Divergence in Self- and Peer-Reported Victimization and its Association to Concurrent and Prospective Adjustment
Previous studies on victimization have either used self-reports of peer-reports, but correspondence between these measures is low, implying that types of victims may exist that differ in convergence between self- and peer-reported victimization. Importantly, the very few studies that do exist on such types were cross-sectional, and did not address the stability nor predictive validity in terms of adjustment of these types. Using a person-centered approach, the present study identified types of victims that were either convergent or divergent in self- and peer-reported victimization, and examined how these types differed in concurrent and prospective adjustment. Participants were 1,346 adolescents (50 % girls, mean age 14.2) who were followed for 1 year. Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified two convergent types (self-peer identified victims and non-victims) and two divergent types (self-identified and peer-identified) of victims. The types were highly stable over time. Self-peer identified victims were not only concurrently but also prospectively the least well adjusted. Self-identified victims showed lower levels of emotional adjustment but did not show problems on social adjustment. On the other hand, peer-identified victims were at risk for social but not emotional maladjustment. The findings corroborate previous studies that suggest that self-reported victimization is related to emotional problems, while peer-reported victimization is more indicative of social problems. The findings also suggest that using self-reports or peer-reports only may lead to incomplete conclusions about victims’ adjustment on different domains.
KeywordsVictimization Multi-informant Self-reports Peer-reports Adjustment
- Archer, J., & Cote, S. (2005). Sex differences in aggressive behavior. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 425–443). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Bergman, L. R., Magnusson, D., & El-Khouri, B. M. (2003). Studying individual development: A person-oriented approach. In D. Magnusson (Series Ed.), Paths through life (Vol. 4, pp. 24–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2011). Jaarboek onderwijs in cijfers 2011. [Statistics Netherlands (2011). Yearbook education in numbers 2011.] Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/FC6D3388-0F9E-4129-8F2B-53022BA3F774/0/2011f162pub.pdf.
- Hymel, S., Wagner, E., & Butler, L. J. (1990). Reputational bias: View from the peer group. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 156–186). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Olweus, D. (1989). The Olweus Bully/victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norwegen: Mimeo.Google Scholar
- Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Wienke Totura, C. M., Green, A. E., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2009). Multiple informants in the assessment of psychological, behavioral, and academic correlates of bullying and victimization in middle school. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 193–211.Google Scholar