You are on page 1of 42

Accepted Manuscript

Parents, family characteristics and bullying behavior: A


systematic review

Annalaura Nocentini, Giada Fiorentini, Ludovica Di Paola, Ersilia


Menesini

PII: S1359-1789(18)30037-5
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.010
Reference: AVB 1224
To appear in: Aggression and Violent Behavior
Received date: 13 February 2018
Revised date: 20 July 2018
Accepted date: 24 July 2018

Please cite this article as: Annalaura Nocentini, Giada Fiorentini, Ludovica Di Paola,
Ersilia Menesini , Parents, family characteristics and bullying behavior: A systematic
review. Avb (2018), doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.010

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

Parents, family characteristics and bullying behavior: a systematic review

Annalaura Nocentini, Giada Fiorentini, Ludovica Di Paola, Ersilia Menesini

Department of Educational Science and Psychology, University of Florence – Italy

T
Via di San Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi Padiglione 26, 50135, Florence

P
RI
Address for correspondence:
Annalaura Nocentini

SC
Via di San Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi Padiglione 26, 50135, Florence
Tel: 0039.055.6237870. Fax: 0039.055.6236047; e-mail: annalaura.nocentini@unifi.it
NU
Keywords: parents; family; bullying, victimization, systematic review
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

The review investigates the role played by contextual family processes, relational processes and
parental individual processes on bullying and victimization. A systematic review has been
conducted in five databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC) from1970
through November 2017. Finally, 154 studies were reviewed differentiating among the three levels
of family processes. The majority of the studies addressed single or multiple variables at the same
level of analysis. Only 25% of studies focused on the interplay between different levels of family
functioning. Our review finds evidence about the role of contextual family variables (parental
mental health and domestic violence) and of relational family variables (in particular child abuse

T
and neglect, maladaptive parenting, communication, parental involvement and support). A lower
and more controversial evidence has been showed about the role of individual parental variables

P
such as parental self-efficacy, parental attitudes toward victimization and parental knowledge about

RI
bullying.

SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

School bullying, defined as “aggressive, intentional acts carried out by a group or an

individual repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself”

(Olweus, 1993 p. 48), has increasingly become a topic of public concern and research efforts.

Estimates may vary in relation to the year of publication, measures used and reporting reference

P T
period (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017). According to recent international survey (Inchley, Currie,

RI
Young, Samdal et al., 2015), 13% of children aged 11 years across the world reported that they

SC
have been bullied at least twice in the past two months and 8% admitted to bullying others. The

review by Juvonen and Graham (2014) estimated that approximately 20–25% of youths are directly
NU
involved in bullying as perpetrators, victims, or both. Bullying and cyberbullying have relevant

negative consequences on mental health outcomes, increasing the probability of later criminal
MA

offending and psychotic symptoms for bullies and the levels of anxiety and depression for victims

(Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Nansel, Overpeck,
ED

Pilla, & Ruan, 2001; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011; Wolke & Lereya, 2015).
PT

Given the high prevalence of bullying and victimization across the world and the suffering

for both bullies and victims, researchers devoted to this topic relevant attention in terms of
CE

explaining causal mechanisms of development and maintenance. According to the ecological model
AC

applied to bullying (Swearer & Espelage, 2004; Swearer & Hymel, 2015; Swearer et al., 2010), the

interaction of intrapersonal, family, school, peer, and community characteristics may influence

bullying and victimization, and in turn modulate the risk for adjustment and behavioral problems.

However, the role of family in bullying and victimization has been understudied compared to the

attention paid to schools and the peer context (Bradshaw, 2014), particularly in intervention

literature.

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Focusing on basic research on the family context, literature analyzed the role of different

variables depending on the theory used for explaining how the family environment influences youth

bullying involvement (i.e., from attachment theory to social learning theory to family systems

theory, see Duncan, 2004). A consistent high risk predictor for bullying and victimization is a

violent family context where parents are involved in domestic violence (e.g., Foshee et al., 2016;

Holt et al., 2008; Lereya et al., 2013). Parent–child relationships characterized by child

T
maltreatment and abuse resulted a relevant predictor for bullying and victimization (i.e., Bowes et

P
RI
al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2015; Shilds & Cicchetti, 2001). The study of parental influences in children

SC
school bullying and /or being victimized in school identified the role of several relational variables,

such as parental practices and styles (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Bowers, Smith, & Binney,
NU
1994; Christie-Mizell et al., 2011; Craig, Peters, & Konarski, 1998; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon,

2000; Kaufmann et al., 2000; Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013; Pepler et al., 2008; Rigby, 1993) the
MA

quality of attachment (e.g., Eliot & Cornell, 2009; Ševcíková, Machácková, Wright, Dedková, &

Cerná, 2015; Walden & Beran, 2010; Zhu, Chan, & Chen, 2015), the quality of the parent-child
ED

relationship (e.g., Davis & Koepke, 2016; Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010), and family functioning

(e.g., Cunningham et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2008; Espelage et al. 2014). Finally, some parents’
PT

individual variables, such as parents’ attitudes toward bullying and parental beliefs about bullying
CE

(e.g., Georgiou, 2008; Troop-Gordon & Gerardy, 2012), parental awareness about the phenomenon

and knowledge of its nature, prevalence, effects, and best practices in prevention (e.g., Rigby, 2013)
AC

have been analysed.

Within this area of investigation, several meta-analyses were conducted on predictors of

bullying and victimization, but only one meta-analysis specifically focused on the role of family

variables (Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013), and it was focused on more proximal parenting

variables affecting the risk of becoming a victim or a bully/victim. Overall, they found that both

victims and bully/victims are more likely to be exposed to negative parenting behavior, including

harsh and maladaptive parenting and abuse and neglectful parenting, whereas positive parental

4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

behaviour, including good communication between parents and the child, warm and affectionate

relationships, parental involvement and support, and parental supervision resulted to be protective

against peer victimization. However, this study is focused only on victims and bully- victims and

neglected family risk factors for bullies. Besides, other variables related to the family might have a

role on explaining bullying, for example the parents’ individual attitudes or norms about aggression

and bullying, or parental knowledges of the phenomenon and self-efficacy about the strategies to

T
help children when involved in bullying and victimization.

P
RI
The current review will systematically investigate the role played by different risk and

SC
protective factors referred to parents and family in relation to bullying, cyberbullying, victimization

and cybervictimization. In particular, we will distinguish among the family context, the relationship
NU
and the individual level of family functioning and we will investigate:
MA

1. The role played by contextual family variables indirectly related to the child: parental

difficulties such as psychopathology, domestic violence, family conflict and violence.


ED

2. The role played by relational family variables directly affecting the child. Following

Lereya et al. (2013) these have been defined as: authoritative parenting, parent– child
PT

communication, parental involvement and support, supervision and parental mediation, warmth
CE

and affection of the parents, child maltreatment and abuse, maladaptive parenting,

overprotection.
AC

3. The role played by parents’ individual variables defined as parental attitudes and

norms, beliefs, social-cognitive skills.

4. The multivariate consideration of the three family levels: contextual, relational and

individual.

2. Method

2.1 Search strategy

5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

We conducted a systematic review of the literature published from January 1970 to

November 2017 on the family/parental role in predicting bullying and victimization (traditional and

cyberbullying forms). The following 5 electronic databases were searched: Scopus, PsycINFO,

ERIC, PubMed, Web of Science. The following keywords were used ‘bully*’, ‘victim*’, ‘bullying’,

‘parent*’, ‘mother’, ‘father’ and ‘family’. The search was conducted combining Abstract, Title,

Keywords in PsycINFO and Scopus databases. For the Web of Science database only Title was

T
used, and the search through ERIC and PubMed was conducted on the whole text, as there was no

P
RI
other option.

SC
2.2 Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Overall the search in all the five databases included 32,302 articles. There was an overlap of
NU
27,513 articles. Duplicated articles were excluded from subsequent searches. Other duplicates were
MA

excluded manually and the final literature search included 3,601 articles (see Figure 1).

Studies were included when: bullying/victimization (traditional and cyber) were considered
ED

as the outcome, and family/parental variables as predictors. We preferred not to include specific

terms or keywords (i.e., punitive, control, sensitive) in order to consider all the possible variables
PT

referred to the parenting and to the family system including siblings. Besides, studies from journals,
CE

book chapters or books published in English and Italian were considered. Studies were excluded

when: 1) no association between bullying/victimization and family or parenting variables was


AC

reported; 2) the study was focused on general aggression, violence or abuse and not on

bullying/victimization; 3) the study was focused on diagnostic diseases or outcomes associated

with bullying (i.e., conduct disorder, antisocial behaviour, depression, etc. ); 4) the study was

qualitative; 5) studie focused only on structural family variables were excluded, such as single-

parent family, socioeconomic status, parental education level; 6) papers in languages other than

English and Italian were excluded; 7) dissertation theses, congress abstract, review and meta-

analayses were excluded; 8) indirect effects from bullying and victimization to psychological

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

symptoms including family variables as moderators were excluded; 9) guidelines and booklet for

parents were excluded.

We reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles found (N=3,601) and we excluded 3,233

under the exclusion criteria reported above (see Figure 1). The full text articles assessed for

eligibility were 368. A total of 214 articles were further excluded according to exclusion criteria.

Finally, 154 studies were included in the review.

P T
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure 1. Description of the systematic review

2.3 Selection of parenting behavior variables and coding

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Two coders independently distinguished the categories for the family variables found in the

articles. We used the eighth categories identified by Lereya et al. (2103) in order to classify the

relational variables: 1) authoritative parenting, 2) parent – child communication, 3) parental

involvement and support, 4) supervision and parental mediation, 5) warmth and affection of the

parents, 6) child maltreatment and abuse, 7) maladaptive parenting, 8) overprotection. Besides, we

included 3 other categories as well: parental mental health (i.e., maternal or parental stress,

T
psychopathology, substance use), family violence (i.e., domestic violence, sibling violence, family

P
RI
conflict, family aggression) and parental individual processes including knowledges, attitudes and

SC
norms (i.e., parental negative attribution toward the child, parental norms about aggression or about

bullying, parental values, parental knowledges on bullying and victimization, parental coping
NU
strategies in bullying situations). Cohen’s kappa revealed a moderate inter-rater agreement (k=

0.77). The main findings of the articles were reviewed and reported in Table 1 in Appendix. Table 2
MA

reported a summary of the main findings. Specific family variables analysed in the studies in

relation to bullying and victimization outcomes were reported together with their level of
ED

significance (significant or not significant) and direction (positive or negative association). The

association was analysed using the bivariate correlation or the univariate relation, when present.
PT

Specific family variables were defined into higher order family categories which in turns were
CE

defined into the three family macro- levels (individual, relational and contextual). The same study

may be discussed within multiple family categories.


AC

3. Results

87 articles out of 154 (56%) were published between 2013 and 2017. Overall, about 92% (142

studies) of studies evaluated were focused on relational family processes. The most frequent

categories considered in the studies reviewed were four: parental involvement and support,

maladaptive parenting, supervision, and finally warmth and affection. Contextual family variables

were considered by 26% of articles (40 studies), and parental individual processes by 8% of studies

8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(12 studies). Finally, 25% of studies (38 studies) included interaction between different levels of

family functioning.

In the first part of the results section we describe the main findings of the single categories

(see Table 1 in Appendix and Table 2 for the main findings). In the second part we describe the

studies with the multivariate consideration of the 3 levels of family functioning: Contextual family

variables, Relational family processes, Parents’ individual processes.

P T
RI
Insert Table 2

SC
3.1 Contextual family variables

The category “parental mental health” is included in 13 articles for bullying and 8 for
NU
victimization taking into consideration variables such as parental stress (Alizadeh Maralani,
MA

Mirnasab, & Hashemi, 2016; Garaigordobil & Machimbarrena, 2017), parental psychopatology

(depression and antisocial behavior) (Bowes et al., 2009; Burkhart et al., 2013; Chui & Chan, 2015;
ED

Georgiou, 2008; Mlisa et al., 2008; Morcillo, Ramos-Olazagasti, Blanco et al., 2015) mental health

(Shetgiri, Lin, Avila, & Flores, 2012; Shetgiri, Lin, & Flores, 2015), alcohol use (Eiden et al.,
PT

2010). The large majority of the studies confirmed a positive association of parental mental health

problems with bullying (77%; 10 out of 13) and peer victimization (75%; 6 out of 8), and only 5
CE

studies, respectively 23% (3) and 25% (2), reported a non significant association.
AC

The category “domestic violence and conflict” was found in 20 articles for bullying and 26

for victimization. It includes variables such as aggression and violence between parents (e.g.,

Espelage et al., 2014; Fisher et al., 2015; Holt et al., 2008; Knous-Westfall et al., 2012; Le et al.,

2017; Lereya et al., 2013; Low et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2016), conflict, aggression and violence

between siblings (Faith et al., 2015; Kim & Kim, 2016; Le et al., 2017; Sapouna et al., 2013) and

parental conflict (Buelga et al., 2017; Caravaca Sanchez et al., 2016; Foshee et al, 2016). The large

majority of the studies confirmed a positive association between domestic conflict and violence

9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

with bullying (95%; 119 out of 20) and to a lower extent also with peer victimization (77%; 20 out

of 26); only one study reported a non significant association with bullying and 6 studies (23%)

reported a non significant association with victimization. Overall, these studies confirmed the role

played by parental violence and sibling aggression in modeling bullying and cyberbullying behavior

in children. In line with literature on general aggression, negative social interactions and conflict

escalation within the family lead to more reciprocal, aversive conflict and violence in the home and

T
in turn to a higher level of bullying and cyberbullying outside the family. The conflictual family

P
RI
context may become a training ground for problematic relationships even outside the family (Reid,

SC
Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). The association of domestic conflict and violence with victimization is

confirmed in the majority of cases as well, although with a consistent proportion of studies (22%)
NU
where the variable resulted non significant.
MA

3.2 Relational family processes

The category“authoritative parenting” is analysed in 10 articles for bullying and 8 for


ED

victimization and it takes into consideration the authoritative parenting through which the parents
PT

offer guidance and direction to their children using communication (e.g., Ahmed, Eliza,

Braithwaite, & Valerie, 2004; Alizadeh et al., 2016; Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Georgiou,
CE

Stavrinides, & Fousiani, 2013; Luk et al., 2016). In relation to bullying, 40% (4 out of 10) of studies
AC

reported a negative association and 60% (6 out of 10) reported a non significant association

between authoritative parenting and peer bullying. In relation to victimization, 50% of studies (4

out of 8) reported a negative association and 50% (4 out of 8) reported a non significant association

between authoritative parenting and peer victimization. Overall, we can see that the authoritative

parenting represents a potential protective factor for bullying and victimization, although around

50% of the studies did not show a significant effect. This might be related to the definition and the

measurement of the construct.

10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The category “communication” included 24 articles focused on bullying and 18 on

victimization. 20 studies (83%) resulted negatively associated with bullying, 1 (4%) positively

associated with bullying, and 3 studies (13%) showed a non significant association. In relation to

victimization, 61% of studies reported that communication is negatively associated with

victimization, 2 studies positively associated with victimization, and 5 (28%) studies showed a non

significant association. Overall, the protective role of communication seems to be more relevant for

T
bullying as compared to victimization in which a higher variability has been showed. Variables

P
RI
considered in the studies were mainly family communication and child disclosure. In general, poor

SC
communication, few conversations with parents and impossibility of discussing problems with

parents, resulted associated with higher levels of bullying (e.g., Foshee et al., 2016; Shetgiri et al.,
NU
2012), and cyberbullying (Buelga et al., 2017). Communication difficulties is also related to the

degree of victimization (Da Costa et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2012) and of being involved in
MA

bully/victim problems (Rigby, 1993). On the contrary, child disclosure, defined as the spontaneous

children’s offering information to their parents about their own life, was found to be negatively
ED

correlated to bullying (Georgiou et al, 2013; Gomez et al., 2014; Stavrinides, Nikiforou, &

Georgiou, 2015), and cyberbullying (Shapka et al., 2013). Within this category of communication,
PT

we found 3 studies focused on parents reactive actions, which are ways of dealing with bullying
CE

incidents once they have occurred (Fekkes et al, 2005; Offrey et al., 2017; Waasdorp et al., 2011).

The study by Fekkes (2005) showed that 33% of children who bullied other children have parents
AC

talked to them about their bullying behavior. The studies by Offrey et al. (2017) and Waasdorp et

al. (2011) were focused on the victims. The most common parental response when the child

discloses victimization was talking with the child in order to communicate adaptive ways of coping

with the emotions experienced (Waasdorp et al., 2011). Besides, students with a high quality of

parent-child communication generated solutions in response to bullying that were significantly

more effective than the solutions reported by students in the low communication group (Offrey et

al., 2017).

11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The category “parental involvement and support” is included in 44 articles addressing

bullying and 42 related to victimization. In relation to bullying, 77% (34) reported a negative

association and 18% (8) reported a non significant association between parental involvement and

support and peer bullying. In relation to victimization, 70% (31) of studies reported a negative

association and 30% (13) reported a non significant association. Finally, 2 studies for bullying

reported an opposite association where higher levels of support are positively correlated with the

T
outcomes.

P
RI
Overall, the majority of studies confirmed the protective role of parental involvement and

SC
support in relation to bullying and victimization. Higher levels of perceived parental support, of

family cohesion, and of family involvement in children’s school life are associated with lower
NU
levels of bullying and victimization. The majority of studies in this category are focused on

emotional support, that includes listening, providing praise, affection, empathizing, trust, and
MA

respect (e.g., Demaray et al., 2003, Herraiz et al., 2016; Isiklar et al., 2012; Konishi et al., 2009;

Kretschmer et al., 2017; Perren et al., 2005). Also in this category we found two studies on reactive
ED

actions, evaluating the role played by parental support in helping their victimized children (i.e., Holt
PT

et al., 2008; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010) or youth getting in trouble at home for bullying

perpetration (Holt et al., 2008). Support by parents for victimized children reduces the stress level
CE

and is correlated to a lower probability of future re-victimization (Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010).
AC

The category “Warmth and affection” is included in 35 articles focused on affective

responsiveness, closeness and parental warmth in relation to bullying and 29 in relation to

victimization. Specifically, the variables considered are parental warmth (Boel-Studt & Renner,

2013; Shin et al., 2008), family/parental/mother secure attachment (Chan & Wong, 2015; Cho,

Hong, Sterzing, & Woo, 2017; Murphy, Laible, & Augustine, 2017; Ševcíková, Machácková,

Wright, Dedková, & Cerná, 2015; Walden & Beran, 2010) and insecure attachment (Eiden et al.,

2010; Eliot & Cornell, 2009). In relation to bullying, 30 studies (83%) reported a negative

12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

association and 5 (14%) reported a non significant association between warmth and affection and

peer bullying. In relation to victimization, 41% (12) reported a negative association and 55% (16) of

studies reported a non significant association. Finally, one study for bullying and one for

victimization reported an opposite association where higher levels of warmth and affection were

correlated positively with the bullying and victimization. As we can see, warmth and affection

resulted as a relevant protective factor for bullying perpetration, but at a lower extent for

T
victimization.

P
RI
Overall, parental warmth and affective responsiveness are associated with a lower

SC
probability of involvement in bullying episodes and with lower levels of children’s victimization

after controlling for preexisting genetic and environmental factors (Bowes et al., 2009). The
NU
insecure attachment is in general a predictor of bullying, and in contrast, children who have

experienced a secure attachment, are less likely to be involved in bullying (Murphy, Laible, &
MA

Augustine, 2017). On the online context, cybervictims with a poor parental attachment had lower

chance of experiencing social support; conversely, a secure parental attachment was negatively
ED

correlated with cyberbullying (Ševcíková et al., 2015).


PT

The category “Supervision, parental monitoring” is analysed in 44 articles regarding

bullying and 37 studies regarding victimization. 34 studies (77%) reported a negative association
CE

between supervision and bullying and 10 studies (23%) reported a non significant association. In
AC

relation to victimization, 17 studies (46%) of studies showed that supervision is negatively

associated with victimization and 19 studies (51%) showed a non significant effect. Finally, 1

studies reported an opposite association. Overall, studies showed that a lack of supervision and

monitoring and lower levels of control in family education is associated with bullying others (e.g.,

Atik et al., 2013; Holt et al., 2008; Idsoe et al., 2008; Mann et al., 2015; Marini et al., 2006, 2016;

Morcillo et al., 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016; Pepler et al., 2008; Shetgiri et al., 2012) and with

victimization (e.g., Cenkseven et al., 2008; Davis & Koepke, 2016; Erginoz et al., 2015; Hong et

13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016; Mello et al., 2016; Rhee et al., 2017). More recently, some studies

focused their attention specifically on parental monitoring of internet use (Hong et. al., 2016;

Khurana et al., 2015; Kokkinos et al., 2016; Low & Espelage, 2013; Rosen et al., 2008; Sasson et

al., 2017). For example, Khurana et al. (2015) demonstrated that parental monitoring aimed to to

regulate specific forms of internet use was associated with reduced rates of online harassment.

These results are in line with another study (Rosen, Cheever & Carrier, 2008) showing how parental

T
monitoring plays a key role in teen online behavior. Besides, in terms of reactive actions, social and

P
RI
technical supervision by parents is more prevalent among adolescents who reported being

SC
cybervictims (Sasson et al., 2017), meaning that parents who sense something wrong try to

supervise their teens more intensively. Moreover, Kokkinos et al. (2016) showed that parents, as
NU
well as teachers, who provide their child (a victim of bullying) emotional support, help him/her to

develop social skills and to cope with the situation of bullying. In line with parental monitoring
MA

effects, parental restrictive mediation was negatively associated with cyberbullying behaviours

(Chang et al., 2015). As we can see the protective role of parental supervision and monitoring in
ED

predicting bullying is more consistent across studies, whereas setting rules and supervising the

children seem to be less relevant for victimization.


PT

The category “Abuse/Neglect” is included in 6 articles studying the impact of child abuse and
CE

maltreatment on bullying and in 17 related to victimization. Overall, 6 studies (100%) for bullying
AC

and 100% (17) for victimization showed a significant and positive association: this is the most

consistent family risk variable to be associated with bullying and victimization across studies. The

variables considered were child abuse (e.g., Bowes et. al., 2009; Lucas, Jernbro, Tindberg, &

Janson, 2016), child maltreatment (e.g., Bowes et al., 2009; Duncan, 1999; Fisher, Caspi, Moffitt,

Wertz, Gray et al., 2015; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001), physical abuse (e.g., Foster & Brooks-Gunn,

2013; Fujikawa, Ando, Shimodera, Koike, Usami et al., 2016).

The category “Maladaptive parenting” is included in 49 studies dealing with bullying and

36 focusing victimization. 39 studies (80%) reported a positive association between maladaptive

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

parenting and bullying, and 7 (14%) reported non significant associations. In relation to

victimization, 50% (18 out of 35) reported a positive association between maladaptive parenting

and victimization, 47% (17 out of 35) reported non significant associations and only 1 (3%) was

negatively associated to the outcome. Three (6%) studies reported a negative association with

bullying, contrary to the general trend. Overall, the risk of maladaptive parenting is mainly related

to bullying perpetration and at a lower extent to victimization.

P T
The variables considered were authoritarian parenting (e.g., Alizadeh, Mirnasab, & Hashemi, 2016;

RI
Erdogdu, 2016; Garaigordobil & Machimbarrena, 2017; Georgiou, Stavrinides, & Fousiani, 2013;

SC
Luk et al., 2016), punitive parenting (Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Hong, Kim, & Piquero, 2017;

Zottis, Salum, Manfro, Isolan, & Heldt, 2013), maternal physical discipline (Duong, Schwartz,
NU
Chang, Kelly, & Tom, 2009; Espelage et al., 2000) and parental control (Fousiani et al., 2016; Ma

& Bellmore, 2012; Rigby, Slee, & Martin, 2007; Stevens et al., 2002). Authoritarian parenting was
MA

positively correlated with bullying (Georgiou, Stavrinides, & Fousiani, 2013): parents of severe

victims used this parenting style at a higher extent as compared to parents of non-victims
ED

(Garaigordobil & Machimbarrena, 2017). Punitive parenting was directly related to bullying
PT

perpetration (Hong, Kim, & Piquero, 2017). In particular, mothers who used mostly punitive

practices were more likely to have a child who bullies others at school (Zottis, Salum, Manfro,
CE

Isolan, & Heldt, 2013). There was a moderate correlation between maternal physical discipline and
AC

victimization, and only for children who were also high in aggression (Duong, Schwartz, Chang,

Kelly, & Tom, 2009). In the three studies where maladaptive parenting was negatively related to

bullying, we might argue that the level of discipline and sanction could be more similar to

monitoring and adaptive parental control instead of cohercive and harsh discipline (Hinduja et al.,

2013; Stevens et al., 2002).

The category “overprotection” is included in 23 articles considering the role of parents who

are overprotective towards their children in relation to bullying outcome and 15 to victimization.

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Eight studies (35%) reported a positive association with bullying, 11 (48%) reported a non

significant association and 4 (17%) a negative association. In relation to victimization, 5 (33%)

studies reported a positive association, 5 (34%) of studies reported a non significant association and

5 (33%) studies a negative association. The variables considered were: parental overprotection (e.g.,

Floros et al., 2013; Georgiou, 2008; Hokoda et al., 2006; Mohebbi, Mirnasab, & Wiener, 2016),

low authonomy and permissive parenting (e.g., Ayas, 2012, Alizadeh et al., 2016; Fousiani, 2016;

T
Garaigordobil, & Machimbarrena, 2017; Gomez-Ortiz et al., 2016; Gomez et al., 2014; Idsoee et

P
RI
al., 2008; Luk et al., 2016; Romera & Ortega-Ruiz, 2016). Overall the risk role of overprotection

SC
for bullying and victimization is not clear.

3.3 Parents’ Individual processes


NU
The category “Parental individual processes” is analysed in 13 articles considering bullying
MA

and 9 considering victimization. Eight (62%) studies reported a positive association with bullying

and 5 (38%) of studies reported a non significant association. In relation to victimization 44% (4 out
ED

of 9) of studies reported a positive association and 5 (56%) reported a non significant association.

There were no studies that reported a negative association with bullying and victimization. The
PT

individual variables included are parent’s beliefs supporting peer victimization, bullying and

violence (Espelage et al., 2000; Eslea & Smith, 2000; Harper, 2012; Troop, Gordon, & Gerardy,
CE

2012), parental knowledges about parenting style and skills (Burkhart et al., 2013), parental self-
AC

efficacy factors in relation to bullying and victimization (Malm, Henrich, Varjas, & Meyers, 2017),

parents’ knowledge of bullying and parents’ strategies (problem solving skills) to manage bullying

situations (Offrey & Rinaldi, 2017), parents’ values defined by lack of prosocial behaviros as a

means of solving problems (Říčan, 1995). There are also some other variables that play a role as

reactive actions once bullying episodes had occurred: for example, parents’ beliefs on peer

victimization (Troop, Gordon, & Gerardy, 2012), parents’ attitudes on the their children’s behavior

(Eslea & Smith, 2000), parents’ beliefs on peer victimization (Harper, 2012), parental self-efficacy

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

factors in relation to bullying and victimization (Malm et al., 2017) all these dimensions have been

analyzed in relation to their role in managing bullying and victimization episodes. Parental beliefs

on peer victimization predict individual differences in socio-emotional development and moderate

the relationship between peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment (Troop, Gordon, &

Gerardy, 2012). Overall, parental individual processes seem to be more associated with bullying,

whereas more variability has been found in studies on victimization.

P T
RI
3.4 Multivariate role of the three family levels

SC
3.4.1 Multivariate consideration of contextual family processes and relational family processes

Contextual family predictors (i.e., exposure to family domestic violence and family conflict,
NU
maternal psychopathology or antisocial behaviors, parental stress) are key risk factors for bullying

and victimization also when considered together with other maladaptive parenting styles (e.g.,
MA

Bowes et al., 2009; Foshee et al., 2016; Garaigordobil & Machimbarrena, 2017; Hemphill et al.,

2012; Kim & Kim, 2016; Knous-Westfall et al., 2012; McMahon et al., 2010; Lucas et al., 2016;
ED

Morcillo et al., 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016; Shetgiri et al., 2012). In these studies, the association can
PT

be direct but also indirect through the mediating role, or the moderating role, of parent-child

relationship quality, parenting, attachment, children’s emotion management skills (e.g., Eiden et al.,
CE

2010; Low & Espelage, 2013). All these moderating and mediating factors are more accessible

through prevention programs than the direct parental/family causes as it is the cases of domestic
AC

violence and individual parental psychopathology. Thus, in terms of practical implication, it is

possible to reduce the negative impact of contextual risk family variables on bullying and

victimization through interventions at the relational level, such as on parenting practices and/or on

improving the quality of parent-child relationships.

3.4.2 Multivariate consideration of relational family processes and parental individual

processes

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Interesting findings and practical implications were suggested by the two of the four studies

where relational and individual variables were considered together (Espelage et al., 2000; Katzer et

al., 2009; Malm et al., 2017; Waasdorp et al., 2011). For example, the additive role played by both

categories is confirmed in the study by Espelage et al. (2000) which included parents individual

variables related to beliefs and attitudes toward aggression (Positive adult messages about violence)

and maladaptive parenting style related to physical discipline. Findings showed that the additive

T
effect of both categories may play a substantial role in the development of bullying behaviors, also

P
RI
controlling for peer and neighborhood risk factors. Translating these findings into implications for

SC
prevention and intervention, it means that the improvement in parenting positive style needs to be

conducted together with an effort of changing attitudes and beliefs about aggression. In the study
NU
by Waasdorp et al. (2011), the parental perception of the school climate is associated with the level

of parent-child communication, and this predicts parents' response to their child's victimization. In
MA

particular, less positively the parents perceived the school climate, the more likely they were to talk

to their child about the victimization. Translating these findings into implications for prevention, it
ED

is important to improve the level of communication between parents and their children but also the

parental perception and beliefs about school context. In the other two studies (Katzer et al., 2009;
PT

Malm et al., 2016) the multivariate analysis showed that only one level of family predictors
CE

remained significant, but not both relational and individual.

3.4.3 Multivariate consideration of family processes, relational family processes and parental
AC

individual processes

Only two studies considered the three levels of family predictors at the same time (Burkhart et al.,

2013; Garaigordobil et al., 2017). In the study by Burkhart et al. (2013), parental psychopathology,

parenting skills (i.e., Family Communication and Affection), and parental attitudes and beliefs (i.e.,

Hostile Attributions), were considered simultaneously to explain bullying. The findings showed that

parental hostility is the only significant predictor of bullying when all the variables were considered

together, suggesting that reducing parental hostility could be an important goal for bullying

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

prevention in an at risk sample. In the study by Garaigordobil et al. (2017), the role of bully was

significantly predicted at a multivariate level by the parental stress, by higher levels of authoritarian

and permisse parenting and by lower level of parental individual competence. This last study

suggested the need to include all the three levels of family interventions for the prevention of

bullying.

P T
4. Conclusion

RI
The general goal of this review was to examine the role of different levels of family

SC
processes on bullying and victimization experiences. In particular we considered the contextual

level where family attributes are relevant, the relational level which includes parents-child
NU
education and emotional relationships, and the parental socio-cognitive factors level including
MA

values, beliefs, attributions. The proportion of studies which consistently showed a significant

association between bullying, victimization and specific family categories, and the proportion of
ED

studies where this association was not confirmed, have been analysed.

In summary, we can draw the following conclusions.


PT

In the last 5 years, there has been an increasing interest in the topic of family correlates and
CE

predictors of bullying and victimization: 55% of articles were published between 2013 and 2017,

42% between 2000 and 2013, and only 3% before 2000. The majority of the studies addressed
AC

single or multiple variables at the same level of analysis. Parental involvement and support,

maladaptive parenting, supervision and parental mediation, and warmth and affection were the most

studied categories. Only 25% of studies focused on the interplay between different levels of family

functioning.

Findings of the review showed that some family variables have a more consistent and stable

role as predictors of bullying and victimization across studies, whereas others do not. In particular,

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

more stable results across studies for bullying were found for the risk associated with domestic

violence, parental mental health problems, abuse/neglect, maladaptive parenting. The findings

supports the literature reporting whether an hostile family environment characterized by conflict

and violence, child maltreatment, authoritarian coercive and overly controlled parental style is

associated with higher likelihood for the children to perpetrate aggression out of the family (Boel-

Studt et al., 2014; Duncan, 1999). Children exposed to family violence (directly and indirectly) are

T
more likely to show aggression, including bullying behaviors, as a result of social learning and

P
RI
because they perceive violence as an acceptable method of resolving conflict (Bowes et al., 2009;

SC
Bandura, 1978). A consistent support was also found for the protective role of family

communication, supervision, warmth and affection, parental involvement and support in relation to
NU
bullying. These findings confirm the protective role that family relationships characterized by open

and empathic parent-child communication and parental involvement may have in preventing
MA

bullying and cyberbullying (Buelga et al., 2017; Fanti et al., 2012; Bowes et al., 2009; Georgiou et

al., 2013). On the other side, the role played by authoritative parenting and overprotection for
ED

bullying is less consistent across studies. This can be related to differences in definitions and

measurement which can affect the results across different studies. Individual parental processes
PT

(such as acceptance of violence, positive attitudes towards bullying and victimization, lack of
CE

competence and self-efficacy) showed a considerable role in the explanation of bullying, but very

few studies were conducted on this mechanisms. More studies should address the level of parental
AC

individual variables, putting more efforts to create relevant subcategories.

In relation to victimization, the two variables showing more variability are warmth, affection

and supervision. The inconsistency found for the protective role of supervision for victimization

confirms previous literature in this field (see Hong et al., 2016) suggesting that this mechanism is

more effective for bullying perpetration instead of victimization. In relation to the inconsistency

found for the variable warmth and affection, according to other studies (e.g., Bowes et al., 2009),

we can assume that the relation between parental warmth and being victimized cannot be direct but

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mediated by individual or more proximal relational characteristics. The variables more strongly

associated with victimization are: abuse/neglect, parental mental health, domestic violence, parental

involvement and support, communication. Findings are in line with the results of the metanalysis

conducted by Lereya et al. (2013) where child abuse and neglect are the strongest predictors of

victims and of bullies/victims. Besides, the role of parental involvement, support and the quality of

communication has been confirmed by our review as protective against the risk of been victimized.

T
The current study extends previous literature focusing also on contextual variables and on

P
RI
individual variables. Contextual variables related to the parents mental health and to interparental

SC
aggression and conflict are consistent risk factors for bullying, and at a lower level, for

victimization. In relation to individual parental variables linked with victimization, very few studies
NU
were conducted and, overall, the role of parental self-efficacy, attitudes toward aggression and

knowledges about bullying is unconsistently associated with the phenomenon.


MA

The review also examined studies on the reactive family processes in case of victimization.

The findings showed that when the episode of bullying and victimization has already occurred,
ED

there are some crucial family protective factors which are more capable to buffer the negative
PT

consequences on children’s distress and to interrupt the negative cycle of victimization. These

protective factors are: open communication between parents and child, high support from parents
CE

on a daily basis, an increased involvement of parents in school activities, increased monitoring, the
AC

perception of self-efficacy in managing these situations, along with the perception of having

effective strategies to resolve bullying problems.

Finally, the multivariate analysis of the different levels (family contextual risk factors,

parenting and parent-child relationship, parental beliefs and attitudes) suggested interesting

considerations for translating these findings into preventive strategies. These data highlight the

importance of focusing on multiple levels of intervention, because it is the interplay between

different levels to be more relevant in explaining the children’s involvement in bullying and

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

victimization than the unique effect of single factors. For example, individual parental variables and

relational variables seem to be interrelated, therefore addressing both levels through the intervention

can be highly effective in preventing and managing bullying and victimization.

Overall, our review of 154 studies highlights a clear impact of family and parental variables

for bullying and victimization. It finds evidence about the role of contextual family variables

(parental mental helath and domestic violence) and relational family variables (in particular child

P T
abuse and neglect, maladaptive parenting, communication, parental involvement and support)

RI
associated with bullying and victimization. A lower evidence has been showed about the role of

SC
individual parental variables. A question not answered in this review is why the same family and

parents factors are correlated with both outcomes, albeith in different proportion. More research
NU
focusing on these variables within a longitudinal design can better explain the different processes

and trajectories of bullies and victims.


MA

These findings have significant implications for interventions, turning our attention towards
ED

the family context and how we can help families to prevent and cope with bullying and

victimization. Greater efforts are needed to ensure attention to parents and family processes and
PT

mechanisms in designing anti-bullying interventions. From a translational perspective, research on

the effectiveness of these interventions should also highlight if and when these mechanisms are able
CE

to work better or worse (e.g., the hypothesis of dosage or intensity of the intervention should be
AC

tested in relation to the family domain).

5. Limitations and strengths

The first limitation of the current review is that the majority of studies considered were

cross-sectional and thus we cannot consider the predictive role of family variables on bullying and

victimization but only the association between them. Secondly, only studies published in English

and in Italian were used in the analysis. Third, the large number of articles selected did not allow to

describe in detail the findings of the studies, and to consider potential moderators such as gender.

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

For this purpose, a meta-analysis would be recommended. Finally, the studies reviewed were

codified starting from their bivariate associations, but some studies presented only the multivariate

analysis. Thus, in these cases, the role of the single variables can be biased.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the study suggests that family and parents processes need

to be included in the prevention and interventions to reduce bullying and victimization. School-

family meetings to increase the awareness on bullying and victimization are important but they are

P T
not sufficient. Interventions aimed to improve contextual family processes, parent-child

RI
relationship, and invividual parental knowledges and attitudes are encouraged.

SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCES

Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and Victimization: Cause for Concern for both
Families and Schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1), 35-54.

Alizadeh Maralani, F., Mirnasab, M., & Hashemi, T. (2016). The Predictive Role of Maternal
Parenting and Stress on Pupils' Bullying involvement. Journal Interpersonal Violence.

Andersen, L. P., Labriola, M., Andersen, J. H., Lund, T., & Hansen, C. D. (2015). Socio-Cultural
Context and Bulling Others in Childhood. BMC Psychology, 3(35), 015-0092.

T
Atik, G., & Guneri, O. Y. (2013). Bullying and victimization: Predictive role of individual,

P
parental, and academic factors. School Psychology International, 34(6), 658-673.

RI
Ayas, T. (2012). The Effect of Parental Attitudes on Bullying and Victimizing Levels of

SC
Secondary School Students 3rd. International Conference on New Horizons in Education - Inte
2012, 55, 226-231.
NU
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 27(7), 713-732.
MA

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and
parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 17-31.
ED

Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective Factors as Moderators of Risk Factors in


Adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8(3), 263-284.
PT

Bandura A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28,


12–29.
CE

Bauer, N. S., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lozano, P., Rivara, F. P., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2006).
Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118, (2),
AC

235-242.

Boel-Studt, S., & Renner, L. M. (2013). Individual and familial risk and protective correlates of
physical and psychological peer victimization. Child & Abuse Neglect, 37(12), 1163-1174.

Boel-Studt, S., & Renner, L. M. (2014). Child and family- level correlates of direct and indirect
peer victimization among children ages 6-9. Child & Abuse Neglect, 38(6), 1051-1060.

Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School,
neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children's bullying involvement: a

24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(5), 545-553.

Bowers, L., Smith, PK., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived Family Relationships of Bullies,
Victims and Bully/Victims in Middle Childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
11(2), 215-232.

Bradshaw, C.P. (2014). The Role of Families in Preventing and Buffering the Effects of
Bullying. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(11), 991-993.

T
Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., et al. (2011) Predictors of victimisation across direct

P
bullying, indirect bullyingand cyberbullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 375–

RI
388.

SC
Buelga, S., Martinez-Ferrer, B., & Cava, M. J. (2017). Differences in family climate and family
communication among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bully-victims in adolescents.
Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 164-173.
NU
Burkhart, Kimberly, M., Knox, Michele, Brockmyer, & Jeanne. (2013). Pilot Evaluation of the
ACT Raising Safe Kids Program on Children’s Bullying Behavior. Journal of Child and Family
MA

Studies, 22, (7), 942–951.

Caravaca Sanchez, F., Falcon Romero, M., Navarro-Zaragoza, J., Luna Ruiz-Cabello, A.,
ED

Rodriges Frantzisko, O., & Luna Maldonado, A. (2016). Prevalence and patterns of traditional
bullying victimization and cyber-teasing among college population in Spain. BMC Public
PT

Health, 16, 176.

Caravita, S. C. S., Miragoli, S. (2013). Coinvolgimento nel bullismo, fruizione di stimoli


CE

televisivi violenti e funzionamento familiare. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 40(2), 331-350.


AC

Cenkseven Onder, F., & Yurtal, F. (2008). An Investigation of the Family Characteristics of
Bullies, Victims, and Positively Behaving Adolescents. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice 8(3), 821-832.

Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. W. (2015), The Overlap between School Bullying Perpetration
and Victimization: Assessing the Psychological, Familial, and School Factors of Chinese
Adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11),3224–3234.

Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Miao, N. F., Chen, P. H., Lee, C. M., Chiang, J. T., et al. (2015). The
relationship between parental mediation and Internet addiction among adolescents, and the

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
association with cyberbullying and depression. [Research Support, NonU S Gov't].
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 57, 21-28.

Cho, S. J., Hong, J. S., Sterzing, P. R., & Woo, Y. (2017). Parental Attachment and Bullying in
South Korean Adolescents: Mediating Effects of Low Self-Control, Deviant Peer Associations,
and Delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 63(9), 1168-1188.

Christie-Mizell, C. A. (2003). Bullying: the consequences of interparental discord and child's


self-concept. Family Process, 42(2), 237-251.

T
Christie-Mizell, C. A., Keil, J. M., Laske, M. T., & Stewart, J. (2011). Bullying: the

P
consequences of interparental discord and child's self-concept. Family Process, 42(2), 237251.

RI
Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2015). Self-control, School Bullying Perpetration, and

SC
Victimization among Macanese Adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1751–
1761. NU
Connolly, I., & O'Moore, M. (2003). Personality and family relations of children who bully.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3), 559-567.
MA

Copeland W. E., Wolke D., Angold A., & Costello EJ. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of
bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 419-
26.
ED

Craig, W., Peters, R., & Konarski, R. (1998). Bullying and victimization among Canadian school
children. Quebec, Canada: Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development.
PT

Curtner-Smith, M. E. (2000). Mechanisms by which Family Processes Contribute to School-Age


CE

Boys' Bullying. Child Study Journal, 30, (3), 169-86.

Da Costa, M. R., Xavier, C. C., Andrade, A. C., Proietti, F. A., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2015).
AC

Bullying among adolescents in a Brazilian urban center - "Health in Beaga" Study. Revista de
Saùde Publica, 49, 56.

Davis, K., & Koepke, L. (2016). Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Cyberbullying:
Are Relationships or Rules More Protective? Learning, Media and Technology, 41(4), 521-545.

Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional
bullying in relation to adolescents' perception of parenting. Journal of Cybertherapy and
Rehabilitation, 5(1), 25-34.

26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003) Perceptions of the Frequency and Importance of
Social Support by Students Classified as Victims, Bullies, and Bully/Victims in an Urban Middle
School. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471-489.

Donovan, K. L., & Brassard, M. R. (2011). Trajectories of Maternal Verbal Aggression across
the Middle School Years. Associations with Negative View of Self and Social Problems, Child
Abuse & Neglect, 35(10), 814-830.

Duggins, S. D., Kuperminc, G. P., Henrich, C. C., Smalls-Glover, C., & Perilla, J. L. (2016).

T
Aggression Among Adolescent Victims of School Bullying: Protective Roles of Family and

P
School Connectedness. Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 205-212.

RI
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Maltreatment by Parents and Peers: The Relationship between Child
Abuse, Bully Victimization, and Psychological Distress. Child Maltreatment, 4(1), 45-55.

SC
Duncan, R. D. (2004). The Impact of Family Relationships on School Bullies and Their Victims.
In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
NU
perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 227-
244.
MA

Duong, M. T., Schwartz, D., Chang, L., Kelly, B. M., & Tom, S. R. (2009). Associations
between Maternal Physical Discipline and Peer Victimization among Hong Kong Chinese
ED

Children: The Moderating Role of Child Aggression, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 37(7),
957-966.
PT

Edwards, O.W. (2016). Bullying Among Middle School Children Raised by Grandparents.
Contemporary School Psychology, 20(3), 254-261.
CE

Eiden, R. D., Ostrov, J. M., Colder, C. R., Leonard, K. E., Edwards, E. P., & OrrangeTorchia, T.
(2010). Parent Alcohol Problems and Peer Bullying and Victimization: Child Gender and
AC

Toddler Attachment Security as Moderators. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent


Psychology, 39(3), 341-350.

Elgar, F. J., Craig, W., Boyce, W., Morgan, A., & Vella-Zarb, R. (2009). Income inequality and
school bullying: multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health,
45(4), 351-359.

Eliot, M., & Cornell, D. G. (2009). Bullying in Middle School as a Function of Insecure
Attachment and Aggressive Attitudes. School Psychology International, 30 (2), 201-214.

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Erdogdu, M. Y. (2016). Parental Attitude and Teacher Behaviours in Predicting School Bullying.
Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(6), 35-43.

Erginoz E, Alikasifoglu M, Ercan O, et al. (2015). The role of parental, school, and peer factors
in adolescent bullying involvement: results from the Turkish HBSC 2005/ 2006 Study. Asia
Pacific Journal of Public Health 2015.

Eslea, M., & Smith, P. K. (2000). Pupil and parent attitudes towards bullying in primary schools.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(2), 207-219.

T
Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Rao, M. A., Hong, J. S., & Little, T. D. (2014). Family Violence,

P
Bullying, Fighting, and Substance Use Among Adolescents: A Longitudinal Mediational Model.

RI
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(2), 337-349.

SC
Espelage, Dorothy, L., Bosworth, Kris, Simon, & Thomas, R. (2000) Examining the Social
Context of Bullying Behaviorsin Early Adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development,
78.
NU
Faith, M. A., Elledge, L. C., Newgent, R. A., & Cavell, T. A. (2015). Conflict and Dominance
MA

Between Siblings as Predictors of Children's Peer Victimization. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 24(12), 3623-3635.

Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012) A longitudinal study of cyberbullying:
ED

Examining riskand protective factors. Journal European Journal of Developmental Psychology,


9.
PT

Farrell, A. H., Provenzano, D. A., Dane, A. V., Marini, Z. A., & Volk, A. A. (2017). Maternal
knowledge, adolescent personality, and bullying. Personality and Individual Differences, 104,
CE

413–416.
AC

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what,

when, and where? Involvement of children, teachers, and parents, in bullying behaviour.

Health Education Research, 20,81–91

Fisher, H. L., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Wertz, J., Gray, R., Newbury, J., et al. (2015). Measuring
adolescents' exposure to victimization: The Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin
Study. Developmental Psychopathology, 27, 1399-1416.

Fitzpatrick, K. M., Dulin, A. J., & Piko, B. F. (2007). Not just pushing and shoving: school
bullying among African American adolescents. Journal of School Health, 77(1), 1622.

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Floros, G. D., Siomos, K. E., Fisoun, V., Dafouli, E., & Geroukalis, D. (2013). Adolescent
online cyberbullying in Greece: the impact of parental online security practices, bonding, and
online impulsiveness. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 445-453.

Floros, G., Paradeisioti, A., Hadjimarcou, M., Mappouras, D. G., Kalakouta, O., Avagianou, P.,
et al. (2013). Cyberbullying in Cyprus-associated parenting style and psychopathology. Studies
in Health Technology and Informatics, 191, 85-89.

Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of mother involvement and father involvement in

T
adolescent bullying behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 634644.

P
Forster, M., Dyal, S. R., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Chou, C. P., Soto, D. W., & Unger, J. B.

RI
(2013). Bullying victimization as a mediator of associations between cultural/familial variables,
substance use, and depressive symptoms among Hispanic youth. Ethnicity & Health, 18(4), 415-

SC
432.

Foshee, V. A., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Chen, M. S., Ennett, S. T., Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., et
NU
al. (2016). Shared Risk Factors for the Perpetration of Physical Dating Violence, Bullying, and
Sexual Harassment Among Adolescents Exposed to Domestic Violence. Journal of Youth and
MA

Adolescence, 45(4), 672-686.

Foster, H., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Neighborhood, family and individual influences on school
ED

physical victimization. [Research Support, N I H, Extramural]. Journal of Youth and


Adolescescence, 42(10), 1596-1610.
PT

Fousiani, K., Dimitropoulou, P., Michaelides, M. P., & Van Petegem, S. (2016a). Perceived
Parenting and Adolescent Cyber-Bullying: Examining the Intervening Role of Autonomy and
CE

Relatedness Need Satisfaction, Empathic Concern and Recognition of Humanness. Journal of


Child and Family Studies, 25, 2120-2129.
AC

Fujikawa, S., Ando, S., Shimodera, S., Koike, S., Usami, S., Toriyama, R., et al. (2016). The
Association of Current Violence from Adult Family Members with Adolescent Bullying
Involvement and Suicidal Feelings. Pubblic Library of Science ONE, 11(10), e0163707.

Garaigordobil, M., & Machimbarrena, J. M. (2017). Stress, competence, and parental


educational styles in victims and aggressors of bullying and cyberbullying. Psicothema, 29(3),
335-340.

Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: the role of mothers. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 109-125.

29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home and bullying at school. Social
Psychology of Education, 16(2), 165-179.

Georgiou, S. N., Fousiani, K., Michaelides, M., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Cultural value
orientation and authoritarian parenting as parameters of bullying and victimization at school.
International Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 69-78.

Georgiou, S. N., Stavrinides, P., & Fousiani, K. (2013). Authoritarian Parenting, Power
Distance, and Bullying Propensity. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology

T
1(3), 199-206.

P
Gofin, R., & Avitzour, M. (2012). Traditional versus internet bullying in junior high school

RI
students. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(8), 1625-35.

SC
Gomez-Ortiz, O., Romera, E. M., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2016). Parenting styles and bullying. The
mediating role of parental psychological aggression and physical punishment. Child & Abuse
Neglect, 51, 132-143.
NU
Gómez-Ortiz, O., Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2014). Parenting styles and
MA

bullying involvement. Cultura & Educación, 26(1), 132–158

Harper, B. D. (2012). Parents' and Children's Beliefs about Peer Victimization: Attributions,
Coping Responses, and Child Adjustment: JEA, 32(3), 387-413.
ED

Healy, K. L., Sanders, M. R., & Aarti, I. (2015). Parenting Practices, Children’s Peer
Relationships and Being Bullied at School. Journal of Child and Famly Studies, 24, 127–140.
PT

Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J. W., et al.
CE

(2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in Australian


secondary school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 59-65.
AC

Herráiz, E. D., & Gutiérrez, R. B. (2016). Social Support as a School Victimisation Risk Factor.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3473–3480.

Higuita-Gutierrez, L. F., & Cardona-Arias, J. A. (2017). Variables of the Family, School, and
Social Environment Context That Determine Bullying in Adolescents in Medellin, Colombia,
2014. Journal of School Violence, 16(1), 68-85.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among
middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711-722.

30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hokoda, A., Lu, H.-H. A., & Angeles, M. (2006) School Bullying in Taiwanese Adolescents.
Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6(4), 69-90.

Holt, M. K., Kantor, G. K., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). Parent/Child Concordance about Bullying
Involvement and Family Characteristics Related to Bullying and Peer Victimization. Journal of
School Violence, 8.

Hong, J. S., Kim, D. H., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Assessing the links between punitive
parenting, peer deviance, social isolation and bullying perpetration and victimization in South

T
Korean adolescents. Child & Abuse Neglect, 73, 63-70.

P
Hood, M., & Duffy, A. L. (2017). Understanding the relationship between cybervictimisation

RI
and cyberbullying on Social Network Sites. Personality and Individual Differences.

SC
Idsoe, T., Solli, E., & Cosmovici, E. M. (2008). Social psychological processes in family and
school: more evidence on their relative etiological significance for bullying behavior. Aggressive
Behaviour, 34(5), 460-474.
NU
Inchley, J., Currie, D., Young, T., Samdal, O., Torsheim, T., Augustson, L., et. al. (2015).
Growing Up Unequal: Gender and Socioeconomic Differences in Young People’s Health and
MA

Well-Being health behaviour in school-aged children (hbsc) study: international report from the
2013/2014 survey. Health Policy for Children and Adolescents, 7.
ED

Isiklar, A., Sar, A. H., & Celik, A. (2012). Examining the Correlation between Perceived Social
Support in Adolescence and Bullying in Terms of Prediction. Education, 132(4), 889-897.
PT

Juvonen, J. and Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in Schools: The Power of Bullies and the Plight of
Victims. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 159-185.
CE

Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who Are the Victims? A
AC

Comparison of Victimization in Internet Chatrooms and Victimization in School. Journal of


Media Psychology, 21, 15-27.

Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R., Salcedo, O., Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Gadd, R.
(2000). The relationship between parenting style and children’s adjustment: The parents’
perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 231–245.

Keelan, C. M., Schenk, A. M., McNally, M. R., & Fremouw, W. J. (2014). The interpersonal
worlds of bullies: parents, peers, and partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(7), 1338-
1353.

31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Khurana, A., Bleakley, A., Jordan, A. B., & Romer, D. (2015). The protective effects of parental
monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents' risk of online harassment. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 44(5), 1039-1047.

Kim, J., & Kim, E. (2016). Bullied by Siblings and Peers: The Role of Rejecting/Neglecting
Parenting and Friendship Quality Among Korean Children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Knous-Westfall, H. M., Ehrensaft, M. K., MacDonell, K. W., & Cohen, P. (2012). Parental
Intimate Partner Violence, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Peer Bullying: A Prospective

T
Study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(5), 754-766.

P
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., Asdre, A., & Voulgaridou, K. (2016). Parenting and Internet

RI
Behavior Predictors of Cyber-Bullying and Cyber-Victimization among Preadolescents. Deviant
Behavior, 37(4), 439-455.

SC
Konishi, C., & Hymel, S. (2009). Bullying and Stress in Early Adolescence. The Role of Coping
and Social Support. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(3), 333-356.
NU
Kretschmer, T., Veenstra, R., Dekovic, M., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2017). Bullying development
MA

across adolescence, its antecedents, outcomes, and gender-specific patterns. Development


Psychopathology, 29(3), 941-955.

Le, H. T., Dunne, M. P., Campbell, M. A., Gatton, M. L., Nguyen, H. T., & Tran, N. T. (2017).
ED

Temporal patterns and predictors of bullying roles among adolescents in Vietnam: a school-
based cohort study. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22, 107-121.
PT

Leadbeater, B., Sukhawathanakul, P., Smith, D., & Bowen, F. (2015). Reciprocal associations
between interpersonal and values dimensions of school climate and peer victimization in
CE

elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 480-
493.
AC

Lee, C. H. (2011). An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle school
students in the United States. [Research Support, Non-U S Gov't]. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26(8), 1664-1693.

Lee, C. H., Song, J. (2012). Functions of Parental Involvement and Effects of School Climate on
Bullying Behaviors Among South Korean Middle School Students. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 1 –28.

Lee, S. S.-t., & Wong, D. S.-w. (2009). School, Parents, and Peer Factors in Relation to Hong
Kong Students' Bullying. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15(3), 217-233.

32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lereya, S. T., Winsper, C., Heron, J., Lewis, G., Gunnell, D., Fisher, H. L., & Wolke, D. (2013).
Being bullied during childhood and the prospective pathways to self-harm in late adolescence.
[Research Support, Non-U S Gov't]. Journal of the American Academyand Child Adolescent
Psychiatry, 52(6), 608-618.

Lereyaa, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a
victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1091-1108.

Lin, P.-C., Yen, C.-N., Lin, H.-C., Wang, P.-W., Liu, T.-L., Hu, H.-F., et al. (2016).

T
Relationships between Involvement in School Bullying and Quality of Life in Taiwanese

P
Adolescents. Applied Research in Quality of Life.

RI
Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2013). Differentiating Cyber Bullying Perpetration From Non-Physical
Bullying: Commonalities Across Race, Individual, and Family Predictors. Psychology of

SC
Violence, 3(1), 39-52.

Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2014). Conduits from community violence exposure to peer aggression
NU
and victimization: contributions of parental monitoring, impulsivity, and deviancy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 61(2), 221-231.
MA

Lucas, S., Jernbro, C., Tindberg, Y., & Janson, S. (2016). Bully, bullied and abused.
Associations between violence at home and bullying in childhood. Scandinavian Journal of
ED

Public Health, 44(1), 27-35.

Luk, J. W., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Medina, M., Terrell, N., Belton, D., & King, K. M. (2016).
PT

Bullying Perpetration and Victimization as Externalizing and Internalizing Pathways: A


Retrospective Study Linking Parenting Styles and Self-Esteem to Depression, Alcohol Use, and
CE

Alcohol-Related Problems. Substance Use & Misuse, 51(1), 113-125.

Luk, J. W., Wang, J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2012). The co-occurrence of substance use and
AC

bullying behaviors among U.S. adolescents: understanding demographic characteristics and


social influences. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1351-1360.

Ma, T.-L., & Bellmore, A. (2012). Peer Victimization and Parental Psychological Control in
Adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 413–424.

Malm, E. K., Henrich, C., Varjas, K., & Meyers, J. (2016). Parental Self-Efficacy and Bullying
in Elementary School. Journal of School Violence, 16(4), 411-425.

33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Malta, D. C., do Prado, R. R., Dias, A. J., Mello, F. C., Silva, M. A., da Costa, M. R., et al.
(2014). Bullying and associated factors among Brazilian adolescents: analysis of the National
Adolescent School-based Health Survey. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 1, 131-145.

Mann, M. J., Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., & Smith, M. L. (2015). The role of
community, family, peer, and school factors in group bullying: implications for schoolbased
intervention. Journal of School Health, 85(7), 477-486.

Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & Ylc, C. (2006). Direct and Indirect Bully-Victims:

T
DifferentialPsychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Adolescents Involved in Bullying and

P
Victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551–569.

RI
Mazaba-Liwewe, M. L., Pasupulati, S., Rudatsikira, E., Babaniyi, O., Ndumba, I., Masaninga,
F., et al. (2015). Bullying victimization in Benin: Prevalence and its correlates among in-school

SC
adolescents. International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health, 8 (1),75-83.

McMahon, E. M., Reulbach, U., Keeley, H., Perry, I. J., & Arensman, E. (2010). Bullying
NU
victimisation, self harm and associated factors in Irish adolescent boys. Social Science &
Medicine, 71(7), 1300-1307.
MA

Melander, Lisa, A., Hartshorn, Kelley, J. S., Whitbeck, & Les, B. (2013). Correlates of bullying
behaviors among a sample of North American Indigenous adolescents. Journal of Adolescent,
ED

36(4), 675–684.

Mello, F. C., Malta, D. C., Prado, R. R., Farias, M. S., Alencastro, L. C., & Silva, M. A. (2016).
PT

Bullying and associated factors in adolescents in the Southeast region according to the National
School-based Health Survey. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 19(4), 866-877.
CE

Méndez, I., Ruiz-Esteban, C., & López-García, J, J. (2017). Risk and Protective Factors
Associated to Peer School Victimization. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
AC

Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017) Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective
interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(1), 240-253.

Mlisa, L. N., Ward, C. L., Flisher, A. J., & Lombard, C. J. (2008). Bullying at rural high schools
in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: Prevalence, and risk and protective factors at school
and in the family. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 18(2), 261-267.

Mohebbi, M., Mirnasab, M., & Wiener, J. (2016). Parental and school bonding in Iranian
adolescent perpetrators and victims of bullying. School Psychology International, 37(6), 583-
605.

34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Moon, S. S., Kim, H., Seay, K., Small, E., & Kim, Y. K. (2016). Ecological Factors of Being
Bullied Among Adolescents: a Classification and Regression Tree Approach. Child Indicators
Research, 9(3), 743-756.

Morcillo, C., Ramos-Olazagasti, M. A., Blanco, C., et al. (2015). Socio-Cultural Context and
Bulling Others in Childhood. Journal of Child and Famly Studies, 24, 2241–2249.

Murphy, T. P., Laible, D., & Augustine, M. (2017). The Influences of Parent and Peer
Attachment on Bullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(5), 1388-1397.

T
Murray-Harvey, R., & Slee, P. T. (2010). School and Home Relationships and Their Impact on

P
School Bullying. School Psychology International, 31(3), 271-295.

RI
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., & Ruan, J. (2001). Bullying Behaviors Among US

SC
Youth: Prevalence and Association with Psychosocial Adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094–2100.

Offrey, L. D., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2017). Parent-child communication and adolescents' problem-
NU
solving strategies in hypothetical bullying situations. International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth, 22(3), 251-267.
MA

Oliveira, W. A., Silva, M. A., Silva, J. L., Mello, F. C., Prado, R. R., & Malta, D. C. (2016).
Associations between the practice of bullying and individual and contextual variables from the
aggressors' perspective. Journal of Pediatrics, 92(1), 32-39.
ED

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullies on the playground: The role of victimization. In C. H. Hart (Ed.),
SUNY series, children's play in society. Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and
PT

applications. (pp. 85-128). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
CE

Papadaki, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). The Protective Role of Father Acceptance in the
Relationship Between Maternal Rejection and Bullying: A Moderated-mediation Model. Journal
AC

of Child and Family Studies, 24(2), 330-340.

Pengpid, S., & Peltzer, K. (2013). Bullying and its associated factors among schoolaged
adolescents in Thailand. The Scientific World Journal, 254083(10), 6.

Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying
and associated factors. [Research Support, Non-U S Gov't]. Child Developmental, 79(2), 325-
338.

Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: Victims' and
perpetrators' family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 51-64.

35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Pontzer, D. (2010). A Theoretical Test of Bullying Behavior: Parenting, Personality, and the
Bully/Victim Relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25(3), 259-273.

Rajendran, K., Kruszewski, E., & Halperin, J. M. (2016). Parenting style influences bullying: a
longitudinal study comparing children with and without behavioral problems. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(2), 188-195.

Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (Eds.). (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, DC, US:

T
American Psychological Association.

P
Rhee, S., Lee, S. Y., & Jung, S. H. (2017). Ethnic differences in bullying victimization and

RI
psychological distress: A test of an ecological model. Journal of Adolescent, 60, 155-160.

SC
Rican, P. (1995). Family Values May Be Responsible for Bullying. Studia Psychologica, 37(1),
31-36. NU
Rigby, K. (1993). School children's perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer
relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(4), 501-513.
MA

Rigby, K. (1994) Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent schoolchildren


involved in bully/victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187.
ED

Rigby, K., Slee, P. T., & Martin, G. (2007). Implications of Inadequate Parental Bonding and
Peer Victimization for Adolescent Mental Health. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 801-812.
PT

Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. (2008). The Association of Parenting Style and
Child Age with Parental Limit Setting and Adolescent MySpace Behavior. Journal of Applied
CE

Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 459-471.

Sahin, M., & Sarı, S. V. (2010). Observation of peer bullying in Turkish primary schools
AC

according to different variables. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 258270.

Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Resilience to bullying victimization: the role of individual,
family and peer characteristics. Child & Abuse Neglect, 37(11), 997-1006.

Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2017). The Role of Parental Mediation and Peer Norms on the
Likelihood of Cyberbullying. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 178(1), 15-27.

Ševcíková, A., Machácková, H., Wright, M. F., Dedková, L., & Cerná, A. (2015). Social Support
Seeking in Relation to Parental Attachment and Peer Relationships among Victims of
Cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 25, 170-182.

36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Shapka, J. D., & Law, D. M. (2013). Does one size fit all? Ethnic differences in parenting
behaviors and motivations for adolescent engagement in cyberbullying. [Research Support, Non-
U S Gov't]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 723-738.

Shen, A. C., Feng, J. Y., Wei, H. S., Hsieh, Y. P., Huang, S. C., & Hwa, H. L. (2016). Who Gets
Protection? A National Study of Multiple Victimization and Child Protection Among Taiwanese
Children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 1-25.

Shetgiri, R., Lin, H., Avila, R. M., & Flores, G. (2012). Parental characteristics associated with

T
bullying perpetration in US children aged 10 to 17 years. [Research Support, N I H, Extramural].

P
American Journal of Public Health, 102(12), 2280-2286.

RI
Shetgiri, R., Lin, H., & Flores, G. (2015). Suboptimal maternal and paternal mental health are
associated with child bullying perpetration. [Research Support, N I H, Extramural]. Child

SC
Psychiatry Hum Developmental, 46(3), 455-465.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk
NU
factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescence Psychology, 30.
MA

Shin, Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2008). Peer Victimization in Korean Preschool Children: The Effects of
Child Characteristics, Parenting Behaviours and Teacher-Child Relationships. School
ED

Psychology International, 29(5), 590-605.

Stavrinides, P., Nikiforou, M., & Georgiou, S. (2015). Do mothers know? Longitudinal
PT

associations between parental knowledge, bullying, and victimization. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 32(2), 180-196.
CE

Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2002). Relationship of the family
environment to children's involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Youth and
AC

Adolescence, 31(6), 419-428.

Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A Social-Ecological Framework of


Bullying Among Youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American
schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 112). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., & Vaillancourt, T. (2010). What Can Be Done About School
Bullying? Linking Research to Educational Practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47.

37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward
a social-ecological diathesis–stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344-353.

Tarablus, T., Heiman, T., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (2015). Cyber Bullying Among Teenagers in
Israel: An Examination of Cyber Bullying, Traditional Bullying, and Socioemotional
Functioning. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 24.

Troop-Gordon, W., & Gerardy, H.(2012). Parents' Beliefs about Peer Victimization and
Children's Socio-Emotional Development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33,

T
40-52.

P
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Reintegrative Shaming Theory, moral emotions and

RI
bullying. Aggressive Behaviour, 34(4), 352-368.

SC
Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies
tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3 (2), 63-73.
NU
Vazsonyi, A. T., Jiskrova, G. K., Ozdemir, Y., & Bell, M. M. (2017). Bullying and
MA

Cyberbullying in Turkish Adolescents: Direct and Indirect Effects of Parenting Processes.


Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(8), 1153-1171.

Vera, E. M., Daskalova, P., Hill, L., Floro, M., Anderson, B., Roche, M., et al. (2017). Parental
ED

Messages, School Belonging, Social Skills, and Personal Control as Predictors of Bullying in
Ethnic Minority Adolescents. June School Mental Health, 9(2),113.
PT

Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The Link Between Parents' Perceptions
of the School and Their Responses to School Bullying: Variation by Child Characteristics and
CE

the Forms of Victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 324-335.


AC

Walden, L. M., & Beran, T. N. (2010). Attachment Quality and Bullying Behavior in School-
Aged Youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 5-18.

Wang, H., Zhou, X., Lu, C., Wu, J., Deng, X., Hong, L., et al. (2012). Adolescent bullying
involvement and psychosocial aspects of family and school life: a cross-sectional study from
Guangdong Province in China. Public Library of Science ONE, 7(7), 18.

Wienke Totura, C. M., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R., Divine, K. P., Dunham,
S., et al. (2009). Bullying and Victimization among Boys and Girls in Middle School: The
Influence of Perceived Family and School Contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4),
571-609.

38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wolke, D., & Lereya, ST. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in
Childhood, 100(9), 879-85.

Yeung, R., & Leadbeater, B. (2010). Adults Make a Difference: The Protective Effects of Parent
and Teacher Emotional Support on Emotional and Behavioral Problems of Peer-Victimized
Adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 80-98.

You, S., Lee, J., Lee, Y., & Kim, A. Y. (2015). Bullying among Korean Adolescents: The Role
of Empathy and Attachment. Psychology in the Schools, 52(6), 594-606.

T
Zhu, Y., Chan, K. L., & Chen, J. (2015). Bullying Victimization Among Chinese Middle School

P
Students: The Role of Family Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1 –20.

RI
Zottis, G. H., Salum, G. A., Manfro, G. G., Isolan, L., & Heldt, E. (2013). Learning How to

SC
Bully? Associations between Parental Punitive Discipline and Bullying Behavior at School in
Adolescents. European Psychiatry, 28. NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2. Summary of the main findings.
BULLYING (CYBER) VICTIMIZATION (CYBER)
Studies Significant Significant Non Studies Significant Significant Non
including and and significant including and and significant
the positive negative the positive negative
variable variable

P T
Parental Mental Health (PMH)
Domestic Violence (DV)
13
20
10 (77%)
19 (95%)
0
0
3 (23%)
1 (5%)
8
26
R I 6 (75%)
20 (77%)
0
0
2 (25%)
6 (23%)
Authoritative Parenting (AP)
Communication (C)
10
24
0
1 (4%)
4 (40%)
20 (83%)
6 (60%)

U
3 (13%) SC 8
18
0
2 (11%)
4 (50%)
11 (61%)
4 (50%)
5 (28%)
Parental Involvement and Support (PIS)
Warmth and Affection (WA)
44
35
2 (5%)
1 (3%)
34 (77%)
A
28 (83%)
N8 (18%)
6 (14%)
44
29
0
1 (4%)
31 (70%)
12 (41%)
13 (30%)
16 (55%)
Supervision (S) 44 0 M
34 (77%) 10 (23%) 37 1(3%) 17 (46%) 19 (51%)
Abuse/Neglect (A/N) 6
E D
6 (100%) 0 0 17 17 (100%) 0 0
Maladaptive Parenting (MP)
Overprotection (O)
E
49
23 PT 39 (80%)
8 (35%)
3 (6%)
4 (17%)
7 (14%)
11 (48%)
36
15
18 (50%)
5 (33%)
1 (3%)
5 (33%)
17 (47%)
5 (34%)
Parental Individual processes (PIP)
C 13 8 (62%) 0 5 (38%) 9 4 (44%) 0 5(56%)

AC
Studies including the variable=number of studies including the variable
Significant and positive=number of studies showing a positive and significant association between the variable and the outcome
Significant and negative= number of studies showing a negative and significant association between the variable and the outcome
Non significant= number of studies showing a not significant association between the variable and the outcome

40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights

Contextual - and relational- family level characteristics are consistently associated with bullying
More variability has been found for victimization
Overprotection and Authoritative parenting were not consistently associated with bullying and
victimization

P T
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC

41

You might also like