UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Victimization and internalizing difficulties : the moderating role of social support Mahboubi, Maryam 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_february_mahboubi_maryam.pdf [ 1.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0362563.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0362563-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0362563-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0362563-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0362563-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0362563-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0362563-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0362563-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0362563.ris

Full Text

  VICTIMIZATION AND INTERNALIZING DIFFICULTIES: THE MODERATING ROLE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT  by Maryam Mahboubi  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Human Development, Learning and Culture)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver) December, 2017 © Maryam Mahboubi, 2017         ii Abstract Children and adolescents who are targets of peer victimization experience many negative developmental outcomes, including depression and anxiety, which can have lasting effects throughout their lives.  Researchers have sought to identify protective factors that lessen the negative impact of peer victimization on wellbeing.  Social support has been identified as one of the most significant protective factors.  Studies that examine the effect of social support from multiple sources on the wellbeing of students who are victimized by their peers have reported mixed results.  The present research addressed these inconsistent findings by extending the aspects of social support that are measured to include both source and type.  This study sought to answer three questions: (1) Does overall social support (regardless of type) from a) parents, b) teachers, c) classmates and d) close friends moderate the relation between overall victimization and depression and/or anxiety? (2) Does the type of social support provided (emotional, informational, appraisal and/or instrumental support) moderate the relation between victimization and depression and/or anxiety? (3) Does overall social support (regardless of type) from a) parents, b) teachers, c) classmates and/or d) close friends moderate the relation between different forms of victimization (verbal, social, physical and cyber) and depression and/or anxiety? Participants were 720 students in grades 4-7 who completed self-report measures of victimization experiences at school, perceived social support, and a screening index for depression and anxiety. Multiple regression analyses with predictors entered in blocks were run to explore the moderating role of social support in the relation between victimization and depression and/or anxiety. Results indicate that certain sources and types of social support moderate the relation between victimization and depression/anxiety, while other sources and types of social support are associated with higher depression/anxiety among 4th-7th    iii graders.  This held true when considering both overall victimization and various forms of victimization.  Results suggest that the moderating role of social support in the relation between victimization-depression and victimization-anxiety are distinct; when exploring the impact of social support from peers at school, classmates and close friends should be treated as distinct groups; social support from parents can have a positive impact on 4th-7th graders.                   iv Lay Summary Children and adolescents who are victimized by their peers can experience many negative health outcomes including depression and anxiety.  There is evidence in research that certain factors, including social support, can lessen the negative impact of bullying on victims.  It is not clear, however, which individuals in a victim’s network and which types of support are most helpful to early adolescent who are bullied.  The present study set out to identify the sources and types of support that can lessen the negative impact of bullying on middle school students.  Findings suggest that parents can play an important role in lessening the negative impact of victimization; that depression and anxiety are distinct and should be treated as thus in studies looking at the impact of bullying on middle school students; and finally that classmates and close friends are distinct groups that influence students differently and should therefore be treated as such in research.              v Preface This thesis is an original work of the author, Maryam Mahboubi.  Data for this study was collected as part of a larger, ongoing research project carried out by the Social Emotional Education and Development research group and supervised by Dr. Shelley Hymel. The UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) granted ethical approval for this research [UBC BREB #H15-03336].                    vi Table of Contents Abstract	....................................................................................................................................................	ii	Lay	Summary	.........................................................................................................................................	iv	Preface		.....................................................................................................................................................	v	Table	of	Contents	.................................................................................................................................	vi	List	of	Tables	......................................................................................................................................	viii	List	of	Figures	.........................................................................................................................................	x	Acknowledgements	.............................................................................................................................	xi	Introduction	...........................................................................................................................................	1	Literature	Review	.................................................................................................................................	2	Bully	Definition,	Prevalence	and	Stability	..............................................................................................	2	Outcomes	of	Peer	Victimization	.................................................................................................................	2	Protective	Factors	...........................................................................................................................................	4	Social	Support	...................................................................................................................................................................	5	The	Present	Study	..............................................................................................................................	14	Hypothesis	.......................................................................................................................................................	16	Method	...................................................................................................................................................	18	Participants	.....................................................................................................................................................	18	Procedure	........................................................................................................................................................	19	Measures	..........................................................................................................................................................	19	Demographic	information	.........................................................................................................................................	20	Victimization	...................................................................................................................................................................	20	Social	support	.................................................................................................................................................................	22	Depression	and	anxiety	..............................................................................................................................................	24	Results	....................................................................................................................................................	25	Plan	of	Analyses	.............................................................................................................................................	25	Descriptive	Statistics	...................................................................................................................................	25	Preliminary	Analysis	...................................................................................................................................	26	Sex	and	grade	differences	in	all	variables	..........................................................................................................	26	Correlation	analyses	....................................................................................................................................................	29	Testing	Assumptions	...................................................................................................................................	30	Multicollinearity	............................................................................................................................................................	30	Independence	of	errors	..............................................................................................................................................	31	Normality	..........................................................................................................................................................................	31	Homoscedasticity	..........................................................................................................................................................	31	Primary	Analyses	..........................................................................................................................................	31	Significant	sources	of	social	support	....................................................................................................................	31		 Depression		.................................................................................................................................................................	33		 Anxiety		.........................................................................................................................................................................	39		 Significant	types	of	social	support	.........................................................................................................................	45	   vii Anxiety	..........................................................................................................................................................................	45	Depression	..................................................................................................................................................................	55		Significant	source	of	support	for	each	form	of	victimization	.....................................................................	63	Discussion	.............................................................................................................................................	75	Significant	Sources	and	Types	Support	.................................................................................................	75	Depression	.......................................................................................................................................................................	75	Anxiety	...............................................................................................................................................................................	77	Social	Support	and	Different	Forms	of	Victimization	.......................................................................	79	Strengths	and	Limitations	..........................................................................................................................	81	Implications	and	Conclusion	.....................................................................................................................	83	References	............................................................................................................................................	85	Appendices	...........................................................................................................................................	99	Appendix	A:	2016	School	Climate	Survey	.............................................................................................	99	                    viii List of Tables Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Independent, Moderator and Dependent Variables  .............. 26 Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Independent, Moderator and Dependent Variables ....... 30 Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Parent Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex  ............................................................................ 32 Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Teacher Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 35 Table 5. Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Depression from Friend Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 37 Table 6. Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Depression from Classmate Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 38 Table 7. Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Anxiety from Classmate Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 40 Table 8. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Parent Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 42 Table 9. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Teacher Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 43 Table 10. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Close Friend Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 44 Table 11. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Emotional Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 46 Table 12. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Appraisal Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 48 Table 13. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Informational Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 51 Table 14. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Instrumental Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 53 Table 15. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Emotional Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 56 Table 16. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Informational Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ........................................................................ 57 Table 17. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Appraisal Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ............................................................................. 58 Table 18. Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Instrumental Support and its Interaction Terms with Victimization and Sex ........................................................................ 59 Table 19. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Depression from Four Sources of Support and Physical Victimization for Girls ........................................................................... 65 Table 20. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Anxiety from Four Sources of Support and Physical Victimization for Girls ............................................................................... 66 Table 21. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Depression from Four Sources of Support and Social Victimization for Girls .............................................................................. 67 Table 22. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Anxiety from Four Sources of Support and Social Victimization for Girls .................................................................................. 68 Table 23. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Anxiety from Four Sources of Support and Physical Victimization for Boys ............................................................................... 70    ix Table 24. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Depression from Four Sources of Support and Verbal Victimization for Boys ............................................................................. 71 Table 25. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Depression from Four Sources of Support and Social Victimization for Boys .............................................................................. 72 Table 26. Results of Regression Analysis Exploring Variance in Depression from Four Sources of Support and Cyber Victimization for Boys .............................................................................. 73                        x List of Figures Figure	1.	Parent	Support	and	Victimization	as	Predictors	of	Depression	for	Male	and	Female	10	to	13-	Year-Old	students		..........................................................................................................................................................	34	Figure	2.	Parent	Support	and	Victimization	as	Predictors	of	Depression	for	Male	and	Female	10	to	13-	Year-Old	students		..........................................................................................................................................................	34	Figure	3.	Classmate	Support	and	Victimization	as	Predictors	of	Anxiety	for	Male	and	Female	1-	to	13-Year-Old	Students		...........................................................................................................................................................	41	Figure	4.	Interaction	of	Emotional	Support,	Victimization	and	Anxiety	.........................................................	47	Figure	5.	Interaction	of	Appraisal	Support,	Victimization	and	Anxiety	..........................................................	49	Figure	6.	Interaction	of	Informational	Support,	Victimization	and	Anxiety		................................................	52	Figure	7.	Interaction	of	Instrumental	Support,	Victimization	and	Anxiety		..................................................	54	Figure	8.	Interaction	of	Emotional	Support,	Victimization	and	Depression		................................................	61	Figure	9.	Interaction	of	Informational	Support,	Victimization	and	Depression		.........................................	61	Figure	10.	Interaction	of	Appraisal	Support,	Victimization	and	Depression		...............................................	61	Figure	11.	Interaction	of	Instrumental	Support,	Victimization	and	Depression	........................................	62	                   xi Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Shelley Hymel for her guidance, support and belief in my capacity to complete this thesis, without which I may not have had the courage to do so.  Also to Dr. Amery Wu for her support. I would like to express my appreciation to my husband Sabba, my parents, my friends for their support and encouragement, to Farzin for his wise guidance and finally to Christian.                     1 Introduction Being the target of peer victimization is humiliating and painful, and can have lifelong consequences.  “It is a fundamental democratic right for a child to feel safe in school and to be spared the oppression and repeated, intentional humiliation implied in bullying” (Olweus, 1999).  Over the past ten years, statements expressing similar sentiments to this have become more and more prevalent worldwide - in the media, among education authorities, global organizations, political figures and concerned citizens (Pepler, 2014; “UN Envoy Calls for,” 2015; Stopbullying.gov, 2015).  In fact, efforts to eliminate or reduce bullying have been ongoing for decades.  Despite such efforts, there are mixed results and conflicting opinions on whether levels of bullying have changed over the years.  In a review of studies that took place in 27 countries in intervals between 1990 and 2009, Rigby and Smith (2011) reported that the general level of bullying among youth has decreased in some but not all countries.   Often, education authorities rely on research to inform the legislations that are put in place to address bullying in schools (Pepler, 2014).  One primary concern within the bullying literature is the plight of children who are victimized through bullying.  As is demonstrated in the review to follow, victims of bullies are at increased risk for a number of mental health difficulties, including anxiety and depression (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015). Among other things, one factor that has been found to be a buffer the link between peer victimization and depression and anxiety is the availability of social support.  Of interest in the present study was which sources and types of social support best moderated the levels of depression and anxiety in victims of bullying.      2 Literature Review Bullying Definition, Prevalence and Stability Bullying is a form of interpersonal violence characterized by an imbalance of strength or power, repetition, and the intentional infliction of harm.  That is, bullying occurs when a person(s) is exposed over time to repeated, intentional infliction or attempted infliction of injury or discomfort in a relationship marked by a disparity of power (Olweus, 1993).  The reported prevalence rates of victimization differ across countries, studies and age groups, ranging from 8% - 31% (Cassidy, 2008; Dulmus, Sowers, & Theriot, 2006; Hazemba, Siziya, Muula, & Rudatsikira, 2008; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Kochenderfer, & Ladd, 1996; Perkins, Craig & Perkins, 2011; Seals & Young, 2003; Wolke, Woods, Stanford & Schulz, 2001).  Although peer victimization is generally considered a stable experience, stability varies as a function of data collection methodology (e.g. self-report, peer-report, teacher report etc.), duration of study and age of victim (Hymel & Swearer, 2015).  While peer victimization is a less stable experience among younger children (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop, 2001), it becomes a stable experience by middle elementary school over both shorter periods of 4 to 5 months (Ostrov, 2008), and longer periods of 1 to 2 years (Pouwels, Souren, Lansu, & Cillessen, 2016; Yeaung & Leadbeater, 2010).  Drawing on adolescent and pre-adolescent reports of bullying and harassment on the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey, Beran (2008) found that roughly 50% of students who reported bullying or harassment in one school year, also reported bullying or harassment in the subsequent school year.  Outcomes of Peer Victimization The negative developmental outcomes experienced by victims of bullying are well documented (see McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015, for a review).  They include detrimental    3 effects on academic functioning (e.g., Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Juvonen, Wang, & Espinoza, 2011; Kochenderfer, & Ladd, 1996; Smith et al., 2004) , physical health (e.g., Gini, Pozzoli, Lenzi, & Vieno, 2014; Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly, 2007; Rigby, 1999; Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall, 2013), social relationships (e.g., Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Hodges & Perry, 1999; Scholte, Engels, Overbeek, de Kemp, & Haselager, 2007; Smith et al. 2004), and self-perceptions (Boulton, Smith, & Cowie, 2010; Esbensen, & Carson, 2009; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Paul & Cillesen, 2003).  Peer victimization has also been linked to mental health difficulties.  Specifically, victimized children and youth are at greater risk for externalizing problems (e.g., Haltigan & Vaillancourt, 2014; Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Reijntjes et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2004), including aggression, delinquency, misconduct, and attention problems (Reijntjes et al., 2011), conduct problems (Smith et al., 2004), and bullying others (Haltigan & Vaillancourt, 2014; Smith et al., 2004).  Victimization is also associated with negative behavior towards self, including self-harm (Lereya et al., 2013), suicidal ideation and attempted suicide (Bonanno & Hymel, 2010; Brunstein, Sourander, & Gould, 2010).  Some of these problems can continue to manifest years later (Hanish & Guerra, 2002).   Peer victimized children and adolescents also demonstrate greater internalizing difficulties (Reijntjes, Kamphius, Prinzie & Telch, 2010).  Specifically, children who were victimized in elementary school have reported greater feelings of loneliness (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000), more negative affect (Dill, Vernberg, Fonagy, Twemlow, & Gamm, 2004) and greater anxiety (Averdijk, Muller, Eisner & Ribeaud, 2011).  As with children, adolescents experiencing stable victimization also reported greater anxiety and withdrawal (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001).  In fact, Averdijk et al. (2011) found that victimization can    4 predict anxiety up to four years later, when children experience more frequent victimization or victimization in multiple forms. Depression is also an observed correlate of victimization (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015) and the experience of depression can be long-term (Hanish & Guerra, 2002).  In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 longitudinal studies of children and adolescents, Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel and Loeber, (2011) found that the probability of experiencing depression up to 36 years later is much higher for victims of bullying than for non-involved students.  This relationship held true even after controlling for a great number of pre-existing risk factors.  Moreover, the relationship between victimization and depression later in life was stronger the younger children were when they experienced victimization. Protective Factors In addition to seeking to understand the negative outcomes of victimization, researchers have sought to identify possible protective factors that can lessen the negative impact of victimization.  The trajectories to maladaptive (or adaptive) outcomes followed by victims are not homogenous.  In addition to the stability and repetitiveness of victimization, which influences the extent to which certain outcomes manifest themselves (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Smith et al. 2004), other factors and conditions in the victims’ lives can influence the way in which victims of bullying are impacted.  Examples of protective factors that may exist in the victims’ life and which can affect their trajectory include high achievement in school, good social skills, stable family structure, and good parental monitoring (Ttofi, Bowes, Farrington & Losel, 2014).  Moreover, research suggests that the impact of victimization may be lessened when contextual factors allow problem behaviors such as victimization to be interpreted as normative within that context (Bellmore, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2004; Graham &    5 Juvonen, 2002).  One of the most significant protective factors for victimized youth, however, is the availability of social support from parents, teachers, siblings, and close friends (Ttofi et al., 2014), the focus of the present study.  Social support. Social support has been positively and causally associated with mental health, physical health and longevity (Thoits, 2011).  For decades, researchers have studied the effect of social support on the wellbeing of individuals faced with life stressors (Thoits, 1995, 2011).  More recently, the influence of social support on the outcomes of specific life stressors has been explored, including peer victimization.  While definitions and measures of social support vary across studies, the majority of studies assess perceived social support, as opposed to actual social support, owing in large part to evidence that perceived social support is more strongly associated with wellbeing (Chu, Saucier & Hafner, 2010) and has a greater impact on mental health than the receipt of social support (Thoits, 1995).   A number of studies have examined whether social support buffers the relation between peer victimization and negative health outcomes.  Of relevance to the present study is research examining the role of social support in the link between peer victimization and internalizing difficulties, specifically depression and anxiety.  Studies investigating the moderating role of social support on the association between peer victimization and depression have yielded mixed results.  Thus far, these studies have explored the differential influence of social support received from various sources.  Some studies have shown that social support from parents is associated with a decrease in reported depression among victimized children (Averdijk, Eisner & Ribeaud, 2014), pre-adolescents (Conner-Burrow et al., 2009), particularly pre-adolescent girls (Davidson & Demaray, 2007) and adolescents (Conner-Burrow et al., 2009; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010; Holt & Espelage, 2007).  However, other studies have found no buffering influence of parent    6 social support (Bilsky et al., 2013; Rigby, 2000; Viviano, 2014) or buffering influence in the opposite direction, where social support from parents is associated with an increase in victims’ reported depression (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011; Yeung & Leadbeater 2013).   Equally unclear have been the results from studies looking at peer social support.  Whereas high peer support has been associated with decreased reported depression among victimized pre-adolescents (Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo, & Riser, 2011) and adolescents (Cooley, Fite, Rubens, & Tunno, 2015), other studies have found no moderating influence of peer support on depression among victims of peer harassment (Rigby, 2000; Viviano, 2014).  Still other studies have found high emotional peer support to be associated with increases in reported depression among victimized adolescents (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011; Holt & Espelage, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2013).  Inconsistent outcomes have also been observed across studies examining the links between victimization and teacher social support (Averdijk, Eisner & Ribeaud, 2014; Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Rigby, 2000; Yeung, & Leadbeater, 2010; Viviano, 2014).   Similarly, studies examining the moderating influence of social support on the link between victimization and anxiety have also yielded mixed outcomes.  For children, parent and teacher social support and the mere presence of siblings have been found to have a moderating influence (Averdijk, Eisner, & Ribeaud, 2014) associated with less severe anxiety.  For pre-adolescent girls, parental social support buffered the association between victimization and anxiety, predicting lower levels of anxiety (Baldry, 2004; Davidson & Demaray, 2007), whereas for pre-adolescent boys, teacher, classmate and school support were associated with less anxiety among victimized youth (Davidson & Demaray, 2007).  For adolescents, one study found that greater peer social support was associated with higher, not lower, reported anxiety (Holt &    7 Espelage, 2007).  Other studies found no moderating influence of peer support on the association between victimization and anxiety among adolescents (Rigby, 2000; Viviano, 2014).   Interestingly, of the five studies reported above that found no moderating influence or a negative moderating influence of social support on the link between victimization and depression or anxiety, three of the studies reported limited internal consistency for one or more measures of social support that they used.  Specifically, Holt and Espelage (2007) reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.66 for their measure of peer social support among middle schoolers, Desjardins and Leadbeater (2011) reported coefficient alphas ranging from 0.66 – 0.70 for their peer support measure and, Rigby (2000) reported alphas of 0.69 for all five source of social support.  The moderate internal consistency of the measures may have weakened the power of the tests to detect a true interaction and may therefore be partially responsible for the outcomes observed.  Perhaps more importantly, the type of social support assessed has varied across the studies reviewed above.  For example, Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo and Riser (2011) appear to measure emotional and informational support, while Holt and Espelage (2007) measure emotional and instrumental support.  Papafratzeskakou et al. found peer social support was associated with decreased reported depression among adolescents, whereas Holt and Espelage found the opposite to be true for adolescents, with peer social support associated with increases in reported depression.  At the same time, Holt and Espelage found that social support from parents was associated with decreased reported depression among adolescents, whereas Bilsky et al., (2013) found no buffering effects of parent support on the relationship between victimization and depression.  Bilsky et al. state that they are measuring emotional support, but the items in their measure reflect aspects of emotional, instrumental, appraisal and informational support.  These different conceptualizations of social support potentially tap into different aspects of    8 support, which may relate to wellbeing differently (Chu, Saucier & Hafner, 2010).   Indeed, it may not be only the source of social support that matters but also the type of support provided by significant others.  Therefore, it is important for studies of social support to use measures that distinguish the types of social support tapped.  More recent studies have begun to consider types of social support provided, with particular focus on emotional support, as described in more detail below. To date only three research papers have explored the buffering effects of emotional support on the link between victimization and internalizing problems.  All three papers drew from the same larger data set.  Yeung and Leadbeater (2010; 2013) and Desjardins and Leadbeater (2011) investigated the influence that various sources of emotional support have on negative emotional outcome(s) in victimized adolescents, concurrently and across time in a sample containing both pre-adolescent and adolescents, aged 12 to 18 at the time of the first data collection.  Yeung and Leadbeater (2010) examined emotional support from mothers, fathers and teachers at two time points that were two years apart, whereas Desjardins and Leadbeater (2011) and Yeung and Leadbeater (2013) compared emotional support from mothers, fathers and peers at three time points, each two years apart.  While all three research papers examined depression in relationally victimized adolescents, Yeung and Leadbeater’s (2010; 2013) samples also included physically victimized adolescents.  Further, they assessed anxiety as well as depression as an emotional outcome, henceforth referred to as internalizing symptoms. Results of each study are described below. Using multiple linear regression analyses, Desjardins and Leadbeater (2011) found that (1) low or average levels of father emotional support resulted in increased depressive symptoms in relationally victimized adolescents two years after victimization, whereas high levels of father    9 emotional support buffered this relationship and prevented an increase in depressive symptoms after two years, and (2) average or high levels of mother and peer emotional support was associated with increased levels of depression two years later among relationally victimized adolescents, whereas low levels of mother and peer emotional support was not associated with increased levels of depression after a two-year period.   Using hierarchical regression analyses, Yeung and Leadbeater (2010) found that (1) emotional support from teachers, at both high or low levels, buffered the association between relational victimization and internalizing symptoms after two years, predicting lower levels of reported depression and anxiety in relationally victimized students, and (2) high levels of mother emotional support moderated the relation between physical victimization and internalizing symptoms concurrently, predicting lower levels of depression and anxiety among physically victimized students.  Unlike Desjardins and Leadbeater, Yeung and Leadbeater found no moderating influence of father or mother emotional support on relational victimization and internalizing symptoms.  While the two studies used the same dataset, for the assessment of internalizing problems Desjardins and Leadbeater used only a depression subscale of the emotional problems scale for their paper, while Yeung and Leadbeater used both the depression and anxiety subscales of the emotional problems scale.  Considering that the buffering influence of parental support on the relation between victimization and anxiety in adolescents has not been demonstrated empirically, one possible explanation for the inconsistency across the two research papers is that parental emotional support had the greatest influence on depression and that the inclusion of anxiety in the measure of emotional problems in the Yeung and Leadbeater study neutralized the effect of parental emotional support on depression in the outcome.  This may account for the fact that Yeung and Leadbeater did not replicate Desjardins and Leadbeater’s    10 finding demonstrating the moderating role of mother and father emotional support on the association between relational victimization and internalizing symptoms.  Drawing from the same larger data set as the two Leadbeater studies cited above, in a later paper Yeung and Leadbeater (2013) made a distinction between early adolescents (12 – 15 year olds) and late adolescents (16 – 18 year olds) in their sample and treated each group as a separate population for the analyses.  In addition to this, they explored sex differences in the relationships observed.  Yeung and Leadbeater (2013) found that: (1) For early and late adolescent boys, higher levels of friend emotional support buffered the positive relationship of both physical and relational victimization with depression and anxiety, predicting lower levels of reported depression and anxiety in victimized male adolescents. (2) For early adolescent girls, higher levels of friend emotional support increased the influence of physical victimization on depression and anxiety, predicting higher levels of depression and anxiety. (3) For early adolescent girls, higher levels of mother emotional support buffered the positive link between physical victimization and depression and anxiety, predicting lower levels of depression and anxiety.  (4) For early adolescent boys, higher levels of father emotional support increased the influence of relational victimization on internalizing symptoms, predicting higher levels of reported depression and anxiety whereas, for late adolescent boys, higher levels of father emotional support buffered the positive link between physical victimization and internalizing symptoms, predicting lower levels of reported depression and anxiety.   Although the findings reported in these three papers are complex, they point to the need to look at differences across sex, age groups (pre-adolescents and adolescents), form of victimization, source of social support, and type of social support.  These three research papers were the first to consider both source and type of social support as a moderator of the link    11 between victimization and indices of wellbeing.  To build on these findings the present study considered four different types of support:  emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support.  Emotional support refers to expressions of empathy, love and trust; instrumental support reflects in helping behaviors; informational support takes the form of offering advice and appraisal support refers to evaluative feedback.  As demonstrated in the review above, if measures of social support do not distinguish the types of support provided, they risk tapping into different aspects of support which may relate to wellbeing differently and paint a confusing picture of the role of social support in buffering the effects of victimization on wellbeing.  To address the need for a measure that clearly distinguishes types of social support, the present study assessed social support using the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki, Demaray, Elliot, 2000), a multidimensional measure that applies a definition of social support tied to the five primary elements of social support identified theoretically by Tardy (1985).  Tardy proposed that, rather than coming to an agreement on a single conceptualization of social support, researchers should recognize and discuss the issues involved in defining the concept of social support.  To this end, Tardy identified several primary elements of social support that merit consideration: direction, description and evaluation, disposition, content, and network.   Direction refers to giving versus receiving social support; researchers must decide to investigate one or both of these.  Disposition refers to the availability of support versus the utilization of support.  For the element of description vs. evaluation, the former describes social support available, the latter involves an evaluation of one’s satisfaction with social support.  Tardy groups these two aspects together to highlight their distinction.  With regard to content, Tardy distinguishes four types of support: emotional (empathy, love, trust), instrumental (helping behaviors), informational (advice) and appraisal (evaluative feedback).     12 According to Tardy, these four types of support account for most support content.  Network refers to the individuals providing and receiving support.  Tardy lists the following as possible members of a network: family, close friends, neighbours, co-workers, community and professionals.  When discussing receipt of support, the term “source of support” is often used to refer to those from whom support is received or available.  Of primary interest in the present study is the source and type or form of social support that students perceive to be available to them. The CASSS measures perceived informational, instrumental, appraisal and emotional support available from parents, teachers, classmates, close friends and people in my school.  Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scores range from 0.88 to 0.96 for each of the subscales of the CASSS.  While there are a fair number of peer victimization studies that have used the CASSS to measure social support (Conner-Burrow et al. 2009; Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Johnson, Whitedise, Mansell, McKelvey, & Gargus 2009; Tennant, Demaray, Coyle & Malecki, 2013), none of these studies have investigated the differential moderating role of emotional, instrumental, informational and/or appraisal support on the links between victimization and depression or anxiety.  Malecki and Demaray (2003) have, however, examined which of these types of support students most frequently perceived from their parents, teachers, classmates and close friends.  They found that, of the four types of support, students perceived teachers as most likely to provide informational support, and parents as most likely to provide both emotional and informational support, whereas peers (classmates and friends) were perceived as providing primarily emotional and instrumental support.  A study conducted with adolescents in Spain found similar results (Hombrados-Mendieta, Gomez-Jacinto, Dominguez-Fuentes, Garcia-Leiva, & Castro-Travé, 2012).  Of interest in the present study was whether and how these different    13 types and sources of support influence the links between peer victimization and reports of anxiety and/or depression.                          14 The Present Study The primary goal of the present research was to extend existing literature by examining, in one study, the buffering effects of various types of social support and the social support available from multiple sources in the social networks of pre-adolescent students.  Pre-adolescents were the focus of the present study in light of evidence showing that peer victimization peaks during the middle school years (see Hymel & Swearer, 2015, for a review) putting this age group at the highest risk for experiencing the negative consequences of victimization.    Specifically, the present study first explored student perceptions of support available from parents, teachers and peers as possible buffers of the impact of victimization on both anxiety and depression.  Peer support was examined by measuring both classmate and close friend support.  This distinction among peer subgroups is important, given research by Malecki and Elliot (1999) suggesting that classmates and close friends are distinct groups, offering different levels of support across the age span of a student.   The present study also examined the buffering effect of each of the four sources of social support on the links between various forms of victimization and depression and anxiety.  Specifically, the study evaluated the potential buffering effect of parent, teacher, classmate and close friend support on the links between anxiety/depression and verbal, social, physical and cyber victimization, each considered separately.  Although previous research has considered the buffering effect of social support on various forms of victimization and wellbeing (Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010, 2013), these studies considered only relational and physical victimization, the present study extended previous research by considering the four forms of victimization prevalent in the bullying literature (see Hymel & Swearer, 2015 for a review).    15 Subsequent analyses examined variations in the type of support provided, considering emotional, informational, appraisal and instrumental support.  Although previous research has considered more global indices of support (e.g., Averdijk, Eisner & Ribeaud, 2014; Conner-Burrow et al., 2009) or have focused on emotional support (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010, 2013), the present study extended previous research by considering each of the four types of support identified by Tardy (1985) – emotional, informational, instrumental and appraisal support.  It is beyond the scope of this study to examine at the same time the differential effect of various sources and types of social support, and different forms of victimization, given the limits of sample size.  Therefore, initial analyses explored the moderating effect of different sources of social support on overall victimization and on each form of victimization and their links to depression and anxiety.  Subsequent analyses explored whether different types of social support moderated the link between victimization and depression and anxiety, as detailed below.  In this connection, the research questions for the present study include the following: 1. Does overall social support (regardless of type of support) from a) parents, b) teachers, c) classmates and d) close friends moderate the relation between overall victimization (operationalized as a composite of different forms of victimization) and depression and/or anxiety? 2. Does social support from a) parents, b) teachers, c) classmates and d) close friends moderate the relation between different forms of victimization (verbal, social, physical and cyber) and depression and/or anxiety?    16 3. Do a) emotional, b) informational, c) instrumental and d) appraisal support (regardless of source) moderate the relation between overall victimization (operationalized as a composite of different forms of victimization) and depression and/or anxiety? Hypotheses  Most previous studies of social support, peer victimization and wellbeing have looked at pre-adolescents and adolescents as one group.  However, Yeung and Leadbeater’s (2013) treatment of these two age groups as distinct brought to light the differential effect of social support on the wellbeing of victims of peer harassment in each age group.  A clearer picture of the role of social support in the mental wellbeing of targets of peer victimization begins to emerge when the studies that consider early adolescents only are examined.  Specifically, social support from parents, peers, teachers and the school was found to buffer the effects of peer victimization on depression and anxiety in early adolescents (Baldry, 2004; Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo & Riser, 2011; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2013).  While some studies found the buffering effects to differ between boys and girls (Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2013), other studies found no differences based on sex (Baldry, 2004; Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo & Riser, 2011).  It is hypothesized, therefore, that the initial analyses will demonstrate that parent, teacher and peer support each serve as a moderator between victimization and depression and anxiety in pre-adolescents..  Considering that to date only the Leadbeater and colleagues study (2010/2011/2013) has explored the moderating effect of type and source of social support on the wellbeing of victimized pre-adolescents, but focused on emotional support only, the data available does not    17 allow for any sound hypothesis to be put forth regarding the type of social support that may act as a moderator for victimization and depression and anxiety.  Subsequent analyses, examining the impact of various sources of social support across different forms of victimization and depression and anxiety, were exploratory, with no differential hypotheses specified.  Although a number of the studies reviewed above included assessments of multiple forms of victimization, with the exception of Yeung and Leadbeater (2013) and Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo and Riser (2011), all other studies of pre-adolescents used a composite score of victimization for their analyses.  No clear pattern emerges from the two studies that do examine various forms of victimization.  This question too remains exploratory.                 18 Method Data for the proposed study were collected in the spring of 2016 as part of the School Climate and Bullying Research Project, an ongoing, collaborative research project looking at the relationships between bullying and school climate in schools across the lower mainland of British Columbia, Canada.  Dr. Shelley Hymel and her research team at the Social Emotional Education and Development Research lab initiated this research in the 2009/2010 school year.  As part of this ongoing research, students in participating schools are asked to complete self-report measures of school climate, school bonding, and bullying and victimization (as described below) each year.  Of interest in the proposed research are the student reports of peer victimization. In addition, in the 2016 data collection, students were also asked to complete self-report measures of perceived social support, as well as a screening index of depression and anxiety, as described below.   The research was approved by the UBC Behavioral Ethics Board as well as the Burnaby school district of the lower mainland of British Columbia, and principals in participating schools.  A copy of the approval certificate from the UBC Behavioral Ethics Board is provided in Appendix A. Participants The sample for the present study consists of 720 students enrolled in six elementary schools in the Burnaby district in British Columbia, Canada.  The participants were students from grades 4-7 (age 10-13), with 367 boys and 353 girls.  The sample was predominantly Asian (43%), followed by Caucasian (17%), South Asian (15%), of mixed descent (13%), Middle Eastern (3%), Latin American (3%), Aboriginal (2%), African/Caribbean (2%), and other (2%).     19 Procedure As part of the ongoing 2016 School Climate and Bullying Research Project participant in the present study completed measures of (a) bullying/victimization, (b) school climate, (c) school bonding, (d) social support, and (e) depression and anxiety.  The proposed study explores the relations among reported victimization, perceived social support, and self-reported levels of depression and anxiety.  Each of the measures included in the proposed study is described in detail below At the request of administrators in the Burnaby School District, and with approval from the UBC Behavioral Ethics Committee, passive consent procedures were used, given that the findings from the larger School Climate and Bullying study were considered part of the schools’ own self-evaluation.  Parents were informed of the research and were given the option of requesting that their child not participate in the study.  Informed assent was obtained from all participating students.  Students were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Trained research assistants administered paper-and-pencil surveys in the classroom setting at a time arranged with teachers.  Completion of the survey required approximately 60 minutes of school time.  Measures  As in previous years of this research project, paper-and-pencil self-report instruments which had been developed specifically for use with this age group were used to assess all proposed constructs (variables). Each measure is described in detail below and a copy of the full survey is provided in Appendix B.    20 Demographic information. The demographic information collected included school name, grade level, age (in years), sex, years residing in Canada, and ethnic or cultural background.  Information on sex and grade level of participants will be used for the preliminary analysis.  Victimization. The frequency with which students were victimized by peers was assessed using a four-item self-report measure, tapping four different forms of bullying.  Specifically, students were given a definition of each of four different forms of peer victimization (physical, verbal, social, cyber) and asked to indicate how often they have been victimized by each form over the present school year (e.g., How often have you been physically bullied….when someone: hit, kicked, punched, pushed you; physically hurt you; damaged or stole your property).  Responses were made on a 5-point, Likert scale (1= never; 2= once or a few times; 3= every month; 4= every week; 5= several times a week).  As targets of peer victimization often experience multiple forms of bullying (Bradshaw, Waasdorp and O’Brannan, 2013; Wang, Iannotti, Luk, Nansel, 2010), for the initial analyses a composite score was computed to create two dummy variables; high victim and low victim groups, as described below.   In consideration of Yeung and Leadbeater’s (2010, 2013) studies that found differential effects of social support depending on whether physical victimization or relational victimization and wellbeing were considered, for the secondary analysis, one score were computed for each form of victimization (social, verbal, physical and cyber) using the item from the measure that pertains to it.  The various forms of victimization were not considered in the initial analyses for two reasons. First, the high number of analysis that would be needed to evaluate source of support (4), type of support (4) and form of victimization (4) simultaneously makes for a complex analysis for which the present sample size of 720 would not allow for sufficient power.  Second, the fact that single-item measures of victimization are being used to determine the level of each form of victimization does not make for a    21 very strong measure.  Accordingly, this secondary analysis was conducted as an initial exploration in order to shed some light for follow-up studies.  In order to address the challenge faced when students with qualitatively different experiences generate the same total score or mean score, dummy variables were computed.  To illustrate this challenge, a student who selected “never” (score of 1) for three forms of victimization, and “several times a week” (score of 5) for one form of victimization, would end up with a total score of 8 or a mean score of 2. Similarly, a student who selected “once or a few times” (score of 2) for all four forms of victimization, or a student who selected “never” (Score of 1) for two forms of victimization and “every month” (score of 3) for two forms of victimization, will both also end up with a total score of 8 or mean score of 2.  One of these students is being victimized several times a week, while another is being victimized a few times in the year and yet another is being victimized every month.  To consider all three students as experiencing similar levels of victimization and stress when analyzing the effects of social support on varying levels of victimization and depression and/or anxiety would compromise the validity of the analyses in the present study.  While there is no full-proof solution to this challenge, the use of dummy variables at least allows for an awareness around what is being considered high victimization and what is being considered low victimization. To create the dummy variables, the data on victimization were considered.  For the 85%-98% of responses to each question on form of victimization (e.g. how often have you been physically bullied) that fell under the category of “never” or “once or a few times”, the participants were given a score of 1.  For answers that fell under the categories of “every month”, “every week”, or “several times a week” for any one of the different forms of victimization,    22 participants were given a score of 2.  For each form of victimization, students who scored 1 were categorized as “low victim” and those who scored 2 were categorized as “high victim”.  To create the composite high victim and composite low victim groups, the dummy scores for each form of victimization were added together, providing total scores ranging from four to eight.  Students scoring five or higher were categorized as “high victim” whereas those scoring four were categorized as “low victim”.  Students in the high victim group, at the very minimum, reported being victimized once a month.  Any student reporting victimization less than this would be categorized as low victim.  Although this means that students with qualitatively different experiences were categorized as “high victim”, (those experiencing victimization once a month with those experiencing victimization several times a week) as mentioned above, creating the dummy variables allowed for some awareness of what is being considered high and low victimization.  Social support. Student perceptions of both the type and source of social support available to them was assessed using the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (Malecki, Demaray, Elliot, 2000).  This 60-item measure assesses five different sources of social support - parent, teacher, close friend, classmate and people in my school and, for each source, assesses four different types of social support – emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental – in terms of both frequency (i.e., How often?...never, almost never, some of the time, most of the time, almost always, or always) and importance (i.e., Important?....not important, important or very important).  While the frequency rating is always assessed, the importance rating is optional.  Previous research has documented the high reliability and validity of the scale (Malecki, Demaray, & Elliot, 2014), with Cronbach alphas for each of the frequency subscales being quite high: parents (.88-.96), teacher (.90-.96), classmate (.91-.96), close friend (.93-.97),    23 and people in my school (.95-.96).  Acceptable reliability for type of support within each frequency subscale has also been documented in previous research (Malecki & Demaray, 2003), with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .73 to .82 for the parent subscale, .81 to .82 for the teacher subscale, .80 to .87 for the classmate subscale, and .83 to .88 for the close friend subscale.  For the present research, given limited time available, only frequency of social support was assessed (not importance) and only four (instead of five) sources of support were evaluated:  parent (or guardian), teachers (or other adult at school), classmates, and close friends, as these represent the sources of support believed to confer resilience against victimization (Ttofi et al., 2014).  For each source of social support, 12 items were used to assess four types of perceived social support: emotional (3 items, e.g., My parents understand me and My teacher treats me fairly.), informational (3 items, e.g., My classmates give me good advice and My close friend explains things that I don’t understand.), appraisal (3 items, e.g., My teachers nicely tell me when I make mistakes and My close friend nicely tells me the truth about how I do on things) and instrumental (3 items, e.g., My parents take time to help me decide things and My classmates ask me to join activities) (see Appendix B for a full description of the items included in the scale).  Participants rated each item in terms of how often they received that type of support.  Frequency was rated on a 6-point scale (1=never; 2=almost never; 3=some of the time; 4=most of the time; 5=almost always; 6=always).  The average of responses to each subscale were computed as a composite of each source of support, with higher scores reflecting more social support from each source.  The twelve items across the four subscale corresponding to each type of support (emotional, informational, instrumental and appraisal) were averaged to provide four type scores, with higher scores reflecting more of the given type of support.    24 Depression and anxiety.  Depression and anxiety were measured using the 25-item, Revised Child’s Anxiety and Depression Scale, shortened version (RCADS-25; Ebesutani et al. 2012).  The RCADS-25 provides general indicators of overall levels of worry and sadness among subjects.  The results generated through use of the scale cannot be used to diagnose clinically significant anxiety or depression.  Previous research has documented the validity of the Revised Child’s Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; Chorpita, Moffitt & Gray, 2005) and the reliability of the RCADS-25 (Ebesutani et al. 2012).  The alphas for the RCADS-25 subscales range between .79-.80 (depression) and .86-.91 (anxiety).  The depression subscale is made of 10 items (e.g., I feel sad or empty or, Nothing is much fun anymore), the anxiety subscale is made up of 15 items (e.g., I worry what other people think of me or, I feel scared if I have to sleep on my own).  Participants were asked to indicate, on a 4-point scale (1=never; 2=sometimes; 3=often; 4=always) how often each of 25 statements happen to them.  The total score for the anxiety subscale can range between 0 and 45, and the total score for the depression subscale can range between 0 and 30, with higher scores reflecting greater depression/anxiety.  For this study, responses to each subscale were averaged to create one score for depression and one score for anxiety.            25 Results Plan of Analysis The aim of the proposed study was to explore whether certain types and sources of social support moderate levels of depression and anxiety in students between the ages of 10 and 13, including those who are physically, verbally, relationally and/or cyber victimized by their peers and whether these effects vary for pre-adolescent boys and girls.  As a first step, the data were cleaned, and descriptive statistics were generated.  Following this, preliminary analyses were conducted to evaluate the reliability (internal consistency) of each measure, to test assumptions of normality, non-linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity, to asses age and sex differences for each of the variables and finally, to examine the relations among social support type and source variables (moderator variables), victimization (independent variable), and depression and anxiety (dependent variables) measures and to verify expected relations among these variables. The primary analyses were conducted using multiple regression with predictors entered in blocks to explore whether and how social support moderates the relationship between victimization, and depression and anxiety. Descriptive Statistics Table 1, below, contains descriptive statistics for the independent, moderator and dependent variables.  Skewness values and visual inspection revealed that none of the variables were normally distributed.  Depression, anxiety and victimization were positively skewed, whereas parent support, teacher support, classmate support and close friend support were negatively skewed.  Skewness values less than -2 and greater than 2 were used as cut-offs, all values fell within the acceptable range.      26 Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Independent, Moderator and Dependent Variables Variable Mean Standard deviation Skewness Victimization 1.52 .56 1.80 Parent Social Support 4.64 1.00 -.63 Teacher Social Support 4.71 .95 -.69 Classmate Social Support 4.10 1.11 -.11 Close Friend Social Support 5.11 1.10 -.11 Emotional Support 4.62 .82 -.45 Informational Support 4.63 .87 -.60 Appraisal Support 4.42 .90 -.37 Instrumental Support 4.46 .91 -.49 Depression .64 .46 1.09 Anxiety .70 .46 .997  Depression, anxiety, social support and victimization scores were transformed to Z scores. Preliminary Analyses Sex and grade differences in all variables. To assess sex, grade and sex x grade differences for each variable, a series of 2 (sex) by 4 (grade) univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted.  Significant main effects of sex were found for depression, F(1,704) = 4.93, p<.03, with girls (M=.68, SD=.45) reporting higher levels of depression than boys (M=.60, SD=.46).  Grade level differences were non-significant for depression.  Significant main effects of both sex, F(1,703)=23.45, p<.001, and grade, F(3,703)=3.94, p<.01 were observed for anxiety.  Girls reported higher levels of anxiety (M=.79, SD=.49) than boys (M=.62, SD=.41).     27 According to post hoc analyses, Grade 4 students reported feeling higher levels of anxiety (M=.83, SD=.55) than students in Grade 5 (M=.66, SD=.42), Grade 6(M=.67, SD=.41) and Grade 7 (M=.69, SD=.45).  The grade by sex interactions for both depression, F(3,704)=1.76, p>.05, and anxiety, F(3,703)=1.05, p>.05, were nonsignificant, indicating that levels of self-reported depression and anxiety in each grade level did not differ significantly by sex.  Significant main effects were observed for each source of social support.  According to post hoc analyses, for parent social support, F(3,702)=5.64, p=.001, it was observed that students in Grade 4 (M=4.81, SD=.97) and Grade 5(M=4.77, SD=.91) reported significantly higher levels of parent support than students in Grade 6 (M=4.41, SD=1.02).  For Classmate support, F(3,699)=3.86, p<.01, students in Grade 5 (M=4.27, SD=1.09) reported significantly higher levels of classmate support than their peers in Grade 6 (M=3.87, SD=1.10).  There were no significant differences between girls and boys in perceived parent support, F(1,702)=1.27, p>.05 or self-reported classmate support, F(1,699)=.98, p>.05, indicating that both sexes reported similar levels of parent support and classmate support.  For teacher social support, student reports indicated significant sex differences, F(1,699)=4.00, p<.05, and grade differences, F(3,699)=7.75, p<.001.  Girls (M=4.80, SD=.89) reported significantly higher levels of teacher support than boys (M=4.63, SD=.99), and, according to post hoc analyses, students in Grade 4 (M=4.86, SD=.87) and Grade 5 (M=4.88, SD=.91) reported significantly higher levels of teacher support than their peers in Grade 6 (M=4.44, SD=.97).  The grade by sex interaction, F(3,699)=.38, p>.05 was nonsignificant, indicating that levels of teacher support in each grade did not differ significantly by sex.  For close friend support, however, significant sex, F(1,708)=6.52, p<.02 differences as well as grade by sex interactions, F(3,708)=3.09, p<.03 were observed.  Overall, girls (M=5.22, SD=1.05) reported higher levels of close friend support    28 than boys (M=4.99, SD=1.14).  According to post hoc analyses, in Grade 6 (girls, M=5.27, SD=.96; boys, M=4.68, SD=1.24) and Grade 7(girls, M=5.24, SD=.96; boys, M=4.96, SD=1.01), girls reported significantly higher levels of close friend support than boys, while in Grade 4 (girls, M=5.12, SD=1.20; boys, M=5.27, SD=1.31) and Grade 5 (girls, M=5.23, SD=.1.21; boys, M=5.11, SD=.98), sex differences were non-significant, indicating that boys and girls reported similar levels of close friend support.  No significant differences were observed between grades 4, 5, 6, and 7 for close friend support, F(3,708)=1.25, p>.05, indicating that students across the grade levels reported similar levels of close friend support. Significant main effects were observed for each type of social support.  For emotional support, F(3,703)=5.68, p=.001, results of post hoc analyses indicated that students in Grade 4 (M=4.71, SD=.07) and Grade 5(M=4.77, SD=.06)  reported significantly higher levels of emotional support than students in Grade 6 (M=4.44, SD=.06).  Similarly, for informational support, F(3,703)=4.44, p=.004, results of post hoc analyses indicated that students in Grade 4 (M=4.72, SD=.07) and Grade 5(M=4.75, SD=.06)  reported significantly higher levels of informational support than students in Grade 6 (M=4.44, SD=.07).  Again, for appraisal support, F(3,703)=6.44, p=.001, students in Grade 4 (M=4.55, SD=.08) and Grade 5(M=4.58, SD=.06)  report significantly higher levels of appraisal support than students in Grade 6 (M=4.20, SD=.07), according to post hoc analyses.  For instrumental support, F(3,703)=5.77, p=.001, post hoc analyses indicated that students in Grade 4 (M=4.55, SD=.08), Grade 5(M=4.58, SD=.07)  and Grade 7(M=4.47, SD=.06),  report significantly higher levels of instrumental support than students in Grade 6 (M=4.21, SD=.07).  There were no significant differences between girls and boys in emotional support, F(1,703)=.87, p>.05 or informational support, F(1,703)=.89, p>.05 or appraisal support, F(1,703)=2.42, p>.05 or instrumental support, F(1,703)=.18, p>.05, indicating    29 that both sexes reported similar levels of all four types of support. The grade by sex interactions for emotional support, F(3,703)=1.11, p>.05, informational support, F(3,703)=1.63, p>.05, appraisal support, F(3,703)=1.72, p>.05, and instrumental support, F(3,703)=1.25, p>.05, were nonsignificant, indicating that levels of each type of support in each grade did not differ significantly by sex. Finally, for victimization, no significant effects were observed for sex, F(1,708)=1.14, p>.05, or grade, F(3,708)=1.18, p>.05, or sex by grade interactions, F(3,708)=2.33, p>.05, indicating that the levels of victimization were not significantly different between girls and boys or among students in grades 4, 5, 6 and 7. Correlational analyses. One-tailed, Pearson Product Moment Correlations were computed to explore the relationships among the independent, moderator and dependent variables.  The relationships observed between the independent and moderator variables and victimization (dependent variable) were significant at the .01 level, as shown in Table 2 below.  Higher levels of victimization were associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety, and with lower levels of parent, teacher, classmate and close friend social support.            30 Table 2. Bivariate Correlations Among Independent, Moderator and Dependent Variables. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1: Victimization           2: Depression .43          3: Anxiety .39 .70         4: Parent Support -.20 -.40 -.25        5: Teacher Support -.17 -.29 -.14 .51       6: Friend Support -.22 -.30 -.17 .45 .50      7: Classmate Sup -.32 -.38 -.26 .42 .53 .55     8: Emotional Sup -.33 -.48 -.28 .72 .76 .71 .73    9: Informational Sup -.27 -.39 -.20 .71 .75 .71 .77 .84   10: Appraisal Sup -.28 -.40 -.21 .70 .76 .72 .78 .85 .85  11: Instrumental Sup -.27 -.43 -.25 .71 .75 .72 .78 .84 .88 .87 Note. N=709 to 720. All correlations reported in Table 2 were significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).   Testing Assumptions Multicollinearity. The assumption of multicollinearity is that the independent variables are not highly correlated.  Moderator variables are also treated as independent variables therefore in the present study, there are five independent variables.  The Tolerance Index and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for the independent and moderator variables indicate that the assumption of multicollinearity was satisfied.    31 Independence of errors. The assumption of independence of errors is that the residuals are independent of one another.  A visual examination of the residual plots indicated that this assumption had been met. Normality.  The assumption of normality is the assumption that the residuals are normally distributed.  A visual examination of the normal P-P plot and histogram of residuals confirmed that the assumption was met.   Homoscedasticity.  The assumption of homoscedasticity is that the variance of the residuals is constant.  A visual examination of the standardized residual-standardized predicted value scatterplot as well as the residual plot indicated that this assumption was met.  Primary Analyses  Significant source of social support.  To investigate whether and how each of the four sources of support (parents, teachers, close friends, classmates) moderate the relation between victimization and depression and/or anxiety, eight multiple regression analyses were run; two for each source of support, with either depression or anxiety serving as the outcome variable.  For all eight analyses, the predictors were entered in the model in three sequential blocks. In order to control for the effects of grade, this variable was entered in step one, sex and victimization (composite) were entered in step two, the source of support, and four interaction terms (Source of support × Victimization; Source of support × Sex; Sex × Victimization; Source of support × Sex × Victimization) were entered in step three.  These interaction terms were entered to account for the joint influence of victimization, social support and sex as well as the influence of combinations of these variables.      32 Table 3. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Parent Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .001    .001     Constant    .191 .194 .982 Grade   -.038 -.034 .034 -1.014 Step 2: .136 .132**     Constant    -1.16** .233 -4.993 Grade   -.038 -.034 .031 -1.094 Sex   .105 .208** .069 3.005 Victimization   .353 .866** .086 10.080 Step 3: .265 .129**     Constant    -.691 .367 -1.883 Grade   -.078 -.070* .029 -2.377 Sex   .081 .161 .209 .772 Victimization   .282 .693** .264 2.618 Parent Support   -.903 -.897** .320 -2.806 Parent Support	×	Victimization   .648 .479T .239 2.008 Parent Support ×	Sex   .740 .466* .202 2.311 Sex	×	Victimization   .003 .004 .167 .023 Parent Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.846 -.402** .152 -2.647 *p<.05; **p<.01 Note. R2= percentage of variance in dependent variable accounted for by predictor variables entered in model; ΔR2=change in R2when additional predictor variables were entered in the given step of the model; β=standardized beta coefficient; b=unstandardized beta coefficient;     33 SE(b)=standard error of b; t=t-value. Standardized Z-Score means used for support variables and dependent variables (depression and anxiety).  Depression. As shown in Table 3 above, when predicting depression from grade, sex, victimization, parent social support, Parent support × Victimization, Parent support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Parent support × Sex × Victimization, grade on its own did not account for significant variance in depression, F-change (1,708)=1.03, p>.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model was, however, significant, F-change (3,706)=54.93, p<.001, accounting for 13% of variance in depression.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change (8,701)=24.52, p<.001, accounting for an additional 13% of variance in depression. In the above regression analysis, the influence of victimization on reported depression is a function of two parts; victimization, and the interaction of victimization, sex and social support.  Victimization significantly predicted variance in depression, b=.282, t(701)=2.618, p<.01, with higher levels of victimization associated with higher levels of depression.  Social support also significantly predicted variance in depression in the opposite direction, b=-.897, t(701)=-2.806, p<.01. That is, higher levels of parent support were associated with lower levels of depression.  The association between parent support and sex interacted to predict depression, b=.466, t(701)=2.311, p<.05, indicating that the parent support-depression relationship is different for girls and boys.  Finally, the interaction of victimization, social support and sex was significant, b=-.402 t(701)=-2.647, p<.01, indicating that the joint influence of social support and victimization on depression depends in part on whether you are a girl or boy.   As demonstrated in Figure 1 below, both boys and girls in the high and low victim groups were better off when they reported higher levels of parent support than were their peers who    34 reported lower levels of parent support.  For girls, the positive effect of higher parent support on depression was most evident for the high victim group.   Figure 1. Parent Support and Victimization as Predictors of Depression for Male and Female 10-13-Year-Old Students When predicting depression from grade, sex, victimization, teacher social support, Teacher support × Victimization, Teacher support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Teacher support × Sex × Victimization, grade on its own did not account for significant variance in depression, F-change (1,705)=1.18, p>.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model, however, was significant, F-change (3,703)=55.76, p<.001, accounting for 14% of variance in depression.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change (8,698)=10.52, p<.001, accounting for an additional 6% of variance in depression.        35 Table 4. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Victimization, Sex and Teacher Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .002   .002     Constant    .208 .195 1.066 Grade   -.041 -.037 .034 -1.085 Step 2: .138 .137**     Constant    -1.153** .233 -4.950 Grade   -.042 -.038 .031 -1.207 Sex   .106 .211** .069 3.040 Victimization   .356 .876** .086 10.165 Step 3: .199 .060**     Constant    -1.101** .383 -2.875 Grade   -.069 -.062 T .031 -2.007 Sex   .168        .334 .220 1.516 Victimization   .381 .938** .279 3.363 Teacher Support   -1.019 -1.01** .322 -3.139 Teacher Support	×	Victimization   .838 .615* .242 2.541 Teacher Support ×	Sex   .714 .467* .212 2.201 Sex	×	Victimization   -.082 -.095 .176 -.537 Teacher Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.757 -.371* .160 -2.315 *p<.05; **p<.01   In the above regression analysis, the influence of victimization on reported depression is a function of three parts; Victimization, Teacher support	×	Victimization, Teacher support	×	Victimization × Sex.  Victimization significantly predicted variance in depression, b=.938,    36 t(698)=3.363, p<.01, with higher levels of victimization associated with higher levels of depression.  Conversely, higher levels of teacher support were associated with lower levels of depression, b=-1.010, t(698)=-3.139, p<.01.  However, this relationship was varied for boys and girls, b=.467, t(698)=2.201, p<.05.  That is to say, the association of teacher support and depression differed for girls and boys.  The positive association between victimization and depression tended to be higher with higher teacher support, b=.615, t(698)=-2.541, p=.01, however, to understand the joint influence of victimization and teacher support on depression, sex must be taken into account, b=-.371, t(698)=-2.315, p<.05.  Figure 2 below further elaborates on this relationship. As shown in Figure 2, both boys and girls in high and low victim groups benefited from higher levels of teacher support when compared to their peers who reported lower levels of teacher support.  For girls, the effect of higher teacher support on depression was greater among those reporting higher victimization.  For boys, the opposite was true, where higher teacher support had a greater effect among those who reported lower victimization. Figure 2. Teacher Support and Victimization as Predictors of Depression for Male and Female 10-13-Year-Olds Students.    37 Table 5. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Friend Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t  Step 1: .002   .002      Constant    .740** .090 8.23  Grade   -.044 -.018 .016 -1.17  Step 2: .131 .130**      Constant    .131 .108 1.213  Grade   -.045 -.019 .015 -1.274  Sex   .098 .090** .032 2.792  Victimization   .348 .396** .040 9.926  Step 3: .196 .065**      Constant    .169 .177 .952  Grade   -.051 -.021 .014 -1.503  Sex   .133     .122 .102 1.201  Victimization   .300 .343** .129 2.647  Friend Support   -.100 -.048 .154 -.311  Friend Support	×	Victimization   -.100 -.034 .111 -.303  Friend Support ×	Sex   -.208 -.065 .100 -.645  Sex	×	Victimization   -.007 -.004 .081 -.045  Friend Support	×	Victimization × Sex   .148 .032 .072 .452  *p<.05; **p<.01          38 Table 6. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Classmate Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .002 .002     Constant    .750** .090 8.302 Grade   -.047 -.020 .016 -1.256 Step 2: .135 .133**     Constant    .133 .108 1.235 Grade   -.050 -.021 .015 -1.432 Sex   .102 .094** .032 2.908 Victimization   .352 .402** .040 10.020 Step 3: .220 .085**     Constant    .393* .184 2.139 Grade   -.069 -.029* .014 -2.041 Sex   .023        .021 .106 .196 Victimization   .199 .228 .137 1.666 Classmate Support   -.011 -.005 .155 -.034 Classmate Support	×	Victimization   -.221 -.076 .118 -.640 Classmate Support ×	Sex   -.384 -.115 .102 -1.128 Sex	×	Victimization   .109 .058 .087 .671 Classmate Support	×	Victimization × Sex   .313 .072 .079 .902 *p<.05; **p<.01       39 As demonstrated in Table 5 and 6, neither close friend support nor classmate support significantly influenced the link between victimization and depression. Anxiety.  When predicting anxiety from grade, sex, victimization, classmate support, Classmate support × Victimization, Classmate support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Classmate support × Sex × Victimization, grade accounted for 1% of variance in anxiety, F-change (1,704)=4.55, p<.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model was significant, F-change (2,702)=59.20, p<.001 and  accounted for an additional 14% of variance in anxiety.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change (5,697)=6.47, p<.001, accounting for an additional 4% of variance in anxiety.                   40 Table 7. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization and Classmate Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .006    .006*     Constant    .893** .090 9.938 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.133 Step 2: .150 .143**     Constant    .189 .107 1.770 Grade   -.084 -.035* .014 -2.408 Sex   .190 .174** .032 5.450 Victimization   .332 .378** .040 9.526 Step 3: .188 .038**     Constant    .675** .187 .091 Grade   -.096 -.040** .014 -2.787 Sex   -.131        -.120 .108 -1.112 Victimization   -.012 -.014 .139 -.102 Classmate Support   .366 .167 .158 1.059 Classmate Support	×	Victimization   -.673 -.229 .120 -1.902 Classmate Support ×	Sex   -.809 -.241* .103 -2.326 Sex	×	Victimization   .482 .257** .088 2.915 Classmate Support	×	Victimization × Sex   .987 .224** .081 2.779 *p<.05; **p<.01       41 In the above regression analysis, the influence of victimization on reported depression is a function of two parts; Sex	×	Victimization, Classmate support	×	Victimization × Sex.  The effect of victimization on anxiety depends on the sex of the child, b=.257, t(697)=2.915, p<.01.  Similarly, the effect of classmate support on anxiety depends on sex, b=-.241, t(697)=-2.326, p<.05.  Furthermore, the joint influence of victimization and classmate support depends on sex. b=.224, t(697)=2.779, p<.01.  Figure 3 below illustrates these relationships.  As demonstrated in Figure 3, boys in both high and low victim groups who reported higher classmate support also reported lower anxiety when compared to boys who reported lower levels of classmate support.  The positive influence of high classmate support was more evident among the high-victim group.  For girls in the low victim group, a higher level of classmate support was also associated with lower anxiety.  However, for high-victim girls a higher level of classmate support was associated with higher anxiety.  That is to say, girls in the high victim group reported less anxiety when they felt lower levels of classmate support. Figure 3. Classmate Support and Victimization as Predictors of Anxiety for Male and Female 10-13-Year-Old Students.    42 Table 8. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization, and Parent Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .006 .006*     Constant    .890** .090 9.936 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.123 Step 2: .148 .142**     Constant    .187 .107 1.752 Grade   -.081 -.034* .014 -2.326 Sex   .189 .173** .032 5.444 Victimization   .328 372** .039 9.451 Step 3: .194 .046**     Constant    .515** .177 2.905 Grade   -.102 -.043** .014 -2.995 Sex   .019        .017 .101 .171 Victimization   .142 .162 .128 1.263 Parent Support   -.628 -.288 .155 -1.864 Parent Support	×	Victimization   .485 .166 .115 1.436 Parent Support ×	Sex   .430 .125 .097 1.284 Sex	×	Victimization   .223 .118 .081 1.462 Parent Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.492 -.108 .073 -1.472 *p<.05; **p<.01         43 Table 9. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Victimization, Sex and Teacher Support.  R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .006    .006*     Constant    .891** .090 9.918 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.128 Step 2: .148 .142**     Constant    .189* .107 1.767 Grade   -.082 -.034** .014 -2.367 Sex   .189 .173** .032 5.437 Victimization   .329 .374* .040 9.453 Step 3: .167 .018**     Constant    .401** .180 2.223 Grade   -.095 -.040 .014 -2.741 Sex   .062        .057 .104 .551 Victimization   .197 .223 .131 1.700 Teacher Support   -.495 -.227 .152 -1.497 Teacher Support	×	Victimization   .390 .132 .114 1.160 Teacher Support ×	Sex   .204 .062 .100 .617 Sex	×	Victimization   .188 .100 .083 1.201 Teacher Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.189 -.043 .075 -.568 *p<.05; **p<.01        44 Table 10. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization and Close Friend Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .006    .006*     Constant    .886** .090 9.891 Grade   -.078 -.032* .016 -2.090 Step 2: .148 .141**     Constant    .184 .107 1.728 Grade   -.079 -.033* .014 -2.289 Sex   .187 .171** .032 5.381 Victimization   .329 .374** .039 9.472 Step 3: .176 .029**     Constant    .353 .179 1.972 Grade   -.079 -.033* .014 -2.306 Sex   .073        .067 .103 .651 Victimization   .192 .218 .131 1.671 Friend Support   -.391 -.187 .157 -1.188 Friend Support	×	Victimization   .256 .086 .113 .763 Friend Support ×	Sex   -.011 -.004 .102 -.035 Sex	×	Victimization   .189 .100 .082 1.214 Friend Support	×	Victimization × Sex   .029 .006 .073 .089 *p<.05; **p<.01   As demonstrated in Tables 8, 9 and 10, neither parent support, nor teacher support nor close friend support significantly influenced the link between victimization and anxiety.    45 Significant types of social support.  To explore whether specific types of social support moderate the relation between victimization and depression and/or anxiety, eight multiple regression analyses were run; four to predict depression and four to predict anxiety.  As with the analyses above, depression or anxiety served as the outcome variable and the predictors were entered in the model in three sequential blocks.  In order to control for the effects of grade, this variable was entered in step one, sex and victimization (composite) were entered in step two, the type of support and four interaction terms (Type of support × Victimization; Type of support × Sex; Sex × Victimization; Type of support × Sex × Victimization) were entered in step three.  Anxiety.  When predicting anxiety from grade, sex, victimization, emotional support, Emotional support × Victimization, Emotional support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Emotional support × Sex × Victimization, grade accounted for less than 1% of variance in anxiety, F-change (1,708)=4.51, p>.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model was significant, F-change (2,706)=58.82, p<.001, and  accounted for an additional 14% of variance in anxiety.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change (5,701)=10.01, p<.001, accounting for an additional 6% of variance in anxiety.              46 Table 11. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization and Emotional Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .006   .006*     Constant    .890** .090 9.936 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.123 Step 2: .148 .142**     Constant    .187 .107 1.752 Grade   -.081 -.034* .014 -2.326 Sex   .189 .173** .032 5.444 Victimization   .328 .372** .039 9.451 Step 3: .205 .057**     Constant    .485** .174 2.791 Grade   -.102 -.042** .014 -3.019 Sex   .065 .059 .098 .601 Victimization   .152 .172 .125 1.377 Emotional Support   -.413 -.189** .066 -2.842 Emotional Support	×	Victimization   .294 .100 .053 1.862 Emotional Support ×	Sex   .457 .117* .050 2.343 Sex	×	Victimization   .184 .097 .078 1.247 Emotional Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.524 -.072* .028 -2.587 *p<.05; **p<.01       47 In the above regression analysis, emotional support has a significant influence on reported anxiety, b=-.189, t(701)=-2.842, p<.01, but this influence is dependent on the sex of the participant, b=.117, t(701)=2.343, p<.05.   In fact, the joint influence of victimization and emotional support depends on sex of participant, b=-.072, t(701)=-2.587, p=.01.  Figure 4 below illustrates these relationships.  As illustrated in Figure 4 below, boys and low-victim girls who reported higher emotional support also reported lower anxiety.  However, high-victim girls who reported higher emotional support reported higher anxiety. That is to say, in present study’s sample, girls in the high victim group were better off with lower levels of emotional support whereas all other students were better off with higher levels of emotional support.  Figure 4.  Interaction of Emotional Support, Victimization and Anxiety.         48 Table 12. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization and Appraisal Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .006    .006*     Constant    .890** .090 9.936 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.123 Step 2: .148 .142**     Constant    .187 .107 1.752 Grade   -.081 -.034* .014 -2.326 Sex   .189 .173** .032 5.444 Victimization   .328 .372** .039 9.451 Step 3: .186 .038**     Constant    .428* .177 2.415 Grade   -.098 -.041** .014 -2.863 Sex   .072 .066 .100 .660 Victimization   .185 .210 .129 1.636 Appraisal Support   -.394 -.180** .068 -2.644 Appraisal Support	×	Victimization   .335 .114* .055 2.062 Appraisal Support ×	Sex   .410 .115* .049 2.340 Sex	×	Victimization   .176 .093 .079 1.167 Appraisal Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.468 -.073* .029 -2.545 *p<.05; **p<.01   When predicting anxiety from grade, sex, victimization, appraisal support, Appraisal support × Victimization, Appraisal support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Sppraisal support × Sex    49 × Victimization, grade accounted for less than 1% of variance in anxiety, F-change (1,708)=4.51, p<.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model was significant, F-change (2,706)=58.82, p<.001, and  accounted for an additional 14% of variance in reported anxiety.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change (5,701)=6.58, p<.001, accounting for an additional 4% of variance in anxiety. In the above regression analysis, the effect of appraisal support on reported anxiety depended on the sex of the participant, b=.115, t(701)=2.340, p<.05, as well as level of victimization, b=.114, t(701)=2.062, p<.05.  In fact, the joint influence of victimization and appraisal support depends on sex, b=-.073, t(701)=-2.545, p<.05.  This relationship is explored further in Figure 5, below.  As was the case with emotional support, all boys and low-victim girls who reported higher appraisal support also reported lower anxiety.  However, high-victim girls who reported higher appraisal support reported higher anxiety.  That is to say, in the present sample, girls in the high-victim group were better off in terms of reported anxiety with lower levels of appraisal support, whereas all other students were better off with higher levels of appraisal support. Figure 5. Interaction of Appraisal Support, Victimization and Anxiety.    50 When predicting anxiety from grade, sex, victimization, informational support, Informational support × Victimization, Informational support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Informational support × Sex × Victimization, grade accounted for less than 1% of variance in anxiety, F-change (1,708)=4.51, p<.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model was significant, F-change (2,706)=58.82, p<.001 and  accounted for an additional 14% of variance in anxiety.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change (5,701)=5.85, p<.001, accounting for an additional 3% of variance in anxiety. In the regression analysis outlined in Table 13 below, informational support had a significant influence on anxiety, b=-.194, t(701)=-2.921, p<.01.  The influence of victimization on anxiety is a function of two parts; Informational support	×	Victimization, Informational support	×	Victimization × Sex.  Victimization and informational support interacted to influence anxiety, b=.123, t(701)=2.343, p<.05,  and this joint influence depended on sex, b=-.061, t(701)=-2.164, p<.05.  Figure 6 below illustrates this relationship.  Low-victim boys and girls who reported high informational support reported lower anxiety than their peers who reported low informational support.  However, the influence was reversed for high-victim girls and boys.  When high-victim students reported high informational support, they also reported higher anxiety.          51 Table 13. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization and Informational Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1:  .006  .006*     Constant    .890** .090 9.936 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.123 Step 2: .148 .142**     Constant    .187 .107 1.752 Grade   -.081 -.034* .014 -2.326 Sex   .189 .173** .032 5.444 Victimization   .328 .372** .039 9.451 Step 3: .182 .034**     Constant    .433* .175 2.474 Grade   -.102 -.041** .014 -2.849 Sex   .065 .061 .100 .612 Victimization   .152 .207 .126 1.648 Informational Support   -.413 -.194** .066 -2.921 Informational Support	×	Victimization   .294 .123* .052 2.343 Informational Support ×	Sex   .457 .089 .050 1.788 Sex	×	Victimization   .184 .094 .079 1.193 Informational Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.524 -.061** .028 -2.164 *p<.05; **p<.01       52 Figure 6. Interaction of Informational Support, Victimization and Anxiety.  When predicting anxiety from grade, sex, victimization, instrumental support, Instrumental support × Victimization, Instrumental support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Instrumental support × Sex × Victimization, grade accounted for less than 1% of variance in anxiety, F-change(1,708)=4.51, p<.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the model was significant, F-change(2,706)=58.82, p<.001, and  accounted for an additional 14% of variance in anxiety.  The addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was also significant, F-change(5,701)=7.91, p<.001, accounting for an additional 5% of variance in anxiety.         53 Table 14. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Sex, Victimization and Instrumental Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1:  .006    .006*     Constant    .890** .090 9.936 Grade   -.080 -.033* .016 -2.123 Step 2: .148 .142**     Constant    .187 .107 1.752 Grade   -.081 -.034* .014 -2.326 Sex   .189 .173** .032 5.444 Victimization   .328 .372** .039 9.451 Step 3: .205 .057**     Constant    .455** .174 2.619 Grade   -.097 -.040** .014 -2.851 Sex   .054 .049 .099 .499 Victimization   .169 .191 .125 1.532 Instrumental Support   -.465 -.215** .070 -3.079 Instrumental Support	×	Victimization   .364 .124* .056 2.203 Instrumental Support ×	Sex   .299 .082 .049 1.667 Sex	×	Victimization   .193 .102 .078 1.304 Instrumental Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.358 -.054 .029 -1.885 *p<.05; **p<.01   In the above regression analysis, instrumental support was found to have a significant influence on anxiety, b=-.215, t(701)=-3.079, p<.01.  In fact, victimization interacted with    54 instrumental support to influence anxiety, b=.124, t(701)=2.203, p<.05.  These relationships were not affected by the sex of the participant.  Low-victim students reported lower anxiety when they perceived high levels of instrumental support.  For high-victim students, however, there was no difference in reported anxiety based on levels of instrumental support. Figure 7.  Interaction of Instrumental Support, Victimization and Anxiety             Depression.  For all four types of support, when predicting depression from grade, sex, victimization, type of support, Type support × Victimization, Type support × Sex, Sex × Victimization, Type support × Sex × Victimization, grade did not significantly influence variance in depression, F-change(1,709)=1.43, p>.05.  The addition of sex and victimization in step two of the models was significant, F-change(2,707)=52.74, p<.001, and  accounted for 13% of variance in depression.   For all four types of support, the addition of the interaction terms in step three of the model was significant.  The interaction terms associated with emotional support accounted for 18% of variance in depression, F-change(5,702)=37.62, p<.001; those associated with    55 informational support accounted for 12% of variance in depression, F-change (5,702)=22.91, p<.001; those associated with appraisal support accounted for 13% of variance in depression, F-change(5,702)=23.79, p<.001, and those associated with instrumental support accounted for 14% of variance in depression, F-change(5,702)=27.35, p<.001.                        56 Table 15. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Emotional Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .002    .002*     Constant    .743** .090 8.264 Grade   -.045 -.019 .016 -1.196 Step 2: .132 .130**     Constant    .133 .108 1.231 Grade   -.046 -.019 .015 -1.301 Sex   .099 .091** .032 2.837 Victimization   .347 .395** .040 9.905 Step 3: .315 .184**     Constant    .425** .161 2.631 Grade   -.087 -.036** .013 -2.766 Sex   .111 .102 .092 1.115 Victimization   .191 .217 .117 1.826 Emotional Support   -.388 -.178** .062 -2.873 Emotional Support	×	Victimization   .075 .025 .050 .512 Emotional Support ×	Sex   .639 .164** .046 3.530 Sex	×	Victimization   .001 .001 .073 .018 Emotional Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.756 -.104** .026 -4.022 *p<.05; **p<.01        57 Table 16. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Informational Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1:  .002   .002     Constant    .743** .090 8.264 Grade   -.045 -.019 .016 -1.196 Step 2: .132 .130**     Constant    .133 .108 1.231 Grade   -.046 -.019 .015 -1.301 Sex   .099 .091** .032 2.837 Victimization   .347 .395** .040 9.905 Step 3: .253 .122**     Constant    .312 .168 1.859 Grade   -.081 -.034* .014 -2.470 Sex   .122 .112 .095 1.177 Victimization   .267 .304* .120 2.528 Informational Support   -.502 -.231** .063 -3.665 Informational Support	×	Victimization   .297 .101* .050 2.017 Informational Support ×	Sex   .512 .139** .048 2.919 Sex	×	Victimization   -.017 -.009 .076 -.119 Informational Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.664 -.098** .027 -3.644 *p<.05; **p<.01       58 Table 17. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Appraisal Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1:   .002    .002     Constant    .743** .090 8.264 Grade   -.045 -.019 .016 -1.196 Step 2: .132 .130**     Constant    .133 .108 1.231 Grade   -.046 -.019 .015 -1.301 Sex   .099 .091** .032 2.837 Victimization   .347 .395** .040 9.905 Step 3: .257 .126**     Constant    .348* .170 2.051 Grade   -.084 -.035* .014 -2.551 Sex   .108 .100 .096 1.039 Victimization   .239 .272* .123 2.206 Appraisal Support   -.436 -.200** .065 -3.063 Appraisal Support	×	Victimization   .231 .079 .053 1.490 Appraisal Support ×	Sex   .631 .177** .047 3.774 Sex	×	Victimization   .016 .009 .076 .113 Appraisal Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.739 -.115** .027 -4.211 *p<.05; **p<.01       59 Table 18. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Sex, Victimization and Instrumental Support   R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .002    .002     Constant    .743** .090 8.264 Grade   -.045 -.019 .016 -1.196 Step 2: .132 .130**     Constant    .133 .108 1.231 Grade   -.046 -.019 .015 -1.301 Sex   .099 .091** .032 2.837 Victimization   .347 .395** .040 9.905 Step 3: .273 .142**     Constant    .326* .165 1.972 Grade   -.075 -.031* .013 -2.319 Sex   .106 .098 .094 1.035 Victimization   .252 .287* .119 2.415 Instrumental Support   -.537 -.246** .066 -3.735 Instrumental Support	×	Victimization   .285 .097 .054 1.815 Instrumental Support ×	Sex   .474 .130** .047 2.789 Sex	×	Victimization   .000 .000 .075 .001 Instrumental Support	×	Victimization × Sex   -.589 -.090** .027 -3.274 *p<.05; **p<.01     60 In all four analyses, the joint influence of victimization and the given type of support was dependent on sex.  Boys and girls who reported high emotional support also reported lower depression than their peers who reported low emotional support.  The difference in depression between high and low emotional support was more pronounced among high-victim girls when compared to their low-victim peers. Figure 8.  Interaction of Emotional Support, Victimization and Depression    Boys and girls who reported high informational support, reported lower depression than their peers who reported low informational support.  The difference in reported depression between high and low informational support was more pronounced among high-victim girls when compared to their low-victim peers.  Conversely, the difference in reported depression between high and low informational support was more pronounced among low-victim boys when compared to their high-victim peers.    61 Figure 9. Interaction of Informational Support, Victimization and Depression   Boys and girls who reported high appraisal support, reported lower depression than their peers who reported low appraisal support.  The difference in reported depression between students with high versus low appraisal support was more pronounced among low-victim boys when compared to their high-victim peers.  Boys and girls who reported high instrumental support, reported lower depression than their peers who reported low instrumental support.   Figure 10. Interaction of Appraisal Support, Victimization and Depression    62 Figure 11. Interaction of Instrumental Support, Victimization and Depression   Significant source of support for each form of victimization.  To explore whether and how multiple sources of support influence the relation between each form of victimization (physical, social, verbal, cyber) and depression or anxiety, the data was split based on sex (367 boys and 353 girls) and eight multiple regression analyses were conducted on each sub-sample; two for each form of victimization.  For these analyses, either depression or anxiety served as the outcome variable and the predictors were entered in the model in three sequential blocks.  In order to control for the effects of grade, this variable was entered in step one; the form of victimization (e.g., physical, social, verbal or cyber victimization) was entered in step two, the four sources of support, and the interaction terms (Source of support × Victimization) were entered in step three.  Unlike the previous analyses which explored the influence of each source of support on its own, these analyses took into account the influence of all four sources of support simultaneously.   In all eight analyses predicting anxiety, grade did not have a significant influence on anxiety.  The addition of a particular form of victimization in step two was significant, and    63 accounted for 5-9% of variance in anxiety among girls, and 1-9% of variance among boys.  The addition of social support and the interaction terms in step three were also significant and accounted for 6-10% of variance in the analyses of anxiety among girls, and 7-12% of variance in the analyses of anxiety among boys. In the eight analyses predicting depression, grade did not have a significant influence on depression.  The addition of a particular form victimization in step two was significant and accounted for 2-11% of variance in depression among girls, and 2-15% of variance among boys.  The addition of social support and the interaction terms in step three were also significant and accounted for 20-25% of variance in the analyses of depression among girls, and 16-24% of variance in the analyses of depression among boys. In the six analyses exploring the influence of physical, verbal and social victimization on depression and anxiety among girls, there was a significant positive relationship between the form of victimization and depression and anxiety.  Among girls who reported physical victimization, the source of support that was found to interact with victimization and significantly influence reported anxiety and depression was parent support (b = -.553, t(334) = 2.994, p < .01 for depression; b= -.624, t(334) = -2.545, p < .05 for anxiety).  In both cases, the positive association between victimization and the outcome variables tended to be lower with higher parent support.  Similarly, among girls who reported social victimization, the sources of support that were found to interact with victimization and significantly influence reported anxiety and depression were parent support, b= -.846, t(334) = -.4.869, p < .01, and classmate support, b= .530, t(334) = 2.124, p < .05, for depression, and parent support, b= -.637, t(334) = -3.311, p < .01, and classmate support, b= .824, t(334) = 2.977, p < .01, for anxiety.  Again, for parent support the positive association between victimization and the outcome variables tended    64 to be lower with higher parent support.   However, for classmate support, the positive association between victimization and the outcome variable tended to be higher with higher classmate support.  That is, parent support buffered the influence of physical and social victimization on depression and anxiety, whereas classmate support strengthened the negative influence of social victimization on depression and anxiety.   For verbal and cyber victimization among girls, none of the interaction terms for Source of support × Victimization was significant.                     65 Table 19. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Four Sources of Support and Physical Victimization for Girls  R2 ΔR2 β b SE(b) t Step 1: .001        .001     Constant    .223 .276 .809 Grade   -.024 -.022 .048 -.452 Step 2: .108 .108**     Constant    -1.657** .392 -4.226 Grade   -.003 .003 .045 .062 Physical Victimization   .330 1.674** .260 6.431 Step 3: .316 .207**     Constant    -.672 .398 -1.688 Grade   -.030 -.027 .041 -.647 Physical Victimization   .168 .852** .284 2.994 Parent Support   .342 .341 .225 1.515 Teacher Support   -.011 -.012 .288 -.041 Friend Support   .427 .495 .537 .921 Classmate Support   -.539 -.560 .691 -.811 Par Support	×	Physical Victimization   -.615 -.553** .204 -2.713 Teach Support ×	Physical Victimization   .018 .018 .266 .069 Friend Support	×	Physical Victimization   .306 .303 .682 .444 Classmate Support	×	Physical Victimization   -.520 -.536 .523 -1.025 *p<.05; **p<.01      66 Table 20. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Four Sources of Support and Physical Victimization for Girls   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .010 .010         Constant    .737* .294 2.509 Grade   -.102 -.096 .051 -1.897 Step 2 .064 .053**     Constant    -.677 .429 -1.576 Grade   -.083 -.078 .050 -1.572 Physical Victimization.   .232 1.259** .285 4.414 Step 3 .135 .072**     Constant    .005 .478 .011 Grade   -.112 -.106* .049 -2.146 Physical Victimization   .135 .734* .342 2.149 Parent Support   .457 .486 .270 1.798 Teacher Support   -.270 -.308 .346 -.891 Friend Support   .675 .836 .645 1.296 Classmate Support   -1.163 -1.292 .830 -1.557 Parent Support × Physical Victimization   -.648 -.624* .245 -2.545 Teacher Support × Physical Victimization   .272 .290 .320 .906 Friend Support × Physical Victimization   1.118 1.181 .819 1.441 Classmate Support × Physical Victimization     -.776 -.856 .629 -1.361 *p<.05; **p<.01       67 Table 21. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Four Sources of Support and Social Victimization for Girls   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .001 .001         Constant    .223 .276 .809 Grade   -.024 -.022 .048 -.452 Step 2 .081 .080**     Constant    -.700* .315 -2.223 Grade   -.043 -.038 .046 -.831 Social Victimization   .284 .919** .168 5.457 Step 3 .327 .246**     Constant    -.357 .287 -1.242 Grade   -.053 -.047 .041 -1.156 Social Victimization   .195 .631** .163 3.874 Parent Support   .536 .534** .176 3.031 Teacher Support   .256 .274 .219 1.253 Friend Support   .052 .060 .219 .275 Classmate Support   -.717 -.745** .247 -3.019 Parent Support × Social Victimization   -.846 -.712** .146 -4.869 Teacher Support × Social Victimization   -.284 -.252 .187 -1.349 Classmate Support × Social Victimization   .530 .467* .220 2.124 Friend Support × Social Victimization     -.108 -.099 .176 -.563 *p<.05; **p<.01       68 Table 22. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Four Sources of Support and Social Victimization for Girls   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .010 .010         Constant    .737* .294 2.509 Grade   -.102 -.096 .051 -1.897 Step 2 .073 .063**     Constant    -.136 .338 -.401 Grade   -.119 -.112* .049 -2.271 Social Victimization   .251 .868** .181 4.806 Step 3 .173 .100**     Constant    -.126 .340 -.369 Grade   -.129 -.122* .048 -2.524 Social Victimization   .266 .921** .193 4.774 Parent Support   .431 .459* .209 2.198 Teacher Support   .159 .181 .259 .699 Friend Support   -.084 -.104 .259 -.401 Classmate Support   -.835 -.927** .293 -3.169 Parent Support × Social Victimization   -.637 -.574** .173 -3.311 Teacher Support × Social Victimization   -.208 -.197 .221 -.892 Classmate Support × Social  Victimization   .824 .776** .261 2.977 Friend Support × Social  Victimization     .080 .079 .209 .378 p<.05; **p<.01 In the six analyses exploring the influence of physical, verbal and social victimization on depression and anxiety, and in the analysis exploring the influence of cyber victimization on depression, among boys, there was a significant positive relationship between the given form of    69 victimization and depression and/or anxiety.  Among boys who reported physical victimization, the sources of support that were found to interact with victimization and significantly influence reported anxiety were teacher support, b =.648, t(349) =2.267, p<.05, and friend support, b=.621, t(349)=2.239, p<.05.  In both cases, the positive association between victimization and anxiety tended to be higher with higher teacher support and higher friend support.  Similarly, among boys who reported social victimization and verbal victimization, the sources of support that were found to interact with victimization and significantly influence reported depression were teacher support, b=.665, t(349)=2.737, p< .01, for social victimization, and b=.437, t(349)=2.219, p<.05, for verbal victimization.  Again, for teacher support, the positive association between verbal and social victimization and depression tended to be higher with higher teacher support.  Interestingly, among boys who reported cyber victimization, the sources of support that were found to interact with victimization and significantly influence reported depression were teacher support, b=1.681, t(349) =2.3135 p<.01, and parent support, b=-2.731, t(349) =-1.972. In the case of cyber victimization, parent support buffered the influence of cyber victimization on depression, whereas teacher support strengthened the negative influence of cyber victimization on depression.           70 Table 23. Regression Analysis Predicting Anxiety from Four Sources of Support and Physical Victimization for Boys   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .004 .004         Constant    .119 .252 .472 Grade   -.062 -.052 .044 -1.184 Step 2 .058 .054**     Constant    -1.018** .352 -2.896 Grade   -.040 -.033 .043 -.771 Physical Victimization   .234 .984** .217 4.525 Step 3 .177 .119**     Constant    -1.119** .390 -2.874 Grade   -.108 -.090* .042 -2.158 Physical Victimization   .338 1.425** .292 4.878 Parent Support   -.182 -.164 .245 -.670 Teacher Support   -.577 -.491 T .248 -1.977 Friend Support   -.592 -.561* .270 -2.077 Classmate Support   -.482 -.418 T .213 -1.960 Parent Support × Physical Victimization   -.044 -.037 .223 -.164 Teacher Support × Physical Victimization   .648 .512* .226 2.267 Friend Support × Physical Victimization   .347 .268 .186 1.439 Classmate Support × Physical Victimization     .621 .546* .244 2.239 *p<.05; **p<.01      71 Table 24. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Four Sources of Support and Verbal Victimization for Boys   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .004 .004         Constant    .215 .275 .784 Grade   -.061 -.055 .048 -1.156 Step 2 .118 .114**     Constant    -.752* .295 -2.545 Grade   -.074 -.067 .045 -1.478 Verbal Victimization   .339 .884** .130 6.808 Step 3 .284 .166**     Constant    -.144 .292 -.491 Grade   -.131 -.119** .042 -2.846 Verbal Victimization   .231 .604** .146 4.137 Parent Support   .030 .030 .188 .158 Teacher Support   -.421 -.390* .181 -2.153 Friend Support   -.161 -.166 .193 -.860 Classmate Support   -.048 -.045 .177 -.254 Parent Support × Verbal Victimization   -.300 -.228 .151 -1.512 Teacher Support × Verbal Victimization   .437 .315* .142 2.219 Friend Support × Verbal Victimization   -.067 -.047 .131 -.357 Classmate Support × Verbal Victimization     .036 .027 .135 .197 *p<.05; **p<.01       72 Table 25. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Four Sources of Support and Social Victimization for Boys   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .004 .004         Constant    .215 .275 .784 Grade   -.061 -.055 .048 -1.156 Step 2 .154 .150**     Constant    -1.035** .298 -3.469 Grade   -.085 -.077 .044 -1.735 Social Victimization   .388 1.244** .156 7.959 Step 3 .317 .163**     Constant    -.382 .317 -1.205 Grade   -.137 -.124** .041 -3.038 Social Victimization   .271 .869** .195 4.460 Parent Support   .091 .090 .210 .429 Teacher Support   -.636 -.589** .215 -2.736 Friend Support   -.321 -.331 .189 -1.749 Classmate Support   .209 .198 .183 1.078 Parent Support × Social Victimization   -.367 -.293 .182 -1.616 Teacher Support × Social  Victimization   .665 .518** .189 2.737 Friend Support × Social Victimization   -.335 -.246 .147 -1.675 Classmate Support × Social Victimization     .196 .151 .138 1.095 *p<.05; **p<.01      73 Table 26. Regression Analysis Predicting Depression from Four Sources of Support and Cyber Victimization for Boys   R² ΔR² β b SE(b) t Step 1 .004 .004         Constant    .215 .275 .784 Grade   -.061 -.055 .048 -1.156 Step 2 .022 .019*     Constant    -.732 .455 -1.611 Grade   -.067 -.061 .048 -1.285 Cyber Victimization   .136 .962* .369 2.605 Step 3 .058 .235**     Constant    -2.534* 1.154 -2.196 Grade   -.150 -.136** .043 -3.175 Cyber Victimization   .452 3.188** 1.134 2.812 Parent Support   2.290 2.253 1.288 1.750 Teacher Support   -1.566 -1.450* .627 -2.312 Friend Support   -1.976 -2.038 1.042 -1.956 Classmate Support   -.125 -.118 .575 -.206 Parent Support × Cyber Victimization   -2.731 -2.531 T 1.283 -1.972 Teacher Support × Cyber Victimization   1.681 1.431* .619 2.313 Friend Support × Cyber Victimization   -.055 -.050 .566 -.088 Classmate Support × Cyber Victimization     2.019 1.920 1.035 1.854 *p<.05; **p<.01       74 Discussion The purpose of the current study was to determine which sources of social support (parent, teacher, classmate, or close friend) moderate the link between peer victimization and both depression and anxiety.  A second purpose was to explore the type of support (emotional, instrumental, informational, appraisal) that buffers the positive relationship between victimization and depression or anxiety.  A third purpose of the study was to explore which sources of social support moderate the link between four forms of victimization (physical, verbal, social, cyber) and both depression and anxiety.  A final objective of this study was to determine whether differences between boys and girls exist in these relationships. The following section summarizes and interprets the outcomes of these analyses. Significant Sources and Types Support.   Consistent with the outcomes of some earlier studies, the current study found that social support influenced girls and boys differently.  Further, it found that social support influenced the victimization (composite)-depression and victimization(composite)-anxiety links differently. These observations shed light on some of the inconsistencies found across earlier studies. The addition of social support and its interaction terms in the models accounted for up to 18% of variance in depression but only up to 6% of variance in anxiety.  While in both cases this leaves a great portion of variance to be explained, the difference between the two is worthy of note.   Depression. The sets of analyses looking at the influence of both source and type of support on the victimization-depression link found that for boys and girls, various types and sources of support can have a positive influence by lessening the impact of victimization on depression.  Specifically, each of the four types of social support, independent of the other three types, significantly influenced levels of depression.  Each type of support was associated with    75 lower depression in both high-victim and low-victim 10-13-year-olds.  Similarly, both teacher support and parent support, independent of each other and the other sources of support, significantly influenced the victimization-depression link among high and low victim girls and boys, resulting in lower depression.  Interestingly, the positive influence of source and type of support was more pronounced among high-victim girls and low-victim boys.  This suggests that while social support influences depression in girls and boys differently, the difference lies in the extent of its influence and not in the direction of influence. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis of the present study.  The positive influence of parent support is consistent with the results of previous studies (e.g. Baldry, 2004; Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo, & Riser, 2011) as is the influence of parent support on high-victim girls (e.g. Davidson and Demaray, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2013).  To date, only Davidson and Demaray (2007) have explored the influence of teacher support on the victimization and internalizing distress link among early adolescents.  Davidson and Demaray observed the moderating effect of teacher support among victimized boys, but not girls.  While Davidson and Demaray considered a composite for internalizing distress which included both depression and anxiety, the current study looked at depression and anxiety separately.  While the present study found a moderating effect of teacher support in the victimization-depression link for boys and girls, a moderating effect of teacher support was not observed in the victimization-anxiety link for either girls or boys.  The differentiating effect of teacher support on depression and anxiety among pre-adolescent victims may be a reason why the results across the two studies differed.  In fact, it may explain some of the inconsistent findings across previous studies which used composite scores for emotional outcomes including combinations of depression, anxiety and, in some cases, other emotional outcomes.  For example, as mentioned in the literature    76 review above, a similar inconsistency was observed in the Desjardins and Leadbeater (2011) and Yeung and Leadbeater (2010) studies in relation to parent support. One of these studies looked at depression only, while the other looked at a composite of depression and anxiety. The outcomes of the present study are also consistent with studies looking at social support more generally.  Such studies have shown that social support is beneficial for the mental wellbeing of boys and girls with both high and low stress levels (e.g. Thoits, 2011).  The availability of social support can be especially significant in certain stressful situations (e.g. Thoits, 1995, 2011), as was observed in the present study with the influence of parent support and teacher support on girls who are targets of high peer victimization.    Anxiety.  The sets of analyses exploring the influence of both source and type of support on the victimization-anxiety link indicated that while certain sources and types of support had a positive influence on boys, they only had a positive influence on low-victim girls.  More specifically, emotional support, appraisal support, and classmate support were found to positively influence anxiety among both high- and low-victim boys and among low-victim girls.  However, high-victim girls who reported high appraisal support, high emotional support or high classmate support, reported higher anxiety.  Interestingly, the sex differences disappeared when it came to informational and instrumental support, both of which were found to be beneficial for low-victim students.  High-victim students reported higher anxiety when they reported high informational support.   The outcomes observed in the influence of classmate support on boys and girls is consistent with previous studies (e.g. Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2013) and the hypotheses of the present study.  Specifically, it was found that high classmate support had a positive influence on high- and low-victim boys and low-victim girls; however, it had a    77 negative influence on high-victim girls and was associated with higher anxiety.  It is interesting to observe that while emotional support, appraisal support and informational support buffered the influence of high- and low-victimization on depression for girls, they increased the influence of high victimization on anxiety.  This suggests that the trajectories to depression and anxiety for girls who are targets of peer victimization may be distinct from one another.  Also interesting was the finding that instrumental and informational support did not buffer the impact of high victimization on anxiety for either girls or boys, while emotional and appraisal support did buffer the influence of high victimization on anxiety for boys.  That is, for high-victim boys, receiving emotional and appraisal support was associated with lower anxiety, while informational and instrumental support did not have such a positive influence on anxiety.   As this is the first study to explore the influence that various types of support have on the victimization-anxiety and victimization-depression links, further studies are needed to cross validate these findings.  To build on these outcomes, it would be interesting to explore the influence of all four types of support simultaneously and the influence of various types of support from different sources.  This would be especially interesting as it may more accurately reflect the reality of early-adolescent students.  The present study was the second study of early adolescence to distinguish between support received from classmates and friends instead of lumping them together as “peers”.  As was the case with the Davidson and Demaray (2007) study, the present study found the influence of these two groups to be distinct.  Specifically, whereas classmate support was found to influence the victimization-anxiety link, close friend support did not have a significant influence on this relationship.  One reason for this may be that the way classmates respond to a situation dictates how that situation is viewed in the given social environment of the school or classroom    78 whereas the way close friends respond does not necessarily extend to the greater social context, only the friend group.  This comment is based on the results observed in previous research showing that the negative effects of victimization are less severe when victimization is viewed as normative in a given social context (e.g. Bellmore, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2004; Graham & Juvonen, 2002) and an assumption that the response of classmates will influence whether a situation is viewed as normative or not. Social Support and Different Forms of Victimization The set of analyses carried out to explore the influence of social support on various forms of victimization and depression and anxiety took into account the influence of all four sources of support simultaneously.  That is to say, these analyses considered the influence of each source of support after the effects of all other sources have been taken into account.  Results of these analyses indicated that for girls, parent support positively influenced the link between both physical and social victimization and both depression and anxiety.  This is partly consistent with earlier research which found mother support to positively influence the physical victimization-emotional wellbeing link (Yeung & Leadbeater, 2011).  The current set of analyses found that among girls, classmate support increased the influence of social victimization on both depression and anxiety.  It is interesting to note that such an influence was not observed among girls for any of the other three forms of victimization.  It is possible that the negative influence of classmate support on socially victimized girls is related to the higher value girls place on social goals, their endorsement of intimacy and nurturance goals, their adoption of relationship-maintaining goals, goals to resolve peer problems and their concern about peer evaluation, all of which is greater than that of boys (Rose & Rudolph, 2006).  When they believe classmate support exists, such concerns may be heightened    79 as it suggests that their peers are aware of rumors or gossip which is being spread about them and which may pose a threat to their social relationships. Similarly, for boys, teacher support strengthened the physical victimization-anxiety, verbal victimization-depression and cyber victimization-depression links.  Further, friend support strengthened the physical victimization-anxiety link.  It is interesting to note that, after the effects of all other sources have been taken into account, the sources of support that affected and increased the negative influence of victimization on anxiety or depression among boys were the sources of support that are available to the boys at school.  One possible explanation for this may be related to the way boys perceive themselves when they are being verbally, physically and cyber victimized, and believe that individuals in their school will support them.  In such a situation, the boys are being bullied and it is likely that they believe their teacher and friends are aware of this (since they believe teacher and friend support exists).  In such a context, the victimization is not “normal”, and although their teachers and close friend(s) support them, they are different from the rest of their peers by virtue of being targets of victimization.  As stated above, the negative influence of victimization on wellbeing is attenuated when victimization is normative in a given context.  It is possible then, that the clearer it is that victimization is not normative, the more likely that it negatively affects wellbeing.  In the case of boys and perceived teacher and close friend support, such support makes it clear that victimization is not normative.  It should be noted that while Yeung and Leadbeater (2010) found high and low levels of teacher support to buffer the negative influence of relational victimization on emotional wellbeing, this influence was observed after two years, whereas the present study observed relationships at one-time point only.  It is possible, then, that over time teacher support can act as a buffer in the relationship between social victimization and wellbeing.  As Yeung and    80 Leadbeater point out, the observed effect over time may be due to the fact that over time the victims become more apt at drawing on available support.  Strengths and Limitations  Using carefully chosen, psychometrically valid measures, the present study found that parent support, teacher support and each of the four types of social support (emotional informational, appraisal and instrumental) when considered independently of other types or sources of support, positively influenced the victimization-depression and victimization-anxiety links among 10-13-year-old boys and girls.  The influence of a particular source or type of support was in some cases especially strong for a given group (e.g., high-victim girls). However, regardless, parent support, teacher support, emotional support, appraisal support, instrumental support, and informational support resulted in lower depression among 10-13-year-olds.    Further, when the effects of all four sources of support were considered simultaneously on each of the four forms of victimization, in some cases parent support was found to buffer the negative effects of victimization and teacher and friend support were found to increase the negative influence of victimization.   These outcomes must be interpreted with a consideration of certain limitations with the present study.  The schools that participated in the present study were not recruited randomly but rather chose to participate in the study because of an interest among the administration in the types of questions being addressed by the study.  Such a school may differ from other schools in which such an awareness or desire does not exist.   Furthermore, in the first two sets of analyses, the present study explored the influence of each source of social support and each type of social support in isolation of other sources and types of support.  While the availability of support (source and type) for any given student will    81 be different, consideration of only one type or only one source of support at a time does not provide an understanding of what happens when multiple sources or multiple types of support are available.  Future studies can explore the influence of the four sources and four types of support (or combinations thereof) simultaneously.   Another limitation of the present study is that data were collected at one point in time only.  The data is limited in that it does not show how the influence of social support can change over time, as was demonstrated by Yeung and Leadbeater (2013), nor does it take into account the frequency and duration of victimization or the stability of depression and anxiety.  In other words, the present study provides a snapshot but does not take into account the influence of time on any of the variables considered.  The outcomes of the present study must therefore be considered with this understanding. A final limitation of the present study is that, for social support, composite scores were used instead of dummy codes.  This means that students with qualitatively different experiences could have generated the same total score or mean score which was then used in the analyses.  Future studies should consider using principal component analysis to generate dummy codes for social support.  Despite these limitations, the present study added to the small number of studies that have explored the role of social support in lessening the impact of victimization on emotional problems among early adolescents (10-13-year-olds), a group distinct from late adolescents.  By using a strong measure of social support, the present study’s results were consistent with, and extended the findings of other studies that found differentiating effects of various sources of social support (e.g. Davidson & Demaray, 2007; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2013).  Also, by exploring the influence of social support on anxiety and depression separately, the present study    82 was able to extend previous research by showing that, although depression and anxiety are correlated (Barbee, 1998), they are distinct emotional problems and that various pathways can lead to experiencing either one of them.  Further, the present study extended the types of social support that have been considered in studies of social support and wellbeing among victimized students.  Finally, by looking at peers and friends as separate groups, the present study was able to reinforce the distinction between these two groups. Implications and Conclusion The present study provides some clarification as to the sources and types of support that positively influence the victimization-depression and victimization-anxiety link experienced by targets of peer victimization between the ages of 10 and 13 years.  This data is helpful for parents, teachers, school administrators, family and friends of students who are victimized at school as it sheds some light on what steps these individuals can take to support a loved one who is being victimized.  In particular, schools can provide spaces for parents, teachers and students to learn about the distinction between the various types of support and those which are particularly effective for the wellbeing of targets of peer victimization.  The varying influences of classmate support observed in the present study (e.g. higher depression and anxiety among socially victimized girls, but not among verbally, physically or cyber victimized girls) points at the complex nature of peer relationships and their impact on middle school students.  Considering that students in this age group are in a period of transition from childhood to adolescence, and are experiencing physical, intellectual and emotional changes, they have a higher awareness than they did as children which may foster in them many profound questions about themselves, their talents and abilities, about society and social relationships.  With this in mind, it may be appropriate to create spaces where they can think    83 critically about their social environments and how these environments positively and negatively influence them, to explore the kinds of environments they want to create and to take steps towards creating those environments.  In this way, their ideas will not remain in the realm of thought and words and they will be able to see their own capacity and responsibility in contributing towards building positive environments.  Results from the present study reinforce what has been demonstrated by previous studies, which is the many variables that must be considered in studies exploring the buffering influence of social support, and the limitation faced when distinct variables are lumped together and considering as one variable in such studies.  The present study suggests that, in addition to the form of victimization, source of social support, type of social support, and sex of the victim, a distinction should be made between various emotional outcomes considered in a study (e.g., depression or anxiety).  Further, a comparison of results between the present study and previous studies suggests that time may also be a factor that has an influence on these relationships.  The outcomes of the present study continue to underscore the importance of clearly delineating the variables considered in a given study and using psychometrically valid measures.     84 References Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454. doi:10.1007/BF02202939 Averdijk, M., Müller, B., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2011). Bullying victimization and later anxiety and depression among pre-adolescents in switzerland. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 103-109. doi:10.1108/17596591111132927  Averdijk, M., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2014). Do social relationships protect victimized children against internalizing problems? Journal of School Violence, 13(1), 80-99. doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.842175 Baldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30(5), 343-355. doi:10.1002/ab.20043 Barbee, J. G. (1998). Mixed symptoms and syndromes of anxiety and depression: Diagnostic, prognostic, and etiologic issues. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 10(1), 15-29. doi:10.1023/A:1026198512361 Bellmore, A., Witkow, M., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2004). Beyond the individual: The impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims' adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1159-1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1159 Beran, T. (2008). Stability of harassment in children: Analysis of the Canadian national longitudinal survey of children and youth data. The Journal of Psychology, 142(2), 131-146. doi:10.3200/JRLP.142.2.131-146 Bilsky, S. A., Cole, D. A., Dukewich, T. L., Martin, N. C., Sinclair, K. R., Tran, C. V., . . . Maxwell, M. A. (2013). Does supportive parenting mitigate the longitudinal effects of peer victimization on    85 depressive thoughts and symptoms in children? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(2), 406-419. doi:10.1037/a0032501 Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2010). Beyond hurt feelings: Investigating why some victims of bullying are at greater risk for suicidal ideation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 56(3), 420-440. doi:10.1353/mpq.0.0051 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. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1 Bond, L., Carlin, J., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 323(7311), 480-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7311.480 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. doi:10.1177/0143034310362329 Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & O'Brennan, L. M. (2013). A latent class approach to examining forms of peer victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 839. Brunstein Klomek, A., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 55(5), 282. Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., . . . Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301, 386–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1083968    86 Cassidy, T. (2008). Bullying and victimisation in school children: The role of social identity, problem-solving style, and family and school context. Social Psychology Of Education, 12(1), 63-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9066-y Chu, P. S., Saucier, D. A., & Hafner, E. (2010). Meta-analysis of the relationships between social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 624-645. doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.624 Chorpita, B. F., Moffitt, C. E., & Gray, J. (2005). Psychometric properties of the revised child anxiety and depression scale in a clinical sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(3), 309-322. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.02.004 Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development And Psychopathology, 8, 597. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 Conners-Burrow, N., Johnson, D., Whiteside-Mansell, L., McKelvey, L., & Gargus, R. (2009). Adults matter: Protecting children from the negative impacts of bullying. Psychology in Schools, 46(7), 593-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20400 Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x Desjardins, T. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2011). Relational victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: Moderating effects of mother, father, and peer emotional support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(5), 531-44. Retrieved October 2015 from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/863442867?accountid=14656    87 Dejonckheere, E., Bastian, B., Fried, E. I., Murphy, S. .C, Kuppens, P. (2017). Perceiving social pressure not to feel negative predicts depressive symptoms in daily life. Depression and Anxiety, 34(9), 836–844. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1002/da.22653 Dill, E. J., Vernberg, E. M., Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., & Gamm, B. K. (2004). Negative affect in victimized children: The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and attitudes toward bullying. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 159-173. doi:10.1023/B:JACP.0000019768.31348.8 Dulmus, C., Sowers, K., & Theriot, M. (2006). Prevalence and bullying experiences of victims and victims who become bullies (bully-victims) at rural schools. Victims & Offenders, 1(1), 15-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880500498945 Ebesutani, C., Reise, S.P., Chorpita, B.F., Ale, C., Regan, J., Young, J…Weisz, J. R. (2012). The revised child anxiety and depression scale-short version: Scale reduction via exploratory bifactor modeling of the broad anxiety factor. Psychological Assessment 24(4) 833-845. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1037/a0027283  Esbensen, F., & Carson, D. C. (2009). Consequences of being bullied: Results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of american students. Youth & Society, 41(2), 209-233. Espelage, D. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 257-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947216 Fernandez Castelao, C., & Kröner-Herwig, B. (2013). Different trajectories of depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: Predictors and differences in girls and boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(8), 1169-1182. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9858-4    88 Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Lenzi, M., & Vieno, A. (2014). Bullying victimization at school and headache: A Meta-Analysis of observational studies. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 54(6), 976-986. doi:10.1111/head.12344 Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587-599. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587 Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 22(2), 173-199. doi:10.1177/0272431602022002003 Hale, W. W., Raaijmakers, Q., Muris, P., van Hoof, A., & Meeus, W. (2008). Developmental trajectories of adolescent anxiety disorder symptoms: A 5-year prospective community study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 556–564. Haltigan, J. D., & Vaillancourt, T. (2014). Joint trajectories of bullying and peer victimization across elementary and middle school and associations with symptoms of psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 50(11), 2426-2436. doi:10.1037/a0038030 Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14(1), 69-89. doi:10.1017/S0954579402001049 Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., McGee, R., & Angell, K. E. (1998). Development of depression from preadolescence to young adulthood: Emerging gender differences in a 10-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(1), 128-140. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.107.1.128    89 Hazemba, A., Siziya, S., Muula, A., & Rudatsikira, E. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of being bullied among in-school adolescents in Beijing: Results from the 2003 Beijing global school-based health survey. Annals Of General Psychiatry, 7(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-7-6 Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.677 Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 984-994. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 Hombrados-Mendieta, M. I., Gomez-Jacinto, L., Dominguez-Fuentes, J. M., Garcia-Leiva, P., & Castro-Travé, M. (2012). Types of social support provided by parents, teachers, and classmates during adolescence. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(6), 645-664. doi:10.1002/jcop.20523 Hunter, S. C., Boyle, J. M. E., & Warden, D. (2004). Help seeking amongst child and adolescent victims of peer-aggression and bullying: The influence of school-stage, gender, victimisation, appraisal, and emotion. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(Pt 3), 375-390. doi:10.1348/0007099041552378 Hymel, S., & Swearer, S.M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist (Special Issue on Bullying), 70 (4), 300-310. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0038928.pdf Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112(6), 1231-1237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.112.6.1231    90 Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 349-359. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.349 Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance across middle school grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152-173. doi:10.1177/0272431610379415 Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67(4), 1305-1317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01797.x Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Wardrop, J. L. (2001). Chronicity and instability of children's peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 134-151. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00270 Lereya, S. T., Winsper, C., Heron, J., Lewis, G., Gunnell, D., Fisher, H. L., & Wolke, D. (2013). Being bullied during childhood and the prospective pathways to self-harm in late adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(6), 608-618.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.03.012 Malecki, K. C., & Demary, K. M. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1-18. doi:10.1002/pits.10004 Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 231-252. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.3.231.22576 Malecki, K. C., Demary, K. M., & Elliot, S. N. (2014). A working manual on the development of the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (2000). Unpublished manual.    91 McDougall, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. The American Psychologist, 70(4), 300-310. doi:10.1037/a0039174 McLaughlin, K., Hatzenbuehler, M., & Hilt, L. (2009). Emotion dysregulation as a mechanism linking peer victimization to internalizing symptoms in adolescents. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 77(5), 894-904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015760 Mickelson, W., Eagle, J., Swearer, S., Song, S., & Cary, P. (2001). Psychosocial correlates in bullying and victimization: The relationship between depression, anxiety, and bully/victim status. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2), 95-121. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_07 Muñoz-Laboy, M., Severson, N., Perry, A., & Guilamo-Ramos, V. (2014). Differential impact of types of social support in the mental health of formerly incarcerated latino men. American Journal of Men's Health, 8(3), 226-239. Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Thomson, K. C. (2010). Understanding the link between social and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: Gender-specific predictors of peer acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(11), 1330-1342. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9 Olweus, D., & Mortimore, P. (1993). Bullying at school (pp. 5-10). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Forms of aggression and peer victimization during early childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(3), 311-322. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9179-3 Paul, J., & Cillessen, A. (2003). Dynamics of peer victimization in early adolescence: Results from a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2), 25-43. doi:10.1300/J008v19n02_03    92 Pepler, D. (2014). Bullying, Overview. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Retrieved Janury 2017 from http://link.springer.com/. Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 703-722. doi:10.1177/1368430210398004 Pouwels, J. L., Souren, P. M., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Stability of peer victimization: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Developmental Review, 40, 1-24. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.01.001  Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244-252. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009 Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J., Prinzie, P., Boelen, P., Van der Schoot, M., & Telch, M. (2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 37(3), 215-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20374 Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 95–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709999157590 Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23(1), 57. Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise?. Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 441-455. Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4), 211-223. doi:10.1037/a0018164    93 Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98-131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 Rueger, S., Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. (2008). Relationship between multiple sources of perceived social support and psychological and academic adjustment in early adolescence: Comparisons across gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 47-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9368-6 Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36(2), 413-424. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1965.tb05305.x Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., Overbeek, G., de Kemp, R. A. T., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2007). Stability in bullying and victimization and its association with social adjustment in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 217–228. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10802-006-9074-3 Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38(152), 735-747. Seidman, E., Allen, L., Lawrence Aber, J., Mitchell, C., Feinman, J., Yoshikawa, H., . . . Roper, G. C. (1995). Development and validation of adolescent-perceived microsystem scales: Social support, daily hassles, and involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology,23(3), 355-388. doi:10.1007/BF02506949 Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/0007099042376427    94 Stopbullying.gov,. (2015). Home | StopBullying.gov. Retrieved 25 October 2015, from http://www.stopbullying.gov/index.html Swearer, S. M., Song, S. Y., Cary, P. T., Eagle, J. W., & Mickelson, W. T. (2001). Psychosocial correlates in bullying and victimization: The relationship between depression, anxiety, and Bully/Victim status. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2), 95-121. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_07 Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 187-202. doi:10.1007/BF00905728 Tardy, C. H. (1992). Assessing the functions of supportive messages: Experimental studies of social support. Communication Research, 19(2), 175-192. doi:10.1177/009365092019002003 Thapar, A., Thapar, A. K., Collishaw, S., & Pine, D. S. (2012). Depression in adolescence. The Lancet, 379(9820), 1056-1067. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60871-4 Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, Coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next?. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 53–79. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/2626957  Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/23033240 Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 63-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17596591111132873 Ttofi, M. M., Bowes, L., Farrington, D. P., & Losel, F. (2014). Protective factors interrupting the continuity from school bullying to later internalizing and externalizing problems: A systematic    95 review of prospective longitudinal studies. Journal of School Violence, 13(1), 5-38. doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.857345 UN envoy calls for concerted efforts to eliminate bullying in all regions. (2015, October 16). UN News Centre. Retrieved October 2015 from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52292 - .V7TFC1rsv8E Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2013). The biological underpinnings of peer victimization: Understanding why and how the effects of bullying can last a lifetime. Theory into Practice, 52, 241– 248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.829726 Viviano, T. F. (2014). Global self-esteem, perceived social support, and the psychosocial adjustment of adolescents exposed to cyberbullying (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, New York, USA. Wang, J., Iannotti, R., & Nansel, T. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021 Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., & Schulz, H. (2001). Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal Of Psychology, 92(4), 673-696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712601162419 Wong, S. T., Wu, A., Gregorich, S., & Pérez-Stable, E. J. (2014). What type of social support influences self-reported physical and mental health among older women? Journal of Aging and Health, 26(4), 663-678. Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 367-392. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1    96 Yeung, T. R. S, & Leadbeater, B. J. (2010). Adults make a difference: The protective effects of parent and teacher emotional support on emotional and behavioral problems of peer-victimized adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1), 80-98. doi:10.1002/jcop.20353 Yeung, T. R. S., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2013). Peer victimization and internalizing symptoms from adolescence into young adulthood: Building strength through emotional support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 290-303. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00827.x                                    97 Appendix A: 2016 School Climate Survey Survey of School Experiences     Instructions  All responses on this survey are confidential (private)— do not put your name on it.   Make sure to read every question. This is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers, but it is important to answer honestly. If you are not comfortable answering a question or you don’t know what it means, you can ask for help or leave it blank.   Please do not look at other students’ answers.  If there is anything you need help with or you have any questions, please raise your hand and we will come over to help you.   It is important to colour the circles completely, like this: ˜ Please DO NOT use ü, Please DO NOT use X.      98 Tell us about yourself…   1. What is your ID number? (This number is written on the top of your consent form.) _____________________________ 2. What is the name of your school? _________________________________   3. What grade are you in? (Choose one)  š 4  š 6  š 5 š 7  4. Are you a boy or a girl? (Choose one)  š Boy š Girl  5. How long have you lived in Canada?  (Choose one) š less than 2 years  š 2-4 years  š more than 4 years  6. Is English the main language spoken in your home?  š Yes  š No 7. How old are you (in years)?   š 8  š 10  š 12 š 9  š 11  š 13 or older    8. Although we all live in Canada, people sometimes identify themselves by the racial, ethnic, or cultural group to which their parents, grandparents, or ancestors belong. How do you identify your racial or ethnic background? (Please choose one.)  YES A) Aboriginal/ Native People (North American Indian, Metis, Inuit, etc.) š B) African / Caribbean (Black) š C) Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc) š D) Caucasian (White, European) š E) Latin American (Mexican, South American) š F) Middle Eastern (Arabic, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Persian, Israeli, etc) š G) South Asian (Indian, Indonesian, Pakistani, Filipino, etc) š H) Mixed (more than one of the above) š    99 I) Other (tell us) : _____________________________ š J) I don’t know š  How do you feel about your school?   INSTRUCTIONS: Read each statement and choose the best answer for YOU. For the questions below, please select one of the following answers:  NO:  means the sentence is “not at all true” or “almost never true” about you.  no:  means that the sentence is “hardly ever” true about you yes:  means that the sentence is “often” true about you YES:  means that the sentence is “almost always true” or “always true” about you.   NO no yes YES 9. Most mornings I look forward to going to school. 1 2 3 4 10. I feel safe at my school. 1 2 3 4 11. My school is a nice place to be. 1 2 3 4 12. I like to take part in class discussions and activities. 1 2 3 4 13. I feel sure about how to do my work at school. 1 2 3 4 14. Doing well at school is important to me. 1 2 3 4 15. Kids at my school have a good chance to grow up and be successful. 1 2 3 4 16. I like my classes this year. 1 2 3 4     100 Bullying at your school….  The next few questions ask about bullying at your school. There are lots of different ways to bully someone. A bully might tease or make fun of other students, spread rumours about them, punch or hit them, or use the internet or texting to do this. Bullying is not an accident – a bully wants to hurt the other person, and does so repeatedly and unfairly (bullies have some advantage over the person they hurt). Sometimes a group of students will bully another student.  Think about this school year when you answer the following questions about bullying.   How often have you… Never Once or a few times Every month Every week Several times a week 17. been bullied? 1 2 3 4 5 18. taken part in bullying others? 1 2 3 4 5 19. seen other students being bullied? 1 2 3 4 5   How often have you been… Never Once or a few times Every month Every week Several times a week 20. physically bullied, when someone: - hit, kicked, punched, pushed you. - physically hurt you. - damaged or stole your property. 1 2 3 4 5 21. verbally bullied, when someone: - said mean things to you. - teased you or called you names. - threatened you or tried to hurt your feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 22. socially bullied, when someone:  - said bad things behind your back. - gossiped or spread rumours about you. - got other students not to like you. - ignored you or refused to play with you. 1 2 3 4 5 23. cyber-bullied, when someone:  - used the computer, websites, emails, text messages or pictures 1 2 3 4 5    101 online to threaten you, hurt you, make you look bad, or spread rumours about you.   How often have you seen other students being… Never Once or a few times Every month Every week Several times a week 24. physically bullied? 1 2 3 4 5 25. verbally bullied? 1 2 3 4 5 26. socially bullied? 1 2 3 4 5 27. cyber bullied? 1 2 3 4 5   How often have you taken part in… Never Once or a few times Every month Every week Several times a week 28. physically bullying others? 1 2 3 4 5 29. verbally bullying others? 1 2 3 4 5 30. socially bullying others? 1 2 3 4 5 31. cyber bullying others? 1 2 3 4 5        102 What’s it like at your school?   For the next set of statements, choose the answer that you think is best. NO:  means the sentence is “not at all true” or “almost never true” about you.  no:  means that the sentence is “hardly ever” true about you yes:  means that the sentence is “often” true about you YES:  means that the sentence is “almost always true” or “always true” about you.   What’s it like at your school? NO no yes YES 32. Teachers go out of their way to help students.  1 2 3 4 33. If students want to talk about something teachers will find time to do it.  1 2 3 4 34. Teachers help students to organize their work.  1 2 3 4 35. Students really enjoy their classes.  1 2 3 4 36. Teachers help students catch up when they return from an absence.  1 2 3 4 37. Teachers take a personal interest in students (i.e., care about you personally).  1 2 3 4 38. If some students are misbehaving in class the teacher will do something about it.  1 2 3 4 39. When teachers make a rule, they mean it.  1 2 3 4 40. Students are given clear instructions about how to do their work in classes.  1 2 3 4 41. Students understand what will happen to them if they break a rule.  1 2 3 4 42. Teachers make a point of sticking to the rules in classes.  1 2 3 4 43. Students work hard for good grades in classes.  1 2 3 4 44. Students try hard to get the best grades they can.  1 2 3 4    103 45. Grades are very important to students.  1 2 3 4 46. Students work hard to complete their assignments.  1 2 3 4 47. Students put a lot of energy into what they do here.  1 2 3 4 48. Students in this school have trouble getting along with each other.  1 2 3 4 49. Students in this school are mean to each other.  1 2 3 4 50. In classes, students find it hard to get along with each other.  1 2 3 4 51. There are students in this school who pick on other students.  1 2 3 4 52. Students in this school feel students are too mean to them.  1 2 3 4 53. Students get to know each other well in classes.  1 2 3 4 54. Students in this school are very interested in getting to know other students.  1 2 3 4 55. Students enjoy doing things with each other in school activities.  1 2 3 4 56. Students in this school get to know each other really well.  1 2 3 4 57. Students enjoy working together on projects in classes.  1 2 3 4 58. The rules in this school are too strict.  1 2 3 4 59. It is easy for a student to get kicked out of class in this school.  1 2 3 4 60. Students get in trouble for breaking small rules.  1 2 3 4 61. Teachers are very strict here.  1 2 3 4 62. Students get in trouble for talking.  1 2 3 4 63. In our school, students are given the chance to help make decisions.  1 2 3 4    104 64. Students in this school have a say in how things work.  1 2 3 4 65. Students get to help decide some of the rules in this school.  1 2 3 4 66. Teachers ask students what they want to learn about.  1 2 3 4 67. Students help decide how class time is spent.  1 2 3 4 68. New and different ways of teaching are tried in classes.  1 2 3 4 69. New ideas are tried out here.  1 2 3 4 70. Teachers like students to try unusual projects.  1 2 3 4 71. In classes, we are given assignments to help us find out about things outside of school.  1 2 3 4 72. Your teachers show that they think it is important for students of different races and cultures at your school to get along with each other.  1 2 3 4 73. Students of many different races and cultures are chosen to participate in important school activities.  1 2 3 4 74. You get to do something which helps you learn about students of different races and cultures at your school.  1 2 3 4 75. You work with students of different races and cultures in a school activity.  1 2 3 4 76. Has anyone at school threatened to beat you up or hurt you if you didn’t give them your money or something else that belonged to you?  1 2 3 4 77. Has anyone actually beaten you up or really hurt you when you were at school?  1 2 3 4 78. Have you ever brought something to school to protect yourself?  1 2 3 4 79. Have you ever been afraid that someone will hurt or bother you at school?  1 2 3 4 80. Has anything worth more than a dollar been stolen from your desk or locker at school when you weren’t around?  1 2 3 4    105 81. Has anyone offered or tried to sell you drugs at school?  1 2 3 4        106 How Do You Feel?  Mark the answer that shows how often each of these things happen to you. Choose the answer that is best for you. There are no right or wrong answers.   Never Some times Often Always 82. I feel sad or empty. 1 2 3 4 83. I worry when I think I have done poorly at something. 1 2 3 4 84. I would feel afraid of being on my own at home. 1 2 3 4 85. Nothing is much fun anymore. 1 2 3 4 86. I worry that something awful will happen to someone in my family. 1 2 3 4 87. I am afraid of being in crowded places (like shopping centers, the movies, buses, busy playgrounds). 1 2 3 4 88. I worry what other people think of me. 1 2 3 4 89. I have trouble sleeping. 1 2 3 4 90. I feel scared if I have to sleep on my own. 1 2 3 4 91. I have problems with my appetite. 1 2 3 4 92. I suddenly become dizzy or faint when there is no reason for this.  1 2 3 4 93. I have to do some things over and over again (like washing my hands, cleaning or putting things in a certain order). 1 2 3 4 94. I have no energy for things. 1 2 3 4 95. I suddenly start to tremble or shake when there is no reason for this. 1 2 3 4 96. I cannot think clearly.  1 2 3 4    107 97. I feel worthless.  1 2 3 4 98. I have to think of special thoughts (like numbers or words) to stop bad things from happening.  1 2 3 4 99. I think about death. 1 2 3 4 100. I feel like I don’t want to move.  1 2 3 4 101. I worry that I will suddenly get a scared feeling when there is nothing to be afraid of.  1 2 3 4 102. I am tired a lot.  1 2 3 4 103. I feel afraid that I will make a fool of myself in front of people.  1 2 3 4 104. I have to do some things in just the right way to stop bad things from happening.  1 2 3 4 105. I feel restless.  1 2 3 4 106. I worry that something bad will happen to me.  1 2 3 4  What Kinds of Support Do You Get?  On the next few pages, you will be asked to respond to sentences about some form of support or help that you might get from either a parent or guardian, from a teacher (or other adult in your school), from classmates, or from a close friend. Read each sentence carefully and answer honestly. There are no right or wrong answers. Please read the example below carefully before answering the next few pages.  How often do… Never Almost Never Some of the time Most of the time Almost always Always My Classmate(s) help me with projects in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6     108  How often do your parent(s) or guardian(s)… Never Almost Never Some of the time Most of the time Almost always Always 107…show they are proud of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 108…understand me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 109…listen to me when I need to talk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 110…make suggestions when I don’t know what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 111…give me good advice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 112…help me solve problems by giving me information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 113…tell me I did a good job when I do something well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 114…nicely tell me when I make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 115…reward me when I’ve done something well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 116…help me practice my activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 117…take time to help me decide things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 118…get me many of the things I need. 1 2 3 4 5 6      109 My teacher(s) (or other adult(s) in my school)…. Never Almost Never Some of the time Most of the time Almost always Always 119…cares about me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 120…treats me fairly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 121…makes it okay to ask questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 122…explains things that I don’t understand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 123…shows me how to do things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 124…helps me solve problems by giving me information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 125…tells me I did a good job when I’ve done something well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 126…nicely tells me when I make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 127…tells me how well I do on tasks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 128…makes sure I have what I need for school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 129…takes time to help me learn to do something well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 130…spends time with me when I need help. 1 2 3 4 5 6     110   My Close Friend(s)…. Never Almost Never Some of the time Most of the time Almost always Always 131…understands my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 132…sticks up for me if others are treating me badly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 133…spends time with me when I’m lonely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 134…gives me ideas when I don’t know what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 135…gives me good advice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 136…explains things that I don’t understand. 1 2 3 4 5 6 137…tells me he or she likes what I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 138…nicely tells me when I make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 139…nicely tells me the truth about how I do on things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 140…helps me when I need it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 141…shares his or her things with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 142…takes time to help me solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6     111   My Classmates…. Never Almost Never Some of the time Most of the time Almost always Always 143…treat me nicely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 144…like most of my ideas and opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 145…pay attention to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 146…give me ideas when I don’t know what to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 147…give me information so I can learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 148…give me good advice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 149…tells me I did a good job when I’ve done something well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 150…nicely tell me when I make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 151…notice when I have worked hard. 1 2 3 4 5 6 152…ask me to join activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 153…spend time doing things with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 154…help me with projects in class. 1 2 3 4 5 6  Thank You!      112 If you are having problems with other students at school, please know that you do not have to face it alone; you can get help.  You can talk to your parents or others family members; they may have some ideas that you have not yet thought about. You can talk to any adult that you trust at the school – a counsellor, a teacher or coach, a custodian, a youth worker, a bus driver, etc.  We want to help…….contact us.   Do you want help with problems you are having with other students?  NO, everything is ok             YES, I would like help – write your name on the line below    Print your name (FIRST NAME, LAST NAME)   If you would like help from someone outside of the school you could call one of the following help lines.   Help Line for Children (24 Hours)           604-310-1234 Kids Help Phone            1-800-668-6868  (*1-800 numbers can be called FREE from payphones, no money needed).    THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!  Your feedback will help us to make this school safe for all students.     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0362563/manifest

Comment

Related Items