Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Register for SRCD21
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
INTRODUCTION: Anti-bullying interventions somewhat reduce victimization, but their impact is not large (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), perhaps in part because programs frequently don’t address variability in bullying behaviors and associated youth characteristics. For instance, interventions are not typically tailored for trauma-affected youth, who may have unique social, emotional, and academic needs. This study identified:(1) classes of youth with distinct bullying and victimization profiles, and (2) associations of each class with trauma exposure, mental health symptoms, and academic performance.
METHOD: As part of a larger study, data were collected from two cohorts of eighth-grade students in thirteen urban schools (n= 276; girls = 53%; African American = 63%). Two additional cohorts of students will be added by Spring 2021. Teachers reported students’ bullying/victimization behavior (SDQ) and academic skills (ACES-TF). Students reported lifetime exposure to 8 types of trauma, including the death or incarceration of a parent, physical abuse, and discrimination (ACES). Students also reported depressive symptoms, anxiety, substance use, and hope they felt for the future.
RESULTS: Using latent class analyses, we identified four groups: (1) normative; (2) bullying; (3) verbally aggressive/victimized; and (4) physically aggressive/victimized. Once identified, we associated each latent class with students’ experiences of trauma, depression, hope, anxiety and substance abuse, and academics. Adolescents classified as normative performed significantly better academically compared to the other groups (p's<.05). Adolescents classified as normative performed better academically than other groups (p's<.05). Physically aggressive victims reported more trauma than both normative or verbally aggressive victims (p's<.05), more depression and anxiety than verbally aggressive victims (p=.05), and less hope than the normative group (p=.05).
CONCLUSION: These findings indicate trauma exposure, impaired mental health, and poorer academic performance characterize a subtype of bullying/victimized youth. These findings have implications for both patterns of urban youth victimization, as well as correlates of peer behaviors. Not all forms of bullying and victimization are equally at risk, as evidenced by the significantly negative characteristics associated with adolescents only in the aggressive-victimization group. Urban schools with a large population of students who have experienced trauma and depressive symptoms, may require supports that specifically address these students’ mental health needs. As such, it is important that prevention programs address the unique needs of trauma-affected youth.