Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,688 studies31 sourcesUpdated 20 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0BMC Psychology

Peer victimization and family dynamics in the association between childhood abuse and adolescent non-suicidal self-injury: a cross-sectional moderated mediation study

4 affiliations
  1. 1Clinical Medical College, Jiangxi Medical College, Shangrao, China
  2. 2School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China
  3. 3Shangrao Third People’s Hospital, Shangrao, China
  4. 4Huzhou University, Huzhou, China

Abstract

Background: Childhood abuse is associated with adolescent non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), but the roles of proximal peer experiences and family context remain unclear.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 10,179 Chinese students (47.9% female; Mage = 14.16 years, SD = 1.86). A theoretically motivated model re-specified during peer review examined peer victimization as a statistical mediator and family dynamics (SSFD) as a moderator of the a, b, and direct paths. Analyses controlled for gender, age, and parental education and used 5,000 bootstrap resamples.

Results: Childhood abuse was positively associated with NSSI (total association: β = 0.476, p < .001). The statistical indirect association through peer victimization was 0.150 (95% CI [0.133, 0.167]). Small positive interactions were observed for CA × SSFD predicting peer victimization (β = 0.033, p < .001), PV × SSFD predicting NSSI (β = 0.031, p = .001), and CA × SSFD predicting NSSI (β = 0.046, p < .001). The interactions explained little additional variance (ΔR² = 0.001 for peer victimization and 0.005 jointly for NSSI). Conditional indirect associations were 0.109 at low SSFD and 0.157 at high SSFD; their bootstrap contrast was 0.048 (95% CI [0.011, 0.083]).

Conclusions: The findings are compatible with an associational indirect pattern involving peer victimization and small conditional differences by family dynamics. Because all variables were self-reported at one time point, and the model was re-specified during review, the results should not be interpreted as evidence of causal or developmental mechanisms.

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05284-w.

Related

  1. Teacher and peer support and adolescent mental health and well-being in the context of cyberbullying victimization: a cross-national multilevel study
    Kofi Nyantakyi Appiah, Augustine Osei Boakye, Nathanael Adu
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  2. Physical Activity and Depressive Symptoms in Guangdong University Students: A Cross-Sectional Moderated Serial Indirect-Association Model Involving Self-Esteem, Positive Psychological Capital, and Perceived Social Support.
    Zhihui Liu, Zhijie Lai, Taufik Rihatno +2
    Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textPhysiologyEurope PMC
  3. Association of low parental mental health literacy with adolescent depression and anxiety: a large-scale cross-sectional study in Guangdong, China
    Xing Wang, Qing Wan, Yanbin Liu +8
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textPsychiatry & mental healthCrossref
  4. When school feels unsafe: bullying victimization, school climate, and adolescent emotional well-being
    Millicent Aziku
    Frontiers in Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthCrossrefEurope PMCPMC
  5. The co-occurrence of victimization, perpetration, and bystander responses in adolescent school bullying: a network analysis with model-based perturbation simulations
    Xiaoyan Qiu, Xiaoqun Liu, Yumeng Miao +2
    Frontiers in PsychiatryPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textPsychiatry & mental healthCrossrefPMC
BibTeX
@article{nie2026peer,
  title = {{Peer victimization and family dynamics in the association between childhood abuse and adolescent non-suicidal self-injury: a cross-sectional moderated mediation study}},
  author = {Shengnan Nie and Jun Cao and Qiang Ke and Zhiming Li},
  journal = {BMC Psychology},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.1186/s40359-026-05284-w},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05284-w},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Peer victimization and family dynamics in the association between childhood abuse and adolescent non-suicidal self-injury: a cross-sectional moderated mediation study
AU  - Shengnan Nie
AU  - Jun Cao
AU  - Qiang Ke
AU  - Zhiming Li
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/07
JO  - BMC Psychology
DO  - 10.1186/s40359-026-05284-w
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05284-w
AB  - Background: Childhood abuse is associated with adolescent non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), but the roles of proximal peer experiences and family context remain unclear.  Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 10,179 Chinese students (47.9% female; Mage = 14.16 years, SD = 1.86). A theoretically motivated model re-specified during peer review examined peer victimization as a statistical mediator and family dynamics (SSFD) as a moderator of the a, b, and direct paths. Analyses controlled for gender, age, and parental education and used 5,000 bootstrap resamples.  Results: Childhood abuse was positively associated with NSSI (total association: β = 0.476, p < .001). The statistical indirect association through peer victimization was 0.150 (95% CI [0.133, 0.167]). Small positive interactions were observed for CA × SSFD predicting peer victimization (β = 0.033, p < .001), PV × SSFD predicting NSSI (β = 0.031, p = .001), and CA × SSFD predicting NSSI (β = 0.046, p < .001). The interactions explained little additional variance (ΔR² = 0.001 for peer victimization and 0.005 jointly for NSSI). Conditional indirect associations were 0.109 at low SSFD and 0.157 at high SSFD; their bootstrap contrast was 0.048 (95% CI [0.011, 0.083]).  Conclusions: The findings are compatible with an associational indirect pattern involving peer victimization and small conditional differences by family dynamics. Because all variables were self-reported at one time point, and the model was re-specified during review, the results should not be interpreted as evidence of causal or developmental mechanisms.  Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05284-w.
SN  - 2050-7283
ER  -