Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

46(7), 2009 
C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20404

STAND BY ME: THE EFFECTS OF PEER AND TEACHER SUPPORT IN MITIGATING

THE IMPACT OF BULLYING ON QUALITY OF LIFE
PAUL D. FLASPOHLER, JENNIFER L. ELFSTROM, KARIN L. VANDERZEE, AND HOLLI E. SINK
Miami University
ZACHARY BIRCHMEIER
University of Missouri

Bullying is one of the most common forms of school violence. Engagement in bullying has been
shown to have adverse effects on perpetrators and victims of bullying. In this study, the impact of
bullying on well-being (quality of life/life satisfaction) was explored in a sample of elementary
and middle school children (N = 4,331). Results suggest that students who bully and/or are bullied
experience reduced life satisfaction and support from peers and teachers compared to bystanders
(children who are neither victims nor perpetrators of bullying). Mediational analyses demonstrate
that peer and teacher support might mitigate the impact of bullying on the quality of life of victims.
This study underscores the value of efforts to promote social support from peers and teachers in
both universal bullying prevention programs and school climate initiatives. Furthermore, results
support further investigation into the possible contributions of bystanders in supporting school-wide
bullying prevention/school climate strategies.  C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Bullying is one of the most common forms of youth violence; it has been linked to a host
of negative consequences for childrens health and mental health. Previous research has demon-
strated negative outcomes related to both engagement in bullying and the experience of being
bullied; however, minimal research exists examining the impact of bullying on childrens well-being
(Wilkins-Shurmer, OCallaghan, Najman, Bor, Williams, & Anderson, 2003). The primary purpose
of this article is to demonstrate the impact of bullying and victimization on perceptions of well-
being, and to demonstrate how peer and teacher social support may buffer the effect of victimization
on well-being. The article begins with an overview of quality of life/life satisfaction (QOL/LS),
a means of assessing well-being, and provides an overview of research connecting QOL/LS with
youth violence and victimization. The next section reviews previous research connecting QOL/LS,
bullying, and social support with explicit focus on social support from teachers and peers. Using data
collected as part of implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP; Olweus &
Limber, 1999), we show the impact of the experience of bullying on self-reported QOL by children
who are bullied, children who bully, and bystanders who witness bullying. In addition, research
findings demonstrate how perceived social support from teachers and peers has differential affects
the relationship between QOL and the experience of bullying.

Quality of Life/Life Satisfaction

The relationship between subjective well-being, LS, and QOL is not well defined in the liter-
ature. For example, in some instances, the terms life satisfaction and quality of life have been used
interchangeably (e.g., Huebner, Suldo, Smith, & McKnight, 2004), whereas in other instances, LS
has been described as an aspect of QOL (Valois, Zullig, Drane, & Huebner, 2001). According to
Huebner (1991), subjective well-being is proposed to consist of three separate, yet interrelated, parts
in children and adolescents: positive affect, negative affect, and LS. According to this definition, LS

This research was supported in part through funding administered by the Ohio Mental Health Network for
School Success. We thank the teachers, administrators, and students of the participating schools. We also thank the
undergraduate and graduate student members of the Miami University School-Community Research and Action Team.
Correspondence to: Paul D. Flaspohler, Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. E-mail:
flaspopd@muohio.edu

636
 Bullying and Quality Of Life 637

refers to ones positive cognitive appraisal of the entirety of ones life. For purposes of this article,
LS and QOL are considered to be synonymous and to encompass the cognitive aspect of subjective
well-being.
QOL/LS have been shown in adults to predict psychological disorders, physical health, and
interpersonal problems, among other outcomes (see Frisch, 2000, for a review). Although widely
studied in the adult literature, consideration of QOL and LS in children has only more recently
begun to gain momentum (Huebner, 2004). Existing research has mainly focused on LS as an out-
come variable. For example, in adolescents, studies have shown that demographic variables (e.g.,
age, gender, socioeconomic status [SES]) contribute modestly to subjective well-being, whereas
intrapersonal variables (e.g., self-concept, extraversion, internal locus of control) are larger contrib-
utors to well-being (Huebner, 1997). In addition, both major (e.g., death of a parent) and minor
(e.g., fights with friends, helping another person) life events have been shown to contribute to well-
being. Furthermore, positive daily life events have been shown to be the most powerful contributor
of LS (McCullough, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2000).
QOL/LS relates to a variety of health and risky behaviors in children and adolescents. For
example, reports of LS are negatively related to depression, anxiety, and social stress (Gilman &
Heubner, 2006). With regard to risk behaviors, lower LS is negatively associated with substance use,
and aggressive behaviors such as physical fighting, weapon carrying, and being injured or threatened
with a weapon (Valois et al., 2001; Zullig, Valois, Huebner, Oeltmann, & Drane, 2001).
Few studies have examined the role that LS may play in determining adaptive outcomes. Con-
sideration of LS is important because youth who report high levels of LS tend to report better
academic (e.g., positive school experiences, higher grade point averages [GPAs]), interpersonal
(e.g., better peer relationships), and intrapersonal (e.g., lower levels of anxiety and depression,
higher levels of hope and personal control) functioning when compared to those who report low
LS (Gilman & Huebner, 2006). Preliminary findings suggest that LS may mediate the relationship
between stressful life events and internalizing behaviors, and moderate the relationship between
stressful life events and externalizing behaviors (McKnight, Huebner, & Suldo, 2002; Suldo &
Huebner, 2004). Taken together, these findings suggest that further delineating the relationship be-
tween QOL/LS and aggressive acts may improve youths academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
adjustment.

Bullying
Bullying is one of the most common and potentially serious forms of school violence (Elinoff,
Chafouleas, & Sassu, 2004, p. 887); it is associated with a host of serious short- and long-term
negative consequences. Loneliness, social and emotional maladjustment, high risk of alcohol or
drug use, poor academic achievement, and lack of close peer relationships are associated with
childrens engagement in bullying behaviors (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, &
Scheidt, 2001). In addition, children who bully are likely to escalate and engage in antisocial and
violent behavior later (Rigby, 2003). Victimization, however, has been correlated with low self-
esteem, depression, and increased anxiety (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). Victims1
of bullying are more likely to report physical and mental health problems and to contemplate suicide
compared with nonvictims (Rigby, 2001). In addition, being involved in bullying as either a victim

1
The term victim is used throughout this article. This term can have connotations that are not intended here.
It has been argued that victim implies helplessness, loss of control, negative outcomes, and stigmatization (Taylor,
Wood, & Lichtman, 1983). In this article, victim is used for the sake of clarity and conciseness, and refers to children
who are the targets of bullying behaviors.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

638 Flaspohler et al.

or a bully-victim has been associated with lower academic achievement (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara,
& Kernic, 2005).
Olweus (1993) differentiated victims of bullying whose behaviors can be described as provoca-
tive and aggressive from those whose behaviors are more passive and submissive. Bully-victims
are those who bully others and are bullied themselves. These students demonstrate reactive aggres-
sion, picking on others in response to being picked on themselves, and are often more aggressive
than bullies who are not also victims (Haynie et al., 2001; Pellegrini, 1998; Perren & Alasker, 2006).
Bully-victims are at the highest risk for negative psychosocial and behavioral outcomes, including
tobacco use, depression, low self-control, poor social competence, poor relationships with class-
mates, loneliness, poor school functioning, and low academic achievement (Haynie et al., 2001;
Nansel et al., 2001). Thus, the experiences of bullying and being bullied have both been linked to
later development of negative consequences.
Bullying is a social process that rarely involves a simple dyadic interaction between a child who
is bullying and a child who is being bullied. More recently, researchers have become interested in the
various roles that youth play in the cycle of bullying (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman,
& Kaukiainen,1996; Sutton & Smith, 1999). That is, youth who are present when bullying occurs
have the potential to influence the situation by choosing to act in a number of ways. For example, they
may serve to perpetuate bullying by joining in, actively reinforcing, or passively accepting bullying;
alternatively, they may intervene, defend, or discourage bullying in other ways (Salmivalli et al.,
1996). Olweus (2001b) proposed a bullying circle that illustrates the various roles associated with
bullying behaviors. In addition to the direct bully and victim roles in the bullying circle, children
range from being followers of the bully (i.e., those who join in on the bullying) to supporters or
onlookers of the bullying to defenders of the victims (i.e., those who try to stop the bullying or help
the victim). Observational research supports the idea of bullying as a group process because studies
have shown that peers are present in up to 88% of bullying episodes on school playgrounds (Hawkins,
Pepler, & Craig, 2001) and that, on average, students spend 54% of their time reinforcing bullies by
passively watching the bullying occur (OConnell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). Furthermore, even when
youth are not actively involved in bullying another child but are observing or passively standing by,
they may contribute to the negative effects of bullying by increasing the sense of humiliation and
social isolation experienced by victims (Hazler & Denham, 2002).
In contrast to supporting or reinforcing bullying, peers may also play an important role in
discouraging bullying or mollifying the deleterious consequences associated with being bullied.
That is, interventions targeting the whole peer group, not only the direct bullies and victims, may be
most effective because the presence of peers who defend against bullying may be one of the most
influential factors in promoting antibullying behaviors (Sutton & Smith, 1999). Indeed, when peers
have intervened in bullying situations, they were successful at stopping the bullying more times
than not (Hawkins et al., 2001). Encouraging youth to shift their roles from supporting bullying to
defending against it is a key aim of the OBPP that, in turn, creates an atmosphere that does not accept
bullyingan intervention that is likely more effective than merely trying to change the behavior of
the bullies (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
Likewise, teachers may play an important role in preventing victimization; for example, non-
victims are nearly twice as likely as victims of bullying to report that there is a teacher with whom
they can talk about their problems (Furlong & Chung, 1995). Although formal forms of peer support,
such as programs that engage student in peer counseling or conflict resolution, fail to demonstrate
the ability to reduce rates of bullying they are perceived as helpful by the victims of bullying because
they shows that someone cares (Naylor & Cowie, 1999). These findings suggest the importance of
social support from teachers and peers and the need for further understanding of the role of informal
forms of social support in buffering the negative consequences associated with bullying.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Bullying and Quality Of Life 639

Social Support from Teachers and Peers

Social support is important both in maintaining optimal day-to-day functioning and also as
a buffer to decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes when individuals experience stressful
life events (Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Wills, 1985). Malecki, Demaray, and Elliott (2004) described
social support as an individuals general support or specific support behaviors (available or en-
acted upon) from people in the social network, which enhances their functioning and/or may
buffer them from adverse outcomes (p. 3). In the context of schools, teachers and peers are
most likely to be a core part of a childs social support network providing social support in its
multiple forms, including emotional, motivational, instrumental, and informational support (Tardy,
1985).
Social support from teachers is a valuable resource that contributes to students academic
and social success. It has been shown to promote academic achievement, school engagement, and
well-being in the classroom (Brewster & Bowen, 2004; Chen, 2005; Vedder, Boekaerts, & Seegers,
2005). Emotional support from teachers, in particular, has been linked both to students academic
competence and school adjustment; whereas motivational and informational forms of teacher support
are rated as more valuable in student self-reports (Malecki & Demaray, 2003; Smokowski, Reynolds,
& Bezruczko, 1999). Although the majority of research on social support from teachers has focused
on academic outcomes, teacher social support is also an important contributor to mental health;
it has been correlated negatively with depression, and positively with self-esteem and social skills
(Colarossi & Eccles, 2003; Malecki & Demaray, 2003). If students perceive that their teacher is fair
and cares about them, they are less likely to engage in a range of health compromising behaviors,
including alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; violence; sexual activity; and suicide (McNeely &
Falci, 2004).
Like teachers, peers are an important source of social support. Peer social support has been
linked positively to school achievement and self-esteem, and negatively to depression and somatic
complaints, such as headaches and dizziness (Colarossi & Eccles, 2003; Domagala-Zysk, 2006;
Torsheim & Wold, 2001). In addition, social support from peers has been shown to buffer the impact
of negative life events on childrens functioning. For example, among abused children, peer social
support has been negatively related to self- and parent reports of depression and anxiety (Ezzell,
Swenson, & Brondino, 2000). Furthermore, social support from friends has been shown to moderate
the negative impact of family discord on childrens problem behaviors (Wasserstein & La Greca,
1996).
Preliminary support exists linking social support and bullying. For instance, Demaray and
Malecki (2003) found that students who are not involved in bullying perceive greater social support
from teachers than do bullies, and both uninvolved students and bullies report significantly higher
frequencies of peer social support than victims and bully-victims. Furthermore, students who are
victimized exhibit poor peer relationships characterized by low peer acceptance, support, reciprocity,
and friendship (Perren & Alasker, 2006; Perren & Hornung, 2005; Rigby, 2000). These students are
also nearly twice as likely as nonvictims to report that there is not a teacher with whom they can
discuss their problems (Furlong & Chung, 1995).
Social support has also been linked to QOL. For example, students who report satisfactory
interpersonal relationships are likely to report high LS (Huebner, Funk, & Gilman, 2000). Likewise,
students who have positive attitudes about their teachers and view their teachers as an available
source of support are more likely to report high LS and mental well-being (Huebner et al., 2000;
Rigby, 2000). For female students, social support from close friends and classmates is associated
with reports of mental well-being, whereas for male students no relationship between peer social
support and mental well-being was found (Rigby, 2000).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

640 Flaspohler et al.

Little is known about the relationship between bullying and QOL/LS. The few studies that have
investigated QOL and bullying have focused primarily on victimization. For example,
Wilkins-Shurmer and colleagues (2003) found that as the frequency of victimization increased,
participants psychosocial QOL ratings decreased. Similarly, Martin, Huebner, and Valois (2008)
found longitudinal support for the link between relational victimization and LS, and lack of prosocial
experiences and LS, but not for overt victimization and LS. Although the act of bullying has not been
examined specifically in relation to LS, aggression and violence have been linked with reduced LS
(Valois et al., 2001). Because bullying is an inherently aggressive act, it is possible that a relationship
exists between bullying behavior and LS.
One study examined the link between bullying, social support, and well-being, and found
that experiencing frequent bullying and perceiving low levels of social support were independently
related to low levels of well-being (Rigby, 2000). The study also examined whether having high
levels of social support might play a buffering role for those students who reported frequently
(at least once a week) being the victims of bullying. The findings did not support the buffering
role of social support; highly victimized peers who were high and low in social support showed
no significant difference in well-being. However, the author only examined the buffering effect of
overall social support, and divided students into two groups, high or low support, based on a median
split. It may be the case that different types (i.e., from teachers and peers) and levels (i.e., examining
support as a continuous variable) of social support may affect the relationship between victimization
and QOL/LS differently.
In summary, previous research indicates that both bullying and victimization are associated
with a host of negative consequences for children (Nansel et al., 2001; Rigby, 2001; 2003), whereas
social support and LS have a positive influence on the behaviors and social-emotional health of
children (Colarossi & Eccles, 2003; Demaray & Malecki, 2002; Gilman & Huebner, 2006). This
study examined the relationship between bullying, LS, and social support, positing that students
who were uninvolved in bullying would report the highest satisfaction with their lives and most
social support from teachers and peers. Likewise, it was anticipated that students who bullied and
those who were victimized would report low LS and social support from teachers and peers. It was
also hypothesized that teacher and peer social support would moderate the relationship between
victimization and QOL/LS.

M ETHOD

Participants and Procedures

Participants in this study were drawn from archival data collected by nine elementary and
middle schools as part of implementation of the OBPP. A total of 4,331 students in grades three
through eight participated in this study. Participants were generally well proportioned by gender and
grade level (Table 1). Students attended schools designated as urban/suburban (80%), urban (7%),
or rural (13%). These schools varied in their participation in the Olweus program, with 55% of
participants in schools preparing for implementation of the OBPP, 23% in schools in their first year,
and 22% of schools in their second year of OBPP implementation.2 All surveys were administered
by school staff to a classroom of students or to a group of classrooms. Survey items were read aloud
to students in third through fifth grade and, when necessary, to older students.

2
Analyses of data that included an independent variable for whether the school was implementing the OBPP did
not result in a significant interaction between the implementation variable and bullying status or victim status.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Bullying and Quality Of Life 641

Table 1
Participant Demographics

N %

Grade
3rd 583 12.4 %
4th 482 11.1%
5th 1,226 28.3%
6th 761 17.6%
7th 627 14.5%
8th 697 16.1%
Total 4,331 100.00%
Gender
Male 2,200 50.8%
Female 2,131 49.2%
Total 4,331 100.00%

Measures
Quality of Life/Life Satisfaction. LS was assessed using the Brief Multi-dimensional Students
Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS; Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2003). The BMSLSS is a six-item,
self-report questionnaire that measures LS in five domains: family, friends, school, self, and living
environment, as well as a rating of global LS. Sample items include I would describe my satisfaction
with my school experiences as. . . and I would describe my satisfaction with my friends as. . . .
Students are asked to select one of seven response choices (terrible, unhappy, mostly dissatisfied,
mixed [about equally satisfied and dissatisfied], mostly satisfied, pleased, or delighted) for each
item. The BMSLSS has shown acceptable reliability and validity in samples of both older children
(Seligson et al., 2003) and elementary school children (Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, 2005).
Bullying. Ten items from the Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) were used to assess
students experiences of being victims of bullying. In one general question, students indicated how
often they had been bullied in the past few months. In eight additional questions, students indicated
how often they had experienced specific types of bullying, including verbal, physical, and relational
types. In another general question, students reported how often they had bullied another student in
the past few months. Previous statistical tests, using large representative samples of more than 5,000
students, have shown that the Bully/Victim Questionnaire demonstrates high reliability and validity
(Olweus, 2001a).
Social Support from Teachers and Peers. Items measuring teacher social support and peer
social support were drawn from the Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki,
Demaray, & Elliott, 2000). The CASSS is a 60-item scale consisting of five subscales that measure
social support from parents, teachers, classmates, and close friends. Twelve representative items
6 regarding teachers and 6 regarding peerswere selected from the 24 CASSS items measuring
teacher and peer social support. Representative items were chosen in order to limit the length of
the survey. Students responded to items by providing a frequency rating on a 6-point interval scale
ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Always). The teacher and peer subscales of the CASSS have inter-
nal consistency reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha > 0.88), test-retest reliability, and construct validity
(Malecki & Demaray, 2002, 2003; Malecki et al., 2004). Using the current data set, internal consis-
tency reliability (Cronbachs alpha) was obtained for the 6 teacher support items ( = 0.89) and the
6 peer support items ( = 0.90)

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

642 Flaspohler et al.

Analysis Strategy
Students were classified into four categories (bully, victim, bully-victim, and bystander) based
on their responses on two questions from the Bully/Victim Questionnaire. The first question assessed
victim status, while the second assessed bully status. Students were categorized as bullies if they
answered 2 or 3 times a month, about once a week, or several times a week to the question,
How often have you taken part in bullying another student(s) at school in the past couple months?
Those students who responded to this question by selecting the response options I havent bullied
another student(s) at school in the past couple months or It has only happened once or twice
were not classified as bullies. Students were categorized as victims using the same criteria for their
response to the question, How often have you been bullied at school in the past couple months?
Bully-victims were those students whose responses to both the question about bullying and the
question about victimization were above the cut-off. Bystanders were those students who did not
reach the cut-off for either a bully or a victim. This is consistent with past use of the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire to determine role in bullying (Glew et al., 2005; Solberg & Olweus,
2003). Sixty-eight percent (n = 2,950) of students in the sample were categorized as bystanders,
8.8% (n = 382) as bullies, 18.9% (n = 817) as victims, and 4.2% (n = 182) as bully-victims.
The LS items were averaged to create a single composite score. Likewise, the peer social support
and teacher social support items were averaged into separate composite scores. To assess whether
students with combinations of bully and/or victim status report varying levels of LS, teacher social
support, and peer social support, multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) evaluated mean
differences in outcomes among those students, after covarying grade and gender. To evaluate whether
students combinations of teacher social support and peer social support moderate the relationship
between victimization (i.e., experience of bullying) and LS, students were categorized as high or
low in teacher social support and peer social support using a mean split, resulting in four groups:
little support of either type (n = 1,528), mostly peer supported (n = 532), mostly teacher supported
(n = 610), and both peer and teacher supported (n = 1,661). Multigroup structural equation models
were computed for students with the four combinations of social support. Each groups model had a
two-factor structure of victimization (with the eight specific indicators of bullying experiences) and
LS (with its six indicators). The covariance matrices were imported into AMOS 7 to estimate the
model structure. Factor invariance tests (measurement and structural) were assessed using Byrnes
(2001) procedure by comparing the changes in fit statistics and parameter estimates between models
that did and did not allow estimates of factor loadings to vary among groups.

R ESULTS

Preliminary Analyses: Treatment of Missing Cases

For the analyses, 476 of the 4,331 cases (11%) were missing values confirmed to be missing at
random. The values of missing data were imputed using the Expected Maximum algorithm in SPSS.
Analyses of data with imputed values yielded similar results to analyses of data that excluded cases
with missing values.

Normalization and Standardization of Data

Normalized scores were computed using PRELIS for the reported frequencies of victimization
and bullying, social support from peers and teachers, as well as QOL. Standard scores were then
computed from those normal scores.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Bullying and Quality Of Life 643

Comparing Quality of Life Between Bullies, Victims, and Others

A 2(Bully Status: Yes vs. No) 2(Victim Status: Yes vs. No) MANCOVA with grade (p < .001,
2 = 0.07) and gender (p < .001, partial 2 = 0.01) as covariates compared mean differences in QOL,
peer social support, and teacher social support among students. Multivariate main effects of bully
status, F (3, 4,309) = 46.99, p < .001, 2 = 0.03, and victim status, F (3, 4,309) = 77.63, p < .001,
partial 2 = 0.05, were observed, as well as the multivariate interaction of bully and victim status,
F (3, 4,309) = 2.48, p < .05, 2 = 0.002.
Univariate analysis of variances (ANCOVAs) were used to assess which of the three dependent
variables were associated with bully and victim status. There are two main effects and one interaction
term in each analysis, totaling six comparisons across all dependent variables. The Bonferroni
adjustment converted alpha to 0.0083 to reduce the family-wise Type I error rates. Main effects
of bully and victim status were observed for all dependent variables, all p < .001. Bullies showed
lower LS (M = 0.11, s.e. = 0.02) than nonbullies (M = 0.08, s.e. = 0.01), F (1, 4,310) = 70.20,
p < .001, partial 2 = 0.02; victims showed lower LS (M = 0.15, s.e. = 0.02) than nonvictims
(M = 0.12, s.e. = 0.02), F (1, 4,310) = 138.31, p < .001, partial 2 = 0.03. Bully and victim status
interacted in association only with teacher social support, F (1, 4,310) = 6.90, p < .001, partial
2 = 0.002. Because a Levenes test indicated heterogeneity of variance among groups, Games-
Howell (as opposed to Tukey) post hoc tests were used to identify which of the bully and/or victim
status combinations differed significantly on teacher social support. Because there are four status
combinations, there were six pairwise comparisons. The Bonferroni adjustment converted alpha to
0.0083. All groups differed significantly (all p < .001) except bullies and bully-victims (p = ns).3
Comparing Associations Among Victimization and Life Satisfaction Among Students
with Different Levels of Social Support
Structural equation models estimated latent factors of victimization (i.e., experiences of bul-
lying) and QOL, as well as the correlations among those factors. On initial examination, there was
a significant amount of multivariate kurtosis, c.r. = 83.59. In all reported models, the asymptotic
distribution-free method of estimation was used because that procedure does not require multivariate
normality (Browne, 1984).
Models of the victimization-LS two-factor structure were computed separately for each of
the four groups of students with combinations of low and high teacher and peer social support.
The estimated diagrams are shown in Figure 1. Bivariate correlations among victimization, and the
average composites of LS, peer social support, and teacher social support items are displayed in
Table 2.
Measurement and structural variance among the groups were assessed using Byrnes (2001)
procedure by computing separate models that did not constrain any parameters to be equal among
groups, constrained the measurement weights to be equal among groups, and constrained both
measurement weights and latent factor covariance to be equal among groups. The intent of this
strategy was to show how model fit changed when measurement and/or latent covariance structure
was forced to be equal among the groups. Group models are shown to be different if model fit
decreases after constraining groups to be equal in some way. Classic tests of multigroup variance
relied on the significance of changes in the chi square index of estimation error (Joreskog, 1971).
More recently, though, the chi square test has been recognized as largely impractical given that the
statistic is inflated automatically by sample size and number of parameters; moreover, the inferential

3
No significant random effects of school setting were observed with these findings using multilevel models in
LISREL 8.54.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

644 Flaspohler et al.

FIGURE 1. Multigroup structural equation models of victimization and quality of life for children with levels of peer and
teacher support.

chi square distribution is based on an assumption that the model fits population variability perfectly
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Subsequently, additional
indexes of model fit have been developed that are not biased by sample size and that acknowledge
that standard error of mean (SEM) modeling is used for the testing of theoretical relationships,
instead of for accurate prediction of outcomes in applied settings. The conventional fit statistics
are summarized in Hu and Bentler (1995); the adjusted goodness-of-fit index, root mean residual
(RMR), root mean square error of approximation, and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to
evaluate the fit of the models in this study.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Bullying and Quality Of Life 645

Table 2
Correlations Among Victimization, Life Satisfaction, Peer Support, and Teacher Support

2. Peer Support 3. Teacher Support 4. Life Satisfaction

1. How often bullied in the past few months? 0.273 0.146 0.227
2. Peer support 0.654 0.605
3. Teacher support 0.542
4. Life satisfaction
p < .001.

Table 3
Fit Statistics for Factor Invariance Tests Among Multigroup Structural Equation Models with Successive Levels
of Equality Constrained Among Groups

Model 2 df RMR AGFI CFI RMSEA

Unconstrained 705.44 304 0.060 0.945 0.881 0.017

Measurement weights equated 806.66 340 0.057 0.944 0.862 0.018
Structural covariances equated 1014.28 349 0.092 0.932 0.804 0.021
Independence model 3750.56 364 0.263 0.758 0.000 0.046

RMR = root mean residual; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index ; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation.
p < .001.

Table 3 shows that model fit did not decline after constraining measurement weights to be equal
among groups, but that constraining the victimization-LS covariance to be equal among groups
caused a significant drop in model fit. Most notably, RMR changed from 0.057 to 0.092 (with values
<0.05 indicating good fit; Hu & Bentler, 1999), and CFI changed from 0.86 to 0.80 (with values
>0.95 indicating good fit; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Comparing the estimated victimization-LS covariances among the models showed that, in
comparison to having little social support of either type, having peer social support reduced the
association between victimization and QOL from r = 0.27 to r = 0.19, whereas social support
from teachers alone did not reduce the negative association, r = 0.23.

D ISCUSSION
Bullying is a frequent problem among schoolchildren and can lead to negative consequences.
This study confirms that the negative impact experienced by children who bully and are bullied is
extended to childrens perceptions of well-being. The findings from this study also suggest that after
controlling for students grade and gender, students who are not engaged in bullying report better
QOL/higher LS and feel more supported by their teachers and peers than students who bully and/or
are bullied. This is consistent with past research indicating that students who are not involved in
bullying are more likely to believe that there is a teacher at school they can talk with about their
problems and that they are connected to peers in reciprocal friendships (Furlong & Chung, 1995;
Perren & Alasker, 2006; Perren & Hornung, 2005).
Although the direction of influence cannot be inferred from correlational research, one possible
interpretation of these findings is that engagement in bullying and/or victimization adversely affects
LS and personal perceptions of social support from teachers and peers. Alternatively, it could be that

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

646 Flaspohler et al.

being satisfied with life and feeling supported by teachers and peers is protective against bullying
and victimization. The first possibility supports the development of bullying prevention programs
that aim to reduce and prevent the occurrence of bullying in schools. If implemented with fidelity,
these programs have been proven not only to reduce bullying significantly, but also to lead to more
positive social relationships at school (Olweus, 1993). The second possibility supports school-wide
intervention or prevention efforts that promote students social-emotional well-being and promote
the development of supportive relationships at school in an effort to protect against bullying and
victimization.
The results of this study further indicate that students who are victimized are less satisfied with
their lives and feel less socially supported by peers than the students who bully them. Nonetheless,
victims do feel more socially supported by their teachers than bullies. It is the students who both
bully others and are bullied by others that consistently fare the worst. In this study, these students
reported less satisfaction with their lives and less social support from teachers and peers than all other
students. The additive effect of being both a bully and a victim is associated with the greatest risk
for negative outcomes. However, because overall victims of bullying have less favorable outcomes
when compared to bullies, it can be inferred that the experience of victimization is extremely
salient, and contributes greatly to the reduced LS and perceptions of social support displayed by
bully-victims. In addition, previous research supports a link between victimization and LS (Rigby,
2000; Wilkins-Shurmer et al., 2003), whereas the link between LS and bullying perpetration is less
established.
Based on current findings and previous research, we further analyzed the relationship between
LS and victimization, examining whether social support may moderate the relationship between
the two. As predicted, results indicated that various levels of perceived social support from peers
and teachers affected the relationships between victimization and QOL differentially. Students who
perceived high peer social support and low teacher social support showed a weaker association
between victimization and QOL than students who perceived having low support from both peers
and teachers. However, students who perceived high teacher support but low peer support failed to
show this effect. These results suggest that having peer social support may buffer the negative effects
of bullying on youths QOL. However, having only teacher support may not be enough to protect
students from the deleterious effects of bullying. Thus, fostering strong peer social support among
students may play an important role in reducing the negative effects of bullying.
Students who perceived that they had both peer and teacher social support exhibited the
weakest association between victimization and QOL, which suggests that having peer social support
in tandem with teacher support provides the strongest buffer against the negative effects of bullying.
These findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that social support protects against
negative outcomes in the face of stressful events (Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Wills, 1985). Thus, in
addition to encouraging peer social support among students, it is important to promote teacher social
support of students as well, in order to lessen the negative effects associated with being bullied.
Universal bullying prevention programs (e.g., OBPP; Olweus & Limber, 1999) and school climate
programs (e.g., Caring School Communities; Munoz & Vanderhaar, 2006) may be more effective
when strategies to promote connections between and among students and school staff are prioritized.
Results of this research underscore the value of uninvolved children or bystanders in universal
prevention efforts aimed at reducing bullying and other forms of school violence. Bystanders might
possess social resources, including social support, that could be mobilized for bullying prevention
efforts. Because bystanders might have stronger relationships with teachers and peers, they might
have a degree of influence and social capital that other students do not. As a result, these students
may be more adept at reporting bullying, intervening to stop bullying, or acting supportively toward
a victimized peer. Schools might benefit from instituting bullying prevention strategies that teach

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Bullying and Quality Of Life 647

bystanders how they can help stop bullying. Such strategies might include promoting inclusive
approaches to playground activities (e.g., we dont say you cant play). In addition, bystanders
high teacher and peer social support indicates that they are capable of representing their peers and
collaborating with teachers. As such, bystanders could be effective members of a student antibullying
committee, working with their peers and with teachers to plan, implement, and evaluate school-wide
bullying prevention efforts (Reiger, Elfstrom, Sink, & Flaspohler, 2008). Future research should
consider whether bullying prevention interventions that actively engage bystanders demonstrate
positive results beyond those reported for interventions that solely involve school staff or other
adults.
Importantly, efforts to engage bystanders in bullying prevention should be distinguished from
peer mediation and conflict resolution strategies. These approaches are intended to assist peers in
resolving these conflicts. However, an implicit assumption in peer mediation approaches is that a
balance of power exists between peers engaged in the conflict. Because bullying is characterized
by imbalance in power between bully and victim, peer mediation strategies are inappropriate for
addressing incidents of bullying. As an alternative, universal school-based bullying prevention efforts
should focus on engaging children in proactive strategies that promote an inclusive school climate.
In summary, this article demonstrates that the well-being of children may be adversely affected
by engagement in bullying whether as victim, perpetrator, or both. Social support from peers and
teachers may serve to buffer the impact of bullying on victims and may make children less vulnerable
to bullying. Future research should focus on how peer and teacher social support may affect the
impact of bullying on the well-being of bullies and the probability of individuals engaging in bullying
behavior. These findings point to the importance of bystanders as potential contributors to bullying
prevention efforts. Future research should focus on strategies to mobilize the potential of bystanders
in universal bullying prevention efforts. Finally, the results of this research underscore the importance
of both universal bullying prevention programs and school climate improvement strategies as means
to reduce a common form of school violence and to promote the well-being of children.

R EFERENCES
Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school
students at risk of school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1), 47 67.
Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62 83.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Marwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chen, J. J. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers and peers to Hong Kong adolescents academic
achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,
131(2), 77 127.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300 314.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310 357.
Colarossi, L. G., & Eccles, J. S. (2003). Differential effects of support providers on adolescents mental health. Social Work
Research, 27(1), 19 30.
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). The relationship between perceived social support and maladjustment for students
at risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 305 316.
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students
classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471 489.
Domagala-Zysk, E. (2006). The significance of adolescents relationships with significant others and school failure. School
Psychology International, 27(2), 232 247.
Elinoff, M. J., Chafouleas, S. M., & Sassu, K. (2004). Bullying: Considerations for defining and intervening in school settings.
Psychology in the Schools, 4, 887 897.
Ezzell, C. E., Swenson, C. C., & Brondino, M. J. (2000). The relationship of social support to physically abused childrens
adjustment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(5), 641 651.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

648 Flaspohler et al.

Frisch, M. B. (2000). Improving mental and physical health care through quality of life therapy and assessment. In E. Diener
& D. R. Rahtz (Eds.), Advances in quality of life theory and research (pp. 207 241). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Press.
Furlong, M. J., & Chung, A. (1995). Who are the victims of school violence? A comparison of student non-victims and
multi-victims. Education & Treatment of Children, 18(3), 282 299.
Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 35, 311 319.
Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic
performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026 1031.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Morton-Simons, B. (2001). Bullies, victims and
bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29 49.
Hazler, R. J., & Denham, S. A. (2002). Social isolation of youth at risk: Conceptualizations and practical implications. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 80, 403 409.
Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social
Development, 10, 512 527.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues
and applications (pp. 76 99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 55.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Further validation of the Students Life Satisfaction Scale: The independence of satisfaction and affect
ratings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 363 368.
Huebner, E. S. (1997). Life satisfaction and happiness. In G. Bear, K. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Childrens needs II
(pp. 271 278). Silver Springs, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Huebner, E. S. (2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Social Indicators Research,
66, 3 33.
Huebner, E. S., Suldo, S. M., Smith, L. C., & McKnight, C. G. (2004). Life satisfaction in children and youth: Empirical
foundations and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 81 93.
Huebner, E. S., Funk, B. A., & Gilman, R. (2000). Cross-sectional longitudinal psychosocial correlates of adolescent life
satisfaction. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 16(1), 53 64.
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409 426.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for
covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130 149.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the Child and Adolescent
Social Support Scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1 18.
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.
Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. E. (2000). The Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale. DeKaub: Northern
Illinois University.
Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. E. (2004, revised). A working manual on the development of the Child and
Adolescent Social Support Scale. DeKaub: Northern Illinois University.
Martin, K., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2008). Does life satisfaction predict victimization experiences in adolescence?
Psychology in the Schools, 45, 705 714.
McCullough, G., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). Life events, self-concept, and adolescents positive subjective
well-being. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 281 290.
McKnight, C. G., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2002). Relationships among stressful life events, temperament, problem
behavior, and global life satisfaction in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 677 687.
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behavior among
adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284 292.
Munoz, M. A., & Vanderhaar, J. E. (2006). Literacy-embedded character education in a large urban district: Effects of the
Child Development Project on elementary school students and teachers. Journal of Research in Character Education,
4(1 2), 27 44.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among
US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association,
285(16), 2094 2100.
Naylor, P., & Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging school bullying: The perspectives
and experiences of teachers and pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 467 479.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Bullying and Quality Of Life 649

OConnell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal
of Adolescence, 22(4), 437 452.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996, revised). The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Research Center of Health Promotion,
University of Bergen.
Olweus, D. (2001a, December). General information about the revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, PC program and
teacher handbook. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/BPP OrderForm.pdf
Olweus, D. (2001b). Olweus core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook, version III. Bergen,
Norway: Dan Olweus, University of Bergen.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention: Bullying prevention program. Boulder: Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 19(2), 165 176.
Perren, S., & Alasker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 45 57.
Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: Victims and perpetrators family and peer
relationships. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 51 64.
Reiger, C. J., Elfstrom, J., Sink, H., & Flaspohler, P. (2008). From research subjects to social change agents: Participatory
action research with elementary school students. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference on Advancing School-
Based Mental Health, Phoenix, AZ.
Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of
Adolescence, 23, 57 68.
Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer
harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 315 331). New York: Guilford Press.
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583 590.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant
roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1 15.
Seligson, J. L., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2003). Preliminary validation of the Brief Multidimensional Students Life
Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). Social Indicator Research, 61, 121 145.
Seligson, J. L., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2005). An investigation of a brief life satisfaction scale with elementary
school students. Social Indicator Research, 73, 355 374.
Smokowski, P. R., Reynolds, A. J., & Bezruczko, N. (1999). Resilience and protective factors in adolescence: An autobio-
graphical perspective from disadvantaged youth. Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 425 447.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire.
Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239 268.
Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2004). Does life satisfaction moderate the effects of stressful life events on psychopathological
behaviors during adolescence? School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 93 105.
Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach. Aggressive
Behavior, 25, 97 111.
Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 187 202.
Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Lichtman, R. R. (1983). It could be worse: Selective evaluation as a response to victimization.
Journal of Social Issues, 39(2), 19 40.
Torsheim, T., & Wold, B. (2001). School-related stress, school support, and somatic complaints: A general population study.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 293 303.
Valois, R. F., Zullig, K. J., Drane, W. J., & Huebner, E. S. (2001). Relationship between life satisfaction and violent behaviors
among adolescents. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25, 353 366.
Vedder, P., Boekaerts, M., & Seegers, G. (2005). Perceived social support and well being in school: The role of student
ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 269 278.
Wasserstein, S. B., & La Greca, A. M. (1996). Can peer support buffer against behavioral consequences of parental discord?
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(2), 177 182.
Wilkins-Shurmer, A., OCallaghan, M. J., Najman, J. M., Bor, W., Williams, G. M., & Anderson, M. J. (2003). Association
of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatric Child Health, 39, 436 441.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000). The association between direct and relational bullying and
behaviour problems among primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 989 1002.
Zullig, K. J., Valois, R. F., Huebner, E. S., Oeltmann, J. E., & Drane, J. W. (2001). Relationship between perceived life
satisfaction and adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 353 366.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits