Developmental Trends in Peer Victimization and Emotional Distress in LGB and

Heterosexual Youth
Joseph P. Robinson, Dorothy L. Espelage and Ian Rivers
Pediatrics; originally published online February 4, 2013;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2595

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
located on the World Wide Web at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/01/29/peds.2012-2595

PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly

publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned,
published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point
Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy
of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013


Developmental Trends in Peer Victimization and
Emotional Distress in LGB and Heterosexual Youth
AUTHORS: Joseph P. Robinson, PhD,a Dorothy L. Espelage,
PhD,a and Ian Rivers, PhDb
aDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois; and bDepartment of
Sport and Education, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex,
United Kingdom
KEY WORDS
peer victimization, emotional distress, developmental trends,
longitudinal analysis, lesbian, gay, bisexual, adolescents
ABBREVIATIONS
CFI—comparative fit index
CI—confidence interval
HLM—hierarchical linear model
LGB—lesbian, gay, and bisexual
LSYPE—Longitudinal Study of Young People in England
OR—odds ratio
RMSEA—root mean standard error of approximation
SEM—structural equation model
SRMR—standardized root mean squared residual
TLI—Tucker-Lewis index
Dr Robinson conceptualized the study, designed and performed
the data analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed and
revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as
submitted; Dr Espelage conceptualized the study, reviewed and
revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as
submitted; and Dr Rivers conceptualized the study, reviewed and
revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as
submitted.
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2012-2595
doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2595
Accepted for publication Oct 17, 2012
Address correspondence to Joseph P. Robinson, PhD, Department
of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 210F Education Building, 1310 S. 6th St., Champaign,
IL 61820. E-mail: jpr@illinois.edu
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).
Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated that they
have no financial relationships relevant to this article to
disclose.
FUNDING: No external funding.
PEDIATRICS Volume 131, Number 3, March 2013
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
ARTICLE
WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Peer victimization predicts
numerous health risks. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)-identified
youth report greater peer victimization than do heterosexual-
identified youth. No longitudinal studies have been conducted on
developmental trends of peer victimization and emotional distress
among LGB and heterosexual youth.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: We provide the first longitudinal
evidence on developmental trends of peer victimization and
emotional distress for LGB- and heterosexual-identified youth. The
findings suggest peer victimization of LGB-identified youth
decreases in absolute, but not necessarily relative, terms and
contributes to later emotional distress disparities.
abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study had 2 objectives: Our first objective was to
provide the first evidence of developmental trends in victimization rates
for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)- and heterosexual-identified youth,
both in absolute and relative terms, and to examine differences by
gender. Our second objective was to examine links between
victimization, sexual identity, and later emotional distress.
METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative prospective co-
hort study of youth in England were collected annually between 2004
and 2010. Our final analytic dataset includes 4135 participants with
data at all 7 waves; 4.5% (n = 187) identified as LGB. Analyses included
hierarchical linear modeling, propensity score matching, and struc-
tural equation modeling.
RESULTS: LGB victimization rates decreased in absolute terms. However,
trends in relative rates were more nuanced: Gay/bisexual-identified boys
became more likely to be victimized compared with heterosexual-
identified boys (wave 1: odds ratio [OR] = 1.78, P = .011; wave 7:
OR = 3.95, P = .001), whereas relative rates among girls approached
parity (wave 1: OR = 1.95, P = .001; wave 7: OR = 1.18, P = .689),
suggesting different LGB–heterosexual relative victimization rate
trends for boys and girls. Early victimization and emotional distress
explained about 50% of later LGB–heterosexual emotional distress
disparities for both boys and girls (each P , .015).
CONCLUSIONS: Victimization of LGB youth decreases in absolute, but
not necessarily relative, terms. The findings suggest that addressing
LGB victimization during adolescence is critical to reducing LGB–
heterosexual emotional distress disparities but additional support
may be necessary to fully eliminate these disparities. Pediatrics
2013;131:1–8
1
Peer victimization of youth is associated
with numerous health risks, includ-
ing suicidal ideation,1–4 suicide at-
tempts,1,3,5,6 depression and anxiety,1,2,7
psychotic symptoms,8 and sexual risk.5
Although many youth experience peer
victimization,9,10 youth who identify
as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) tend
to experience higher rates of peer
victimization than do their heterosexual-
identified peers.3,5,11–15* These height-
ened levels of peer victimization for
LGB youth have been linked to their
disproportionate levels of health risks
in cross-sectional studies,3,5,6,16,17 retro-
spective studies,18 and meta-analyses.13
Given evidence on the damaging health
effects of victimization and the dispro-
portionate amount of victimization LGB
individuals face, it is important to un-
derstand (1) developmental trends in
victimization rates for LGB youth and
(2) whether the higher victimization
experienced by LGB youth (relative to
heterosexual peers) has adverse con-
sequences for their later emotional
distress.
First, with respect to developmental
trends in victimization rates, we hy-
pothesize a general downward trend
in absolute levels of reported peer
victimization. This prediction is moti-
vated by previous studies using cross-
sectional data, which found that peer
victimization tends to be lower among
older adolescents than among younger
adolescents.10,15,19 However, because
adults exhibit stronger gender-norm
expectations for boys than for girls
and tend to report greater hostility
toward gay/bisexual boys than toward
lesbian/bisexual girls, 20–23 we also
*Some of these studies also included transgender-
identified youth and youth who were questioning
their sexual orientation. Because the LSYPE only
allows us to study LGB- and heterosexual-identified
youth, our discussion of the literature focuses on
LGB (rather than LGBTQ) youth. However, one
should note that victimization faced by LGB youth
is often experienced by transgender and
questioning youth as well.
2 ROBINSON et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
hypothesize that victimization rates after
secondary/high school will remain dis-
proportionately high for gay/bisexual
boys but not for lesbian/bisexual girls
relative to their heterosexual peers.
Second, with respect to the issue of
victimization and emotional distress,
we hypothesize that the dispropor-
tionate early victimization experienced
by LGB youth will predict their elevated
levels of emotional distress. However,
we also hypothesize that significant
LGB–heterosexual emotional distress
disparities may persist that are not
explained by peer victimization or
previous emotional distress dispa-
rities. No previous studies have ex-
plored the links between victimization
sexual identity, and emotional distress
disparities longitudinally; however, evi-
dence from cross-sectional and retro-
spective studies is consistent with our
theory of partial mediation.3,5,6,13,16–18,24
METHODS
Study Population
Data come from the Longitudinal Study
of Young People in England (LSYPE;
http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5545/mrdoc/
UKDA/UKDA_Study_5545_Information.
htm), a nationally representative panel
study of students who attended year 9
in the spring of 2004 (and were 13 to 14
years of age; born between September
1, 1989 and August 31, 1990; year 9 is
the equivalent of grade 8 in the United
States). Data were collected annually
through 2010 (when the youth were 19
to 20 years of age) by the Department
for Education in the United Kingdom,
for a total of 7 waves of data. At each
wave, youth were interviewed in per-
son, via telephone, or via the internet.
Interview data were also collected from
the youths’ parents and school admin-
istrators during waves 1 to 4. The LSYPE
used a 2-stage cluster stratified sam-
pling design: schools were stratified
on the basis of school type (eg, pub-
lic, private), proportion of students
receiving free lunch (an index of
socioeconomic status), and academic
performance of the school. A sub-
sample of schools within each stratum
was selected for inclusion in the study.
Within each school, an average of 33.25
students were sampled in wave 1. The
total number of students interviewed
in wave 1 was 15 770, representing
a response rate of 74%. The sample in
wave 7 included 8682 students, repre-
senting a response rate of 90%.
Population Probability Sampling
Weights
Because the wave 7 sampling weights
adjust for attrition and nonresponse
throughout the waves, we used these
sampling weights in all of our multilevel
analyses to account for the complex
sampling design and to ensure that the
results are nationally representative
for the types of students retained in our
sample (discussed next).
Analytic Data Restrictions
To reduce the possibility of differential
race-, ethnicity-, or gender-based bul-
lying for LGB and heterosexual youth,
we restricted the sample to only
youth who identified as “White-British”
(86% of LGB-identified youth, 70% of
heterosexual-identified youth)† and
performed analyses fully interacted
with gender (for the hierarchical linear
models) or separately by gender (for
the structural equation models [SEMs]).
To guard against including youth who
did not take the survey seriously, we
restricted analyses to youth who re-
ported the same gender at waves 1, 2,
and 4 (8 students in our final sample
were missing responses to this ques-
tion in wave 3). Finally, to ensure a bal-
anced sample, we retained participants
†
Fifteen other race-ethnicity categories accounted
for the remaining 14% of LGB-identified and 30% of
heterosexual-identified participants. Each of these
race-ethnicity groups had too few LGB-identified
youth to obtain reliable estimates.

who responded to the victimization
questions at each wave. The final ana-
lytic sample included 4135 participants
(n = 2049 boys; n = 2086 girls).
Measures
LGB Identification
At waves 6 and 7, youth were asked to
state which of the following terms best
describes them: heterosexual/straight,
gay/lesbian, bisexual, or other. We
coded youth as LGB if they identified at
gay/lesbian or bisexual during either
wave. Preliminary analyses revealed no
statistically significant differences in
victimization or emotional distress
between lesbian/gay- and bisexual-
identified youth; thus, these youth
were treated as 1 category for our
analyses. A total of 187 participants
(4.5%) identified as LGB. Youth who
identified as heterosexual/straight in at
least 1 wave and not as LGB in either
wave were coded as heterosexual
(95.5%; n = 3948).
Peer Victimization/Bullying
During each wave (except wave 5),
students were asked whether they ex-
perienced specific forms of peer vic-
timization (eg, name calling, threats of
physical violence, actual physical vio-
lence) during the previous 12 months.
During waves 1 to 4, respondents re-
ported whether they experienced each
form of peer victimization; during
waves 6 and 7, respondents reported
whether they experienced any form of
bullying/victimization but were not
asked which specific type(s) of victim-
ization they experienced. For our first
research question (on victimization
trends across waves 1 to 7), peer vic-
timization was operationalized as a di-
chotomous variable (0 = no forms of
victimization experienced; 1 = some
form(s) of victimization experienced).
For our second research question (on
victimization and emotional distress
across waves 1 to 4), peer victimization
PEDIATRICS Volume 131, Number 3, March 2013
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
was treated as a count variable,
reflecting the number of forms of vic-
timization reported (range: 0–3).
Parents also reported whether their
child was bullied through name calling
in wave 1 (0 = no; 1 = yes).
Emotional Distress Index
During waves 2 and 4, youth were asked
if they have recently been (1) feeling
unhappy and depressed, (2) thinking of
themselves as a worthless person, and
(3) feeling reasonably happy all things
considered. For the first 2 items, there
were 4 possible responses: no not at all,
no more than usual, rather more than
usual, and much more than usual. For
the item regarding happiness, the 4
possible responses were as follows:
more so than usual, about the same
as usual, less so than usual, and much
less than usual. These 3 items had a
Cronbach’s a of 0.74 and 0.73 at waves
2 and 4, respectively, and were thus
averaged into a single scale at each
wave. These scales were used for all
analyses except those involving SEM
(discussed below), where instead the
latent construct of emotional distress
was entered as a predictor of each of
the 3 items at the respective wave. We
used this latent-variable approach to
more accurately capture the notion
that these 3 observed items (each
measured with error) emanate from
a latent construct.
Statistical Analyses
Hierarchical Linear Models
To examine whether bullying rates de-
creased over time for LGB youth in
absolute terms and relative to hetero-
sexual peers, we used a 3-level hier-
archical linear model (HLM) with a logit
link function for dichotomous out-
comes. Repeated observations (level 1)
were nested within individuals (level 2),
which were nested within design strata
(level 3). The dependent variable in each
model is whether the youth reported
ARTICLE
being bullied in the last year (0 = no; 1 =
yes). Bullying/peer victimization was
predicted by wave of data collection and
cross-level interactions between wave
and LGB identification; this piecewise
growth specification allowed for
greater flexibility in measuring wave-
specific disparities rather than as-
suming a particular parametric growth
function.25 Random intercepts at levels
2 and 3 accounted for random varia-
tion across individuals and across
strata. SEs were cluster-robust and
accounted for heteroskedasticity. Mod-
els were estimated with level 2 (ie, in-
dividual person level) indicators for LGB
identification and gender, as well as
interactions between LGB identification
and gender. Each level 2 variable was
interacted with level 1 indicators for
wave (ie, cross-level interactions in the
piecewise growth model). We also per-
formed a robustness check: we esti-
mated the HLMs separately by gender
and obtained identical estimates and
inferences.
Propensity Score Matching With HLM
To more rigorously test the relationship
between LGB identification and victim-
ization after secondary/high school, we
used propensity score matching to
identify a set of heterosexual-identified
youth who reported the same levels of
victimization and emotional distress as
did LGB-identified youth during waves 1
to 4. The propensity score itself can be
viewed as a composite measure of how
different LGB and heterosexual youth
are in terms of how much bullying they
experienced in waves 1 to 4, in terms of
emotional distress at waves 2 and 4, and
in terms of parental reports of their
child being bullied through name call-
ing in wave 1. Before matching, LGB and
heterosexual youth differed on the
propensity score by 1.18 SD for boys and
1.15 SD for girls (each P , .0001).
Matching is preferred to covariate ad-
justment when the difference in mean
propensity scores exceeds 0.50 SD,
3
because covariate adjustment relies
more heavily on functional form as-
sumptions, and large extrapolations
may be required.26 Through propensity
score matching, we identified a sample
of heterosexual-identified boys (girls)
and LGB-identified boys (girls) with
nearly identical victimization and emo-
tional distress profiles in waves 1 to 4
and within the same sampling de-
sign strata, and we avoided having to
make the stronger analytic assump-
tions required of standard covariate
adjustment.‡
Then, using the matched sample of LGB-
and heterosexual-identified boys (girls),
weassesseddifferencesinpostsecondary/
post-high school victimization. For these
‡
Propensity score matching analyses involve a se-
quence of steps. First, LGB identification is pre-
dicted by the number of forms of bullying the
youth reported experiencing in each wave of
waves 1 to 4, parental reports of bullying through
name calling at wave 1, and emotional distress at
waves 2 and 4 (and the interaction of wave 2 and
wave 4 emotional distress). Design strata fixed
effects (ie, indicators for each design strata) were
also included in the first-step prediction model to
account for any unobserved factors related to
both design strata and LGB identification. As with
all our analyses, sampling weights were used to
account for the complex design of the LSYPE.
Second, propensity scores were estimated for
boys and girls separately to allow for greater
flexibility in estimating the propensity scores.
Third, once propensity scores were estimated for
all youth, we used caliper matching with a caliper
of 0.25 SD of the within-group propensity score39
to identify heterosexual youth with similar
likelihoods to identify as LGB as the actual LGB
youth and within the same design strata16 and
with the same gender. In other words, we found
heterosexual boys (girls) who were bullied as
often as and had emotional distress scores very
similar to those of LGB boys (girls). After
matching, balance was assessed: LGB and
heterosexual youth differed (nonsignificantly) by
0.04 SD on the propensity score for both boys and
girls (each P . .76; as a reminder, before
matching differences exceeded 1.15 SD, each P ,
.0001). It can also be seen in Fig 2 that after
matching, LGB status did not predict bullying in
waves 1 to 4, a further indication that balance was
achieved after matching. Finally, we used the
matched samples to estimate ORs at waves 1 to 7
using a 3-level HLM, with the ORs of interest being
those at waves 6 and 7 (because we already
matched on bullying at waves 1 to 4, so those ORs
should be close to 1 by design).
4 ROBINSON et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
analyses, the wave 6 and 7 odds ratios
(ORs) are of particular interest, as they
tell us how LGB identification predicts
subsequent bullying among the sample
of youth who reported equivalent bul-
lying and emotional distress during
secondary/high school. To estimate the
matched-sample ORs seen in Fig 2, we
again used a 3-level HLM as discussed
above.
SEMs
Next, we examined the associations
among LGB identification status, bully-
ing, and emotional distress using SEM
analyses.27 In addition to providing
a way to assess the robustness of the
propensity score matching with HLM
results (with emotional distress as the
outcome), these SEMs disaggregate
the total LGB–heterosexual disparities
in emotional distress after the end of
compulsory school into the direct
paths (ie, disparities not accounted for
by the models) and the indirect paths
(ie, disparities mediated by previous
victimization and emotional distress).
Our SEMs account for the complex
sampling design of the LSYPE by us-
ing probability-sampling weights and
jackknifed SEs clustered at the design
strata level.x
RESULTS
Victimization Trends for LGB- and
Heterosexual-Identified Youth
Peer victimization was highest on av-
erage during wave 1 (ie, year 9), and
x
To assess model fit with SEM, ideal fit statistics
include ratio of x 2/df , 2; root mean standard
error of approximation (RMSEA) , 0.06; proba-
bility (RMSEA , .05) (pclose) . 0.95; comparative
fit index (CFI) . 0.95; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .
0.95; and standardized root mean squared residual
(SRMR) , 0.08. Our SEMs have excellent fit-
statistic properties, meeting all of these fit-
statistic standards [for the male model: x2(25) =
31.758 (ratio = 1.27), RMSEA = 0.012, pclose =
1.000, CFI = 0.992, TLI = 0.981, SRMR = 0.016; for
the female model: x 2(25) = 42.497 (ratio = 1.70),
RMSEA = 0.018, pclose = 1.000, CFI = 0.987, TLI =
0.971, SRMR = 0.016].
each group (gay/bisexual boys, het-
erosexual boys, lesbian/bisexual girls,
heterosexual girls) experienced a sig-
nificant reduction in victimization be-
tween waves 1 and 7 (each P , .0001;
Fig 1).‖
For example, 57% of lesbian/bisexual
girls reported being bullied at wave 1,
whereas only 6% of these girls reported
being bullied at wave 7. For gay/bisexual
boys, the wave 1 and 7 percentages
were 52% and 9%, respectively. Despite
a significant reduction in the absolute
percentage of gay/bisexual boys re-
porting being bullied, gay/bisexual
boys became more likely to be bullied
relative to heterosexual boys. Among
boys, the wave 1 and 7 ORs were 1.78 (x21
= 6.49, P = .011) and 3.95 (x 21 = 10.67,
P = .001), respectively (Fig 2). The pat-
tern of relative LB–heterosexual bully-
ing among girls was markedly different:
Among girls, the wave 1 OR was 1.95
(x 21 = 11.18, P , .001), whereas by wave
7, the OR decreased to 1.18 and became
nonsignificant (x 21 = 0.16, P = .689). This
gender 3 LGB identification interaction
was not significant at wave 1 (x 21 = 0.08,
P = .773), but became significant by
wave 7 (x 21 = 4.28, P = .039).
Moreover, propensity score matched
analyses revealed that when LGB boys
(girls) were matched to heterosexual
boys (girls) in terms of bullying in waves
1 to 4, parental reports of bullying
through name calling at wave 1, and
emotional distress at waves 2 and 4, the
ORs at wave 7 were strikingly similar to
the ORs in the unmatched/full samples
(compare dashed and solid lines in Fig
2). In the matched sample, gay/bisexual
boys were .4 times as likely as het-
erosexual boys to report being bullied
at wave 7 (OR = 4.64, x21 = 23.41, P ,
‖
Compulsory schooling concludes in England in
year 11 (i.e., wave 3). Thus, wave 4 marks
a transitional period as youth either pursue
additional schooling (often at a new school)
before university or they may enter the workforce.
This transitional period likely explains the general
increase in victimization reported in wave 4.19,40
 ARTICLE

demonstrated significantly higher lev-

els of emotional distress risk than did
their heterosexual-identified peers (in
the male model: b = 0.17, SE = 0.05, 95%
confidence interval [CI] = 0.06–0.27, P =
.002; in the female model: b = 0.24, SE =
0.07, 95% CI = 0.10–0.39, P = .001).
These disparities can be decomposed
into direct paths (ie, the portion of
each disparity not explained by pre-
vious victimization and emotional dis-
tress) and indirect paths (ie, the
portion of each disparity mediated by
previous victimization and emotional
distress), illustrated in the SEM dia-
FIGURE 1
Victimization developmental trends in full sample by gender and LGB identification. Piecewise growth grams (Fig 3). For boys, more than half
models were estimated using hierarchical linear models,25 with repeated observations (level 1; n = 24 810) (54%) of the LGB–heterosexual dis-
nested within individual persons (level 2; n = 4135) nested within sample design strata (level 3; n = 35). parity in emotional distress at wave 4
Cluster robust SEs account for heteroskedasticty and the nesting of observations within individuals
and strata. Sampling weights were used to ensure the results are nationally representative. was explained by indirect paths (b =
0.09, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02–0.16, P =
.015); these indirect paths can be
.001). This finding suggests that gay/ Role of Victimization in Explaining decomposed further into the portions
bisexual boys were bullied more after LGB–Heterosexual Emotional of the disparity mediated by previous
secondary/high school even when Distress Disparities victimization (25% of the total dispar-
compared with heterosexual boys In England, compulsory schooling con- ity; b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01–
who reported nearly identical victim- cludes in year 11 (ie, wave 3). One year 0.07, P = .009) and previous emotional
ization and emotional distress during after the end of compulsory school- distress (29%; b = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95%
secondary/high school. ing (ie, wave 4), LGB-identified youth CI = 20.01 to 0.11, P = .120). For girls,
again about half (46%) of the disparity
was mediated by indirect paths (b =
0.11, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.06–0.16, P ,
.001); decomposing these indirect
paths further, 28% of the total dis-
parity was mediated by previous vic-
timization (b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, 95% CI =
0.03–0.11, P , .001) and 18% was
mediated by previous emotional dis-
tress (b = 0.04, SE = 0.01, 95% CI =
0.02–0.07, P , .001).
Although about half of each disparity
was mediated by previous victimization
and emotional distress, disparities
persisted independent of these factors
(male model: b = 0.08, SE = 0.03, 95% CI
FIGURE 2 = 0.02–0.13, P = .009; female model: b =
Victimization developmental trend ORs by gender and sample. *OR is significantly different from 1 (P , 0.13, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.00–0.26, P =
.05). In the estimation stage for the full samples and matched samples, 3-level HLMs with logit link
functions were estimated, predicting whether the child was bullied in each wave as a function of wave .047). This result is shown in the direct
and LGB identification-by-wave interactions, allowing for random variance at the measurement level paths from LGB to wave 4 emotional
(level 1), person level (level 2), and sampling design strata level (level 3). Cluster robust SEs account for
heteroskedasticty and the nesting of observations within individuals and strata. Sampling weights distress in Fig 3. To assess the robust-
were used to ensure the results are nationally representative. ness of our findings, we performed 2

PEDIATRICS Volume 131, Number 3, March 2013 5

Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
FIGURE 3
SEMs modeling the relationships among bullying victimization, emotional distress, and LGB identification by gender. Models were estimated via the asympotic
distribution free method with jackknifed SEs clustered at the stratum level. Sampling weights were used to ensure the results are nationally representative.
P values (rounded to 3 decimal places) appear in parentheses below unstandardized path coefficients. Bully# w1, count of forms of bullying reported in wave
1; Bully# w2, count for wave 2; and so on. Em Dis w2, latent construct of emotional distress at wave 2; Em Dis w4, corresponding variable for wave 4.

6 ROBINSON et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013

additional types of analyses, all of
which suggested the same patterns.
First, similar patterns emerged when
the emotional distress index was
treated as observed (rather than la-
tent). Second, analyses using pro-
pensity score matching instead of SEM
produced comparable patterns and
results. These additional analyses
suggest the findings are robust to al-
ternative (and conceptually distinct)
analytic strategies.
DISCUSSION
This research contributes the first
longitudinal evidence on 2 important,
developmental questions related to
peer victimization and the emotional
distress of LGB youth. The first contri-
bution concerns peer victimization
trends. As hypothesized, our findings
indicate that bullying decreased in
absolute terms after secondary/high
school regardless of gender or sexual
identity. In relative terms, LGB boys
and girls were about twice as likely
as heterosexual peers to be bullied
throughout secondary/high school;
however, after secondary/high school,
lesbian/bisexual girls were no more
likely to be bullied than heterosexual
REFERENCES
1. Brunstein Klomek A, Marrocco F, Kleinman
M, Schonfeld IS, Gould MS. Bullying, de-
pression, and suicidality in adolescents. J
Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46
(1):40–49
2. Kaltiala-Heino R, Rimpelä M, Marttunen M,
Rimpelä A, Rantanen P. Bullying, de-
pression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish
adolescents: school survey. BMJ. 1999;319
(7206):348–351
3. Russell ST, Joyner K. Adolescent sexual
orientation and suicide risk: evidence from
a national study. Am J Public Health. 2001;
91(8):1276–1281
4. Safren SA, Heimberg RG. Depression,
hopelessness, suicidality, and related fac-
tors in sexual minority and heterosexual
adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67
(6):859–866
PEDIATRICS Volume 131, Number 3, March 2013
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
girls, whereas gay/bisexual boys’ like-
lihood of being bullied actually in-
creased compared with heterosexual
boys. Thus, as we hypothesized, our
findings suggest that the answer to
“does it get better?” is highly nuanced
when it comes to victimization,
depending on whether one looks at
absolute or relative levels of victimi-
zation and on the interplay among age,
gender, and sexual identity. The second
contribution of this research is on the
role of victimization in explaining LGB–
heterosexual emotional distress dis-
parities. As predicted, we found that
the higher levels of peer victimization
that LGB youth experienced through-
out secondary/high school mediated
about half, but not all, of the LGB–
heterosexual disparities in emotional
distress. These conclusions should be
treated with some caution, however,
because these data do have limitations,
they are self-reported, only capture LGB
identification (not behavior or attrac-
tion), do not assess the degree to which
youth were “out,” and may not gener-
alize to other countries.
In terms of policy implications, these
findings suggest that addressing both
emotional distress and victimization
5. Bontempo DE, D’Augelli AR. Effects of at-
school victimization and sexual orienta-
tion on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’
health risk behavior. J Adolesc Health.
2002;30(5):364–374
6. Garofalo R, Wolf RC, Wissow LS, Woods ER,
Goodman E. Sexual orientation and risk of
suicide attempts among a representative
sample of youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
1999;153(5):487–493
7. Salmon G, James A, Smith DM. Bullying in
schools: self reported anxiety, depression,
and self esteem in secondary school chil-
dren. BMJ. 1998;317(7163):924–925
8. Schreier A, Wolke D, Thomas K, et al. Pro-
spective study of peer victimization in
childhood and psychotic symptoms in
a nonclinical population at age 12 years.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(5):527–536
ARTICLE
during secondary/high school may help
to substantiallyreduceLGB–heterosexual
disparities in later emotional distress.
However, other support, such as al-
tering school climate in regard to
LGB issues, may also be necessary to
foster supportive and safe environ-
ments for LGB youth.14,16,28–33 Climate-
altering programs may include diversity
training on students raised by non-
heterosexual parents34; discussions
of same-gender relationships in sex
education courses35; teacher/staff
training on how to address LGB ha-
rassment36; open dialogues about
homophobia in athletics programs
and physical education classes37;
gay-straight alliances14,28,38; and in-
corporating LGB issues into curric-
ula.14,28,38 Perhaps by reducing both
the victimization LGB youth ex-
perience and the stigma associated
with LGB identification, we can sub-
stantially reduce LGB–heterosexual
disparities in emotional distress
and victimization as youth enter
adulthood.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Andrei Cimpian for helpful
comments.
9. Chapell M, Casey D, De la Cruz C, et al.
Bullying in college by students and teach-
ers. Adolescence. 2004;39(153):53–64
10. Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ,
Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying
behaviors among US youth: prevalence and
association with psychosocial adjustment.
JAMA. 2001;285(16):2094–2100
11. Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention. Sexual identity, sex of sexual con-
tacts, and health-risk behaviors among
students in grades 9-12—Youth Risk Be-
havior Surveillance, selected sites, Unites
States, 2001-2009. MMWR. 2011 Available at:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
ss60e0606a1.htm?s_cid=ss60e0606a1_w.
Accessed December 31, 2012
12. Espelage DL, Aragon SR, Birkett M, Koenig
BW. Homophobic teasing, psychological
7
 outcomes, and sexual orientation among
high school students: What influence do
parents and schools have? School Psych
Rev. 2008;37(2):202–216
13. Friedman MS, Marshal MP, Guadamuz TE,
et al. A meta-analysis of disparities in
childhood sexual abuse, parental physical
abuse, and peer victimization among sex-
ual minority and sexual nonminority indi-
viduals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(8):
1481–1494
14. Kosciw JG, Greytak EA, Diaz EM, Bartkiewicz
MJ. The 2009 National School Climate Sur-
vey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bi-
sexual and Transgender Youth in Our
Nation’s Schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian
and Straight Education Network; 2010
15. Robinson JP, Espelage DL. Inequities in ed-
ucational and psychological outcomes be-
tween LGBTQ and straight students in
middle and high school. Educ Res. 2011;40
(7):315–330
16. Robinson JP, Espelage DL. Bullying explains
only part of LGBTQ–heterosexual risk dis-
parities: Implication for policy and practice.
Educ Res. 2012;41(8):309–319
17. Saewyc E, Skay C, Richens K, Reis E, Poon C,
Murphy A. Sexual orientation, sexual abuse,
and HIV-risk behaviors among adolescents
in the Pacific Northwest. Am J Public
Health. 2006;96(6):1104–1110
18. Russell ST, Ryan C, Toomey RB, Diaz RM,
Sanchez J. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender adolescent school victimiza-
tion: implications for young adult health
and adjustment. J Sch Health. 2011;81(5):
223–230
19. DeVoe JF, Bauer L. Student Victimization in
U.S. Schools: Results From the 2007 School
Crime Supplement to the National Crime
Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office; 2010
20. Herek GM. Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward
bisexual men and women in the United
States. J Sex Res. 2002;39(4):264–274
21. Sandnabba NK, Ahlberg C. Parents’ atti-
tudes and expectations about children’s
8 ROBINSON et al
Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013
cross-gender behavior. Sex Roles. 1999;40
(3-4):249–263
22. Schope RD, Eliason MJ. Sissies and tomboys:
Gender role behaviors and homophobia. J
Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2004;16(2):73–97
23. Worthen MGF. An argument for separate
analyses of attitudes toward lesbian, gay,
bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and
FtM transgender individuals [published
online ahead of print April 4, 2012] Sex
Roles. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0155-1
24. Burgess D, Lee R, Tran A, van Ryn M. Effects
of perceived discrimination on emotional
distress and emotional distress services
utilization among gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender persons. J LGBT Health Res.
2008;3(4):1–14
25. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical Lin-
ear Models: Applications and Data Analysis
Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;
2002
26. Rubin DB. Using propensity scores to help
design observational studies: Application to
the tobacco litigation. Health Srvcs Out-
comes Res Method. 2001;2:169–188. Avail-
able at: http://archlab.gmu.edu/people/
jthompsz/rubin.pdf. Accessed December 31,
2012
27. Bollen KA. Structural Equations with Latent
Variables. New York: Wiley; 1989
28. California Safe Schools Coalition and 4-H
Center for Youth Development, University of
California, Davis. Consequences of Harass-
ment Based on Actual or Perceived Sexual
Orientation and Gender Non-Conformity
and Steps for Making Schools Safer. San
Francisco, California: California Safe
Schools Coalition: 2004
29. Hatzenbuehler ML. How does sexual mi-
nority stigma “get under the skin”? A psy-
chological mediation framework. Psychol
Bull. 2009;135(5):707–730
30. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma.
Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27:363–385
31. Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and
mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: conceptual issues and re-
search evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(5):
674–697
32. Saewyc E, Poon C, Wang N, Homma Y, Smith
A; McCreary Centre Society. Not Yet Equal:
The Health of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Youth in BC. Vancouver, Canada: McCreary
Centre Society; 2007
33. Russell ST, Kosciw J, Horn S, Saewyc E. Safe
schools policy for LGBTQ students. Avail-
able at: http://srcd.org/sites/default/files/
documents/spr_24_4_final.pdf. Accessed
December 31, 2012
34. Rivers I, Poteat VP, Noret N. Victimization,
social support, and psychosocial function-
ing among children of same-sex and
opposite-sex couples in the United King-
dom. Dev Psychol. 2008;44(1):127–134
35. Blake SM, Ledsky R, Lehman T, Goodenow C,
Sawyer R, Hack T. Preventing sexual risk
behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual
adolescents: the benefits of gay-sensitive
HIV instruction in schools. Am J Public
Health. 2001;91(6):940–946
36. Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, O’Brennan L,
Gulemetova M. Findings from the National
Education Association’s Nationwide Study
of Bullying: Teachers’ and Staff Members’
Perspectives on Bullying and Prevention.
Washington, DC: National Education Asso-
ciation; 2011
37. Barber H, Krane V. Creating a positive cli-
mate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender youths. JOPERD. 2007;78(7):6–7, 52
38. Toomey RB, McGuire JK, Russell ST. Heter-
onormativity, school climates, and per-
ceived safety for gender nonconforming
peers. J Adolesc. 2012;35(1):187–196
39. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing
a control group using multivariate matched
sampling methods that incorporate the
propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39:33–38
40. Pelligrini AD, Long JD. A longitudinal study
of bullying, dominance, and victimization
during the transition from primary school
through secondary school. Br J Dev Psy-
chol. 2002;20(2):259–280
Developmental Trends in Peer Victimization and Emotional Distress in LGB and
Heterosexual Youth
Joseph P. Robinson, Dorothy L. Espelage and Ian Rivers
Pediatrics; originally published online February 4, 2013;
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2595
Updated Information & including high resolution figures, can be found at:
Services http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/01/29
/peds.2012-2595
Subspecialty Collections This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in
the following collection(s):
Adolescent Medicine
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/adolescent
_medicine
Permissions & Licensing Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,
tables) or in its entirety can be found online at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xh
tml
Reprints Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml

PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly

publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published,
and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk
Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All
rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.

Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on February 28, 2013