Does gender moderate the relationship between bullying victimization and depression? A longitudinal study

Abstract

Background

Existing literature indicates that bullying victimization elevates the risk of depression among adolescents; however, longitudinal evidence on the associations between specific types of victimization (physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying) and depression remains limited, particularly with regard to gender differences. This study examined the predictive effects of these four forms of victimization on depression at a six-month follow-up and further explored the moderating role of gender.

Methods

We collected two-wave longitudinal data from 457 Grade 10 students (230 boys, 227 girls; Mage = 15.93, SD = 1.94) at a high school in Gansu Province, China, in June 2024 (T1) and December 2024 (T2). Participants completed a series of self-report questionnaires, including measures of demographic characteristics, the Revised Bullying Victimization Questionnaire (BVQ-R), and the depression subscale of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine both main and interaction effects, and simple slope analyses were performed to probe significant interactions.

Results

After adjusting for demographic covariates, all four forms of T1 bullying victimization significantly predicted higher levels of depressive symptoms at T2 in the main-effects models. In the interaction models, none of the victimization × gender interaction terms reached statistical significance.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that multiple forms of bullying victimization are prospectively associated with subsequent depressive symptoms and that these associations do not appear to vary by gender in this sample.

Introduction

Adolescence is a critical period for personality development, self-regulation, and social maturation [1, 2]. During this stage, self-concept is still developing [3], and heightened social sensitivity renders adolescents’ mental health particularly vulnerable to negative social experiences. Among the consequences of psychological distress during this period, depression is a prevalent internalizing disorder that not only impairs emotional functioning and social adjustment [4] but also constitutes a significant public health burden. According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study [5], depression has become one of the three leading causes of disability among adolescents. Extensive empirical research across diverse cultural contexts has identified school bullying victimization as a key risk factor for adolescent depression [6–8]. Compared with their non-bullied peers, victims of bullying are more likely to experience low self-esteem, loneliness, and emotional disorders, and they are at increased risk for substance abuse and eating disorders [9, 10]. This association is further supported by meta-analytic evidence demonstrating that bullying victimization is a significant risk factor for depression in children and adolescents [11].

Literature review and research hypotheses

The relationship between different forms of bullying victimization and depression in adolescents

However, bullying victimization is not a unidimensional construct but rather a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying forms [12]. Research has shown that each of these four distinct types of victimization is positively associated with adolescent depression [13, 14]. At the same time, these forms differ in their directness, visibility, social meaning, and the extent to which victims can avoid them. Physical victimization involves direct bodily harm or threat, verbal victimization undermines self-worth through insults or humiliation, relational victimization disrupts social belonging through exclusion or manipulation, and cyberbullying victimization extends harm across time and contexts due to its persistent and often inescapable nature [3, 15–17]. These distinctions suggest that, although all forms are harmful, their pathways to depressive symptoms may not be identical [18–20]. Therefore, conceptualizing bullying victimization as a multidimensional phenomenon may provide a more nuanced understanding of how different peer stressors contribute to adolescent depression.

To provide a unifying theoretical framework explaining why these distinct forms of victimization may each contribute to depressive symptoms, the present study draws on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [21]. SDT posits that human well-being depends on the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs, competence, relatedness, and autonomy, and that persistent frustration of these needs increases vulnerability to psychological distress, including depression [21, 22]. From this perspective, different forms of bullying victimization may represent distinct pathways to a common adverse emotional outcome. Physical victimization may undermine safety and autonomy; verbal victimization may erode competence and self-worth; relational victimization may frustrate belonging and relatedness; and cyberbullying victimization may simultaneously threaten competence, relatedness, and perceived control over one’s social identity [23–25]. Although these forms differ in expression, they may converge in their tendency to frustrate basic psychological needs, thereby increasing depressive symptoms over time. Existing longitudinal evidence is broadly consistent with this perspective, indicating that physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying victimization are each associated with subsequent depressive symptoms among adolescents [14, 26]. Based on this framework and prior empirical findings, we propose Hypothesis 1: each of the four forms of bullying victimization at T1 will be positively associated with depressive symptoms at T2.

The moderating role of gender

Beyond the question of whether different forms of victimization predict subsequent depressive symptoms, an additional issue is whether these associations vary by gender. Prior research suggests that girls and boys differ not only in the types and patterns of victimization they experience [27, 28] but also in their psychological responses; even at comparable levels of victimization severity, girls tend to report higher levels of depression [29, 30]. A meta-analysis of Asian samples further indicates that the association between bullying victimization and the risk of depression is stronger among girls [31]. Some studies have also identified subtype-specific gender differences, suggesting that girls may exhibit stronger depressive responses to cyberbullying, verbal, physical, or relational victimization than boys [32–35].

Two interrelated theoretical frameworks help explain why gender may moderate the association between victimization and depression. First, gender socialization theory [36] posits that girls and boys are systematically socialized into different emotional display rules and coping repertoires. Girls are often encouraged to prioritize interpersonal harmony and to express emotions, leading to greater investment in relational identity and heightened sensitivity to interpersonal threats such as exclusion and humiliation. Boys, in contrast, are more likely to be socialized to suppress emotional vulnerability and to value physical toughness, which may make them less likely to report internalizing distress even when experiencing comparable levels of victimization. Second, response styles theory [37] suggests that females are more prone to ruminative coping, repeatedly dwelling on distressing experiences, which can amplify and prolong negative affect. In the context of bullying victimization, rumination may transform acute experiences into more persistent depressive symptoms. Because girls are more likely to engage in ruminative responses, the association between victimization and depression may be stronger for girls than for boys. Consistent with both frameworks, girls’ greater relational investment and tendency toward rumination suggest that any form of bullying that threatens social standing or belonging, including not only relational but also verbal and cyberbullying victimization, may be particularly depressogenic for them.

At the same time, SDT offers a competing perspective. Because the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy are considered universal, their frustration may have similarly depressogenic effects for both boys and girls. If the link between bullying victimization and depression primarily operates through basic need frustration, gender differences in coping or emotional expression may be less influential than the shared psychological impact of victimization itself. This alternative perspective is particularly relevant in peer contexts, where belonging and group acceptance are highly salient for both male and female adolescents [38]. Therefore, although theory and prior evidence suggest stronger associations among girls, the possibility of gender equivalence also warrants empirical investigation. Accordingly, we propose Hypothesis 2: gender will moderate the associations between different types of bullying victimization and depressive symptoms, with stronger associations expected among girls.

Despite the growing body of research, three important gaps remain. First, bullying victimization is often treated as a unidimensional construct, which obscures the potentially distinct roles of physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying victimization. Second, much of the existing literature relies on cross-sectional data, limiting the ability to examine temporal ordering and prospective associations. Third, gender is frequently included only as a control variable rather than being tested as a moderator of subtype-specific associations. To address these gaps, the present study utilized two-wave data from Chinese adolescents to examine whether four forms of bullying victimization at T1 were associated with depressive symptoms at T2, and whether these associations differed by gender. In doing so, the study aimed to advance the literature by integrating a multidimensional perspective on bullying victimization with both universal and gender-differentiated theoretical frameworks.

Study

Participants

The present study employed a longitudinal design, with data collected in two waves six months apart from students at a senior high school in Gansu Province. Surveys were administered on a class-by-class basis. Paper-and-pencil questionnaires were distributed by trained research assistants, who provided standardized instructions and addressed participants’ questions on-site. Prior to participation, all students were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Data collection for both waves occurred in the same classroom settings, and standardized procedures were maintained to ensure consistency and comparability. A total of 503 questionnaires were returned, of which 457 were valid. The final sample comprised 230 males and 227 females, with a mean age of 15.93 years (SD = 1.94). Demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of participants (N = 457)

Variable	Frequency
Gender
Male	230
Female	227
Urban/rural location
Urban	125
Rural	332
Only Child Status
Yes	35
No	422
Father’s Education Level
Primary school or below	55
Junior high school	160
Senior high school / Vocational school	161
Undergraduate / Junior college	111
Master’s degree or above	0
Mother’s Education Level
Primary school or below	129
Junior high school	157
Senior high school / Vocational school	93
Undergraduate / Junior college	77
Master’s degree or above	1
Monthly Family Income ((RMB¥)
0-999	35
1000–3000	122
3000–6000	155
6000–10,000	92
10,000–15,000	36
15,000–20,000	6
20,000 or above	11

Measures

School bullying victimization scale

The Chinese version of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (BVQ-R), adapted by Zhang et al. [39], was used to assess school bullying victimization. This instrument consists of two sections measuring bullying perpetration and victimization, comprising a total of 14 items. For the present study, the victimization subscale was utilized to assess four dimensions of victimization: physical (items 3 and 5), verbal (items 1 and 6), relational (items 2 and 4), and cyberbullying (item 7). The Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was 0.80, indicating acceptable internal consistency.

Depression scale

The depression subscale of the simplified Chinese version of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21) was used to assess depressive symptoms. This version has been well-validated and is widely used among Chinese adolescents [40]. The 7-item subscale asks participants to indicate the extent to which each statement applied to them over the past week, using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time). Total scores were computed for analysis, with higher scores reflecting more severe depressive symptoms. The Cronbach’s alpha for the depression subscale was 0.85, indicating good internal consistency.

Data processing and analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 27.0. Descriptive statistics, including means, were calculated for the four types of bullying victimization and depressive symptoms across the two time points. Pearson’s correlation analyses were performed to examine the relationships between depressive symptoms at follow-up (T2) and each type of bullying victimization at T1.

Following the approach of Wen et al. [41], hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the moderating effects of gender on the associations between types of bullying victimization (independent variables) and depressive symptoms (dependent variable). Gender was coded as 0 = girls and 1 = boys. Because the four bullying victimization subtypes were moderately to highly intercorrelated, four separate regression models were estimated, with each model including one victimization subtype only (physical, verbal, relational, or cyberbullying victimization).

Before interaction terms were created, all continuous predictors included in each model were standardized (z-scored). The interaction term was then computed as the product of the standardized victimization variable and gender. In each model, demographic covariates, including age, residence (urban/rural), family socioeconomic status (income and parental education), and only-child status, were entered in Step 1. Step 2 introduced the main effects of gender and the four types of bullying victimization. In Step 3, the interaction terms between gender and each type of victimization were added to directly test the hypothesized moderating effects. Standardized regression coefficients were reported, and the Type I error rate (α) was set at 0.05. Finally, significant interactions were probed using simple slope analyses to assess the specific nature of the moderating effects.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

Table 2 presents gender-specific Pearson’s correlations among the key variables included in the analysis. Among boys, T2 depressive symptoms were significantly positively correlated with verbal victimization (r = 0.158, p < 0.01) and relational victimization (r = 0.270, p < 0.01), whereas physical and cyberbullying victimization were not significantly associated with T2 depressive symptoms (p > 0.05). Among girls, T2 depressive symptoms were significantly positively correlated with verbal victimization (r = 0.175, p < 0.01), relational victimization (r = 0.342, p < 0.01), and cyberbullying victimization (r = 0.159, p < 0.05), while physical victimization was not significantly correlated with T2 depressive symptoms (p > 0.05).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations four types of bullying victimization at T1 and depression at T2

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1 T1 Physical Bullying victimization	2.210	0.761	1	0.250**	0.160*	0.341**	0.097
2 T1 Verbal Bullying victimization	2.632	1.134	0.593**	1	0.479**	0.331**	0.158**
3 T1 Relational Bullying victimization	2.530	1.009	0.666**	0.703**	1	0.303**	0.270**
4 T1 Cyberbullying victimization	1.112	0.412	0.570**	0.384**	0.495**	1	0.054
5 T2 Depression	10.396	4.159	0.101	0.175**	0.342**	0.159*	1

N = 457(n_male=230, n_female=227).Values above the diagonal are correlations for male participants; values below the diagonal are correlations for female participants. Means and standard deviations are based on the full sample. 

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01 (two-tailed)

Models of the moderating effect of gender

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the predictive effects of the four types of T1 bullying victimization on T2 depressive symptoms, as well as the moderating role of gender. In Step 2 (the main-effects model), after controlling for demographic covariates, all four types of bullying victimization significantly and positively predicted T2 depressive symptoms. The standardized regression coefficients were as follows: physical victimization (β = 0.098, p = 0.039), verbal victimization (β = 0.173, p < 0.001), relational victimization (β = 0.312, p < 0.001), and cyberbullying victimization (β = 0.126, p = 0.008).

In Step 3, the interaction terms between each type of bullying victimization and gender were added to the models. None of the four interactions reached statistical significance: physical victimization × gender (β = 0.047, p = 0.370), verbal victimization × gender (β = 0.042, p = 0.457), relational victimization × gender (β = 0.012, p = 0.832), and cyberbullying victimization × gender (β = -0.025, p = 0.644). These results indicate that gender does not significantly moderate the associations between different types of bullying victimization and depressive symptoms (Table 3).

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression analysis of gender and four types of bullying victimization on T2 depression (N = 457)

Model	Variable	Step 1		Step 2		Step 3
		β	p	β	p	β	p
Physical Bullying Victimization→T2 Depression	Age	0.044	0.353	0.049	0.304	0.048	0.317
	Urban/rural location	0.026	0.631	0.028	0.604	0.027	0.614
	Only Child Status	0.014	0.765	0.017	0.721	0.018	0.706
	Father’s Education Level	0.136	0.041	0.139	0.037	0.142	0.033
	Mother’s Education Level	− 0.110	0.107	− 0.114	0.095	− 0.119	0.083
	Monthly Family Income	0.019	0.724	0.013	0.804	0.014	0.793
	Gender	—	—	− 0.010	0.840	− 0.003	0.944
	Physical Bullying Victimization	—	—	0.098	0.039	0.080	0.121
	Physical Bullying Victimization×Gender	—	—	—	—	0.047	0.370
R²			0.013		0.023		0.024
Verbal Bullying victimization→T2 Depression	Age	0.044	0.353	0.043	0.354	0.041	0.382
	Urban/rural location	0.026	0.631	0.039	0.475	0.038	0.481
	Only Child Status	0.014	0.765	0.024	0.615	0.023	0.628
	Father’s Education Level	0.136	0.041	0.138	0.036	0.143	0.031
	Mother’s Education Level	− 0.110	0.107	− 0.121	0.074	− 0.126	0.065
	Monthly Family Income	0.019	0.724	0.022	0.670	0.023	0.665
	Gender	—	—	− 0.005	0.914	− 0.003	0.946
	Verbal Bullying victimization	—	—	0.173	< 0.001	0.150	0.008
	Verbal Bullying victimization×Gender	—	—	—	—	0.042	0.457
R²			0.013		0.042		0.044
Relational Bullying victimization→T2 Depression	Age	0.044	0.353	0.032	0.476	0.032	0.479
	Urban/rural location	0.026	0.631	0.031	0.551	0.031	0.547
	Only Child Status	0.014	0.765	0.038	0.407	0.038	0.408
	Father’s Education Level	0.136	0.041	0.139	0.029	0.140	0.028
	Mother’s Education Level	− 0.110	0.107	− 0.116	0.076	− 0.116	0.075
	Monthly Family Income	0.019	0.724	0.010	0.847	0.010	0.847
	Gender	—	—	− 0.010	0.831	− 0.010	0.833
	Relational Bullying victimization	—	—	0.312	< 0.001	0.304	< 0.001
	Relational Bullying victimization×Gender	—	—	—	—	0.012	0.832
R²			0.013		0.109		0.109
Cyberbullying victimization→ T2 Depression	Age	0.044	0.353	0.056	0.235	0.058	0.223
	Urban/rural location	0.026	0.631	0.012	0.824	0.015	0.788
	Only Child Status	0.014	0.765	0.017	0.723	0.015	0.754
	Father’s Education Level	0.136	0.041	0.145	0.028	0.145	0.029
	Mother’s Education Level	− 0.110	0.107	− 0.120	0.078	− 0.118	0.084
	Monthly Family Income	0.019	0.724	0.012	0.812	0.012	0.818
	Gender	—	—	− 0.013	0.787	− 0.014	0.766
	Cyberbullying victimization	—	—	0.126	0.008	0.139	0.011
	Cyberbullying victimization×Gender	—	—	—	—	− 0.025	0.644
R²			0.013		0.029		0.029

Standardized regression coefficients (β) are reported

*p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001

Sensitivity analysis

To further assess the robustness of the main findings, a sensitivity analysis was conducted in which T1 overall bullying victimization and its interaction with gender were entered as predictors of T2 depressive symptoms. The results showed that T1 overall bullying victimization significantly predicted T2 depressive symptoms (β = 0.192, p < 0.001), whereas the interaction term with gender was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). These results are consistent with the subtype-specific analyses, indicating that the main findings are robust.

Discussion

The relationship between different forms of bullying victimization and depression

Using two-wave longitudinal data from high school students, this study examined the associations between four types of bullying victimization, physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying, and depressive symptoms six months later, as well as the moderating role of gender. The findings indicated that (1) all four types of T1 bullying victimization were significantly and positively associated with T2 depressive symptoms, and (2) gender did not significantly moderate any of these associations, suggesting that the relationship between bullying victimization and depression is consistent across genders.

This finding is consistent with prior research demonstrating that bullying victimization is a robust longitudinal risk factor for adolescent depression [8, 12, 42, 43]. The present study extends this literature by showing that multiple forms of victimization, physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying, exert similar prospective associations with depressive symptoms. This convergence across victimization types aligns with SDT [21], which posits that sustained frustration of basic psychological needs, competence, relatedness, and autonomy, serves as a proximal pathway to depressive symptoms [22], and that diverse stressors may contribute to depression to the extent that they threaten one or more of these fundamental needs.

At a theoretical level, these associations may reflect the extent to which different forms of victimization frustrate the basic psychological needs identified by SDT. Physical victimization involves direct harm or threat of harm, potentially undermining perceived safety and bodily autonomy, which can contribute to distress even when external detection or intervention is possible. Verbal victimization targets self-evaluative processes, eroding perceived competence and self-worth, and may be especially salient during adolescence, a developmental period marked by heightened sensitivity to peer feedback. Relational victimization disrupts peer relationships and social belonging, directly frustrating the need for interpersonal relatedness, a core aspect of adolescent adjustment. Cyberbullying may exacerbate these risks by simultaneously threatening competence and relatedness, while increasing the persistence and uncontrollability of victimization across multiple contexts.

Although the present study was not designed to directly examine underlying mechanisms, the findings are consistent with the interpretation that diverse forms of victimization may converge in their impact on depressive symptoms by disrupting self-related and interpersonal processes. However, because these mechanisms were not directly measured, such interpretations remain tentative. Future research that includes direct assessments of potential mediating processes, such as basic need frustration, self-esteem, and perceived social support, will be necessary to clarify the pathways linking different forms of bullying victimization to depressive outcomes.

The moderating role of gender

The present study found that the relationship between bullying victimization and subsequent depressive symptoms was not moderated by gender. Contrary to some previous research, these findings do not support a moderating role of gender in the longitudinal associations between bullying victimization and depression. The strength of the relationship between each form of victimization and later depressive symptoms was comparable for boys and girls. This outcome is inconsistent with Hypothesis 2, which, based on gender socialization theory and response styles theory [22], predicted stronger associations between bullying victimization and depressive symptoms among girls. It also diverges from prior studies suggesting that girls are more sensitive to relational victimization, boys to physical victimization, and that even low-frequency victimization increases depression risk for girls, whereas only frequent victimization has this effect for boys [19, 44–46]. However, the SDT framework employed in the present study offers a competing prediction: because basic psychological needs are universal, their frustration is expected to produce comparable depressogenic effects across genders. The current findings are more consistent with this alternative account.

One interpretation of this pattern, grounded in SDT, is that the frustration of basic psychological needs functions as a depressogenic mechanism that does not inherently differ by gender. Whether the stressor involves threats to physical safety, derogation of self-worth, deprivation of belonging, or damage to social reputation, all four forms of victimization constitute assaults on needs that are equally fundamental to the well-being of both male and female adolescents [21, 22]. While boys and girls may differ in their immediate responses or coping strategies, the longer-term accumulation of need frustration and its association with depressive symptoms may be largely similar across genders. This interpretation aligns with the broader pattern observed in the data, where effect sizes for each type of victimization did not differ significantly between boys and girls.

Cultural context may also help explain this pattern, although it was not directly measured in the present study, and such interpretations should therefore be considered speculative. In collectivist cultures that emphasize interpersonal harmony and group belonging, features often associated with Chinese peer environments [47], peer-related threats may carry similarly high psychological significance for both male and female adolescents. To the extent that this relational orientation reduces gender-differentiated responses to victimization, it could help account for the gender equivalence observed in the present findings. However, this explanation requires direct empirical testing using measures of cultural values, gender role orientations, and peer relationship norms before more definitive conclusions can be drawn.

The theoretical implications of the null moderation finding warrant careful consideration. Rather than concluding merely that gender is irrelevant, these results suggest that the relative influence of SDT’s universal need-frustration mechanism versus gender socialization theory’s differential coping model may depend on contextual factors, such as cultural setting, the severity of victimization, and developmental stage, that were not varied in the present study. Future research should systematically investigate gender moderation across diverse cultural contexts and examine whether the absence of moderation is replicated in samples experiencing higher levels of victimization, where gender-differentiated coping strategies may play a more pronounced role.

Educational implications

The present findings have two practical implications for school-based anti-bullying efforts. First, schools should avoid relying on gender stereotypes when identifying students who may be vulnerable to the emotional consequences of bullying. Because the association between bullying victimization and subsequent depressive symptoms did not differ significantly by gender in this study, it is inappropriate to assume that certain forms of victimization are psychologically impactful only for boys or only for girls. Such assumptions risk overlooking the experiences of some students and failing to provide them with necessary support.

Second, prevention and intervention efforts should target multiple forms of bullying victimization rather than focusing predominantly on a single subtype. In the main-effects models, physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying victimization were all significantly associated with higher depressive symptoms at follow-up, indicating that school-based responses should adopt a comprehensive perspective on peer victimization. Overall, these findings support a gender-inclusive and multi-form approach to anti-bullying initiatives and student mental health practices.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, because baseline depressive symptoms were not controlled when predicting T2 depression from T1 bullying victimization, the study should be regarded as a half-longitudinal design. Consequently, the findings reflect prospective associations with subsequent depressive symptoms rather than changes in depression over time, and reverse or reciprocal effects cannot be ruled out. Second, all variables were assessed via self-report, and T1 bullying victimization was based on retrospective recall over the previous six months. This approach may have introduced recall bias, shared-method variance, and limited sensitivity to gender-specific expressions of distress. Moreover, the six-month interval may not have been optimal for detecting developmental variation in gender moderation. Third, although the study differentiated physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying victimization, the measures for each subtype were brief: physical, verbal, and relational victimization were each assessed with only two items, and cyberbullying victimization with a single item. This brevity may have reduced the psychometric precision and stability of subtype-specific estimates, particularly for cyberbullying victimization; thus, findings regarding specific subtypes should be interpreted cautiously. Fourth, the study did not include variables that could help explain or moderate the observed associations, such as coping styles, rumination, peer norms, social support, or other contextual factors. In addition, the sample was drawn from Grade 10 students at a single senior high school in Gansu Province, western China, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions, age groups, and cultural contexts. Future research should employ multi-wave designs with baseline adjustment, multi-informant or multi-method assessments, more comprehensive measures of bullying subtypes, and more diverse samples to clarify underlying mechanisms, boundary conditions, and the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusion

Bullying victimization comprises four distinct forms: physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying. All four types were positively associated with subsequent adolescent depressive symptoms. Gender did not significantly moderate these associations, suggesting that the impact of bullying on depression is comparable for boys and girls. These findings highlight the need for bullying prevention and intervention programs that address multiple forms of victimization and are inclusive of all genders.

Abbreviations

GBD

Global Burden of Disease

SDT

Self-Determination Theory

BVQ-R

The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire

DASS-21

The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales

Authors' contributions

Danying Jing: Investigation, writing-original draft preparation, writing-review & editing. Yawen Zhu: Conceptualization, methodology, writing guidance, supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that they did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author (Yawen Zhu, E-mail: zhuyawen@nwnu.edu.cn).

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all participating senior high school students and their guardians prior to the administration of the questionnaire. Participants were fully informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, and confidentiality measures, and were made aware of their right to withdraw from the survey at any time without any negative consequences.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.