Adverse Childhood Experiences, School Bullying Retrospection, and the Impact on Resilience in Adulthood

Adverse Childhood Experiences, School Bullying Retrospection, and the Impact on Resilience in Adulthood | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Adverse Childhood Experiences, School Bullying Retrospection, and the Impact on Resilience in Adulthood Raisa Fountain, Amoneeta Beckstein This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4132940/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been repeatedly shown to profoundly impact individual resilience in adulthood. ACEs and bullying experiences are linked with school disengagement, depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse. Moreover, ACEs are associated with lower life expectancy, increased risk of heart disease, and cancer. Experiencing bullying victimization had been shown to lead to lower educational attainment, unemployment, reduced income, and poorer general health and cognitive functioning in early to midlife. Yet, there remains a gap in understanding how ACEs and bullying interact to influence resilience in adulthood. This cross-sectional study aims to explore the compounded effects of ACEs and bullying on resilience scores. The study surveyed 255 Amazon MTurk workers selected by CloudResearch under 40 years old from the United States, assessing ACEs, bullying, and resilience. Surprisingly, mild to moderate experiences of past bullying were positively linked to resilience scores, counter to expectations. However, ACEs showed no direct relationship with resilience scores. These findings prompt further investigation, considering potential sample biases from using an MTurk population, and highlight implications for future research and practice. adverse childhood experiences ACEs bullying resilience trauma Introduction The scientific study of the role of resilience across the spectrums of human experience has become an international and multidisciplinary effort since its origin in the 1970s (Slater & Quinn, 2012). An individual’s ability to recover adaptively from adversity is vital to their ability to navigate adulthood effectively. As the topic becomes more popular, more research is emerging on how resilience is impacted by formative experiences from early life (Woods-Jaeger et al., 2018). Resilience levels have been shown to act as a buffer against the development of depression and other negative outcomes in adulthood despite earlier adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Poole et al., 2017). Children who have been involved in bullying or who have had ACEs are significantly more likely to be disengaged from school (Baiden et al., 2020). Research has demonstrated individuals who have experienced frequent bullying are at a greater risk of experiencing suicidality, diagnoses of depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorder, psychological distress, decreased general health, cognitive functioning, socioeconomic status, social relationships, and general well-being for nearly four decades following the event (Takizawa et al., 2014). Additionally, individuals who have experienced ACEs are even at risk for premature death (Brown et al., 2009). Despite these concerning trends, there are protective factors present within some individuals that contribute to resilience (defined below), and resilience tends to positively predict psychological well-being (Mayordomo et al., 2016). ACEs are major risk factors that impact long term physical (Monnat & Chandler, 2015; Vig et al., 2020) and mental (Sheffler et al., 2020) health outcomes, particularly when there are multiple ACES present within an individual (Madigan et al., 2023). Some of the most concerning risks, including violence, substance use, and mental illness directly affect the next generation (Hughes et al., 2017; Madigan et al., 2023). Studies have demonstrated that ACEs can contribute to increased risk of negative health outcomes or chronic health problems, and increased risk of school disengagement (Bethell et al., 2014). Understanding how ACEs impact an individual’s long-term physical and mental health and resilience is important for future scientific understanding and for developing interventions within school and healthcare systems. This study examines the impact of ACES and bullying, another important risk factor with negative outcomes, on resilience in adulthood. Resilience The role resilience plays in an individual’s ability to rebound from both physically and emotionally traumatic experiences is one that has gained deserved attention as research is highlighting its importance and relevance in reducing suffering overall. There is much speculation on the definition of resilience and little operational consensus (Denckla et al., 2020; Troy et al., 2023). Pooley and Cohen (2010) framed the concept as context-based. Resilience as a research topic has undergone multiple “waves” of conceptual approaches; the first focused on definition and description of resilience, the second on the variables associated with resilience, the third tested potential resilience interventions, and the fourth and most current wave seeks to better understand the “complex process that leads to resilience” (Masten & Wright, 2010, p. 214 as cited in Pooley & Cohen, 2010). Pooley and Cohen addressed the debate on whether to view resilience as a process, a personality trait, or an outcome, which would each result in varying definitions and limitations. For example, resilience as a trait has recently been criticized as putting too much onus and blame on the individual (Aksoy et al., 2023). While previous researchers defined resilience as a bouncing back, it is more likely to be an ongoing process (Jay, 2019). The primary consensus within the field is that resilience is multisystemic and complex; moreover, it involves the experience of adversity, and successful dynamic adaptation to that adversity that mitigates, at least to some extent, negative outcomes (Chmitorz et al., 2018; Denckla et al., 2020; Kalisch et al., 2019; Pooley & Cohen, 2010). Some people even have improved outcomes from the resilience that developed via adversity (Jay, 2019). Understanding resilience from a multidisciplinary perspective is important for arriving at operational consensus when undergoing future research. For the sake of this study, a commonly used definition of resilience is the positive adaptation or the ability to maintain or regain mental health despite experiencing adversity (Herrman et al., 2011). Cultivation of basic levels of resilience during developmental stages in children is vital in how they will face increasing challenges and levels of adversity as they grow (Masten & Barnes, 2018; Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). Professionals are aware of the harmful effects stress can have on the body and mind but are still building awareness of the impact that prolonged or egregious adversity during developmental periods can have on the brain and other various organ system functioning (Herrman et al., 2011). These present typically in two manners: the cumulative wear and tear from stress on the body and biological changes that can occur in an individual when stress is experienced during key developmental periods. Though resilience is a multidimensional concept, three factors typically examined within resilience as a trait are hardiness , benefit-finding , and thriving (Herrman et al., 2011). As one of the multiple pathways to resilience (Maddi, 2005), understanding hardiness is vital when building a well-rounded understanding of resilience. Hardiness presents within individuals as ongoing efforts to operate effectively or “continuing as normal” after experiencing adversity (Maddi, 2005). Key aspects of hardiness include attitudes of commitment versus alienation, control rather than powerlessness, and challenge versus threat (Maddi, 2005). However, Maddi (2005) notes that understanding has evolved as research has further developed. He asserts that hardiness is courage and motivation to face stressors head on, as opposed to avoidance or denial of stressors. Courage and motivation allow an individual to cope through problem solving and through relying on others for aid as opposed to isolating or exhibiting aggression. Ultimately, Maddi (2005) asserts hardiness presents as a behavioral pattern that allows an individual to overcome stressors and provides opportunities for growth. Benefit-finding is another facet of resilience that studies suggest improve an individual’s ability to cope by coming to recognize some positive or benefit gained from a traumatic or severely adverse experience. Fraccaro (2014) examined resilience and benefit-finding relating to the experience of school bullying in a group of 200 students. The results suggested that trait-resilience significantly predicted both individual well-being and benefit-finding (Fraccaro, 2014). The results also suggest that there may be a difference between coping strategies or behavioral resilience and benefit finding. Thriving is the third facet of resilience as mentioned by Herrman et al. (2011) and relates to an individual’s ability to recover more quickly from stressors to reach a higher level of functioning. Carver (1998) wrote on this concept in detail, addressing the four common responses to adverse events. He suggested first, especially with more severe events, the individual “succumbs” to the event in a downward slide; second “survival with impairment” occurs as a weaker version of “succumbing”; third would be “resilience” when the individual returns to the homeostatic level of functioning they had prior to the adverse event; fourth and finally would be an individual “thriving” and achieving a higher level of functioning in response to the adverse event. Carver (1998) asserts that thriving individuals can become desensitized to the stressor itself and achieve an enhanced recovery potential in how they respond to future stressors, or by reaching higher levels of functioning than existed prior to the event through their skills and knowledge, confidence levels, or strengthened personal relations. Others also support the idea that adversity might help some individuals experience post-traumatic growth and thrive (Bonanno, 2004; Brooks et al., 2018; Jay, 2019), possibly even helping them become “supernormal” (Jay, 2019). Adverse Childhood Experiences and their Impact There is a breadth of data available examining how ACEs negatively impact health outcomes across cultures (Madigan et al., 2023). A recent meta-analysis with over a half a million participants from 22 countries represented found that the majority (just over 60%) had experienced at least one ACE in their lifetime with many experiencing more than one. (Madigan et al., 2023). This study found that low-income, being unhoused, mental illness, addiction or substance misuse, or coming from a minoritized group (especially Indigenous) predicted a greater chance of an individual having four or more ACEs. From how it impacts school children to individuals in middle age or later, research has repeatedly demonstrated worrisome outcomes that so frequently accompany individuals who have higher levels of ACEs. Brown et al. (2018) conducted a longitudinal study, collecting data on ACEs from 17,337 adults and found that on average individuals who had experienced six or more ACEs were likely to die nearly 20 years earlier than those without ACEs. Their expected years of life lost was nearly three times that of individuals without ACEs. Those with ACEs were 1.7 times more likely to die under age 75 and 2.4 times more likely to die under age 65 than individuals who did not experience ACEs (Brown et al., 2018). The link to premature death alone is concerning, and unfortunately ACEs affect several facets of life that contribute to related variables. Another related study conducted by Goldenson et al. (2020) examined 40 teenagers in San Diego and found a positive relationship between ACEs and trauma symptomatology. Individuals with four or more ACEs tended to be far more vulnerable to mental health conditions and had lower resilience in comparison to individuals with less than four ACEs. However, Goldenson et al. additionally found that resilience functioned protectively; individuals with higher resilience scores experienced less depression and physical symptoms even when co-occurring with a high number of ACEs (Goldenson et al., 2020). Resilience has been found to be a protective factor for individuals experiencing or perpetrating bullying (Caridade & Braga, 2020; Chen et al., 2023; Donnon & Hammond, 2007), for interpersonal violence (Lachapelle et al., 2022) and can help reduce suicidality (Chen et al., 2023; Hajian et al., 2018). Bethell et al. (2014) examined the prevalence of ACEs, resilience, and how the two can relate to specific factors affecting lifelong health and development, specifically school engagement and rates of chronic disease. Their data indicated that 48% of children in their representative sample had experienced at least one ACE, with older children and children in lower income households being at a higher risk for additional ACEs. They found that 22.6% of the children had experienced two or more ACEs, with significant variation between age groups (30.5% of youth 12-17 years of age experienced 2 or more ACEs) and location (23% of individuals 12-17 years of age experienced two or more ACEs in New Jersey, whereas 44.4% of the same aged youth in Arizona experienced 2 or more) (Bethell et al., 2014). Their data displayed a strong relationship between a child’s experience of ACEs and chronic conditions or special needs, lower levels of resilience, grade repetition, lower quality access to medical facilities, and lower maternal health rates. Similar to many prior studies, their findings demonstrate the need for further research on how ACEs may play a role in the development of chronic health problems and developmental problems or delays. The authors recommended a rapid coordinated effort to further assess these problems and develop policy and practice that reflects awareness with an aim of prevention of these issues in the future. In sum, ACEs are major threats to wellbeing globally and need to be addressed (Madigan et al., 2023). Resilience might function as a mitigating factor and be one way to combat the negative consequences of ACEs (Ortiz, 2019; Sciaraffa et al., 2018). Bullying as a Predictive Variable The experience of bullying is also a clear risk to resilience and an individual’s ability to recover from stress or trauma in adulthood. One commonly held definition of bullying is systematic aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing by peers that is carried out repeatedly and characterized by a power imbalance (Wolke & Lereya, 2015). Children and adolescents who experience bullying victimization display adjustment problems and have higher distress levels (Arseneault et al., 2009). They are also more likely to perpetuate bullying themselves (Lauritsen, & Laub, 2007). Some researchers consider bullying itself to be an additional adverse childhood experience (Finkelhor, 2020; Kalmakis & Chandler, 2014; Urbanski, 2019) worthy of noting and addressing when measuring individual experience of ACEs. Bullying has been demonstrated to have negative effects on young adult mental health including self-esteem, self-harm, and academic failure (Arseneault, 2017). Similar to ACEs, the experience of, participation in, and witnessing of bullying can have significant lifelong implications relating to both physical and mental health (Rigby, 2003; Vanderbilt & Augustyn, 2010; Zarate-Garza, 2017). Brown et al. (2018) examined the occurrence of chronic pain and its relationship with bullying and ACEs. They hypothesized that a diverse number of traumatic events from childhood, including bullying, can directly influence the amount of chronic pain experienced by an individual later in life. They observed a significant correlation between the experience of childhood trauma and experience of chronic pain later in life, with a significant but more moderate correlation between experience of bullying and experience of chronic pain. The combination of bullying and ACEs was also assessed by Baiden et al. (2020) with respect to its impact on school disengagement. Their findings indicated that, in total, about 33% of children displayed school disengagement, 23% were involved in bullying, and 49.5% experienced at least one ACE. Children who were victims of bullying, were bullies, or both were more likely to display school disengagement. Their likelihood of experiencing school disengagement was 1.32 times higher for children with one ACE, 1.5 times higher for children with two ACEs, and 1.77 times higher for children with three or more ACEs (Baiden et al., 2020). This study points to a possible link between the experience of bullying victimization and ACEs as they relate to school disengagement. This is relevant as school disengagement has been associated with early school dropout, problematic drug and alcohol use, violent crime, property crime, and arrests in adolescence (Henry et al., 2011), which can each be impacted by experience of bullying victimization and ACEs. A number of studies have demonstrated the negative effects of bullying on mental health. Lereya et al. (2013) conducted a study of individuals who were bullied between the ages 7 and 10 and the extent to which they exhibited higher levels of self-harm between the ages of 16 and 17 in adolescence, while controlling for ACEs, psychopathology, and internalizing versus externalizing behaviors. Their data demonstrated individuals who were bullied were at an increased risk of self-harm (Lereya et al., 2013). Herba et al. (2008) examined a Dutch cohort of 1525 children to assess the link between suicidal ideation and bullying victimization. Their findings indicated that victims reported higher experience of suicidal ideation moderated by paternal internalizing disorders and rejection within the home, indicating a specific vulnerability (Herba et al., 2008). The long-term mental health implications of bullying are perhaps the most concerning, and these were examined in a five-decade longitudinal study conducted by Takizawa et al. (2014). Takizawa et al. assessed the adverse effects of bullying on individuals into mid-to-later (45-55 years old) life as opposed to early adulthood, which is more commonly studied. Takizawa et al. reported that experiencing bullying resulted in higher stress scores, poor general health and poor cognitive functioning at both early adulthood and midlife, and increased anxiety and depression scores in midlife when compared to cohort members who were not bullied. Individuals who had been bullied had lower educational levels, were more likely to be unemployed and earn less than their peers, and they were less likely to have met with friends in the recent past or live with a spouse or partner in midlife (Takizawa et al., 2014). The authors' interpretation was explicit and three-pronged. First, they asserted that the experience of bullying has a negative impact, over and beyond the impact of other negative events, which was controlled for in the study. Second, this impact can have long term effects on an individual, even 40 years after the fact. Third, their findings demonstrate how pervasive the long-term consequences of experiencing bullying can be on an individual’s life, including economic status, general health, stress levels, and social relationships. Purpose of the Current Study ACEs and bullying are arguably some of the most substantial and formative factors relating to interpersonal relationships and personality development in adulthood. The current researchers separate these concepts in an attempt to understand their specific significance and the nuance of their effects, but these negative experiences have similar consequences for individuals resulting in greater struggles in navigating adulthood. Studies have shown that experiencing one or more ACE increases the likelihood of experiencing bullying and experiencing bullying increases the risk of negative health and mental health effects later in life. There is a gap in our understanding of how bullying and ACEs can co-occur as a “toxic duo” (Baiden et al., 2020) impacting individual resiliency and causing greater health risks decades into adulthood. This study examined how ACEs and bullying can impact resilience scores when examined both independently and in conjunction with each other. There were two primary hypotheses. First, higher levels of ACEs and the experience of bullying victimization would lead to lower resilience scores. Second, the negative effect on resilience scores would be impacted by the combined effects of the experience of bullying victimization and the existence of ACEs. That is, it was anticipated that bullying would additionally moderate the relationship between ACEs and resilience, further strengthening the effect when present. This information will help fill a gap in our understanding of how bullying and ACEs can co-occur and how the combination may more strongly inhibit the development and retention of resiliency as an adaptive trait. Understanding the relationships among these three factors may inform future interventions and prevention programs for youth at risk. Methods Participants and Procedure This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The study was determined to be “exempt” according to 45 CFR 46.101(b)2 (IRB ID # 21114). Participants were 255 Amazon MTurk workers aged between 18-40 (mean age =32.19 SD =5.246) from the United States of America (USA) selected by CloudResearch. They completed a survey by accepting an MTurk human intelligence task (HIT) between 7/10/2021 and 7/11/2021. Participants viewed a description of the survey study and eligibility requirements. If they accepted, they were directed to a Qualtrics survey that included an informed consent form. If individuals agreed to participate, they were then directed to complete a CAPTCHA, demographic questions, and measures assessing ACEs, bullying victimization and perpetration, and resilience. They were paid $1.00 if all the questions were answered. Upon completion, they viewed a debriefing page providing resources for mental health support and crisis intervention to access in the event they were experiencing distress. A total of 350 participants began the survey, but upon data screening (described below) the final sample was composed of 255 MTurk workers. The participants were 48.6% Female, 49.4% Male, and 2% Other. The racial/ethnic distribution was 71.4% Caucasian, 13.3% Black/African American, 11% Asian, 8.2% Latina/Latino, 0.8% Native American, 0.4% Other, and 1.6% Non-disclosed. Participant median income was in the $35,000-$54,999 bracket, and 21.2% of participants qualified for some level of governmental assistance. Measures Demographics Questionnaire (see Appendix A) Participants completed items querying age, race, income bracket, qualification for government assistance, occupation, and gender identity. Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire The Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B) is an 18-item questionnaire developed by King (2020). This survey queries respondents in a binary yes or no format. It is an expanded version of the original Aces-10 created by Felitti et al. (1998) that queries whether or not an individual has experienced 10 negative/stressful life events as children. The ACES-18 includes 8 additional items that assess other forms of family adversity such as physical disability, family death, suicidality, and single, foster, or teen parenting. The ACEs Questionnaire is designed to measure exposure in childhood to household dysfunction and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. An example question is “Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever . . . Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way?” Test-retest reliability of the ACE Questionnaire is good to excellent in adulthood (Dube et al., 2004) and ACE counts are temporally stable. The Cronbach alpha for the current sample was .77. Forms of Bullying Survey The Forms of Bullying Survey (FBS; Shaw et al., 2013; see Appendix C) is a 10-item survey designed to measure the experience of victimization or participation in bullying during specific academic semesters or terms middle or high school. Item responses are in a Likert-scale format, ranging from, “This did not happen to me/I did not do this”; “Once or twice,” “Every few weeks,” “About once a week,” and “Several times a week or more.” This study employed a modified version of both Victimization (V) and Perpetrator (P) versions to measure individual experience of and participation in bullying more broadly in elementary, middle, and high school (Shaw et al., 2013). The researchers added questions querying whether the individual had experienced bullying during any of these developmental periods, and if so, to indicate during which period it was experienced most intensely. In the FBS-V, the wording of the question, “Last term, how often were you bullied (including cyberbullying) by one or more young people in the following ways?” was changed to replace the words “Last term” with “During the indicated period.” In the FBS-P, the wording of the question “Last term, how often did you bully (or cyberbully) another young person(s) in the following ways (on your own or in a group)?” replaced the words “Last term” with “During the indicated period.” Scale, construct, and concurrent validity was tested in two independent studies of 3,496 Grade 8 and 783 Grade 8-10 students respectively and was shown to be adequate (Shaw et al., 2013). Cronbach alpha for this scale was moderately high in the current study (alpha = .89) Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-25 The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-25 (CD-RISC25; Connor & Davidson, 2003; see Appendix C) is a 25-item scale designed to measure resilience. There are sections with items measuring hardiness, adaptability/flexibility, meaningfulness/purpose, optimism, regulation of emotion and cognition, and self-efficacy (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Each item response ranges in score from 0 to 4. The total score is obtained by adding up the 25 items, which gives a score that can range from 0 to 100. Lower scores indicate lower levels of resilience, while higher scores indicate greater levels of resilience. According to Kupier et al. (2019), the measure has demonstrated strong internal consistency. Though good convergent validity was demonstrated within the CD-RISC10 (Kuiper et al., 2019), this study employed the use of the CD-RISC25 as its internal consistency was slightly higher and it has the potential to measure resilience across broader contexts. Cronbach alpha for the scale within our study was strong (alpha = .95) Results Data Screening The analysis included a total of 255 participants. MTurk participants often are accustomed to taking several surveys fairly quickly. Researchers determined that the survey should take participants about 8 minutes to answer each question with adequate thought and consideration and chose to exclude individuals (95 of the 350 in total) who completed the survey in less than 4 minutes from our data analysis. No participants failed attention check questions; however, 15 individuals did not read the informed consent form or the HIT description that detailed the age eligibility requirement and as such were also excluded. Skewness and kurtosis were evaluated for all variables. There were no issues for the scores for the Forms of Bullying Victimization scale, or the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (25), and no transformations were required. However, the ACES18 was significantly skewed and kurtotic. This appeared due to the fact that very few people reported experiencing items 11-18. Thus, the ACES-10 was used for analyses as this dataset met assumptions for normality. Main Analysis To test the first hypothesis, a linear regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of bullying and ACEs on resilience scores in adulthood. While ACEs were negatively related to resilience score totals, they did not contribute significantly to the variance. In contrast, scores for bullying victimization were positively and significantly related to resilience scores. To assess the impact of bullying after controlling for the effects of ACEs, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression analysis in which scores for resilience were entered as the dependent variable, scores for ACEs were entered as the independent variables in the first step, and scores for Bullying Victimization were entered as an independent variable in the second step. Among the 255 participants, 73.7% reported experiencing one or more adverse events. These are listed in Table 1. A total of 179 participants reported experiencing bullying during elementary, middle, or high school. A majority of the individuals who reported experiencing bullying experienced it in middle school, with over 70% of our participants having indicated having experience bullying victimization. Frequency reports of bullying victimization are listed in Table 2. The ACEs Questionnaire score mean was 2.526, SD = 2.415. The FBS-V score mean was 1.513, SD = 0.899. The CD-RISC-25 score mean was 63.533, SD = 17.795. The overall model was not significant ( F = 2.109, p = .124) When ACEs were added to the model it had very little change ( p = .846), however when bullying was added into the model as a predictor, it approached significance ( p = .124) and the F change was significant (.042). Contrary to expectations, neither the existence of ACEs nor the experience of bullying victimization significantly negatively predicted resilience score totals within this population. Furthermore, the experience of bullying victimization significantly positively predicted resilience score totals. The primary hypothesis was not supported as neither the existence of higher ACEs nor the experience of bullying victimization resulted in lower resilience scores in the overall model. The secondary hypothesis was not supported because there was no relationship observed between scores for ACEs and resilience and thus scores for bullying victimization did not moderate the relationship. Table 1 Frequency of Total Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Across Respondents ACEs 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N 67 39 42 31 25 17 15 8 6 1 4 Percentage 26.3 15.3 16.5 12.2 9.8 6.7 5.9 3.1 2.4 0.4 1.6 Table 2 Bullying Victimization by Academic Level Period N Percentage Elementary 47 18.4 Middle 95 37.3 High 36 14.1 Other 1 0.4 Total 179 70.2 Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of ACEs and Bullying Variables as Predictors of Resilience B LL UL SE B β t p R 2 ΔR 2 F change Step 1 ACEs Total -.090 -1.133 .952 .528 -.013 -.171 .864 -.005 .000 .864 Step 2 ACEs Total FBS-V Total -.630 3.353 -1.788 .120 .527 6.587 .586 1.639 -.090 .171 -1.075 2.047 .284 .042 .012 .023 .042 Note. Total N = 255 Post Hoc Analyses A second regression analysis was conducted in which resilience scores were entered as the dependent variable, and household income levels as the independent variable in the first block and eligibility for government assistance as an independent variable in the second block. Household income levels were rated on a Likert scale of 1-7 ranging from under $15,000, 15,000-$24,999, $25,000-$34,999, $35,000-$54,999, $55,000-$74,999, $75,000-$99,999, and $100,000+. Median household income fell into the $35,000-$54,999 bracket ( M = 4.39 SD = 1.742) and 21.2% ( SD = .409) of individuals reported eligibility for government assistance. The overall model was significant for step one ( p = >.001) but not in step two (p = .134) Income levels strongly negatively predicted resilience scores ( p = >.001, F = 16.433), however, eligibility for government assistance did not significantly predict resilience scores (p =.134, F = 2.263). This information is presented in Table 4. Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Income and Government Assistance Variables as Predictors of Resilience B LL UL SE B β t p R 2 ΔR 2 F change Step 1 Income 2.523 1.297 3.749 .622 .247 4.054 <.001 .061 .061 16.433 Step 2 Income Gov. Assist. 2.164 4.257 .854 -1.316 3.474 9.831 .665 2.830 .212 .098 3.254 1.504 <.001 .134 .069 .008 2.263 Note. Total N = 255 Discussion This study set out to examine the relationships between ACEs, bullying victimization, and resilience score totals as there is an existing gap in research covering these topics in unison. Our hypotheses were not supported. Scores for ACEs were not related to scores for resilience, and further, scores for bullying victimization were positively related. The results of this study were somewhat surprising and stand in contrast to prior research. Given that other studies have demonstrated negative relationships between bullying and resilience and ACEs and resilience, the researchers questioned the representativeness of the sample. The sample reported unusual frequencies of adverse childhood experiences ( M = 2.5255) and bullying victimization (65.5% of participants answered “yes” and 4.7% participants answered “unsure”), that was nearly twice that of averages in prior studies. Only 26% of participants reported zero ACEs, whereas most other studies examining the general population arrive at percentages closer to 46%-52% (Bethell et al., 2014 ). In other samples around one third or lower of the population reported involvement in bullying (Baiden et al., 2020 ). Additionally, this study’s mean score (63.533) for resilience was about 17 points lower than the average scores reported for this measure (80.4) and in the lowest quartile (Connor & Davidson, 2003 ). This indicates that perhaps as it relates to these variables, MTurk participants may not be as representative of the general population as previously thought and should be further researched. Although surprising, the finding of a direct and positive correlation between scores for bullying and victimization is somewhat consistent with some conceptualizations of resilience. Mash and Barkley ( 2014 ) acknowledge that though not understood well from the standpoint of empirical research, children may benefit from exposure to mild or moderate levels of stress. The notion behind this perspective is that the experience of stress may enable children to develop coping skills that allow them to manage future stressors successfully. Further research is required to better understand this sensitive possibility. Data Availability Statement As a condition of the study, participants were guaranteed anonymity and that the data would not be unnecessarily distributed. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data as they are not housed in any online databases and are not publicly available. The data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request. Limitations and Future Directions The primary limitation of this study is the sample, which was comprised of Amazon MTurk workers, who may not be sufficiently representative of the general USA adult population. One sign of this is that only 26.3% of our participants reported zero ACEs, whereas most other studies examining the general population arrive at percentages in the 40% range (Madigan et al., 2023 ). The current sample reported experiencing significantly more adverse childhood experiences and bullying victimization than most community samples. Another key element indicating the participants were not representative is that only 29.8% indicated they were not bullied, whereas 65.5% said they were and 4.7% said they were unsure. Most other studies indicate that around one third or lower of the population reports involvement in bullying (Baiden et al., 2020 ). The data begs the question of how representative MTurk participants are of the general population. Furthermore, the generalizability of this study may be limited based on this sample, particularly for other cultures and countries. Another notable limitation is the speed at which individuals completed the survey. As many MTurk workers are accustomed to completing several tasks quickly, a majority of the participants completed the survey substantially more quickly than anticipated. Participants were expected to need on average eight minutes to complete the survey; over half completed it in less than 8. The data validity comes into question without sufficient time spent considering each item. Further research on the representativeness of MTurk participants to the general population as it relates to ACEs and bullying would benefit future studies measuring these qualities in the future. Another important limitation is the timing of the study, which occurred during COVID-19 pandemic. Participants’ resilience scores may have been impacted by a variety of stressful circumstances as a result of the pandemic. Some individuals may have successfully adapted to these new challenges while others may not have; and many may have been more at risk than others. Individual living conditions, poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and uncertainty about the future all had an impact on an individual’s ability to navigate the pandemic. Vinkers et al. ( 2020 ) addressed some of the possible stress related reactions that includes change in concentration, irritability, anxiety, insomnia, and interpersonal conflict as possibilities, all that can impact individual resilience. This information must be considered to fully appreciate the results of our study. Though ACEs overall effect on resilience scores was not statistically significant, the trends in the data are not to be overlooked. Perhaps MTurk participants are not representative of the general population on the topics covered in this study. An implication of note is that if resilience is fostered as a result of experiencing bullying victimization, we must further examine the factors that may have contributed to overcoming this adversity. There are several factors that could impact this including but not limited to socioeconomic status, family support, hardiness, and an individual’s ability to find benefits from the hardship. Further examination is necessary to obtain a thorough understanding when approaching this topic. Based on the post-hoc analysis, there was a negative relationship between income levels and resilience levels, which may be due to stress from impoverished circumstances. This emphasizes the importance of economic security as a factor that may play a role in individual resilience scores. What is perhaps more concerning is that income levels repeated by our participants were in the levels of middle class, not impoverished, yet they still reported significantly lower resilience scores than the general population. This may be related to the ongoing pandemic and deserves further attention. All the above should be investigated by other researchers in more depth. Implications for Practice Given how serious the consequences of ACEs can be to global wellbeing (Madigan et al., 2023 ), the results of this study may have practical implications for mental health practitioners, educators, and policy makers to help reduce bullying and ACEs and increase resilience. Interventions should focus on assessment and prevention (Bethell et al., 2014 ). Prevention can be effective and should integrate the link between bullying and ACEs (Urbanski, 2019 ). Any prevention efforts should consider the underlying causes of bullying and ACEs and the use of trauma-informed practices and their role in fostering resilience (Bath, 2008 ; Brunzell et al., 2019 ; Madigan et al., 2023 ). Lastly, applying or adapting interventions that have been designed to increase resilience (Helmreich et al., 2017 ) might be beneficial for those who have experienced ACEs and bullying. Multipronged prevention and other intervention efforts could have positive consequences for society at large and even future generations (Madigan et al., 2023 ). Conclusion Though the data was not as anticipated, the trend of lower resilience coupled with higher experience of ACEs and bullying victimization found in other studies indicates that these problems are still worthy of further examination. Additionally of note, resilience appears to be fostered and promoted through varying means. Consistent with models of hardiness, benefit-finding, and thriving, individuals can overcome various adversities, bounce back faster, and even utilize the experience to experience growth. Mild to moderate levels of adversity may foster the development of resilience (Mash & Barkley, 2014 ). On the other hand, more extreme forms of adversity may lead to reduced coping ability and resilience (Seery et al., 2010 ). Resilience may be rooted in individual attitudes about life or how one handles stress in a given moment, and it is important to acknowledge the two things are not the same. For many individuals, resilience is multifaceted and shifts during different periods of life. However, on the whole, resilience is deeply linked to how an individual navigates and copes with stress through adulthood; if individuals who experienced bullying and adverse childhood experiences are not coping similarly to their non-victimized peers, it hints at an important link worthy of further research. Future studies should address these issues and explore effective preventative interventions that will reduce risk and enhance resilience across the developmental lifespan. Declarations Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests that are relevant to this article. Funding: This study was partially funded by the McNair Scholars Program at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Author’s Contribution Statement: Raisa Fountain conceived of the study concept, designed the study, collected the data, and conducted the analyses. Both Raisa Fountain and Amoneeta Beckstein reviewed and discussed the results and significantly contributed to the literature review, the final manuscript, and to the journal submission process. Ethics Approval: This study was approved by the Southern Illinois University Carbondale Institutional Review Board. The study was determined to be “exempt” according to 45 CFR 46.101(b)2 (IRB ID # 21114). The authors declare that the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. Informed Consent: All participants involved in the study provided their informed consent. Author Note *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Raisa Fountain, Educational, Counseling & School Psychology, College of Education, University of Missouri, Hill Hall, 16, 506 S 6th St, Columbia, MO 65201, United States of America. Email: [email protected] Author Contribution R.F. wrote all portions of the paper and conducted all analyses. A.B. provided significant editing and formatting to the paper to prepare the manuscript for submission. References Aksoy, D., Simões, C., & Favre, C. A. (2023). Exposure to intimate-partner violence and resilience trajectories of adolescents: a two-wave longitudinal latent transition analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095676 Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2009). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine , 40 (5), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 Arseneault, Louise. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry : Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) , 16 (1), 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 Baiden, P., LaBrenz, C. A., Okine, L., Thrasher, S., & Asiedua-Baiden, G. (2020). The toxic duo: Bullying involvement and adverse childhood experiences as factors associated with school disengagement among children. Children and Youth Services Review , 119 , 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105383 Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming children and youth , 17 (3), 17-21. Bethell, C., Newachek, P., Hawes, E., & Halfon, N. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences: Assessing the impact on health and school engagement and the mitigating role of resilience. Health Affairs . https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0914. Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59 , 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20 Brooks, S., Amlôt, R., Rubin, G. J., & Greenberg, N. (2018). Psychological resilience and post-traumatic growth in disaster-exposed organisations: overview of the literature. BMJ Military Health , 166 (1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000876 Brown, D. W., Anda, R. F., Tiemeier, H., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., Croft, J. B., & Giles, W. H. (2009). Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of premature mortality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 37 (5), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.021 Brown, R. C., Plener, P. L., Braehler, E., Fegert, J. M., & Huber-Lang, M. (2018). Associations of adverse childhood experiences and bullying on physical pain in the general population of Germany. Journal of Pain Research , 11 , 3099–3108. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S169135 Brunzell, T., Stokes, H., & Waters, L. (2019). Shifting teacher practice in trauma-affected classrooms: practice pedagogy strategies within a trauma-informed positive education model. School Mental Health , 11 (3), 600-614 Caridade, S. M. M., & Braga, T. (2020). Youth cyber dating abuse: A meta-analysis of risk and protective factors. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-2 Carver, C. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues , 54 (2), 245–266. Chen, Y., Xie, R., Tan, D., Wang, X., Fan, R., Li, W., & Ding, W. (2023). Bidirectional longitudinal relationships between victimization, resilience and suicidal ideation of adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 154, 107130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107130 Chmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., Wessa, M., & Lieb, K. (2018). Intervention studies to foster resilience – A systematic review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 59 , 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002 Connor, K., & Davidson, J. (2003, September 2). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC) . Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/da.10113 Denckla, C. A., Cicchetti, D., Kubzansky, L. D., Seedat, S., Teicher, M. H., Williams, D. R., & Koenen, K. C. (2020). Psychological resilience: An update on definitions, a critical appraisal, and research recommendations. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11 (1), 1822064. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1822064 Donnon, T., & Hammond, W. (2007). Understanding the relationship between resiliency and bullying in adolescence: an assessment of youth resiliency from five urban junior high schools. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16 (2), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2006.11.007 Dube, S. R., Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T., Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2004). Assessing the reliability of retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences among adult HMO members attending a primary care clinic. Child Abuse & Neglect , 28 (7), 729–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.009 Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A., Edwards, V., Koss, M., & Marks, J. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 14 (4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8 Finkelhor, D. (2020). Trends in adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in the United States. Child abuse & neglect , 108 , 104641. Fraccaro, R. (2014, September). Bouncing back from bullying: Resilience and benefit-finding in victims of bullying . University of Calgary. http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/25155 Goldenson, J., Kitollari, I., & Lehman, F. (2020). The relationship between aces, trauma-related psychopathology and resilience in vulnerable youth: Implications for screening and treatment. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma , 14 (1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-020-00308-y Hajian, S., Kasaeinia, S., & Doulabi, M. A. (2018). The effect of resilience and stress coping styles on suicide attempts in females reporting spouse-related abuse. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 12 (3). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs.13091 Helmreich, I., Kunzler, A., Chmitorz, A., König, J., Binder, H., Wessa, M., & Lieb, K. (2017). Psychological interventions for resilience enhancement in adults. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017 (2), CD012527. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012527 Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2011). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 41 (2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3 Herba, C. M., Ferdinand, R. F., Stijnen, T., Veenstra, R., Oldehinkel, A. J., Ormel, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2008). Victimisation and suicide ideation in the TRAILS study: Specific vulnerabilities of victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 49 (8), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01900.x Herrman, H., Stewart, D., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E., Jackson, B., & Yuen, T. (2011, May). What is resilience? SAGE Journals: The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371105600504 Hughes, K., Bellis, M., Hardcastle, K., Sethi, D., Butchart, A., Milkton, C., Jones, L., & Dunne, M. (2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health , 2 (8), e356–e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4 Jay, M. (2019). Supernormal: The Untold Story of Adversity and Resilience . Grand Central Publishing. Kalisch, R., Cramer, A. O. J., Binder, H., Fritz, J., Leertouwer, Ij., Lunansky, G., Meyer, B., Timmer, J., Veer, I. M., & van Harmelen, A.-L. (2019). Deconstructing and reconstructing resilience: A dynamic network approach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619855637 Kalmakis, K. A., & Chandler, G. E. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences: towards a clear conceptual meaning. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 70 (7), 1489-1501. King, A. R. (2020). The ACE questionnaire and lifetime physical aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 30 (2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1796875 Kuiper, H., van Leeuwen, C. C. M., Stolwijk-Swüste, J. M., & Post, M. W. M. (2019). Measuring resilience with the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Which version to choose? Spinal Cord , 57 (5), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-019-0240-1 Lauritsen, J. L., & Laub, J. H. (2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime prevention studies , 22 , 55. Lachapelle, M., Fernet, M., Hébert, M., & Guyon, R. (2022). A mixed methods approach exploring risk factors associated with cyber dating victimization and resilience in adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31 (5), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.1994499 Lereya, S., Winsper, C., Heron, J., Lewis, G., Gunnell, D., Fisher, H., & Wolke, D. (2013). Being bullied during childhood and the prospective pathways to self-harm in late adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 52 (6), 608-618.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.03.012 Maddi, S. R. (2005). On hardiness and other pathways to resilience. American Psychologist, 60 (3), 261–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.261 Madigan, S., Deneault, A.-A., Racine, N., Park, J., Thiemann, R., Zhu, J., Dimitropoulos, G., Williamson, T., Fearon, P., Cénat, J. M., McDonald, S., Devereux, C., & Neville, R. D. (2023). Adverse childhood experiences: A meta‐analysis of prevalence and moderators among half a million adults in 206 studies. World Psychiatry, 22 (3), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21122 Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (2014). Child Psychopathology, Third Edition . Guilford Publications. Masten, A., & Wright, M. O. (2010). Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery, and transformation. In J. Reich, A. J. Zautra & J. Hall (Eds.). Handbook of Adult Resilience (pp. 213-237). The Guilford Press. Masten, A. S., & Barnes, A. J. (2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children , 5 (7), 98. Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2016). Resilience in development: Progress and transformation. Developmental psychopathology , 4 (3), 271-333. Mayordomo, T., Viguer, P., Sales, A., Satorres, E., & Meléndez, J. C. (2016). Resilience and coping as predictors of well-being in adults. The Journal of Psychology , 150 (7), 809–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1203276 Monnat, S. M., & Chandler, R. F. (2015). Long‐term physical health consequences of adverse childhood experiences. The Sociological Quarterly, 56 (4), 723-752. Ortiz R. (2019). Building resilience against the sequelae of adverse childhood experiences: Rise up, change your life, and reform health care. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine , 13 (5), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827619839997 Poole, J., Dobson, K., & Pusch, D. (2017). Childhood adversity and adult depression: The protective role of psychological resilience. Child Abuse & Neglect , 64 , 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.012 Pooley, J., & Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: A definition in context. The Australian Community Psychologist , 22 (1), 30–35. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 48 (9), 583-590. Sciaraffa, M. A., Zeanah, P. D., & Zeanah, C. H. (2018). Understanding and promoting resilience in the context of adverse childhood experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal , 46 , 343-353. Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 , 1025-1041. Shaw, T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R., & Waters, S. (2013). The Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying victimization and perpetration in adolescence. Psychological Assessment, 25 (4), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032955 Sheffler, J. L., Stanley, I., & Sachs-Ericsson, N. (2020). ACEs and mental health outcomes. In Adverse Childhood Experiences (pp. 47-69). Academic Press. Slater, A. M., & Quinn, P. C. (2012). Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (p. 204). SAGE Publications. Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. The American Journal of Psychiatry , 171 (7), 777–784. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101401 Troy, A. S., Willroth, E. C., Shallcross, A. J., Giuliani, N. R., Gross, J. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2023). Psychological resilience: an affect-regulation framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74 (1), 547–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych020122-041854 Urbanski, J. (2019). Bullying is an adverse childhood experience. Journal of Health Science Education , 3 (1), e104. Vanderbilt, D., & Augustyn, M. (2010). The effects of bullying. Paediatrics and Child Health , 20 (7), 315-320. Vig, K. D., Paluszek, M. M., & Asmundson, G. J. (2020). ACEs and physical health outcomes. In Adverse Childhood Experiences (pp. 71-90). Academic Press. Vinkers, C., Amelsvoort, T., Bisson, J., Branchi, I., Cryan, J., Domschke, K., Howes, O., Manchia, M., Pinto, L., Quervain, D., Schmidt, M., & Van Der Wee, N. (2020). Stress resilience during the coronavirus pandemic. European Neuropsychopharmacology , 35 , 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.05.003 Wolke, D., & Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood , 100 (9), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306667 Woods-Jaeger, B. A., Cho, B., Sexton, C. C., Slagel, L., & Goggin, K. (2018). Promoting resilience: Breaking the intergenerational cycle of adverse childhood experiences. Health Education & Behavior , 45 (5), 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117752785 Zarate-Garza, P. P., Biggs, B. K., Croarkin, P., Morath, B., Leffler, J., Cuellar-Barboza, A., & Tye, S. J. (2017). How well do we understand the long-term health implications of childhood bullying? Harvard Review of Psychiatry , 25 (2), 89-95. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4132940","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":286387382,"identity":"df678be2-65e2-43d5-9392-30d9cb320306","order_by":0,"name":"Raisa Fountain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Missouri","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Raisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Fountain","suffix":""},{"id":286387383,"identity":"e362d2ec-23d6-4a98-9d48-eee4e15b53a8","order_by":1,"name":"Amoneeta Beckstein","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fort Lewis College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amoneeta","middleName":"","lastName":"Beckstein","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-19 21:44:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4132940/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4132940/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":59986017,"identity":"c2d07dac-3e6a-489c-a943-009e9f83d03a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 07:17:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":608968,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4132940/v1/f821991d-1619-412a-83e4-21e57981319a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Adverse Childhood Experiences, School Bullying Retrospection, and the Impact on Resilience in Adulthood","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe scientific study of the role of resilience across the spectrums of human experience has become an international and multidisciplinary effort since its origin in the 1970s (Slater \u0026amp; Quinn, 2012). An individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to recover adaptively from adversity is vital to their ability to navigate adulthood effectively. As the topic becomes more popular, more research is emerging on how resilience is impacted by formative experiences from early life (Woods-Jaeger et al., 2018). Resilience levels have been shown to act as a buffer against the development of depression and other negative outcomes in adulthood despite earlier adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) (Poole et al., 2017). Children who have been involved in bullying or who have had ACEs are significantly more likely to be disengaged from school (Baiden et al., 2020). Research has demonstrated individuals who have experienced frequent bullying are at a greater risk of experiencing suicidality, diagnoses of depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol use disorder, psychological distress, decreased general health, cognitive functioning, socioeconomic status, social relationships, and general well-being for nearly four decades following the event (Takizawa et al., 2014). Additionally, individuals who have experienced ACEs are even at risk for premature death (Brown et al., 2009). Despite these concerning trends, there are protective factors present within some individuals that contribute to resilience (defined below), and resilience tends to positively predict psychological well-being (Mayordomo et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eACEs are major risk factors that impact long term physical (Monnat \u0026amp; Chandler, 2015; Vig et al., 2020) and mental (Sheffler et al., 2020) health outcomes, particularly when there are multiple ACES present within an individual (Madigan et al., 2023). Some of the most concerning risks, including violence, substance use, and mental illness directly affect the next generation (Hughes et al., 2017; Madigan et al., 2023). Studies have demonstrated that ACEs can contribute to increased risk of negative health outcomes or chronic health problems, and increased risk of school disengagement (Bethell et al., 2014). Understanding how ACEs impact an individual\u0026rsquo;s long-term physical and mental health and resilience is important for future scientific understanding and for developing interventions within school and healthcare systems.\u0026nbsp;This study examines the impact of ACES and bullying, another important risk factor with negative outcomes, on resilience in adulthood.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResilience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe role resilience plays in an individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to rebound from both physically and emotionally traumatic experiences is one that has gained deserved attention as research is highlighting its importance and relevance in reducing suffering overall. There is much speculation on the definition of resilience and little operational consensus (Denckla et al., 2020; Troy et al., 2023). Pooley and Cohen (2010) framed the concept as context-based. Resilience as a research topic has undergone multiple \u0026ldquo;waves\u0026rdquo; of conceptual approaches; the first focused on definition and description of resilience, the second on the variables associated with resilience, the third tested potential resilience interventions, and the fourth and most current wave seeks to better understand the \u0026ldquo;complex process that leads to resilience\u0026rdquo; (Masten \u0026amp; Wright, 2010, p. 214 as cited in Pooley \u0026amp; Cohen, 2010). Pooley and Cohen addressed the debate on whether to view resilience as a process, a personality trait, or an outcome, which would each result in varying definitions and limitations. For example, resilience as a trait has recently been criticized as putting too much onus and blame on the individual (Aksoy et al., 2023). While previous researchers defined resilience as a bouncing back, it is more likely to be an ongoing process (Jay, 2019). The primary consensus within the field is that resilience is multisystemic and complex; moreover, it involves the experience of adversity, and successful dynamic adaptation to that adversity that mitigates, at least to some extent, negative outcomes (Chmitorz et al., 2018; Denckla et al., 2020; Kalisch et al., 2019; Pooley \u0026amp; Cohen, 2010). Some people even have improved outcomes from the resilience that developed via adversity (Jay, 2019). Understanding resilience from a multidisciplinary perspective is important for arriving at operational consensus when undergoing future research. For the sake of this study, a commonly used definition of resilience is the positive adaptation or the ability to maintain or regain mental health despite experiencing adversity (Herrman et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCultivation of basic levels of resilience during developmental stages in children is vital in how they will face increasing challenges and levels of adversity as they grow (Masten \u0026amp; Barnes, 2018; Masten \u0026amp; Cicchetti, 2016). Professionals are aware of the harmful effects stress can have on the body and mind but are still building awareness of the impact that prolonged or egregious adversity during developmental periods can have on the brain and other various organ system functioning (Herrman et al., 2011). These present typically in two manners: the cumulative wear and tear from stress on the body and biological changes that can occur in an individual when stress is experienced during key developmental periods. Though resilience is a multidimensional concept, three factors typically examined within resilience as a trait are \u003cem\u003ehardiness\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;benefit-finding\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003ethriving\u003c/em\u003e (Herrman et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs one of the multiple pathways to resilience (Maddi, 2005), understanding hardiness is vital when building a well-rounded understanding of resilience. Hardiness presents within individuals as ongoing efforts to operate effectively or \u0026ldquo;continuing as normal\u0026rdquo; after experiencing adversity (Maddi, 2005). Key aspects of hardiness include attitudes of commitment versus alienation, control rather than powerlessness, and challenge versus threat (Maddi, 2005). However, Maddi (2005) notes that understanding has evolved as research has further developed. He asserts that hardiness is courage and motivation to face stressors head on, as opposed to avoidance or denial of stressors. Courage and motivation allow an individual to cope through problem solving and through relying on others for aid as opposed to isolating or exhibiting aggression. Ultimately, Maddi (2005) asserts hardiness presents as a behavioral pattern that allows an individual to overcome stressors and provides opportunities for growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBenefit-finding is another facet of resilience that studies suggest improve an individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to cope by coming to recognize some positive or benefit gained from a traumatic or severely adverse experience. Fraccaro (2014) examined resilience and benefit-finding relating to the experience of school bullying in a group of 200 students. The results suggested that trait-resilience significantly predicted both individual well-being and benefit-finding (Fraccaro, 2014). The results also suggest that there may be a difference between coping strategies or behavioral resilience and benefit finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThriving is the third facet of resilience as mentioned by Herrman et al. (2011) and relates to an individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to recover more quickly from stressors to reach a higher level of functioning. Carver (1998) wrote on this concept in detail, addressing the four common responses to adverse events. He suggested first, especially with more severe events, the individual \u0026ldquo;succumbs\u0026rdquo; to the event in a downward slide; second \u0026ldquo;survival with impairment\u0026rdquo; occurs as a weaker version of \u0026ldquo;succumbing\u0026rdquo;; third would be \u0026ldquo;resilience\u0026rdquo; when the individual returns to the homeostatic level of functioning they had prior to the adverse event; fourth and finally would be an individual \u0026ldquo;thriving\u0026rdquo; and achieving a higher level of functioning in response to the adverse event. Carver (1998) asserts that thriving individuals can become desensitized to the stressor itself and achieve an enhanced recovery potential in how they respond to future stressors, or by reaching higher levels of functioning than existed prior to the event through their skills and knowledge, confidence levels, or strengthened personal relations. Others also support the idea that adversity might help some individuals experience post-traumatic growth and thrive (Bonanno, 2004; Brooks et al., 2018; Jay, 2019), possibly even helping them become \u0026ldquo;supernormal\u0026rdquo; (Jay, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdverse Childhood Experiences and their Impact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is a breadth of data available examining how ACEs negatively impact health outcomes across cultures (Madigan et al., 2023). A recent meta-analysis with over a half a million participants from 22 countries represented found that the majority (just over 60%) had experienced at least one ACE in their lifetime with many experiencing more than one. (Madigan et al., 2023). This study found that low-income, being unhoused, mental illness, addiction or substance misuse, or coming from a minoritized group (especially Indigenous) predicted a greater chance of an individual having four or more ACEs. From how it impacts school children to individuals in middle age or later, research has repeatedly demonstrated worrisome outcomes that so frequently accompany individuals who have higher levels of ACEs. Brown et al. (2018) conducted a longitudinal study, collecting data on ACEs from 17,337 adults and found that on average individuals who had experienced six or more ACEs were likely to die nearly 20 years earlier than those without ACEs. Their expected years of life lost was nearly three times that of individuals without ACEs. Those with ACEs were 1.7 times more likely to die under age 75 and 2.4 times more likely to die under age 65 than individuals who did not experience ACEs (Brown et al., 2018). The link to premature death alone is concerning, and unfortunately ACEs affect several facets of life that contribute to related variables.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother related study conducted by Goldenson et al. (2020) examined 40 teenagers in San Diego and found a positive relationship between ACEs and trauma symptomatology. Individuals with four or more ACEs tended to be far more vulnerable to mental health conditions and had lower resilience in comparison to individuals with less than four ACEs. However, Goldenson et al. additionally found that resilience functioned protectively; individuals with higher resilience scores experienced less depression and physical symptoms even when co-occurring with a high number of ACEs (Goldenson et al., 2020). Resilience has been found to be a protective factor for individuals experiencing or perpetrating bullying (Caridade \u0026amp; Braga, 2020; Chen et al., 2023; Donnon \u0026amp; Hammond, 2007), for interpersonal violence (Lachapelle et al., 2022) and can help reduce suicidality (Chen et al., 2023; Hajian et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBethell et al. (2014) examined the prevalence of ACEs, resilience, and how the two can relate to specific factors affecting lifelong health and development, specifically school engagement and rates of chronic disease. Their data indicated that 48% of children in their representative sample had experienced at least one ACE, with older children and children in lower income households being at a higher risk for additional ACEs. They found that 22.6% of the children had experienced two or more ACEs, with significant variation between age groups (30.5% of youth 12-17 years of age experienced 2 or more ACEs) and location (23% of individuals 12-17 years of age experienced two or more ACEs in New Jersey, whereas 44.4% of the same aged youth in Arizona experienced 2 or more) (Bethell et al., 2014). Their data displayed a strong relationship between a child\u0026rsquo;s experience of ACEs and chronic conditions or special needs, lower levels of resilience, grade repetition, lower quality access to medical facilities, and lower maternal health rates. Similar to many prior studies, their findings demonstrate the need for further research on how ACEs may play a role in the development of chronic health problems and developmental problems or delays. The authors recommended a rapid coordinated effort to further assess these problems and develop policy and practice that reflects awareness with an aim of prevention of these issues in the future. In sum, ACEs are major threats to wellbeing globally and need to be addressed (Madigan et al., 2023). Resilience might function as a mitigating factor and be one way to combat the negative consequences of ACEs (Ortiz, 2019; Sciaraffa et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBullying as a Predictive Variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experience of bullying is also a clear risk to resilience and an individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to recover from stress or trauma in adulthood.\u0026nbsp;One commonly held definition of bullying is systematic aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing by peers that is carried out repeatedly and characterized by a power imbalance (Wolke \u0026amp; Lereya, 2015). Children and adolescents who experience bullying victimization display adjustment problems and have higher distress levels (Arseneault et al., 2009). They are also more likely to perpetuate bullying themselves (Lauritsen, \u0026amp; Laub, 2007). Some researchers consider bullying itself to be an additional adverse childhood experience (Finkelhor, 2020; Kalmakis \u0026amp; Chandler, 2014; Urbanski, 2019) worthy of noting and addressing when measuring individual experience of ACEs. Bullying has been demonstrated to have negative effects on young adult mental health including self-esteem, self-harm, and academic failure (Arseneault, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar to ACEs, the experience of, participation in, and witnessing of bullying can have significant lifelong implications relating to both physical and mental health (Rigby, 2003; Vanderbilt \u0026amp; Augustyn, 2010; Zarate-Garza, 2017). Brown et al. (2018) examined the occurrence of chronic pain and its relationship with bullying and ACEs. They hypothesized that a diverse number of traumatic events from childhood, including bullying, can directly influence the amount of chronic pain experienced by an individual later in life. They observed a significant correlation between the experience of childhood trauma and experience of chronic pain later in life, with a significant but more moderate correlation between experience of bullying and experience of chronic pain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe combination of bullying and ACEs was also assessed by Baiden et al. (2020) with respect to its impact on school disengagement. Their findings indicated that, in total, about 33% of children displayed school disengagement, 23% were involved in bullying, and 49.5% experienced at least one ACE. Children who were victims of bullying, were bullies, or both were more likely to display school disengagement. Their likelihood of experiencing school disengagement was 1.32 times higher for children with one ACE, 1.5 times higher for children with two ACEs, and 1.77 times higher for children with three or more ACEs (Baiden et al., 2020). This study points to a possible link between the experience of bullying victimization and ACEs as they relate to school disengagement. This is relevant as school disengagement has been associated with early school dropout, problematic drug and alcohol use, violent crime, property crime, and arrests in adolescence (Henry et al., 2011), which can each be impacted by experience of bullying victimization and ACEs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA number of studies have demonstrated the negative effects of bullying on mental health.\u0026nbsp;Lereya et al. (2013) conducted a study of individuals who were bullied between the ages 7 and 10 and the extent to which they exhibited higher levels of self-harm between the ages of 16 and 17 in adolescence, while controlling for ACEs, psychopathology, and internalizing versus externalizing behaviors. Their data demonstrated individuals who were bullied were at an increased risk of self-harm (Lereya et al., 2013). Herba et al. (2008) examined a Dutch cohort of 1525 children to assess the link between suicidal ideation and bullying victimization. Their findings indicated that victims reported higher experience of suicidal ideation moderated by paternal internalizing disorders and rejection within the home, indicating a specific vulnerability (Herba et al., 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe long-term mental health implications of bullying are perhaps the most concerning, and these were examined in a five-decade longitudinal study conducted by Takizawa et al. (2014). Takizawa et al. assessed the adverse effects of bullying on individuals into mid-to-later (45-55 years old) life as opposed to early adulthood, which is more commonly studied. Takizawa et al. reported that experiencing bullying resulted in higher stress scores, poor general health and poor cognitive functioning at both early adulthood and midlife, and increased anxiety and depression scores in midlife when compared to cohort members who were not bullied. Individuals who had been bullied had lower educational levels, were more likely to be unemployed and earn less than their peers, and they were less likely to have met with friends in the recent past or live with a spouse or partner in midlife (Takizawa et al., 2014). The authors\u0026apos; interpretation was explicit and three-pronged. First, they asserted that the experience of bullying has a negative impact,\u0026nbsp;over and beyond the impact of other negative events, which was controlled for in the study. Second, this impact can have long term effects on an individual, even 40 years after the fact. Third, their findings demonstrate how pervasive the long-term consequences of experiencing bullying can be on an individual\u0026rsquo;s life, including economic status, general health, stress levels, and social relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose of the Current Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eACEs and bullying are arguably some of the most substantial and formative factors relating to interpersonal relationships and personality development in adulthood. The current researchers separate these concepts in an attempt to understand their specific significance and the nuance of their effects, but these negative experiences have similar consequences for individuals resulting in greater struggles in navigating adulthood. Studies have shown that experiencing one or more ACE increases the likelihood of experiencing bullying and experiencing bullying increases the risk of negative health and mental health effects later in life. There is a gap in our understanding of how bullying and ACEs can co-occur as a \u0026ldquo;toxic duo\u0026rdquo; (Baiden et al., 2020) impacting individual resiliency and causing greater health risks decades into adulthood.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how ACEs and bullying can impact resilience scores when examined both independently and in conjunction with each other. There were two primary hypotheses. First, higher levels of ACEs and the experience of bullying victimization would lead to lower resilience scores. Second, the negative effect on resilience scores would be impacted by the combined effects of the experience of bullying victimization and the existence of ACEs. That is, it was anticipated that bullying would additionally moderate the relationship between ACEs and resilience, further strengthening the effect when present. This information will help fill a gap in our understanding of how bullying and ACEs can co-occur and how the combination may more strongly inhibit the development and retention of resiliency as an adaptive trait. Understanding the relationships among these three factors may inform future interventions and prevention programs for youth at risk.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the university\u0026rsquo;s Institutional Review Board. The study was determined to be \u0026ldquo;exempt\u0026rdquo; according to 45 CFR 46.101(b)2 (IRB ID # 21114).\u0026nbsp;Participants were 255 Amazon MTurk workers aged between 18-40 (mean age =32.19 \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e =5.246) from the United States of America (USA) selected by CloudResearch. They completed a survey by accepting an MTurk human intelligence task (HIT) between 7/10/2021 and 7/11/2021. Participants viewed a description of the survey study and eligibility requirements. If they accepted, they were directed to a Qualtrics survey that included an informed consent form. If individuals agreed to participate, they were then directed to complete a CAPTCHA, demographic questions, and measures assessing ACEs, bullying victimization and perpetration, and resilience. They were paid $1.00 if all the questions were answered. Upon completion, they viewed a debriefing page providing resources for mental health support and crisis intervention to access in the event they were experiencing distress. A total of 350 participants began the survey, but upon data screening (described below) the final sample was composed of 255 MTurk workers. The participants were 48.6% Female, 49.4% Male, and 2% Other. The racial/ethnic distribution was 71.4% Caucasian, 13.3% Black/African American, 11% Asian, 8.2% Latina/Latino, 0.8% Native American, 0.4% Other, and 1.6% Non-disclosed. Participant median income was in the $35,000-$54,999 bracket, and 21.2% of participants qualified for some level of governmental assistance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographics Questionnaire (see Appendix A)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants completed items querying age, race, income bracket, qualification for government assistance, occupation, and gender identity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B) is an 18-item questionnaire developed by King (2020). This survey queries respondents in a binary yes or no format. It is an expanded version of the original Aces-10 created by\u0026nbsp;Felitti et al. (1998) that queries whether or not an individual has experienced 10 negative/stressful life events as children. The ACES-18 includes 8 additional items that assess other forms of family adversity such as physical disability, family death, suicidality, and single, foster, or teen parenting. The ACEs Questionnaire is designed to measure exposure in childhood to household dysfunction and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.\u0026nbsp;An example question is \u0026ldquo;Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever . . . Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;Test-retest reliability of the ACE Questionnaire is good to excellent in adulthood\u0026nbsp;(Dube et al., 2004) and ACE counts are temporally stable. The Cronbach alpha for the current sample was .77.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eForms of Bullying Survey\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Forms of Bullying Survey (FBS; Shaw et al., 2013; see Appendix C) is a 10-item survey designed to measure the experience of victimization or participation in bullying during specific academic semesters or terms middle or high school. Item responses are in a Likert-scale format, ranging from, \u0026ldquo;This did not happen to me/I did not do this\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;Once or twice,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Every few weeks,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;About once a week,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Several times a week or more.\u0026rdquo; This study employed a modified version of both Victimization (V) and Perpetrator (P) versions to measure individual experience of and participation in bullying more broadly in elementary, middle, and high school (Shaw et al., 2013). The researchers added questions querying whether the individual had experienced bullying during any of these developmental periods, and if so, to indicate during which period it was experienced most intensely. In the FBS-V, the wording of the question, \u0026ldquo;Last term, how often were you bullied (including cyberbullying)\u0026nbsp;by one or more young people in the following ways?\u0026rdquo; was changed to replace the words \u0026ldquo;Last term\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;During the indicated period.\u0026rdquo; In the FBS-P, the wording of the question \u0026ldquo;Last term, how often did you bully (or cyberbully) another young person(s) in the following ways (on your own or in a group)?\u0026rdquo; replaced the words \u0026ldquo;Last term\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;During the indicated period.\u0026rdquo; Scale, construct, and concurrent validity was tested in two independent studies of 3,496 Grade 8 and 783 Grade 8-10 students respectively and was shown to be adequate (Shaw et al., 2013). \u0026nbsp;Cronbach alpha for this scale was moderately high in the current study (alpha = .89)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConnor-Davidson Resilience Scale-25\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-25 (CD-RISC25; Connor \u0026amp; Davidson, 2003; see Appendix C)\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eis a 25-item scale designed to measure resilience. There are sections with items measuring hardiness, adaptability/flexibility, meaningfulness/purpose, optimism, regulation of emotion and cognition, and self-efficacy (Connor \u0026amp; Davidson, 2003). Each item response ranges in score from 0 to 4. The total score is obtained by adding up the 25 items, which gives a score that can range from 0 to 100. Lower scores indicate lower levels of resilience, while higher scores indicate greater levels of resilience. According to Kupier et al. (2019), the measure has demonstrated strong internal consistency. Though good convergent validity was demonstrated within the CD-RISC10 (Kuiper et al., 2019), this study employed the use of the CD-RISC25 as its internal consistency was slightly higher and it has the potential to measure resilience across broader contexts. Cronbach alpha for the scale within our study was strong (alpha = .95)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Screening\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis included a total of 255 participants. MTurk participants often are accustomed to taking several surveys fairly quickly. Researchers determined that the survey should take participants about 8 minutes to answer each question with adequate thought and consideration and chose to exclude individuals (95 of the 350 in total) who completed the survey in less than 4 minutes from our data analysis. No participants failed attention check questions; however, 15 individuals did not read the informed consent form or the HIT description that detailed the age eligibility requirement and as such were also excluded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSkewness and kurtosis were evaluated for all variables. There were no issues for the scores for the Forms of Bullying Victimization scale, or the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (25), and no transformations were required. However, the ACES18 was significantly skewed and kurtotic. This appeared due to the fact that very few people reported experiencing items 11-18. Thus, the ACES-10 was used for analyses as this dataset met assumptions for normality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMain Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test the first hypothesis, a linear regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of bullying and ACEs on resilience scores in adulthood. While ACEs were negatively related to resilience score totals, they did not contribute significantly to the variance. In contrast, scores for bullying victimization were positively and significantly related to resilience scores.\u0026nbsp;To assess the impact of bullying after controlling for the effects of ACEs, we conducted a hierarchical linear regression analysis in which scores for resilience were entered as the dependent variable, scores for ACEs were entered as the independent variables in the first step, and scores for Bullying Victimization were entered as an independent variable in the second step.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 255 participants, 73.7% reported experiencing one or more adverse events. These are listed in Table 1. A total of 179 participants reported experiencing bullying during elementary, middle, or high school. A majority of the individuals who reported experiencing bullying experienced it in middle school, with over 70% of our participants having indicated having experience bullying victimization. Frequency reports of bullying victimization are listed in Table 2. The ACEs Questionnaire score mean was 2.526, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 2.415. The FBS-V score mean was 1.513, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.899. The CD-RISC-25 score mean was 63.533, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 17.795. The overall model was not significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 2.109, p = .124) When ACEs were added to the model it had very little change (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .846), however when bullying was added into the model as a predictor, it approached significance (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .124) and the \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e change was significant (.042).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContrary to expectations, neither the existence of ACEs nor the experience of bullying victimization significantly negatively predicted resilience score totals within this population. Furthermore, the experience of bullying victimization significantly positively predicted resilience score totals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary hypothesis was not supported as neither the existence of higher ACEs nor the experience of bullying victimization resulted in lower resilience scores in the overall model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe secondary hypothesis was not supported because there was no relationship observed between scores for ACEs and resilience and thus scores for bullying victimization did not moderate the relationship.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency of Total Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Across Respondents\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACEs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062600321027287%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.778491171749598%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.025682182985554%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062600321027287%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.778491171749598%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.025682182985554%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062600321027287%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.704654895666132%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.778491171749598%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.025682182985554%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBullying Victimization\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eby Academic Level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"303\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.223684210526315%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeriod\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.89473684210526%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.88157894736842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.223684210526315%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElementary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.89473684210526%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.88157894736842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.223684210526315%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMiddle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.89473684210526%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.88157894736842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.223684210526315%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.89473684210526%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.88157894736842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.223684210526315%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.89473684210526%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.88157894736842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.223684210526315%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.89473684210526%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.88157894736842%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHierarchical Regression Analysis of ACEs and Bullying Variables as Predictors of Resilience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.69158878504673%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.542056074766355%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Delta;R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.149532710280374%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.69158878504673%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;ACEs Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.952\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.528\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.542056074766355%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.864\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.149532710280374%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.864\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.69158878504673%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; ACEs Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; FBS-V Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.630\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.353\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.788\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.527\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.587\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.639\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.542056074766355%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.284\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.149532710280374%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. \u0026nbsp; Total N = 255\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePost Hoc Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second regression analysis was conducted in which resilience scores were entered as the dependent variable, and household income levels as the independent variable in the first block and eligibility for government assistance as an independent variable in the second block. Household income levels were rated on a Likert scale of 1-7 ranging from under $15,000, 15,000-$24,999, $25,000-$34,999, $35,000-$54,999, $55,000-$74,999, $75,000-$99,999, and $100,000+. Median household income fell into the $35,000-$54,999 bracket (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.39 \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.742) and 21.2% (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = .409) of individuals reported eligibility for government assistance. The overall model was significant for step one (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026gt;.001) but not in step two (p = .134) Income levels strongly negatively predicted resilience scores (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026gt;.001, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 16.433), however, eligibility for government assistance did not significantly predict resilience scores (p =.134, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e = 2.263). This information is presented in Table 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHierarchical Regression Analysis of Income and Government Assistance Variables as Predictors of Resilience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.69158878504673%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.697819314641745%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.255451713395638%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Delta;R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.149532710280374%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.69158878504673%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 1\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Income\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.523\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.297\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.749\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.622\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.697819314641745%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.054\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.255451713395638%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.149532710280374%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.433\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.69158878504673%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStep 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Income\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Gov. Assist.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.257\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.411214953271028%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.854\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.316\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.474\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.831\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.665\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.830\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.697819314641745%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.255451713395638%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.069\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.4766355140186915%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.149532710280374%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. \u0026nbsp; Total N = 255\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study set out to examine the relationships between ACEs, bullying victimization, and resilience score totals as there is an existing gap in research covering these topics in unison. Our hypotheses were not supported. Scores for ACEs were not related to scores for resilience, and further, scores for bullying victimization were positively related. The results of this study were somewhat surprising and stand in contrast to prior research. Given that other studies have demonstrated negative relationships between bullying and resilience and ACEs and resilience, the researchers questioned the representativeness of the sample. The sample reported unusual frequencies of adverse childhood experiences (\u003cem\u003eM\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;2.5255) and bullying victimization (65.5% of participants answered \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; and 4.7% participants answered \u0026ldquo;unsure\u0026rdquo;), that was nearly twice that of averages in prior studies. Only 26% of participants reported zero ACEs, whereas most other studies examining the general population arrive at percentages closer to 46%-52% (Bethell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In other samples around one third or lower of the population reported involvement in bullying (Baiden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, this study\u0026rsquo;s mean score (63.533) for resilience was about 17 points lower than the average scores reported for this measure (80.4) and in the lowest quartile (Connor \u0026amp; Davidson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates that perhaps as it relates to these variables, MTurk participants may not be as representative of the general population as previously thought and should be further researched. Although surprising, the finding of a direct and positive correlation between scores for bullying and victimization is somewhat consistent with some conceptualizations of resilience. Mash and Barkley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) acknowledge that though not understood well from the standpoint of empirical research, children may benefit from exposure to mild or moderate levels of stress. The notion behind this perspective is that the experience of stress may enable children to develop coping skills that allow them to manage future stressors successfully. Further research is required to better understand this sensitive possibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a condition of the study, participants were guaranteed anonymity and that the data would not be unnecessarily distributed. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data as they are not housed in any online databases and are not publicly available. The data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary limitation of this study is the sample, which was comprised of Amazon MTurk workers, who may not be sufficiently representative of the general USA adult population. One sign of this is that only 26.3% of our participants reported zero ACEs, whereas most other studies examining the general population arrive at percentages in the 40% range (Madigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The current sample reported experiencing significantly more adverse childhood experiences and bullying victimization than most community samples. Another key element indicating the participants were not representative is that only 29.8% indicated they were not bullied, whereas 65.5% said they were and 4.7% said they were unsure. Most other studies indicate that around one third or lower of the population reports involvement in bullying (Baiden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The data begs the question of how representative MTurk participants are of the general population. Furthermore, the generalizability of this study may be limited based on this sample, particularly for other cultures and countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother notable limitation is the speed at which individuals completed the survey. As many MTurk workers are accustomed to completing several tasks quickly, a majority of the participants completed the survey substantially more quickly than anticipated. Participants were expected to need on average eight minutes to complete the survey; over half completed it in less than 8. The data validity comes into question without sufficient time spent considering each item. Further research on the representativeness of MTurk participants to the general population as it relates to ACEs and bullying would benefit future studies measuring these qualities in the future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important limitation is the timing of the study, which occurred during COVID-19 pandemic. Participants\u0026rsquo; resilience scores may have been impacted by a variety of stressful circumstances as a result of the pandemic. Some individuals may have successfully adapted to these new challenges while others may not have; and many may have been more at risk than others. Individual living conditions, poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and uncertainty about the future all had an impact on an individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to navigate the pandemic. Vinkers et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) addressed some of the possible stress related reactions that includes change in concentration, irritability, anxiety, insomnia, and interpersonal conflict as possibilities, all that can impact individual resilience. This information must be considered to fully appreciate the results of our study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThough ACEs overall effect on resilience scores was not statistically significant, the trends in the data are not to be overlooked. Perhaps MTurk participants are not representative of the general population on the topics covered in this study. An implication of note is that if resilience is fostered as a result of experiencing bullying victimization, we must further examine the factors that may have contributed to overcoming this adversity. There are several factors that could impact this including but not limited to socioeconomic status, family support, hardiness, and an individual\u0026rsquo;s ability to find benefits from the hardship. Further examination is necessary to obtain a thorough understanding when approaching this topic. Based on the post-hoc analysis, there was a negative relationship between income levels and resilience levels, which may be due to stress from impoverished circumstances. This emphasizes the importance of economic security as a factor that may play a role in individual resilience scores. What is perhaps more concerning is that income levels repeated by our participants were in the levels of middle class, not impoverished, yet they still reported significantly lower resilience scores than the general population. This may be related to the ongoing pandemic and deserves further attention. All the above should be investigated by other researchers in more depth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven how serious the consequences of ACEs can be to global wellbeing (Madigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), the results of this study may have practical implications for mental health practitioners, educators, and policy makers to help reduce bullying and ACEs and increase resilience. Interventions should focus on assessment and prevention (Bethell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Prevention can be effective and should integrate the link between bullying and ACEs (Urbanski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Any prevention efforts should consider the underlying causes of bullying and ACEs and the use of trauma-informed practices and their role in fostering resilience (Bath, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Brunzell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Madigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Lastly, applying or adapting interventions that have been designed to increase resilience (Helmreich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) might be beneficial for those who have experienced ACEs and bullying. Multipronged prevention and other intervention efforts could have positive consequences for society at large and even future generations (Madigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThough the data was not as anticipated, the trend of lower resilience coupled with higher experience of ACEs and bullying victimization found in other studies indicates that these problems are still worthy of further examination. Additionally of note, resilience appears to be fostered and promoted through varying means. Consistent with models of hardiness, benefit-finding, and thriving, individuals can overcome various adversities, bounce back faster, and even utilize the experience to experience growth. Mild to moderate levels of adversity may foster the development of resilience (Mash \u0026amp; Barkley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, more extreme forms of adversity may lead to reduced coping ability and resilience (Seery et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Resilience may be rooted in individual attitudes about life or how one handles stress in a given moment, and it is important to acknowledge the two things are not the same. For many individuals, resilience is multifaceted and shifts during different periods of life. However, on the whole, resilience is deeply linked to how an individual navigates and copes with stress through adulthood; if individuals who experienced bullying and adverse childhood experiences are not coping similarly to their non-victimized peers, it hints at an important link worthy of further research. Future studies should address these issues and explore effective preventative interventions that will reduce risk and enhance resilience across the developmental lifespan.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests that are relevant to this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was partially funded by the McNair Scholars Program at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Contribution Statement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eRaisa Fountain conceived of the study concept, designed the study, collected the data, and conducted the analyses. Both Raisa Fountain and Amoneeta Beckstein reviewed and discussed the results and significantly contributed to the literature review, the final manuscript, and to the journal submission process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was approved by the Southern Illinois University Carbondale Institutional Review Board. The study was determined to be \u0026ldquo;exempt\u0026rdquo; according to 45 CFR 46.101(b)2 (IRB ID # 21114). The authors declare that the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll participants involved in the study provided their informed consent. \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Note\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Raisa Fountain, Educational, Counseling \u0026amp; School Psychology, College of Education, University of Missouri, Hill Hall, 16, 506 S 6th St, Columbia, MO 65201, United States of America. Email: [email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eR.F. wrote all portions of the paper and conducted all analyses. A.B. provided significant editing and formatting to the paper to prepare the manuscript for submission.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAksoy, D., Sim\u0026otilde;es, C., \u0026amp; Favre, C. A. (2023). Exposure to intimate-partner violence and resilience trajectories of adolescents: a two-wave longitudinal latent transition analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20\u003c/em\u003e(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095676\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArseneault, L., Bowes, L., \u0026amp; Shakoor, S. (2009). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: \u0026lsquo;Much ado about nothing\u0026rsquo;? \u003cem\u003ePsychological Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 717\u0026ndash;729. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArseneault, Louise. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. \u003cem\u003eWorld Psychiatry : Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaiden, P., LaBrenz, C. A., Okine, L., Thrasher, S., \u0026amp; Asiedua-Baiden, G. (2020). The toxic duo: Bullying involvement and adverse childhood experiences as factors associated with school disengagement among children. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e, 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105383\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. \u003cem\u003eReclaiming children and youth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 17-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBethell, C., Newachek, P., Hawes, E., \u0026amp; Halfon, N. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences: Assessing the impact on health and school engagement and the mitigating role of resilience. \u003cem\u003eHealth Affairs\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0914.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 59\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks, S., Aml\u0026ocirc;t, R., Rubin, G. J., \u0026amp; Greenberg, N. (2018). Psychological resilience and post-traumatic growth in disaster-exposed organisations: overview of the literature. \u003cem\u003eBMJ Military Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e166\u003c/em\u003e(1), 52\u0026ndash;56. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2017-000876\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, D. W., Anda, R. F., Tiemeier, H., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., Croft, J. B., \u0026amp; Giles, W. H. (2009). Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of premature mortality. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(5), 389\u0026ndash;396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, R. C., Plener, P. L., Braehler, E., Fegert, J. M., \u0026amp; Huber-Lang, M. (2018). Associations of adverse childhood experiences and bullying on physical pain in the general population of Germany. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pain Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 3099\u0026ndash;3108. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S169135\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrunzell, T., Stokes, H., \u0026amp; Waters, L. (2019). Shifting teacher practice in trauma-affected classrooms: practice pedagogy strategies within a trauma-informed positive education model. \u003cem\u003eSchool Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 600-614\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaridade, S. M. M., \u0026amp; Braga, T. (2020). Youth cyber dating abuse: A meta-analysis of risk and protective factors. \u003cem\u003eCyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 14\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarver, C. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(2), 245\u0026ndash;266.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Y., Xie, R., Tan, D., Wang, X., Fan, R., Li, W., \u0026amp; Ding, W. (2023). Bidirectional longitudinal relationships between victimization, resilience and suicidal ideation of adolescents. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review,\u003c/em\u003e 154, 107130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107130 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., T\u0026uuml;scher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., Wessa, M., \u0026amp; Lieb, K. (2018). Intervention studies to foster resilience \u0026ndash; A systematic review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 59\u003c/em\u003e, 78\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConnor, K., \u0026amp; Davidson, J. (2003, September 2). \u003cem\u003eDevelopment of a new resilience scale: The Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC)\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/da.10113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDenckla, C. A., Cicchetti, D., Kubzansky, L. D., Seedat, S., Teicher, M. H., Williams, D. R., \u0026amp; Koenen, K. C. (2020). Psychological resilience: An update on definitions, a critical appraisal, and research recommendations. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1822064. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1822064\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonnon, T., \u0026amp; Hammond, W. (2007). Understanding the relationship between resiliency and bullying in adolescence: an assessment of youth resiliency from five urban junior high schools. \u003cem\u003eChild and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 449\u0026ndash;471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2006.11.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDube, S. R., Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T., Felitti, V. J., \u0026amp; Anda, R. F. (2004). Assessing the reliability of retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences among adult HMO members attending a primary care clinic. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(7), 729\u0026ndash;737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFelitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A., Edwards, V., Koss, M., \u0026amp; Marks, J. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 245\u0026ndash;258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinkelhor, D. (2020). Trends in adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in the United States. \u003cem\u003eChild abuse \u0026amp; neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e108\u003c/em\u003e, 104641.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFraccaro, R. (2014, September). \u003cem\u003eBouncing back from bullying: Resilience and benefit-finding in victims of bullying\u003c/em\u003e. University of Calgary. http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/25155\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoldenson, J., Kitollari, I., \u0026amp; Lehman, F. (2020). The relationship between aces, trauma-related psychopathology and resilience in vulnerable youth: Implications for screening and treatment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Trauma\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 151\u0026ndash;160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-020-00308-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHajian, S., Kasaeinia, S., \u0026amp; Doulabi, M. A. (2018). The effect of resilience and stress coping styles on suicide attempts in females reporting spouse-related abuse. \u003cem\u003eIranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 12\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs.13091 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelmreich, I., Kunzler, A., Chmitorz, A., K\u0026ouml;nig, J., Binder, H., Wessa, M., \u0026amp; Lieb, K. (2017). Psychological interventions for resilience enhancement in adults. \u003cem\u003eThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017\u003c/em\u003e(2), CD012527. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012527 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenry, K. L., Knight, K. E., \u0026amp; Thornberry, T. P. (2011). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 156\u0026ndash;166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerba, C. M., Ferdinand, R. F., Stijnen, T., Veenstra, R., Oldehinkel, A. J., Ormel, J., \u0026amp; Verhulst, F. C. (2008). Victimisation and suicide ideation in the TRAILS study: Specific vulnerabilities of victims. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(8), 867\u0026ndash;876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01900.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerrman, H., Stewart, D., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E., Jackson, B., \u0026amp; Yuen, T. (2011, May). What is resilience? \u003cem\u003eSAGE Journals: The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.\u003c/em\u003e https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371105600504\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, K., Bellis, M., Hardcastle, K., Sethi, D., Butchart, A., Milkton, C., Jones, L., \u0026amp; Dunne, M. (2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eThe Lancet Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(8), e356\u0026ndash;e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJay, M. (2019). \u003cem\u003eSupernormal: The Untold Story of Adversity and Resilience\u003c/em\u003e. Grand Central Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalisch, R., Cramer, A. O. J., Binder, H., Fritz, J., Leertouwer, Ij., Lunansky, G., Meyer, B., Timmer, J., Veer, I. M., \u0026amp; van Harmelen, A.-L. (2019). Deconstructing and reconstructing resilience: A dynamic network approach. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science, 14\u003c/em\u003e(5), 765\u0026ndash;777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619855637\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalmakis, K. A., \u0026amp; Chandler, G. E. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences: towards a clear conceptual meaning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Advanced Nursing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1489-1501.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing, A. R. (2020). The ACE questionnaire and lifetime physical aggression. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Aggression, Maltreatment \u0026amp; Trauma\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 243\u0026ndash;260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1796875\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuiper, H., van Leeuwen, C. C. M., Stolwijk-Sw\u0026uuml;ste, J. M., \u0026amp; Post, M. W. M. (2019). Measuring resilience with the Connor\u0026ndash;Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Which version to choose? \u003cem\u003eSpinal Cord\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(5), 360\u0026ndash;366. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-019-0240-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLauritsen, J. L., \u0026amp; Laub, J. H. (2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. \u003cem\u003eCrime prevention studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e, 55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLachapelle, M., Fernet, M., H\u0026eacute;bert, M., \u0026amp; Guyon, R. (2022). A mixed methods approach exploring risk factors associated with cyber dating victimization and resilience in adolescents and emerging adults. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Aggression, Maltreatment \u0026amp; Trauma, 31\u003c/em\u003e(5), 589\u0026ndash;608. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.1994499\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLereya, S., Winsper, C., Heron, J., Lewis, G., Gunnell, D., Fisher, H., \u0026amp; Wolke, D. (2013). Being bullied during childhood and the prospective pathways to self-harm in late adolescence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Academy of Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(6), 608-618.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.03.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaddi, S. R. (2005). On hardiness and other pathways to resilience. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(3), 261\u0026ndash;262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.261\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMadigan, S., Deneault, A.-A., Racine, N., Park, J., Thiemann, R., Zhu, J., Dimitropoulos, G., Williamson, T., Fearon, P., C\u0026eacute;nat, J. M., McDonald, S., Devereux, C., \u0026amp; Neville, R. D. (2023). Adverse childhood experiences: A meta‐analysis of prevalence and moderators among half a million adults in 206 studies. \u003cem\u003eWorld Psychiatry, 22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 463\u0026ndash;471. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21122\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMash, E. J., \u0026amp; Barkley, R. A. (2014). \u003cem\u003eChild Psychopathology, Third Edition\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasten, A., \u0026amp; Wright, M. O. (2010). Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery, and transformation. In J. Reich, A. J. Zautra \u0026amp; J. Hall (Eds.). \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Adult Resilience\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 213-237). The Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasten, A. S., \u0026amp; Barnes, A. J. (2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. \u003cem\u003eChildren\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(7), 98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasten, A. S., \u0026amp; Cicchetti, D. (2016). Resilience in development: Progress and transformation. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 271-333.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMayordomo, T., Viguer, P., Sales, A., Satorres, E., \u0026amp; Mel\u0026eacute;ndez, J. C. (2016). Resilience and coping as predictors of well-being in adults. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e150\u003c/em\u003e(7), 809\u0026ndash;821. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1203276 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonnat, S. M., \u0026amp; Chandler, R. F. (2015). Long‐term physical health consequences of adverse childhood experiences. \u003cem\u003eThe Sociological Quarterly, 56\u003c/em\u003e(4), 723-752.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtiz R. (2019). Building resilience against the sequelae of adverse childhood experiences: Rise up, change your life, and reform health care. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Lifestyle Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(5), 470\u0026ndash;479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827619839997\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoole, J., Dobson, K., \u0026amp; Pusch, D. (2017). Childhood adversity and adult depression: The protective role of psychological resilience. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e, 89\u0026ndash;100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePooley, J., \u0026amp; Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: A definition in context. \u003cem\u003eThe Australian Community Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. \u003cem\u003eThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(9), 583-590.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSciaraffa, M. A., Zeanah, P. D., \u0026amp; Zeanah, C. H. (2018). Understanding and promoting resilience in the context of adverse childhood experiences. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 343-353.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeery, M. D., Holman, E. A., \u0026amp; Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99\u003c/em\u003e, 1025-1041.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaw, T., Dooley, J. J., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R., \u0026amp; Waters, S. (2013). The Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying victimization and perpetration in adolescence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment, 25\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1045\u0026ndash;1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032955\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSheffler, J. L., Stanley, I., \u0026amp; Sachs-Ericsson, N. (2020). ACEs and mental health outcomes. In \u003cem\u003eAdverse Childhood Experiences\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 47-69). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlater, A. M., \u0026amp; Quinn, P. C. (2012). \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies\u003c/em\u003e (p. 204). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTakizawa, R., Maughan, B., \u0026amp; Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e171\u003c/em\u003e(7), 777\u0026ndash;784. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101401 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTroy, A. S., Willroth, E. C., Shallcross, A. J., Giuliani, N. R., Gross, J. J., \u0026amp; Mauss, I. B. (2023). Psychological resilience: an affect-regulation framework. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology, 74\u003c/em\u003e(1), 547\u0026ndash;576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych020122-041854 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrbanski, J. (2019). Bullying is an adverse childhood experience. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Health Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), e104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVanderbilt, D., \u0026amp; Augustyn, M. (2010). The effects of bullying. \u003cem\u003ePaediatrics and Child Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(7), 315-320.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVig, K. D., Paluszek, M. M., \u0026amp; Asmundson, G. J. (2020). ACEs and physical health outcomes. In \u003cem\u003eAdverse Childhood Experiences\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 71-90). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVinkers, C., Amelsvoort, T., Bisson, J., Branchi, I., Cryan, J., Domschke, K., Howes, O., Manchia, M., Pinto, L., Quervain, D., Schmidt, M., \u0026amp; Van Der Wee, N. (2020). Stress resilience during the coronavirus pandemic. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Neuropsychopharmacology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e, 12\u0026ndash;16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.05.003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolke, D., \u0026amp; Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Disease in Childhood\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(9), 879\u0026ndash;885. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306667\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoods-Jaeger, B. A., Cho, B., Sexton, C. C., Slagel, L., \u0026amp; Goggin, K. (2018). Promoting resilience: Breaking the intergenerational cycle of adverse childhood experiences. \u003cem\u003eHealth Education \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(5), 772\u0026ndash;780. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117752785 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZarate-Garza, P. P., Biggs, B. K., Croarkin, P., Morath, B., Leffler, J., Cuellar-Barboza, A., \u0026amp; Tye, S. J. (2017). How well do we understand the long-term health implications of childhood bullying? \u003cem\u003eHarvard Review of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 89-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"adverse childhood experiences, ACEs, bullying, resilience, trauma","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4132940/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4132940/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been repeatedly shown to profoundly impact individual resilience in adulthood. ACEs and bullying experiences are linked with school disengagement, depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse. Moreover, ACEs are associated with lower life expectancy, increased risk of heart disease, and cancer. Experiencing bullying victimization had been shown to lead to lower educational attainment, unemployment, reduced income, and poorer general health and cognitive functioning in early to midlife. Yet, there remains a gap in understanding how ACEs and bullying interact to influence resilience in adulthood. This cross-sectional study aims to explore the compounded effects of ACEs and bullying on resilience scores. The study surveyed 255 Amazon MTurk workers selected by CloudResearch under 40 years old from the United States, assessing ACEs, bullying, and resilience. Surprisingly, mild to moderate experiences of past bullying were positively linked to resilience scores, counter to expectations. However, ACEs showed no direct relationship with resilience scores. These findings prompt further investigation, considering potential sample biases from using an MTurk population, and highlight implications for future research and practice.","manuscriptTitle":"Adverse Childhood Experiences, School Bullying Retrospection, and the Impact on Resilience in Adulthood","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-05 03:54:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4132940/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4420d600-b4b8-4f07-a4be-9f04ae7ce8de","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-07-10T07:09:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-05 03:54:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4132940","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4132940","identity":"rs-4132940","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}