4.3 Article

Is there really a healthy context paradox for victims of bullying? A longitudinal test of bidirectional within-and between-person associations between victimization and psychological problems

期刊

DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0954579423001384

关键词

healthy context paradox; victimization; depressive symptoms; anxiety; self-esteem

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the moderating effect of classroom-level victimization on the bidirectional relationship between victimization and psychological adjustment. The findings revealed that victims in classrooms with lower victimization not only experienced worse psychological adjustment over time compared to others, but also had higher maladjustment than before.
The finding that victims' psychological problems tend to be exacerbated in lower-victimization classrooms has been referred to as the healthy context paradox. The current study has put the healthy context paradox to a strict test by examining whether classroom-level victimization moderates bidirectional within- and between-person associations between victimization and psychological adjustment. Across one school year, 3,470 Finnish 4th to 9th graders (Mage = 13.16, 46.1% boys) reported their victimization, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and self-esteem. Three types of multilevel models (cross-lagged panel, latent change score, and random-intercept cross-lagged panel) were estimated for each indicator of psychological adjustment. Findings indicated that the healthy context paradox emerges because classroom-level victimization moderates the prospective effect of victimization on psychological problems, rather than the effect of psychological problems on victimization. In classrooms with lower victimization, victims not only experience worse psychological maladjustment over time compared to others (between-person changes), but also higher maladjustment than before (absolute within-person changes).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据