Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Childhood maltreatment is a well-established predictor of peer victimization, yet the mechanisms linking them remain unclear from a network perspective. To address this gap, the present study used cross-sectional network analysis to examine the network structure connecting childhood maltreatment and peer victimization, and compared network structure differences between adolescents with high versus low levels of emotion regulation difficulties. A total of 1,470 Chinese junior high school students (Mage = 13.53, Standard deviation [ SD ] = 0.63) completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form, the Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale, and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. A network was constructed for the full sample, and participants were then divided via an extreme-group approach into low ( n = 396) and high ( n = 399) emotion regulation difficulties groups for comparison of network structure between the two groups. Results showed that in the full-sample network, verbal victimization exhibited the highest expected influence (standardized EI = 1.98), while emotional abuse emerged as the core bridge node (standardized bridge EI = 2.02). In both the high and low emotion regulation difficulties groups, verbal victimization again showed the highest expected influence, but in the high emotion regulation difficulties group, the core bridge nodes shifted to physical abuse and physical victimization. No significant difference was found in network structure invariance between the two groups ( M = 0.15, p > .05), but global network strength was significantly higher in the high group than in the low group (3.08 vs. 2.56, S = 0.52, p < .01). These findings characterize the network structure between childhood maltreatment and peer victimization among Chinese adolescents and provide empirical insights, from the perspective of emotion regulation, for future research on childhood maltreatment and peer victimization in adolescence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: