The Role of Pubertal Timing in the Development of Peer Victimization and Offending From Early- to Mid-Adolescence

Therése Skoog,Sabina Kapetanovic

doi:10.1177/02724316211002265

Therése Skoog, Sabina Kapetanovic

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316211002265

Copy DOI

Abstract

We used latent growth curve analysis to extend research on associations between early puberty and adverse peer relations by examining the role of pubertal timing in the developmental trajectories of peer victimization and offending from early- to mid-adolescence. We made use of three-wave longitudinal data collected annually from a cohort of Swedish adolescents ( N = 1,515, 51% girls, [Formula: see text]age at T1 = 13.0 years). The results revealed negative developmental trends for peer victimization and offending. Early pubertal timing was linked to higher initial levels and a steeper decrease of peer victimization and offending. The only effect of pubertal timing that differed between the genders was that the initial level of offending was stronger for boys than girls. In conclusion, the negative impact of early pubertal timing on peer victimization and offending occurs in the early stages of adolescence and disappears thereafter.

Highlights

Background variablesThe Questionnaire items assessed about adolescent age, subjective socioeconomic status (SES) and immigration status at T1
The earlier the adolescents experienced puberty, the higher the levels of peer victimization and offending they reported at T1 and T2
SES was negatively associated with T1, T2, and T3 victimization, and T1 and T2 offending and immigration status was positively associated with T2 and T3 offending

Summary

Introduction

The Questionnaire items assessed about adolescent age, subjective SES and immigration status at T1. The age of the adolescents in the sample ranged from 11 to 14 years and were entered as 0 = younger adolescents (11 and 12 years of age) and 1 = older adolescents (13 and 14 years of age). Adolescent subjective SES (Quon & McGrath, 2014) was calculated by averaging two items: “Do you perceive having less, as much, or more money than your classmates?” and “Does your family have less, as much, or more money than other families in your neighborhood?” with interitem correlation (r = .42). Immigration status was determined by asking the adolescents whether they studied Swedish as a second language in school and entered as 0 = Swedish background and 1 = non-Swedish background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion