TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca The contribution of social support to children and adolescents' self-perception: The mediating role of victimization

Mishna, Faye ; Khoury-Kassabri, Mona; Schwan, Kaitlin; Wiener, Judith; Craig, Wendy; Beran, Tanya; Pepler, Debra; Daciuk, Joanne

Version Post-Print/ Accepted Manuscript

Citation Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Schwan, K., Wiener, J., Craig, W., (published version) Beran, T., Pepler, D. & Daciuk, J., The contribution of social support to children and adolescents’ self-perception: The mediating role of bullying victimization, Children and Youth Services Review (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.013.

Copyright / License

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the TSpace version (original manuscript or accepted manuscript) because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

ÔØ ÅÒÙ×Ö ÔØ

The contribution of social support to children and adolescents’ self-perception: The mediating role of bullying victimization

Faye Mishna, Mona Khoury-Kassabri, Kaitlin Schwan, Judith Wiener, Wendy Craig, Tanya Beran, Debra Pepler, Joanne Daciuk

PII: S0190-7409(16)30043-3 DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.013 Reference: CYSR 2895

To appear in: Children and Youth Services Review

Received date: 10 January 2016 Revised date: 14 February 2016 Accepted date: 15 February 2016

Please cite this article as: Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Schwan, K., Wiener, J., Craig, W., Beran, T., Pepler, D. & Daciuk, J., The contribution of social support to children and adolescents’ self-perception: The mediating role of bullying victimization, Children and Youth Services Review (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.013

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

The Contribution of Social Support to Children and Adolescents’ Self-Perception: The Mediating Role of Bullying Victimization

Faye Mishna Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work Mona Khoury-Kassabri School of Social Work and Social Welfare Kaitlin Schwan Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work Judith Wiener School and Clinical Child Psychology Wendy Craig Department of Psychology, Queen’s University Tanya Beran Department of Community Health Sciences Debra Pepler Joanne Daciuk Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work

Dr. Faye Mishna Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work Margaret & Wallace McCain Family Chair in Child & Family University of Toronto [email protected] 246 Bloor Street West Toronto, Ontario ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT M5A 1V4 (416) 946-5494

Dr. Mona Khoury-Kassabri School of Social Work and Social Welfare The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905 Israel Tel. 972-2-5881807 Fax 972-2-5883927 [email protected]

Kaitlin Schwan PhD Candidate

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work University of Toronto 246 Bloor Street West Toronto ON M5S 1V4 (416) 909-1258 [email protected]

Dr. Judith Wiener Professor, School and Clinical Child Psychology Applied Psychology & Human Development OISE/University of Toronto 252 Bloor Street West Toronto, ON M5S 1V6

Dr. Wendy Craig Department of Psychology, Queen’s University Kingston ON K7L 3N6 [email protected]

Dr. Tanya Beran Department of Community Health Sciences Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary 3330 Hospital Dr. N.W. Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 [email protected] (403) 220-5667

Dr. Debra Pepler York University Department of Psychology - 217 York Lanes, 4700 Keele St. Toronto ON M3J 1P3 [email protected] ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Joanne Daciuk Research Manager Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work University of Toronto 246 Bloor Street West Toronto ON M5S 1V4 (416) 978-5720 [email protected]

Funding Source:

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Government of Canada-Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada – Grant Number 410-2011-1001

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Introduction

The relationship between bullying and self-perception among children and youth has become an important area of study, propelled in part by societal concern and media attention about the effects associated with bullying victimization (Espelage & Swearer, 2011). The proliferation of information and communication technology (ICT) and its increasingly central role in the lives of children and youth has changed the landscape of bullying (Cassidy, Jackson,

& Brown, 2009). Victims of bullying tend to experience lower global self-esteem (Olweus, 1993) and have more negative social self-concepts (Andreou, 2000; Boulton, Smith, & Cowie, 2010).

Social support can operate as a protective factor against bullying victimization (Demaray &

Malecki, 2003; Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu & Simons-Morton, 2001), the effects of bullying involvement (Conners-Burrow, Johnson, Whiteside-Mansell, McKelvey, & Gargus,

2009), and bullying perpetration (Shetgiri, Lin, Avila, & Flores, 2012). Very little research, however, has explored the associations of social support, bullying victimization, and self- perception among children and youth, and how these associations may differ for traditional and victimization.

The purpose of this article is to report on a study that explores the linkages among self- perception, perceptionsACCEPTED of social support, and bullyingMANUSCRIPT victimization (traditional and cyber), particularly how bullying victimization mediates the association of social support and self- perception (Figure 1). We employ Harter’s model of self-esteem (1999; 2012), which offers a theoretical basis for exploring these associations,1 and explains how and why self-perception is multidimensional (i.e., multiple discrete domains – including scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, and behavioural conduct),

1 Consistent with Harter (2012, p. 24), we utilize the terms “global self-esteem” and “global self-worth” interchangeably.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

developmentally driven, and fundamentally linked to social support (Harter, 1999; Harter &

Marold, 1993; Harter, Marold, & Whitesell, 1996). While Harter’s model highlights the inextricability of social support to domains of self-perception and global self-esteem, how bullying or cyberbullying victimization mediates this association is less clear. Understanding how perceptions of social support are associated with self-perception, and whether and how bullying and cyberbullying victimization mediates this association, may assist in informing interventions.

Social Support and Self-Perception

Research has demonstrated the importance of social support during childhood and adolescence for achieving important developmental outcomes and wellbeing (Davidson &

Demaray, 2007). Social support, understood here as the “perceived support and regard which significant others manifest towards the self” (Harter, 2012, p. 1), predicts many positive outcomes, including body satisfaction (Barker & Galambos, 2003), lowered

(Colarossi & Eccles, 2003), better school adjustment and academic achievement (Danielsen,

Samdal, Hetland, & Wold, 2009), and higher self-esteem (Sakiz, Pape & Hoy, 2012). In contrast, lower perceived social support is consistently associated with emotional difficulties (Herman-

Stahl & Petersen, 1996).ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in exploring the relationship between social support and self-perception among children and youth. Self-perception refers to children’s

“domain-specific judgments of their competence, as well as a global perception of their worth or esteem as a person” (Harter, 1985a, p. 5).2 As identified by Marshall, Parker, Ciarrochi, and

2 Our utilization of the term “self-perception,” encompasses the domains commonly referred to as “self- competence”, “self-worth”, “self-concept,” and “self-esteem”. The interchangeable use of these terms and the various measurement tools utilized may disadvantage the contributions of many studies (Demaray, Malecki, Rueger, Brown, & Summers, 2009; Harter, 1999).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Heaven (2014), determining whether self-perception is a consequence or an antecedent of social support in childhood and adolescence is a valuable yet understudied area of research. In particular, the lack of longitudinal studies in this area, with many studies focused on relationship quality rather than social support, has impeded insight into the temporal ordering of these constructs (Marshall et al., 2014).

Despite the lack of research that explores the causal relationship between social support and self-perception among children and youth, a significant proportion of existing studies indicate that social support may have a causal impact on self-perception. Research in this area has suggested that both perceived social support (Goodwin, Costa, & Adonu, 2004) and the quality of social relationships (Dekovic & Meeus, 1997; Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004; Ryan, Stiller, &

Lynch, 1994) are associated with higher self-perception among children and youth. Harter and colleagues (1999; Harter & Marold, 1993) similarly found that peer approval is linked to greater feelings of competence in important domains of self-perception, including physical appearance, peer likability, and athletic competence. The longitudinal (e.g., Denissen, Schmitt, Penke, & Van

Aken, 2008) and experimental (e.g., Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998; Leary, Tambor,

Terdal, & Downs, 1995) studies that do exist suggest that social relationships influence self- esteem insofar as researchACCEPTED indicates “people are MANUSCRIPT not motivated to maintain their self-esteem per se; rather, they are motivated to increase their value and acceptance in relation to others”

(Marshall et al., 2014, p. 1277). Asendorpf and Van Aken’s (2003) study on the relationship between self-esteem and relationship quality among 230 adolescents, measuring each youth at the age of 12 and again at 15, similarly found that relationship quality predicted self-esteem but not vice versa. Based on this literature we hypothesize that adolescent self-perception is

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

predicted by social support and the study aims to expand this literature by exploring whether this association is mediated by children victimized by traditional or cyberbullying.

Bullying, Social Support, and Self-Perception

Bullying is defined here as a form of that occurs in the context of a relationship, involves a power imbalance, is repetitive, and can include physical, verbal, psychological, or relational acts (Craig & Pepler, 2007; Olweus, 1991). Following Smith, del Barrio, and

Tokunuga (2013), we define cyberbullying as comprised of three elements: intent to harm, a specific target, and a power imbalance. What makes cyber bullying distinct is the use of electronic communication technology as the means through which to threaten, harass embarrass, sexually harass or socially exclude (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Schrock

& Boyd, 2008; Williams & Guerra, 2007). Traditional and cyber bullying are common problems facing the schools and are prevalent among students. For instance, in a study 15,686 student in the US 41.1% of the participants reported having been traditionally victimized by others (Nansel et al., 2001). With respect to cyberbullying, in their study of 4,441 adolescents from 33 schools in the US, Mitchell et al. (2015) found that 17% of the participants had been victimized by cyberbullying.

Given the significaACCEPTEDnt number of children andMANUSCRIPT youth affected by bullying and cyberbullying, and the considerable negative outcomes associated with bullying and cyberbullying involvement for children and youth (Beran & Li, 2005; Mishna & Van Wert, 2015; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007), it is important to understand whether and how bullying and cyberbullying may impact the association between social support and self-perception. With the dramatic rise of ICT usage among children and youth in recent years (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Palfrey & Glasser, 2008),

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

understanding how traditional and cyberbullying may differ with respect to this association is essential.

Existing research has demonstrated that social support operates as a protective factor against bullying and cyberbullying victimization (Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Haynie et al., 2001; Wang,

Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Studies have found that parental support may protect youth from bullying and cyberbullying victimization (Haynie et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2009), bullying and cyberbullying perpetration (Shetgiri et al., 2012; Flores, Paradeisioti, Hadjimarcuo, Mappouras,

Kalakouta, Avagianou, & Siomos, 2013), and the negative consequences of bullying and cyberbullying involvement (Conners-Burrow et al., 2009; Mitchell, Ybarra, & Finkelhor, 2007).

Similarly, peer acceptance is a protective factor against traditional bullying victimization

(Demaray & Malecki, 2003), and existing research has demonstrated evidence of an association between positive friendships and less traditional and cyber victimization (e.g., Bollmer, Milich,

Harris, & Maras, 2005; Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). Supportive relationships with teachers are also associated with lower levels of traditional (Khoury-Kassabri,

Benbenishty, Astor, & Zeira, 2004).

Research suggests that bullying victimization is negatively associated with self-perception among children and youth,ACCEPTED especially in domains MANUSCRIPT of developmental importance (Andreou, 2000;

Boulton, Smith, & Cowie, 2010; Fox & Farrow, 2009). Bullying and cyberbullying victimization has been linked to psychosocial problems including depression, anxiety, and suicidality

(Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Hure, & Rusch, 2013). Hawker and Boulton’s (2000) meta-analysis found that bullying victimization was negatively associated with social self-concept and global self-esteem, and strongly associated with depression (Wolke, Skuse, & Reilly, 2006).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The negative association between bullying victimization and self-perception during middle childhood and adolescence is of particular concern due to the importance of peer approval during this time (Brown & Lohr, 1987; Dijkstra, Cillessen, & Borch, 2013; Rubin, Bukowski, &

Bowker, 2015) and the significant influence peers have on adolescents’ meta and self-perceptions

(Bellmore & Cillessen, 2006).

There is limited research that investigates the differential associations between traditional and cyberbullying involvement, or both, with respect to self-perception. Bonanno and Hymel

(2013) found that cyberbullying involvement uniquely contributes to depression and suicidal ideation after controlling for traditional bullying involvement. Other studies have found that the physical and psychological consequences linked to traditional bullying are also associated with cyberbullying, particularly for children and youth involved in both (Gradinger, Strohmeier, &

Spiel, 2009). Nonetheless, it is unclear whether being a victim of cyberbullying has the same impact on self-perception as being a victim of traditional bullying (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel,

2003; Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri, Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012). Understanding whether and how cyber and traditional bullying may differentially or jointly impact children and youth’s self- perception is important to investigate.

While extensiveACCEPTED research has demonstrated MANUSCRIPT that bullying is linked to both social support and self-perception, research that examines all three constructs together is very limited. Beyond the direct relationships among social support, bullying, and self-perception, research is lacking on whether bullying mediates the relationship between social support and self-perception, and on the differential mediating impact of cyberbullying victimization compared to traditional bullying with respect to this association. Although some studies have assessed the mediating impact of social support on the outcomes of bullying and cyberbullying involvement (Conners-Burrow et

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al., 2009; Fanti, Demetriou, & Hawa, 2012; Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vanderzee, Sink, &

Birchmeier, 2009), few have examined the relationships among social support, bullying, and self-perception/self-concept. To the authors’ knowledge, only one paper exists that examines the relationships among these variables (Jenkins & Demaray, 2012), which found that there was a significant negative relationship between social support and peer victimization, as well as a significant negative relationship between self-concept and peer victimization. The current paper takes the next step in determining how and whether traditional and cyberbullying victimization may mediate the association between perceived social support and self-perception. Such research may help inform bullying interventions designed to reinforce social support among children and youth.

Hypotheses

1. Cyber and traditional victimization will be negatively correlated with adolescents’ self-

perception.

2. Perceived social support will be negatively correlated with cyber and traditional victimization.

3. Cyber victimization will mediate the association between social support and adolescents’

self-perception (Figure 1, indirect effect 1).

4. Traditional victimizationACCEPTED will mediate the associatMANUSCRIPTion between social support and

adolescents’ self-perception global self-worth (Figure 1, indirect effect 2).

Method

This manuscript reports on data collected during year one of a mixed-methods three-year study on cyberbullying among students in grades four, seven, and ten in a large Canadian city.

The study uses a longitudinal, multi-informant design with a grounded theory approach. Ethics

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

approval was received from the University’s Research Ethics Board and the External Research

Review Committee of the School Board.

Participants

Participants were grade four, seven and ten students, as well as their parents and teachers.

A stratified random sampling design was used to select participant schools in one of the largest school boards in North America, situated in Toronto, Canada. Schools were stratified into three categories of need (low, medium, and high) based on an index developed by the school board that ranked schools on external challenges to student achievement. This index was developed by the school board using census data associated with the postal code of students attending each school. Neighbourhood-level census data used to develop the index included income and education levels, ratio of households receiving social assistance, and ratio of single parent families (Toronto District School Board, 2014). The stratification of the sample based on this index ensured representation of ethnocultural and socioeconomic diversity – factors that potentially impact access to ICTs and experiences of cyberbullying (Roberts & Foehr, 2008).

This manuscript focuses on the 402 students in grades four (39.8%) and seven (60.2%) because the tenth graders completed different questionnaires. The sample demographics are ethnically representative and resembleACCEPTED the population in genderMANUSCRIPT distribution (59.7% girls in sample vs. 48% girls in population) and in terms of those whose primary language was not English (42.5% in sample vs. 44% in population) (Toronto District School Board, 2013).

Of the 62 schools invited to participate, 19 agreed, resulting in a school participation rate of

31%. The main reason principals gave for declining participation was an overload of research. Of the 3873 students asked to participate, 691 agreed. Twenty-two student participants withdrew, resulting in 669 student participants and a response rate of 17.3% during year one of the study.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

We attribute this relatively low response rate to the active consent process. While some studies employing active consent have obtained response rates as high at 79% (Esbensen, Melde, Taylor

& Peterson, 2008), others have found active consent to be an obstacle to participation in school- based studies and have reported response rates as low as 10% (MacGregor & McNamara, 1995).

Measures

This paper focuses on several quantitative measures completed by student participants in grades 4 and 7, specifically measures capturing demographics; experiences with traditional bullying and cyberbullying; self-perception; and social support.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

The student demographic questionnaire captured individual and family characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, country of birth, academic achievement (scaled from “Mostly As” to

“Mostly Ds”), disability, family composition, parental education, and parental vocation.

Traditional and Cyberbullying Involvement

To measure children’s experiences with bullying and cyberbullying, a questionnaire was developed building on the authors’ previous research and on the literature (Mishna, Cook,

Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010; Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009; Pepler, Connolly, &

Craig, 1993; Olweus,ACCEPTED 2012). Respondents read MANUSCRIPT definitions of bullying and cyberbullying and were asked how frequently they had been bullied/cyberbullied in the last thirty days, on a Likert scale which included potential responses of “never,” “once or twice,” “3 or 4 times,” and

“everyday.” Participants completed similar items related to perpetrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying.

Self-Perception

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Subscales from the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) (Harter, 1985) were used to assess self-esteem and self-concept in the social domain. The Self-Perception Profile for

Children contains six subscales tapping five specific domains (scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, behavioural conduct), and global self- worth. This scale has adequate internal consistency and a stable factor structure (Harter, 2012).

Each subscale contains six items constituting a total of 36 items. Scholastic Competence (α

=.806), refers to a child’s perception of his/her competence or ability within the realm of scholastic performance, including items such as, “Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their school work BUT other kids can do their school work quickly”. Social acceptance (α =.765), assesses the degree to which the child perceives to have friends, feels popular, and feels that most kids like them. It includes items such as, “Some kids find it hard to make friends BUT other kids find it’s pretty easy to make friends”. Athletic Competence (α =.840), taps content relevant to sports and outdoor games, for example items such as, “Some kids wish they could be a lot better at sports BUT other kids feel they are good enough at sports”. Physical Appearance (α

=.851), taps the degree to which the child is happy with the way he/she looks, including items such as, “Some kids wish their body was different BUT other kids like their body the way it is”.

Behavioural ConductACCEPTED (α =.791), taps the degree MANUSCRIPT to which a child likes the way he or she behaves, does the right things, acts how one is supposed to, and avoids getting in trouble. It includes items such as, “Some kids often do not like the way they behave BUT other kids like the way they behave”. Global Self-Worth (α =.844),taps the extent to which the child likes oneself as a person, is happy with the way one is leading his or her life, and is generally happy with the way one is. It includes items such as, “Some kids are often unhappy with themselves BUT other kids are pretty pleased with themselves”.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

For each question the child is first asked to decide which child is most like him or her, and then asked whether this is only sort of true or really true for him or her. For each subscale a summative measure was created based on the mean of the six items. Higher scores indicate more competence or adequate self-perception.

Social Support

The Social Support Scale for Children (Harter, 1985b) assesses children’s support system.

This 24-item scale assesses the perceived support and regard by others for the child and includes four sources of social support: parents; teachers; classmates; and close friends. The internal consistencies of the four subscales range from 0.72 to 0.88 (Harter, 2012). A principal components factor analysis showed that all four support scales loaded on a single factor. A composite social support measures was created by computing their mean score (α = .79).

Data Analysis

Using IBM SPSS Statistics 21, we examined the descriptive data related to students’ self- perception and involvement in traditional and cyberbullying. Second, bivariate analyses were conducted to test the relationships among students’ self-perception and the mediating and independent variables using Pearson product-moment correlations. The correlations among all other variables were ACCEPTEDalso tested (Table 1). Third, MANUSCRIPT to test the significance of the indirect effect of social support on children’s self-perception measures through cyber and traditional victimization, we performed a PROCESS analysis using IBM SPSS (PROCESS-Model #4; Preacher & Hayes,

2004). This procedure enables us to empirically estimate and test three pathways of influence through which social support affects self-perception {Figure 1: one direct effect from social support to self-perception and the other indirect effects through cyber victimization (indirect effect 1), or through traditional victimization (indirect effect 2)}. Missing data in PROCESS is

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

handled with listwise procedure. The 95% confidence interval obtained with 5000 bootstrap resamples was used (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Once a bootstrap sample of the original data is generated, the regression coefficients for the statistical model are estimated. This procedure yields an upper and lower bound - confidence interval - on the likely value of the indirect effect

(Hayes, 2013). If the confidence interval straddles zero, then the mediation of social support effect on self-perception through bullying victimization is not significant (Preacher & Hayes,

2008). If the confidence interval does not straddle zero, this leads to the inference that the indirect effect is not zero and that there is a significant mediation. Each self-perception measure was analyzed in relation to the covariates of age, gender, academic achievement and involvement in traditional bullying as perpetrator.

Results

Students ranged in age from 8 to 13 years, with a mean of 11.02 years (SD = 1.52). Most of the students reported receiving school grades that were As or Bs (35.8% and 59.4% respectively). Only 4.9% of the students reported receiving Ds. The majority of their parents have completed a university degree (mother 68.3%; fathers 74.6%). Only 14.9% of the mothers and 10.9% of the fathers have a high school education, as reported by their children.

Descriptive StatisticsACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Almost one third of the students (31.7%) reported having been traditionally bullied at least once during the last month, while 12.3% reported having been bullied at least three times. During the last month, 13.42% of students reported having been cyberbullied at least once. Almost one in ten students reported bullying others (9.5%), whereas 3.4% reported cyberbullying others at least once during the last month. Because of the low frequency, cyberbullying perpetration was

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

not included in the following analysis. Students’ reports of their social support were relatively high. On a scale ranging from 1 to 4, the mean was 3.36 (SD = 0.48).

On a scale ranging from 1 to 4, the means of children’s reports on the six self-perception measures were similar and range from 2.81 (SD = 0.76) for athletic competence and 3.23 (SD =

0.68) for global self-worth. The mean of scholastic competence was 2.91 (SD = 0.69); social acceptance was 3.00 (SD = 0.66); physical appearance 2.96 (SD = 0.76); and behavioural conduct was 3.20 (SD = 0.61).

Bivariate Analyses

We examined the relationship among age, gender, academic achievement, parents’ education, and social support with self-perception measures and bullying involvement. As a result of the large sample size, small correlations are significant; therefore, only correlations of at least low-moderate size of 0.30 are identified here.

The older the children, the lower their reported self-perceptions of physical appearance (r

(402) = -0.30, p < .01) (Table 1). Children’s reported academic achievement was significantly and positively associated with scholastic competence (r (402) = 0.43, p < .01) and behavioural conduct (r (402) = 0.30 p < .01). Furthermore, children with stronger support systems have higher self-perceptionsACCEPTED generally. These associations MANUSCRIPT range from r (402) = 0.33, p < 01 for athletic competence to r (402) = 0.56, p < .01 for global self-worth. For most associations between participant involvement in bullying (traditional and cyber) and students’ perceived self- perception the links were negative, but very weak.

Our findings concerning the association between perceptions of social support and bullying victimization are consistent with the literature and our prediction. Children’s reported support

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

system was negatively but weakly associated with involvement in traditional and cyber victimization and traditional perpetration.

Mediation Model

The following results were obtained from testing the mediation hypotheses (hypotheses 3 and 4). Two indirect effects were tested in this model in addition to the direct effect of social support on the self-perception measures (Figure 1). Moreover, the model explores the relationships between social support and cyber and traditional victimization (mediating variabls).

Social support was significantly and negatively associated with the mediating factors: cyber victimization (B = -0.22, SE = 0.06, p < .001) and traditional victimization (B = -0.13, SE = 0.08, p < .001). The greater the support the students reported, the lower their exposure to traditional and cyber bullying victimization.

We explored whether the association between social support and self-perception (indirect effect 1) is mediated by cyberbullying victimization. Contrary to hypothesis 3 (Figure 1, indirect effect 1), all bootstrap confidence intervals straddle zero, meaning that these are nonsignificant indirect effects (Table 2).

The second indirect effect tested whether the association between social support and self- perception is mediatedACCEPTED by traditional victimization MANUSCRIPT. Hypothesis 4 (Figure 1, indirect effect 2) was partially supported. This effect was significant for three of the six self-perception measures: social acceptance, physical appearance, and global self-worth (Table 2).

The mediation analysis confirmed the mediating role of traditional victimization in the relationship between social support and social acceptance (B = 0.05, SE = 0.02, CI = .02 to .01).

Similar trends were found for self-perceptions of physical appearance (B = 0.03, SE = 0.02, CI =

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

.00 to .09, respectively) and global self-worth (B = 0.03, SE = 0.02, CI = .01 to .08) (Table 2,

Table 3).

In summary, the mediation model showed two main findings: First, higher levels of social support are related to lower levels of reported traditional victimization, which in turn is linked to higher levels of students’ reported self-perceptions of social acceptance, physical appearance, and global self-worth. Second, as this was a partial mediation, the direct effect of social support on these measures remained positive and significant; the greater the social support the higher children’s self-perception of social acceptance, physical appearance, and global self-worth.

Discussion

The current study is unique in examining the associations among bullying victimization, social support, and self-perception, and hypothesizing that the effects of social support on self- perception would be mediated by cyber and traditional victimization. Our bivariate analyses indicate that social support is associated with all self-perception domains, consistent with previous research (Goodwin, Costa, & Adonu, 2004; Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004).

Importantly, with the exception of behavioural conduct, traditional victimization was found to be associated with all self-perception domains. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that childrenACCEPTED who experience traditional MANUSCRIPT victimization are at higher risk of internalizing problems such as, anxiety/depression, low global self-worth, and low social acceptance (Rigby,

2000; Undheim, & Sund, 2010), while children who perpetrate bullying are more likely to display externalizing problem behaviors such as behavioral misconduct, delinquency and alcohol use (Ivarsson, Broberg, Arvidsson, & Gillberg, 2005; Nansel et al., 2001; Undheim, & Sund,

2010).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The results show, however, that cyber victimization was associated with only three self- perception domains (social acceptance, physical appearance, and global self-worth). This finding suggests that cyberbullying victimization might be related to social factors such as acceptance and less to behavioral factors such as behavioral conduct and athletic or scholastic competence.

In future research, it is important to examine these associations and further explore this conjecture.

Due to the important associations among these variables, especially the role social support plays in predicting victimization and self-perception, an objective of this study was to increase understanding of the mechanism that underlies the relationship between social support, victimization, and self-perception. We identified that traditional victimization mediates the association between social support and self-perception for three self-perception measures: social acceptance, physical appearance, and global self-worth. This suggests that when children and youth report high levels of social support, they are likely to experience lower levels of traditional bullying victimization, and as a result have higher levels of self-perception in these domains

(social acceptance, physical appearance, and global self-worth).

These findings have several implications. First, as both bivariate and mediation model analysis indicated thatACCEPTED direct and indirect correla MANUSCRIPTtions of social support and bullying victimization differed with respect to which self-perception measures they were linked, the results support the need for researchers to continue to disaggregate the dimensions of self- perception in order to more accurately identify how distinct dimensions of self-perception can be fostered. This also suggests that traditional and cyber victimization may affect different dimensions of self-perception. Second, these findings once again emphasize the central role of traditional victimization compared to cyber victimization with respect to self-perception for

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

children and youth. Third, the results show that in addition to the direct effect of social support on children and youth’s self-perceptions, social support also affects self-perception through its significant impact on the level of victimization a child or adolescent experiences.

Contrary to our expectations, cyber victimization was not found to mediate the relationship between social support and self-perception. The low occurrence of cyberbullying among our sample, while consistent with other research (Olweus, 2012), was a barrier to closely examining the associations between cyber victimization, social support, and self-perception. As research has shown the frequency with which children and adolescents shift between victimizing, perpetrating, and witnessing cyberbullying (Schneider, O'Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012;

Smith, 2012), this fluidity of roles may result in children and youth underreporting cyberbullying involvement because they do not identify it as such. Further research is needed in order to understand whether and how cyber victimization may play a mediating role between social support and self-perception.

Limitations to the study include the relatively low response rate and that parents’ education is higher than the population, which suggests the need for caution in generalizing the findings.

We also did not test for how sources of social support may be differentially associated with bullying victimizationACCEPTED and self-perception among MANUSCRIPT children and youth (Demaray & Malecki,

2003; Haynie et al., 2001).

Longitudinal, rigorous research is needed to further test whether and how social support predicts self-perception among children and adolescents, as it will contribute to understanding the causal relationships among social support, victimization and self-perception. Both bullying victimization (Kumpulainen & Räsänen, 2000) and poor self-perception (Orth, Robins, &

Widaman, 2012) can have lifelong effects. Pepler and colleagues (2002) found that the unequal

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

power dynamics and aggressive techniques learned in childhood bullying can transfer into adult relationships, and may extend to sexual , dating aggression, child abuse, and intimate partner violence. Beyond the long-term impacts of victimization, bullying victimization can establish harmful relationship patterns.

The study’s results emphasize the importance of developing social support and relationship- based solutions to bullying among children and youth. Social support and relational strategies to address bullying are influential on both the development of positive self-perception (direct effect) and for the effects on traditional bullying victimization, which in turn leads in poor self- perception (indirect effect).

The study has important implications for practice and lends strong evidence to the necessity of understanding bullying as a relationship issue, thus requiring interventions targeted at improving relationships and social skills rather than primarily disciplinary measures (Pepler,

2006). This can be accomplished by developing strategies based on collaborative relationships among school personnel, the students, and their families with the aim of improving student social support systems.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological constructs in

8‐to 12‐year‐old Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 49-56.

Barker, E.T., & Galambos, N.L. (2003). Body dissatisfaction of adolescent girls and boys: Risk

and resource factors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(2), 141-165.

Bellmore, A.D., & Cillessen, A.H. (2006). Reciprocal influences of victimization, perceived

Social preference, and self-concept in adolescence. Self and identity, 5(3), 209-229.

Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265-277.

Bonanno, R.A., & Hymel, S. (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and

beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5),

685-697.

Boulton, M.J., Smith, P.K., & Cowie, H. (2010). Short-term longitudinal relationships

between children’s peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions evidence for

reciprocity. School Psychology International, 31(3), 296-311.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Brown, B.B., & Lohr, M.J. (1987). Peer-group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: An

integration of ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52(1), 47-55.

Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K.N. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but

how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber-bullying. School Psychology

International, 30(4), 383-402.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Colarossi, L.G., & Eccles, J.S. (2003). Differential effects of support providers on adolescents’

mental health. Social Work Research, 27(1), 19-30.

Conners-Burrow, N.A., Johnson, D.L., Whiteside-Mansell, L., McKelvey, L., & Gargus, R.A.

(2009). Adults matter: Protecting children from the negative impacts of bullying.

Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 593-604.

Craig, W.M., & Pepler, D.J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice.

Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 86-93.

Danielsen, A.G., Samdal, O., Hetland, J., & Wold, B. (2009). School-related social support and

Students’ perceived life satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 303-320.

Davidson, L.M., & Demaray, M.K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization

and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36(3),

383-405.

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.

Demaray, M.K., Malecki, C.K., Rueger, S.Y., Brown, S.E., & Summers, K.H. (2009). The role

of youth’s ratingsACCEPTED of the importance of socially MANUSCRIPT supportive behaviors in the relationship

between social support and self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 13-28.

Dijkstra, J. K., Cillessen, A. H., & Borch, C. (2013). Popularity and adolescent friendship

networks: Selection and influence dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 49(7), 1242.‏

Esbensen, F.A., Melde, C., Taylor, T.J., & Peterson, D. (2008). Active parental consent in

school-based research: How much is enough and how do we get it? Evaluation Review,

32, 335-362.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Espelage, D.L., Holt, M.K., & Henkel, R.R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual

effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74(1), 205-220.

Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (Eds.). (2011). Bullying in North American schools. New York:

Routledge.

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

Examining riskand protective factors. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,

9(2), 168-181.

Flaspohler, P.D., Elfstrom, J.L., Vanderzee, K.L., Sink, H.E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand

by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on

quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 636-649.

Fox, C.L., & Farrow, C.V. (2009). Global and physical self-esteem and body dissatisfaction as

mediators of the relationship between weight status and being a victim of bullying. Journal

of Adolescence, 32(5), 1287-1301.

Goodwin, R., Costa, P., & Adonu, J. (2004). Social support and its consequences: ‘Positive’ and

‘deficiency’ values and their implications for support and self‐ esteem. British Journal of

Social Psychology, 43(3), 465-474.

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier,ACCEPTED D., & Spiel, C. (2009). MANUSCRIPT Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:

Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of

Psychology, 217(4), 205-213.

Harter, S. (1985a). The self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Harter, S. (1985b). Manual for the social support scale for children. Denver, CO: University of

Denver.

Harter, S. (1990). Adolescent self and identity development. In S.S. Feldman & G.R. Elliott

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 352-387). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford

Press.

Harter, S. (2000). Is self-esteem only skin-deep? The inextricable link between physical

appearance and self-esteem. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 9(3), 133-138.

Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations.

New York: Guilford Press.

Harter, S., & Jackson, B.K. (1993). Young adolescents’ perceptions of the link between low self-

worth and depressed affect. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(4), 383-407.

Harter, S., Low, S.M., & Whitesell, N.R. (2003). What have we learned from Columbine: The

impact of the self-system on suicidal and violent ideation among adolescents. Journal of

School Violence, 2(3), 3-26.

Harter, S., & Marold, D. (1993). The directionality of the link between self-esteem and affect:

Beyond causal modeling. In D. Cicchetti & S.L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on

developmental psychology: Vol. 5. Disorders and dysfunctions of the self (pp. 333-379).

Rochester, NY: UniversityACCEPTED of Rochester Press. MANUSCRIPT

Harter, S., Marold, D.B., Whitesell, N.R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of

perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development,

67(2), 360-374.

Harter S., & Whitesell N.R. (2001). On the importance of importance ratings in understanding

adolescents’ self-esteem: Beyond statistical parsimony. In R.J. Riding & S.G. Rayner (Eds.),

Self perception (pp. 2-23). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hawker, D.S., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and

psychosocial maladjustment: a meta‐analytic review of cross‐sectional studies. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441-455.

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Haynie, D.L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A.D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B.

(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal of

Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-49.

Herman-Stahl, M., & Petersen, A.C. (1996). The protective role of coping and social resources

for depressive symptoms among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

25(6), 733-753.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding

to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hong, J.S., Kral, M.J., & Sterzing, P.R. (2014). Pathways from bullying perpetration,

victimization, and bully victimization to suicidality Among school-aged youth: A review of

the potential mediators and a call for further investigation. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,

1524838014537904.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ivarsson, T., Broberg, A. G., Arvidsson, T., & Gillberg, C. (2005). Bullying in adolescence:

Psychiatric problems in victims and bullies as measured by the Youth Self Report (YSR) and

the Depression Self-Rating Scale (DSRS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59(5), 365-373.‏

Jenkins, L.N., & Demaray, M.K. (2012). Social support and self-concept in relation to peer

victimization and peer aggression. Journal of School Violence, 11(1), 56-74.

Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J.B., & Patterson, C. (2000). Aggression and peer victimization as

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

predictors of self‐reported behavioral and emotional adjustment. Aggressive Behavior, 26(5),

345-358.

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contribution of

community, family and school variables on student victimization. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 34, 187-204.

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the

digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among

youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073 – 1137, doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.

Kubiszewski, V., Fontaine, R., Huré, K., & Rusch, E. (2013). Cyber-bullying in adolescents:

Associated psychosocial problems and comparison with ]. L'Encephale,

39(2), 77-84.

Kumpulainen, K., & Räsänen, E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school age:

Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence: an epidemiological sample. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 24(12), 1567-1577.

Laible, D.J., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S.C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The

role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviours. Journal of Adolescence,

27(6), 703-716. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MacGregor, E., & McNamara, J.R. (1995). Comparison of return procedures involving mailed

versus student-delivered parental consent forms. Psychological Reports, 77(3f), 1113-1114.

Milosevic, T. (2015). Cyberbullying in US mainstream media. Journal of Children and Media,

9(4), 492-509.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors

among middle and high school students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3),

362-374.

Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement

in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth Service Review, 34,

63-70.

Mishna, F., & Van Wert, M. (2015). Bullying in Canada. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University

Press.

Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s

perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228.

Mitchell, K. J., Jones, L. M., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Wolak, J. (2015, June 1). The Role of

Technology in Peer Harassment: Does It Amplify Harm for Youth?. Psychology of

Violence, doi.org/10.1037/a0039317.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).

Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial

adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094-2100.‏

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victimACCEPTED problems among MANUSCRIPT school-children: Basic facts and effects of a

school based intervention program. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development

and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 441-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520-538.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Orth, U., Robins, R.W., & Roberts, B.W. (2008). Low self-esteem prospectively predicts

depression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95(3), 695-708.

Orth, U., Robins, R.W., & Widaman, K.F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its

effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6),

1271-1288.

Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert

perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Peterson, C.H., Buser, T.J., & Westburg, N.G. (2010). Effects of familial attachment, social

support, involvement, and self-esteem on youth substance use and sexual risk taking. The

Family Journal, 18(4), 369-376.

Pepler, D. J., Connolly, J., & Craig, W.M. (1993). Safe School Questionnaire. Unpublished

Manuscript.

Pepler, D.J. (2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(1), 16-20.

Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Connolly, J., & Henderson, K. (2002). Bullying, sexual harassment,

dating violence, ACCEPTEDand substance use among MANUSCRIPT adolescents. In C. Wekerle & A. Wall (Eds.), The

violence and addiction equation: Theoretical and clinical issues in substance abuse and

relationship violence (pp. 153-168). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying

and associated factors. Child Development, 79(2), 325-338.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects

in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4),

717-731.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),

879-891.

Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among

adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575.

Rigby, K. E. N. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on

adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23(1), 57-68.‏

Roberts, D.F., & Foehr, U.G. (2008). Trends in media use. The Future of Children, 18(1), 11-37.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. Handbook of

Child Psychology and Developmental Science.‏ DOI: 10.1002/9781118963418.

Sakiz, G., Pape, S.J., & Hoy, A.W. (2012). Does perceived teacher affective support matter for

middle school students in mathematics classrooms?. Journal of School Psychology, 50(2),

235-255.

Schmidt, M.E., & Bagwell, C.L. (2007). The protective role of friendships in overtly and

relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(3), 439-460.

Schneider, S.K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R.W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school

bullying, andACCEPTED psychological distress: A MANUSCRIPT regional census of high school students. American

Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171-177.

Sheeber, L., Hops, H., Alpert, A., Davis, B., & Andrews, J. (1997). Family support and conflict:

Prospective relations to adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

25(4), 333-344.

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

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bullying perpetration in US children aged 10 to 17 years. American Journal of Public

Health, 102(12), 2280-2286.

Slee, P.T. (1995). Peer victimization and its relationship to depression among Australian

primary school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(1), 57-62.

Smetana, J.G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in

interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.

Smith, P. K. “Cyber Bullying and Cyber Aggression.” In Handbook of school violence and

school safety: International research and practice, edited by S.R. Jimerson, A. B.

Nickerson, M.J. Mayer, & M.J. Furlong, 93-103. New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith P.K., Del Barrio C., Tokunaga R.S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying:

How useful are the terms? In Bauman S., Cross D., Walker J. L. (Eds.), Principles of

cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology (pp. 26-40). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Tigges, B.B. (2003). Parental consent and adolescent risk behavior research. Journal of Nursing

Scholarship, 35(3), 283-289.

Toronto District School Board: The 2014 Learning Opportunities Index: Questions and Answers.

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/AboutUs/Research/LOI2014.pdfACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (2014). Accessed 19

August 2015.

Toronto District School Board: 2011-2012 Student & Parent Census Demographic Profile.

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/AboutUs/Research/2011-12CensusFactSheet1-

Demographics-17June2013.pdf (2013). Accessed 19 August 2015.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Undheim, A. M., & Sund, A. M. (2010). Prevalence of bullying and aggressive behavior and

their relationship to mental health problems among 12-to 15-year-old Norwegian

adolescents. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 19(11), 803-811.‏

Wolke, D., Skuse, D., & Reilly, S. (2006). The management of infant feeding problems. In P.J.

Cooper & A. Stein (Eds.), Childhood feeding problems and adolescent eating disorders

(pp.41-91). London: Routledge.

Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of Internet harassment

instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 189-

195.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1:

Indirect effect of social support on self-perception measures through traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Correlations among Study Variables (N=402) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1. Gender 1 2. Age .05 1 0 3. .10 .18 1 * ** Academic 1 0 achieveme nt 4. .01 - .00 1 Mother's 1 .17 7 ** education 6 5. Father's - - .09 .62 1 ** education .02 .06 7 1 9 0 6. Social .16 - .19 .04 .06 1 ** ** support 1 .04 3 7 4 1 7. .01 - - .01 .07 - 1 Traditi 8 .12 .02 6 2 .19 * ** onal 5 8 3 bullyin g victimi zation 8. .04 .04 - - - - .31 1 ** Cyberb 3 4 .06 .18 .07 .18 9 ** ** ullying 6 7 3 8 victimi zation 9. - .01 .02 - - - .35 .18 1 ** ** Traditi .03 2 4 .10 .04 .15 2 3 ** onal 5 2 0 7 bullyin ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT g perpetr ation 10. - .12 .43 .04 .07 .39 - - - 1 * ** ** Scholasti .07 5 3 6 0 2 .10 .09 .13 * ** c 5 7 5 5 competen ce 11. Social .04 .07 .16 .03 - .50 - - - .43 1 ** ** ** acceptanc 3 4 0 5 .00 8 .26 .16 .12 8 ** ** * e 4 5 7 2 12. - - .09 .02 .02 .33 - - - .35 .54 1 ** ** ** Athletic .14 .04 6 6 9 0 .13 .06 .09 2 3 ** ** competen 7 7 7 2 8 ce

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13. - - .06 .07 .04 .46 - - - .35 .47 .44 1 ** ** ** ** Physical .09 .29 0 0 9 6 .18 .13 .13 5 2 2 ** ** ** ** appearan 9 5 2 7 5 ce 14. .14 - .29 .04 - .52 - - - .52 .43 .22 .49 1 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Behaviou 3 .07 7 7 .03 3 .09 .08 .17 7 4 9 7 ** ral 7 9 7 2 7 conduct 15. - - .12 .05 .01 .55 - - - .48 .55 .43 .73 .62 1 * ** ** ** ** ** ** Global .00 .11 8 3 1 5 .20 .17 .08 3 9 8 1 2 * ** ** self- 2 0 1 7 4 worth * P < .05; **p < .001

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 Indirect effects: Coeffecient (B), Bootstrap SE and confidence interval

Indirect Effect 1 Indirect Effect2 Effect (Boot Boot-LLCI- Effect (Boot Boot-LLCI- SE) ULCI SE) ULCI Scholastic Competence -.005 (.017) -.042 to .001 .002 (.015) -.025 to .043

Social Acceptance .008 (.014) -.015 to .042 .037 (.020) .005 to .011

Athletic Competence -.014 (.016) -.010 to .019 .022 (.021) -.009 to .073

Physical Appearance -.006 (.019) -.051 to .025 .031 (.020) .001 to .093

Behavioural Conduct -.010 (.013) -.045 to .001 -.004 (.012) -.021 to .020

Global Self-Worth .008 (.017) -.015 to .051 .040 (.017) .001 to .071

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Mediation model results: Coefficient (B) and SE for independent, mediators and covariate variables

Cyberbullyi Traditiona Suppo Gend Age Academic Tradition ng l bullying rt er Achievem al victimizatio victimizati 0=M ent Bullying n on 1=F Perpetrati on Scholasti .022 (.058) -.007 (.044) .500 -.232 .033 .433 -.226 c (.069)** (.063)* (.021 (.054)*** (.088)** * ** ) Compete nce

Social -.035 (.056) -.151 (.042) .622 -.038 .019 .055 (.052) -.017 (.085)

Acceptan *** (.067)** (.061) (.020) * ce

Athletic .063 (.071) -.073 (.054) .531 -.308 -.029 .076 (.066) -.056 (.107)

Compete (.085)** (.077)** (.026) * * nce

Physical .028 (.064) -.128 .741 -.254 -.156 .034 (.059) -.142 (.096)

Appearan (.048)** (.069)** (.069) (.023) * *** *** ce ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Behaviou .046 (.050) .009 (.038) .620 .042 -.033 .219 (.047)*** -.229 ral (.060)** (.054) (.018) (.076)*** * Conduct

Global -.037 (.056) -.099 (.042)* .789 -.085 -.055 .058 (.051) .012 (.084)

Self- (.067)** (.060) (.020) * ** Worth

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

*P<.05 **p< .01 ***p<.001

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights  Adolescents with social support systems are less victimized and have higher levels of self-perception.  Traditional bullying victimization and cyberbullying victimization differ in their linkages with self-perception  Traditional bullying victimization is strongly associated with self-perception, whereas cyberbullying victimization is not.  Traditional bullying victimization mediates the association between social support and self-perception.  Interventions that bolster social support may buffer exposure to bullying victimization

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT