Impact of peer victimization on adolescents’ emotional well-being: insights and applications from the Young Lives Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence, a key stage where peer relationships deeply affect emotional well-being. This study looks at how bullying, social exclusion, and the quality of friendships shape emotional distress over time, using longitudinal data from the Young Lives Study in India. It highlights how certain experiences, and supportive friendships can play a big role in adolescents’ mental health. Analyzed data from 1,000 adolescents surveyed at ages 8, 12, and 15. Peer victimization and emotional distress were assessed through both caregiver and self-reports. Factor analysis was employed to validate constructs related to adverse peer outcomes, friendship quality, and emotional stress. Regression analyses and MANOVA models were used to identify predictors of emotional distress, with a focus on developmental and gender-specific trends. The findings revealed that overt bullying is most prevalent in early adolescence, while relational aggression becomes more prominent in later years. High-quality friendships were found to serve as a protective factor against emotional distress. Gender differences were observed, suggesting the need for gender-specific intervention strategies. MANOVA results highlighted mid-to-late adolescence as a critical period for peer acceptance and emotional well-being. This study highlights how peer victimization affects adolescent emotional well-being and shows the value of supportive friendships in building resilience. Tackling both overt and subtle bullying, promoting peer support, and encouraging media literacy are essential steps. Gender-sensitive, culturally aware policies, combined with efforts from psychology, education, and social work, can reduce peer stressors and strengthen adolescents’ emotional health during this critical stage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".