قربانی زورگویی و مشکلات عاطفی در نوجوانان: اعتدال استراتژی های خاص مقابله ای شناختی؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|36790||2014||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Adolescence, Volume 37, Issue 7, October 2014, Pages 1153–1160
Abstract Objective Relationships between bully victimization and symptoms of depression/anxiety were examined. In addition, it was studied whether this relationship was moderated by specific cognitive coping strategies. Methods Participants were 582 secondary school students who filled out online self-report questionnaires on bully victimization, cognitive coping, and depression/anxiety. (Moderated) Multiple Regression analysis was performed.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In Table 1 bully victimization characteristics of the participants are presented. In the first column the items of the Olweus Bully questionnaire are shown, reflecting the different forms of bullying; in the second column the mean scores of the items are presented; in the third column the percentages per item are given of the adolescents who were bullied two or three times per month or more (for this purpose the items were dichotomized). Table 1. Bully victimization characteristics of participants (N = 582). Bully victimization Mean and standard deviation per item (score range 1-5) Number/percentage that was bullied two or three times per month or more (adolescents with score 3,4, or 5) M (Sd) N (%) Bullied by being called mean names 1.71 (1.08) 90 (15.3%) Bullied by exclusion 1.30 (0.83) 35 (6.1%) Bullied by hitting, kicking etc 1.25 (0.75) 33 (5.7%) Bullied by lies/false rumors being told 1.44 (0.88) 56 (9.6%) Bullied by taking things away 1.13 (0.48) 11 (1.9%) Bullied by threatening/forcing 1.07 (0.34) 4 (0.7%) Bullied by comments about race/color 1.23 (0.68) 32 (5.5%) Bullied by sexual comments 1.20 (0.65) 25 (4.3%) Bullied via cell phone or internet 1.14 (0.52) 13 (2.2%) Number/percentage that was bullied two or three times per month or more by means of one or more of the above 137 (23.5%) Mean and Standard deviation of Bully victimization total score (9–45) 11.47 (4.05) Table options The type of bullying reported most often was bullied by being called mean names, followed by bullied by lies/false rumors being told. Significant gender differences were only found with regard to telling lies or false rumors: 12.9% of the girls versus 6.7% of the boys reported that they had experienced this type of bullying two or three times per month or more (χ2(1) = 6.36; p = .016; not in table). In total, 137 participants reported to have experienced one or more of the specific types of bullying at least two or three times per month. The mean total bully victimization score of the whole sample was 11.47 (Sd = 4.05), while the range of actual scores was from 9 to 45. The alpha reliability of the 9 bully items was .80. Table 2 presents the descriptives of the other study variables. Alpha reliabilities of the depression and anxiety scales were .93 and .90, respectively. The alpha reliabilities from the CERQ scales ranged from .72 to .82. Table 2. Descriptives and alpha reliabilities of depression, anxiety and cognitive coping scales (N = 582). M (Sd) Range Cronbach's α Depressive symptoms 21.12 (9.64) 14–70 .93 Anxiety symptoms 13.67 (5.61) 10–50 .90 Cognitive coping Selfblame 7.51 (3.01) 4–19 .74 Otherblame 6.29 (2.47) 4–20 .72 Acceptance 8.73 (3.39) 4–20 .72 Rumination 7.89 (3.52) 4–20 .82 Catastrophizing 6.33 (2.88) 4–20 .74 Planning 9.68 (3.78) 4–20 .82 Putting into Perspective 9.72 (3.90) 4–20 .77 Positive Reappraisal 9.23 (3.57) 4–20 .72 Positive Refocusing 9.83 (4.10) 4–20 .81 Table options Next, the bivariate relationships between the background variables (gender, age, life events) and symptoms of depression and anxiety were tested (no table). With regard to gender: T-tests pointed out that girls reported significantly more symptoms of depression and anxiety than boys (depression: t(578) = 5.36; p < .001; anxiety: t(578) = 4.25; p < .001). With regard to age: No significant relationships were found between age and symptoms of depression/anxiety (respectively r = −.01 for depression and r = −.03 for anxiety). With regard to life events: Significant positive Pearson correlations were found between ‘number of life events’ and symptoms of depression and anxiety (respectively r = .49 with depression and r = .50 with anxiety). Therefore, only gender and ‘number of life events’ were included as control variables in the Multiple Regression analysis (MRA). In addition, Table 3 presents the bivariate Pearson correlations among bully victimization total score, depression and anxiety symptoms and cognitive coping strategies. Correlations between bully victimization total score and depression/anxiety were .59 and .57, respectively. Bivariate correlations between cognitive coping strategies and depression ranged from −.03 (Positive refocusing) to .61 (Rumination). The same pattern was observed for the correlations between cognitive coping strategies and anxiety symptoms, ranging from −.01 (Positive Refocusing) to .55. The highest Pearson correlations (between .45 and .61) were found between cognitive coping strategies rumination, catastrophizing, and self-blame and both types of emotional problems: depression and anxiety. Other significant, but lower correlations with depression and anxiety were found for other-blame and acceptance (between .31 and .35). Although the correlations between planning and depression/anxiety also were significant (.16 and .14, respectively), they only explained a marginal amount of the variance. Also the Pearson correlations among cognitive coping strategies can be found in Table 3. Correlations ranged from .16 (catastrophizing and positive refocusing) to .68 (self-blame and rumination). Although the cognitive coping strategies were significantly related, there was no evidence of logical or statistical problems due to multicollinearity. In general, correlation values of .90 and higher are considered indicative of multicollinearity of the data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Table 3. Correlations among study variables (N = 582). 1 r 2 r 3 r 4 r 5 r 6 r 7 r 8 r 9 r 10 r 11 r 12 r 1 Bully victimization – 2 Depression .59*** – 3 Anxiety .57*** .87*** – Cognitive coping 4 Selfblame .36*** ..49*** .45*** – 5 Otherblame .26*** .32*** .33*** .36*** – 6 Acceptance .24*** .35*** .31*** .64*** .38*** – 7 Rumination .42*** .61*** .55*** .68*** .47*** .62*** – 8 Catastrophizing .41*** .53*** .52*** .53*** .50*** .49*** .63*** – 9 Planning .18*** .16*** .14** .51*** .46*** .58*** .52*** .35*** – 10 Putting into Perspective .04 .05 .04 .38*** .31*** .53*** .28*** .23*** .56*** 11 Positive Reappraisal .11** .04 .04 .41*** .35*** .56*** .36*** .30*** .70*** .67*** – 12 Positive Refocusing .03 −.03 −.01 .24*** .26*** .45*** .21*** .16*** .54*** ..57*** .60*** – ***: p < .001; **: p < .01; *: p < .05. Table options Subsequently, MRA was performed with depressive symptoms as outcome variable (Table 4). First, the background variables gender and ‘number of life events’ were entered into the regression analysis as the first block (method = enter), in order to control for these variables. Subsequently the variable bully victimization total score was entered. The nine cognitive strategies were entered as the third block (method = enter). Finally, the interaction effects between bully victimization and cognitive strategies were added (method = stepwise). The total model explained 63% of the variance of depressive symptoms (p < .001). Table 4. MRA on Depression and Anxiety, with interaction terms: method enter. Depression Anxiety β t β t Background variables Gender .09 3.41** .07 2.34* Life events .21 7.24*** .24 7.70*** Bully victimization .22 6.19*** .21 5.02*** Cognitive coping Selfblame .14 3.52*** .14 3.40** Otherblame .06 1.87 .10 2.75** Acceptance .02 0.47 −.02 −0.41 Rumination .28 6.24*** .22 4.42*** Catastrophizing .09 2.52* .08 1.99* Planning −.09 −2.12* −.10 −2.27* Putting into Perspective .01 0.34 −.01 −0.30 Positive Reappraisal −.17 −4.00*** −.16 −3.40** Positive Refocusing −.03 −0.85 .02 0.65 Significant moderators Bullied by rumination .13 3.99** .09 2.25* Bullied by Positive Refocusing −.08 −2.95** Bullied by Catastrophizing .14 3.34** Bullied by Positive Reappraisal −.10 −3.04** Model Explained variance (R2) F(14,526) = 67.94; p = .000 R2 = .63 F(15,561) = 51.24; p = .000 R2 = .58 ***: p < .001; **: p < .01; *:p < .05. Table options After partialling out the effects of gender, life events and cognitive strategies, bully victimization remained a significant direct predictor of depressive symptoms (p < .001). With regard to the cognitive strategies, significant (direct) positive ‘predictors’ of depressive symptoms were self-blame, rumination and catastrophizing (higher use of these strategies related to more depressive symptoms). Significant (direct) negative ‘predictors’ were planning and positive reappraisal (see Table 4). The first significant interaction effect that was found was: being bullied by rumination. To understand this effect the sample was divided in three equal sized groups on basis of their rumination scores (low, medium, high). In the low rumination group the Pearson correlation between bully victimization and depressive symptoms (corrected for gender and life events) was .20. In the medium rumination group the Pearson correlation was .35 and in the high rumination group the correlation was .55, showing that higher rumination strengthened the association between bully victimization and depressive symptoms. Also a significant (negative) interaction effect was found for being bullied by positive refocusing. Again, the sample was divided in three equal sized groups on basis of their positive refocusing scores. In the low positive refocusing group the correlation (corrected for gender and life events) was .60, in the medium positive refocusing group the correlation was .44 and in the high positive refusing group the correlation was .38. This indicated that higher positive refocusing lowered the association between bully victimization and depressive symptoms. Next, MRA was performed with anxiety symptoms as dependent variable (Table 4). After controlling for gender and life events in the first block, and entering the bully victimization total score in the second block, the nine cognitive strategies were entered. Direct, positive significant effects were found for self-blame, other-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing, whereas negative significant effects were found for planning and positive reappraisal. In the next block, the interaction effects were added (stepwise). The total model explained 58% of the variance of depressive symptoms (p < .001). Significant interaction were found for bully victimization with rumination, catastrophizing and positive reappraisal. With regard to the interpretation of the interaction effect of bully victimization and rumination: the sample was divided in three equal sized groups on basis of their rumination scores (low, medium, high). The following correlations were found in the low, medium and high rumination groups (after correction for life events and gender): .24, .37 and .44, showing that higher rumination also strengthened the association between bully victimization and anxiety symptoms. With regard to the interaction effect of bully victimization and catastrophizing, again the sample was divided in three equal sized groups (on basis of catastrophizing scores). The sample correlations were .21, .47, and .46 in the low, medium and high score groups, respectively, showing that both medium and high catastrophizing strengthened the association between bully victimization and anxiety symptoms. With regard to positive reappraisal, three equal sized groups were also created. Correlations between bully victimization and anxiety scores were .57 in the low group, .52 in the medium group, and .42 in the high score group. These results indicated that higher positive reappraisal lowered the association between bully victimization and anxiety.