Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Child Fam Stud. 2014 Aug 3;24(8):2241–2249. doi: 10.1007/s10826-014-0026-1

Socio-Cultural Context and Bulling Others in Childhood

Carmen Morcillo 1, Maria A Ramos-Olazagasti 2, Carlos Blanco 3, Regina Sala 4, Glorisa Canino 5, Hector Bird 6, Cristiane S Duarte 7
PMCID: PMC4584144  NIHMSID: NIHMS618669  PMID: 26425057

Abstract

The objective of this epidemiological study was to examine, using an ecological perspective, which individual and distal contextual factors (familial, social and cultural) are associated with bullying other children across two different sites. Our sample included 1,271 Puerto Rican children 10 and older years of age at baseline residing in the South Bronx in New York and in the Standard Metropolitan Area in San Juan and Caguas, Puerto Rico. Bullying others was assessed through parents’ and children’s response to one item in the conduct disorder section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (DISC IV). Child, family, social and cultural factors were examined as independent variables with bullying others as dependent variable in hierarchical models adjusting for gender, maternal education, poverty, single parent household and site. Prevalence of bullying others was 15.2% in South Bronx versus 4.6% in Puerto Rico (p<0.0001). Poor social adjustment and academic achievement, parental harsh discipline, negative school environment, exposure to violence, peer delinquency and level of acculturation in the child were all risk factors for bullying others. Child acculturation accounted for site differences in rates of bullying others. We conclude that, besides the school context, specific aspects of the community, family, and culture influence the development of bullying perpetration and should be targets for interventions and prevention programs. Minority youth living in at-risk contexts may benefit from contextually sensitive preventive interventions that address how assimilation into a high-risk context may increase involvement in bullying perpetration.

Keywords: Bullying, perpetration, context, culture, Puerto Rican

Introduction

Bullying is defined as a specific form of aggression that involves intentional and repeated hurtful actions among peers where there is an imbalance of power (Olweus 1994). Between 10–25% of children worldwide report having bullied others at some point in their lives (Nansel et al 2001, Wolke et al 2001, Jansen et al 2011). Bullying behaviors, although ubiquitous, seem not to be equally distributed across different contexts or groups. Clear variation across countries (ranging from around 8% in Sweden to over 35% in Lithuania) has been reported (Craig et al 2009). Additionally, in a US national survey Hispanic adolescents reported bullying others more frequently (10.4%) than Whites (8.3%) and African-Americans (8.5%) (Nansel et al 2001).

Children who bully others are a potential risk not only to other children but also to themselves. Bullying perpetration is predictive of poor academic achievement (Nansel et al 2001, Nansel et al 2004), antisocial personality and other psychiatric disorders, substance use, and suicidal ideation in adulthood (Sourander et al 2010, Klomek et al 2009, Sourander et al 2007, Ttofi et al 2011, Sourander et al 2009). Understanding specific factors that may lead children to bully others is essential to prevent negative outcomes among bullying perpetrators and victims.

Consistent with an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner 1995, Jimerson et al 2010), besides individual characteristics (Nansel et al 2004, Barboza et al 2009), more distal contextual factors (related to family (Espelage et al 2000, Pepler et al 2008), peers (Espelage and Holt 2001, Cook et al 2010), schools (Wolke et al 2001, Barboza et al 2009, Natvig et al 2001), and neighborhoods) (Espelage et al 2000, Fite et al 2010, Veenstra et al 2005) have also been related to bullying others (Jimerson et al 2010). Given contextual and subgroup variation, a clear gap in the literature is the lack of studies focused on determining how the socio-cultural context may be relevant for bullying perpetration (Nansel et al 2001). Furthermore, published studies have had limited information regarding children’s social-cultural environment, impeding intervention development progress in these crucial aspects (Nansel et al 2001, Nansel et al 2004, Sourander et al 2010, Klomek et al 2009, Sourander et al 2007, Ttofi et al 2011, Sourander et al 2009, Swearer et al 2010).

In the current analysis we seek to address these gaps in knowledge. We examine a sample of 1,271 Puerto Rican children living in two different contexts: the San Juan metropolitan area in Puerto Rico and the poorest congressional district in the US, the South Bronx in New York City. We hypothesized that bullying others would be a behavior more prevalent among youth raised in the high-risk context of the South Bronx in comparison with those raised in San Juan. Further, we expected proximal and distal characteristics within the socio-cultural context to be related to the likelihood of children bullying others.

Method

Participants

Detailed information about the sample and methods of a broader study from which these data are drawn are provided in previous reports (Bird et al 2006, Bird et al 2006). Briefly, the Boricua Youth Study (BYS) involved 2,491 Puerto Rican children aged 5–13 years residing in the South Bronx in New York and in the Standard Metropolitan Area in San Juan and Caguas, Puerto Rico. Each sample was a multistage probability sample of households of the target population. Eligibility criteria included two main conditions: (a) at least one child in the household aged 5–13 years identified as being of PR background; (b) at least one primary caretaker also identified as being of PR background. Up to three eligible children per household were included. In households with more than three eligible children, three were selected at random. Interviews were administered in either English or Spanish. The participation rate was 84.7% and 89% of the adult informants were biological mothers. The present analysis focuses on a sub-sample of children who were 10 years and older (n=1,271) the age group for whom children and parents were asked questions about bullying.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and the University of Puerto Rico Medical School.

Measures

Bullying Behavior

Embedded in the conduct disorder section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (DISC IV) (Bravo et al 2001, Shaffer et al 2000) was the following question: “Now I want to ask you about bullying; you know, hitting or threatening or scaring someone who is younger or smaller than you or somebody who won’t fight back. Have you ever bullied someone in this way?/ Has your child ever bullied someone in this way?”. Parents and children were asked this question and children with an affirmative answer (according to parent or child report) were defined in this article as having bullied others.

Ecological Factors

Consistent with an ecological model, child, family, social and cultural factors were examined.

Child Factors

Child’s social adjustment (2 items), Cronbach’s alpha: 0.73 (Bird et al 2006); academic performance (10 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.90 (Bird et al 2006); early aggression (6 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.77 (Bird et al 2006) and child’s attitudes toward delinquency (39 items), Cronbach’s alpha:0.93 (Bird et al 2006).

Family Factors

(a) Parental Psychopathology: Lifetime parental substance use disorder, depression and antisocial behaviors assessed with the Family History Screen for Epidemiologic Studies (FHE) ( Lish et al 1995) (b) Family Processes: Parental discipline (9 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.54 (Goodman et al 1998); parental monitoring (9 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.55 (Patterson et al 1988); family functioning (5 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.91 (Good et al 1979); parent-child relationship (12-items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.75( Loeber et al 1998) and maternal warmth (13 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.68 ( Hudson 1982).

Social Factors

Peer delinquency (16 items), Chronbach’s alpha: 0.85 (Loeber et al 1998); child’s stressful life events (21 items) (Goodman et al 1998, Hudson 1982); neighborhood characteristics, Chronbach’s alpha: 0.95 (Bird et al 2006); school environment (8 items), Chronbach’a alpha: 0.55 (Bird et al 2006) and exposure to violence (11 items) (Bird et al 2006).

Cultural Factors

Acculturation: Adaptation of the Cultural Life Style Inventory (CLSI) (parents: 9 items, Chronbach’s alpha: 0.88; youth: 6 items, Chronbach’s alpha:0.86) (Magana et al 1996, Mendoza et al 1989). Cultural stress: 4 items from the Hispanic Stress Inventory which were comparable across sites, Chronbach’s alpha: 0.88 (Cervantes et al 1990). Familism: adaptation from Sabogal’s Familism Scale (10 items for parental version, Chronbach’s alpha: 0.76; 9 for youth version, Chronbach’s alpha:0.44) (Sabogal et al 1987).

Statistical analyses

We compared demographic characteristics of children who bullied others and those who never bullied using t-tests and chi-squares for continuous and categorical variables, respectively (Table 1). We built our models in several steps using bullying others as the dependent variable and ecological factors as independent variables. First, we conducted a series of logistic regressions relating presence of bullying others with each specific ecological factor in a separate model, always adjusting for gender, maternal education, poverty, single parent household, age, and site. Second, we selected ecological factors with p-values ≤.20 (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2004) in the prior step to build a series of hierarchical models, each adding to the previous model (only variables with p-values ≤.20 were kept in subsequent models): Model A included our main indicator of socio-cultural context (site) as independent variable; Model B added child factors; Model C added the first domain of family factors, i.e., parental psychopathology; Model D added family processes; Model E added social factors; and Model F added cultural factors (Table 2). Third, variables with p-values ≤.05 in Model F were included in the final model (Table 3). Fourth, we added interactions between site and each socio-ecological factor included in Model F to test whether the relationship between each factor and bullying behaviors varied by site.

Table 1.

“Bullying others” among Puerto Rican children (age 10 – 15) by Background Characteristic (N=1,271).

Bullying Others
t or χ2 p
% SE
Site
 San Juan 4.61 0.90 38.18 <.0001
 South Bronx 15.26 1.37
Sex
 Male 13.75 1.53 0.02 0.90
 Female 13.47 1.73
Maternal Education
 ≥High School 14.30 1.67 0.29 0.59
 < High School 12.84 1.91
Household Composition
 Two-parent family 11.26 1.58 3.89 0.049
 Single-parent family 16.65 2.00
Poverty Status
 Above poverty line 12.55 2.23 0.34 0.56
 Below poverty line 14.13 1.45
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Children who bully others: Associations with child, parental, family, social and cultural factors.

OR 95% CI p
Child Characteristics
Positive social adjustment 0.43 0.32;0.59 <.0001
Academic achievement 0.39 0.23;0.67 <.001
Early aggression 1.22 1.10;1.35 <.001
Youths’ attitudes towards delinquency 1.07 1.00;1.13 .04
Parental Psychopathology
Parental antisocial behaviors 2.13 1.29;3.51 .003
Parental substance use problems 1.85 1.10;3.12 .02
Maternal depression 2.20 1.12;4.31 .02
Family Processes
Harsh parental discipline 2.32 1.67;3.21 <.0001
Positive parent-child relationship 0.26 0.09;0.74 .01
Maternal acceptance and warmth 0.21 0.12;0.37 <.0001
Parental monitoring 0.89 0.82;0.97 .007
Good family functioning 0.88 0.82;0.95 .002
Social Risks
Peer delinquency 4.19 2.29;7.68 <.0001
Stressful life events 1.22 1.07;1.39 .004
Negative school environment 1.46 1.28;1.66 <.0001
Exposure to violence 1.08 1.04;1.12 <.0001
Neighborhood characteristics 1.01 0.99;1.03 .42
Cultural Factors
Parental cultural stress 1.55 0.69;3.47 .29
Child cultural stress 2.55 0.89;7.27 .08
Parental acculturation 1.80 1.25;2.58 .002
Child acculturation 1.60 1.02;2.49 .04
Parental familism 0.76 0.47;1.21 .24
Child familism 0.74 0.17;3.28 .69
Open in a new tab

NOTES: Results of logistic regression models. Separate models were examined for each variable, with each model adjusted for gender, maternal education, poverty, single parent household, age, and site.

Table 3.

Bullying Others: Hierarchical models. (Models A, B, C, D, E, and F).

Model A Model B Model C
Predictors OR[95% CI] p OR[95% CI] p OR[95% CI] p
Site (NY = 1) 4.62[2.70;7.91] 0 4.11[2.34;7.21] 0 3.89[2.17;6.69] 0
Child Characteristics
Positive social adjustment --- 0.54[0.39;0.75] 0.0003 0.59[0.41;0.85] 0.005
Academic achievement --- 0.40[0.23;0.71] 0.002 0.35[0.20;0.61] 0.0003
Early aggression --- 1.17[1.05;1.31] 0.007 1.19[1.06;1.33] 0.004
Attitudes towards delinquency --- 1.06[0.99;1.13] 0.08 1.05[0.99;1.11] 0.09
Parental Psychopathology
Parental antisocial behaviors --- --- 2.25[1.08;4.67] 0.03
Parental substance use problems --- --- 1.01[0.44;2.29] 0.99
Maternal depression --- --- 1.47[0.72;3.02] 0.29
Model D Model E Model F
Predictors OR[95% CI] p OR[95% CI] p OR[95% CI] p
Site (NY = 1) 4.66[2.41;9.01 0 3.46[1.80;6.64] 0.0003 0.68[0.21;2.23] 0.52
Child Characteristics
Positive social adjustment 0.71[0.50;1.03] 0.07 0.68[0.47;0.98] 0.04 0.65[0.46;0.92] 0.02
Academic achievement 0.35[0.20;0.61] 0.0003 0.40[0.23;0.71] 0.002 0.37[0.21;0.65] 0.0006
Early aggression 1.16[1.03;1.30] 0.01 1.14[1.00;1.31] 0.05 1.13[0.99;1.29] 0.07
Attitudes towards delinquency 1.03[0.97;1.08] 0.36 --- --- --- ---
Parental Psychopathology
Parental antisocial behaviors 2.23[1.29;3.85] 0.004 2.09[1.13;3.86] 0.02 1.83[0.93;3.63] 0.08
Parental substance use problems --- --- --- --- --- ---
Maternal depression --- --- --- --- --- ---
Family Processes
Harsh Parental discipline 1.72[1.12;2.63] 0.01 1.95[1.31;2.90] 0.001 2.13[1.38;3.29] 0.0009
Parent-child relationship (Youth report) 0.56[0.13;2.43] 0.44 --- --- --- ---
Positive parent-child relationship (Parent report) 0.74[0.34;1.61] 0.44 --- --- --- ---
Parental monitoring 1.01[0.92;1.11] 0.8 --- --- --- ---
Good family functioning 0.91[0.83;1.00] 0.05 0.93[0.84;1.02] 0.11 0.95[0.85;1.05] 0.3
Social Risks
Peer delinquency 3.15[1.51;6.57] 0.003 4.07[2.05;8.08] 0.0001
Stressful life events 1.07[0.88;1.29] 0.49 --- ---
Negative school environment 1.33[1.12;1.58] 0.001 1.38[1.14;1.66] 0.001
Exposure to violence 1.03[1.00;1.07] 0.08 1.05[1.01;1.08] 0.007
Cultural Factors
Parental Cultural Stress 1.35[0.37;4.97] 0.65
Youth Cultural Stress 0.68[0.13;3.65] 0.65
Parental Acculturation 1.60[0.94;2.71] 0.08
Child Acculturation 2.29[1.25;4.18] 0.008
Open in a new tab

Note: The following predictors are tested in models D, E, and F: Child Characteristics, Parental Psychopathology, Family Processes, Social Risks, and Cultural Factors.

NOTE: Models adjusted for gender, maternal education, poverty, single parent household, age, and propensity scores.

Variables with p’s >.20 in models in Table 2b and in the preceding model were not included in the analyses.

Because site differences in the behavior of bullying others were of primary interest, and because youth in the South Bronx and in San Juan live in contexts with different sociodemographic characteristics, we used propensity scores to adjust for selection into place of residence in all of our models ( Rosenbaum and Rubin 1985, Rubin 1997). Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regressions, in which place of residence (dependent variable) was predicted by a broad range of background variables (maternal education, maternal age and family income). The estimated probabilities of living in a given site were then used to create five roughly equal sized strata that were included as covariates in models displayed in Tables 2, 3 and 4. Additionally, we continued to adjust for gender, maternal education, poverty, single parent household, and age, as combining propensity score and covariance adjustment yields more reliable results than either method alone ( Rubin and Thomas 2000). All analyses were conducted using SUDAAN software (Research Triangle Institute 2007) to adjust for the clustered sampling design.

Table 4.

Children bullying others at wave 1: Final Model.

Bullying Others
Predictors OR[95% CI] p
Site (NY = 1) 1.33[0.51;3.47] .56
Child Characteristics
Positive social adjustment 0.59[0.42;0.81] .002
Academic achievement 0.50[0.29;0.87] .02
Family Processes
Harsh Parental discipline 2.15[1.54;3.00] <.001
Social Risks
Peer delinquency 3.06[1.47;6.38] .003
Negative school environment 1.30[1.09;1.55] .003
Exposure to violence 1.05[1.02;1.08] .0006
Cultural Factors
Child Acculturation 1.94[1.21;3.12] .007
Open in a new tab

NOTE: Models adjusted for gender, maternal education, poverty, single parent household, age, and propensity scores.

Results

Of 1,271 youth, 127 (13.61%, SE=1.19) had ever bullied other children. Children who bullied others had a mean age at baseline of 11.8 (0.12) years compared to 11.5 (0.05) years among those not displaying such behaviors (t-test=2.33, p=0.02). Table 1 shows that the prevalence of bullying others was significantly higher in the South Bronx compared to Puerto Rico. Compared to children living with two parents, those from single-parent families were also more likely to bully others.

Table 2 presents the results of the logistic regressions of relevant predictors at the individual, family, social and cultural levels. Among child characteristics, better social adjustment and academic performance were associated with lower odds of bullying others, while deviant attitudes towards delinquency and early aggression were associated with higher odds of bullying others. Significant associations were also found between parental psychopathology and bullying others. Specifically, screening positive for lifetime maternal depression, substance use, and antisocial behaviors was associated with higher odds of bullying. Among parental processes, greater parental warmth, monitoring, better family functioning and positive parent-child relationships reduced the likelihood of bullying others, while excessive/harsh parental discipline was significantly associated with bullying others. Among social factors, peer delinquency and school environment, followed by stressful life events and exposure to violence all significantly increased the likelihood of bullying others. Considering cultural variables, higher degree of acculturation both in the parent and child were positively associated with bullying others.

Table 3 shows the multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models (models A to F) progressively incorporating domains of the ecological model. Several variables remained significantly associated with bullying others throughout models A to E. In particular, living in the South Bronx, parental antisocial behaviors, parental harsh discipline, peer delinquency, school environment and exposure to violence remained significantly and directly associated with bullying others in model E. Interestingly, when cultural factors were added to the model (Model F) the association between living in the South Bronx (site) and bullying others was no longer significant. Of the cultural factors examined, only child acculturation was directly associated with bullying others (OR: 2.29, p= 0.008), possibly explaining the site differences. In Table 4, we present the final model including all the variables that were significant at the 0.05 level in the final model in Table 3. When considering all ecological variables simultaneously (site, individual, family, social and cultural characteristics), differences across the South Bronx and the San Juan contexts were no longer statistically significant. Child acculturation remained significantly associated with bullying others as in our previous model, likely accounting for the site effect. Child’s social adjustment, parental discipline and social factors (peer delinquency, school environment and exposure to violence) were also significantly associated with the behavior of bullying others.

In the final model presented in Table 4, we tested whether any of the associations found differed by site, but none of the interaction terms were statistically significant (results available upon request).

Discussion

Our study, based on a sample of 1,271 Puerto Rican children (ages 10 to 13) at two sites (South Bronx, NY, and San Juan, PR), investigated a broad range of individual, family, social and cultural factors in relation to the behavior of bullying others. Our results indicate the relevance of considering, beyond individual characteristics, the role of social factors, certain family processes and cultural factors. More specifically, our study produced three main findings. First, there were significant differences in rates of bullying others according to the socio-cultural context in with children develop, with Puerto Rican children living in a context where they are part of a minority group (the South Bronx), more often bullying others than those living in their home culture of San Juan. Second, consistent with an ecological model, specific factors beyond proximal individual characteristics were associated with bullying others. In particular, these risk factors included poor social adjustment and academic achievement, and other distal factors pertaining to the family (parental harsh discipline), social environment (school environment, exposure to violence, peer delinquency) and cultural context (level of child acculturation). Third, cultural factors, specifically, child acculturation, accounted for site differences in rates of bullying others between the South Bronx and San Juan.

Overall, our study highlights the relevance of considering the broader socio-cultural context in which children develop when studying factors related to bullying others. This is particularly supported by the fact that when we assessed one homogeneous Latino subgroup (Puerto Ricans) in two settings, considerably higher levels of bullying others were found among children living in the highest risk context (South Bronx in comparison to San Juan). Other epidemiological studies, using similar sampling and bullying definitions have also reported significant differences across contexts (countries) in prevalence of bullying perpetration (Wolke et al 2001, Craig et al 2009). These studies however, did not include enough information about specific contextual factors in each country where bullying prevalence was measured, precluding the determination of specific factors that could be linked to bullying perpetration and being, therefore, limited to inform intervention development.

The ecological model represents a comprehensive approach to examine factors at different levels that may influence bullying perpetration. Culture, an important aspect of our psychosocial environment, has rarely been studied in empirical investigations and preventive intervention models. Integrating cultural aspects of children’s experiences into the ecological model of bullying perpetration may be important, particularly where majority and ethnically diverse populations meet, and being a minority may posit specific adaptation challenges. Consistent with an ecological approach and with previous research (Nansel et al 2004, Barboza et al 2009, Espelage et al 2000, Espelage and Holt 2001), our study shows that factors associated with bullying belong to multiple contexts: the individual, family, social and cultural contexts. The individual characteristics associated with bullying others (child’s positive social adjustment and academic achievement) suggest that children who feel the acceptance of peers and teachers may be more motivated to perform well in school, which may act as a protective factor against engaging in aggressive behaviors (Stepp et al 2011). In line with previous research, the exposure to negative environments within the family and school contexts, in particular the exposure to harsh parenting (Veenstra et al 2005), negative school climate (Nansel et al 2001, Barboza et al 2009), violence (Fite and Colder 2007) and association with deviant peers (Fite and Colder 2007) was significantly related with bullying others (Haynie et al 2006). In accordance with the social learning theory (Bandura 1978), our findings suggest that exposure to a harsh and aggressive behavior in “model contexts” such as home and school, may have a strong impact on children’s emotional and behavioral development, making these children more likely to display aggressive behaviors. These learned behaviors and relational patterns would then be reproduced with other vulnerable peers, with whom aggression and perceived domination of power could be conceived as an acceptable way of conflict resolution (Bandura 1978).

With the exception of culture, none of the aforementioned factors in our sample explained differences in the behavior of bullying others across the South Bronx and San Juan. Beyond individual, family and social factors, our study showed that cultural experiences of Puerto Rican children can constitute a risk factor for bullying others. Furthermore, greater child acculturation levels were associated with greater bullying perpetration, and in fact, child acculturation explained differences found between the South Bronx and San Juan. Acculturation refers to the changes that occur as a result of the direct and continuous contact of individuals with a culture different from their own (Redfield 1936). This dynamic process is known to involve individual changes with consequences at the psychological and socio-cultural levels (Ward et al 2001). The relationship between cultural experiences and bullying is certainly not well understood. It is possible that the exposure of Puerto Rican minority children to mainstream American culture and the need to cope and navigate cross-cultural worlds, may lead to some degree of distress which may, in turn, be externalized as bullying behaviors. According to the social identity theory, bullying others could represent a maladaptive way of identity formation, in which minority children could seek to distinguish themselves from other groups by engaging in an in-group bias, perceived as comparatively superior and distinctive ( Duffy and Nesdale 2009). However, the fact that cultural stress (which includes perceived discrimination) was not related to bullying others suggests that the distress related to the acculturation experience may not be perceived as related to one’s cultural experiences. It is also possible that the relationship between acculturation and bullying others is only present within particular contexts or segments of a culture (Portes and Zhou 1993, Portes and Rivas 2011) like the South Bronx, where other risks are abundant.

Overall, our study provides a broad, comprehensive perspective of how different contexts and cultural experiences can have an impact on bullying perpetration. Our findings carry clinical and public health implications. Current anti-bullying programs aim to reduce opportunities and rewards for bullying engagement, by building a sense of community among children and school staff. However, school preventive programs have yielded modest positive results (Swearer et al 2010, Merrel et al 2008). Addressing school environment and influencing knowledge and teacher-student relationships may not be sufficient to prevent bullying. Our study suggests that other specific aspects of the community, family, and culture play a role in the development of bullying perpetration and should be targets for prevention programs. Further, our results indicate that programs with a specific focus towards children living at high-risk contexts (Olweus 1994, Olweus and Limber 2010) may be warranted. Pediatricians and general practitioners may be the main initial care providers to those children living at high-risk contexts, where early identification of the risk factors involved at multiple levels may be crucial for bullying prevention. Once risks are identified, interventions should be adapted to the contextual factors that children live with. For instance, parents may be strategic positioned to, (through for example parent training), address aspects of the child individual, family and socio-cultural factors that could lead to bullying.

Our findings should be interpreted in light of study limitations. First, bullying others was assessed through a single question, answered by children and parents, that measured lifetime bullying, including from a single bullying episode to a chronic pattern of behavior. Second, this question did not specifically assessed common forms of bullying, such as name calling or cyberbullying (Kowalski and Limber 2013). Third, the cross-sectional design of our analysis precludes the interpretation of sequence of events, as reverse causation could still explain our results. For instance, children who bully others could influence parenting behavior and school environment. Also, bullying others could favor acculturation, so that in order to acculturate to a specific context Puerto Rican children could tend to affiliate with those who are perceived as more aggressive and dominant in an attempt to feel less of a minority (Espelage and Holt 2001). Fouth, there might be other factors, not considered in this study, which may explain the relationship between context and bullying others. For instance, we were not able to measure how many of the children with bullying behaviors were actually bullied by peers. There is evidence showing that minority children can be common targets of bullying (Wolke et al 2001), and that, in turn, being a bully-victim increases the risks of bullying others (Nansel et al 2001, Olweus et al 1978, Perren et al 2006, Perren et al 2013). Notwithstanding these limitations, this is the first study to use a population-based homogeneous Latino subgroup sample to investigate determinants of bullying perpetration in two sites. By expanding understanding about the role of context in bullying perpetration, our findings have relevant implications from a clinical and public health standpoint. In addition, the novel focus on Puerto Rican children indicates that prevention programs among minority youth living in at-risk contexts may benefit from contextually sensitive interventions that address the extent to which assimilation into a high-risk context may increase likelihood of bullying perpetration.

Contributor Information

Carmen Morcillo, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University. 1051 Riverside Drive. Unit #43, Room 5219. New York, NY 10032.

Maria A. Ramos-Olazagasti, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University. 1051 Riverside Drive. Unit #43, Room 5219. New York, NY 10032

Carlos Blanco, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University. 1051 Riverside Drive. Unit #43, Room 5219. New York, NY 10032.

Regina Sala, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University. 1051 Riverside Drive. Unit #43, Room 5219. New York, NY 10032.

Glorisa Canino, Behavioral Sciences Research Institute, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Hector Bird, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University. 1051 Riverside Drive. Unit #43, Room 5219. New York, NY 10032.

Cristiane S. Duarte, Email: Duartec@nyspi.columbia.edu, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University. 1051 Riverside Drive. Unit #43, Room 5219. New York, NY 10032

References

  1. Bandura A. Social learning theory of aggression. The Journal of Communication. 1978;28(3):12–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barboza GE, Schiamberg LB, Oehmke J, Korzeniewski SJ, Post LA, Heraux CG. Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2009;38(1):101–121. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bird H, Canino G, Davies M, Duarte CS, Febo V, Ramirez R, Hoven C, Wicks J, Musa G, Loeber R. A Study of Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Puerto Rican Youth: I. Background, Design, and Survey Methods. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2006;45(9):1032–1041. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000227878.58027.3d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bird H, Davies M, Duarte C, Loeber R, Canino G. A Study of Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Puerto Rican Youth: II. Baseline Prevalence, Comorbidity, and Correlates in Two Sites. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2006;45(9):1042–1053. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000227879.65651.cf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bravo M, Ribera J, Rubio-Stipec M, Canino G, Shrout P, Ramirez R, Fabregas L, Chavez L, Alegria M, Buermeister JJ, Martinez-Taboas A. Test-retest reliability of the Spanish version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV) Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2001;29(5):433–444. doi: 10.1023/a:1010499520090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bronfenbrenner U. Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development. 1995;619:647. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cervantes RC, Padilla AM, De Snyder NS. Reliability and validity of the Hispanic Stress Inventory. Hispanic journal of behavioral sciences. 1990;12(1):76–82. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook CR, Williams KR, Guerra NG, Kim TE, Sadek S. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly. 2010;25(2):65–83. [Google Scholar]
  9. Craig W, Harel-Fisch Y, Fogel-Grinvald H, Dostaler S, Hetland J, Simons-Morton B, Molcho M, de Mato MG, Overpeck M, Due P, Pickett W HBSC Violence & Injuries Prevention Focus Group, HBSC Bullying Writing Group. A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health. 2009;54:216–224. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodman SH, Hoven CW, Narrow WE, Cohen P, Fielding B, Alegria M, Leaf PJ, Kandel D, Horwitz SM, Bravo M, Moore R, Dulcan MK. Measurement of risk for mental disorders and competence in a psychiatric epidemiologic community survey: the National Institute of Mental Health Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders (MECA) Study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 1998;33(4):162–173. doi: 10.1007/s001270050039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Duffy AL, Nesdale D. Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development. 2009;18(1):121–139. [Google Scholar]
  12. Espelage DL, Bosworth K, Simon TR. Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development. 2000;78(3):326–333. [Google Scholar]
  13. Espelage DL, Holt MK. Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 2001;2(2/3):123–142. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fite PJ, Colder CR. Proactive and Reactive Aggression and Peer Delinquency. Journal of Early Adolescence. 2007;27(2):223–240. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fite PJ, Vitulano M, Wynn P, Wimsatt A, Gaertner A, Rathert J. Influence of perceived neighborhood safety on proactive and reactive aggression. Journal of Community Psychology. 2010;38(6):757–768. [Google Scholar]
  16. Good M, Smilkstein G, Good B, Shaffer T, Arons T. The family APGAR Indices: a study of construct validity. The Journal of Family Practice. 1979;8:577–582. [Google Scholar]
  17. Haynie DL, Silver E, Teasdale B. Neighborhood characteristics, peer networks, and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2006;22(2):147–169. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hudson WW. Methodological observations on applied behavioral science. A measurement package for clinical workers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1982;18(2):229–238. doi: 10.1177/002188638201800210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jansen D, Veenstra R, Ormel J, Verhulst F, Reijneveld S. Early risk factors for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The longitudinal TRAILS study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):440. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jimerson SR, Espelage DL, Swearer SM. A Social-Ecological Model for Bullying Prevention and Intervention. In: Jimerson Shane R, Swearer Susan M, Espelage Dorothy L., editors. Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective. New York: Routledge; 2010. pp. 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson J, McKutcheon S. Assessing life stress in older children and adolescents: Preliminary findings with the Life Events Checklist. Stress and Anxiety. 1980;7:111–125. [Google Scholar]
  23. Klomek AB, Sourander A, Niemela S, Kumpulainen K, Piha J, Tamminen T, Almqvist F, Gould MS. Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide attempts and completed suicides: a population-based birth cohort study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009;48(3):254–261. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e318196b91f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013 Jul;53(1 Suppl):S13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lish JD, Weissman MM, Adams PB, Hoven CW, Bird HR. Family psychiatric screening instruments for epidemiologic studies: pilot testing and validation. Psychiatry Research. 1995;57(2):169–180. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(95)02632-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Loeber R, Farrington D, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Kammen W. Antisocial behavior and mental health problems: Explanatory factors in childhood and adolescence. Psychology Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  27. Magana JR, de la Rocha O, Amsel J, Magana HA, Fernandez MI, Rulnick S. Revisiting the dimensions of acculturation: Cultural theory and psychometric practice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1996;18(4):444–468. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mendoza RH. An empirical scale to measure type and degree of acculturation in Mexican American adolescents and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1989;20(4):372–385. [Google Scholar]
  29. Merrell KW, Gueldner BA, Ross SW, Isava DM. How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly. 2008;23(1):26. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nansel TR, Craig W, Overpeck MD, Saluja G, Ruan W. Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004;158(8):730–736. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.158.8.730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan W, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth. JAMA. 2001;285(16):2094. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Natvig GK, Albrektsen G, Qvarnstrom U. School-related stress experience as a risk factor for bullying behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2001;30(5):561–575. [Google Scholar]
  33. Olweus D. Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, D.C: Hemisphere; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  34. Olweus D. Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1994;35(7):1171–1190. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Olweus D, Limber SP. Bullying in school: evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2010;80(1):124–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Patterson GR, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development. 1984;55(4):1299–1307. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pepler D, Jiang D, Craig W, Connolly J. Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development. 2008;79(2):325–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Perren S, Ettekal I, Ladd G. The impact of peer victimization on later maladjustment: mediating and moderating effects of hostile and self-blaming attributions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;54(1):46–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02618.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Perren S, Alsaker FD. Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;47(1):45–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Portes A, Rivas A. The adaptation of migrant children. Future Child. 2011;21(1):219–46. doi: 10.1353/foc.2011.0004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Portes A, Zhou M. The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1993;530(1):74–96. [Google Scholar]
  42. Redfield R, Linton R, Herskovits MJ. Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist. 1936;38(1):149–152. [Google Scholar]
  43. Research Triangle Institute. Software for survey data analysis (SUDAAN) version 9.0.3. Research Triangle Park (NC); 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician. 1985;39(1):33–38. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;127(8 Part 2):757–763. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rubin DB, Thomas N. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2000;95(450):573–585. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sabogal F, Marin G, Otero-Sabogal R, Marin B, Perez-Stable E. Hispanic Familism and Acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 1987;4:397–412. [Google Scholar]
  48. Shaffer D, Fisher P, Lucas CP, Dulcan MK, Schwab-Stone ME. NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000;39(1):28–38. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sourander A, Brunstein Klomek A, Kumpulainen K, Puustjarvi A, Elonheimo H, Ristkari T, Tamminen T, Moilanen I, Piha J, Ronning JA. Bullying at age eight and criminality in adulthood: findings from the Finnish Nationwide 1981 Birth Cohort Study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2010;46:1211–1219. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0292-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sourander A, Jensen P, Ronning JA, Niemela S, Helenius H, Sillanmaki L, Kumpulainen K, Piha J, Tamminen T, Moilanen I, Almqvist F. What is the early adulthood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The Finnish “From a Boy to a Man” Study. Pediatrics. 2007;120(2):397. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sourander A, Ronning J, Brunstein-Klomek A, Gyllenberg D, Kumpulainen K, Niemela S, Helenius H, Sillanmaki L, Ristkari T, Tamminen T, Moilanen I, Piha J, Almqvist F. Childhood bullying behavior and later psychiatric hospital and psychopharmacologic treatment: findings from the Finnish 1981 birth cohort study. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2009;66(9):1005. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stepp S, Pardini D, Loeber R, Morris N. The relation between adolescent social competence and young adult delinquency and educational attainment among at-risk youth: the mediating role of peer delinquency. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2011;56(8):457. doi: 10.1177/070674371105600803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Swearer SM, Espelage DL, Vaillancourt T, Hymel S. What Can Be Done About School Bullying? Educational Researcher. 2010;39(1):38–47. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F, Loeber R. The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health. 2011;21(2):80–89. doi: 10.1002/cbm.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Oldehinkel AJ, De Winter AF, Verhulst FC, Ormel J. Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: a comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology. 2005;41(4):672. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ward CA, Bochner S, Furnham A. The psychology of culture shock. London: Psychology Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wolke D, Woods S, Stanford K, Schulz H. Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology. 2001;92(4):673–696. doi: 10.1348/000712601162419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES