摘要：We examined whether socioeconomic status (SES) could be used to identify which schools or children are at greatest risk of bullying, which can adversely affect children’s health and life. We conducted a review of published literature on school bullying and SES. We identified 28 studies that reported an association between roles in school bullying (victim, bully, and bully-victim) and measures of SES. Random effects models showed SES was weakly related to bullying roles. Adjusting for publication bias, victims (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24, 1.58) and bully-victims (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.36, 1.74) were more likely to come from low socioeconomic households. Bullies (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.97, 0.99) and victims (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.94, 0.97) were slightly less likely to come from high socioeconomic backgrounds. SES provides little guidance for targeted intervention, and all schools and children, not just those with more socioeconomic deprivation, should be targeted to reduce the adverse effects of bullying. Bullying is defined as repeated, harmful behavior, characterized by an imbalance of power between the victim and perpetrator(s). 1 There is compelling evidence that school bullying affects children’s health and well being, with the effects lasting long into adulthood. 2,3 Victims of school bullying are at greater risk of physical and mental health problems, 4,5 including depression, 6,7 anxiety, 8,9 psychotic or borderline personality symptoms, 10,11 and are more likely to self-harm and attempt suicide. 12,13 A small proportion of victims are classified as bully-victims, children who are victimized by their peers, but who also bully other children. Bully-victims are at even greater risk for maladjustment, 5 exhibiting attention and behavioral difficulties, 4,14 displaying poor social skills, 15,16 and reporting increased levels of depression and anxiety through adolescence and into adulthood. 2 By contrast, the negative outcomes of bullying perpetration are less clear. Bullies have been found more likely to engage in delinquent or antisocial behavior 17,18 ; however, once other family and childhood risk factors are taken into account, they do not appear to be at any greater risk for poorer health, criminal, or social outcomes in adulthood. 3 Up to one third of children are involved in bullying, as bully, victim, or bully-victim, 19,20 and when considered alongside the damaging effects on physical and mental health, bullying can be seen as a major public health concern. 21 Identifying risk factors for bullying aids potential efforts in targeting resources, which can prevent youths from becoming involved in bullying, but also limits the impact it has on their health and well being. Traditional risk factors, such as age and gender, show a clear association 22,23 ; however, there are a range of other potential determinants whose relationship to bullying remain unclear. One such determinant is socioeconomic status (SES), which shows some links to bullying, but at present, research findings are inconsistent regarding roles (i.e., bully, victim, or bully-victim). SES is an aggregate concept comprising resource-based (i.e., material and social resources) and prestige-based (individual’s rank or status) indicators of socioeconomic position, which can be measured across societal levels (individual, household, and neighborhood) and at different periods in time. 24 It can be assessed through individual measures, such as education, income, or occupation, 25,26 but also through composite measures that combine or assign weights to different socioeconomic aspects to provide an overall index of socioeconomic level. There is no standard measure of SES; indicators are used to measure specific aspects of socioeconomic stratification. 26 Accordingly, different measures of SES may show varying effects, which can result from differing causal pathways, or through interactions with other social characteristics, such as gender or race. 27 The multifaceted nature of SES has resulted in a lack of consistency in how researchers measure its relationship to bullying, and although several studies provide individual assessments of this relationship, as yet there is no clear consensus over whether roles in bullying are associated with individual socioeconomic measures, or in general, with SES. Currently, the literature suggests some link between low SES and victims or bully-victims at school. 28,29 Specifically, being a victim has been reported to be associated with poor parental education, 30,31 low parental occupation, 32 economic disadvantage, 33,34 and poverty. 35 In addition, several studies found that bully-victims are also more likely to come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, 29,30 including low maternal education 28 and maternal unemployment. 36 However, others found little or no association between SES and victims or bully-victims. 37–39 The type of bullying may matter in relation to SES. Victims of physical and relational bullying have been found to more often come from low affluence families, whereas victims of cyber bullying have not. 40 Compared with victimization, few studies have explored the link between SES and bullying others. Some studies found bullying others to be associated with low SES, including economic disadvantage, 34 poverty, 35 and low parental education. 30 Additionally, where composite measures have been used, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds have been found to bully others slightly more often. 29,41 By contrast, others found no association between bullying perpetration and measures of SES. 38,39,42 There is a small but growing body of literature that examines the relationship between bullying and SES, and although findings tend to suggest that victims, bully-victims, and bullies are more likely to come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, the results are far from conclusive. First, studies differ in their approach to measuring SES; some use composite measures, combining multiple indicators such as parental education, wealth, and occupation, whereas others concentrate on a single socioeconomic indicator, most often parental education, affluence, or occupation. How bullying relates to SES may differ according to which socioeconomic indicator is used; therefore, in interpreting results, one must consider not only how bullying relates to SES in general, but also which socioeconomic indicator was used, and how this may have influenced the result. Furthermore, although several studies indicate an association between bullying and low SES, the reported effect sizes vary greatly across studies, with some reporting weak and others moderate to strong associations. So far, the associations between bullying and SES have not been quantified across a range of studies in a systematic way. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that aimed to determine more precisely the exact nature and strength of the relationship between SES and bullying. We systematically investigated the association between the role taken in school bullying (victim, bully, or bully-victim) and measures of SES.
