Coping strategies against peer victimization: differences according to gender, grade, victimization status and perceived classroom social climate

sustainability Article Coping Strategies against Peer Victimization: Differences According to Gender, Grade, Victimization Status and Perceived Classroom Social Climate María-Jesús Cava 1,* , Ester Ayllón2and Inés Tomás3   Citation: Cava, M.-J.; Ayllón, E.; Tomás, I. Coping Strategies against Peer Victimization: Differences According to Gender, Grade, Victimization Status and Perceived Classroom Social Climate. Sustainability 2021,13, 2605. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13052605 Academic Editor: Cecilia Ruiz Esteban Received: 29 December 2020 Accepted: 24 February 2021 Published: 1 March 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain 2 Department of Psychology and Sociology, Faculty of Human Sciences and Education, University of Zaragoza, 22003 Huesca, Spain; [email protected] 3Department of Methodology of the Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include “Good Health and Well-being” (SDG3) and “Quality Education” (SDG4). Nevertheless, many students cannot achieve these goals if they suffer peer victimization at their schools, and intervention programs to reduce it are necessary. These programs should consider the possible differences in the coping strategies preferred by students according to some personal (e.g., gender, grade, victimization status) and contextual (e.g., perceived classroom social climate) factors to be more effective. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the possible differences in the coping strategies preferred by students (ask a friend for help, ask a teacher for help, ask parents for help, not ask anyone for help, fighting back, avoid the aggressor and ask the aggressor why) to handle situations of relational, physical and verbal peer victimization according to their gender, school grade, victimization status and perceived classroom social climate. The sample comprised 479 students (52.2% boys, 47.8% girls) aged from 9 to 14 years (M= 11.21, SD = 1.5 2). The results showed that girls chose the strategies of asking friends or adults for help and asking the aggressor why more than boys, while boys chose the strategies of fighting back and not ask anyone for help more than girls. The coping strategy of asking a teacher for help was preferred more by students of lower school grades and by students with a positive perception of the classroom climate. Victimized students preferred the strategy of not asking anyone for help. These results may be useful for developing more effective intervention programs. These programs should aim to enhance the teacher–student relationship in upper school grades, help victimized students to inform about peer aggression situations and improve perceived classroom social climate. Keywords: coping strategies; peer victimization; gender; school grade; classroom social climate 1. Introduction The United Nations 2030 agenda includes, among its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), “Good Health and Well-being” (SDG 3) and the “Quality Education” (SDG 4). All students should have the right to a quality education that includes promoting in them the values of peaceful coexistence and respect among peers in a social environment where they feel safe and do not suffer violence. However, many students suffer peer victimization at their schools, which seriously affects both their psychosocial well-being and their ability to concentrate on learning tasks [ 1 – 4 ]. Peer victimization is considered a major health problem with serious negative consequences for many children and adolescents [ 1 – 4 ]. This victimization includes any act of aggression by similarly aged peers and can be repeated in time [ 4 ]. Peer victimization can occur either directly through verbal or physical aggressions to the victim or indirectly by subtle forms of attack through actions that include social exclusion, spreading rumors and threats to withdraw friendship [ 5 , 6 ]. Negative peer Sustainability 2021,13, 2605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052605 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 2 of 17 victimization consequences include depressive symptoms, loneliness, anxiety, somatic complaints, social dissatisfaction and low self-esteem [2,4,7–9]. However, not all victims suffer the same negative consequences, and peer victimization is not always an experience that is repeated over time [ 10 ]. The chronicity of peer aggression and the severity of the negative consequences for victims differ depending on victims’ way of reacting to attacks [ 11 , 12 ]. While some coping strategies are considered more effective in reducing peer victimization, others such as crying, giving in to bully’s demands or striking back seem to increase the likelihood of subsequent victimization [12–15] . Victims of peer aggression use different strategies to cope with this stressful situation according to their personal and contextual characteristics [ 16 – 18 ]. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the personal (e.g., gender, grade, victimization status) and contextual (e.g., perceived classroom social climate) factors associated with the strategies preferred by the students to cope with peer victimization. Moreover, the type of victimization suffered (relational, physical or verbal) could also be related to the use of different and specific coping strategies. Greater knowledge about the relations between these factors and the coping strategies that students prefer can be useful for developing intervention programs aimed to reduce bullying, through teaching more effective coping strategies to victims. Furthermore, these intervention programs could also be better adapted to the specific personal and social characteristics of the students they target, which would increase their effectiveness. 1.1. Coping Strategies against Peer Victimization Coping strategies are defined as behavioral, emotional and cognitive responses to stress [ 19 – 21 ]. They are intentional efforts that individuals use to regulate aspects of themselves (i.e., emotion, cognition, behavior, physiology) or aspects in the environment to reduce stress [ 17 ]. Lazarus and Folkman [ 19 ] distinguished between problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. Problem-focused strategies include the actions that aim to attempt to solve the problem and to seek help to handle the stressful situation, while emotion-focused strategies include actions that intend to move away from the source of stress, rejecting the problem, denying it or trying to ignore it. However, previous studies into peer victimization have highlighted the difficulty to differentiate between problemfocused and emotion-focused coping strategies in these stressful situations [ 17 , 22 , 23 ]. Victims of peer aggression often apply multiple strategies simultaneously to cope with their situation [ 23 ], and some strategies aim to stop aggression and to regulate emotion at the same time. For these reasons, research into peer victimization more often differentiates coping strategies according to their degree of effectiveness. Some strategies are considered to be more effective ways to cope with peer aggression, because they minimize the likelihood of subsequent victimization and reduce negative effects on victims’ psychosocial well-being [ 22 ]. Help-seeking is considered an effective way to cope with peer victimization and is encouraged in many intervention programs [24–26] . Along these lines, previous studies have shown that asking friends or adults for help and conflict solving (e.g., trying to understand why victimization happened) are coping strategies related to a lower risk of subsequent victimization [ 12 , 27 ]. Help-seeking is related to less negative consequences for victims [ 20 ], probably because it allows them to feel supported by their social environment, and it helps them to reduce the risk of future attacks. Students may ask friends, teachers or parents for help, and many students prefer seeking for help from their friends rather than from teachers to cope with peer victimization [ 28 ]. Nevertheless, the nature of the suffered aggression (verbal, physical or relational) could be associated with which person they choose to ask for help, and these relations need to be analyzed in more depth. Furthermore, there are some students who tell nobody that they are victims of peer aggression [ 22 , 29 ]. Boulton et al. [ 16 ] indicated that many adolescents choose not to tell anyone, particularly teachers, that they are being peer victimized. Some students might feel that social support is not available for them or they believe that seeking/receiving help can allow people to consider them weak because they cannot cope on their own [16]. Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 3 of 17 Another coping strategy that can be used by victims is ignoring the aggression. This strategy has been considered effective by some authors [ 30 ], but others [ 17 ] have pointed out that its effectiveness could depend on the nature of the suffered aggression. At this regard, Kokkinos et al. [ 17 ] indicated that against social exclusion situations, students might prefer distancing or ignoring it, while against physical aggression situations, they prefer help-seeking. Some avoidance strategies (such as avoiding the aggressor or ignoring aggression by pretending that it did not occur) may not stop victimization but can protect victims against psychological maladjustment difficulties. Victims can reduce negative consequences if they are able to emotionally distance themselves from the victimization situation, although this distancing is more difficult when aggression is frequent and severe [ 12 ]. Students are more likely to seek help in victimization cases that are more obvious (e.g., physical aggression), to use more retaliations to face verbal victimization and to prefer distancing and avoidance over relational victimization situations [17,30]. The coping strategies of fighting back or revenge-seeking are considered less successful [ 11 , 13 , 30 ]. These coping strategies are ineffective in reducing the risk of subsequent victimization and could increase the psychological maladjustment risk, even though using them children can feel a certain control of the situation or more respect by peers [ 12 ]. The reasons for choosing to fight back the aggressor to gain respect of peers could also be associated with students’ personal factors, such as gender, or contextual factors, such as the classroom social climate. The relevance of these factors needs to be analyzed. 1.2. Coping Strategies According to Gender, Grade, Victimization Status and Perceived Classroom Social Climate Some gender differences in coping strategies against peer victimization have been noted. Previous studies have shown that girls are more willing to seek help, and they are more likely to ask a teacher for help [ 16 , 31 – 34 ], while boys more often indicate that they would fight back [ 34 ]. More girls seek help from friends than boys [ 18 ], although the results for seeking help from parents are mixed, with some studies showing that boys use this strategy more, while more girls do in others [ 18 ]. Nevertheless, all these gender differences might be linked with the victimization type more frequently suffered by boys and girls. Physical and verbal victimization is more frequent in boys [ 1 , 35 – 37 ], and relational victimization is in girls [ 1 , 35 , 37 ]. Therefore, research on gender differences in coping strategies against peer victimization needs to also consider the type of victimization suffered (relational, physical, verbal), and to explore in more depth possible gender differences in who is asked for help (teacher, friends, parents) according to the type of victimization suffered. The coping strategies used by students could also differ according to their school grade. Students attending elementary schools are younger and have developed some cognitive and social skills to cope with peer victimization to a lesser extent. In line with this, Boulton et al. [ 16 ] showed that help-seeking from teachers is a less used strategy in adolescence. They suggested that adolescents have increased social-cognitive capacities and are able to self-generate more solutions for stressful situations such as peer victimization. Nevertheless, Boulton et al. [ 16 ] also suggested that another possible reason is that adolescents can perceive it as not “normative” to seek help, especially from teachers, and they may anticipate negative peer reactions. Some students could anticipate that classmates believe they are weak if they cannot cope with these situations on their own [ 38 , 39 ], which might act as a help-seeking barrier [ 40 ]. This possible negative perception of peers when students ask a teacher for help would increase in adolescence, and the use of this strategy in compulsory secondary education (CSE) would be scarce. In addition, teachers increasingly expect adolescents to independently solve problems with their peers [ 41 ], and CSE students could also perceive teachers being less capable of helping them [ 42 ]. All these reasons might explain less help-seeking, especially from teachers, by CSE students. However, a more in-depth analysis of the possible changes in coping strategies from elementary to secondary education is necessary. The victimization status in the peer group may be another factor related to students’ selection of different coping strategies. Previous studies [ 16 ] have shown that frequent Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 4 of 17 victims are more reluctant to tell teachers that they are being bullied than non-victims. Victimized students may feel that teachers are unable to help them or may be concerned about the potential negative outcomes of asking teachers for help by analyzing the possible negative perception by the peers and their feelings of weakness if they decide to ask a teacher for help [ 16 , 40 ]. Moreover, victimized students often perceive no benefits from asking teachers for help, because their social status in peer group is similar and peer victimization situations are repeated. However, victimized students may also differ in their use of other coping strategies, such as avoiding the aggressor or fighting back, and these possible differences should also be analyzed. Although there are many children and adolescents who ask a friend or a parent for help when they have problems, others are reluctant to seek help from anyone [ 18 ]. The perceived available social support has been demonstrated as an important factor related to help-seeking to cope with problems [ 18 , 43 ]. In the school context, students’ perception of more emotional support is related to more help-seeking from teachers [ 44 ], and a positive classroom social climate may be a relevant contextual factor to increase or reduce the likelihood of asking for help in peer victimization situations. Positively perceiving the classroom social climate has been previously related to higher students’ school satisfaction and self-esteem [ 45 ]. The students who more positively perceive the classroom social climate evaluate both relationships between classmates, and those between teacher and students, more positively, and perceive a higher level of student integration and supportive behaviors [ 45 , 46 ]. So, these students are likely to trust the social support available in their classroom more and to use the help-seeking strategy more. In addition, they may also differ from those students who negatively perceive the classroom social climate in other coping strategies. Other possible differences in coping strategies according to the perceived classroom climate need to be analyzed to get more knowledge about the role that this contextual factor plays. 1.3. The Present Study Taking into account the relevance and need for more in-depth knowledge about how some personal (e.g., gender, grade, victimizations status) and contextual (e.g., perceived classroom social climate) factors are related to the different coping strategies preferred by students to handle different types of peer victimization (relational, physical and verbal), this study was proposed. In spite of some previous research works on the issue, a systematic study with a broader approach is needed to clarify how the suffered victimization type relates to the victim’s choice of different coping strategies and how this choice can also differ depending on their personal and contextual characteristics. The specific objectives of the present study were to (1) test for differences in the preferred use of coping strategies by the students depending on the peer victimization type (relational, physical, verbal) faced; (2) test for differences in the preference of using of these coping strategies according to their: (a) gender, (b) school grade, (c) victimization status and (d) perceived classroom social climate. For these objectives, the following hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 1: There are differences in the preferred use of coping strategies depending on the peer victimization type (relational, physical, verbal) faced. Students prefer using avoidance strategy to cope with relational victimization and asking a teacher for help to cope with physical victimization. Hypothesis 2: There are gender differences in the preferred use of coping strategies. Girls prefer using help-seeking strategies (asking teacher, parents or friends for help) more than boys to cope with the three peer victimization types (relational, physical, verbal), while boys prefer employing the fight-back strategy to cope with these three peer victimization types more than girls. Hypothesis 3: There are differences in the preferred use of coping strategies depending on students’ school grade. The students of lower grades (last elementary years) prefer using help-seeking strategies, especially from teachers, to cope with relational, physical and verbal peer victimization than those of upper grades (CSE) who choose these strategies less. Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 5 of 17 Hypothesis 4: There are differences in the preferred use of coping strategies depending on victimization status. Victimized students prefer not to use the coping strategy of asking a teacher for help and prefer the coping strategy of not asking anyone for help to cope with relational, physical and verbal peer victimization than non-victimized students. Hypothesis 5: There are differences in the preferred use of coping strategies based on the perceived classroom social climate. The students who more positively perceive the classroom social climate prefer using help-seeking strategies, especially asking teachers for help, to cope with relational, physical and verbal peer victimization than the students who more negatively perceive the classroom social climate. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants A sample of 479 students, aged from 9 to 14 years (Mage = 11.21; SD = 1.52), participated in this study. Regarding gender, 52.2% were boys (Mage = 11.26; SD = 1.60) and 47.8% were girls (Mage = 11.15; SD = 1.44). They were studying in four public schools in the Valencian region (east Spain), two of which were elementary schools and the others were compulsory secondary education (CSE) schools. They were students from the last three elementary grades (4th, 5th and 6th grades) and students from the first two CSE grades (1st and 2nd grades). We considered these two different levels of education because we were interested in analyzing possible differences between elementary and CSE school grades. Regarding their age and the percentage of students in each school grade, the students in elementary 4th grade (20.9% of the sample) were 9–10 years old, 10–11 years old in the 5th grade (19.2% of the sample) and 11–12 years old in the 6th grade (19.2% of the sample). In CSE, they were 12–13 years old in the 1st grade (22.1% of the sample) and 13–14 years in the 2nd grade (18.8% of the sample). 2.2. Instruments Coping Strategies Questionnaire. This questionnaire allows us to measure the different strategies preferred by students to handle peer victimization [ 22 , 47 , 48 ]. In a similar way to previous studies [ 48 ], students have to indicate what strategies they prefer use to cope with relational, physical and verbal peer victimization situations. Firstly, a brief description of three types of peer victimization situations is included: relational (a classmate has ignored you on purpose to make you feel bad), physical (a classmate has hit you) and verbal (a classmate has insulted or made fun of you). For all three situations, students have to indicate if in a similar situation they have used (or if they consider that they use them if they had to cope with a similar situation) any of the following coping strategies: “ask a friend for help”, “ask a teacher for help”, “ask my parents for help”, “not ask anyone for help”, “fighting back”, “avoid the aggressor” and “ask the aggressor why”. For each peer victimization situation (relational, physical, verbal), students have to indicate if they have used (or would use) each of the seven above proposed coping strategies. They can indicate more than one coping strategy in each victimization situation. Peer Victimization Scale [ 5 ]. This scale includes 11 items that evaluate how often adolescents have experienced peer victimization situations. These items are grouped into three factors: relational victimization, physical victimization and verbal victimization. Relational victimization includes three items describing situations such as being a victim of malicious rumors or being socially isolated (e.g., “A classmate told others not to have anything to do with me”). Physical victimization has four items describing situations such as being hit or pushed (e.g., “A classmate hit me”). Verbal victimization has four items describing situations such as being insulted or called a nickname (e.g., “A classmate insulted me”). The response range of the items goes from 1 (never)to5(a lot). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of these three factors in the study sample is 0.72, 0.85, and 0.83, respectively. Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 6 of 17 Classroom Environment Scale [ 49 , 50 ]. This scale allows for different issues of the classroom itself (e.g., organization, innovation) and students’ perception of the interpersonal relationships in the classroom, to be evaluated. In this study, as we were interested in the interpersonal relationships (among classmates and teacher–students), we considered only the three subscales on the interpersonal relationships dimension: involvement, 10 items about the perception of the degree of students’ interest and participation in class activities (e.g., “Students put a lot of energy into what they do here”); affiliation, 10 items about the perception of friendship that students feel for one another (e.g., “Students in this class get to know each other really well”); teacher Support, 10 items about students’ perception of support and help from teachers (e.g., “Teachers show interest in students”). For each item, the answer options are true–false. In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ) of the involvement, affiliation and teacher support subscales are 0.69, 0.63 and 0.73, respectively. The internal consistency of the interpersonal relationships dimension, integrated by these three subscales, is 0.82. 2.3. Procedure Initially, we telephoned the schools to offer them the possibility of participating in this research study about school co-existence and to request a meeting to explain them the objectives of this research in detail. During the meetings held with school staff, we explained the objectives and requested their collaboration. We informed them about the relevance of preventing bullying and the need to better understand students’ coping strategies to handle peer aggression, and we also offered them the possibility of providing them with guidance to improve co-existence at their school, if they wished, once the research had ended. The four contacted schools accepted to participate in this study. Students’ families were also informed about the research proposal by letter, which indicated that all the data would be confidentially used. After receiving this information, they were asked to provide consent for their children to participate. Less than 2% of parents stated that they did not wish their children to participate in this study. Students anonymously and voluntarily filled out the scales during a regular class period (50 min in elementary schools, 40 min in CSE schools). Trained researchers administered the instruments and informed students that their participation was voluntary and anonymous, their data were confidential, and they could drop out of the study at any time. No-one refused to participate in this research. This study was approved by The Ethics Committee of the University of Valencia (Protocol Number: H1456762885511). 2.4. Data Analyses First, descriptive statistics were used to identify the proportions of students who had used (or would use) the different coping strategies (“ask a friend for help”, “ask a teacher for help”, “ask parents for help”, “not ask anyone for help”, “fighting back”, “avoid the aggressor” and “ask the aggressor why”) when facing (or if they would have to face) each different peer victimization type (relational, physical, verbal). Differences in the proportion of using the coping strategies were tested for all the peer victimization types using Cochran’s test (which is suitable for comparing three paired proportions or more). Chi-square test was used to test for differences in proportions across independent groups (e.g., groups defined by gender, grade, victimizations status and perceived classroom social climate). In this study, differences in the proportion of preferred coping strategies according to students’ gender and school grade were tested. Possible differences in the proportion of preferred coping strategies according to students’ victimization status (nonvictimized vs. victimized students) were also analyzed. Following the criteria used by other previous studies [ 51 , 52 ], we considered that students had a victimized status when their scores for this variable exceeded the mean plus one standard deviation. The students with scores above the mean score for relational victimization by one standard deviation (score > 2.38; M= 1.61, SD = 0.77) were assigned to the “relational victimized” group; those whose scores exceeded the mean score for physical victimization by one standard Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 7 of 17 deviation (score > 2.55; M= 1.67, SD = 0.88) were assigned to the “physical victimized” group; those with scores over the mean score for verbal victimization by one standard deviation (score > 3.20; M= 2.13, SD = 1.07) were assigned to the “verbal victimized” group. We compared the preferred coping strategies against relational, physical and verbal peer victimization in the victimized students with the preferred coping strategies in the nonvictimized students. Finally, differences in the proportion of preferred coping strategies according to students’ perceived classroom climate were tested. To differentiate between the students with more positive and more negative classroom climate perceptions, the perception of the classroom climate variable was dichotomized according to the 75th and 25th percentiles similarly to previous studies [ 53 ]. Those students whose scores went above the 75th percentile in the perception of class-room social climate variable (the students who more positively perceived the interpersonal relationships in their classroom) were compared to those students whose scores went below the 25th percentile (more negatively perceived the interpersonal relationships in their classroom) as to their choice of different coping strategies against relational, physical and verbal peer victimization. All the analyses were performed with the SPSS-26 statistical package. 3. Results 3.1. Differences in Coping Strategies According to Peer Victimization Type Table 1shows the results of the analysis carried out to test for differences in the percentages of students who used (or would use) each coping strategy to handle different peer victimization types (relational, physical, verbal). The results of the Cochran’s tests showed that students preferred using different strategies depending on the victimization type they suffered. Thus, in order to handle relational victimization ( Cochran’s Q (6) = 154.70 ; p< 0.001 ), the most widely used (or preferred) strategies were “ask parents for help” (39.0% of the students) and “avoid the aggressor” (38.6%). For physical (Cochran’s Q (6) = 258.02; p< 0.001) and verbal victimization (Cochran’s Q (6) = 92.56; p< 0.001), the most widely used (or preferred) strategy was “ask a teacher for help”. Almost half the students (49.3%) chose to ask a teacher for help against a physical aggression by a classmate and 40.0% against a verbal aggression. Nevertheless, some students did not ask (or would not ask) anyone for help when they suffered (or should they suffer) peer victimization: 19% for relational, 13.6% for physical and 18.4% for verbal victimization. Table 1. Preferred coping strategies according to victimization type. Relational Victimization Physical Victimization Verbal Victimization Ask a friend for help 22.1% 13.8% 18.4% Ask a teacher for help 29.6% 49.3% 40.0% Ask my parents for help 39.0% 35.1% 29.5% Not ask anyone for help 19.0% 13.6% 18.4% Fighting back 11.1% 20.9% 18.6% Avoid the aggressor 38.6% 15.4% 28.7% Ask the aggressor why 34.9% 29.2% 23.8% 3.2. Gender Differences in Coping Strategies against Peer Victimization Regarding gender differences, the results indicated some significant differences between boys and girls in their preferred coping strategies (see Table 2). In relational victimization situations, girls asked (or would ask) a friend ( χ2 (1) = 12.397; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.164 ) and their parents for help ( χ2 (1) = 14.918; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.176 ) more than boys. In physical victimization situations, girls chose the strategies of “ask a friend for help” ( χ2 (1) = 5.114; p= 0.024; Cramer’s V = 0.103), “ask a teacher for help” ( χ2(1) = 12.306 ;p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.160), “ask their parents for help” ( χ2(1) = 39.246 ; p< 0.001 ; Cramer’s V = 0.286) and “ask the aggressor why” ( χ2 (1) = 9.185; p= 0.002 ; Cramer’s V = 0.138) more than boys; while boys chose the strategies of “not ask anyone for Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 8 of 17 help “( χ2(1) = 10.402 ;p= 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.147) and “fighting back” ( χ2(1) = 12.657 ; p= < 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.163) more than girls. Similarly to physical victimization, in verbal peer victimization situations, girls chose the strategies of “ask a friend for help” ( χ2(1) = 10.691 ;p= 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.150), “ask a teacher for help” ( χ2(1) = 3.849 ; p= 0.05 ; Cramer’s V = 0.090), “ask their parents for help” ( χ2 (1) = 22.166; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.215) and “ask the aggressor why” ( χ2 (1)=8.269;p=0.004; Cramer’s V = 0.132 ) more than boys; while boys chose the strategies of “not ask anyone for help” ( χ2(1) = 4.682 ; p= 0.03; Cramer’s V = 0.099) and “fightingback” ( χ2 (1) = 6.261; p= 0.012; Cramer’s V = 0.114 ) more than girls. Table 2. Coping strategies against peer victimization preferred by boys and girls. Relational Victimization Physical Victimization Verbal Victimization Boys–Girls Boys–Girls Boys–Girls Ask a friend for help 15.6–29.3% *** 10.4–17.5% * 12.9–24.5% ** Ask a teacher for help 28.1–31.4% 41.6–57.6% *** 35.7–44.5% * Ask my parents for help 30.8–48.0% *** 22.0–49.3% *** 20.1–39.7% *** Not ask anyone for help 22.0–15.7% 18.4–8.3% ** 22.1–14.4% * Fighting back 13.6–8.3% 27.2–14.0% *** 22.9–14.0% * Avoid the aggressor 40.0–37.1% 14.4–16.6% 27.7–29.7% Ask the aggressor why 31.2–38.9% 23.2–35.8% ** 18.5–29.7% ** Note: *** p< 0.001; ** p< 0.01; * p< 0.05. 3.3. Differences in Coping Strategies According to Students’ School Grade The coping strategies against peer victimization preferred by students from different school grades are shown in Table 3. Significant differences were noted when comparing school grades, with younger students preferring to use the coping strategy “ask a teacher for help” to a greater extent than older ones. The results showed that this coping strategy was preferred less by students as they moved up school grades, and this decrease was observed in the three victimization types: relational ( χ2 (4) = 58.804; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.350 ), physical ( χ2 (4) = 31.033; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.255) and verbal ( χ2 (4) = 42.514; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.298). More than half the students (57%) asked (or would ask) a teacher for help to cope with relational victimization in the elementary 4th grade, while only 11.1% of the students chose this coping strategy in the CSE 2nd grade; 68% of the students asked (or would ask) a teacher for help against a physical victimization situation in the elementary 4th grade, but only 30% did (or would do) in the CSE 2nd grade; 31.4% of students of elementary 4th grade asked (or would ask) a teacher for help against verbal victimization, but only 8.9% chose this coping strategy in the CSE 2nd grade. Table 3. Coping strategies against peer victimization according to school grade. Relational Victimization El. 4th grade El. 5th grade El. 6th grade CSE-1st CSE-2nd Ask a friend for help 18.0% 14.3% 27.2% 23.6% 27.8% Ask a teacher for help 57.0% *** 34.1% *** 27.2% *** 17.9% *** 11.1% *** Ask my parents for help 46.0% 33.0% 37.0% 42.5% 35.6% Not ask anyone for help 19.0% *** 34.1% *** 26.1% *** 8.5% *** 8.9% *** Fighting back 11.0% 14.3% 12.0% 8.5% 10.0% Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 9 of 17 Table 3. Cont. Relational Victimization Avoid the aggressor 24.0% *** 30.8% *** 37.0% *** 47.2% *** 54.4% *** Ask the aggressor why 38.0% 37.4% 33.7% 31.1% 34.4% Physical Victimization El. 4th grade El. 5th grade El. 6th grade CSE-1st CSE-2nd Ask a friend for help 16.2% 8.8% 20.7% 10.4% 13.3% Ask a teacher for help 68.0% *** 53.8% *** 52.2% *** 41.5% *** 30.0% *** Ask my parents for help 44.0% 34.1% 38.0% 26.4% 33.3% Not ask anyone for help 8.0% *** 27.5% *** 23.9% *** 5.7% *** 4.4% *** Fighting back 11.0% ** 15.4% ** 19.6% ** 28.3% ** 30.0% ** Avoid the aggressor 16.0% 14.3% 21.7% 9.4% 16.7% Ask the aggressor why 43.0% * 26.4% * 28.3% * 24.5% * 23.3% * Verbal Victimization El. 4th grade El. 5th grade El. 6th grade CSE-1st CSE-2nd Ask a friend for help 17.2% 13.2% 25.0% 14.2% 23.3% Ask a teacher for help 31.4% *** 19.9% *** 23.6% *** 16.2% *** 8.9% *** Ask my parents for help 39.4% 31.9% 30.4% 24.5% 21.1% Not ask anyone for help 20.2% *** 31.9% *** 21.7% *** 10.4% *** 8.9% *** Fighting back 12.1% 12.1% 20.7% 24.5% 23.3% Avoid the aggressor 20.2% 29.7% 28.3% 29.2% 36.7% Ask the aggressor why 33.3% 24.2% 18.5% 22.6% 20.0% Note: El. = Elementary; CSE-1st = compulsory secondary education—1st grade (12–13 years old); CES-2nd = compulsory secondary education—2nd grade (13–14 years old). *** p< 0.001; ** p< 0.01; * p< 0.05. The higher percentage of students who preferred to not ask anyone for help against relational ( χ2 (4) = 30.012; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.250), physical ( χ2 (4) = 38.078; p< 0.001 ; Cramer’s V = 0.282) and verbal peer victimization ( χ2 (4) = 21.848; p< 0.001; Cramer’s V = 0.214 ) was observed in the elementary 5th grade. Older students preferred to cope with peer relational victimization by avoiding the aggressor ( χ2 (4) = 24.266; p< 0.001 ; Cramer’s V = 0.225): only 24% of the students in the elementary 4th grade preferred this coping strategy, while 54.4% of the students in the CSE 2nd grade preferred this. Older students also preferred to cope with physical victimization by fighting back the aggressor ( χ2 (4) = 15.736; p= 0.003; Cramer’s V = 0.181): only 11% of the elementary 4th grade students indicated using (or that they would use) this strategy, while 28.3 and 30% in the CSE 1st and 2nd grade, respectively, indicated using (or that they would use) it. In a physical peer victimization situation, younger students (4th grade) preferred the coping strategy of “ask the aggressor why” more than older students ( χ2 (4) = 12.213; p= 0.016; Cramer’s V = 0.160): 43.0% of the students in the elementary 4th grade preferred this coping strategy, while 23.3% of the students in the CSE 2nd grade preferred this. 3.4. Differences in Coping Strategies According to Students’ Victimization Status The percentages of students who preferred each coping strategy, testing for differences between students who suffered peer victimization and those who were not victimized by their peers, are shown in Table 4. The obtained results revealed only one significant difference between victimized and non-victimized students in their preferred coping strategies: “not ask anyone for help”. The students who had suffered peer victimization showed higher percentages for preferring this coping strategy compared to those students who had never been peer victimized (relational victimization: χ2 (1) = 7.722; p= 0.005; Cramer’s V = 0.175 ; physical: χ2 (1) = 3.713; p= 0.054; Cramer’s V = 0.125; verbal: χ2(1) = 6.620; p= 0.01; Cramer’s V = 0.205). To cope with peer relational victimization situations, 14.5% of the students who had not been victimized reported that they would not ask anyone for help, Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 16 of 17 34. Smith, P.K.; Shu, S.; Madsen, K. Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In Peer Harassment at School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized; Juvonen, J., Graham, S., Eds.; Guildford: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 332–352. 35. Carbone-Lopez, K.; Esbensen, F.; Brick, B.T. Correlates and consequences of peer victimization: Gender differences in direct and indirect forms of bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 2010,8, 332–350. [CrossRef] 36. Povedano, A.; Cava, M.J.; Monreal, M.C.; Varela, R.; Musitu, G. Victimization, loneliness, overt and relational violence at the school from a gender perspective. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2015,15, 44–51. [CrossRef] 37. Sinclair, K.R.; Cole, D.A.; Dukewich, T.; Felton, J.; Weitlauf, A.S.; Maxwell, M.M.; Tilghman-Osborne, C.; Jacky, A. Impact of physical and relational peer victimization on depressive cognitions in children and adolescents. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2012,41, 570–583. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 38. Akey, J.E.; Rintamaki, L.S. Optimal social support practices for health care professionals who treat patients managing eating disorders. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2014,202, 126–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 39. Warner, L.M.; Ziegelmann, J.P.; Schüz, B.; Wurm, S.; Tesch-Römer, C.; Schwarzer, R. Maintaining autonomy despite multimorbidity: Self-efficacy and the two faces of social support. Eur. J. Ageing 2011,8, 3–12. [CrossRef] 40. Newman, R.S. Adaptive and nonadaptive help seeking with peer harassment: An integrative perspective of coping and self-regulation. Educ. Psychol. 2008,43, 1–15. [CrossRef] 41. Newman, R.S. When elementary school students are harassed by peers: A self-regulative perspective on help-seeking. Elem. Sch. J. 2003,103, 339–355. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1002288 (accessed on 24 May 2020). [CrossRef] 42. Rigby, K.; Bagshaw, D. Prospects of adolescent students collaborating with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conflict in schools. Educ. Psychol. 2003,23, 535–546. [CrossRef] 43. Gottlieb, B.; Bergen, A. Social support concepts and measures. J. Psychosom. Res. 2010,69, 511–520. [CrossRef] 44. Schenke, K.; Lam, A.; Conley, A.; Karabenick, S. Adolescents’ help seeking in mathematics classrooms: Relations between achievement and perceived classroom environmental influences over one year. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2015 ,41, 133–146. [CrossRef] 45. Martínez-Antón, M.; Buelga, S.; Cava, M.J. La satisfacción con la vida en la adolescencia y su relación con la autoestima y el ajuste escolar. Anu. de Psicol. 2007 ,38, 293–303. Available online: http://www.raco.cat/index.php/AnuarioPsicologia/article/view/74 205/94371 (accessed on 25 May 2020). 46. Morin, A.H. Teacher support and the social classroom environment as predictors of student loneliness. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2020, 23, 1687–1707. [CrossRef] 47. Naylor, P.; Cowie, H.; Del Rey, R. Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. Rev. 2001,6, 114–120. [CrossRef] 48. Wright, M.F.; Yanagida, T.; Macháˇcková, H.; Dˇedková, L.; Ševˇcíková, A.; Aoyama, I.; Bayraktar, F.; Kamble, S.V.; Li, Z.; Soudi, S.; et al. Face-to-face and cyber victimization among adolescents in six countries: The interaction between attributions and coping strategies. J. Child Adolesc. Trauma 2018,11, 99–112. [CrossRef] 49. Moos, R.H.; Trickett, E.J. Classroom Environment Scale Manual; Consulting Psychologist Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1973. 50. Fernández-Ballesteros, R.; Sierra, B. Escalas de Clima Social FES, WES, CIES y CES; TEA: Madrid, Spain, 1989. 51. Cava, M.J. Family, teachers, and peers: Keys for supporting victims of bullying. Psychosoc. Interv. 2011,20, 183–192. [CrossRef] 52. Ortega-Barón, J.; Buelga, S.; Cava, M.J.; Torralba, E. School violence and attitude toward authority in students perpetrators of cyberbullying. Rev. Psicodidáctica 2017,22, 23–28. [CrossRef] 53. Estévez, E.; Jiménez, T.I.; Moreno, D. Aggressive behavior in adolescence as a predictor of personal, family, and school adjustment problems. Psicothema 2018,30, 66–73. [CrossRef] 54. Cava, M.J.; Buelga, S.; Musitu, G.; Murgui, S. Violencia escolar entre adolescentes y sus implicaciones en el ajuste psicosocial: Un estudio longitudinal. Rev. Psicodidáctica 2010 ,15, 21–34. Available online: https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/psicodidactica/article/ view/732 (accessed on 12 October 2020). 55. Seiffge-Krenke, I. Coping with relationship stressors: A decade review. J. Res. Adolesc. 2011,21, 196–210. [CrossRef] 56. Jenkins, L.N.; Fredrick, S.S.; Wenger, J. Peer victimization and social emotional outcomes: The role of teacher and peer support. Aggress. Behav. 2018,44, 176–184. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57. Kotchick, B.A.; Papadakis, A.A.; Nettles, C.; Jobe, S.L. Peer victimization and depressive symptoms in early adolescents: The protective role of perceived supportive parenting. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2020,29, 1350–1362. [CrossRef] 58. Sulkowski, M.L.; Simmons, J. The protective role of teacher–student relationships against peer victimization and psychosocial distress. Psychol. Sch. 2018,55, 137–150. [CrossRef] 59. Masters, K.S.; Stillman, A.M.; Spielmans, G.I. Specificity of social support for back pain patients: Do patients care who provides what? J. Behav. Med. 2007,30, 11–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 60. Roth, G.; Assor, A. The costs of parental pressure to express emotions: Conditional regard and autonomy support as predictors of emotion regulation and intimacy. J. Adolesc. 2012,35, 799–808. [CrossRef] 61. Newman, R.S.; Murray, B.J. How students and teachers view the seriousness of peer harassment: When is it appropriate to seek help? J. Educ. Psychol. 2005,97, 347–365. [CrossRef] 62. Newman, R.S.; Murray, B.J.; Lussier, C. Confrontation with aggressive peers at school: Students’ reluctance to seek help from the teacher. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001,93, 398–410. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021,13, 2605 17 of 17 63. Ferrer, V.; Bosch, E. From romantic love to gender violence. For an emotional coeducation in the educational agenda. Profr. Rev. Curric. Form. Profr. 2013 ,17, 105–122. Available online: http://www.ugr.es/local/recfpro/rev171ART7.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2020). 64. Noom, M.J.; Dekovic, M.; Meeus, W. Conceptual analysis and measurement of adolescent autonomy. J. Youth Adolesc. 2001 ,30, 577–595. [CrossRef] 65. Smetana, J.G.; Campione-Barr, N.; Metzger, A. Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006,57, 255–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 66. Holt, M.; Espelage, D. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J. Youth Adolesc. 2007 ,36, 984–994. [CrossRef] 67. Musitu, G.; Cava, M.J. The role of social support in the adjustment of adolescents. Psychos. Interv. 2003 ,12, 179–192. Available online: https://journals.copmadrid.org/pi/art/c5866e93cab1776890fe343c9e7063fb (accessed on 10 May 2020). 68. Spiekerman, A.M.; Witkow, M.R.; Nishina, A. Peer victimization and depressive symptoms during adolescence: Examining the roles of social support and internalizing coping. J. Early Adolesc. 2020, 1–22. [CrossRef] 69. Beld, M.H.M.; Van den Heuvel, E.G.; Van der Helm, G.H.P.; Kuiper, C.H.Z.; de Swart, J.J.W.; Roest, J.J.; Stams, G.J.J.M. The impact of classroom climate on students’ perception of social exclusion in secondary special education. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019 ,103, 127–134. [CrossRef] 70. Chen, J.K.; Wang, S.C.; Chen, Y.W.; Huang, T.H. Family climate, social relationships with peers and teachers at school, and school bullying victimization among third grade students in elementary schools in Taiwan. Sch. Ment. Health. 2021. [CrossRef] 71. Debnam, K.J.; Edwards, K.; Cornell, D. Improving the school environment: School staff perceptions of school climate data and reporting practices. J. Community Psychol. 2020, 1–18. [CrossRef] 72. Jimenez, T.I.; Moreno-Ruiz, D.; Estévez, E.; Callejas-Jerónimo, J.E.; López-Crespo, G.; Valdivia-Salas, S. Academic competence, teacher–student relationship, and violence and victimisation in adolescents: The classroom climate as a mediator. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 1163. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 73. Klein, J.; Cornell, D.; Konold, T. Relationships between bullying school climate and student risk behaviors. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2012 , 27, 154–169. [CrossRef] 74. Ruiz-Narezo, M.; Santibáñez, R. School climate and peer victimization. Involvement, affiliation and help perceived in school centers as protective factors against violent behavior in adolescent couples. Sustainability 2020,12, 4705. [CrossRef] 75. Eliot, M.; Cornell, D.; Gregory, A.; Fan, X. Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. J. Sch. Psychol. 2010,48, 533–553. [CrossRef] 76. Tropp-Gordon, W.; Kaeppler, A.K.; Corbitt-Hall, D.J. Youth’s expectations for their teacher’s handing of peer victimization and their socioemotional development. J. Early Adolesc. 2020, 1–30. [CrossRef] 77. Guarini, A.; Menabò, L.; Menin, D.; Mameli, C.; Skrzypiec, G.; Slee, P.; Brighi, A. The P.E.A.C.E. pack program in Italian high schools: An intervention for victims of bullying. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]