FIN 400 G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed. Sojourner-Douglas.docx

FIN 400
G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed.
Sojourner-Douglass College
Friday, March 28, 2014
5 Activities that drive a
Company's Profits
1. Revenue derived from selling the
company's product or service
2. Cost of producing or acquiring the
goods or services to be sold
3. Operating expenses related to
marketing or distributing the product or
service and administering the business
4. Financing cost of doing business
5. Payment of taxes
The Income Statement

comprised of revenues less expenses for the
period (Keown, 2005)
– expenses = profits
of doing business
about a company?
Basic Income Statement
2002
Sales $4,195,197
Cost of Goods Sold 2,673,129
Gross Profit 1,522,068
Selling, general and
administrative expenses
465,831

Depreciation 160,119
Total Operating
Expenses
$625,950
Operating Profit $896,118
Interest Expense 17,849
Earnings before taxes 878,269
Provisions for income
taxes
298,052
Net Income 580,217
Also called
earnings
before
interest and
taxes or
operating
income

Income from
operating
activities
Cost of
debt
financing
Income
resulting
from
operating
and
financing
activities
(Keown, 2005)
Balance Sheet
is it?

particular date. The form of the statement
follows the balance sheet equation:
○ Total assets = total liabilities + owners equity
The Balance Sheet: An Overview
Assets
Current Assets
•Cash
•Marketable Securities
•Accounts Rec.
•Inventories
•Prepaid expenses
Fixed Assets
•Machinery
•Buildings
•Land
Total Fixed Assets

Other Assets
•Investments
•patents
Total Assets
Liabilities (Debt) and Equity
Current Liabilities (debt)
•Accounts payable
•Other Payables
•Accrued Expenses
•Short Term Notes (less than one year term)
Total Current Debt
Long Term liabilities (debt)
•Long Term notes (greater than 1 year term)
•Mortgages
Equity
•Preferred Stock
•Common Stock
•Par value
+ Paid in Capital
- Treasury Stock

Retained Earnings
Total Stockholders Equity
Total Debt and Equity
(Keown, 2005) Finance.yahoo.com
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=HOG+Balance+Sheet&annual
Don’t forget about Taxes
– Report their income in their
personal tax returns and pays what is owed.
– Each partner reports individual
income and pays taxes on that.
– Separate legal entity, reports its
income and pays any taxes related to these
profits.
Principal 8 Taxes Bias Business Decisions

Financial Ratios
– Restating the accounting
data in relative terms to identify of the
financial strengths and weaknesses of a
company.
strength of a company and also
comparison to other firms.
○ The Income Statement and the Balance Sheet
are critical information sources to complete this
analysis.
4 question Approach to financial
ratios
1. How Liquid is the firm?
2. Is management generating adequate

operating profits on the firms assets?
3. How is the firm financing its assets?
4. Are the owners (stockholders) receiving
an adequate return on their
investment?
Liquidity ratios
be converted to cash within a year with debt that is
due and payable within the year.
- (high ratio number is better)
receivable/ (sales/365)
Receivable?
- (the lower the number the better)
Liquidity Ratios

sales/ accounts receivable
“turned over”
- (the higher the number the better)
inventory
ning over our
inventory over the year?
More Ratios
(OIROI)= operating income/ total assets
assets being invested?
Asset Turnover

○ OPM=operating income/ sales
○ TAT = sales/ Total Assets
Operating Profit Margin (OPM),
part 1
managing the firms income statement as
measured by operating income to sales.
– COGS – General and administrative
Expenses – marketing expenses)/ Sales
Operating Profit Margin (OPM),
part 1 (cont.)
– COGS – General and
administrative Expenses – marketing
expenses)

Driving force behind OPM
1. Number of units sold
2. Average selling price
3. Cost of manufacturing the product
4. Controlling general and administrative
expenses
5. Cost in marketing and distribution
Operating Profit Margin (OPM)
part 2
assets
generating sales (For every dollar of assets,
how many dollars of sales do we produce)
Financing Decisions

c)
- (lower ratio number is better) – What does it mean to have
a low/high debt ratio?
- It measures the amount of debt your company uses to
finance its assets.
▪ i.e. – Municipal bond funded projects for buildings and
stadiums
Effects of Parental Conflict on Adolescent Adjustment
Catherine Jewell
ESPY 621
Comparative Analysis
The purpose of this presentation is to compare two research
studies.
The topic of the comparison is the effect of parental conflict on
adolescent adjustment.

Research includes four studies of which two will be compared.
Study A – Forehand, McCombs, Long, Brody, and Fauber
Conducted by: Rex Forehand, Amanda McCombs, Nicholas
Long, Gene Brody, and Robert Fauber
Title: Early adolescent adjustment to recent parental divorce:
The role of interparental conflict and adolescent sex as
mediating variables
Date of study: December 30, 1987
Purpose of the study
To determine if a relationship exists between parental conflict
after divorce and adolescent adjustment and whether gender of
the child influences the outcome.
Study Summary
Studied 96 adolescents aged 11 – 15 years old.
Participants were equally divided between gender.
Used teacher completed measures of behavior to assess:
Social and social withdraw behavior.
Cognitive function.
Externalization of problems.
Study sought to determine if parental conflict was causal to
poor adolescent adjustment and if there were any differences
between male and female adolescents.

Study Design
This study was conducted using a correlational design.
Researchers conducted study to determine if relationships
between high parental conflict and adolescent adjustment
existed.
Researchers compared several groups of adolescents from
homes with intact parents, divorced parents, high conflict, and
low conflict to determine relationship.
No changes were made within the groups to affect an outcome.
Method
Original sample size: 170
Participants included: 96 adolescents equally divided by gender
and their mothers
Participants were recruited through notices, fliers, direct mail
advertising, and local media advertising.
Participants were selectively placed in eight groups of 12
students.
Groups were broken down by socioeconomic status, parental
marital status, parental conflict (high vs. low), and gender.
Parental conflict was determined using the O’Leary-Porter
Scale. High conflict was defined as means lower than 30; low
conflict was defined as means higher than 30.
Findings were based on surveys completed by the child, parent,
and teacher and observational sessions.

Method II
Several survey instruments were utilized in the study:
O’Leary-Porter Scale – determinant of level of parental conflict.
> 30 – High conflict family
< 30 – Low conflict family
Married family average mean – 30
Four groups were classified low conflict – mean 34
Four groups were classified high conflict – mean 24
Teacher’s Rating Scale of Child’s Actual Competence (TRS) –
assesses the teacher’s judgment of actual competence of the
child.
The Revised Behavior Problem Checklist Subscales Conduct
Disorder and Anxiety Withdrawal (RBPC) – used to assess
internalization and externalization of problems.
Method III
Independent variables
Parental marital status – married vs. divorced
Parental conflict – low vs. high
Gender of adolescent – male vs. female
Dependent variables
Cognitive functioning – GPA & TRS Cognitive Scale
Social Withdrawal – (RPBC Anxiety Withdrawal Scale,
behavioral ratings of social problem-solving, positive
communication, and depression.
Externalizing problems – RBPC Conduct Disorder Scale,
behavioral rating of conflict

Method IV
Videotaped observational data of mother/child interactions were
rated by observers unaware of study purpose.
Six observers used a Likert scale range from very little to very
much to rate the following:
Social problem-solving ability
Positive communication
Conflict
Adolescent’s level of depression
Observers’ mean score was used in analysis.
Reliability was calculated to overcome interrater variability.
Academic grades were noted.
Adolescents’ social studies teachers completed the Teacher’s
Rating Scale and the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist.
Method V
Researchers present a correlation matrix of dependent variables
to conduct an analysis of covariance.
Statistical calculations include:
Analysis of covariance.
Standard error of the sample
Standard deviation
Mean
Multivariate analysis of variance
The researchers conducted a similar study with different
participants but similar results to provide replication results.
Review of Method

Researchers offered payment to participants which questions
validity of the sample.
Observation time was only 3 minutes which limits validity and
reliability.
Inter-rater reliability was overcome by using six different
observers who have no knowledge of study focus.
Generalization is questionable due to restrictions in the study.
Sampling is questionable due to methodology used to find
participants.
Study Findings
Researchers did find correlations between parental conflict and
Little support for findings that divorce causes negative
Study provided evidence that high parental conflict is
detrimental to cognitive functioning of the adolescents resulting
in reduced grade point averages.
Gender did not mediate effects of parental conflict.
Conclusions
Study determined that high parental conflict is detrimental to
both cognitive and social functioning of early adolescents.
Both boys and girls suffer from increased social withdrawal,
depression, and reduced grades when parental conflict is high.

Theoretical Perspective
The researcher’s hypothesis that high parental conflict causes
poor functioning among early adolescents shows a contextual
perspective.
Contextual theorists believe that the environment must factor
into development. This study seeks to show a negative
environment caused by parental conflict negatively impacts
adolescent development.
In my opinion, the environment does impact development and
this study is an excellent example of one mitigating negative
impact, parental conflict and its impact on the adolescent’s
development.
Citation
Forehand, R., McCombs, A., Long, N., Brody, G., & Fauber, R.
(1988). Early adolescent adjustment to recent parental divorce:
mediating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 56(4), 624-627. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.56.4.624
Study B – Davies and Lindsay
Conducted by Patrick T. Davies and Lisa L. Lindsay
Title: Interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment: Why
does gender moderate early adolescent vulnerability?
Date of study: May 13, 2003
Purpose of study
To determine what role gender plays in adolescent adjustment
of children from homes where high parental conflict is present.

Hypothesis
Maladjustment is higher among girls than boys when parental
conflict is high.
Study Summary
Studied 270 children aged 10 – 15 years old.
Children completed survey packets at school with a trained
research assistant.
Parents were asked to complete mailed surveys which assessed
levels of conflict and child functioning within the home.
To address adolescent adjustment, children completed the Youth
Self-Report; parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist.
Study sought determine if adolescent adjustment varied between
gender in cases with interparental conflict present.
Study Design
The study was conducted using a correlational design.
Researchers conducted study to determine if a relationship
existed between adolescent development and parental conflict.
Researchers compared groups of children and parents to
determine conflict and adjustment levels.
No changes were made to the groups.
Method

Original sample size: 1,032 students
Participants included: 270 children divided equally between
gender.
Used parental and child self-reported surveys to assess:
Interparental conflict
Child functioning
Study sought to determine if moderate levels of parental
conflict negatively impacted adolescent adjustment and if there
were any differences between gender.
Method II
Several survey instrument were utilized in the study:
Children completed:
The Frequency, Intensity, Resolution, and Content subscales of
the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale
Children’s Sex Role Inventory
Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn, Delinquent Behavior, and
Aggressive Behavior scales from the Youth Self-Report and
Child Behavior Checklist
Parents completed:
Comparable subscales from the Conflict and Problem-Solving
Scales & the Verbal Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Child
Involvement subscales.
Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn, Delinquent Behavior, and
Aggressive Behavior scales from the Youth Self-Report and
Child Behavior Checklist
Method III
Independent Variables
Parental marital status – married, separated, divorced

Parental conflict – low vs. high
Gender of adolescent – male vs. female
Dependent Variables
Internalizing problems – Withdrawn and Anxious/Depressed
Scale
Externalizing problems – Delinquent and Aggressive Behavior
Scale
Method IV
Researchers provide substantial statistical information for each
factor.
Statistical calculations include:
Alpha Coefficient
Mean
Standard Deviation
Intercorrelation
Researchers include information for replication, internal
consistency, reliability, and validity.
Review of Method
Researchers offered rewards for participation to both the
parents and children which calls motive into question.
Researchers include information to show that reward did not
distinguish those included in the sample and those who did not
participate.
Researchers provide statistical evidence of internal consistency,
reliability, and validity for each measure.
Generalization is questionable due to limitations of the study
including limited ethnic and socioeconomic diversity.

Sampling is questionable because study only used one
geographic area with little ethnic or socioeconomic diversity.
Study Findings
Researchers did find evidence of relationship between high
parental conflict and problems in adolescent adjustment.
Study determined girls internalize issues while boys externalize.
Researchers encourage the use of the study to assist teachers,
parents, and psychologists in helping adolescents adjust to
divorce and continued parental conflict.
Study encourages using different techniques for teaching boys
and girls coping skills.
Conclusions
Study determined that girls and boys do develop different
adaptive skills when dealing with high parental conflict.
Both boys and girls struggle with adjustment when homes
include high amounts of parental conflict.
Understanding these differences will allow teachers, parents,
and psychologists to assist in teaching productive coping and
problem-solving skills.
Theoretical Perspective
The hypothesis that high conflict homes cause differences in
development between boys and girls shows a contextual
perspective.
Contextual theorists believe that environmental factors

influence and impact development.
The study determined the negative environment of high parental
conflict negatively impacts both male and female adolescent
development.
In my opinion, this study offers substantial evidence that
negative environment can create adjustment problems for
children which is the key theory of contextual development.
Citation
Davies, P., & Lindsay, L. (2004). Interparental conflict and
adolescent adjustment: Why does gender moderate early
adolescent vulnerability. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1),
160-170. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.160
Take Home Message
Both studies show a correlation between high parental conflict
and adolescent adjustment and depression.
As instructors, psychologists, and child-development experts
this information needs to be incorporated into school counselor
programs and family courts.
While more study needs to be done, I believe the results of both
studies agree that parental conflict needs to be controlled if
adolescent development is to occur in a positive manner.
Strategies need to be implemented in schools to realize the
impact high parental conflict has and to recognize the issue in
students.

References
Davies, P., & Lindsay, L. (2004). Interparental conflict and
adolescent adjustment: Why does gender moderate early
adolescent vulnerability. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1),
160-170. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.160
Forehand, R., McCombs, A., Long, N., Brody, G., & Fauber, R.
(1988). Early adolescent adjustment to recent parental divorce:
mediating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 56(4), 624-627. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.56.4.624
Johnson, P., Thorngren, J., & Smith, A. (2001). Parental divorce
and family functioning: Effects on differentiation levels of
young adults. The Family Journal, 9(3), 265-272. doi:
10.1177/1066480701093005
Long, N., Slater, E., Forehand, R., & Fauber, R. (1988).
Continued high or reduced interparental conflict following
divorce: Relation to young adolescent adjustment. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 467-469. doi:
10.1037/0022-006x.56.3.467
Rubric
Evaluation Rubric for Research Presentation
Total Assignment = 100 pts (=23% of course grade)
10 pts -- Your research question/ appropriate selection of
articles and presentation length--total presentation should be no
shorter than 20 and no longer than 40 slides
45 pts -- Summary of each study; please include for each study
the following.
a. Purpose of Study--what are the study's research questions? (6

pts)
b. Design --First, answer this question: is this study
experimental?, quasi-experimental?, or correlational?
Experimental=are there randomly assigned groups that were
treated differently?, Quasi-Experimental--are there groups that
naturally occurred--e.g., smokers vs. non-smokers--that were
treated differently by the researcher?, Correlational--a group is
described and the results show differences among the group
members? Second, IF the study has a developmental focus,
analyze the developmental design: cross-sectional, longitudinal,
or sequential. (6 pts)
c. Methods--include participants, materials/instruments, data
collection techniques, and data analysis techniques. After
summarizing the methods, analyze what the researchers did in
terms of the criteria of 1) objectivity, 2) reliability, 3) validity,
4) representative sampling, and 5) replication. (21 pts)
Rubric II
d. Findings--look for information indicating significant
differences--connect the findings back to the research
hypotheses. The findings should be contained in the Results
section of the paper (6 pts)
e. Conclusions--summary of authors' interpretations from
Discussion section (6 pts)
15 pts--Theoretical Perspective--what are the researchers'
(probably implicit) perspectives on human development?--
defend your decisions for each study with reasons (from the
purpose, design, data collection and analysis, results, and
interpretation); you should 1) identify (2 pts), 2) explain (5 pts),
and 3) defend (8 pts) whether the perspective of each study is

organismic, cognitive-developmental, cognitive-learning,
behavioral, psychodynamic, contextual, or humanistic. If
possible to determine the specific theory being tested by the
study, further analyze the origins of the developmental approach
being used. Be sure to defend your point of view.
15 pts -- Take Home Message--having read these two studies
(notice this is a comparative analysis), what do you now
believe? (=conclusions, 5 pts) What other questions do you
have? (=future research questions, 5 pts) What can you not
know for sure? (=limitations, 5 pts)
Rubric III
15 pts -- Communicative Effectiveness
a. Presence of a brief introduction and conclusion (2 pts)
b. Does paper flow? (please use headings) (3 pts)
c. Are words misspelled or used incorrectly, are subject-verb
agreements correct? (4 pts)
d. Correct use of in-text citation (e.g., refer to studies by the
authors' last names and year of publication)--please note that
the only proper way to refer to a study in formal writing is by
the last names of the authors and the year of publication. No
article titles should appear in the narrative. (3 pts)
e. Style of references (3 pts)
For both d. and e. please follow the APA Manual of Style, 6th
ed. An APA tutorial is available under the Cunningham
Memorial Library's home page (see online tutorials).
Please post your presentation as an attachment (with document

in Power Point or Word or rtf, preferably) under the Research
Presentations Forum of the Discussion Board by the due date
listed in the Calendar (under Tools).
Does Early Childhood Reading Influence Mathematics
Achievement among elementary school children's
Jiss Mathew
EPSY 621
November 13th, 2013
Dr. Linda Sperry

Grimm, K. J. (2008). Longitudinal associations between reading
and mathematics achievement. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 33(3), 410-426.
Hooper, S. R., Roberts, J., Sideris, J., Burchinal, M., & Zeisel,
S. (2010). Longitudinal predictors of reading and math
trajectories through middle school for african american versus
caucasian students across two samples. Developmental
Psychology, 46(5), 1018-1029.
Comparative Analysis
Summary
Purpose
Identify relationship between early reading and Mathematical
achievements
Hypothesis
Children who read well in the early grade will have higher
achievement in Mathematic compared to children who do
engage in early reading.
Article #1
Longitudinal Associations Between
Reading and Mathematics Achievement

Design
It is a co-relational study
The researcher conducted the study and identify relationship
between early reading and Mathematical ability of elementary
school children’s
Method
The researcher compared sample groups based on the ethnicity.
Source of achievement measure- Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS); a standardized measure developed at the University of
Iowa

Participants
Sample size-46,373
Age range- 3rd to 8th grade students
Number of boys- 24,098
Number of girls- 22,275
Ethnic breakup of sample
African-American- 25,799, 56% of sample
Hispanic- 14,200, 31% of sample
White/Non-Hispanic -4,936, 11% of sample
Asian- 1,342, 3% of sample
Native Americans- 96, <1% of sample

The students’ third grade reading achievement scores were
positively related to the rate of change for each mathematics
component to varying degrees.
The strongest effect was for Problem, Solving and Data
Interpretation, followed by Math Concepts and Estimation, and
Mathematical Computation.
Results
Early reading does have influence in applications and
conceptual understanding of mathematics, same time early
reading does not influence in performing mathematical
operations.
Mathematics achievement involves the use of a diverse
collection of skills such as reasoning, executive functioning,
working memory, short-term memory, processing speed, and
phonological processing.
Students who have greater reading capacity in third grade
tended to show greater increases in mathematics skills for a
given level of early mathematics achievement.
Conclusion

Purpose
This study’s primary purpose was to examine the relative
contribution of social-behavioral predictors to reading and math
skills.
Hypothesis
The early social-behavioral functions is related later academic
skills.
Article #2
Longitudinal Predictors of Reading and Math Trajectories
Through Middle School for African American Versus Caucasian
Students Across Two Samples
Design
It is a co-relational study
The researcher attempts to identify the relationship between
early reading and Mathematical ability of elementary school
children’s for 1st grade to 9th grade students
The research sample groups based was formulated based on
education level of mothers.
Participants

Sample size-1,364
Age range- 1rd to 9th grade students
Equal representation of Boy’s and girl’s
Ethnic breakup of sample
Caucasian
African American
Result
Reading out come
Early reading, mathematics, and expressive language skill are
positively related to later reading skill.
Social skills, aggressive behavior and attention were not related
to later reading growth.
Inverse relation between early mathematics skill related to later
reading skill.

Results
Mathematic out come
Early expressive language skill is positively related to lather
mathematic scores.
No significant evidence of early social skills positively related
to later mathematics ability.
Early reading and early mathematics skills both positively
related to later mathematics outcome.
Significant correlation found between early internalizing
behavior and later mathematics skill.
Conclusion
Early expressive language has positive influence on early
reading and later mathematical skills.
Theoretical perspective
Mathematical skill is a combination of different intelligence
Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
It is the human ability to discriminate among living things

(plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the
natural world (clouds, rock configurations).
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)
Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate,
quantify, consider propositions and hypotheses, and carry out
complete mathematical operations.
Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)
* Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to
use language to express and appreciate complex meanings.
Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)
Spatial intelligence is the ability to think. The Core capacities
include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation,
graphic and artistic skills, and an active imagination.
Further Questions
Does all children’s with early reading ability could have strong
mathematical skills?

Why some children’s are interested in mathematics and some
are not?
In human life does linguistic ability or mathematical ability
begins first?
Predictors of Peer Victimization among
Urban Youth
Laura D. Hanish, Arizona State University and Nancy G.
Guerra,
University of California at Riverside
Abstract
This study examined aggression and withdrawal as predictors of
peer victimization.
In addition, peer rejection was evaluated as both a moderator
and mediator of these
relations. The sample consisted of 1956 African-American,
Hispanic, and White ele-
mentary school-aged boys and girls attending urban and inner-
city schools that were
classified as high or moderate disadvantage. Correlation and
regression analyses
revealed that aggression predicted both contemporaneous and
longitudinal victimiza-

tion by peers. This relation maintained across school
disadvantage, ethnicity, age, and
sex, and was mediated by rejection. Withdrawal, mediated by
rejection, predicted vic-
timization for fourth graders only; withdrawal also reduced risk
for victimization for
low rejected children. The implications for understanding the
dynamics of childhood
victimization and intervention are discussed.
Keywords: Peer victimization; aggressive behavior; social
withdrawal; rejection
Approximately one child in ten is repeatedly and persistently
victimized by peers, and
many more children are victimized less severely (Olweus, 1978;
Rigby & Slee, 1991).
Not only does this result in immediate physical and/or
psychological harm, but peer
victimization during childhood may also portend future
adjustment problems. Indeed,
several recent studies have found that being victimized by peers
places children at risk
for experiencing a number of adjustment difficulties, including
mental health prob-
lems, social problems, and school problems (Boivin & Hymel,
1997; Boivin, Hymel,
& Bukowski, 1995; Hanish, 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996;
Ladd, Kochenderfer,
& Coleman, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994; Olweus, 1993;
Schwartz, McFadyen-
Ketchum, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 1998). Concern over these
problematic outcomes has
given rise to a number of efforts to prevent peer victimization,
as seen in several recent
anti-bullying programs (Olweus, 1992, 1994; Pepler, Craig,

Ziegler, & Charach, 1994).
Such interventions should be enhanced by a better
understanding of who is most likely
to be victimized, as well as the specific mechanisms through
which bully/victim prob-
lems emerge within the peer context.
Building on Olweus’ (1978) description of victims as either
‘passive’ or ‘provoca-
tive,’ investigators have postulated two separate pathways for
peer victimization (for
a review, see Hodges & Perry, 1996). Passive victims are
described as withdrawn,
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000. Published by Blackwell
Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350
Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Please address correspondence concerning this article to Laura
D. Hanish at the Department of Family
Resources and Human Development, Arizona State University,
P.O. Box 872502, Tempe, AZ 85287-2502,
USA, or send electronic mail to [email protected]
522 Laura D. Hanish and Nancy G. Guerra
© Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000 Social Development, 9, 4,
2000
anxious, and submissive. This type of victimized child is seen
as an easy target who
would be likely to submit to an aggressor’s demands, perhaps
even reinforcing such

behavior. In contrast, provocative victims are seen as
aggressive, impulsive, and hostile
children whose behavior is likely to annoy or irritate their
peers. Several empirical
studies have supported this conceptualization, and both
aggressive and withdrawn
behaviors have emerged as important correlates of victimization
(Boivin & Hymel,
1997; Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997;
Olson, 1992; Olweus,
1978; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).
Generalizing Peer Victimization Research to Understudied
Populations
An important step is to extend this research to understudied
populations. Much of the
peer victimization research has been conducted with
predominantly White, middle-
class European or American children, with few studies
examining peer victimization
among children living in economically distressed urban areas
with disproportionately
higher rates of community violence, poverty, and other social
problems. Yet it may be
that the dynamics of peer victimization vary substantially in
these settings. For
example, ‘staying out of harm’s way’ is often cited as a coping
mechanism for chil-
dren exposed to high levels of community violence (Tolan,
Guerra, & Montaini-
Klovdahl, 1997). Ethnographic studies of children in violent
neighborhoods often
reveal how children try to ‘stay away from trouble’ and avoid
‘being at the wrong
place at the wrong time’ (Gustin, Guerra, & Attar, in press). If

such a coping mecha-
nism protects children in these settings from being victimized,
then we would expect
that children who behave in unobtrusive ways (e.g., withdrawal)
would be less likely
to be victimized than those who exhibit more conspicuous
behaviors (e.g., aggres-
sion). Thus, it is important to extend research examining the
predictors of peer vic-
timization to children living in neighborhoods where risk of
victimization is greater.
Moreover, in our own recent study of peer victimization among
African-American,
Hispanic, and White urban elementary school children (Hanish
& Guerra, 2000), we
found that victimization was moderately high for African-
American children, but only
minimally stable over time, suggesting that African-American
children experienced
victimization by peers as a relatively untargeted and transient
experience. Victimiza-
tion risk was as high for White children as it was for African
Americans; however,
White children experienced being victimized as a much more
stable and recurrent
experience than did African-American children. In contrast,
Hispanic children expe-
rienced lower rates of victimization than African-American or
White children.
However, when Hispanic children were victimized, they were
moderately likely to be
repeatedly victimized over time. Given these ethnic group
differences in the preva-
lence and stability of peer victimization, it is important to
determine whether indi-

vidual predictors of victimization also vary by ethnicity. Few
studies have examined
this question directly. However, related research has shown that
ethnicity moderates
other aspects of peer relations, such as social status, with
popularity experienced dif-
ferently by African Americans and Whites (Rodkin, Farmer,
Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000).
Thus, examining whether aggression and withdrawal
differentially predict victimiza-
tion for children of various ethnic backgrounds is crucial for
determining the gener-
alizability of peer victimization models and for understanding
risk processes among
children of different ethnic groups.
It is also important to examine the extent to which these
predictors of victimization
are equally relevant for younger and older children and for boys
and girls. Studies of
Predictors of Peer Victimization 523
2000
late elementary school-aged children have consistently shown
that both aggressive
behavior and social withdrawal are important risk factors for
being victimized. For
instance, Boivin and his colleagues (Boivin & Hymel, 1997;
Boivin et al., 1995)
demonstrated that aggressive behavior and social withdrawal
predict being victimized

for third through fifth graders. Similarly, in a series of studies
of third through seventh
grade children, Hodges and his colleagues (Hodges, Boivin,
Vitaro, & Bukowski,
1999; Hodges et al., 1997; Hodges & Perry, 1999) found that
externalizing behaviors
(operationalized as aggressive, argumentative, and disruptive
behavior, dishonesty, and
a pushy peer entry style) and internalizing behaviors
(operationalized as withdrawal,
anxiety and depression, and a hovering peer entry style) predict
victimization, con-
currently and over time. In contrast, studies of younger children
have established the
predictive role of aggressive behavior, but have provided less
evidence for the pre-
dictive role of withdrawal. Indeed, concurrent and prospective
studies of first through
third grade children have consistently found aggressive
behaviors to predict victimi-
zation (Schwartz, Dodge et al., 1998; Schwartz, McFadyen-
Ketchum, Dodge, Pettit,
& Bates, 1999). Several studies of preschool and kindergarten-
aged children have also
shown that aggression is an important correlate of being
victimized (Crick, Casas, &
Ku, 1999; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olson, 1992). In
contrast, one study that exam-
ined internalizing problems (including withdrawal) as a
predictor of victimization for
young school-aged children found little relation (Schwartz et
al., 1999). Further, a
robust body of evidence suggests that withdrawal is an unlikely
risk factor for vic-
timization among early elementary school-aged children
because young children are

not skilled at recognizing this subtle behavior when it occurs
and discriminating it
from other social behaviors (Younger & Boyko, 1987; Younger,
Schwartzman, &
Ledingham, 1986). Thus, establishing the degree to which
aggression and withdrawal
predict victimization for younger versus older children is
important to developing
developmentally appropriate models of children’s peer
victimization.
Numerous studies have examined sex differences in rates of
victimization. Boys and
girls experience different forms of victimization (i.e., physical,
verbal, relational) at
different rates, with boys most likely to be physically
victimized and girls most likely
to be relationally victimized (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). Less is
known, however, about
the degree to which boys and girls become victimized through
different sets of socio-
behavioral mechanisms. Some studies of the predictors of peer
victimization have
sampled boys only (e.g., Olson, 1992; Schwartz, Dodge et al.,
1998; Schwartz et al.,
1993). Other studies that have examined sex as a moderator
have found few sex dif-
ferences in predictors of victimization (Crick et al., 1999;
Hodges et al., 1997; Hodges
& Perry, 1999; Schwartz et al., 1999). Still, sex differences that
have emerged have
been inconsistent across studies. For instance, Schwartz and his
colleagues (1999)
found that attention problems were a stronger predictor of
victimization for girls than
for boys. On the other hand, Crick et al. (1999) found sex

differences in the link
between prosocial behavior and victimization, with prosocial
behavior negatively pre-
dicting relational victimization for boys but not for girls. Thus,
additional work is
needed to further clarify whether and how sex moderates
aggression and withdrawal
in predicting victimization.
Examining the Role of Rejection
In addition, it is important to examine how the responses of
children’s peers influence
the impact of these individual factors. In particular, peer
rejection has been singled
2000
out as a potentially important determinant of peer victimization
(Perry, Kusel, & Perry,
1988), and it has been associated with both aggressive behavior
and social withdrawal
(French, 1988). As Hodges and his colleagues have suggested
(Hodges et al., 1997;
Hodges & Perry, 1999), being rejected by peers increases
children’s vulnerability to
victimization because rejected children are less likely to have
peers who will protect
them by directly intervening in their victimization or by
socially disapproving of their
victimization. The specific role that peer rejection plays,

however, remains to be
clarified.
Some studies have found that rejection mediates the relation
between behavior and
victimization. For example, Olson (1992) observed preschool
boys’ social interactions
during an academic year. She found that boys who displayed
high rates of aggressive
behaviors at the beginning of the school year were more likely
to be victimized by the
end of the school year. This relation was mediated by peer
rejection, with aggressive
behavior leading to increased rates of rejection which, in turn,
led to higher rates of
victimization. Moreover, Schwartz et al. (1999) tested social
preference as a media-
tor of the relation between behavior problems (operationalized
as externalizing behav-
iors, attention problems, internalizing behaviors, and social
problems) and
victimization. They found support for this mediational model.
Further, Boivin and his
colleagues (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995)
demonstrated that rejection
mediated the predictive relation between social withdrawal and
victimization. In con-
trast, findings from a series of studies by Hodges and his
colleagues (Hodges et al.,
1997; Hodges & Perry, 1999) suggest that rejection serves as a
moderator. Specifi-
cally, they found that elementary school-aged children who
displayed externalizing or
internalizing problems and were rejected by peers were at
increased risk for victimi-
zation when compared to children who displayed either

externalizing or internalizing
problems and were not rejected by peers.
Thus, extant evidence suggests that rejection may serve as both
a mediator and a
moderator. In disentangling these relations, it may be useful to
consider the function
of aggression and withdrawal in the peer context. The degree to
which rejection medi-
ates or moderates predictive relations may depend on peers’
perceptions of these
behaviors, which may vary by age and setting. Children who
exhibit behaviors that
are interpreted by the peer group as deviant or objectionable are
more likely to be
rejected. In turn, these rejected children should be more likely
to be victimized because
few children in the peer group are willing to support and defend
those who are at the
bottom of the social hierarchy—these children may be seen as
relatively acceptable
targets by peers (Perry, Williard, & Perry, 1990). In contrast,
when children exhibit
behaviors that are not perceived by peers as atypical or
unpleasant, it is unlikely that
rejection will operate as a mediator. Instead, rejection may
operate as a moderator. In
these situations, behaviors, such as withdrawal, may predict
victimization only
when children are also rejected, making rejection a primary
determinant of being
victimized.
The Present Study
In the current study, predictors of peer victimization were

examined in an ethnically
diverse sample of elementary school-aged boys and girls from
schools located in urban
and inner city settings. Although all children attended schools
in neighborhoods with
high rates of poverty, violence, crime, and other social
problems, we further distin-
guished school settings as high disadvantage and moderate
disadvantage based on
2000
overall levels of self-reported violence exposure, neighborhood
crime rates, and
socioeconomic indicators (e.g., percentage of children receiving
free or reduced
lunch), following procedures outlined in previous studies with
this sample (Attar,
Guerra, & Tolan, 1994; Metropolitan Area Child Study, 2000).
The children were
studied when they were initially in first and second or fourth
grades, and they were
followed over a two-year period.
Three principle questions guided this research. Do aggression
and withdrawal
predict current and future peer victimization among urban
children? Are these rela-
tions moderated by school setting, ethnicity, grade, or sex?
Does peer rejection func-
tion as a mediator or a moderator of these predictive relations?

First, we hypothesized that aggression would be related to both
concurrent and sub-
sequent victimization, and that this relation would not vary by
school setting, ethnic-
ity, grade or sex. Indeed, it is likely that aggressive behavior is
annoying to all peers,
and that aggressive children, by virtue of this behavior, single
themselves out for sub-
sequent retaliation. The robust pattern of findings linking
aggression to victimization
across numerous studies further supports this hypothesis
(Boivin & Hymel, 1997;
Crick et al., 1999; Hodges et al., 1999; Hodges et al., 1997;
Hodges & Perry, 1999;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olson, 1992; Schwartz, Dodge et
al., 1998; Schwartz
et al., 1999).
Second, we hypothesized that withdrawal would predict
concurrent and subsequent
victimization for older but not younger children and that this
relation would not main-
tain, and might even reverse, for children attending high
disadvantage schools. Previ-
ous research suggests that withdrawal is less salient among
younger children because
it is more difficult to observe (Younger & Boyko, 1987;
Younger et al., 1986). There-
fore, it is less likely that younger children will selectively
victimize classmates who
exhibit this behavior. Further, in high disadvantage schools with
scarce resources, chil-
dren might be more likely to compete for attention and other
rewards and focus their
aggression on competitors rather than children who remain

relatively unnoticed—in
some sense, withdrawal would be less salient in more
disadvantaged and disorganized
settings.
Third, we hypothesized that peer rejection would mediate rather
than moderate the
aggression-victimization relation. Consistent with Olson’s
(1992) and Schwartz and
colleagues’ (1999) studies, we expected that aggression would
be annoying to peers
regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, or school disadvantage. Such
behavior should lead to
increased peer rejection, which would, in turn, lead to increased
peer victimization.
We also predicted that rejection would mediate the withdrawal-
victimization relation
for older children who are more adept at discriminating social
withdrawal as deviant
(Younger & Boyko, 1987). Finally, we hypothesized that
rejection would moderate the
withdrawal-victimization relation for children from high
disadvantage schools, with
non-rejected and withdrawn children at lowest risk for
victimization.
Method
Participants
Participants were 1956 Hispanic (42%), African-American
(40%), and White (18%)
boys and girls initially assessed in grade 1 (35%), grade 2
(31%) and grade 4 (33%).
They were part of the initial three cohorts of the Metropolitan
Area Child Study

(MACS), a larger longitudinal development and prevention
study (Guerra, Eron,
2000
Huesmann, Tolan, & Van Acker, 1997; Huesmann et al., 1996).
Overall, the parent
permission rate for MACS participants is 86.6% (for a more
detailed description of
sample selection procedures, see Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, Van
Acker, and Eron,
1995). The MACS draws from fourteen urban elementary
schools. Based on school
and community indicators, these schools can be characterized as
high disadvantage
(e.g., an average of 61% of children receive free lunch) and
moderate disadvantage
(e.g., an average of 34% of children receive free lunch) schools.
Rates of violent and
other crimes in the communities where these schools are located
are higher than
national averages and are highest in communities with schools
classified as high
disadvantage.
A total of 1199 children were located and followed up two years
later when they
were in grades 3, 4, and 6. There were no differences between
located and unlocated
children in sex, c2(1) = 1.10, n.s., or ethnicity, c2(2) = 5.13,
n.s. However, unlocated

children were more likely to be first graders during the first
assessment period, c2(4)
= 14.20, p < .01, and to attend highly disadvantaged schools,
c2(1) = 24.48, p < .001.
In addition, unlocated children had slightly higher victimization
scores, aggression
scores, and withdrawal scores, F(1, 1951) = 4.27, p < .05, F(1,
1749) = 10.09, p <
.01, and F(1, 1749) = 9.07, p < .01, respectively, than did
located children.
Procedures
Victimization, rejection, aggressive behavior, and withdrawal
were measured at Time
1 (when children were in grades 1, 2, and 4) and victimization
was measured again at
Time 2 (when children were in grades 3, 4, and 6). Peer ratings
were used to assess
victimization and rejection, and teacher ratings were used to
assess aggressive behav-
ior and withdrawal. All measures were collected during the late
spring semester of
each academic year to ensure that children and teachers would
have substantial time
to get to know each other. This assessment was embedded
within a larger multi-method
assessment of behavioral, social, and individual characteristics
that does not bear
directly on this paper. For the peer ratings completed by the
children, measures were
administered individually for children in grade 1, and in the
classroom for children in
grade 2 and above. In both individual and group
administrations, all items were read
aloud by a trained experimenter as the children followed along

and marked their
answers. An assistant was available to provide additional help
to children who had any
difficulties understanding the questions. A bilingual
experimenter tested Spanish-
speaking only children. Peer and teacher ratings used in the
present study are described
in turn.
Measures
Peer ratings Peer sociometric ratings were used to obtain
measures of victimization
and rejection. These procedures have repeatedly demonstrated
reliability and validity
in measuring social and behavioral constructs due to the
aggregation of multiple items
and multiple ratings in computing scores (Coie, Dodge, &
Kupersmidt, 1990). A stand-
ard method described by Eron and his colleagues (Eron, Walder,
& Lefkowitz, 1971)
was used. Each child in a class received a booklet containing
several pages on which
randomized lists (separated by sex) of the names of all children
in the class appeared.
The children were asked to circle every name that fit the
corresponding question (e.g.,
‘Who are the children that get picked on by other kids?’). The
experimenter paced the
2000

children so that exactly the same amount of time was spent on
each question. A child’s
score on a scale was derived by taking the number of times the
child was nominated
by all other children on questions that fall on the scale and
dividing by the total number
of times a child could have been nominated. These peer
nomination scores could range
from 0 to 1.
The two-item Victimization Scale was drawn from the Modified
Peer Nomination
Inventory (Perry et al., 1988). These items were selected
because they had high item-
total correlations. One item addressed physical victimization
(‘Who are the children
other kids push and hit?), and one item addressed more general
victimization (‘Who
are the children who get picked on by other kids?). The two-
item Rejection Scale relied
on negative nominations assessing the extent to which children
are disliked by a major-
ity of their peer group. This scale was derived from previously
used measures and
has been shown to be reliable and valid across diverse samples
(Eron et al., 1971;
Huesmann, Eron, Guerra, & Crawshaw, 1994; Huesmann,
Lagerspetz, & Eron, 1984).
A sample rejection item was ‘Who are the children that you
really don’t like?’ Both
peer nomination scales had alpha coefficients greater than .80 in
the present sample.
Teacher ratings Teacher ratings were used to measure
aggressive behavior and with-

drawal. Classroom teachers completed the Child Behavior
Checklist-Teacher Report
(CBCL-TRF), a measure with demonstrated reliability and
validity (Achenbach,
1991). This measure asks teachers to respond to items using a
three-point rating scale,
ranging from not true (0) to very true (2), and scale scores are
computed by summing
teachers’ responses to the corresponding scale items.
In the present study, only scores on the Aggressive Behavior
and Withdrawn Sub-
scales were used. The Aggressive Behavior Subscale consists of
25 items, such as ‘this
child gets in many fights’ and ‘this child argues a lot’. It has
been used in numerous
studies as an index of aggressive behavior and has been show to
be valid (e.g.,
Emerson, Crowley, & Merrell, 1994; Frankel & Myatt, 1994).
The Withdrawn Sub-
scale is a 9-item subscale that contains items such as ‘this child
is withdrawn, doesn’t
get involved with others’, ‘this child would rather be alone than
with others’, ‘this
child is shy or timid’, and ‘this child is unhappy, sad, or
depressed’. This measure
operationalizes withdrawal as a broadband construct that
reflects several aspects of
withdrawal, including the passive-anxious, unsociable, and
sad/depressed dimensions
described by a number of researchers (e.g., Harrist, Zaia, Bates,
Dodge, & Pettit, 1997;
Rubin & Mills, 1988). Previous research has provided evidence
for the validity of this
subscale, showing that this measure is related in expected ways
to other indices of

withdrawal, social competence, and affect (e.g., Frankel &
Myatt, 1994; Hoge &
McKay, 1986). Moreover, this measure has been used in many
studies of social with-
drawal (e.g., Cantrell & Prinz, 1984; Schwartz et al., 1999).
Both the Aggressive
Behavior and Withdrawn Subscales had alpha coefficients
greater than .80 in the
present sample.
Results
Four sets of analyses were conducted. In the first set, we
examined aggression and
withdrawal as predictors of contemporaneous peer
victimization. The second set of
analyses assessed whether school setting, ethnicity, grade, and
sex moderated these
predictive relations. The third set of analyses examined whether
rejection moderated
or mediated relations between aggression and withdrawal and
victimization. Finally,
we examined these questions longitudinally, predicting Time 2
victimization from
2000
Time 1 aggression and withdrawal after controlling for Time 1
victimization. An alpha
level of .05 was used for interpreting all statistical tests.

Correlations between Variables
As an initial step, zero-order correlations between aggressive
behavior, withdrawal,
and rejection (measured at Time 1) and concurrent (measured at
Time 1) and longi-
tudinal (measured at Time 2) victimization were examined (see
Table 1). Both aggres-
sion and rejection were moderately and significantly correlated
with concurrent and
subsequent peer victimization. Although withdrawal was also
significantly correlated
with victimization at Times 1 and 2, these relations were
consistently weak.
Aggression and Withdrawal as Predictors of Contemporaneous
Peer Victimization
To further explore the predictors of concurrent victimization,
Time 1 aggression and
withdrawal were included in a hierarchical regression predicting
Time 1 victimization
(see Table 2). School setting (moderate disadvantaged schools
were the comparison
group), dummy coded ethnicity (White was the comparison
group), grade, (first and
second grade was the comparison group), and sex (girl was the
comparison group)
were entered in the first step to control for their influence on
victimization. Together,
these demographic variables accounted for only 4% of the
variance in concurrent peer
victimization. School setting, ethnicity, and sex made
significant unique contributions
to victimization. Children in high disadvantage schools had
higher victimization

scores than children in moderate disadvantage schools, Whites
had higher victimiza-
tion scores than Hispanics, and boys had higher victimization
scores than girls.
Time 1 aggression and withdrawal were centered and entered in
the second step of
the equation. The addition of these variables made a significant
contribution to the
model, explaining an additional 7% of the variance in
concurrent peer victimization.
As shown in Table 2, aggression positively and significantly
predicted peer victimi-
zation, but withdrawal was unrelated to being victimized.
Table 1. Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between Time 1
Predictors and
Time 1 and Time 2 Peer Victimization
Measure 1 2 3 4 5
1. Time 1 Victimization —
2. Time 2 Victimization .38*** —
3. Time 1 Aggression .31*** .16*** —
4. Time 1 Withdrawal .08*** .07* .36*** —
5. Time 1 Rejection .61*** .36*** .43*** .18*** —
Note: Analyses were conducted on a pairwise basis. Ns for
analyses of Time 1 variables range
from 1751 to 1953. Differences in sample size across these
analyses are primarily a function
of missing teacher-report data due to difficulties in obtaining
teacher ratings from all teachers
on all children. Missing data are distributed across all schools.
Ns for longitudinal analyses
range from 1073 to 1197.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
2000
School setting, ethnicity, grade, and sex as moderators of
victimization risk. Cor-
relations between aggression and victimization and withdrawal
and victimization were
conducted separately for boys and girls, for first and second
graders and fourth graders,
for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites, and for children
in moderately and
highly disadvantaged schools (see Table 3). Aggression was
significantly correlated
with concurrent victimization for children in all demographic
groups.1 Correlations
between withdrawal and victimization, however, were much less
consistent, explain-
ing the overall weak relation between these two variables.
Withdrawal was positively
related to concurrent victimization for fourth graders but not
first and second graders,
for boys but not girls, for children in moderate disadvantage but
not high disadvant-
age schools, and for Whites and African Americans but not
Hispanics.2
Next, a third step in the hierarchical regression presented in
Table 2 was added.
Two-way interactions between each demographic variable and
each predictor variable

were entered into the model (see Table 2). The addition of these
terms significantly
increased the predictive utility of the model, F(10, 1726) =
5.94, p < .001. Adding the
interaction terms accounted for an additional 3% of the variance
in victimization.
As shown in Table 2, there were significant interactions
between sex and aggres-
sion, between grade and withdrawal, between school setting and
withdrawal, and
between ethnicity and withdrawal. These interactions were
interpreted using the pro-
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Predicting Time 1
Victimization from Time 1
Aggression and Withdrawal (N = 1744)
Variable Cumulative R2 DR2 b
Step 1 .04*** .04***
School Setting .07**
Ethnicity (Hispanic) -.10***
Ethnicity (African American) -.05
Grade -.04
Sex .09***
Step 2 .12*** .07***
Aggression .22***
Withdrawal .04
Step 3 .14*** .03**
Setting * Aggression .01
Setting * Withdrawal -.08*
Hispanic * Aggression .07
Hispanic * Withdrawal -.15***

Afr. Amer. * Aggression -.07
Afr. Amer. * Withdrawal -.03
Grade * Aggression -.02
Grade * Withdrawal .12***
Sex * Aggression .11**
Sex * Withdrawal .03
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
2000
cedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991). Significant
interactions between the
dummy coded demographic variables and the continuous
predictor variables were
evaluated by comparing the relations between the predictor
variable of interest and
victimization at each level of the demographic variable (i.e.,
boy and girl; older
children and younger children; high and moderate disadvantage;
African American,
Hispanic, and White). In doing so, multiple sets of regression
equations, differing with
regard to which level of the demographic variable (e.g., boy or
girl) served as the com-
parison, were computed to analyze each interaction. The
regression coefficients for
the lower order effect of the continuous predictor variable of
interest (e.g., aggression)
were then compared across regression equations.

Analyses revealed that aggression significantly predicted
concurrent victimization
for both boys (b = .36, p < .001) and girls (b = .22, p < .001),
but it was a stronger
predictor for boys. Furthermore, withdrawal increased fourth
graders’ risk for being
victimized (b = .21, p < .001), but did not affect first and
second graders’ risk for
being victimized (b = .04, n.s.). Tests of the school setting by
withdrawal and ethnic-
ity by withdrawal interactions, however, added little to the
interpretation of effects.
There was a trend for withdrawal to be negatively related to
victimization in high risk
settings (b = -.07, n.s.) and positively related in moderate risk
settings (b = .04, n.s.),
but the effect sizes were small and neither effect reached
significance. Further, in con-
trast to findings produced by correlations, these analyses
suggested that withdrawal
decreased Hispanics’ victimization risk (b = -.23, p < .001), but
did not affect African
Americans’ (b = -.01, n.s.) or Whites’ (b = .04, n.s.) risk.3
Comparison of beta weights
and correlation coefficients, however, revealed that aggression
was causing a sup-
pression effect in the relation between withdrawal and
victimization for Hispanic chil-
dren. That is, the zero-order correlation between withdrawal and
victimization was
near zero for Hispanics (see Table 3). Once aggression was
controlled, however, a sig-
nificant relation between withdrawal and victimization was
obtained (r = -.17, p <
.001). This suppressor effect was not evident for African-
American or White children.

Because suppressor effects may be, but are not always, spurious
(see Collins &
Table 3. Correlations with Time 1 Victimization by
Demographic Groups
Group Aggression Withdrawal
Boys .36*** .12***
Girls .19*** .02
First and Second Graders .31*** .02
Fourth Graders .30*** .17***
African Americans .25*** .10**
Hispanics .36*** -.02
Whites .28*** .16**
Moderate Disadvantage .30*** .12***
High Disadvantage .30*** .02
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
2000
Schmidt, 1997), they must be interpreted very cautiously until
verified by additional
research.
In sum, aggression positively predicted victimization for all
children, although the

relation was somewhat stronger for boys than for girls. The
findings were less con-
sistent for withdrawal. Overall, withdrawal played little role in
predicting victimiza-
tion. For fourth graders, however, being withdrawn was an
important contributor to
being victimized.
Rejection as a moderator. To evaluate rejection as a moderator
of aggression, an
interaction term for the aggression by rejection effect was added
to a hierarchical
regression predicting concurrent victimization from
demographics, aggression, and
rejection. The addition of the interaction term did not account
for additional variance
above the 40% accounted for by the main effects terms (DR2 =
.00, F[1, 1735] = .63,
n.s.), and the interaction term was nonsignificant (b = -.02,
n.s.), indicating that rejec-
tion did not moderate the aggression-victimization relation.
Because sex moderated
the predictive relation between aggression and victimization,
this analysis was also
conducted separately for boys and girls. Findings were
identical. Rejection did not
moderate the aggression-victimization relation for either boys
(b = -.02, n.s.) or for
girls (b = -.02, n.s.).
Similar procedures were followed to test rejection as a
moderator of withdrawal. An
interaction term for the withdrawal by rejection effect made a
minimal, but statisti-
cally significant, contribution to a model containing main
effects terms for demo-

graphics, withdrawal, and rejection (DR2 = .00, F[1, 1735] =
5.69, p < .05, b = .05).
This interaction was interpreted as suggested by Aiken and
West (1991). Rejection
was re-scaled to represent low (i.e., one standard deviation
below the mean) and high
(i.e., one standard deviation above the mean) levels. The
relation between withdrawal
and victimization was then tested at each level of rejection.
Findings demonstrated
that withdrawal was unrelated to victimization at high levels of
rejection (b = -.01,
n.s.), but being withdrawn decreased children’s risk of being
victimized at low levels
of rejection (b = -.09, p < .01).
As discussed above, there was one group of children for whom
withdrawal signifi-
cantly predicted victimization. These were the fourth graders.
Therefore, we also
evaluated the moderation hypothesis separately for this group of
children. The addi-
tion of a rejection by withdrawal interaction term to a model
containing main effects
terms for demographics, withdrawal, and rejection did not
account for additional
variance in predicting concurrent victimization, DR2 = .00, F(1,
609) = 2.13, n.s., and
the interaction term was not significant, b = .06, n.s. Thus, the
relation between with-
drawal and victimization operated differently for the oldest
children in this sample
than for all others; for this group, rejection did not moderate the
relation between
withdrawal and victimization.

Rejection as a mediator. Kenny and colleagues’ (Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Kenny,
Kashy, & Bolger, 1998) procedure was used to test for
mediation. According to this pro-
cedure, three conditions must be met for mediation to exist.
First, the independent vari-
able (i.e., aggression or withdrawal) must be correlated with the
dependent variable
(i.e., victimization). Second, the independent variable must also
be correlated with the
mediator (i.e., rejection). Third, after controlling for the
variance attributable to the
independent variable, the mediator must uniquely predict the
dependent variable, and
it must reduce the effect of the independent variable on the
dependent variable.
Examination of correlation coefficients indicated that the first
and second condi-
tions were met for aggression. As shown in Table 1, Time 1
aggression was signifi-
2000
cantly correlated with Time 1 victimization and with Time 1
rejection. LISREL 8
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) was then used to test the final
condition necessary for
mediation. A path model with aggression and withdrawal as
exogenous variables pre-
dicting victimization and with rejection mediating the relation

between aggression and
victimization provided a good fit to the data, c2(1) = 1.49, p =
.22, RMSEA = .01,
Standardized RMR = .01. As shown in Figure 1, rejection
mediated the relation
between aggression and victimization; the indirect effect of
aggression on victimiza-
tion was .25, and the direct effect was .07.
Because sex moderated the predictive relation between
aggression and victimiza-
tion, this mediational relation was tested across sex, as well.
These analyses demon-
strated that the mediational relationship operated somewhat
differently for girls and
for boys. Aggression was correlated with victimization (r = .19,
p < .001 and r = .36,
p < .001 for girls and boys respectively) and rejection (r = .36,
p < .001 and r = .44,
p < .001 for girls and boys, respectively) for both sexes. Thus,
the first two conditions
necessary for mediation were met for both girls and boys. For
girls, rejection com-
pletely mediated the relation between aggression and
victimization. The indirect effect
of aggression on victimization was .21, p < .001; the direct
effect was nonsignificant
at .01. For boys, however, rejection partially mediated the
relation between aggression
and victimization; aggression had an indirect effect on
victimization of .24 and a direct
effect of .12 (both significant at p < .001).
In testing the mediational hypothesis for withdrawal, we again
began by examining
the relation between withdrawal and victimization. As shown in

Table 1, these vari-
ables were significantly correlated, but their relationship was
very weak (r = .08,
p < .05); withdrawal accounted for less than 1% of the variance
in victimization (r2 =
.006). Moreover, as shown in Table 2, withdrawal did not make
a unique contribution
to predicting victimization. Thus, we conservatively assumed
that the first condition
of mediation was not met. However, given the significant
interaction between
Figure 1. Rejection as a mediator of the contemporaneous
relation between Time 1 aggression and Time 1
victimization.
2000
grade and withdrawal (see Table 2), we evaluated the
mediational hypothesis for older
children.
For fourth graders, withdrawal was correlated with
victimization (r = .17, p < .001)
and rejection (r = .22, p < .001). Withdrawal and aggression
were included in a path
model as predictors of victimization, and rejection was included
as a mediator of the
relation between withdrawal and victimization. The model fit
the data poorly, c2(1) =
70.90, p < .001, RMSEA = .34, Standardized RMR = .11. These

findings were eval-
uated in two ways. First, we examined the direct and indirect
effects of withdrawal on
victimization. This revealed that rejection completely mediated
the relation between
withdrawal and victimization for fourth graders, with an
indirect effect of .12, p <
.001 and a nonsignificant direct effect of .01. Second, we added
a suggested pathway
between aggression and rejection, producing a saturated model,
and again examined
the direct and indirect effects of withdrawal on victimization.
After controlling for the
influence of aggression on rejection, the indirect relation
between withdrawal and vic-
timization approached significance (with an indirect effect of
.07, p < .10 and a non-
significant direct effect of .01).
Aggression and Withdrawal as Predictors of Longitudinal Peer
Victimization
Analyses were also conducted to evaluate aggression and
withdrawal as predictors of
increases in victimization over a two-year period. As shown in
Table 1, Time 1 aggres-
sion was moderately and significantly correlated with Time 2
victimization, and Time
1 withdrawal was weakly, but significantly, correlated with
Time 2 victimization. To
further examine these relations, we conducted a hierarchical
regression in which we
controlled for the influence of demographic variables and the
stability of victimiza-
tion. Demographic variables were entered on the first step.
Then, centered Time 1 vic-

timization was entered on the second step to control for prior
levels of victimization.
Centered Time 1 aggression and withdrawal were entered on the
third step, and inter-
actions with sex, grade, ethnicity, and school setting were
entered on the fourth step
(see Table 4).
Together, the demographic variables accounted for 7% of the
variance in Time 2
victimization. Ethnicity, grade, and sex each predicted Time 2
victimization, with
Whites, younger children, and boys more likely to be
victimized. Time 1 victimiza-
tion accounted for an additional 12% of the variance in Time 2
victimization. Time 1
aggression and withdrawal added minimally to the model,
explaining less than 1% of
the variance. Nevertheless, aggression significantly predicted
later victimization. In
addition, although withdrawal did not predict a two-year change
in victimization for
the sample as a whole, it marginally predicted increased
victimization for a subgroup
of children. Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure was used to
examine a significant
interaction between withdrawal and grade. Findings revealed a
nonsignificant trend
toward a positive relation between withdrawal and later
victimization for older chil-
dren (b = .11, n.s.) but not for younger children (b = -.05, n.s.).
Rejection as a Moderator and Mediator of Longitudinal Peer
Victimization
Tests of the moderation hypothesis revealed that rejection did

not moderate the lon-
gitudinal relation between aggression and victimization (b = -
.05, n.s.). Similarly,
rejection did not moderate the longitudinal relation between
withdrawal and victimi-
zation (b = .05, n.s.). We also examined rejection as moderator
of withdrawal for fourth
2000
graders. Again, there was no interaction between withdrawal
and rejection in predict-
ing later victimization for the oldest children in this sample (b =
.02, n.s.).
The correlation coefficients reported in Table 1 and the
regression coefficients
reported in Table 4 demonstrated that aggression, but not
withdrawal, was associated
with later victimization. Thus, the first condition necessary for
mediation was met only
for aggression. As shown in Table 1, the second condition was
also met; aggression
was significantly correlated with rejection. Using LISREL, we
tested a path model in
which Time 1 victimization, aggression, and withdrawal served
as exogenous vari-
ables predicting Time 2 victimization and Time 1 rejection
mediated the relation
between Time 1 aggression and Time 2 victimization. This
model did not fit the data

well, c2(2) = 377.26, p < .001, RMSEA = .42, Standardized
RMR = .13. We did,
however, examine the direct and indirect effects of aggression
on later victimization.
Rejection completely mediated the relation between aggression
and victimization,
with an indirect effect of .08, p < .001 and a nonsignificant
direct effect of .00. We
added a suggested pathway between Time 1 victimization and
rejection, substantially
improving the fit of the model, c2(1) = 3.71, p < .05, RMSEA =
.05, Standardized
RMR = .01 (see Figure 2 for final model). In this model,
rejection completely medi-
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Predicting Time 2
Victimization from Time 1
Aggression and Withdrawal, Controlling for Time 1
Victimization (N = 1068)
Variable Cumulative R2 DR2 b
Step 1 .07*** .07***
School Setting -.06
Ethnicity (Hispanic) -.22***
Ethnicity (African American) -.21***
Grade -.06*
Sex .08**
Step 2 .20*** .12***
Victimization .33***
Step 3 .20*** .00
Aggression .19*
Withdrawal -.05

Step 4 .22*** .01*
Setting * Aggression -.04
Setting * Withdrawal -.06
Hispanic * Aggression -.03
Hispanic * Withdrawal -.01
Afr. Amer. * Aggression -.11
Afr. Amer. * Withdrawal .04
Grade * Aggression -.07
Grade * Withdrawal .11*
Sex * Aggression .04
Sex * Withdrawal .03
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
2000
ated the aggression-victimization relation, with an indirect
effect of .05, p < .001 and
a direct effect of .00. In addition, this model showed that the
stability between Time
1 victimization and Time 2 victimization was partially mediated
by rejection. The indi-
rect effect of early victimization on later victimization was .09,
p < .001 and the direct
effect was .28, p < .001.
Discussion
The present investigation was designed to examine whether
aggressive and withdrawn
behaviors predict concurrent and subsequent peer victimization

and whether these pre-
dictive relations are mediated or moderated by rejection.
Analyses also examined dif-
ferences in these relations across school context, ethnicity,
developmental level, and
sex. The findings supported a relation between aggressive
behavior and victimization
by peers. This relation maintained across school context,
ethnicity, age, and sex, and
was mediated by rejection. The relations between withdrawal
and victimization were
more complicated. Withdrawal, mediated by rejection, predicted
victimization for
fourth graders, though it did not operate as a risk factor for
other children. In fact,
when rejection was low, it reduced the risk for victimization for
the sample as a whole.
Both variables exerted greater influence as contemporaneous
predictors, although
aggression significantly contributed to the prediction of
victimization two years later.
These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for
understanding the
dynamics of childhood victimization and for intervention.
Figure 2. Rejection as a mediator of the longitudinal relation
between Time 1 aggression and Time 2
victimization.
2000

Aggression as a Predictor of Peer Victimization
Our findings demonstrated that aggression predicts
contemporaneous victimization.
This relation occurred regardless of school context, ethnicity,
age, or sex, although it
was slightly stronger for boys than for girls. Aggression also
predicted being victim-
ized two years later, although the longitudinal effects were
weaker. These findings
support and extend previous research. Several studies of
predominantly White, middle-
class, school-aged boys and girls have shown that some
victimized children display
high levels of aggression and that aggressive behavior is
predictive of being victim-
ized (Hodges et al., 1999; Hodges et al., 1997; Olson, 1992;
Olweus, 1978; Schwartz,
Dodge et al., 1998; Schwartz et al., 1999). The present research
strengthens these find-
ings and demonstrates that they are relevant for ethnically
diverse and economically
disadvantaged populations as well. The aggression-victimization
relation appears to
be relatively robust and generalizable across samples. Extant
research suggests that
this relation operates, at least in part, by a tendency for
victimized children to inter-
pret others’ behaviors as hostile and to respond with reactive
aggression, an angry and
retaliatory response which is predictive of peer rejection and
continued victimization
(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Olson, 1992; Schwartz, Dodge et
al., 1998). Indeed, in
the present study, the relation between aggression and
victimization was mediated by

rejection.
Withdrawal as a Predictor of Peer Victimization
In contrast to the significant and consistent findings obtained
for aggression, the
overall relation between withdrawal and victimization was
weak, with withdrawal actu-
ally reducing the risk for victimization at low levels of
rejection. Withdrawal predicted
victimization for fourth grade children only. The findings
regarding the withdrawal-
victimization relations, however, should be interpreted in light
of measurement pro-
cedures. Withdrawal was measured using the TRF (Achenbach,
1991), a widely used
assessment tool that relies on teacher ratings. Teacher ratings of
withdrawal, however,
are moderately, but not perfectly, related to peer and
observational assessments; hence,
teachers may not accurately characterize the precise nature of
children’s social inter-
actions (Hymel & Rubin, 1985). In addition, one of the
difficulties in drawing con-
clusions about the role of social withdrawal is that it has been
operationally defined
in a multitude of ways, reflecting the heterogeneity of this
construct. In the present
study, it was operationalized using the TRF (Achenbach, 1991),
which characterizes
withdrawal as a broad-band construct. As such, it contains items
that reflect the
passive-anxious dimension of withdrawal that Rubin and his
colleagues (Rubin, 1993;
Rubin & Mills, 1988) have highlighted, but it also contains
items that reflect other

dimensions of withdrawal, such as the unsociable and
sad/depressed subtypes (Harrist
et al., 1997). Thus, the present findings must be interpreted as
reflecting a global con-
ceptualization of withdrawal-related behaviors, rather than as
reflecting passive-
anxious withdrawal or any other specific subtype of withdrawal.
Despite these measurement issues, the present findings for
fourth grade children
were remarkably similar to findings obtained in similar studies
of mid to late ele-
mentary school-aged children. In the present study, withdrawal
positively predicted
victimization for fourth graders, and this relation was
predominantly mediated by
rejection. That is, children who exhibited social withdrawal
were disliked by their
peers, which placed them at risk for being victimized. These
findings are consistent
2000
with findings for third through fifth grade children in two recent
studies reported by
Boivin and colleagues (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al.,
1995). In these studies,
withdrawal, which was operationally defined as reticent social
behavior and measured
using peer reports, predicted victimization by peers, and this
relation was mediated

by social status. Moreover, other studies of late elementary
school children (i.e., third
through seventh graders) have obtained similar results using a
combination of peer-
reported items measuring inhibited social behavior, anxiety and
depression, and a hov-
ering peer entry style as a predictor of victimization (Hodges et
al., 1997; Hodges &
Perry, 1999). Taken together, these consistencies support the
validity of the present
findings.
For first and second graders, however, withdrawal was unrelated
to victimization.
This is also consistent with previous research that has shown
that internalizing behav-
iors, as measured by the TRF Withdrawn, Anxious/Depressed,
and Social Problems
subscales, did not predict victimization by peers for
kindergarten and first grade chil-
dren (Schwartz et al., 1999). This developmental difference may
reflect social-
cognitive developments that influence children’s ability to
attend to and encode with-
drawn behaviors. Early elementary school-aged children are less
sensitive than late
elementary school-aged children to peers’ withdrawn behaviors,
as evidenced by
developmental increases in children’s ability to recall
descriptions of hypothetical
peers’ withdrawn behaviors and to discriminate withdrawal
from other social behav-
iors (Younger & Boyko, 1987; Younger et al., 1986). Thus, for
younger children, social
withdrawal is less salient, and therefore, less potentially
stigmatizing, than it is for

older children. Instead, other more conspicuous behaviors, such
as submissively
giving in to peers’ demands, seem to be important predictors of
victimization for
young children (Schwartz et al., 1993). In fact, related research
suggests that children
who submit when provoked are perceived by their peers as easy
targets (Perry et al.,
1990).
Furthermore, in partial support of our hypothesis, withdrawal
marginally, but not
significantly, predicted reduced victimization for children in
high disadvantage schools
and increased victimization for children in moderate
disadvantage schools. This
finding provides some support for the idea that not getting
involved with others might
be an adaptive strategy in economically deprived settings that
are relatively unstable
and dangerous. That is, in these contexts, keeping to oneself
may go unnoticed and/or
ignored. Thus, the child who doesn’t participate in the peer
culture, rather than being
seen as an easy target, may simply not be seen at all. These
findings, however, may
be underestimated by a restricted range in school contexts. All
children in this sample
attended schools struggling with issues of poverty and violence,
and variability in
school setting was minimized. Thus, these findings underscore
the need for future
research to thoroughly explore how withdrawal is related to
victimization for distinct
subgroups of children.

Together, these results imply that the relation between
withdrawal and victimiza-
tion is a complex one. Extant research suggests that the social
evaluation of with-
drawal varies by sex and by culture (see discussion in Rubin &
Stewart, 1996). Thus,
being withdrawn may increase victimization risk for some
children, have no effect on
victimization risk for others, and, for others, it may actually
decrease the likelihood
of being victimized by peers. In support of this, we found that
correlations between
withdrawal and victimization were stronger for some groups of
children than for
others, with clear age differences, marginal school setting
differences, and no clearly
interpretable sex or ethnicity differences.
2000
In sum, these results support existing findings, and, at the same
time, raise important
issues regarding these relations that remain to be clarified. As
discussed above, with-
drawal may be operationalized in many different ways; it is a
global construct that con-
sists of several distinct subsets of behaviors that have slightly
different forms and
functions within the peer group (e.g., Harrist et al., 1997).
Indeed, the various subtypes
of withdrawal are associated with different patterns of social

competencies, with chil-
dren who are actively isolated by their peers showing the most
disturbed social skills
and relations (Harrist et al., 1997). The contribution of each of
these different sets of
behaviors to victimization, however, has not been
systematically examined. Future
research will be crucial to elucidate the relations between
specific forms of withdrawal
and peer victimization and to assess variations in these relations
for children of
different ages, of different ethnic backgrounds, and in different
settings.
The Role of Peer Rejection
As predicted, rejection operated as both a mediator and a
moderator. Indeed, rejection
mediated the relation between aggressive behavior and
victimization, suggesting that
there is an elaborate interplay between the behaviors that
victimized children exhibit,
peers’ perceptions of these behaviors, and peers’ victimizing
actions. Thus, it was pri-
marily peers’ reactions to and interpretations of aggression as
undesirable, rather than
aggressive behavior per se, that led to victimization. As
suggested by Hodges and his
colleagues (Hodges & Perry, 1999), this may occur because
peers fail to protect dis-
liked children from their attackers. Studies of children who act
as bystanders in peer
victimization interactions support this interpretation
(Salmivalli, Huttunen, &
Lagerspetz, 1997; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman,
& Kaukianinen,

1996). This finding points to the need to examine children’s
victimization by peers
within the context of a broader array of peer interactions.
Recent efforts to do so have
shown that friendships and social networks, as well as rejection,
influence who is most
likely to be victimized (Hanish & Henke, 1999; Hodges et al.,
1997; Hodges et al.,
1999; Ladd et al., 1997; Salmivalli et al., 1997).
It is important to note, however, that slightly different patterns
of mediation were
obtained for girls and boys. For girls, rejection fully mediated
the aggression-
victimization relation; for boys, rejection partially mediated this
relation. Thus, peers
disliked girls who exhibited aggressive behavior and were more
likely to direct attacks
towards them because of their decreased social status. For girls,
this was the central
process through which aggression predicted victimization.
Though this process was
central for boys as well, it was not the sole process through
which aggression was
related to victimization. Aggression also predicted victimization
directly. This may
reflect the ‘provocative’ nature of aggressive behavior that
Olweus (1978) described
in his sample of early adolescent boys. That is, perhaps peers
victimize aggressive
boys, in part, because their behavior is irritating and annoying,
thereby provoking
attack. Coupled with extensive research that suggests that girls
and boys experience
peer interactions in different ways (Maccoby, 1999), these
findings emphasize the

importance of examining sex differences in peer victimization
processes.
Similar findings of mediation were obtained for the withdrawal-
victimization rela-
tion for fourth graders. Being withdrawn did not directly predict
victimization for these
children. Instead, fourth graders rejected their withdrawn peers,
relegating them to the
bottom of the social hierarchy. Being disliked by the dominant
peer group, then, was
a direct contributor to being victimized. Finding that rejection
acts as a mediator of
2000
social behaviors emphasizes the idea that peers’ perceptions of
and responses to chil-
dren’s social behaviors are a powerful determinant of peer
victimization.
Although rejection mediated the relation between withdrawal
and victimization for
a subgroup of children, rejection moderated this relation for the
sample as a whole.
Consistent with our hypothesis, children who were withdrawn
but not rejected by their
peers were less likely to be victimized, rather than more likely
to be victimized. Not
only does this finding provide valuable insight into the
processes through which with-

drawal functions for some children, it further highlights the role
of rejection in con-
tributing to peer victimization. Being rejected can increase the
likelihood of being
victimized; being non-rejected can decrease the likelihood of
being victimized, par-
ticularly when children are withdrawn and less likely to be
noticed by peers. Chil-
dren’s perceptions and beliefs influence their decisions to
engage in bullying behavior
as well as their decisions about whom to victimize (Guerra,
Huesmann, & Hanish,
1995; Perry et al., 1990; Slaby & Guerra, 1988).
Implications for Intervention
These findings have important implications for designing
interventions. Interventions
to reduce peer victimization may be best conceptualized as
multi-level. On the one
hand, children who exhibit behaviors, such as aggression, that
their peers perceive as
irritating and deviant are at elevated risk for being victimized.
These children may
benefit from an intervention that is designed to teach them more
effective ways of
interacting with peers, thereby reducing their risk of being
victimized. Such inter-
ventions have typically produced small to modest effects,
reducing individuals’
aggressive behavior and increasing their social acceptance and
prosocial behavior
(e.g., Lochman, Coie, Underwood, & Terry, 1993). Although
their effect on victimi-
zation has not been specifically tested, it is likely that the
resultant improvements in

behavior and social status produce concomitant reductions in
victimization for
participating children.
Such an individualized approach, however, is unlikely to have a
substantial effect
on overall rates of victimization within the classroom because it
places the respon-
sibility for change on victimized children, despite the fact that
peers are actively en-
gaging in victimizing behaviors. Thus, efforts to intervene
should also include a
component that targets victimization-related processes at the
level of the entire peer
group. Moreover, intervention research has highlighted the
importance of focusing
interventions on modifying relevant mediators of problem
behaviors, demonstrating
that such an approach is most likely to be effective in changing
problem behaviors
(Dumka, Roosa, Michaels, & Suh, 1995; Pillow et al., 1991).
Applying this principle
to victimization interventions, it is crucial that interventions
target the patterns of
acceptance and rejection that exist among members of the peer
group, teaching chil-
dren in classrooms to assist and support others rather than
rejecting and victimizing
those who act differently. In doing so, it is important to
increase children’s sensitivity
to diversity among their classmates and enhance their
acceptance of peers who display
different characteristics. It is also important to create classroom
and peer climates that
encourage cooperative and respectful, rather than competitive
and disparaging, inter-

actions. Intervention programs that have adopted this ideal have
demonstrated success
(Kellam & Rebok, 1992; Olweus, 1992, 1994).
In sum, some children exhibit behaviors that put them at
elevated risk for being vic-
timized by their peers. However, peers’ perceptions, rather than
individual behaviors,
2000
are critical determinants of who gets victimized. Many
researchers in this field
have begun to develop contextual models of this phenomenon,
and continued
research in this area is crucial to fully understand peer
victimization. Moreover,
attempts to intervene must target the peer group factors that
contribute to this
behavior.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991
CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of
Psychiatry.
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Attar, B., Guerra, N. G., & Tolan, P. (1994). Neighborhood
disadvantage, stressful life events,
and adjustment in elementary school children. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 23,
394– 400.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Boivin, M. & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social
self-perceptions: A sequential
model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135–145.
Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of
social withdrawal, peer rejec-
tion, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and
depressed mood in children.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765–7865.
Cantrell, V. L. & Prinz, R. J. (1985). Multiple perspectives of
rejected, neglected, and accepted
children: Relation between sociometric status and behavioral
characteristics. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 884–889.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer
group behavior and social status.
In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 17–59). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Collins, J. M. & Schmidt, F. L. (1997). Can suppressor

variables enhance criterion-related
validity in the personality domain? Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 57,
924–936.
Crick, N. R. & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt
forms of peer victimization:
A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 66, 337–
347.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H-C. (1999). Relational and
physical forms of peer victimi-
zation in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35, 376–385.
Dumka, L. E., Roosa, M. W., Michaels, M. L., & Suh, K. W.
(1995). Using research and theory
to develop prevention programs for high risk families. Family
Relations, 44, 78–86.
Egan, S. K. & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite
victimization? Developmental
Psychology, 34, 299–309.
Emerson, E. N., Crowley, S. L., & Merrell, K. W. (1994).
Convergent validity of the School
Social Behavior Scales with the Child Behavior Checklist and
Teacher’s Report Form.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 372–380.
Eron, L. D., Walder, L. O., & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1971).
Learning of aggression in children.
Boston: Little Brown.
Frankel, F. & Myatt, R. (1994). A dimensional approach to the
assessment of social compe-

tence in boys. Psychological Assessment, 6, 249–254.
French, D. C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys:
Aggressive and nonaggressive sub-
types. Child Development, 59, 976–985.
Guerra, N. G., Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P., & Van
Acker, R. (1997). A cognitive-
ecological approach to the prevention and mitigation of
violence and aggression in inner-
city youth. In D. P. Fry & K. Bjorkqvist (Eds.), Cultural
variations in conflict resolution:
Alternatives to violence (pp. 199–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Hanish, L. D. (1995). The
role of normative beliefs in chil-
dren’s social behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of
Personality and Social Psychology:
Vol. 15. Social Development, (pp. 140–158). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
2000
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P. H., Van Acker, R., &
Eron, L. D. (1995). Stressful
events and individual beliefs as correlates of economic
disadvantage and aggression among
urban children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
63, 518–528.

Gustin, J., Guerra, N. G., & Attar, B. (in press). Resilience in
urban children: Four kids who
could. In G. Brookins (Ed.), Exits from poverty. Washington,
DC: American Psychological
Association.
Hanish, L. D. (2000). Patterns of adjustment following peer
victimization. Presented at the
Eighth Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, Chicago, IL.
Hanish, L. D. & Guerra, N. G. (2000). The Roles of Ethnicity
and School Context in Predicting
Children’s Victimization by Peers. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 28, 201–223.
Hanish, L. D. & Henke, L. A. (1999). The Peer Relationships of
Victimized Children: A Study
of Three Age Groups. Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child
Development, Albuquerque, NM.
Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit,
G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social
withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social-
cognitive differences across
four years. Child Development, 68, 278–294.
Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M.
(1999). The power of friendship:
Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization.
Developmental Psychology, 35,
94–101.
Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997).
Individual risk and social risk as inter-

acting determinants of victimization in the peer group.
Developmental Psychology, 33,
1032–1039.
Hodges, E. V. E. & Perry, D. G. (1996). Victims of peer abuse:
An overview. Journal of Emo-
tional and Behavioral Problems, 5, 23–28.
Hodges, E. V. E. & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and
interpersonal antecedents and conse-
quences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76,
677–685.
Hoge, R. D. & McKay, V. (1986). Criterion-related validity data
for the Child Behavior
Checklist-Teacher’s Report Form. Journal of School
Psychology, 24, 387–393.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Guerra, N. G., & Crawshaw, V.
(1994). A teacher version of the
peer-nomination inventory. Psychological Assessment, 6, 329–
336.
Huesmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K., & Eron, L. D. (1984).
Intervening variables in the TV
violence-aggression relation: Evidence from two countries.
Developmental Psychology,
20, 746–775.
Huesmann, L. R., Maxwell, C. D., Eron, L., Dahlberg, L. L.,
Guerra, N. G., Tolan, P. H.,
VanAcker, R., & Henry, D. (1996). Evaluating a
cognitive/ecological program for the pre-
vention of aggression among urban children. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 12

(5, supplemental), 120–128.
Hymel, S. & Rubin, K. A. (1985). Children with peer
relationship and social skills problems:
Conceptual, methodological, and developmental issues. Annals
of Child Development, 2,
251–297.
Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL (Version 8)
[Computer software]. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis
in social psychology. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (4th ed., Vol.
1, pp. 233–265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Kochenderfer, B. J. & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization:
Cause or consequence of school
maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317.
Kochenderfer, B. J. & Ladd, G. W. (1997). Victimized
children’s responses to peers’ aggres-
sion: Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued
victimization. Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 59–73.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997).
Classroom peer acceptance, friend-
ship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that
contribute uniquely to children’s
school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181–1197.
Lochman, J. E., Coie, J. D., Underwood, M. K., & Terry, R.
(1993). Effectiveness of a social

FIN 400 G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed. Sojourner-Douglas.docx

FIN 400 G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed. Sojourner-Douglas.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FIN 400 G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed. Sojourner-Douglas.docx

Similar to FIN 400 G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed. Sojourner-Douglas.docx (20)

More from mydrynan

More from mydrynan (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

FIN 400 G. Travis Miller, MBA, M.Ed. Sojourner-Douglas.docx