Theory and methods. 2nd edn. (Vol. 1, pp. 96–161). New York:
Wiley.
Pouwels, J. L., Souren, P. M., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N.
(2016). Stability of peer victimization: A meta-analysis of long-
itudinal research. Developmental Review, 40, 1–24. doi:10.1016/
j.dr.2016.01.001.
Rigby, K. (1996). Manual for the peer relations questionnaire (The
PRQ). Underdale: University of South Australia.
Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. K. (2011). Stability of peer
victimization in early adolescence: Effects of timing and duration.
Journal of School Psychology, 49, 443–464. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.
2011.04.005.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion
dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in
middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30,
349–363. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_7.
Sigurdson, J. F., Undheim, A. M., Wallander, J. L., Lydersen, S., &
Sund, A. M. (2015). The long-term effects of being bullied or a
bully in adolescence on externalizing and internalizing mental
health problems in adulthood. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
and Mental Health, 9, 1–13. doi:10.1186/s13034-015-0075-2.
Simon, N. M., Herlands, N. N., Marks, E. H., Mancini, C., Letamendi,
A., Li, Z., & Stein, M. B. (2009). Childhood maltreatment linked
to greater severity and poorer quality of life and function in social
anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 26(11), 1027–1032.
doi:10.1002/da.20604.
Spanish Society of Epidemiology and Family and Community Medi-
cine. (2000). Una propuesta de medida de la clase social [A
proposal to measure social class]. Atención Primaria, 25,
350–363.
Storch, E. A., Masia‐Warner, C., Crisp, H., & Klein, R. G. (2005).
Peer victimization and social anxiety in adolescence: A pro-
spective study. Aggressive Behavior, 31(5), 437–452. doi:10.
1002/ab.20093.
J Youth Adolescence (2018) 47:650–660
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan,
D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-
child conflict tactics scales: Development and psychometric data
for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 22, 249–270. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9.
Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., Finkelhor, D., & Hamby, S. (2016).
Polyvictimization and youth violence exposure across contexts.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 58, 208–214. doi:10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2015.09.021.
Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying
victimization and adolescent mental health: General and typolo-
gical effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(1),
53–59. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005.
Tyler, K. A., & Johnson, K. A. (2006). A longitudinal study of the
effects of early abuse on later victimization among high-risk
adolescents. Violence and Victims, 21, 287–306. doi:10.1891/
vivi.21.3.287.
Wichstrøm, L., Belsky, J., & Berg‐Nielsen, T. S. (2013). Preschool
predictors of childhood anxiety disorders: A prospective com-
munity study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54
(12), 1327–1336. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12116.
Yang, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). Effectiveness of the KiVa anti-
bullying programme on bully-victims, bullies and victims. Edu-
cational Research, 57(1), 80–90. doi:10.1080/00131881.2014.
983724.
Young, J. (2006). Young schema questionnaire-3. New York: Cog-
nitive Therapy Center.
Young, J., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy. A
practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.
Zeigler-Hill, V., Green, B. A., Arnau, R. C., Sisemore, T. B., & Myers,
E. M. (2011). Trouble ahead, trouble behind: Narcissism and
early maladaptive schemas. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 42, 96–103. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.
07.004.
Esther Calvete is a senior lecturer of Psychology at the University of
Deusto, Spain. Her major research interests include exposure to
violence in the family and at school in adolescence.
Liria Fernández-González is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty
of Psychology and Education of University of Deusto, Spain. Her
major research interests include dating violence and aggressive
behavior in adolescents and youth.
Joaquín M. González-Cabrera is a lecturer of Psychology at the
International University of La Rioja, Spain. His interest is on several
forms of school violence, especially cyberbullying.
Manuel Gámez-Guadix is a lecturer of Psychology at the
Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain. His research interests
include parenting and problem behaviors during adolescence.