Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones : The Influence of Parental Verbal Abuse on Peer Related Victimization

Western Criminology Review 9(1), 17–30 (2008)
Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones:
The Influence of Parental Verbal Abuse on Peer Related Victimization
Lisa Hutchinson
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
David Mueller
Boise State University
Abstract. Prior research on the effects of childhood maltreatment has focused primarily on the relationship between
physical abuse and its impact on delinquent behavior. Although researchers have recently begun to recognize the
importance of and to explore the detrimental effects which psychological maltreatment has on children, little empirical
attention has been paid to the possibility that maltreatment may also increase the likelihood of future victimization
among children. Drawing on the tenets of differential oppression theory, this study examines whether students who
are victims of emotional and/or verbal abuse by their parents are more likely to adapt through the use of passive
acceptance, as evidenced by low self-esteem, and subsequently become targets for further victimization at the hands
of their peers. Findings indicate that parental emotional and verbal abuse is a significant predictor of peer-related
victimization.
Keywords: peer victimization; parental maltreatment; emotional abuse; differential oppression.
Introduction
Alexander, 1997; Finkelhor et al., 2005). Because differ-
ent types of maltreatments tend to occur simultaneously,

Despite growing social prohibitions against cruelty that is, they are bundled together as a package, it becomes
to children, child maltreatment continues to be a serious, important for researchers to unravel the specific effects of
albeit low profile, problem in the United States. Child verbal abuse from other sources of trauma (Browne and
maltreatment can take various forms including neglect, Finkelhor, 1986; Finkelhor et al., 2005). It is this type
physical and sexual abuse, and lower-level forms of ag- of research that will help to unravel the true effects of
gression such as verbal and emotional abuse. Because verbal and emotional abuse on children, and upon which
acts of maltreatment typically take place indoors, away this study focuses.
from the prying eyes of neighbors and public officials,
The present study is designed to build on current
measuring the true extent of the problem is difficult at best. knowledge about child maltreatment by exploring the
While many studies have examined the effect of physical impact that emotional/verbal abuse has on childhood
abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect, very few studies have experiences. Drawing on differential oppression theory
investigated the impact of psychological maltreatment, (Regoli and Hewitt, 2003), the study seeks to understand
such as verbal and emotional abuse on children. In fact, whether children who are victims of emotional and/or
the true extent of this type of maltreatment is more diffi- verbal abuse by their parents are more likely to adapt to
cult to document than physical and sexual abuse (Hussey, the oppression through the use of internalization. The
Chang, and Kotch 2006). However, a study by Straus and study examines whether these children passively accept
Field (2000) found that 10 to 20 percent of toddlers and their inferior status, suppress their hatred for the abuser,
50 percent of teenagers have experienced severe psycho- and internalize the hatred. Specifically, the study focuses
logical aggression by parents, which included acts such on examining the common internalizing disorder of low
as cursing, threatening to send the child away, calling the self-esteem to determine the impact of the emotional and
child dumb, or otherwise belittling them. Given these verbal abuse; the impact being measured by whether these
numbers, it is disturbing that this type of maltreatment is children are more likely to be victimized by their peers.
understudied.

Historically, when measures of verbal and/or emo- Previous Research
tional abuse have been examined, they commonly get
lumped into a battery of independent variables rather
A review of the extant literature indicates that a link-
than isolated as specific topics of interest (see Loos and age between parental maltreatment and the development

---

Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones: The Influence of Parental Verbal Abuse on Peer Related Victimization
of emotional and behavioral problems among children that intent” (Vissing et al., 1991:224). The communica-
has been established (Brown, 1984; Duncan, 1999; Gross tive act may be active or passive, and verbal or nonverbal.
and Keller 1992; Hart, Binggeli and Brassard, 1998; Heck Examples include name-calling or nasty remarks (active,
and Walsh, 2000). For example, Felitti et al. (1998) and verbal), slamming a door or smashing something (active,
Dube et al. (2003) found that adverse experiences during nonverbal), and stony silence or sulking (passive, nonver-
childhood increase the risk for depressed affect, suicide bal; Vissing et al., 1991).
attempts, multiple sexual partners, sexually transmitted
Vissing et al.’s (1991) data showed that nearly two-
diseases, smoking, and alcoholism. Burgess, Hartman, thirds of maltreated children experienced some form of
and McCormack (1987) found that maltreated children verbal aggression, with an average of 12.6 verbal attacks
often exhibit psychosocial ailments such as bed-wetting, occurring across the 12-month study period.2 Results
stomachaches, fear of being alone, sleep problems, poor also indicate that verbal aggression by parents was sig-
self-concept ratings, distrust of others, and psychological nificantly related to childhood problems with aggression,
withdrawal (Kaufman and Ciccheti, 1989). Hart et al. delinquency, and interpersonal relationships even after
(1998) found that maltreated children often experienced controlling for gender, age, and socioeconomic status.
anxiety, low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, emotional More importantly, Vissing and her colleagues found that
disorders, antisocial disorders, learning impairments, and parental verbal abuse was most strongly related to higher
poor physical health. In addition to internalizing disor- levels of childhood aggression irrespective of whether
ders such as these, child maltreatment has also been asso- parents themselves were physically aggressive.
ciated with delinquent behavior. Trickett and Kuczynski
Further research suggests that children who are ver-
(1986) as well as Paperny and Deisher (1983) found that bally abused by parents also tend to experience negative
maltreated children were more likely than non-maltreated outcomes such as academic failure (Hart et al., 1998;
children to exhibit higher levels of aggression towards Kinard, 2001; Wodarski et al., 1990), early experimenta-
both persons and property.
tion with drugs and alcohol (Perez, 2000), low self-esteem

While there is a documented link between parental (Briere and Runtz, 1988; Hart et al., 1998), and loneliness
verbal abuse and a negative impact on children, identify- and social isolation (Loos and Alexander, 1997). If these
ing this abuse and its impact on children is a daunting studies are indeed correct, then it is safe to assume that
task for several reasons. Though many people assume the popular childhood saying, “sticks and stones may
that they “know it when they see (or rather, hear) it,” break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” is largely
researchers have been unable to reach an agreed upon incorrect.
definition of what constitutes verbal abuse. In the ab-
sence of precise definitions, it is difficult to isolate the Differential Oppression
detrimental effects of this specific type of abuse (Vissing
et al., 1991). Second, bystanders often dismiss incidents
The detrimental effect of verbal and emotional abuse
of verbal abuse as a private matter or as normal parental is deeply rooted in the theoretical literature. Specifically,
discipline (Davis, 1996).1 Third, given its low-profile Regoli and Hewitt (2000) offer a relatively new theory,
nature, existing data on parental verbal abuse is often differential oppression theory, which provides an ap-
limited to the most egregious cases. Fourth, due to prob- propriate explanation for the various pathways that such
lems of under-reporting, official estimates of the extent abuse may have on children. These theorists suggest that
of verbal abuse are widely assumed to be speculative acts of delinquency and self-defeating behaviors often
and unreliable (Straus and Gelles, 1986). Additionally, arise out of power struggles between children and adults
Zingraff et al. (1993) noted that prior research has also (e.g., parents, teachers).
been confounded by methodological limitations (particu-
According to these theorists, compared to adults,
larly the use of cross-sectional data), which may help to children have little power in today’s society and few
over-exaggerate the maltreatment-delinquency relation- resources with which to exercise control over their so-
ship (see Heck and Walsh, 2000).
cial environments. Kids who perceive themselves as

One of the few rigorous studies that sought to isolate constantly “under the thumb” of adults often become
the main effects of parental verbal abuse on delinquency resentful, particularly when they are made to submit to
was a study conducted by Vissing et al. (1991). These the will of adults in social settings. While power dif-
authors defined parental verbal/symbolic aggression as ferentials between parents and children are common in
“communication intended to cause psychological pain to many households, Regoli and Hewitt (2000:157) feel that
another person, or a communication perceived as having parental authority is oppressive, particularly when par-
18

---

Hutchinson & Mueller / Western Criminology Review 9(1), 17–30 (2008)
ents exercise their power in ways that “prevent children to internalizing disorders such as alcoholism, drug addic-
from developing a sense of self as a subject rather than an tion, and low self-esteem. Passive acceptance is the most
object,” which is often the case in verbal and emotional common adaptation to oppression and is more common
abuse situations.
in females.

Clearly, some degree of parental controls, particu-
A second adaptation to oppressive parenting is the
larly at an early age, is necessary in order for children to exercise of illegitimate coercive power. By participating
develop self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:97), in delinquent activities, children are able to establish a
for example, have argued that in order for children to de- sense of control or power over their own lives. These acts
velop self-control, parents must “(1) monitor the child’s are simply maladaptive expressions of a desire for au-
behavior; (2) recognize deviant behavior when it occurs; tonomy and control. Low-level adaptations may include
and (3) punish such behavior.” Monitoring and oversight challenges to parental authority (e.g., sassing, back-talk-
of children’s behaviors are considered critical parental ing), defiant body language, sexual misbehavior, illicit
functions insofar as they help children to understand drug use, and criminal acts (Ferguson, 2001; Regoli and
when they have crossed the boundaries of acceptable Hewitt, 2006).
behavior. However, Regoli and Hewitt (1994) argue that
A third adaptation is manipulation of one’s peers or
some parents have a tendency to accomplish these tasks siblings in an attempt to enhance social power. To some
in a demeaning manner and under the guise of “know- extent, this adaptation can be seen as a natural extension
ing and doing what is good for them” (Miller, 1984). of deviant role-playing learned from one’s own parents
While some degree of parental oversight and guidance is (e.g., might makes right). That is, oppressed children
necessary, even beneficial for conventional socialization, may feel the need to manipulate others, such as bully-
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s own theory implies that par- ing weaker children, in an attempt to regain a sense of
ents must, at some point, relax these controls. Yet, Regoli empowerment or control over their own lives (Regoli and
and Hewitt’s differential oppression theory suggests that Hewitt, 2006).
some parents never treat their children as individuals, but
A fourth adaptation (e.g., retaliation) suggests that
rather as objects to be controlled. Further, such parents some children react to their oppressive environments by
rarely learn to “lighten up.”
lashing out either directly at one’s own parents or indi-

The theory of differential oppression is organized rectly at other symbols of their oppression (e.g., school
around four guiding principles (Regoli and Hewitt, vandalism). While this adaptation may be manifested in
2006). First, children are easy targets for adult oppres- outward acts of aggression such as assaulting or even kill-
sion because of their lack of power. Second, oppression ing one’s own parents, anger and resentment may also be
of children by adults occurs in various contexts and the directed inwards through acts of self-mutilation, depres-
degree of oppression to which a child is exposed occurs sion, or suicide (Regoli and Hewitt, 2006).
along a continuum. Third, oppression can lead to vari-
The use of retaliation seems highly plausible since so
ous childhood adaptations, including passive acceptance, much of the prior research on child maltreatment suggests
exercise of illegitimate coercive power, manipulation of that oppression leads to violence. But is it possible that
one’s peers, and retaliation. Fourth, the use of adaptive the opposite reaction is just as valid? Clearly, children re-
reactions by children reinforces adults’ views that they act to stress in a variety of different ways. Some 70 years
are “inferior, subordinate beings and as troublemakers” ago, Robert Merton (1938) argued that some individuals
(Ferguson, 2001).
adapt to stressful situations (e.g., strain) by withdrawing

Oppression can occur at both the macro and micro or “retreating” into a world of drugs, alcohol, and low
levels, yet it is the oppression that occurs within the self-esteem. In a similar manner, Regoli and Hewitt
micro levels, especially the family, that has the greatest (1994) note that the first reaction, passive acceptance,
effect on the child’s use of delinquent adaptations. As involves identifying with the oppressor. “Oppressed
previously mentioned, the theory identified four specific people frequently internalize the image of their oppres-
ways in which children adapt to oppression. The first sors and adapt their guidelines: they become fearful of
adaptation is passive acceptance of one’s status as in- freedom” (Regoli and Hewitt, 1994:210). In extreme
ferior. According to Regoli and Hewitt (2006), passive cases, it may be possible for some individuals to develop
acceptance is a form of obedience that is grounded in an acute sense of self-hatred, leading them to engage in
fear. Although children “learn to hate” their oppressors, behaviors that enhance the odds of further victimization,
they remain fearful of them and thus suppress the hatred. or as Regoli and Hewitt suggest, to simply become fear-
This adaptation, according to the authors, typically leads ful of a world in which they are not oppressed. If these
19

---

Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones: The Influence of Parental Verbal Abuse on Peer Related Victimization
possibilities exist, then parental verbal abuse is not as county during the 2001-2002 school year. All students
benign as it first appears. In fact, it suggests that verbal enrolled in these grades during the specified time period
and emotional abuse may increase the odds that a child were invited to participate; students were not randomly
will be picked on throughout adolescence and perhaps selected to participate in the study. While the sample
even into early adulthood.
may appear to be somewhat of a convenience sample, it
should be noted that all students in the designated grades
The Current Study
were given equal opportunity to participate in this study
and as such it can be described as a purposive sample.

The broad research question addressed in this study Further, after obtaining Human Subjects approval and
is whether there is a relationship between parental emo- school board consent in each of the four school districts,
tional and/or verbal abuse, self-esteem, and victimization passive consent forms were utilized. Therefore, only
by peers. The first research question asks whether chil- those students whose parents returned a consent form
dren who are victims of emotional and/or verbal abuse indicating they did not want their children to participate
are more likely to adapt to oppression through the use of in the study were excluded; students who did not return a
passive acceptance as evidenced by low self-esteem. The consent form were allowed to participate in the study.3 A
second research question asks whether those individuals total of 3,654 surveys were administered to students.
with low self-esteem resulting from parental emotional
However, not all students who participated in the
and/or verbal abuse are more likely to be victimized by survey were included in the sample. Validity in self-re-
their peers.
port measures relies on respondents’ honesty and candor

It is important to note that because different types of (Hagan, 1993). Therefore, attempts were made to elimi-
maltreatments tend to occur simultaneously, that is, they nate from the sample those individuals who did not tell
are bundled together as a package, the use of multivari- the truth when answering the survey. The current study
ate analysis can help to obscure important relationships. employed a method of eliminating cases based on invalid
Thus, unraveling the specific effects of verbal abuse re- data that is consistent with the suggestions of Brown and
quires researchers to treat this category of maltreatment Zimmerman (2004), who found that youth who indicated
separately in order to disentangle the various sources of they were not honest were more likely to provide incon-
trauma (Browne and Finkelhor, 1986; Finkelhor et al., sistent responses than those who indicated they had been
2005). It is this type of research that will help to unravel honest. Through the use of an honesty question, as sug-
the true effects of verbal and emotional abuse on children gested by Brown and Zimmerman (2004), the decision
and upon which this study focuses.
was made to eliminate the responses of those students
The study contributes to the literature in a number of ways. who indicated they did not tell the truth on the survey.
First, the study furthers the work of Vissing et al. (1991) Specifically, students were eliminated from the sample
in examining the effect of parental emotional abuse on if they responded that they “never” told the truth or told
children. Specifically, it is the first study to examine the the truth only “once in awhile” or “sometimes.” While
effects of such abuse on both verbal and physical victim- this may seem a drastic step, if students’ self-reported
ization by peers. Second, much of the current literature delinquency is to be believed, then their self-reported
has lumped measures of verbal and/or emotional abuse dishonesty should also be believed (see Brown and
into a battery of independent variables. The current study Zimmerman, 2004, for a complete discussion of the use
seeks to unravel the specific effects of verbal abuse by of honesty questions as a method of eliminating inaccu-
examining its effect separately in order to disentangle the rate self-report responses).4
various sources of trauma. Third, the study provides an
Another significant source of missing data can be
empirical examination of differential oppression theory. attributed to the instrument design. Questions assess-
Although first offered in 1991, this theory has not been ing demographic information were included at the end
subjected to many empirical examinations (Regoli and of the survey instrument. As a number of students did
Hewitt, 2006).
not complete the entire survey and, as a result, failed to
complete any item on the last page, this created a large
Methods
amount of missing demographic data. Because race
and gender are two of the most influential predictors

Data for this study were taken from a needs as- of juvenile delinquency, all respondents who did not
sessment administered to 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grade indicate their race or gender were excluded from the
students at four public school districts in a rural southern analysis. To determine whether the missing data affected
20

---

Hutchinson & Mueller / Western Criminology Review 9(1), 17–30 (2008)
Table 1. Inter-correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics
Parental
Peer
Ability to
emotional
Positive
Variables
victimization
succeed
abuse
self-worth
Grade
Race
Ability to succeed
-.284 **
Parental punitiveness
.275 **
-.302 **
Positive self-worth
-.210 **
.099 **
-.198 **
Grade
-.153 **
.083 **
.107 **
.090 **
Race
-.049 **
.042
-.055 **
.014
.017
Gender
.133 **
-.039
-.032
.002
-.006
.005
Mean
5.35
15.93
6.17
13.70
SD
7.13
5.31
5.76
5.40
Range
0–40
0–20
0–24
0-–0
Cronbach’s
.74
.87
.88
.89
* p < 0.01. ** p < 0.001 (two tailed).
the findings, respondents in the sample were compared oped by Rosenberg (1965). This ten-item index sought
to district representations of gender and race. Relative information regarding students’ feelings of self-worth,
to the district, the sample was disproportionately female perceptions regarding their ability to achieve, and satisfac-
and white.5 Further, the model under study was estimated tion with themselves. Two dimensions surfaced from the
after excluding gender and race and the results indicated factor analysis of these ten items: positive self-worth and
that neither the strength nor the direction of associations ability to succeed. Positive self-worth consisted of five
changed.
items and ranged from 0 to 20 with a mean of 13.70 and
After accounting for missing data on the dependent vari- a standard deviation of 5.40. High scores were indicative
ables, the final sample consisted of 2,126 respondents of increased self-esteem. Ability to succeed consisted of
with the following demographic characteristics. Fifty- five items and ranged from 0 to 20 with a mean of 15.93
eight percent of the respondents were female and twenty- and a standard deviation of 5.31. Responses for these five
seven percent were nonwhite. Sixth graders accounted items were recoded in reverse numerical order to reflect
for 26 percent of the sample; eighth graders accounted a positive image of ability to succeed. High scores were
for 32 percent; tenth graders for 19 percent; and twelfth indicative of increased perceptions of ability to succeed.
graders for 23 percent.
Students’ experiences with parental emotional abuse were
Measures
measured along a five item index and ranged from 0 to
24 with a mean of 6.17 and a standard deviation of 5.76.

The reliability of the constructs and measures utilized High scores were indicative of high levels of parental
in this study has been well established in previous studies. punitiveness (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).
In addition, a pilot test of the survey was conducted with
To determine the extent to which students had ex-
seventh graders in a local after school program.6 Prior to perienced parental emotional abuse, frequencies were
analyses, students’ responses to index items were summed run. Table 2 shows the results of the specific types of
to create indices. Additionally, principal component parental emotional abuse experienced by students. The
analyses were run for each of the indices and the results
were analyzed. The range of factor loadings for the study
Table 2. Student Experiences with
indices was 0.67 to 0.89. In each of the indices, all of
Parental Emotional Abuse
the inter-item correlations were statistically significant.
Reliability measures, specifically Cronbach’s alpha, were
Type of emotional abuse
then calculated for each index (See Appendix A for item
Frequency of
Threaten
constructs, reliability measures, and factor loadings).
experience(s)
Ignore Blame
Yell
Nag
to slap
Never 49 %
36 %
27 %
45 %
66 %
Independent Variables
Seldom 24 %
22 %
24 %
18 %
15 %

This study used two independent variables (parental
Sometimes 18 %
21 %
27 %
16 %
9 %
Often
5 %
11 %
12 %
11 %
5 %
punitiveness and self- esteem). Students’ levels of self-
Almost always
4 %
10 %
11 %
10 %
6 %
esteem were measured using an index originally devel-
21

---

Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones: The Influence of Parental Verbal Abuse on Peer Related Victimization
most reported type of parental maltreatment was yelling gender, and grade level. Responses to the question con-
(73 percent), followed by being blamed by their parents cerning race and gender were originally coded as string
when the student was not at fault (64 percent). Over half values. The answers were converted to numeric values
of the students also indicated that their parents yelled at and dummy coded. Race was defined as 0 for non-white
them or ignored them.
and 1 for white. Gender was defined as 0 for female and
Dependent Variable
1 for male. Responses for grade level were coded as 1 for
6th grade, 2 for 8th grade, 3 for 10th grade, and 4 for 12th

Students’ experiences with peer victimization within grade.
the last year were measured along five items taken from
Kaufman et al. (1999) and ranged from 0 to 40 with a Results
mean of 5.35 and a standard deviation of 7.13. A high
To examine the relationship among study variables,
score on this index was indicative of an increased level of bivariate and diagnostic analyses were run. All of the
victimization by peers. Dependent variable frequencies study variables, except grade level, were significantly
were initially run to determine the extent to which stu- correlated with the dependant measure (peer victimiza-
dents experienced victimization by their peers at school. tion). Inter-item correlations among the independent
Table 3 shows the extent to which students experienced variables ranged from 0.00 to 0.30, which suggests that
such behaviors.
multicollinearity did not present a significant problem

Data reveal that a majority of students had been (see Grimm and Yarnold, 2000). The highest correlation
yelled at, cursed, insulted, or teased by another student at existed between ability to succeed and parental maltreat-
least once during the last year. The majority of students ment (r = 0.30, p < 0.001). Further, the highest variance
had also been the victim of theft at least once during the inflation factor in the regression models was 1.25 and the
last year. Approximately 40 percent of students indicated lowest tolerance figure was 0.79, which also indicates
that they have been hit, kicked, pushed, or shoved at least few problems with multicollinearity (Fox, 1991).
once during the last year. Almost 60 percent of the stu-
dents indicated that they had been the victims of verbal Regression Models
abuse by their peers at least once during the last year.
To examine the central tenets of differential oppres-
About one-quarter of the students indicated that they had sion theory, a series of step-wise regression analyses were
been threatened (without a weapon) by another student conducted, which focus on assessing four relationships:
during the last school year. One-tenth of the students in- (1) the relationship between parental emotional abuse and
dicated that they had been the victims of a forceful theft self-esteem; (2) the relationship between self-esteem and
attempt during the last year.
peer victimization; (3) the relationship between paren-
Control Variables
tal emotional abuse and peer victimization; and (4) the
relationship between parental emotional abuse and peer

In an effort to account for social inequality, three victimization, controlling for self-esteem. In all models
socio-demographic control measures were utilized: race, significance was measured at the 0.05 level.
Table 3. Student Experiences with Peer Victimization At School During the Last Year
Type of victimization
Threatened
Verbal
Physical
Victimization Victimization
without
Frequency of experience(s)
victimization victimization
by theft
by force
weapon
Never
41 %
61 %
50 %
90 %
77 %
At least once during last year
25 %
18 %
32 %
5 %
13 %
Once every 3 months
5 %
4 %
4 %
1 %
2 %
Once every 2 months
2 %
2 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
Once a month
3 %
2 %
3 %
1 %
1 %
Two or more times a month
3 %
2 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
Once a week
4 %
2 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
Twice a week
5 %
2 %
1 %
0 %
1 %
Once a day
11 %
6 %
3 %
1 %
2 %
22

---

Hutchinson & Mueller / Western Criminology Review 9(1), 17–30 (2008)

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect well as the socio-demographic variables. The results are
of oppression, specifically emotional and verbal abuse by also shown in Table 5 (Models 4 and 5). After accounting
parents, and self-esteem on peer-related student victim- for the socio-demographic indicators, positive self-worth
ization. The effects of abuse were examined regarding explained an additional six percent of the variation in
both verbal and delinquent victimization by peers.
students’ victimization by peers (F = 60.61, p < 0.001).

Model 1 examines the relationship between self- Males, younger students, and those students who had a
reported levels of parental emotional abuse and self- negative perception of their self-worth were more likely
esteem. The two self-esteem indices were regressed on to be victimized at the hands of their peers. The ability
the parental emotional abuse index and the socio-demo- to succeed explained an additional eight percent of the
graphic variables. The results (see Table 4) indicate that variation, after accounting for the socio-demographic
the socio-demographic variables and parental verbal and indicators (F = 39.70, p < 0.001). Similar to previous
emotional abuse account for seven percent of the varia- results, males, younger students, and those who had a
tion in students’ levels of positive self-worth (F = 38.97, negative perception of their ability to succeed were more
p < 0.001). Model 2 results (also in Table 4) indicate that likely to be the victims of verbal or delinquent activities
the socio-demographic variables and parental and verbal by their peers.
emotional abuse account for 10 percent of the variation in
The third research question examined whether there
students’ feelings regarding their ability to succeed in life is a relationship between parental emotional abuse and
(F = 31.30, p < 0.001).
peer victimization. To answer this question, the peer vic-

Prior to examining the effect of self-worth and ability timization index was regressed on the parental emotional
to succeed on peer victimization, the first model includes abuse index. The results are shown in Table 6 (Model
only the demographic variables. The results of this analy- 6). After accounting for the socio-demographic indica-
sis are presented in Table 5 (Model 3). Results show that tors, this model explained an additional ten percent of the
demographic variables account for four percent of the variation (F = 90.39, p < 0.001). Males, younger students,
variation in peer victimization (F = 33.23, p < 0.001). and those who had experienced emotional and/verbal
The second research question examined the significance abuse by their parents were more likely to be emotionally
of the relationship between self-esteem and peer victim- and/or verbally abused by their peers.
ization. To answer this question, the peer victimization
The final research question examined whether
index was regressed on the two self-esteem indices, as there is a relationship between parental emotional abuse
Table 4. OLS Regression: Positive Self-Worth and Ability to Succeed
Regressed on Parental Emotional Abuse and Demographic Controls
Model 1: Experience with
Model 2: Experience with
parental emotional abuse
parental emotional abuse and
and positive self-worth
ability to succeed
B (se )
Beta
B (se )
Beta
Constant
13.627 ***
14.575 ***
(.496)
(.662)
Male
-.050
-0.005
-.502
-.048
(.218)
(.296)
White
-.153
-0.013
.499
1.538
(.240)
(.324)
Grade
.224 ***
0.095
.316
.133
(.050)
(.067)
Parental emotional
-.231 *** -0.255
-.285
-10.390
and verbal abuse
(.019)
(.027)
F (df )
38.977 (4) ***
31.302 (4) ***
R2 (adjusted R2)
.068 (.067)
.099 (.095)
* p <.05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 (two tailed).
23

---

Sticks and Stones and Broken Bones: The Influence of Parental Verbal Abuse on Peer Related Victimization
Table 5. OLS Regression: Peer Victimization Regressed
on Positive Self-Worth and Ability to Succeed
Model 3: Controls
Model 4: Positive self-worth
Model 5: Ability to succeed
B (se )
Beta
B (se )
Beta
B (se )
Beta
Constant
12.415 ***
12.231 ***
(.734)
(1.001)
Male
1.320 ***
.140
1.929 ***
.137
1.767 ***
.126
(.190)
(.289)
(.388)
White
-.040
.000
-.571
-.037
-.641
-.042
(.210)
(.318)
(.425)
Grade
-.390 *** -.150
-.342 ***
-.107
-.199 *
-.063
(.040)
(.065)
(.088)<