Microcontextual Characteristics of Peer Victimization Experiences and Adolescents’ Daily Well-Being

Microcontextual factors (i.e., contextual characteristics of the specific victimization incident) may help to explain the association between adolescents’ daily peer victimization experiences and well-being. In the present study, daily report methodology was used to assess sixth (N = 150; 53% girls) and ninth grade (N = 150; 50% girls) students’ current well-being and peer victimization earlier in the day on 5 random school days within a 2-week period. Associations between peer victimization microcontextual factors (number of aggressors, presence of witnesses, and receipt of help) and fluctuations in adolescents’ daily well-being (humiliation, worry, and physical symptoms) were examined in an ethnically diverse sample of White, Latino, Asian, African American, and multiethnic students. Humiliation increased on days in which students reported public victimization, multiple aggressors, and no help. Worry increased on days students experienced private victimization and when boys (but not girls) experienced private victimization, victimization by a single aggressor, and received peer help. Physical symptoms were higher on days that victimization occurred, regardless of context, but only for sixth graders and not ninth graders. These findings suggest that the victimization microcontext can offer insight about the types of peer victimization exposure that might produce the greatest daily risk for adolescents.     

Path-to-Citizenship or Deportation? How Elite Cues Shaped Opinion on Immigration in the 2010 U.S. House Elections

The ascendency of immigration as an issue in elections has been concomitant with massive increases in the Hispanic population in the U.S. We examine how immigration cues prompt greater or lesser levels of restrictionist sentiment among individuals, showing demographic context conditions the effect of candidates cues. Using data from the 2010 U.S. House elections, we illustrate cues presented in new destination states—states with massive increases in the size of the Hispanic population from 1990 to 2010—have a larger impact on individuals’ immigration preferences than cues presented in non-new destination contexts. We show candidates with more extreme immigration positions are more likely to prioritize the issue of immigration in their campaigns, suggesting campaign prioritization of immigration has a directional cue. We conclude these directional cues from Republican candidates in new destination contexts move individual attitudes toward restrictionist preferences.