Indirect versus Verbal Forms of Victimization at School: The Contribution of Student, Family, and School Variables

Abstract

The present study examines the correlates of indirect and verbal victimization by peers at school. The research is based on a nationally representative sample of 16,604 students in grades 7 through 11 in 324 schools across Israel. Self-administrated anonymous questionnaires were completed during class. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the relationships between students' victimization and student- and school-level variables. The study gives an indication of the importance of making distinctions between verbal victimization and indirect forms of victimization. For example, the findings indicate that boys reported more verbal and less indirect victimization than did girls. Students from schools with higher proportions of families of low socioeconomic status were more indirectly victimized but were less verbally victimized. However, the research also reveals some similarities between the patterns of relationships of the two victimization forms and certain correlates. Implications of understanding the differences between these two victimization types are highlighted. KEY WORDS: gender; indirect victimization; school ecology; socioeconomic status; verbal victimization ********** School violence has been a major concern for students, parents, school staff, and the general public. A considerable part of past empirical studies on school violence has focused on direct, overt behavior patterns, such as physical violence (for example, hitting, kicking) or verbal violence (for example, cursing, calling names) (for example, Grunbaum et al., 2002;Lowry, Sleet, Duncan, Powell, & Kolbe, 1995; Olweus, 1993a). Research on the prevalence of direct aggression and victimization by peers at school has demonstrated that boys are significantly more involved in such behaviors than are gifts, either as bullies or as victims (Grunbaum et al., 2002; Olweus, 1993b; Ostrov & Keating, 2004), a finding that has led to a focus on male forms of aggression (Crick, 1997). However, in the past several years studies have demonstrated the importance of the investigation of indirect forms of violence (including relational and social forms) in addition to direct (physical and verbal) violence, which was found to be more characteristic of girls than of boys (for example, Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick, 1997; Osterman et al., 1998; Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Owens, Daly, & Slee, 2005; Tapper & Boulton, 2005). Despite the slight differences between relational, indirect, and social forms of aggression (see Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006), they all relate to behaviors by which intentional harm is caused to others by damaging their social relationships or feelings of peer acceptance (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Ostrov & Keating, 2004); for example, excluding individuals from group activities, spreading rumors, or maliciously gossiping about them. Coyne et al. (2006) compared physical, verbal, and these indirect forms of aggression. They found that when comparing physical and verbal aggressive behaviors with the various forms of indirect behaviors mentioned it is clear the latter are similar enough to each other (and different from the former) to warrant inclusion within one single category. All three forms of aggression contain elements of manipulative and often covert types of aggression. In the present study, we follow the suggestion of Coyne et al. (2006) to decrease confusion and argumentation among researchers of indirect, relational, and social aggression by creating one larger construct, namely indirect victimization that encompasses the behaviors included in these forms of aggression. In physical victimization, physical damage is the instrument of harm; in verbal victimization, psychological abuse is the instrument of harm. By contrast, relationships serve as the vehicle of harm in indirect victimization (Crick, 1997). …