Abstract Objective This study aimed to identify distinct profiles of family‐ and community‐level risks and resources and to examine their associations with children's bullying behavior while considering differences in household size and family composition. Background Previous research has consistently documented factors related to children's bullying behavior using variable‐centered approaches, which overlook the underlying ecological typology of risk and resources surrounding children. Moreover, little is known about how these ecological profiles influence children's bullying behavior across diverse family compositions. Method The sample included 2,731 preschool‐aged children from Wave 1 (2018–2019) of Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study. Latent profile analysis was conducted to identify profiles of risks and resources surrounding children. Ordinary least squares regression models were conducted to examine the associations between profiles and children's bullying behavior. Interaction terms were introduced to explore the potential moderating roles of family composition. Results Three latent ecological profiles emerged: Multidimensional Adversity, Family‐Resilient/Community‐Risk, and Family‐Resourced/Community‐Connection. Compared to the Family‐Resilient/Community‐Risk group, children in the other two profiles exhibited higher levels of bullying behavior. More coresiding siblings were linked to elevated bullying levels for children in the Multidimensional Adversity group and the Family‐Resourced/Community‐Connection group than the Family‐Resilient/Community‐Risk group. Conclusion and Implications Findings reveal notable between‐group differences in family‐ and community‐level risks and resources. Profiles with greater family‐level risks contribute to more bullying behavior. Sibling number was a key moderator in these associations. These findings can inform integrated interventions addressing structural and relational complexities in children's ecological systems.
Jiang et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: