Original Research

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

2022, Vol. 37(13-14) N  P12584­–NP12608
Exploring Family © The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Backgrounds of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08862605211001185
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211001185
Chinese Adolescents journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Who Are Vulnerable

to Victimization and
Repeated Victimization

Yuhong Zhu,1 Chenyang Xiao,1,2 QiQi Chen,3

and Bin Zhu1

Abstract
There is abundant evidence in the literature to show that victimization has a
series of adverse consequences on child victims’ physical and mental health.
However, some studies detailed whether the family correlates of repeat
victims differ from those who are victimized only once. This study fills this
gap by describing the probabilities that children who fit certain profiles
will be repeat victims and implies that it is possible to identify and screen
individual and family factors who are at high risk of repeated victimization.
Using the 2009–2010 Child Victimization Survey, we analyzed data from
14,564 Chinese adolescents aged 14–18 years from five major cities in China.
We employed a multinomial logit regression model, using child victimization
as the dependent variable and demographic factors as independent variables.
We identified the top 1% of the most vulnerable cases and summarized
their demographic characteristics. Our analysis revealed that older boys
with siblings in the same household whose mothers’ education was below
average were the most vulnerable to one-time victimization. Further, boys

1Renmin University of China, Haidian District, Beijing, China

2AmericanUniversity, Washington, DC, USA
3Xiamen University, Fujian, China

Corresponding Author:
Bin Zhu, School of Sociology & Population Studies, Renmin University of China, Haidian
District, Beijing 100872, China.
Email: zhubin2015@ruc.edu.cn
2Zhu et al. Journal of InterpersonalNP12585
Violence

with siblings whose parents were less-educated than average, unemployed,

and unmarried were the most vulnerable to repeated victimization. This
study has vast practical implications, including different ways to confront the
problem of repeated child victimization (both practically and in the literature),
develop a quick screening tool, and apply cost-effective prevention and
interventions in China.

Keywords
repeated victimization, family backgrounds, Chinese adolescents, juvenile
victimization questionnaire, multinomial logit regression

Introduction
Child victimization, which refers to a wide range of violence experienced by
children, has widely been recognized as a prevalent public health issue across
all nations, including China (e.g., Chan, 2013; Dong et al., 2013). Previous
research has consistently shown that child victimization can lead to a variety
of deleterious effects on children’s and adolescents’ well-being (e.g., Pinto-
Cortez et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2017). Family is one of the most researched
and debated contexts that contributes to child victimization; considerable
research and policy attention has examined how different family factors may
affect child victimization and development (e.g., Turner et al., 2013). It is
well documented that children living in families with a single parent or step-
parent are more likely to be sexually assaulted, be maltreated, and witness
family violence than those who live with two biological parents (Turner et al.,
2007, 2013). Moreover, parents’ education level (Chan et al., 2013), low fam-
ily socio-economic status (SES) (Hanson et al., 2006), and the number of
siblings living in the same household are often identified as risk factors for
child victimization (Eriksen & Jensen, 2006; Tucker et al., 2020).
Despite a growing body of child victimization research conducted in the
Chinese population (e.g., Chan, 2013; Dong et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2018),
knowledge of child victimization in mainland China remains limited. Notably,
there has not been much attention to repeated victimization among children
in China (Zhu et al., 2020). As suggested by Damashek et al. (2012), interna-
tional knowledge about child victimization and repeated victimization and its
association with family correlates may be socially and culturally bounded.
Such insights in the literature inspired the current study, which focused its
attention on family factors within the context of Chinese society.
One unique contextual factor that has profound impacts on families in
China is the strict family planning policy enacted in 1979, which includes the
NP12586
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)3

well-known “one-child policy” which started in 1982 (Chen, 1985; Hesketh

et al., 2005). Some studies suggest that parental supervision has become rela-
tively stricter, especially in cities of China owing to the one-child policy,
which shields these children from victimization outside their family and
therefore explains relatively lower victimization prevalence among them (Ji
et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2008). Another contextual factor that attracted schol-
arly attention in this field is the unprecedentedly rapid urbanization and
industrialization in China in the last four decades, which arguably has led to
a decline in the importance of marriage and family among Chinese people
and a weakening trend of family functioning in China (Wang & Mesman,
2015; Wu & Li, 2012;). These scholars noted that, compared to their counter-
parts, parents who work long hours and those with lower education levels
often face greater material and emotional burdens to take care of their chil-
dren, which may increase the likelihood of child victimization. Both studies
noted the importance of examining family characteristics in the research of
child victimization in China.
Past research on child victimization has mainly focused on a single form
of victimization. In recent years, several studies have addressed multiple
victimization or poly-victimization (e.g., Feng et al., 2019; Finkelhor,
2005a). However, not much is known about repeated child victimization—
that is, experiencing one specific form of victimization more than once in a
given period. Some studies have attempted to investigate family backgrounds
of children who have experienced single form or multiple forms of victim-
ization (Adams et al., 2016; Cohen et al., 2017). Given the literature reveal-
ing the significance of repeated victimization for children’s health and
mental health problems in China (Zhu et al., 2020), examining family char-
acteristics that may lead to repeated child victimization has important impli-
cations for designing effective prevention and intervention systems
(Espelage, 2014). This study, guided by family stress theory, explored the
family characteristics of adolescents most vulnerable to victimization and
repeated victimization in the social context of China and inform practitioners
about effectively screening high-risk children and applying professional pre-
vention and intervention methods.

Literature Review
Child Victimization, Repeated Victimization, and Family Profiles
of Victims
Finkelhor et al. (2005a, 2005b) identified five main forms of child victim-
ization: conventional victimization (e.g., robbery, theft, or intentional
4Zhu et al. Journal of InterpersonalNP12587
Violence

vandalism of belongings), maltreatment, victimization from peers or sib-

lings, sexual victimization, and indirect victimization (e.g., witnessing
violence). Previous studies tended to focus on the occurrence of a specific
single form of victimization while paying little attention to the frequency
with which it is repeated. A growing body of research suggests that child
victims who have been victimized once are more likely to be victimized
again (e.g., Fagan & Mazerolle, 2011; Finkelhor et al., 2007; Kilpatrick et
al., 2003; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Turanovic & Pratt, 2014). These stud-
ies have shifted researchers’ focus from studying a single form of victim-
ization to studying both multiple forms of victimization and repeated
instances of a single form of victimization (Feng et al., 2019; Finkelhor et
al., 2007; Hope et al., 2001; Pinto-Cortez et al., 2018). Children experienc-
ing multiple forms of victimization may face the cumulative impacts of
trauma and associated experiences, which intensifies the ill effects of their
victimization compared to those who have experienced only a single form
of victimization (Shen et al., 2019).
There is abundant evidence that child victims face a series of adverse
physical and mental health effects (e.g., Chan, 2013; Chartier et al., 2010;
Finkelhor et al., 2005a; Weber et al., 2016). However, only a few studies have
investigated the impacts of repeated victimization, which Hope et al. (2001,
p. 596) defined as “a time-ordered sequence of similar events suffered by the
same individual victim or target.” A limited number of studies found that
children who experienced repeated victimization tend to report more nega-
tive physical and mental health consequences than their counterparts who
have experienced only a single episode of victimization (Fluke et al., 2008;
Turanovic & Pratt, 2014; Zhu et al., 2020).
Several studies have attempted to depict family profiles of victimized
children. Data from the Fourth National Incidence Study and Prevalence
of Child Abuse and Neglect showed that girls are more likely to experi-
ence abuse in all its forms than their male counterparts (Sedlak et al.,
2010). Other recent and representative survey data revealed that older
children who are African-American, whose parents are unemployed,
whose family is of low SES, who live with a single parent cohabiting with
a partner, or who live in households with four or more children are at
higher risk of all forms of victimization than are their counterparts (Sedlak
et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2010). However, these studies typically exam-
ined a single form of child victimization. To the best of our knowledge, no
study has yet discovered whether children who have experienced repeated
victimization share similar family profiles with those who have experi-
enced only a single episode or form of victimization. There is also no such
study in the Chinese context.
NP12588
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)5

Family Stress Theory and Risk Factors of Child Victimization

Family stress theory defines and explores the periodic or acute stressors that
happen to each family (Hill, 1949). When these stressors become frequent or
if the individual or family lacks the resources or adequate support of signifi-
cant relationships, personal and family crises often arise (Belle, 1982).
Informed by this theory, child victimization could be viewed as a result of
both personal and family crises to which family stressors could lead. Previous
research has documented some risk factors that can be regarded as such fam-
ily stressors. For example, children living in single-parent families or with
siblings have a higher risk of victimization and distress than those living with
two biological parents (Hanson et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2013). Research
also showed that single or cohabiting parents are more likely to report psy-
chopathology problems, such as distress and depression, alcohol abuse and
use illegal drugs, than are married parents (Kalil & Ryan, 2010). In turn,
those problems are significantly associated with child maltreatment (Lee &
Koo, 2015; Windham et al., 2004).
Family economic hardship is an often-cited salient risk factor for child
victimization. Studies found that families with low (vs high) SES may dis-
play increased parental stress and inter-parental conflict, and thus may be
less sensitive and responsive to their children’s needs (Linver et al., 2002),
and hence put children at a higher risk of victimization (Espelage, 2014;
Turner et al., 2013). In China, family economic difficulties often lead par-
ents to work long hours, leaving them feeling stressed at home, and adopting
harsh parenting practices, or even maltreating their children (Chan, 2014;
Chan et al., 2021). Parents’ low education level and unemployment have
been consistently identified as common risk factors in this regard (Rodriguez,
2010; Zhu et al., 2018).
Risky family characteristics, such as inconsistent parenting, and frequent
residential mobility that threaten stability, may exacerbate the effects of
child victimization (Turner et al., 2013). These studies have provided evi-
dence that families exposed to stress and adversity put their children at
greater risk of child victimization. However, as mentioned previously, while
investigations of family correlates of a single form or episode of child vic-
timization is common, only limited research has examined family correlates
of repeated victimization. We do not yet know whether victims of repeated
child victimization have family characteristics similar to those of single epi-
sodes of child victimization. Given the documented prevalence of repeated
child victimization in China, examining family factors in both one-time and
repeated victimization are important—both for scholarly purposes and for
prevention and intervention services.
6Zhu et al. Journal of InterpersonalNP12589
Violence

Child Victimization in the Chinese Context

Research shows that child victimization is common in China. Studies esti-
mate that the prevalence of a single form of child victimization among
Chinese children varies between 28 and 90%, and the prevalence of child
poly-victimization varies between 10 and 30% (Chan, 2013; Feng et al.,
2019; Liu et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2019). In addition, Zhu et al. (2020)
found that repeated victimization was as prevalent as one-time victimiza-
tion among Chinese children and, in all forms of victimization, children
who experienced repeated victimization reported significantly higher lev-
els of depression, lower levels of self-esteem, and overall health than did
one-time victims.
Regarding family correlates of child victimization, studies around the
world share many common findings, many of which have to do with fam-
ily stressors. However, several scholars (e.g., Chan, 2013; Damashek et
al., 2012) remind us that there may be characteristics unique to a certain
society shaped by its historical, social, cultural, and economic contexts.
Since its economic reform started in 1978, China has witnessed rapid
urbanization and industrialization, and economic development. Around
the same time, the Chinese government began to implement strict family
planning policy—more specifically, the one-child policy. Therefore,
Chinese families have undergone salient changes in structure and intra-
familial relationships (Xu & Xia, 2014). Some scholars believe that in
China, marriage and family have declined in importance and that this has
been accompanied by weakening family functioning (Wang & Mesman,
2015; Wu & Li, 2012). Others believe that having one child has heightened
Chinese parents’ concern about child safety and hence parental supervi-
sion has become stricter (Xu & Xia, 2014) than in the past, but also resulted
in higher expectations for the families’ sole child (Wong et al., 2009).
Moreover, the rapid social transition has resulted in the thriving of indi-
vidualistic values embraced by the one-child generations who are educated
and now active in job market, while concurrently posed many stresses to
Chinese families (McLaren, 2016; Xu & Xia, 2014). Divorce, long work-
ing hours, and lower education levels often mean that some parents have
to face greater material and emotional stress to care for their children,
which can increase the likelihood of child victimization.
Previous studies in China have identified risk factors that may link to a
specific form of child victimization in Chinese populations; however, only
some findings have been consistent with the literature around the world. For
example, Wong et al. (2009) identified low family SES, mothers’ higher level
NP12590
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)7

of education, and mothers’ employment with higher occupational status as

risk factors of child physical abuse. The finding of low family SES as a risk
factor is consistent with the literature outside of China, while the other two
findings are not. Chan et al. (2013) found that having an unemployed father,
and having divorced, separated, or widowed parents were common risk fac-
tors for sexual abuse among Chinese children; these were all consistent with
the literature mentioned above. The same study also found that having
sibling(s) was a risk factor, which confirmed the argument that having only
one child can reduce the likelihood of abuse owing to heightened safety con-
cerns among Chinese parents.
More recent studies investigating the risk factors of different types of
victimization (e.g., child maltreatment, peer victimization, indirect victim-
ization) revealed that poverty, parents’ depressive symptoms, and problem-
atic inter-parental relationships (e.g., dominance or control behaviors) are
significantly related to higher odds of children experiencing any type of vic-
timization (Dong et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2020). Such studies suggest that,
while there may indeed be some empirical findings unique to China, by and
large evidence supports the argument inspired by the family stress theory.
However, family characteristics of child victimization and especially
repeated child victimization in mainland China remain relatively unex-
plored, which is where this current study seeks to make its contribution. As
suggested by previous research, screening the characteristics of the most
vulnerable families should not be ignored in child protection (Chan et al.,
2017). Sorting out such differences is crucial to identifying high-risk chil-
dren as well as developing and implementing efficient and effective preven-
tion and intervention programs.

Method
Sample and Study Design
This study used data from the 2009–2010 Child Victimization Survey. The sur-
vey contains a representative sample (N = 14,564) of children aged 14–18 years
from five major cities in mainland China. This survey used a three-stage strati-
fied sampling procedure to collect the sample from research sites, yielding a
school-level response rate of 70% and an individual-level response rate of
96.7% (Chan, 2013). Table 1 contains descriptive statistics of the sample.
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the institutional review board of
The University of Hong Kong, the Hospital Authority for Hong Kong West
Cluster, and the local institutional review boards of the five mainland cities.
8Zhu et al. Journal of InterpersonalNP12591
Violence

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables in This Study (N = 14,564).

Valid Responses Missing Data

Mean (SD) N % N %
Dependent variables
Module A 63 .43
No victimization 5,890 40.44
One-time victimization 1,932 13.27
Repeated victimization 6,679 45.86
Module B 102 .70
No victimization 10,524 72.26
One-time victimization 1,389 9.54
Repeated victimization 2,549 17.50
Module C 71 .49
No victimization 9,532 65.45
One-time victimization 1,562 10.73
Repeated victimization 3,399 23.34
Module D 53 .36
No victimization 13,417 92.12
One-time victimization 292 2.00
Repeated victimization 802 5.51
Module E 137 .94
No victimization 8,113 55.71
One-time victimization 1,188 8.16
Repeated victimization 5,126 35.20
Independent variables
Age 15.77 (0.93) 14,457 99.27 107 .73
Gender 149 1.02
Male 7,891 54.18
Female 6,524 44.80
Parents’ marital status 339 2.33
Married/cohabited 13,308 91.38
Other 917 6.30

(continued)
NP12592
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)9

Table 1. continued

Valid Responses Missing Data

Mean (SD) N % N %
Father’s employment 1,917 13.16
Employed 10,805 74.19
Other 1,842 12.65
Mother’s employment 1,327 9.11
Employed 7,805 53.59
Other 5,432 37.30
Father’s education 1,137 7.81
Low 6,431 44.16
Middle 3,881 26.65
High 3,115 21.39
Mother’s education 1,228 8.43
Low 7,279 49.98
Middle 3,376 23.18
High 2,681 18.41
Have siblings 275 1.89
Yes 7,928 54.44
No 6,361 43.68

Measures
Child victimization.
The survey used an adapted Chinese version of the Juvenile Victimization
Questionnaire (CJVQ) developed by Finkelhor et al. (2005b) to assess
respondents’ experiences of victimization. The adapted CJVQ includes five
subscales covering various forms of violence against children and adoles-
cents: conventional victimization (8 items, Cronbach’s α = .803), child mal-
treatment (4 items, Cronbach’s α = .647), victimization from peers and
siblings (6 items, Cronbach’s α = .768), sexual victimization (12 items,
Cronbach’s α = .948), and indirect victimization (9 items, Cronbach’s
α = .778). With the permission of the original authors of the JVQ, the CJVQ
added five additional items to the sexual victimization subscale to capture
and examine this sensitive issue in the Chinese context more accurately (e.g.,
Chan et al., 2013). These items ask whether respondents had been forcibly
exposed to pornography, had nude photographs taken of themselves
Zhu et al.
10 Journal of InterpersonalNP12593
Violence

unwillingly, had their private parts exposed, been forced into commercial
sex, and had nude photographs or videos of themselves uploaded to the
Internet unwillingly. The modified sexual victimization module comprises 12
items. All items were rated on a 7-point scale: 0 = No experience; 1 = A single
experience; 2–5 = Experienced two to five times, respectively; and 6 = ≥ six
times in the past year. The CJVQ had been validated by previous studies
(Chan et al., 2011).

Family and demographic characteristics.

The survey collected the following data from participants: their sex, age,
whether they have siblings, parents’ marital status (married/cohabitating vs
not married/cohabitating), fathers’ education, mothers’ education (for both
father and mother: 1 = Low education level, 2 = Middle education level, 3 =
High education level), fathers’ employment status, and mothers’ employment
status (for both father and mother: employed vs unemployed).

Data Analysis
Participants’ family and demographic characteristics were summarized
via descriptive analysis (Table 1). To explore family characteristics of
those respondents who were most vulnerable to victimization, we first
estimated the probability that our respondents would be victimized either
once or repeatedly using the above family and demographic factors as
predictors. We recoded all victimization items (0 = No victimization
experience, 1 = One-time experience, and 2 = Multiple experiences). We
then combined items in each of the five subscales to create measures for
every form of child victimization, using the following coding scheme: 0
= No victimization on all items, 1 = Having experienced any form of vic-
timization once, and 2 = Having experienced victimization two or more
times on any given item.
Missing data were handled using multiple imputations (Graham, 2009),
with 10 iterations of multivariate imputation by chain equations. Relative
efficiency values indicate that 10 imputations produced point estimates that
were more than 95% as efficient as infinite numbers of imputations (Allison,
2012). We employed multinomial logit regression analysis to calculate the
probabilities of one-time and repeated victimization for each respondent on
all five forms of child victimization. We then summarized the family and
demographic characteristics of the top 1% of our sample with the highest
probabilities.1 Statistical significance was determined using p-values (α
=.05). All analyses were performed using Stata 16 software.
NP12594
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
11

Results
Table 2 shows the results of the five multinomial logit regression models.
Although these results display a lot of inconsistency, they suggest that, in
general, family and demographic factors substantially predicted children’s
experience of various forms of victimization. Overall, respondents’ sex, par-
ents’ marital status, mothers’ education, and whether they have siblings were
relatively consistent and significant factors in multiple regression models.
We then calculated the probabilities that respondents with these family and
demographic characteristics were likely to experience victimization never,
once, or multiple times. Table 3 shows that sexual victimization was the form
of victimization least experienced, with a mean probability (M) of no experi-
ence equal to .92. Our respondents had more experience with child maltreat-
ment (M = .72), victimization at the hands of peers and siblings (M = .65),
indirect victimization (M = .56), and conventional victimization (M = .41).
Table 3 also shows the average predicted probabilities of one-time and
multiple experiences of each form of victimization. We found a consistent
pattern in these probabilities: respondents who were victimized once as well
as those who were victimized multiple times were most likely to experience
conventional victimization, followed by indirect victimization, victimization
at the hands of peers and siblings, child maltreatment, and sexual victimiza-
tion, in descending order. Here, it was striking that the average probability
that a respondent will face repeated victimization was nearly the same as the
probability that they will be victimized just once.
Tables 4 and 5 display our efforts to summarize family and demographic
characteristics of the top 1% of cases. Table 4 profiles the top 1% of one-time
victims and Table 5 profiles children who experienced repeated victimization.
According to Table 4, the profiles of the top 1% most vulnerable cases vary
across forms of victimization. For conventional victimization, these cases are
overwhelmingly girls, older than the respondents’ average age, and with a less-
educated working mother. For child maltreatment, these cases are children
with siblings whose parents are less-educated and unmarried. For victimiza-
tion at the hands of peers and siblings, these cases are mostly girls with sib-
lings whose mothers are less-educated and fathers are unemployed. Overall,
the chance of Chinese adolescents experiencing sexual victimization seems to
be comparatively low, and the most vulnerable adolescents are those from
households with more than one child. Finally, girls whose parents are less-
educated are at the highest risk of indirect victimization. In short, children who
are most vulnerable to one-time victimization are often older than the respon-
dents’ average age, have siblings, and whose mothers are less-educated.
Table 2. Results of Multinomial Logit Regression Models Predicting the Probability of Victimization (N = 14,564).

Module A Module B Module C Module D Module E

Zhu et al.

(1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0)
Male vs female −.14** .28*** −.01 .29*** .21*** .62*** −.09 .55*** −.39*** −.15***
(.05) (.04) (.06) (.05) (.06) (.04) (.12) (.08) (.06) (.04)
Age .08** −.05* −.02 −.08** −.01 −.07** .15* .09* .03 .06**
(.03) (.02) (.03) (.02) (.03) (.02) (.06) (.04) (.03) (.02)
Parents married vs others .06 −.29*** −.36** −.59*** −.19 −.31*** −.17 −.79*** .07 −.32***
(.12) (.08) (.12) (.08) (.11) (.08) (.24) (.12) (.14) (.08)
Father employed vs −.00 −.23*** −.21* −.39*** −.22* −.42*** −.28 −.34** −.13 −.07
others (.09) (.06) (.09) (.07) (.09) (.06) (.18) (.12) (.09) (.06)
Mother employed vs .00 −.00 .00 −.01 −.02 −.04 .10 .04 −.14 −.05
others (.06) (.04) (.07) (.05) (.07) (.05) (.15) (.10) (.07) (.04)
Father’s education (low)
Middle .08 −.00 −.06 −.07 .03 −.16** .52** .04 −.09 −.06
(.07) (.05) (.08) (.06) (.07) (.06) (.15) (.11) (.08) (.05)
High .02 −.13 −.22 −.30** .01 −.25** .09 .01 −.36* −.17*
(.11) (.08) (.13) (.10) (.12) (.09) (.26) (.16) (.15) (.08)

(continued)
NP12595
 NP12596

Table 2. continued

Module A Module B Module C Module D Module E

(1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0) (1 vs 0) (2 vs 0)
Mother’s education (low)
Middle −.01 −.07 −.16 −.06 −.22** −.18** −.33 .05 −.08 −.21***
(.08) (.05) (.09) (.07) (.08) (.06) (.17) (.11) (.09) (.05)
High −.33** −.45*** −.67*** −.38** −.64*** −.40*** .04 −.15 −.57*** −.76***
(.12) (.08) (.15) (.12) (.13) (.10) (.27) (.18) (.15) (.09)
Have siblings vs not .05 .28*** .18** .15** .21** .24*** .39* .24** .05 .42***
(.06) (.04) (.07) (.06) (.07) (.05) (.15) (.09) (.08) (.04)
Intercept −2.28*** 1.15*** −1.09* −.63 −1.30** .48 −6.16*** −3.67*** −1.88** −.86**
(.47) (.32) (.53) (.40) (.49) (.36) (1.06) (.64) (.55) (.32)
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.Module A: Conventional Victimization; Module B: Child Maltreatment; Module C: Victimization from Peers and
Siblings; Module D: Sexual Victimization; Module E: Indirect Victimization.
“0” no experience of any kind, “1” one-time experience of any kind, and “2” multiple-time experience of any kind in the module.
In parenthesis are standard errors.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
Zhu et al.
14 Journal of InterpersonalNP12597
Violence

Table 3. Summary Statistics of Predicted Probabilities of No Experience, One-time

Experience, and Multiple-time Experience (N = 14,564).

Forms of victimization Mean Min Max

No experience Conventional crime .41 .24 .57
Child maltreatment .72 .45 .88
Peer and sibling bullying .65 .37 .84
Sexual victimization .92 .76 .97
Witness and indirect .56 .34 .80
victimization
One-time experience Conventional crime .13 .07 .21
Child maltreatment .10 .05 .15
Peer and sibling bullying .11 .06 .16
Sexual victimization .02 .01 .06
Witness and indirect .08 .03 .14
victimization
Multiple-time experience Conventional crime .46 .26 .69
Child maltreatment .18 .07 .41
Peer and sibling bullying .24 .09 .50
Sexual victimization .06 .02 .21
Witness and indirect .36 .16 .56
victimization
Note. “Min” stands for the minimum predicted probability.“Max” stands for the maximum
predicted probability.

Table 5 displays the family and demographic characteristics of adolescents

who are most vulnerable to repeated victimization. Unlike the results displayed
in Table 4, those displayed in Table 5 are far more consistent across different
forms of victimization. For instance, the group that was more vulnerable to
child maltreatment and conventional, peer and sibling, and sexual victimiza-
tion was boys with siblings and single parents who are less-educated and
unemployed. Those most vulnerable to repeated indirect victimization were
mostly girls with siblings and less-educated single parents. Taken together, the
results indicate that boys from single-parent, multi-child households with less-
educated parents are most vulnerable to repeated victimization.

Discussion
Child victimization affects the well-being of millions of children and adoles-
cents worldwide (Gilbert et al., 2009). Despite the growing number of studies
 NP12598

Table 4. Demographic Profiles of the Most Vulnerable Cases (Top 1%) in Each Form of Child Victimization and the Total Victimization
Scale—One-time Experience.

Parents’ Father’s Mother’s Father’s Mother’s

Forms of Gender Age Marital Status Employment Employment Education Education Siblings
Victimization (Male %) (Mean) (Married %) (Employed %) (Employed %) (High Level %) (High Level %) (Yes %)
Conventional 0* 17.30* 100 99.34 83.79 13.29 0* 11.60
crime
Child 17.54 15.78 3.69* 51.52* 39.63 .27 0* 93.36*
maltreatment
Peer and 34.21* 16.20 65.31 20.04* 18.43 12.30 0* 99.62*
sibling
victimization
Sexual 25.90 16.88* 89.62 43.23 46.26 0 6.77 99.89*
victimization
Witness 0* 16.11 100 31.84 3.00 0* 0* 8.11
and indirect
victimization
Entire sample 54.18 15.77 91.38 74.19 53.59 21.39 18.41 54.44
Note. *Factors determined as having statistically significant effects on the probability of victimization by multinomial logit regression models.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
 Zhu et al.

Table 5. Demographic Profiles of the Most Vulnerable Cases (Top 1%) in Each Form of Child Victimization and the Total Victimization
Scale—Multiple-time Experience.
Parents’ Father’s Mother’s
Gender Age Marital Status Employment Employment Father’s Education Mother’s Education Siblings Gender
Variable (Male%) (Mean) (Married %) (Employed %) (Employed %) (High Level %) (High Level %) (Yes%) (Male %)
Conventional 99.07* 15.02* 39.01* 30.03* 27.12 .86 0* 92.49* 99.07*
crime
Child 80.58* 15.38* 0* 30.14* 34.25 1.37* .68* 75.71* 80.58*
maltreatment
Peer and 100* 15.04* 79.36* .08* 4.21 .16* 0* 94.19* 100*
sibling
victimization
Sexual 99.45* 16.14 0* 45.88* 41.88 12.29 5.50 76.49* 99.45*
victimization
Witness 31.85* 15.99* 0* 56.86 34.07 .53* 0* 100* 31.85*
and indirect
victimization
Entire sample 54.18 15.77 91.38 74.19 53.59 21.39 18.41 54.44 54.18
Note. *Factors determined as having statistically significant effects on the probability of victimization by multinomial logit regression models.
NP12599
NP12600
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
17

on child victimization globally, relatively little is known about repeated child

victimization. This study is among the first to profile the family characteris-
tics of adolescents who are most vulnerable to repeated victimization. This
provides important empirical evidence to clarify family correlates of child
victimization in China and enhance family-based intervention and prevention
efforts. In this section, we reflect on several findings that have important
theoretical and practical implications.
Having siblings was consistently related to higher risks of child victimiza-
tion in general, and repeated victimization in particular. This finding is con-
sistent with some studies that found that families with multiple children face
unique parenting struggles and often fail to buffer the negative health conse-
quences of victimization (Chen et al., 2018; McCloskey et al., 2008). We
argue that this finding is logically consistent with the argument that many
Chinese families with a single child have increased protection for their chil-
dren and hence have a lower chance of child victimization (see above). It is
important to note that, even with strict family plan policy, more than 55% of
our respondents reported having siblings. With the relaxation of the one-child
policy in more recent years, families with only one child are unlikely to
become more common. There are also studies showing that those who do not
have siblings in a family may have systematic differences in personality
development and social interaction capability when compared to those with
siblings (e.g., McLaren, 2016), which might impact the chance of experienc-
ing child victimization. We believe that more studies are needed to continue
examining the link between one-child status and children’s victimization.
Adolescents who live with single, less-educated parents (especially less-
educated mothers) were at a higher risk of victimization and repeated victim-
ization than their counterparts. This is consistent with previous studies that
found that elevated levels of family adversity may increase children’s risk of
being victimized (e.g., Chan et al., 2017; Strøm et al., 2020; Turner et al.,
2007). Divorced, less-educated parents may find parenting more difficult
owing to their limited economic and emotional resources and thus face higher
risk of family stress and its accompanying negative health outcomes than their
counterparts (Zhu et al., 2018). Such consistent findings therefore indicate the
applicability of family stress theory in the context of Chinese society.
Interestingly, parents’ employment status produced inconsistent effects
across the five forms of child victimization. Adolescents reported higher risk
of one-time conventional victimization when their mother has stable employ-
ment status. While this finding could be explained that employed mothers are
more often absent at home, and their children are often taken care of by rela-
tives who might provide insufficient guardianship and attachment (Chan,
2013), it is inconsistent with the expectation that stable employment should
Zhu et al.
18 Journal of InterpersonalNP12601
Violence

bring more security to the family and hence more protection to children.
Another possibility is that it may be specific to the Chinese context. We also
found that, when both parents are employed, their children were at a much
lower risk of repeated conventional victimization. While this is consistent
with previous findings that parents’ stable employment is associated with
higher SES and more material resources and therefore lower risk of child
victimization (Jansen et al., 2012; Silvestri, 2015), this finding illustrates
that, at least in our study, repeated victimization can have different family
correlates than one-time victimization. Further studies are needed to examine
the relationship between parents’ employment status and repeated child vic-
timization in the Chinese context.
We found some inconsistency between the profiles of those children who
are most vulnerable to one-time victimization and those who are most vulner-
able to repeated victimization. Specifically, adolescents’ sex, age, and their
parents’ marital status have different patterns for one-time and repeat victims.
Boys are clearly more vulnerable to nearly all forms of repeated victimization
than girls, while no significant difference was found for one-time victimiza-
tion. Girls were more vulnerable to one-time sexual victimization and boys
are more vulnerable to repeated sexual victimization. In addition, older ado-
lescents were more vulnerable to all forms of one-time victimization, but not
repeated victimization. Regarding the effects of one salient family factor—
parents’ marital status, our results indicated that having a single parent
increased children’s risk of all forms of repeated victimization and that this
relationship is less consistent regarding one-time victimization. Overall, fam-
ily profiles of those with repeated victimization experiences are more consis-
tent across all forms of victimization than those with one-time victimization,
which suggests that SES is a more robust indicator of children’s risk of
repeated victimization than it is of their risk of one-time victimization.
One practical implication of our findings is that social work practitioners
should focus their efforts on supporting single-parent or low SES families and
work to strengthen the functioning of those families. For example, commu-
nity social workers should ensure that families with limited material resources
have access to financial aid from external systems and that parents who bear
the primary guardianship responsibility can obtain sufficient medical and
educational protection to take care of the children (Chan et al., 2017). For
parents who work long hours and have limited emotional resources to care for
their children, social workers should enhance community care resources or
provide related supporting services in the community as a supplement.
This study had a few limitations. First, we only analyzed individual and family
demographic profiles of adolescent victims. Future studies should examine com-
munity-driven factors in more detail. Second, the age range of study respondents
NP12602
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
19

may reduce the generalizability or predictive power of our findings. Thus, future
studies should consider including additional factors to improve our initial explan-
atory model. Third, our cross-sectional design has limited temporal coverage.
Future longitudinal studies with more recent data could provide more precise
evidence and support for future prevention and intervention measures. Finally,
this study only employed data from five major cities in mainland China, which
might reduce its generalizability to the general Chinese adolescent population.
Future studies should try to achieve a broader representativeness of the sample.

Conclusion
To summarize, this study found that, in China, boys from low SES families
living with siblings are at exceptionally high risks of repeated victimization.
These characteristics may help practitioners develop more effective screen-
ing, prevention, and intervention measures for at-risk adolescents, thus
enhance existing policy and practice. It also might help enable personalized
involvement in efforts to prevent violence, enhance parenting skills, and sup-
port disadvantaged families on a macro level.
Our findings corroborate the implications of family stress theory, revealing
that less-educated and unmarried parents are key elements of repeated vic-
tims’ profiles. The findings indicate that adverse family environments increase
children’s vulnerability to repeated victimization. We suggest that future pre-
ventive and intervention programs for repeated victimization should focus
more on families with these specific characteristics. For instance, family
members and high-risk adolescents alike may benefit from enhanced resources
and educational programs that promote healthy family functioning.
Furthermore, families with working mothers might benefit from receiving
material and emotional resources and less-educated parents might benefit
from joining parenting programs. These measures would help parents culti-
vate skills that would improve their parenting and reduce their children’s
vulnerability to various forms of victimization. In short, we suggest that
future intervention programs focus on improving communication and the
expression of empathy within families.

Authors’ Note
Chenyang Xiao contributes equally to this work as first author.

Acknowledgments
We thank Professor Ko Ling Chan from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, who
authorized us to access the original data.
Zhu et al.
20 Journal of InterpersonalNP12603
Violence

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the Research Funds of
Renmin University of China (No.: 21XNL013).

Note
1. We chose to operationalize the most vulnerable cases as the top 1% highest
predicted probabilities of experiencing one-time and repeated victimization to
balance the practical need to profile those most at risk on the one hand and the
risk of being misled by a few extreme cases on the other.

ORCID iDs
Yuhong Zhu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-7169
QiQi Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6062-3216
Bin Zhu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6423-0030

References
Allison, P. (2012). Why you probably need more imputations than you think. http://
statisticalhorizons.com/more-imputations
Belle, D. (1982). Families in stress. SAGE Publications.
Chan, K. L. (2013). Victimization and poly-victimization among school-aged Chinese
adolescents: Prevalence and associations with health. Preventive Medicine, 56,
207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.12.018
Chan, K. L. (2014). Child victims and poly-victims in China: Are they more at-
risk of family violence? Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 1832–1839. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.05.006
Chan, K. L., Chen, Q., & Chen, M. (2021). Prevalence and correlates of the co-
occurrence of family violence: A meta-analysis on family poly-victimiza-
tion. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1524838019841601
Chan, K. L., Chen, M., Chen, Q., & Ip, P. (2017). Can family structure and social
support reduce the impact of child victimization on health-related quality of life?
Child Abuse & Neglect, 72, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.014
Chan, K. L., Fong, D. Y. T., Yan, E., Chow, C. B., & Ip, P. (2011). Validation
of the Chinese Juvenile Victimisation Questionnaire. Hong Kong Journal of
Pediatrics, 16, 17–24.
NP12604
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
21

Chan, K. L., Yan, E., Brownridge, D. A., & Ip, P. (2013). Associating child sexual
abuse with child victimization in China. Journal of Pediatrics, 162, 1028–1034.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.10.054
Chartier, M. J., Walker, J. R., & Naimark, B. (2010). Separate and cumulative effects of
adverse childhood experiences in predicting adult health and health care utilization.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.020
Chen, Q., Lo, C. K., Zhu, Y., Cheung, A., Chan, K. L., & Ip, P. (2018). Family poly-
victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.015
Chen, X. M. (1985). The one-child population policy, modernization, and the extended
Chinese family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47(1), 193–202. https://doi.
org/10.2307/352082
Cohen, J. R., Menon, S. V., Shorey, R. C., Le, V. D., & Temple, J. R. (2017). The dis-
tal consequences of physical and emotional neglect in emerging adults: A person-
centered, multi-wave, longitudinal study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 151–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.030
Damashek, A., Bard, D., & Hecht, D. (2012). Provider cultural competency, client satis-
faction, and engagement in home-based programs to treat child abuse and neglect.
Child Maltreatment, 17(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511423570
Dong, F., Cao, F., Cheng, P., Cui, N., & Li, Y. (2013). Prevalence and associated
factors of poly-victimization in Chinese adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 54(5), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12059
Eriksen, S., & Jensen, V. (2006). All in the Family? Family Environment Factors
in Sibling Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 497–507. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10896-006-9048-9
Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and
victimization. Theory into Practice, 53, 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405
841.2014.947216
Fagan, A. A., & Mazerolle, P. (2011). Repeat offending and repeat victimiza-
tion: Assessing similarities and differences in psychosocial risk factors. Crime
Delinquency, 52, 732–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708321322
Feng, J. Y., Hsieh, Y. P., Hwa, H. L., Huang, C. Y., Wei, H. S., & Shen, C. T. (2019).
Childhood poly-victimization and children’s health: A nationally representative study.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.013
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Re-victimization patterns in a
national longitudinal sample of children and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31,
479–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.012
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005a). The victimization of
children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10,
5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504271287
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2005b). Measuring
poly-victimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 29, 1297–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.06.005
Zhu et al.
22 Journal of InterpersonalNP12605
Violence

Fluke, J. D., Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D. M., & Yuan, Y. T. (2008).

Longitudinal analysis of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization:
Multistate analysis of associated factors. Child Maltreatment, 13, 76–88. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077559507311517
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009).
Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The
Lancet, 373, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085530
Hanson, R. F., Self-Brown, S., Fricker-Elhai, A. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, B. E.,
& Resnick, H. S. (2006). The relations between family environment and violence
exposure among youth: Findings from the national survey of adolescents. Child
Maltreatment, 11(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505279295
Hesketh, T., Lu, L., & Xing, Z. W. (2005). The effects of China’s one-child family
policy after 25 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(11), 1171–1176.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. Harper and Row.
Hope, T., Bryan, J., Trickett, A., & Osborn, D. R. (2001). The phenomena of multiple
victimization: The relationship between personal and property crime risk. British
Journal of Criminology, 41, 595–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/41.4.595
Hu, H., Zhu, X., Jiang, H., Li, Y., Jiang, H., Zheng, P., Zhang, C., & Shang, J. (2018).
The association and mediating mechanism between poverty and poly-victimiza-
tion of left-behind children in rural China. Children & Youth Service Review, 91,
22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.026
Jansen, P. W., Verlinden, M., Dommisse-van, Berkel, A., Mieloo, C., van der Ende,
J., Veenstra, R., Verhulst, F. C., Jansen, W., & Tiemeier, H. (2012). Prevalence of
bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do family
and school neighborhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Public Health, 12,
494–504. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-494
Ji, K., Finkelhor, D., & Dunne, M. (2013). Child sexual abuse in China: A meta-
analysis of 27 studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 613–622. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.008
Kalil, A., & Ryan, R. (2010). Mothers’ economic conditions and sources of support
in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 39–61. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20773694
Kilpatrick, D. G., Ruggiero, K. J., Acierno, R., Saunders, B. E., Resnick, H. S., &
Best, C. L. (2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance
abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of
Adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 692–700.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.692
Lee, J. S., & Koo, H. J. (2015). The relationship between adult attachment and depres-
sion in Korean mothers during the first 2 years postpartum: A moderated media-
tion model of self-esteem and maternal efficacy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 79, 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.021
NP12606
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
23

Linver, M. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D. E. (2002). Family processes as

pathways from income to young children’s development. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 719–734.
Liu, T., O’Brien, J. E., Li, W., & Zhu, Y. (2020). Child victimization in China:
Prevalence and links to family contextual characteristics using a representative
sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2020.104919
Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence
on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445–479. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.51.1.445
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (2008). The effects of systemic
family violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239–1261.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00933.x
McLaren, H. (2016). Domestic violence in Chinese families: Cold violence by men
towards women. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 17(4), 1–15. https://
vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol17/iss4/1
Pinto-Cortez, C., Pereda, N., & Álvarez-Lister, M. S. (2018). Child victimization
and poly-victimization in a community sample of adolescents in northern Chile.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 27, 983–1002. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10926771.2017.1410748
Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Parent-child aggression: Association with child abuse
potential and parenting styles. Violence and Victims, 25, 728–741. https://doi.
org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.6.728
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., &
Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
(NIS-4). Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families.
Shen, A. C. T., Feng, J. Y., Feng, J. Y., Wei, H. S., Hsieh, Y. P., Huang, S. C. Y., &
Hwa, H. L. (2019). Who gets protection? A national study of multiple victimiza-
tion and child protection among Taiwanese children. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 34, 3737–3761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516670885
Silvestri, G. E. (2015). Socioeconomics, demographics, and cyberbullying: A quan-
titative study [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. https://search.proquest.
com/docview/1752059233/5DA08F9808CA4941PQ/1?accountid=6724
Strøm, I. F., Kristian, H. O., Myhre, M. C., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Thoresen, S.
(2020). The Social Context of Violence: A Study of Repeated Victimization in
Adolescents and Young Adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 2210–
2235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696867
Sun, S., Li, L., Ji, G., Lin, C., & Semaan, A. (2008). Child behavior and parenting in
HIV/AIDS-affected families in China. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 3,
192–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450120802241997
Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., & Turner, H. (2020). Family predictors of sibling versus
peer victimization. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 186–195. https://doi.
org/10.1037/fam0000592
Zhu et al.
24 Journal of InterpersonalNP12607
Violence

Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop:” Self-control, risky
lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30,
29–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9188-4
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S., & Henly, M. (2017). Victimization and
adversity among children experiencing war-related parental absence or deploy-
ment in a nationally representative US sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 271–
279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.039
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S. L., & Shattuck, A. (2013). Family structure,
victimization, and child mental health in a nationally representative sample. Social
Science & Medicine, 87, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.034
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2007). Family structure variations in pat-
terns and predictors of child victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
77, 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.2.282
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2010). Poly-victimization in a national
sample of children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38,
323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.012
Wang, L., & Mesman, J. (2015). Child development in the face of rural-to-urban
migration in China: A meta-analytic review. Perspective Psychological Science,
10(6), 813–831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615600145
Weber, S., Jud, A., & Landolt, M. A. (2016). Quality of life in maltreated children
and adult survivors of child maltreatment: A systematic review. Quality of Life
Research, 25, 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1085-5
Windham, A. M., Rosenberg, L., Fuddy, L., McFarlane, E., Sia, C., & Duggan, A.
K. (2004). Risk of mother-reported child abuse in the first 3 years of life. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 28(6), 645–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.003
Wong, W. C. W., Chen, W. Q., Goggins, W. B., Tang, C. S., & Leung, P. W. (2009).
Individual, familial and community determinants of child physical abuse among
high-school students in China. Social Science & Medicine, 68(10), 1819–1825.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.001
Wu, F., & Li, J. (2012). Policy approaches to development capacity of family.
Population Research, 4, 37–43. http://rkyj.ruc.edu.cn/EN/Y2012/V36/I4/37
Xu, A., & Xia, Y. R. (2014). The changes in mainland Chinese families during the
social transition: A critical analysis. Faculty Publications, Department of Child,
Youth, and Family Studies, 91. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/9
Zhu, Y. H., Chan, K. L., & Chen, J. S. (2018). Bullying victimization among Chinese
middle school students: The role of family violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 33, 1958–1977. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621082
Zhu, Y. H., Xiao, C. Y., Chen, Q. Q., Wu, Q., & Zhu, B. (2020). Health effects of repeated
victimization among school-aged children in six major cities in China. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 108, 104654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104654
NP12608
Zhu et al. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37(13-14)
25

Author Biographies
Yuhong Zhu, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Sociology and Population
Studies, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China. Her research interests include
social determinants of adverse child experience and their effects on children’s health/
mental health.

Chenyang Xiao, PhD, is an associate professor at Department of Sociology, American

University. His main research interests include environmental beliefs, attitudes,
behaviors, and public opinion over environmental issues. He is also interested in
applied social statistics and quantitative research methodology.

Qiqi Chen, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Social Work at

Xiamen University. Her research interests are family violence and peer victimization
prevention. She advocates for an integrative assessment regarding the patterns and
dynamics of poly-victimization and to explore innovative approaches to intervention
services for at-risk children and families.

Bin Zhu, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Sociology & Population
Studies, Renmin University of China. His research interests are children develop-
ment, social stratification, and mobility. His recent work focuses on the impact of
parental marital status and relationship quality on children development.