Table 3.
Summary of results
| Citation | Bullying types | Results | Analysis method | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bauman, 2008 [13] | Relational, overt |
Coefficient, p value: β = 0.32, p < 0.009 (relational) β = 0.09, p = 0.396 (overt)a |
Regression | Relational victimization had the strongest, and only significant, relationship with depression |
| Bauman et al. 2013 [13] | Traditional, cyber |
Standardized coefficient, p value: 0.13, p < 0.01 (F, traditional) 0.20, p < 0.001 (M, traditional) 0.24, p < 0.001 (F, cyber) 0.10, p = 0.10 (M, cyber)a |
SEM | Depression was a mediator for the relationship between traditional bullying and suicide for female and male participants, but only for female in cyber bullying |
| Bauman and Summers, 2009 [22] | Relational, overt |
Coefficient, p value: β = 0.30, p < 0.000 (relational) β = 0.29, p < 0.000 (overt) |
Regression | Victimization significantly predicted depression |
| Bogart et al. 2014 [14] | No distinction |
Coefficient, p value: β = 0.12, p < 0.001 (present) β = 0.43, p < 0.001 (past) β = 0.79, p < 0.001 (past and present) For 10th grade, versus non-victims |
Regression | Experiencing present victimization with a history of past victimization related to the strongest relationship with depression |
| Cardoso et al, 2017 [44] | Verbal, Physical, Ethnic-Biased |
Unstandardized coefficient, p value: 0.585, p < 0.05 (relational) 0.413, p < 0.05 (ethnic-biased) NR, p = NR (physical)a |
SEM | Relational and ethnic-biased victimization were significantly associated with depression, but physical bullying was not |
| Forster et al. 2013 [26] | Direct, indirect |
Coefficient, p value: β = 0.25, p < 0.0001 |
Regression | Peer victimization, acculturative stress and lower family cohesion were risk factors for depression |
| Garnett et al. 2014 [45] | No distinction |
Coefficient, p value: β = 2.84, p < 0.01 (bully × disc) |
LCA, regression | The intersection of discrimination and bullying victimization was associated with depression |
| Harrison, 2006 [39] | Overt, relational, reputational |
Coefficient, p value; time 1: β = 0.16, p < 0.01 (overt) β = 0.19, p < 0.01 (relational) β = 0.07, p = NR (reputational)a Coefficient, p value; time 2: β = 0.06, p = NR (overt)a β = − 0.12, p < 0.05 (relational) β = 0.19, p < 0.01 (reputational) |
Regression | Peer victimization was generally associated with high depression, but causal and moderation patters differed based on type of victimization. |
| Landoll et al, 2013 [13] | Relational, overt, cyber |
Standardized coefficient, p value: 0.40, p < 0.01 (cyber) 0.23, p = 0.04 (relational) |
SEM | Peer victimization was related to higher rates of depression and anxiety with a specific examination of victimization on social media networks |
| Landoll et al, 2015 [40] | Relational, reputational, overt, cyber |
Standardized coefficient, p value: NR (overt)a 0.41, p < 0.001 (relational) NR (reputational)a 0.16, p < 0.05 (cyber) |
SEM | Relational and cyber bullying contribute to depression, with cyber bullying having a unique effect |
| Mihalas, 2008 [16] | Relational, physical, verbal |
Coefficient, p value: β = 0.46, p < 0.0001 |
Regression | Relational victimization was significantly associated with depression; hope and perceived social support were significant moderator variables |
| Reed et al, 2015 [43] | Traditional, cyber |
Unstandardized coefficient, p value 0.57, p < 0.001 (traditional) 0.58, p < 0.001 (cyber) |
PME | There were statistically significant paths from victimization to depression and suicide without involvement of depression, suicidal thinking or suicide planning |
| Romero et al, 2013 [17] | Traditional, cyber |
Correlation, p value: 0.16, p < 0.001 (traditional) 0.19, p < 0.01 (cyber) |
Correlation | Victimization correlated to depression; being a victim increased the likelihood of suicide after controlling for depression |
| Saluja et al, 2004 [46] | No distinction |
Prevalence, risk ratio, 95% CI: 27.7%, RR 1.2, (1.1–1.6); F, 1–2× 36.8%, RR 1.7, (1.4–2.1); F, 2 + 10.2%, RR 1.4, (0.9–2.1); M, 1–2× 17.7%, RR 2.4, (1.7–3.4); M, 2+ |
Prevalence | Both bullies and victims were more than twice was likely to report depression |
| Schacter and Juvonen, 2017 [47] | No distinction |
Coefficient, p value 0.143, p < 0.001 (depression led to bullying) |
Mediation model | Depression for the adolescent and friend group increase the risk for perceptions of victimization through a self-blaming attributions model |
| Storch et al, 2005 | Relational, overt |
Standardized coefficient, p value: 0.56, p < 0.001 (overt, boys) 0.47, p < 0.001 (overt, girls) 0.23, p > 0.05 (relational, boys)* 0.31, p > 0.001 (relational, girls) |
Linear regression | Overt and relational victimization were positively associated with depressive and other social-psychological adjustment symptoms |
| Wang et al, 2011 [48] | Physical, verbal, relational, cyber |
Prevalence, R2: 21.2%, R2 = 0.115 (physical) 53.7%, R2 = 0.170 (verbal) 51.6%, R2 = 0.189 (relational) 13.8%, R2 = 0.107 (cyber) |
Prevalence, regression | Depression was associated with all four types of bullying |
NOTES: aRelationship not significant; Abbreviations: SEM Structural Equation Modeling, LCA Latent Class Analysis, PME Path Model Estimate