Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Appl Dev Psychol. 2021 Nov 23;78:101356. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101356

Interactive Effects of Coping Strategies and Emotion Dysregulation on Risk for Peer Victimization

John L Cooley 1, Paula J Fite 2, Lesa Hoffman 3
PMCID: PMC8765728  NIHMSID: NIHMS1759322  PMID: 35058670

Abstract

The aim of the current longitudinal study was to examine the interactive effects of six common coping strategies (i.e., adult support seeking, friend support seeking, problem solving, humor, passive coping, and cognitive distancing) and emotion (i.e., anger and sadness) dysregulation on concurrent levels and subsequent trajectories of peer victimization over a 2-year period. Participants were 287 predominantly Caucasian students (53.7% boys; ages 6–9) from an elementary school located in the Midwestern United States. Self-reported coping strategies and emotion dysregulation were assessed at baseline; children also provided ratings of peer victimization annually over a 2-year period. Results indicated that the effectiveness of particular coping strategies may depend on children’s overt, undercontrolled displays of anger and sadness. Consistent with recent recommendations, these findings suggest that some youth may require interventions that focus on both enhancing emotion regulation skills and teaching strategies for responding to peer victimization in a more adaptive manner.

Keywords: peer victimization, coping strategies, emotion dysregulation, anger, sadness, middle childhood

Peer victimization—the experience of being the target of peers’ aggressive behavior—is a prevalent interpersonal stressor for children and adolescents globally (Chester et al., 2015). Evidence suggests that the strategies youth use to cope with such experiences may influence their risk for subsequent adjustment difficulties (e.g., Visconti & Troop-Gordon, 2010). Findings have been mixed, however, regarding which coping strategies lead to increases or decreases in peer victimization over time (e.g., Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008; Terranova et al., 2010). Although the consequences of particular responses appear to vary among boys and girls (e.g., Shelley & Craig, 2010), relatively little is currently known about individual differences in the effects of coping; this notable omission may have important implications for the development of interventions as well as efforts to address peer victimization by educators, parents, and clinicians.

One factor that has been prospectively associated with higher levels of peer victimization across developmental periods is emotion dysregulation (Hanish et al., 2004; Morelen et al., 2016 Spence et al., 2009). It has also been suggested that the effectiveness of a particular coping strategy may depend on youth’s ability to regulate their emotions (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004, Spence et al., 2009; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011). The aim of the current longitudinal study was to evaluate whether the concurrent and prospective links from six common coping strategies (i.e., adult support seeking, friend support seeking, problem solving, humor, passive coping, and cognitive distancing) to peer victimization differed according to elementary school-age children’s overt, undercontrolled expressions of anger and sadness as well as gender.

Coping Strategies and Peer Victimization

Although multiple frameworks have been put forward in the study of coping, one predominant theoretical model that has been applied to peer victimization distinguishes two basic orientations toward stressful situations: approach and avoidance (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Approach coping involves direct attempts to cognitively and behaviorally address the stressor (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Specifically, youth may engage in adult or friend support seeking, wherein they turn to a caregiver, teacher, or peer for assistance. They may also use problem solving by trying to determine the cause of their victimization and developing a plan to prevent it from happening again. In contrast, avoidance coping is focused on managing the cognitive and emotional reactions arising from a stressor (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Children and adolescents may use passive coping, which entails withdrawing, ruminating, and blaming themselves for a hostile encounter, or they may engage in cognitive distancing by ignoring or minimizing an interaction with an aggressive peer. Humor is another coping strategy that can be manifested as either approach or avoidance. For example, individuals may use humor to enhance relationships and reduce interpersonal tensions with peers (i.e., approach), or they may maintain a humorous perspective in order to enhance the self and avoid becoming overly upset (i.e., avoidance; Fox et al., 2015).

In the broader literature on peer victimization, approach responses have generally been linked to more adaptive psychosocial outcomes than have avoidance responses (e.g., Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Sugimura et al., 2014). Most relevant to the current research, evidence indicates that the strategies children and adolescents use to cope with peer provocation may impact their risk for victimization. For example, one cross-sectional study of students in second and fourth grade found that adult support seeking was related to lower levels of peer victimization, and passive coping was associated with higher levels of peer victimization; in contrast, neither problem solving nor cognitive distancing were directly linked to victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004) found that conflict resolution (which is analogous to problem solving) predicted decreases in peer victimization from the fall to spring semester among kindergarten through fifth-grade students. Moreover, cognitive distancing predicted subsequent increases in peer victimization, whereas general support seeking was not prospectively associated with experiences of victimization. Still, none of the aforementioned coping strategies have been reliably linked to changes in peer victimization over time among elementary and middle school-age youth living in rural, urban, and suburban settings (see Spence et al., 2009; Terranova et al., 2010; Visconti & Troop-Gordan, 2010).

Gender Differences in the Effects of Coping Strategies

This inconsistent pattern of findings may be partly explained by the fact that coping strategies have different consequences for boys and girls. Shelley and Craig (2010) found that, during childhood, no coping strategies were effective at reducing victimization over time for boys. Rather, general support seeking was linked to higher concurrent levels of victimization, and passive coping and cognitive distancing predicted increases in peer victimization over a 6-month period. For girls, passive coping and cognitive distancing were linked to higher concurrent levels of victimization, and general support seeking predicted decreases in peer victimization over time. One of the only known studies to investigate humor as a coping response revealed that self-defeating humor (i.e., humor that enhances relationships with others at the expense of the self) was related to increases in peer victimization from the fall to the summer of 1 year for boys and girls attending urban and rural middle schools, whereas affiliative humor (i.e., humor that enhances relationships with others and reduces interpersonal tensions) predicted subsequent decreases in peer victimization for boys only (Fox et al., 2015).

These gender differences may be accounted for by the social norms within peer groups. Adaptive humor styles may be differentially effective in reducing victimization because overt humor is more highly valued in boys’ than in girls’ peer groups (Fox et al., 2015). Further, adults may expect boys to handle interpersonal conflicts independently due to a cultural expectation for them to be “tough” (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011); boys may therefore be met with disapproval when they ask for assistance. In contrast, seeking social support is more normative among girls (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Thus, girls may be better able to use adult support seeking to reduce peer victimization. Gender differences in the effectiveness of problem solving and friend support seeking are not yet clear, but these are generally considered adaptive forms of coping that directly address interpersonal conflict (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Sugimura et al., 2014). In contrast, humor styles that are self-deprecating in nature may put both boys and girls at risk for peer victimization because they are excessively disparaging and are thought to reflect underlying emotional neediness and low self-esteem (Fox et al., 2015). Moreover, avoidance responses involving passive coping and cognitive distancing may also lead to increases in victimization regardless of gender, as they signal vulnerability to the aggressor and can be interpreted as an act of submission that suggests that the victim is unlikely to retaliate (Shelley & Craig, 2010).

Emotion Dysregulation as a Potential Moderator

Besides gender differences, relatively little is currently known regarding what individual factors may attenuate or exacerbate the effects of coping strategies on risk for peer victimization. Research has highlighted the central role of emotion regulation in youth’s experiences of victimization. In particular, emotion dysregulation—defined as “difficulty modulating emotion experience and expression in response to contextual demands and controlling the influence of emotional arousal on the organization and quality of thoughts, actions, and interactions” (Cole et al., 1994, p. 85)—has consistently been shown to predict increases in peer victimization from early childhood through early adolescence (Hanish et al., 2004; Spence et al., 2009). One study examined peers’ perceptions of elementary and middle school students’ responses to aggression and found that victims were likely to reinforce their aggressors with visible signs of emotional distress, thereby perpetuating their hostile interactions (Perry et al., 1990). Correspondingly, elementary through high school teachers have reported that youth’s strong emotional reactions exacerbate their future risk of peer victimization, with one stating: “The more they react, the more they are sought out to be picked on” (Rosen et al., 2017, p. 133). The current study focuses on dysregulation that involves undercontrolled behavioral expressions of negative emotion that may be considered inappropriate within social contexts (Zeman et al., 2001).

According to the functionalist perspective, discrete emotions correspond to specific action tendencies (Campos et al., 1989). For example, anger provides energy and motivation to accomplish one’s goals when obstacles are encountered (Cole et al., 1994). Sadness, on the other hand, may prompt withdrawal or serve as a social signal that helps elicit support from others (Campos et al., 1989). Considering that each emotion serves distinct functions within social contexts, it is important to examine anger and sadness dysregulation independently (Zeman et al., 2001). Yet, comparatively less is known regarding how the overt, undercontrolled expression of specific emotions is linked to youth’s experiences of victimization. In the limited evidence available, both anger and sadness dysregulation increased risk for concurrent victimization among preschool-, elementary school-, and middle school-age youth (Hanish et al., 2004; Morelen et al., 2016; Spence et al., 2009), whereas only anger dysregulation uniquely predicted subsequent peer victimization (Hanish et al., 2004; Spence et al., 2009). As previously noted, it may be that children who exhibit exaggerated displays of anger (e.g., losing their temper, yelling, saying mean things to others) or sadness (e.g., crying, moping) may reinforce aggressors and experience more stable patterns of victimization. Moreover, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of a particular response to peer victimization depends on children’s ability to regulate their emotions (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Spence et al., 2009; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011). It may be that children who are better able to manage their behavioral expressions of anger and sadness are more adept at responding effectively during hostile interactions with peers.

Current Study

The goal of the current longitudinal study was to examine the interactive influence of coping strategies, emotion dysregulation, and gender on risk for peer victimization among elementary school-age children living in a rural community. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine potential moderators of the prospective links from coping strategies to peer victimization. This developmental period was selected for two main reasons. First, previous research suggests that by the middle childhood years, youth have acquired basic emotion management skills (Saarni, 1999), and emotion regulation processes and coping tendencies have become relatively stable (Cole et al., 1994; Losoya et al., 1998; Terranova et al., 2010). Therefore, it can be assumed that the responses of students in the second and third grades will reflect consistent patterns of coping and emotion dysregulation. Second, forming and sustaining appropriate peer interactions and relationships represents one of the key developmental tasks during middle childhood (Sroufe et al., 1993). Given that rates of peer victimization tend to decrease during the final years of elementary school (Rudolph et al., 2011) prior to peaking during the transition to middle school (Pellegrini & Long, 2002), this age range provides an ideal window for interventions to equip youth with effective methods of coping with interpersonal stress in order to reduce their subsequent risk for maladjustment and help them successfully navigate the reorganization of peer groups during adolescence.

Moreover, rural communities comprise a substantial percentage of the population in the United States (i.e., approximately 20%) as well as in other countries. Previous research suggests that children and adolescents attending rural schools are at similar or greater risk for exposure to peer victimization and violence (Dulmus et al., 2004; Stockdale et al., 2002), and they exhibit higher rates of substance use (Rhew et al., 2011) and death by suicide (Nance et al., 2010). Rural communities may also have less access to services, including mental health providers (Holzer et al., 2000). Thus, the examination of individual differences in the effects of coping strategies on peer victimization may have important implications for interventions among rural youth.

We hypothesized that overt, undercontrolled emotional reactions would undermine children’s attempts to cope with interpersonal conflict, regardless of the strategy they employed. More specifically, for those with lower levels of anger and sadness dysregulation, we expected that adult support seeking (among girls), friend support seeking, problem solving, and humor (among boys) would predict greater decreases in peer victimization over time. Conversely, for those with higher levels of anger and sadness dysregulation, we expected that adult support seeking (among boys), humor, passive coping, and cognitive distancing would predict more stable patterns of peer victimization over time. We did not hypothesize whether patterns of moderation would differ for anger or sadness dysregulation due to the dearth of previous research examining prospective links from these discrete emotions to peer victimization.

Method

Participants

Participants included 287 children in the 2nd (n = 168) and 3rd (n = 119) grades at an elementary school serving an entire district in a rural Midwestern community in the United States. Data collection occurred as part of a larger project examining the impact of peer victimization and aggression on youth’s psychological and social adjustment. All incoming students in the 2nd and 3rd grades not receiving special education services that required placement outside the mainstream classroom were recruited for participation into the first study cohort during summer 2015 (n = 264). Overall, 99% of families (n = 262) completed the consent form that was included with online back-to-school paperwork, and permission was obtained for 83% of the eligible students to participate during fall 2015 (n = 218). Similar methods were followed during summer 2016 to recruit into the second study cohort any new incoming 2nd and 3rd grade students who had not yet participated. Of the remaining eligible students (n = 173), 82% of families completed the consent form (n = 142), and permission was obtained for 66% of the eligible students to participate during fall 2016 (n = 115). It should be noted that the lower consent rate for the second cohort may be attributed to the caregivers of 3rd grade students who declined participation (or did not return the forms) across both recruitment years. Caregivers of students in each cohort were asked to provide informed consent again on an annual basis prior to each subsequent data collection.

At Time 1, data were excluded from subsequent analysis for 46 students who had moved, declined assent, were absent during data collection, provided verbal assent but did not complete the target measures, or whose classrooms could not be surveyed due to logistical constraints. The final sample of 154 boys and 133 girls (N = 287) ranged from 6 to 9 years of age at Time 1 (M = 7.69, SD = 0.67). See Table S1 for additional information regarding the sample composition for each study cohort over time. School records indicated that the racial composition of children attending the elementary school was predominantly Caucasian; less than 10% of the students were racially/ethnically diverse. Although individual socioeconomic data were not available, census data showed that the lower middle-class community in which the school was located had an average per capita income of $27,168, with 10.1% of households living below the federal poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). According to school records, approximately 40% of all students at the school were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Procedures

The larger project behind the current study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board and school administrators. Child-reports were collected approximately 12 weeks after the start of the fall semester at each time point. Data collection for 3rd grade students occurred through class-wide group administration. Students were first asked to provide verbal assent prior to their participation. Research assistants then read standardized instructions to the students and read each item aloud. Similar procedures were followed for 2nd grade students, with the exception that they were randomly divided into smaller groups of 3–5 so as to minimize distractions during the testing sessions. These procedures were repeated again approximately 1 year later (Time 2) as well as approximately 2 years later (Time 3) for each cohort. Children received a small prize (i.e., a pencil) for participating in the study at each occasion.

Measures

Given the ordinal format of the item responses, the fit of the hypothesized factor structure for each construct was examined using a series of item factor analysis measurement models estimated via diagonally weight least squares (i.e., WLSMV with the THETA parameterization) using Mplus software (Version 7.4; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2015). These item factor models were subsequently re-estimated using marginal maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with adaptive numeric integration to evaluate measurement invariance by gender and time point for each construct and to obtain expected a posteriori factor score estimates for each student. Given the nonlinear relations between the latent factor and item responses, reliability in these models (as quantified by test information) necessarily varies over the latent factor. For ease of interpretation, test information was converted to a reliability metric ranging from 0–1; the factor score ranges with reliability ≥ .70 are reported for each construct below. Further details about these measurement-related analyses are available by request.

Coping Strategies

Coping strategies were assessed at Time 1 using a modified version of the Self-Report Coping Scale (SRCS; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). The modified SRCS consists of six subscales: four items measure adult support seeking (e.g., “Tell your mom or dad what happened”), two items measure friend support seeking (e.g., “Ask a friend what you should do”), three items measure problem solving (e.g., “Change things to keep it from happening again”), six items measure passive coping (e.g., “Go off by yourself”), and four items measure cognitive distancing (e.g., “Forget the whole thing”). We did not include the five-item revenge seeking subscale due to its conceptual overlap with anger dysregulation. We also included the six-item humor subscale (e.g., “Make a joke to diffuse the situation”) developed by Sugimura and colleagues (2014). Students were asked to rate the frequency with which they employ each of the strategies when another child is mean to them on a three-point scale (1 = Never to 3 = Most of the Time), such that higher scores indicate more usage of each strategy. The modified SRCS has demonstrated good psychometric properties in samples of elementary school-age children (e.g., Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). In the current study, measurement models supported a six-factor structure. The item factor analyses suggested adequate reliability (i.e., ≥ .70) for students with the following range of factor scores: adult support seeking (−2.30 to 1.10 SD), friend support seeking (−1.35 to 1.30 SD), problem solving (−1.45 to 1.30 SD), humor (−0.85 to 3.00 SD), passive coping (−0.40 to 3.00 SD), and cognitive distancing (−1.40 to 2.60 SD).

Emotion Dysregulation

Anger and sadness dysregulation were assessed at Time 1 using the Children’s Emotion Management Scales for Anger and Sadness (CEMS; Zeman et al., 2001). We focus only on Dysregulation subscale of three items that measure overt, undercontrolled expressions of each emotion. Students were asked to select the response that best describes their behavior when they are feeling mad (e.g., “I do things like slam doors when I am feeling mad”) and sad (e.g., “I cry and carry on when I’m sad”) on a three-point scale (1 = Hardly-Ever to 3 = Often), such that greater scores represent more dysregulation. The CEMS Dysregulation subscales have shown good psychometric properties in samples of elementary school-age children (e.g., Zeman et al., 2001). Our measurement models supported a two-factor structure differentiating anger from sadness, each with adequate reliability across the following range of factor scores: anger dysregulation (−0.35 to 2.45 SD) and sadness dysregulation (−0.50 to 2.35 SD).

Peer Victimization

Child-reports of peer victimization were assessed at each occasion using a modified version of the Victimization of Self (VS) scale from the Peer Experiences Questionnaire (Dill et al., 2004), which consists of nine items assessing both physical (e.g., “A kid hit, kicked, or pushed me in a mean way”) and relational (e.g., “A kid told lies about me so other kids wouldn’t like me”) forms of victimization. Students were asked to rate the frequency of such occurrences since the beginning of the school year on a five-point scale (1 = Never to 5 = Several Times a Week), such that higher scores indicate more frequent experiences of peer victimization. The modified VS scale has demonstrated good psychometric properties in samples of elementary school-age children (e.g., Dill et al., 2004). Our measurement models supported a one-factor structure with adequate reliability across the following range of factor scores: Time 1 (−1.35 to 3.00 SD), Time 2 (−1.27 to 3.00 SD), and Time 3 (−1.60 to 3.00 SD).

Analytic Method

All multilevel models were estimated within SAS (University Edition). Given that students were in different classrooms each year, we specified cross-classified two-level models in which occasions at level 1 were nested within students and classrooms, such that students and classrooms were crossed at level 2 with random intercept variances estimated for each (Hoffman, 2015). Full-information maximum likelihood estimation was used to address the missing outcomes at Times 2 (13%) and 3 (22%), as a series of independent samples t-tests indicated that participants with missing data did not differ from participants with complete data on any independent or dependent variables at Time 1. The significance of fixed effects was assessed by their individual Wald test p-values using Satterthwaite denominator degrees of freedom, whereas the significance of random effects was tested with likelihood ratio tests.

All factor score predictors (i.e., for coping strategies and emotion dysregulation) were standardized prior to estimating multilevel models to aid in the interpretation of their effects. Gender and grade level were centered such that boys and second-grade students served as the model reference. Time in years was centered such that the intercept corresponded to Time 1. Effect sizes were measured by the pseudo-R2 values for the proportion reduction in each variance component as well as total R2 (i.e., the squared correlation between the actual outcomes and the outcomes predicted by fixed effects; see Hoffman, 2015). Lastly, significant interactions were interpreted by calculating regions of significance of their simple effects (Bauer & Curran, 2005).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1. Of note, 79.4% of children reported having experienced at least one incident of peer victimization since the beginning of the school year at Time 1. Examination of raw mean/sum scores revealed that children’s experiences of peer victimization at Time 1 as measured by the VS scale were comparable to a sample drawn from 10 elementary schools in a Midwestern city (i.e., 0.07 SD difference; Dill et al., 2004) as well as another sample drawn from seven elementary schools located in suburban neighborhoods in the Midwestern United States (i.e., 0.27 SD difference; DePaolis & Williford, 2019). Moreover, participants’ anger and sadness dysregulation scores were comparable to three samples of elementary school-age youth living in urban areas (i.e., 0.02–0.45 SD difference; Morelen et al., 2016; Zeman et al., 2001, 2010).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Control Variables and Factor Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Gender ––
2. Grade .08 ––
3. Adult Support Seeking .04 –.01 ––
4. Friend Support Seeking .21 .06 .39 ––
5. Problem Solving .12 –.01 .55 .49 ––
6. Humor .00 .06 .25 .25 .34 ––
7. Passive Coping .02 –.01 .15 .25 .22 .17 ––
8. Cognitive Distancing –.03 .01 .24 .27 .37 .37 .38 ––
9. Anger Dysregulation –.20 –.05 –.10 .00 –.05 .04 .30 .09 ––
10. Sadness Dysregulation .09 –.04 .02 .15 .01 .05 .27 .14 .41 ––
11. T1 Peer Victimization –.13 –.15 .11 .20 .17 .18 .48 .26 .36 .17 ––
12. T2 Peer Victimization –.26 –.08 .09 .04 .04 .16 .32 .16 .25 .10 .73 ––
13. T3 Peer Victimization –.07 –.02 .04 .14 .09 .14 .38 .14 .30 .15 .76 .72 ––
Mean 0.46 0.50 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.01 –0.02 –0.13 0.06 –0.11 –0.55 –0.72
Standard Deviation 0.41 0.49 0.83 0.71 0.68 0.88 0.87 0.72 0.69 0.70 0.97 1.05 0.94
Open in a new tab

Note. T1 = Time 1 (Baseline); T2 = Time 2 (1-year follow-up); T3 = Time 3 (2-year follow-up); Gender (0 = Boys, 1 = Girls); Grade (0 = Second grade, 1 = Third grade); N = 287; Bold estimates represent statistically significant correlations (p < .05).

Empty means, random intercept multilevel models were initially estimated to partition the variance in peer victimization across children, classrooms, and time. The addition of a level-2 random intercept variance for children significantly improved model fit as compared to a single-level model, as did the subsequent inclusion of a level-2 random intercept variance for classrooms (see Table S2). Relative to the total variance in peer victimization, 63% was due to random intercept variance (mean differences) between children, 10% was due to random intercept variance (mean differences) between classrooms, and 27% was due to residual variance (within persons and classrooms over time). We then added a fixed linear effect of time, which revealed a significant average decrease in peer victimization over time, b = −0.31, SE = 0.03, p < .001. The fixed linear time slope accounted for 3% of the level-1 residual variance. We then examined the potential for individual differences in change by adding a random variance across children in the linear time slope (and its covariance with the random intercept), which was not significant (see Table S2); thus, analyses proceeded using a fixed linear time slope only.

Time-Invariant Predictors of Intercept and Change

We then added the factor scores for coping strategies and emotion dysregulation (along with gender and grade) as time-invariant predictors of the intercept and linear time slope (see Table S3). Relative to the unconditional model for change, this model accounted for 28% of the level-2 child random intercept variance and 2% of the level-1 residual variance for a total R2 = .26. Gender and grade were each associated with the intercept, such that boys and 2nd grade students reported experiencing higher concurrent peer victimization than did girls or 3rd grade students, respectively. Greater passive coping and anger dysregulation were also related to higher concurrent victimization. Grade level was positively associated with the linear time slope, such that 3rd grade students reported fewer decreases in peer victimization over time than did 2nd grade students. Further, greater cognitive distancing was related to a greater linear decreases over time.

Moderation of Coping Strategies by Anger Dysregulation

We then simultaneously added two-way interactions of each coping strategy with anger dysregulation predicting the intercept and linear time slope (see Table S4). This new model accounted for an additional 1% of the level-2 child random intercept variance and 2% of the level-1 residual variance, for a total ΔR2 = .01. Anger dysregulation significantly moderated humor in predicting the linear time slope. As shown in Figure 1a, greater humor predicted smaller decreases in peer victimization over time for children with anger dysregulation ≥ 1.38 SD (upper bound); the lower bound fell outside the data (< −3 SD). No other interactions were significant (ps > .05).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

(a) Interactive effect of humor and anger dysregulation on trajectories of peer victimization;

(b) Interactive effect of passive coping, anger dysregulation, and gender on concurrent peer victimization;

(c-d) Interactive effect of adult support seeking, anger dysregulation, and gender on trajectories of peer victimization. Note. For upper/lower bounds that fell outside the data, traditionally identified high (+1 SD) and/or low (−1 SD) moderator values are presented instead for comparison.

Next, we added three-way interactions (and all lower-order terms) of gender and anger dysregulation with each coping strategy in predicting the intercept and linear time slope in a separate model for each three-way interaction term. Results indicated that anger dysregulation and gender interacted with passive coping to predict the intercept, b = −0.27, SE = 0.12, p = .03, which accounted for an additional 1% of the level-2 child random intercept variance and 1% of the level-1 residual variance, for a total ΔR2 = .01. As shown in Figure 1b, a different pattern of moderation by anger dysregulation emerged by gender. Specifically, greater passive coping predicted higher concurrent peer victimization in boys with anger dysregulation between −0.49 SD (upper bound) and 2.15 SD (lower bound) and in girls with anger dysregulation ≤ 0.51 SD (lower bound); the upper bound for girls was outside the data (> 3 SD). Moreover, anger dysregulation and gender interacted with adult support seeking to influence the linear time slope, b = 0.18, SE = 0.06, p = .005, which accounted for a 0% of the level-2 child random intercept variance and an additional 2% of the level-1 residual variance, for a total ΔR2 = .01. As shown in Figure 1c, in boys, adult support seeking predicted greater decreases in peer victimization over time for anger dysregulation ≥ 1.13 SD (upper bound), but the lower bound fell outside the data (< −3 SD). As shown in Figure 1d, in girls, adult support seeking predicted greater decreases in peer victimization over time for anger dysregulation ≤ −1.90 SD (lower bound), but the upper bound fell outside the data (> 3 SD). No other interactions were significant (ps > .05).

Moderation of Coping Strategies by Sadness Dysregulation

Analogously, when two-way interactions of each coping strategy with sadness dysregulation were simultaneously added in a separate model, they accounted for an additional 3% of the level-2 child random intercept variance and 2% of the level-1 residual variance, for a total ΔR2 = .03 (see Table S5). Sadness dysregulation interacted significantly with humor to predict the linear time slope and with passive coping to predict the intercept. First, as shown in Figure 2a, greater humor predicted smaller decreases in peer victimization over time for children with sadness dysregulation ≥ 0.97 SD (upper bound) and greater decreases over time for children with sadness dysregulation ≤ −1.21 SD (lower bound). Second, as shown in Figure 2b, passive coping predicted higher concurrent peer victimization for children with sadness dysregulation ≤ 1.19 SD (lower bound); the upper bound fell outside the data (> 3 SD). No other interactions were significant (ps > .05). Finally, we examined three-way interactions (and all lower-order terms) of gender with each possible coping strategy and sadness dysregulation in predicting the intercept and linear time slope. Although adult support seeking significantly interacted with sadness dysregulation and gender to predict the linear time slope, b = 0.11, SE = 0.05, p = .03, the upper and lower bounds for boys and girls fell outside the data (± 3 SD). No other interactions were significant (ps > .05).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

(a) Interactive effect of humor and sadness dysregulation on trajectories of peer victimization;

(b) Interactive effect of passive coping and sadness dysregulation on concurrent peer victimization.

Note. For upper/lower bounds that fell beyond the limits of the data, traditionally identified high (+1 SD) and/or low (−1 SD) moderator values are presented instead for comparison.

Post-Hoc Analysis

As shown in Table 1, moderate to strong correlations emerged between adult support seeking, friend support seeking, and problem solving. Accordingly, a higher-order factor was estimated using these three variables, and each had a significant factor loading, with standardized estimates ranging from .59 to .84 (R2 values from .34 to .70). The aforementioned sequence of models was then re-estimated using the higher-order approach coping factor score. Approach coping did not uniquely predict the intercept or the linear time slope for peer victimization (ps > .34). It also did not interact with anger or sadness dysregulation to predict the intercept or the linear time slope (ps > .18). Approach coping did significantly interact with anger dysregulation and gender to predict the linear time slope, b = 0.17, SE = 0.07, p = .02, but not the intercept (p = .42). As shown in Figure 3a, the upper and the lower bounds of anger dysregulation for boys fell outside the data (± 3 SD). As shown in Figure 3b, in girls, approach coping predicted greater decreases in peer victimization over time for anger dysregulation ≤ −0.83 SD (lower bound) and smaller decreases in peer victimization over time for children with anger dysregulation ≥ 0.96 SD (upper bound). Approach coping also significantly interacted with sadness dysregulation and gender to predict the linear time slope, b = 0.13, SE = 0.06, p = .04, but not the intercept (p = .67); however, the upper and lower bounds of sadness dysregulation for boys and girls fell outside the data (± 3 SD). Further details about this post-hoc analysis are available by request.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

(a-b) Interactive effect of approach coping, anger dysregulation, and gender on trajectories of peer victimization. Note. For upper/lower bounds that fell outside the data, traditionally identified high (+1 SD) and/or low (−1 SD) moderator values are presented instead for comparison.

Discussion

The current longitudinal study examined emotion dysregulation and gender as moderators of the concurrent and prospective associations between six common coping strategies and peer victimization over a 2-year period in a sample of rural elementary school-age children. Overall, our results indicate that the effectiveness of particular coping strategies during middle childhood may depend on overt, undercontrolled displays of anger and sadness; however, patterns of moderation varied according to discrete emotions, gender, and whether they reflected concurrent or prospective associations. Specific findings, directions for future research, and implications for practice are reviewed in turn below.

Adult Support Seeking

As hypothesized, adult support seeking was associated with greater decreases in peer victimization at lower anger dysregulation in girls. This result echoes previous research in which general (i.e., adult and friend) support seeking during childhood predicted lower peer victimization over time among girls, but not boys (Shelley & Craig, 2010). Unexpectedly, however, we found that adult support seeking was more strongly associated with subsequent decreases in peer victimization at higher—not lower—anger dysregulation among boys. This was initially surprising, considering that social support seeking is more normative among girls (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), and that boys may be met with disapproval when they seek assistance or advice from adults due to cultural expectations for them to handle conflicts independently (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011). Nevertheless, evidence suggests that elementary- and middle school-age girls tend to mask anger more than boys (Underwood et al., 1992), and that caregivers report greater acceptance of this emotion, including more intense displays of anger, among boys (Eisenberg et al., 1998). Prior work has also shown that victims’ distress has the greatest effect on kindergarten through 12th grade teachers’ decisions to intervene (Blain-Arcaro et al., 2012), and teachers report being more likely to intervene in incidents involving angry victims as compared to calm victims (Sokol et al., 2016). Taken together, overt, undercontrolled displays of anger among elementary school-age boys who seek support from adults may help communicate the seriousness of aggressive incidents with peers, thereby increasing the likelihood that caregivers and/or teachers will intervene and decreasing subsequent experiences of victimization. In contrast, it appears that expressions of anger among girls during middle childhood may undermine their ability to utilize adult support seeking effectively, potentially due to the nonnormative nature of this type of emotional reaction.

Humor

As predicted, humor was associated with greater decreases in peer victimization at lower sadness dysregulation, yet this effect did not differ according to gender. It has been suggested that this coping strategy may be more effective for boys than girls due to the fact that overt humor is more highly valued within their peer groups (Fox et al., 2015). Although this notion was not supported in the current study, our finding provides additional evidence that adaptive forms of humor may reduce subsequent risk for peer victimization (Fox et al., 2015). Conversely, as hypothesized, humor was associated with more stable peer victimization over time in boys and girls with high anger and sadness dysregulation. These findings build on previous research conducted during early adolescence (Fox et al., 2015) and suggest that difficulties effectively managing discrete emotions are related to maladaptive forms of humor during middle childhood. That is, children with greater anger dysregulation may be more likely to utilize aggressive humor—sarcasm, ridicule, and teasing—in response to peer victimization (Klein & Kuiper, 2006). Aggressive humor may enhance the self, but it is associated with hostility and can ultimately have the effect of alienating others and disrupting social functioning (Fox et al., 2015; Klein & Kuiper, 2006). Further, children with greater sadness dysregulation may be more likely to utilize self-defeating humor with the aim of enhancing their social status and relationships with others following experiences of victimization (Fox et al., 2015). It is unlikely that such attempts will be effective, however, as self-defeating humor is thought to reflect underlying emotional neediness and low self-esteem (Klein & Kuiper, 2006), and it has been linked to greater peer victimization over time (Fox et al., 2015).

Passive Coping

Mixed support was found for our hypothesis that anger and sadness dysregulation would exacerbate the relation between passive coping and peer victimization. For boys, passive coping was related to higher concurrent peer victimization at higher anger dysregulation. Aggressors may find exaggerated displays of anger among boys who use passive coping especially rewarding (Perry et al., 1990). That is, boys who become visibly angry but ultimately withdraw from hostile interactions may communicate weakness to peers, thereby increasing their risk for victimization. For girls, passive coping was related to higher concurrent peer victimization at lower anger dysregulation; however, the least peer victimization was observed at lower levels of passive coping and anger dysregulation. In a study of early childhood, Hanish and colleagues (2004) reported: “anger expressions in the classroom were more common among the boys than among the girls. Thus, when girls do express anger, it may be more salient, by virtue of being less normative” (p. 349). It is unclear why overt, undercontrolled displays of anger do not confer risk among elementary school-age girls who use passive coping, but it may be that aggressive peers are more reluctant to target these girls because their atypical behavioral presentation of anger does not communicate vulnerability in the same manner as it does among boys.

Moreover, lower sadness dysregulation exacerbated the association between passive coping and concurrent victimization in both boys and girls. Although greater passive coping predicted greater victimization at traditionally identified high sadness dysregulation (i.e., +1 SD), this association was no longer significant when displays of sadness were less frequent. Sadness is thought to serve as a social signal that helps elicit support from others (Campos et al., 1989), and teachers report the greatest intention to intervene when they witness the reactions of sad victims (Sokol et al., 2016). It is therefore possible that intervention by others may protect children who experience very high sadness dysregulation and utilize passive coping against being targeted by aggressive peers. In contrast, passive coping may communicate vulnerability to aggressors in children who exhibit fewer displays of sadness. Regardless, the use of passive coping may also negatively impact other domains of youth’s functioning, as it has been shown to predict depressive symptoms and loneliness during middle childhood and early adolescence (e.g., Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Machmutow et al., 2012).

Cognitive Distancing

Cognitive distancing in the current study was uniquely associated with greater decreases in peer victimization, regardless of children’s anger and sadness dysregulation as well as gender. This finding was surprising, given that cognitive distancing is an avoidance response that does not directly address the problem. In fact, adolescents with some exposure to peer victimization report that cognitive distancing is one of the least effective responses (Sulkowski et al., 2014). Our finding is also inconsistent with prior work during middle childhood in which cognitive distancing predicted higher peer victimization within an academic year (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Shelley & Craig, 2010).

Of note, the measure of cognitive distancing used in the current study encompassed both behavioral (e.g., “Act like nothing happened,” “Tell the mean kids you don’t care”) and cognitive (e.g., “Tell yourself it doesn’t matter,” “Forget the whole thing”) avoidance. It may be that external and internal responses are differentially related to experiences of victimization. Visconti and Troop-Gordon (2010) focused specifically on behavioral avoidance in a study of elementary school-age children and found that this strategy was linked to subsequent increases in peer victimization among girls who experienced average or above average levels of initial victimization. In contrast, some degree of internal cognitive distancing may help to prevent the development of self-blaming attributions, which have been linked to subsequent increases in peer victimization over time (Schacter et al. 2014). Importantly, there is also prior evidence to suggest that active coping strategies may be less effective in the context of events that are outside of youth’s control (Compas et al., 2001; Gudiño et al., 2018). It may be that cognitive distancing represents an avoidance coping strategy that is adaptive in response to peer victimization perceived to be uncontrollable. Still, these speculative explanations await additional investigation. The use of this coping strategy also warrants caution, as previous research has shown that elementary school-age girls who engage in cognitive distancing may experience more loneliness, whereas boys may exhibit more symptoms of anxiety (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

Friend Support Seeking and Problem Solving

After accounting for other common coping strategies, we did not find friend support seeking or problem solving—alone or in conjunction with anger or sadness dysregulation—to be associated with peer victimization. Despite mixed research findings regarding the utility of seeking help from a friend during elementary school (e.g., Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Visconti & Troop-Gordon, 2010), prior work does indicate that simply having friends attenuates risk for peer victimization, and this protective function can vary according to the attributes of youth’s friends (e.g., Hodges et al., 1997). Previous research has also provided limited support for the utility of problem solving in reducing risk for peer victimization during middle childhood and adolescence (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008; Spence et al., 2009; Terranova et al., 2010), with one exception: Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004) found that problem solving strategies that were focused more specifically on conflict resolution with the aggressive peer (e.g., “make a plan with the kid to get along,” “give the kid an ‘I’ message”, “tell the kid to stop”) were associated with decreases in peer victimization from fall to spring of an academic year among elementary school-age children. It is worth noting that the majority of research conducted to date, including this investigation, has assessed problem solving more broadly, focusing on youth’s attempts to determine the cause of their victimization, develop a plan, and take action to prevent it from happening again. These studies have also been limited in their focus on the frequency with which youth engage in problem solving, rather than the appropriateness of the plans they develop and their ability to implement those plans effectively. Additional work is needed to examine what aspects of problem solving may lead to reductions in peer victimization over time.

Approach Coping

Consistent with the broader literature on peer victimization, a higher-order approach coping variable was found to be adaptive, predicting greater decreases in these experiences over time, but only for elementary school-age girls with lower anger dysregulation. Conversely, approach coping predicted more stable patterns of peer victimization over time for girls with higher anger dysregulation. As previously noted, exaggerated expressions of anger may yield negative consequences for girls due to the fact that they violate social norms (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Hanish et al., 2004).

Limitations and Future Directions

The present investigation builds on past research by identifying individual differences in the effects of coping strategies on experiences of victimization in a sample of rural elementary school-age children. Below we note several methodological limitations that should be considered when interpreting its results. First, all of our variables were assessed using self-report and are thus vulnerable to shared method variance.

Further, the measures of emotion dysregulation and peer victimization were originally developed in samples of 4th-5th grade and 3rd-5th grade students, respectively. To examine the impact of including younger children, we conducted a post-hoc measurement invariance analysis across 2nd and 3rd grade students for all measures. The loadings and thresholds of the items measuring anger dysregulation, sadness dysregulation, and all six coping strategies were fully invariant across 2nd and 3rd grade students, indicating the items related similarly to their latent factors across grades. For peer victimization, the thresholds for two of the nine items (i.e., “A kid hit, kicked, or pushed me in a mean way,” “A kid ignored me on purpose to hurt my feelings”) differed significantly across grade levels, such that greater spread was found in the 3rd grade students. Nonetheless, peer victimization had adequate reliability at Time 1 for a similar range of factor scores among 2nd grade students (−1.40 to 3.00 SD) and 3rd grade students (−1.64 to 3.00 SD). It is therefore unlikely that these two item location differences meaningfully impacted the current results.

We also did not assess the joint use of multiple coping strategies, which may be important to consider (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011). Further research efforts are also needed to examine how other recommended coping strategies (e.g., assertion, forgiveness) and emotional reactions to aggressive peers (e.g., fear, embarrassment) might relate to experiences of victimization. In addition, taking into account previous findings indicating that the use of coping strategies may change over time as a result of peer victimization (e.g., Troop-Gordon et al., 2017), it would be informative to examine emotion regulation processes as a moderator of the dynamic relations between experiences of victimization and coping strategies. Finally, the generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the fact that our sample was comprised of predominantly Caucasian children from one elementary school in the United States; additional work is needed to assess differences in the effects of coping strategies and emotion dysregulation on peer victimization as a function of social context.

Implications for Practice

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study provides additional support for the utility of assessing for anger and sadness dysregulation during middle childhood in order to identify children who may be at risk for experiencing higher concurrent levels of peer victimization in addition to more stable patterns over time (Morelen et al., 2016). It also appears that educators, caregivers, and clinicians should exercise some caution when universally recommending coping strategies to victimized youth, as individual-level characteristics may impact their ability to implement them effectively. That is, elementary school-age children who struggle to effectively regulate their expressions of anger and sadness may utilize coping strategies in a manner that increases their risk for experiences of peer victimization, both concurrently and over time.

Current findings suggest that adult support seeking may be an effective coping strategy for some children. Importantly, prior work has shown that elementary and middle school teachers rely on students’ reactions when deciding whether to intervene in aggressive interactions (Smith et al., 2010) but tend to underestimate victims’ levels of anger or sadness (Landau et al., 2001). Observational research suggests that elementary school teachers intervene in less than 20% of incidents of peer victimization, which may reinforce aggressors’ behavior (Craig et al., 2000). To their own detriment, students in elementary through high school may also stop reporting incidents of victimization to adults altogether if they believe doing so is not helpful (Mendez et al., 2014; Smith & Shu, 2000). When teachers do intervene, however, subsequent peer victimization tends to decline (Smith & Shu, 2000), and greater caregiver communication, involvement, and support are associated with lower levels of victimization among children and adolescents (Lereya et al., 2013). Of note, the duration and intensity of teacher trainings and the presence of caregiver trainings in anti-bullying programs have been associated with decreased victimization (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). The current findings highlight the necessity of such trainings to help both caregivers and teachers better recognize and respond to all incidents of peer aggression, regardless of their perceptions of emotional distress among the victims. As Mendez and colleagues (2014) assert: “Prevention programs need to do more than exhort students to tell adults. Students need to have confidence that adults will make things better when they witness or learn of peer victimization” (p. 109).

The effectiveness of humor appears mixed, despite prior work demonstrating that it is consistently rated as the most effective response to peer victimization by elementary through high school-age youth (Scrambler et al., 1998; Sulkowski et al., 2014). Further, Fox and colleagues (2015) report that youth have often been encouraged to use the potentially harmful strategy of “fogging” by agreeing with the comments of the aggressor. Although current findings suggest that humor accompanied by low sadness dysregulation may reduce subsequent risk for peer victimization, they also indicate that the majority of children will be unable to effectively use humor, and some may inadvertently increase their risk for more stable victimization over time.

Consistent with recent recommendations (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Spence et al., 2009), our findings also suggest that some children may require interventions that focus on both enhancing emotion regulation skills and teaching strategies for responding to peer victimization in a more adaptive manner. This point is underscored by previous studies demonstrating that early (i.e., second grade) exposure to peer victimization is associated with long-term emotional and behavioral difficulties (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2011), and that chronically victimized 5th-6th grade children may be unable to effectively use any coping strategy regardless of which they choose (Elledge et al., 2010). The ability to effectively regulate anger may be a particularly important focus of interventions for girls, given the current findings suggesting that overt, undercontrolled displays of this emotion may attenuate the effectiveness of adult support seeking as well as general approach coping. Moreover, middle childhood may be a critical time to intervene to prevent risk for psychosocial maladjustment, as previous research suggests that chronic patterns of peer victimization can emerge during this developmental period (Ladd et al., 2017) prior to rates peaking during the transition to adolescence (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). The need for increased interventions in rural areas is also underscored by previous findings suggesting that youth in these communities experience similar rates of peer victimization (Dulmus et al., 2004) but are at increased risk for substance use (Rhew et al., 2011) and death by suicide (Nance et al., 2010) while simultaneously lacking access to mental health services (Holzer et al., 2000).

Emerging evidence suggests that group-based cognitive behavioral interventions are beneficial for victimized elementary and middle school-age youth (Fite et al., 2019; Fung, 2012, 2017). Although larger-scale replications are needed to further evaluate the efficacy of this approach, such interventions are especially promising in light of the current findings that cognitive behavioral therapy has also been associated with improvements in emotion regulation during middle childhood (e.g., Suveg et al., 2018). To our knowledge, individual cognitive behavioral interventions for victims of peer aggression have yet to be empirically tested. However, we believe this approach may also be useful given the potential for adapting treatment to the individual presenting problems of children and adolescents. It will be important for future research to examine whether including specific foci on: (a) encouraging youth to seek support from caregivers and teachers, (b) fostering more adaptive (i.e., affiliative) forms of humor, (c) discouraging the use of maladaptive (i.e., aggressive or self-defeating) forms of humor and passive coping, and (d) equipping children with more effective strategies for regulating discrete emotions in response to interpersonal stress provides an incremental contribution to the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral interventions among peer-victimized youth.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights.

  • Humor predicted decreases in peer victimization at lower sadness dysregulation

  • Peer victimization was more stable when humor & emotion dysregulation were high

  • Cognitive distancing uniquely predicted decreases in peer victimization

  • The longitudinal impact of adult support seeking depended on anger and gender

  • The cross-sectional impact of passive coping depended on emotion type and gender

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the American Psychological Foundation [Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz Child Psychology Graduate Fellowships, Drs. John L. Cooley and Spencer C. Evans] and the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology [Routh Research and Dissertation Grants, Drs. John L. Cooley and Jennifer B. Blossom]. Dr. John L. Cooley was supported in part by a training fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health [T32 MH015442].

Footnotes

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Bauer D, & Curran PJ (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400. 10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blain-Arcaro C, Smith JD, Cunningham C, Vaillancourt T, Rimas H (2012). Contextual attributes of indirect bullying situations that influence teachers’ decisions to intervene. Journal of School Violence, 11(3), 226–245. 10.1080/15388220.2012.682003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Campos JJ, Campos RG, & Barrett KC (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 394–402. 10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.394 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Causey DL, & Dubow EF (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(1), 47–59. 10.1207/s15374424jccp2101_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chester KL, Callaghan M, Cosma A, Donnelly P, Craig W, Walsh S, & Molcho M (2015). Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 to 2010. The European Journal of Public Health, 25(2), 61–64. 10.1093/eurpub/ckv029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cole PM, Michel M, & Teti LO (1994) The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective. In Fox N(Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Behavioral and biological considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2), 73–100. 10.2307/1166139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Craig WM, Pepler D, & Atlas R (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22–36. 10.1177/0143034300211002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. DePaolis KJ, Williford A (2019). Pathways from cyberbullying victimization to negative health outcomes among elementary school students: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2390–2403. 10.1007/s10826-018-1104-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dill EJ, Vernberg EM, Fonagy P, Twemlow SW, & Gamm BK (2004). Negative affect in victimized children: The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and attitudes towards bullying. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 159–173. 10.1023/B:JACP.0000019768.31348.81 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dulmus CN, Theriot MT, Sowers KM, & Blackburn JA (2004). Student reports of peer bullying victimization in a rural school. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 7(1), 1–16. 10.1080/15434610490281093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, & Spinrad TL (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. 10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Elledge LC, Cavell TA, Ogle NT, Malcom KT, Newgent RA, & Faith MA (2010). History of peer victimization and children’s response to school bullying. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 129–141. 10.1037/a0020313 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fite PJ, Cooley JL, Poquiz J, & Williford A (2019). Pilot evaluation of a targeted intervention for peer-victimized youth. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 75(1), 46–65. 10.1002/jclp.22697 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fox CL, Hunter SC, & Jones SE (2015). The relationship between peer victimization and children’s humor styles: It’s no laughing matter! Social Development, 24(3), 443–461. 10.1111/sode.12099 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fung AL (2012). Intervention for aggressive victims of school bullying in Hong Kong: A longitudinal mixed-methods study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(4), 360–367. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00953.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fung AL (2017). Cognitive-behavioral group therapy for pure victims with internalizing problems: An evidence-based one-year longitudinal study. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13(3), 691–708. 10.1007/s11482-017-9553-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gudiño OG, Stiles AA, & Diaz KI (2018). Violence exposure and psychopathology in Latino youth: The moderating role of active and avoidant coping. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 49(3), 468–479. 10.1007/s10578-017-0767-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hanish LD, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Spinrad TL, Ryan P, & Schmidt S (2004). The expression and regulation of negative emotions: Risk factors for young children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 16(2), 335–353. 10.1017/S0954579404044542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hodges EVE, Malone M, & Perry DG (1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 1032–1039. 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoffman L (2015). Longitudinal analysis: Modeling within-person fluctuation and change. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  21. Holzer CE, Goldsmith HF, & Ciarlo JA (2000). The availability of health and mental health providers by population density. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 86(3), 25–33. [Google Scholar]
  22. Klein DN, & Kuiper NA (2006). Humor styles, peer relationships, and bullying in middle childhood. Humor, 19(4), 383–404. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kochenderfer BJ, & Ladd GW (1997). Victimized children’s responses to peers’ aggression: Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(1), 59–73. 10.1017/S0954579497001065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kochenderfer-Ladd B (2004). Peer victimization: The role of emotions in adaptive and maladaptive coping. Social Development, 13(3), 329–349. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00271.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kochenderfer-Ladd B, & Pelletier ME (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 431–453. 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kochenderfer-Ladd B, & Skinner K (2002). Children’s coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 267–278. 10.1037//0012-1649.38.2.267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ladd GW, Ettekal I, & Kochenderfer-Ladd B (2017). Peer victimization trajectories from kindergarten through high school: Differential pathways for children’s school engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 826–841. 10.1037/edu0000177 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Landau S, Milich R, Harris MJ, & Larson SE (2001). “You really don’t know how much it hurts”: Children’s preservice teachers’ reactions to childhood teasing. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 329–343. 10.1080/02796015.2001.12086119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lereya ST, Samara M, & Wolke D (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1091–1108. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Losoya S, Eisenberg N, & Fabes RA (1998). Developmental issues in the study of coping. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(2), 287–313. 10.1080/016502598384388 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Machmutow K, Perren S, Sticca F, & Alsaker FD (2012). Peer victimization and depressive symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimization? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 403–420. 10.1080/13632752.2012.704310 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mendez JJ, Bauman S, Sulkowski ML Davis S, & Nixon C (2014). Racially-focused peer victimization: Prevalence, psychosocial impacts, and the influence of coping strategies. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 103–111. 10.1037/a0038161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Morelen D, Southam-Gerow M, & Zeman J (2016). Child emotion regulation and peer victimization: The moderating role of child sex. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(6), 1941–1953. 10.1007/s10826-016-0360-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nance ML, Carr BG, Kallan MJ, Branas CC & Wiebe DJ (2010) Variation in pediatric and adolescent firearm mortality rates in rural and urban US counties. Pediatrics, 125(6), 1112–1118. 10.1542/peds.2009-3219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pellegrini AD (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 699–725. 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Perry DG, Williard JC, & Perry LC (1990). Peers’ perceptions of the consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61(5), 1310–1325. 10.2307/1130744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rhew IC, Hawkins JD, & Oesterle S (2012). Drug use and risk among youth in different rural contexts. Health Place, 17(3), 775–783. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rose AJ, & Rudolph KD (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rosen LH, Scott SR, & DeOrnellas K (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of bullying: A focus group approach. Journal of School Violence, 16(1), 119–139. 10.1080/15388220.2015.1124340 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Roth S, & Cohen LJ (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41(7), 813–819. 10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rudolph KD, Troop-Gordon W, Hessel ET, & Schmidt JD (2011). A latent growth curve analysis of early and increasing peer victimization as predictors of mental health across elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(1), 111–122. 10.1080/15374416.2011.533413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Saarni C (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schacter HL, White SJ, Chang VY, & Juvonen J (2014). “Why me?”: Characterological self-blame and continued victimization in the first year of middle school. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 446–455. 10.1080/15374416.2013.865194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Scrambler Harris, & Milich R (1998). Sticks and stones: Evaluations of responses to childhood teasing. Social Development, 7(2), 234–249. 10.1111/1467-9507.00064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shelley D, & Craig WM (2010). Attribution and coping styles in reducing victimization. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 84–100. 10.1177/0829573509357067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith PK, & Shu S (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7(2), 193–212. 10.1177/0907568200007002005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith H, Varjas K, Meyers J, Marshall ML, Ruffner C, & Graybill EC (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of teasing in schools. Journal of School Violence, 9(1), 2–22. 10.1080/15388220903185522 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sokol N, Bussey K, & Rapee RM (2016). The impact of victims’ responses on teacher reactions to bullying. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 78–87. 10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Spence SH, De Young A, Toon C, & Bond S (2009). Longitudinal examination of the associations between emotional dysregulation, coping responses to peer provocation, and victimisation in children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 145–155. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sroufe LA, Carlson E, & Shulman S (1993). Individuals in relationships: Development from infancy through adolescence. In Funder DC, Parke R, Tomlinson-Keesey C, & Widaman K (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 315–342), Washington DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  52. Stockdale MS, Hangaduambo S, Duys D, Larson K, & Sarvela PD (2002). Rural elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(4), 266–277. 10.5993/ajhb.26.4.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sugimura N, Rudolph KD, & Agoston AM (2014). Depressive symptoms following coping with peer aggression: The moderating role of negative emotionality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(4), 563–575. 10.1007/s10802-013-9805-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Sulkowski ML, Bauman SA, Dinner S, Nixon C, & Davis S (2014). An investigation into how students respond to being victimized by peer aggression. Journal of School Violence, 13(4), 339–358. 10.1080/15388220.2013.857344 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Suveg C, Jones A, Davis M, Jacob ML, Morelen D, Thomassin K, & Whitehead M (2018). Emotion-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy for youth with anxiety disorders: A randomized trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 569–580. 10.1007/s10802-017-0319-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Terranova AM, Boxer P, & Morris AS (2010). Responding to peer victimization in middle childhood: What is a victim to do? Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2(4), 15–24. 10.5042/jacpr.2010.0533 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Troop-Gordon W, Sugimura N, & Rudolph KD (2017). Responses to interpersonal stress: Normative changes across childhood and the impact of peer victimization. Child Development, 88(2), 640–657. 10.1111/cdev.12617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ttofi MM, & Farrington D (2011). Effectiveness of a school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic review and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27–56. 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Underwood MK, Coie JD, & Herbsman CR (1992). Display rules for anger and aggression in school-age children. Child Development, 63(2), 366–380. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01633.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. U. S. Census Bureau (2016). State and County QuickFacts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
  61. Visconti KJ, & Troop-Gordon W (2010). Prospective relations between children’s responses to peer victimization and their socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 261–272. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Waasdorp TE, & Bradshaw CP (2011). Examining student responses to frequent bullying: A latent class approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 336–352. 10.1037/a0022747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zeman JL, Cassano M, Suveg C, & Shipman K (2010). Initial validation of the Children’s Worry Management Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(4), 381–392. 10.1007/s10826-009-9308-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Zeman JL, Shipman K, & Penza-Clyve S (2001). Development and initial validation of the Children’s Sadness Management Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(3), 187–205. 10.1023/A:1010623226626 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1759322-supplement-1.docx (34.8KB, docx)

RESOURCES