How classmates’ evaluation of and behavior toward (victimized) children impacts their wellbeing: An examination of implicit and explicit processes
Creators: name: Van Den Berg, Yvonne
name: Hoekstra, Nathalie
name: Peetz, Hannah Katharina
name: Lansu, Tessa
Publisher: name: OSF Registries
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Educational Psychology
subject: School Psychology
subject: Developmental Psychology
subject: Education
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: Automatic processes
subject: Bullying
subject: Deliberate processes
subject: Elementary school
subject: Explicit attitudes
subject: Implicit attitudes
subject: Peers
subject: Social behavior
subject: Victimization
subject: Well-being

description: Preregistration Form Project SAS (https://osf.io/yg398) 1. Study Information 1.1. Title How classmates’ evaluation of and behavior toward (victimized) children impacts their wellbeing: An examination of implicit and explicit processes 1.2. Authors Tessa A. M. Lansu, Hannah K. Peetz, Nathalie A. H. Hoekstra, &amp; Yvonne H. M. van den Berg 1.3. Description On the deliberate, explicit level, peers’ negative attitudes (i.e. disliking) and negative behavior (i.e., aggression) have been found to impact the recipient’s well-being (e.g., Mercer &amp; DeRosier, 2008; van der Ploeg et al., 2015; Zimmer-Gembeck, 2016). However, these processes have not yet been examined at the automatic, implicit level. This is surprising, as social interactions between peers are often spontaneous rather than planned and deliberate (Fazio &amp; Olson, 2014). The omission of automatic or implicit processes limits our understanding of the social dynamic in the classroom and its impact on youth’s well-being, and thus deserves our attention. Therefore, the unique effect of peers’ implicit attitudes and automatic behavior on recipient’s well-being above and beyond the effect of these elements at the explicit level will be examined. As victimized children are often less liked (Romera et al., 2021) and receive poorer treatment (Harbin et al., 2019) than their classmates, we expect victimized youth to receive more negative attitude and behavior signals from peers than non-victimized youth, both on the explicit and implicit level. Moreover, whereas it can be expected that all children are impacted by their peers’ attitude and behavior toward them, victims’ well-being may be impacted more pervasively, as research shows that their well-being is more heavily impacted by (subtle) signs of negativity by peers than in non-victimized children (Lansu et al., 2017). The current study thus examines whether the impact of explicit and implicit peer attitudes and behavior toward a child on current well-being and changes in well-being is similar for victimized and non-victimized children. Moreover, it examines whether these processes play a role in the continuation of victimization over time, as peers’ negative attitudes and behaviors might be indicative of the likelihood of engaging in or at least allowing bullying perpetration of the target child to continue. Insights from the current study are a much needed addition to our knowledge on experiences directly related to victimization incidents, as they focus on the impact of the subtle signs of approval or disapproval victimized youth may receive many times a day, each day. Understanding how these processes work for victimized youth can expand the multitude and effectiveness of tools to provide a safer school environment for victimized youth. 1.4. Hypotheses 1a) Victim targets are expected to receive more negative attitudes from their classmates at the implicit and explicit level than neutral targets. 1b) Victim targets are expected to receive more negative behaviors from their classmates at the automatic and deliberate level than neutral targets. 2a) More negative attitudes of classmates at the implicit and explicit level toward a target are expected to be associated with poorer concurrent well-being of the target as well as poorer well-being of the target over time. 2b) More negative behaviors of classmates at the automatic and deliberate level toward a target are expected to be associated with poorer concurrent well-being of the target as well as poorer well-being of the target over time 3a) 2a moderated by type of target: The associations described in H2a are expected to be stronger for victim targets than for neutral targets. 3a) 2b moderated by type of target: The associations described in H2b are expected to be stronger for victim targets than for neutral targets. 4a) More negative attitudes of classmates at the implicit and explicit level toward a victimized target are expected to be associated with greater risk for continued victimization over time. 4b) More negative behaviors of classmates at the automatic and deliberate level toward a target are expected to be to be associated with greater risk for continued victimization over time. 2. Design Plan 2.1. Study type ☒ Observational Study - Data is collected from study subjects that are not randomly assigned to a treatment (as ‘type of target’ was not assigned, but based on students’ existing social position in their classroom). Data was obtained through targets’ and classmates’ self- and peer reports, vignettes, reaction time paradigms and video observations. 2.2. Blinding ☒ The participants in this study do not know the treatment group to which they have been assigned. 2.3. Is there any additional blinding in this study? Not applicable 2.4. Study design Longitudinal observational design. In each classroom, we have identified a victimized boy and a victimized girl, as well as a non-victimized control classmates (i.e., ‘neutral boy and girl’) at Time 1 and measured classmates’ implicit (Approach-Avoidance Task) and explicit attitude (liking rating) toward the same-sex target classmates. At T1 we also measured automatic (Noldus FaceReader analyzed) non-verbal behavior through emotional facial expressions and deliberate (behavior intention vignettes) behavior toward these victimized and ‘neutral’ classmates. At T2 we measured victimization, internalizing and externalizing behavior, and well-being again. Of the predictors, type of target (victimized same-sex classmate target and neutral same-sex classmate target) is a between subjects factor, and time a within subjects factor. 2.5. Randomization Both intervention subprojects of Project SAS (i.e. evaluative priming video game and classroom seating rearrangement) employed a pretest-posttest randomized controlled trial (RCT). Upon agreement to participate, classrooms were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental condition for each subproject that they participated in separately. Randomization occurred using block randomization in batches of 10 to ensure equal group sizes. 3. Sampling Plan 3.1. Existing data ☒ Registration following analysis of the data: As of the date of submission, you have accessed and analyzed some of the data relevant to the research plan. This includes preliminary analysis of variables, calculation of descriptive statistics, and observation of data distributions. 3.2. Explanation of existing data -Part of T1 data has been analyzed by Research Master minor students (supervised by T. Lansu and Y. van den Berg) early Summer 2023 (preregistration https://osf.io/azb9d), providing some insights into whether victim targets and neutral targets receive different levels of explicit and implicit attitudes from their classmates, as well as whether they receive different levels of automatic and deliberate behavior from their classmates (however, large parts of the automatic behavior data were not available to be analyzed then). Associations of these variables with outcomes on the target level (i.e. well-being or victimization) were not analyzed for this student project. -The well-being and victimization data were together with the data from the classrooms that were not part of subproject 1 also part of the data analyzed for a paper on the effectiveness of the seating arrangement intervention (preregistration https://osf.io/ncwq7), conducted by the same authors as the current paper and A. Cillessen and T. Mainhard. From working with that data, it seems feasible to combine depressive mood, anxiety and loneliness into one reliable internalizing indicator. -This same paper showed no effect of the classroom seating intervention on victimization or internalizing problems (preregistration https://osf.io/ncwq7). Because of this finding and the modest sample size of the current paper (analyses on target level) we do not control for classroom seating intervention condition in our current models. 3.3. Data collection procedures Classrooms from grade 4-6 from Dutch elementary schools were recruited. Informed consent for participation was asked from the head of the school, the teachers of the classroom as well as active consent of the parents of the children. Children were asked to assent to participate in the study. All measures and procedures were evaluated and accepted by the ethics committee of the Behavioural Science Institute at the Radboud University (ECSW-2020-047). Due to the unexpected COVID-19 pandemic, data were collected in two school years (cohort 1 = 2020-2021, cohort 2 = 2021-2022). Data for each of the cohorts was collected in two waves. Wave 2 was scheduled between 6 and 12 school weeks after wave 1, during this time in between, the interventions took place. During a classroom session of about 1 hour, all participating children completed an online survey on a laptop. They were seated at individual tables in their classroom, to facilitate privacy. Usually, one or two members of the research team were present during a classroom session, however due to the Covid pandemic, in some cases the classroom session took place without the research team present. Prior to assessment, the researcher explained the goal and set up of study. Children were also explained that the data would be processed anonymously and handled confidentially. They were asked to keep their answers to themselves and to be truthful in answering all questions. Finally, they were told that the teacher would receive a report on classroom level. Each participating classroom completed the classroom session at the first and second wave. In between waves, 2 anti-bullying interventions programs were administered. One focusing on rearranging classroom seating arrangement (focused on victimized students vs. random) and one focusing on evaluative conditioning (positive pairing with victimized student vs. unknown child). The current study uses the data of classrooms that participated in subproject 1, where in addition small group sessions took place. These took place after the classroom session, usually on one or two subsequent days right after the classroom session. During these sessions, children were taken to a quiet room in the school in groups of 4-6. There, they completed several computer tasks individually, which took about 20-30 minutes. Moreover, children recorded two video messages, which took about 5-10 minutes. These individual sessions took place at both waves. Children received a small gift for their participation after each visit and teachers received a 10 euro voucher for the classroom after the first wave, and a book and a lesson package to use with the classroom after the second wave. Additionally, teachers received a brief overview of the social functioning of the class 4 weeks after the second wave. This included sociometric information as well as indicators of well-being, such as victimization. 3.4. Sample size (required) Describe the sample size of your study. How many units will be analyzed in the study? This could be the number of children, classrooms, schools or teachers. What are the in- and exclusion criteria for your sample? Also be specific which wave of data you would like to request. In other words, data of which subjects would you like to request? Below you will find the general description of the total sample. Children from Grade 4 to 6 (aged 8-12 years old) in Dutch elementary schools participated. In total, 81 classrooms from 35 schools participated in the project in two different years/cohorts. The first cohort participated in the school year of 2020/2021 and included 12 classrooms from 8 schools. The second cohort participated in the school year of 2021/2022 and included 69 classes from 28 schools. In total, there were 22 grade 4, 24 grade 5 26 grade 6 classrooms, and 8 combination classrooms (e.g. grade 4/5 or 5/6), as well as one grade 3 classroom. 46 classes participated at T1 both in the proximity and implicit attitudes subprojects (with 36 classes providing T1 video data for the automatic behavior indicator). As targets’ well-being is the outcome under examination, analyses will be conducted on the level of the targets. There are 4 targets in each classroom (2 victims, 2 neutrals, a boy and a girl for each type of target), resulting in 160 targets of whom half are victims. 4. Variables 4.1. Manipulated variables Intervention game. The intervention of this subproject entailed an evaluative conditioning based, educational game about psychology. During the game children saw the avatar of either a bullied classmate in the experimental condition or of an unknown child from a different school in the control condition. The avatar was placed in a positive context in the game, providing encouragements and bonuses. Children played the game once a week for a duration of 8-weeks. Intervention seating. The intervention of this subproject entailed a seating rearrangement. In the experimental condition, victims of bullying were seated next to their best friend and far away from their bullies. All other children in the classroom were seated at a random place. In the control condition, all children were placed at a random seat, yet victims were never seated next to their bully. In both conditions, girls and boys were mixed as much as possible. The teachers were asked to maintain the seating arrangement as best as possible until the posttest (on average 8-10 weeks later). Although not part of the research questions, intervention condition for the evaluative conditioning game (in the intervention condition featuring the targets who are the level of analysis in the current study) will be included as a control variable. As no effect of the classroom seating intervention on victimization or internalizing problems was found in a previous study (preregistration https://osf.io/ncwq7), condition of the seating intervention is not included as a control variable in the current study. 4.2. Measured variables Selecting targets In each classroom a boy and girl victim target were selected based on self and peer-reported victimization. First, children that score above 3 on self-reported victimization (scoring once or twice a month or more frequently in response to ‘In the past three months, how often have you been bullied by classmates?’ Olweus, 1996) and that score higher than 0.5 on the Z transformed peer nomination variable ‘Who from your classroom are being bullied’ were selected. If this resulted in less than 2 children selected, the peer-reported victimization cut-off was dropped. If that did not result in a total of 2 children selected, the peer-reported victimization was used instead of the self-reported. Should more than 2 children be selected, gender would be taken into account so as that there are at least one boy and one girl adhering to the selection norms. Next, severity was considered and the boy and girl adhering to the selection norms with the highest self-reported severity were selected. Should targets be selected based on peer-reported nominations only, then the children with the highest peer-reported victimization Z-score were selected. In each classroom a boy and girl neutral target was selected first based on self-reported victimization. Children who scored ‘never’ or ‘only a single time’ in response to ‘In the past three months, how often have you been bullied by classmates?’ (Olweus, 1996) were selected. Next children that scored below 0.5 on the Z transformed peer nomination variable ‘Who from your classroom are being bullied’ and on the Z transformed peer nomination variable ‘Who from your classroom bully others’. If more than 1 boy and/or more than 1 girl were selected, then peer-reported popularity and likeability were taken into account and children that are close to a Z-score of 0 on both were selected. If this resulted in more than 1 child per gender that adhered to the selection norms, a child was randomly selected. Same-sex neutral target and same-sex victimized target are presented to classmates; bully and best friend are presented to victimized target as participant (response to targets data thus not used in current study); bully and same-sex victimized target are presented to neutral targets (response to victimized target used in current study). Explicit attitude: Liking rating: Indicate for each classmate how much you like him/her. How much do you like ? 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much. Same-sex classmates’ average liking rating toward each target was computed. Implicit attitude: Approach Avoidance Task (Rinck &amp; Becker, 2007): In the AAT, participants are presented with the photos of the targets. Using a joystick, they have to either pull the presented photo closer to them or push it away from them, based on an irrelevant stimulus feature (i.e., color of the frame around the photo). On half of the trials, the target photos have to be pushed away and on the other half, they have to be pulled closer. Response times are measured. Participants complete this task once with three different targets. Two of the three targets are the victimized and neutral same-sex target. The third target is a gender matched unknown child of around the same age. Targets are presented equally often, randomized per trial. The average AAT score of classmates toward each target was computed. Deliberate behavior: Antisocial behavior vignettes: The vignettes are based on the vignettes by Allgaier et al. (2015). For each target, half of the vignettes are presented at time 1 and the other half at time 2. Classmates were presented with descriptions of hypothetical situations in school where they could aggress toward the victim target and vignettes where they could aggress to the neutral target. They indicated from 1 = Definitely not to 4 = Definitely, how likely they were to engage in the aggressive response toward the target described in the vignette. – Let reliability indices decide whether with/without inducements can be combined. The average likelihood of classmates engaging in aggressive behavior toward the target was computed. Automatic behavior: Video messages: Participants recorded a video message for each of the two targets. They answered questions about the target, and experiences together with the target. These videos were analyzed with Noldus FaceReader software. The mean valence of the facial expressions of the classmates in the videos for the target reflected automatic behavior. Peer reported internalizing: Withdrawal: Who from your classroom is quiet and prefers to be alone. Number of received nominations are counted, a proportion score is computed (i.e. by what percentage of the potential nominators is the student nominated as withdrawn). Peer reported externalizing: Reactive aggression: Who from your classroom easily feels threatened or provoked by others (even though others do not mean it that way?). These kids are not that good at controlling themselves and their feelings and respond aggressively, for example by calling names and hitting others. Number of received nominations are counted, a proportion score is computed (i.e. by what percentage of the potential nominators is the student nominated as reactively aggressive). Self-reported internalizing: Composite score of depression, anxiety, and loneliness. -Depression: Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire (Angold et al., 1995). This questionnaire has 13 statements (e.g., Felt miserable or unhappy). Students rated how often they felt that way in the past two weeks (1 = not at all, 5 = all the time). - Social Anxiety Scale for Children-Revised (La Greca &amp; Stone, 1993). This questionnaire has 18 statements (e.g., I worry about what other children say about me). Students rated how often they felt that way in the current school year (1 = not at all, 5 = all the time). - Children’s Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale (Asher et al., 1984). This questionnaire consists of 16 statements regarding loneliness (e.g., It’s hard for me to make friends at school) for which students indicated to what extent the statement fits them (1 = not true at all, 5 = very true). Self-reported externalizing: anger: How angry do you feel in your class? 1 = Neutral; 10 = Very angry. Self-reported victimization: -Once operationalized as ‘In the past three months, how often have you been bullied by classmates?’ (Olweus, 1996). -Once operationalized as severity of this bullying, Slider 1-100, Not bad at all - very bad. -Once operationalized as number of victim nominated bullies. 4.3. Indices If the reliability of the individual questionnaires (α &gt; .70) and the combination of questionnaires (α &gt; .65) are acceptable, the scores on the depression, social anxiety and loneliness scales will be averaged into an internalizing composite measure. 5. Analysis Plan 5.1. Statistical models H1: ANOVAs are run with target type as between subjects factor, each time with one of the classmates’ attitude or behavior indicators as the dependent variable. H2&amp;3: We first run bivariate correlations between all T1 study variables in order to examine whether peers’ attitudes and behavior toward the recipient are related to the recipients’ current behavior and well-being. Then more elaborate mixed effects models are run that account for the targets being nested in classrooms. First a model in which attitudes predict well-being is run, followed by a model in which behavior predicts well-being. The predictors are gender, type of target (victim vs neutral child), T1 classroom explicit attitude toward target, T1 classroom implicit attitude toward target, type of target * T1 explicit attitude, and type of target * T1 implicit attitude. This model is run for each T1 outcome variable (targets’ internalizing and externalizing emotions and internalizing and externalizing behavior) separately. Then mixed effects models on the longitudinal data are run that also account for the targets being nested in classrooms. First a model in which attitudes predict well-being is run, followed by a model in which behavior predicts well-being. The predictors are gender, evaluative conditioning intervention condition, type of target (victim vs neutral child), T1 outcome variable, T1 classroom explicit attitude toward target, T1 classroom implicit attitude toward target, type of target * T1 explicit attitude, and type of target * T1 implicit attitude. This model is run for each T2 outcome variable separately (targets’ internalizing and externalizing emotions and internalizing and externalizing behavior) separately. H4: To examine the effects on continuation of victimization, mixed effect models with targets nested in classrooms are conducted on the victim targets subsample. T1 victimization intensity of target, T1 classroom explicit attitude toward target, T1 classroom implicit attitude toward target are the predictors with intervention condition as covariate, and T2 victimization intensity of target as criterion. This analysis will be run once with explicit and implicit attitudes as predictors, and once with the automatic and deliberate behaviors as predictors. These analyses will be once run with frequency of victimization, once with number of bullies and once with intensity of bullying as indicators of victimization intensity. 5.2. Missing data Individual classmates’ attitudes and behaviors towards the targets will not be imputed when missing as there are other classmates with observed scores to use to compute the average attitude or behavior toward the target. The missingness of video data in 10 classrooms is random (because of logistic restrictions unrelated to the study variables), and this will be handled by using maximum likelihood estimation in the mixed models. 5.3. Exploratory analysis Implicit attitudes and automatic behavior toward specific peers are rarely studied, and there thus is little to no precedent for choosing one operationalization of these concepts based on previous work. In addition to the primary operationalizations described above, we will therefore explore the associations central to our research questions also with alternative operationalizations. Explicit attitude: Liking rating. Implicit attitude: Approach Avoidance Task (Rinck &amp; Becker, 2007)  operationalize with Single Category-IAT (e.g. Bluemke &amp; Friese, 2008; Karpinski &amp; Steinman, 2006) in exploratory analyses Deliberate behavior: Antisocial behavior vignettes (based on Allgaier et al., 2015)  operationalize with prosocial vignettes (based on Allgaier et al., 2015) in exploratory analyses Automatic behavior: Noldus FaceReader mean valence of the facial expressions of the classmates in the videos for the target operationalize with specific emotional expressions of Anger, Disgust/Contempt, and Happy in exploratory analyses 6. Other This manuscript is being prepared in response to T. Lansu being invited to contribute to a special issue of the International Journal of Behavioral Development (IJBD) edited by Dr. Claire Garandeau, Dr. Sarah Malamut and Dr. Lydia Laninga-Wijnen. The working title of the special issue is “Longitudinal Predictors and Outcomes of Victimization by Peers: Identifying Moderating and Mediating Factors.”