TY - JOUR
T1 - Indirect versus verbal forms of victimization at school
T2 - The contribution of student, family, and school variables
AU - Attar-Schwartz, Shalhevet
AU - Khoury-Kassabri, Mona
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - The present study examines the correlates of indirect and verbal victimization by peers at school.The research is based on a nationally representative sample of 16,604 students in grades 7 through 11 in 324 schools across Israel. Self-administrated anonymous questionnaires were completed during class. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the relationships between students' victimization and student- and school-level variables. The study gives an indication of the importance of making distinctions between verbal victimization and indirect forms of victimization. For example, the findings indicate that boys reported more verbal and less indirect victimization than did girls. Students from schools with higher proportions of families of low socioeconomic status were more indirectly victimized but were less verbally victimized. However, the research also reveals some similarities between the patterns of relationships of the two victimization forms and certain correlates. Implications of understanding the differences between these two victirmization types are highlighted.
AB - The present study examines the correlates of indirect and verbal victimization by peers at school.The research is based on a nationally representative sample of 16,604 students in grades 7 through 11 in 324 schools across Israel. Self-administrated anonymous questionnaires were completed during class. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the relationships between students' victimization and student- and school-level variables. The study gives an indication of the importance of making distinctions between verbal victimization and indirect forms of victimization. For example, the findings indicate that boys reported more verbal and less indirect victimization than did girls. Students from schools with higher proportions of families of low socioeconomic status were more indirectly victimized but were less verbally victimized. However, the research also reveals some similarities between the patterns of relationships of the two victimization forms and certain correlates. Implications of understanding the differences between these two victirmization types are highlighted.
KW - Gender
KW - Indirect victimization
KW - School ecology
KW - Socioeconomic status
KW - Verbal victimization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58049206471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/swr/32.3.159
DO - 10.1093/swr/32.3.159
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:58049206471
SN - 1070-5309
VL - 32
SP - 159
EP - 169
JO - Social Work Research
JF - Social Work Research
IS - 3
ER -