The phenomenon of bullying/victimization affects millions of students globally and is associated with enduring consequences and internalizing problems for all the participants. Drawing upon Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, this study examines the moderating effects of individual attributes (gender and educational stage) and environmental factors (social support size and social support satisfaction) on the relationship between self-efficacy and bullying/victimization involvement, to address a pervasive issue in schools. The sample consists of 1,178 Greek students, from the fifth and sixth grades of primary school and the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades of secondary school. Students completed measures of bullying/victimization, self-efficacy, and social support. Present findings suggest that both individual attributes and environmental factors may influence the relationship between self-efficacy and bullying involvement. Moreover, social support was found to have differential moderating effects for bullying and victimization, highlighting the importance of quality relationships in school. The implications of these findings are significant for educators, policymakers, and researchers alike. Understanding the moderating effects of gender, educational stage, and social support on the relationship between self-efficacy and bullying/victimization involvement can inform the design of targeted interventions.
AbbottN.CameronL.ThompsonJ. (2020). Evaluating the impact of a defender role-play intervention on adolescent’s defender intentions and responses towards name-calling. School Psychology International, 41(2), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319893410
2.
AndreouE.MetallidouP. (2004). The relationship of academic and social cognition in behavior in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000146421
3.
AntoniadouN.KokkinosC. M.MarkosA. (2016). Development, construct validation and measurement invariance of the Greek cyber-bullying/victimization experiences questionnaire (CBVEQ-G). Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.032
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
5.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy. Freeman.
6.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
BanduraA. (2010). Self-efficacy. In WeinerI. B.CraigheadW. E. (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 1–3). John Wiley & Sons.
9.
BanduraA.BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. V.PastorelliC. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01791.x
10.
BanduraA.CapraraG. V.BarbaranelliC.PastorelliC.RegaliaC. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.125
11.
BanduraA.WaltersR. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall.
12.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
BrethertonI. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333824
ColorossoB. (2003). The bully, the bullied and the bystander. Harper Colins.
17.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
18.
CohenS.GottliebB. H.UnderwoodL. G. (Eds.). (2000). Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. Oxford University Press.
CoyneI. (2010). Accessing children as research participants: Examining the role of gatekeepers. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(4), 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01012
21.
CraigW. M.PeplerD. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice. Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/cp2007010
22.
CrenshawK. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
23.
CrickN. R.GrotpeterJ. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131945
24.
CutronaC. E.SuhrJ. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936509201900200
25.
DemarayM. K.MaleckiC. 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, 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086213
DingY.LiD.LiX.XiaoJ.ZhangH.WangY. (2020). Profiles of adolescent traditional and cyber bullying and victimization: The role of demographic, individual, family, school, and peer factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106439
28.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42(7), 756–757.
29.
EvansC. B.FraserM. W.CotterK. L. (2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004
30.
EspelageD. L.SwearerS. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here?School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–383.
31.
FarringtonD. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In TonryM.MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 381–458). University of Chicago Press.
32.
FerreiraP. C.SimãoA. V.PaivaA.FerreiraA. (2020). Responsive bystander behaviour in cyberbullying: a path through self-efficacy. Behaviour& Information Technology, 39(5), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1602671
33.
FlaspohlerP. D.ElfstromJ. L.VanderzeeK. L.SinkH. E.BirchmeierZ. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20404
34.
GalandB.HospelV. (2013). Peer victimization and school disaffection: Exploring the moderation effect of social support and the mediation effect of depression. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 569–590.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02077.x
35.
GarandeauC. F.LeeI. A.SalmivalliC. (2014). Differential effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and unpopular bullies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.10.004
36.
GrahamA.PowellM. A.TaylorN. (2015). Ethical research involving children: Encouraging reflexive engagement in research with children and young people. Children & Society, 29(5), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12089
37.
HaraldstadK.KvarmeL. G.ChristophersenK. A.HelsethS. (2019). Associations between self-efficacy, bullying and health-related quality of life in a school sample of adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 19, 757.
38.
HarterS. (2012). Social support scale for children: Manual and questionnaires. University of Denver.
39.
HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
40.
HellfeldtK.GillP. E.JohanssonB. (2018). Longitudinal analysis of links between bullying victimization and psychosomatic maladjustment in Swedish schoolchildren. Journal of School Violence, 17(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1222498
41.
HughesJ. N.LuoW.KwokO.-M.LoydL. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
KafetsiosK.SideridisG. D. (2006). Attachment, social support and well-being in young and older adults. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(6), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105306069084
44.
KokkinosC. M.KipritsiE. (2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9
45.
KyriakidesL.KaloyirouC.LindsayG. (2006). An analysis of the revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X53499
46.
LiuY.YuX.AnF.WangY. (2023). School bullying and self-efficacy in adolescence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 95(8), 1541–1552. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12245
47.
NocentiniA.MenesiniE. (2016). KiVa anti-bullying program in Italy: Evidence of effectiveness in a randomized control trial. Prevention Science, 17, 1012–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0690-z
48.
OlweusD. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.
49.
OlweusD. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for students. University of Bergen.
50.
PajaresF.KranzlerJ. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1029
51.
PastorelliC.CarparaG. V.BarbaranelliC.RolaJ.RozsaS.BanduraA. (2001). The structure of children’s perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.17.2.87
PouwelsJ. L.van NoordenT. H.LansuT. A.CillessenA. H. (2018). The participant roles of bullying in different grades: Prevalence and social status profiles. Social Development, 27(4), 732–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12294
RunionsK. C.WongJ.PaceG.SalminI. (2021). Borderline personality disorder and peers: A scoping review of friendship, victimization and aggression studies. Adolescent Research Review, 6(4), 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-020-00137-y
56.
SarasonB. R.SarasonI. G.PierceG. R. (Eds.). (1990). Social support: An interactional view. John Wiley & Sons.
57.
SarasonI. G.SarasonB. R.ShearinE. N.PierceG. R. (1987). A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(4), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587044007
58.
Schultze-KrumbholzA.GöbelK.ScheithauerH.BrighiA.GuariniA.TsorbatzoudisH.BarkoukisV.PyżalskiJ.PlichtaP.Del ReyR.CasasJ. A.ThompsonF.SmithP. K. (2015). A comparison of classification approaches for cyberbullying and traditional bullying using data from six European countries. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.961067
59.
SharpS.SmithP.K.SmithP. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge.
60.
SmithP. K. (2011). Bullying in schools: Thirty years of research. In MonksC. P.CoyneI. (Eds.), Bullying in different contexts (pp. 36–60). Cambridge University Press.
61.
SolbergM. E.OlweusD. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(3), 239–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10047
62.
SwearerS. M.EspelageD. L.VaillancourtT.HymelS. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357622
63.
ThornbergR.WänströmL.PozzoliT. (2017). Peer victimisation and its relation to class relational climate and class moral disengagement among school children. Educational Psychology, 37(5), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1150423
TravlosA. K.TsorbatzoudisH.BarkoukisV.DoumaI. (2021). The effect of moral disengagement on bullying: Testing the moderating role of personal and social factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2262–2281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518760012
66.
TrompeterN.BusseyK.FitzpatrickS. (2018). Cyber victimization and internalizing difficulties: The mediating roles of coping self-efficacy and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46, 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0378-2
67.
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3. United Nations.
68.
VaillancourtT.BrittainH.FarrellA. H.KrygsmanA.VitoroulisI. (2023). Bullying involvement and the transition to high school: A brief report. Aggressive Behavior, 49, 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22082
69.
WangJ.IannottiR. J.NanselT. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
70.
WoodsS.DoneJ.KalsiH. (2009). Peer victimisation and internalising difficulties: The moderating role of friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.005
