Lars Clemmensen1,2, Jens Richardt Møllegaard Jepsen1,3,4,5, Jim van Os6,7, Els M A Blijd-Hoogewys8, Martin K Rimvall1,9, Else Marie Olsen10,11, Charlotte U Rask12, Agna A Bartels-Velthuis13, Anne Mette Skovgaard10,14, Pia Jeppesen1,9. 1. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Centre, Mental Health Services, The Capital Region of Denmark, Glostrup, Denmark. 2. Center for Telepsychiatry, Mental Health Services, Region of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Center for Neuropsychiatric Schizophrenia Research (CNSR), Psychiatric Centre Glostrup, Denmark. 4. Lundbeck Foundation Center for Clinical Intervention and Neuropsychiatric Schizophrenia Research (CINS), Glostrup, Denmark. 5. Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark, Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, King's Health Partners, King's College London, UK. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Utrecht University Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 8. INTER-PSY, Groningen, The Netherlands. 9. Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 10. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 11. Centre for Clinical Research and Prevention, The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark. 12. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Centre Risskov, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 13. University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Psychiatry, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 14. National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bullying and poor theory of mind (ToM) are both considered to negatively impact academic performance. However, it is unclear if they have separate effects. AIM: The aim of the current study was to examine the potentially separate associations of bullying and ToM with academic performance. SAMPLE: A general population sample of 1,170 children aged 11-12 years. METHODS: Information on bullying, type of involvement (none, victim (only), bully (only), victim-bully (both)), ToM, and estimated intelligence was obtained at face-to-face assessments. Information on academic performance was obtained from Danish school registers. RESULTS: ToM was positively associated with academic performance, and involvement in bullying was negatively associated with academic performance. Academic performance differed between types of involvement in bullying. Pairwise post hoc analyses showed that in the full sample, the only significant difference was between those not involved and those involved as victim (only). This was also the case for girls. Adjusting for potential shared variance with gender, estimated intelligence and ToM being victim (only) and victim-bully (both) were negatively associated with academic performance compared to no involvement. Thus, being a victim (or victim-bully) contributes negatively to academic performance beyond the effects of ToM and intelligence, and regardless of gender. Similarly, ToM remained positively associated with academic performance after adjusting for shared variance. CONCLUSION: ToM and involvement in bullying were both separately associated with later academic performance. These results remained even after adjusting for shared variance, and for shared variance with gender and estimated IQ.
BACKGROUND: Bullying and poor theory of mind (ToM) are both considered to negatively impact academic performance. However, it is unclear if they have separate effects. AIM: The aim of the current study was to examine the potentially separate associations of bullying and ToM with academic performance. SAMPLE: A general population sample of 1,170 children aged 11-12 years. METHODS: Information on bullying, type of involvement (none, victim (only), bully (only), victim-bully (both)), ToM, and estimated intelligence was obtained at face-to-face assessments. Information on academic performance was obtained from Danish school registers. RESULTS: ToM was positively associated with academic performance, and involvement in bullying was negatively associated with academic performance. Academic performance differed between types of involvement in bullying. Pairwise post hoc analyses showed that in the full sample, the only significant difference was between those not involved and those involved as victim (only). This was also the case for girls. Adjusting for potential shared variance with gender, estimated intelligence and ToM being victim (only) and victim-bully (both) were negatively associated with academic performance compared to no involvement. Thus, being a victim (or victim-bully) contributes negatively to academic performance beyond the effects of ToM and intelligence, and regardless of gender. Similarly, ToM remained positively associated with academic performance after adjusting for shared variance. CONCLUSION: ToM and involvement in bullying were both separately associated with later academic performance. These results remained even after adjusting for shared variance, and for shared variance with gender and estimated IQ.
Authors: Raúl Carretero Bermejo; Alberto Nolasco Hernández; Laura Gracia Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Yeni Cruz-Manrique; Juan Herrero Olaizola; Lourdes Cortés-Ayala; Eli Malvaceda-Espinoza Journal: Int J Psychol Res (Medellin) Date: 2021 Jul-Dec
Authors: Ana Isabel Obregon-Cuesta; Luis Alberto Mínguez-Mínguez; Benito León-Del-Barco; Santiago Mendo-Lázaro; Jessica Fernández-Solana; Jerónimo J González-Bernal; Josefa González-Santos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.614