Next Article in Journal
Evidence for Cannabidiol as a Medication for the Treatment of Neurological, Psychiatric, Behavioral and Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents
Previous Article in Journal
Presentation and Initial Validation of a New Observational Situation and Coding System for Assessing Triadic Family Interactions with Adolescents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Adolescents
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/adolescents5040053
adolescents-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perceptions and Responses of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish Protection System to Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying Situations, and Their Relationship with the Training Received

by
María Victoria Carrera-Fernández
*,
Deibe Fernández-Simo
and
Nazaret Blanco-Pardo
Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adolescents 2025, 5(4), 53; https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5040053
Submission received: 2 August 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 26 September 2025 / Published: 29 September 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Compared to studies in school settings, little attention has been paid to bullying in the child protection system (PS), even though these children, adolescents, and youth are one of the most vulnerable groups, with the highest prevalence of bullying. This study aims to analyze, according to gender and nationality, the perception of adolescents and youth in the Spanish PS of the bullying and gender-based bullying situations that take place in their protection facility, as well as their response to these situations and the relationship with the training they received in gender equality, sexual diversity and bullying. Two hundred forty-nine adolescents and youth from 58 centers/facilities of the PS in Spain, with an average age of 16.38 years, participated. Of these, 37.3% had Spanish nationality. A correlational study was conducted using a cross-sectional random sample survey. It was found that 30.9% of the participants identify bullying situations, which reached 34.9% for LGBTIQ-phobic bullying and 37.7% for sexist bullying. Girls identify situations of both bullying and sexist bullying more, and girls and both male and female Spanish adolescents and youth attribute greater severity to these problems and respond more positively in favor of the victims. Those who have received more training in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying support bully victims more significantly. According to our current knowledge, this study addresses for the first time the phenomenon of bullying and gender-based bullying in the context of the PS from a perspective of gender, nationality, and the formative dimension. It also highlights the need for mandatory training in gender-equality and sexual diversity for adolescents/youth and educational professionals of the PS, as well as the creation of specific anti-bullying protocols with an inclusive approach.

1. Introduction

1.1. Conceptual Approach to the Phenomenon of Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying: A Socio-Ecological Perspective

Bullying has been conceptualized as a type of peer abuse that damages the victim’s physical and/or psychosocial dimension, is carried out repeatedly, deliberately, and intentionally, and is characterized by the imbalance of power between the victim and the bully [1]. However, this definition has received numerous criticisms, questioning its repetitive and intentional nature, and especially the simplistic reading of the imbalance of power [2,3,4,5]. Thus, the imbalance of power, although a key defining criterion, has been understood from a biased perspective, taking into account the specific characteristics of victims and aggressors, and underestimating the influence of discourses and social norms concerning power and identity that would allow contextualizing the problem [2,3,6,7,8,9,10].
Gender-based bullying refers to any form of peer violence (physical, psychosocial or sexual) motivated by sexism and the rejection of the transgression of traditional gender stereotypes, as well as non-normative sexual identities and orientations or those that are perceived as such [3,11,12]. In this context, gender-based bullying, like bullying, should not be understood as an exclusively individual, conscious, and voluntary act, but should be contextualized in sociocultural discourses about normative versus non-normative expressions, identities, and sexual orientations.

1.2. Prevalence of Bullying in Residential Care and Other Facilities Within the PS

Research on bullying in the school setting has increased significantly in recent decades, but less attention has been paid to bullying in other relational contexts, such as residential care or other resources within the PS. And this is despite the fact that the children, adolescents, and youth involved in the child PS are one of the most vulnerable groups, with the highest prevalence of bullying [13,14,15,16]. Studies highlight that in residential care, minors suffer physical abuse by both professionals and peers [13], as well as sexual abuse by professionals [17] and peers [18]. It is also observed that individuals commonly experience more than one type of victimization [19].
Regarding the prevalence of bullying in residential care or other PS resources, the pioneering work of Barter et al. [20], of a qualitative nature and carried out in 15 English children’s homes with 71 young people, shows that over three-quarters of the young people interviewed described experiencing physical assaults, either as victims or perpetrators. Fifty-two young people, more boys than girls, experienced high levels of physical violence (involving a severe level of force or considered as involving significant emotional harm). Almost half of the youth experienced non-contact attacks, often as part of a wider cycle of verbal and physical violence. And nearly all the young people had experienced some form of verbal insults or attacks. Some more recent works also carried out in residential care, such as the one mentioned by Segura et al. [19], show similar figures, identifying 73.6% who have suffered bullying throughout their lives, and 45.7% who suffered it in the last year. Other studies show slightly lower prevalences [21,22,23], highlighting that up to half of these children in residential facilities are victimized by their peers, increasing to 57.9% in reform centers [21]. Oláh et al. [24] identify a significantly lower prevalence in their study with 240 Hungarian adolescents placed in family-style group care, with 27% of adolescents and youth experiencing bullying. To a lesser extent, some studies, such as that of Euser et al. [13], estimate the figure of peer abuse in foster care at 9% of the adolescents interviewed. This significantly lower percentage than the previous ones may be because this study only analyzes physical abuse, which is usually more infrequent than other types of abuse, and because foster care is a priori a safer and more supervised context than residential care. In general, the available investigations report significantly higher percentages of bullying than those of the general population, with a very broad range between approximately 9% and 75%, with the prevalence being more commonly around 40–50%, with a higher risk for adolescents and young people living in larger group settings compared to those who live in family groups [25]. Likewise, and as has been observed for bullying in school contexts, boys are more involved in bullying situations in general [24], and in physical bullying in particular [13,20,26], while girls are more involved in situations of relational bullying [21,26]. Likewise, girls perceive to a greater extent that bullying is part of the normal functioning of the children’s home [21]. Concerning participation in bullying situations and its association with ethnicity and cultural affiliation in adolescents and youth in the PS, the few studies that have analyzed this relationship show contradictory results, pointing out, on the one hand, that there is no evidence that black and ethnic minority children suffer more bullying than their peers who do not belong to an ethnic minority [27]. On the other hand, the studies report that ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to suffering victimization [28].

1.3. Prevalence of Gender-Based Bullying in Residential Care and Other Facilities Within the PS

Concerning gender-based bullying, specifically sexist bullying, we are not aware of any studies that have explicitly analyzed this problem. However, some available studies, such as that of Green [29], highlight that sexism is common in the PS, especially in residential care facilities, normatively accepting girls’ sexual abuse by their peers, which is rarely perceived as abusive, as well as boys’ natural “lack self-control” concerning their sexual desire. Likewise, in the work of Barter et al. [20], it was found that, of the adolescents and youth who suffer verbal insults or attacks—which are almost all the participants in the study as highlighted above—, girls are harmed the most through comments, rumors, or insults about their sexual reputation. In contrast, boys are attacked through insults and negative comments about their mothers. The studies also show that girls in residential care facilities suffer significantly more situations of sexual abuse by their peers [20,27,29,30,31,32], and, to a greater extent, those with immigrant status [31]. These abuses, which include rape and sexual assault [20,33], range from isolated incidents to systematic sexual abuse [20]. Likewise, they are carried out mostly by their male peers [20,29,30,31], especially older ones [30]. Farmer and Pollock [33] also highlight that the male residents are more involved as aggressors of both their female and their male peers.
As regards bullying motivated by SOGIE (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression), LGBTQIA+ adolescents and youth are largely overrepresented in the child PS, at least in North America [34,35]. In these contexts, especially the residential care facilities, boys’ sensitivity and their lack of aggressiveness are perceived as evidence of feminization and homosexuality [29]. In addition, the experiences of these adolescents and young people have been largely overlooked, despite the fact that they have to face numerous difficulties of discrimination, violence, and lack of acceptance [34,35,36]. Their greater vulnerability to bullying, as well as to abuse and violence by the staff and other care providers, is highlighted [37]. Verbal abuse by peers, often through name-calling, threats, exclusion, and rejection, is the most commonly identified type of bullying [38].

1.4. Response of Adolescents and Youth in the PS to Bullying Situations

The study of Sekol and Farrington [21] stands out, in which 15.8% of girls in children’s homes and 19% in correctional homes affirmed, “don’t do anything to help victims”, compared to 23.5% and 48.2% of boys, respectively. Moreover, 38.8% of the girls in children’s homes and 32.8% in correctional homes indicated that “victims often/always deserve to be bullied,” compared to 50.3% and 61%, respectively, of the boys. This treatment of the victim, which is a form of secondary victimization, is significantly more frequent for LGBTQIA+ victims, who are usually blamed and even punished for suffering bullying [37,38,39]. Subsequently, Sekol and Farrington [23] observed that adolescents and young bullies, compared to non-bullies, regardless of gender, were more likely to believe that bullying is part of the usual functioning of residential care and that the victims deserve the bullying suffered. More recent studies, such as that of Mazzone et al. [25] carried out in five European countries, report that, similarly to bullying in school, children seem to underestimate the impact of bullying and minimize its severity, mostly acting as passive bystanders. It was also observed that they are reluctant to inform and ask for help from the professionals of the centers [26].

1.5. Training Received in Gender Equality, Sexual Diversity, and Bullying in the PS and Their Relationship with the Response of Adolescents and Youth to Situations of Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying

In terms of the training received, the available literature highlights a scarcity of training in gender equality. As noted in the work of Mazzone et al. [25], a sexist culture prevails in which girls and women are perceived as weak and incapable of exercising power. In this sense, the Romanian adolescents and young people in her study consider that the professionals (women) in their centers are weak, incapable of resolving conflicts, and not having the “power” to intervene and stop bullying. There is also an important internalization of gender roles and stereotypes among protected and ex-protected minors, with motherhood being a key pillar in their life project [40]. Along the same lines, the studies identify hostile and benevolent pervasive sexist attitudes, significantly higher in boys than in girls, and in adolescents in the general population [41,42,43], as well as a greater acceptance of romantic love myths [41]. Likewise, it is observed that children in the PS support gender inequality to a greater extent and perceive it to a lesser extent than adolescents in the general population [44].
Similarly, concerning training in sexual diversity, the studies highlight that the child PS is not prepared to respond to the needs of LGBTQIA+ adolescents and young people, characterized by a lack of training and inclusive policies, as well as by its cisheteronormative nature [24,34,35,36,45,46]. The study by González et al. [45], conducted with PS professionals working with LGBTQIA+ youth in foster care, found that most professionals recognize the importance of conversations and supportive relationships with these adolescents and youth as a way to achieve their SOGIE affirmation, and that some of them explicitly support affirmative practices and policies. Despite this, most care agencies have not yet incorporated these recommended SOGIE-affirming practices, even when situations of bullying motivated by SOGIE occur.
With regard to bullying, the studies also suggest a significant lack of training for the understanding, detection, and prevention of bullying in the child PS, both for the staff and for adolescents and youth [15,16,25].
We are not aware of any studies that analyze the relationship between the training received in these dimensions and the response of adolescents and youth in the PS to situations of bullying and gender-based bullying. However, the aforementioned study by Jóvenes and Inclusión [44] shows that adolescents and youth in the PS who received less training in gender equality expressed more sexist attitudes and had a lower perception of situations of inequality. Along the same lines, studies with adolescents and youth from the general population that analyze the problem of bullying from a socio-ecological and problematizing perspective show that bullying is influenced by cisheteronormative social discourse (e.g., sexist and LGBTIQ-phobic). Thus, students with more sexist and more negative attitudes towards sexual diversity are the ones who participate the most as aggressors in bullying situations [7,47,48] and the ones who least support the victims [48]. These results allow us to hypothesize that the adolescents and youth in the PS who receive more training in these dimensions will perceive the situations of bullying and gender-based bullying, and will respond more empathically and behaviorally to help the victims.

1.6. The Current Study

The aim of this exploratory, descriptive, and analytical study is to analyze, according to gender and nationality, the perception that adolescents and youth in the Spanish PS have of the bullying and gender-based bullying situations (specifically sexist and LGBTIQ-phobic bullying) that take place in their protection facilities. It will also analyze their responses to these situations and their relationships with the training received in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying. This general goal is divided into the following specific goals: (i) to analyze their perceptions of situations of bullying and gender-based-bullying; (ii) to analyze their perception of the seriousness of these situations; (iii) to know their emotional and behavioral response to them; (iv) to identify their training in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying; (v) to study the relationship between the different variables of the study; and (vi) to analyze the differences in the perception and responses to the phenomenon of bullying and gender-based bullying according to the training received.
This study is novel, as it allows us to analyze for the first time, according to our current knowledge, not only in terms of gender but also of nationality, the perception that adolescents and young people in the Spanish PS have of the bullying and gender-based bullying situations that take place in their protection facility. It also analyzes their response to these situations and its relationship with the training received in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying. Its results could have important implications for designing educational policies and programs for the prevention of bullying and gender-based bullying in the PS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Two hundred forty-nine adolescents and youth from 58 centers/facilities of the PS in Spain participated. Concerning gender, 37.3% identified as girls, 59.8% identified as boys, and the remaining 2.8% identified with other gender identity options, such as non-binary or gender-fluid. Their mean age was 16.38 years, with a range of 11 to 22 years (SD = 1.74). In terms of sexual orientation, 68.2% defined themselves as totally heterosexual, 10% as bisexual, 6.4% as mostly heterosexual, 4% as totally gay/lesbian, 2.4% as mostly gay/lesbian, 2% identified with other sexual orientations, and 6.4% did not know or did not respond. Regarding nationality, 45.8% held Moroccan nationality, 37.3% Spanish nationality, 3.2% Algerian nationality, 1.6% Colombian, Malian, and Romanian nationality, respectively, and the remaining 9.1% had diverse nationalities, including Cameroonian, Guinean, and Portuguese, among others. The mean length of stay in the PS center/facility was 12.93 months with a range of 1 to 108 months (SD = 14.73).

2.2. Instruments

An ad hoc questionnaire was administered, consisting of questions related to sociodemographic variables, as well as to the target variables, as detailed below.
Sociodemographic variables: gender, age, sexual orientation, nationality, and months of stay in the PS center/facility.
Perceptions of situations of bullying and gender-based bullying in the PS center/facility. Three items were included regarding the frequency with which bullying situations occur among adolescents and young people, in the PS center/facility where they live, as well as specific situations of sexist bullying and bullying towards LGBTQIA+ people or those who are perceived as such (gender-based bullying). Each question is rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (very often) (α = 0.68). It also includes a question about the perceived seriousness of these situations, specifically asking them: “In general, how serious do you think the above behaviors are?”, which is rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).
Response to situations of bullying and gender-based bullying at the PS center/facility. This is evaluated through two items regarding the emotional response and behavior, specifically: “Did you feel empathy towards the victim in the previous situations?” rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); and “Did you do anything in the previous situations to stop them?”, also rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) (α = 0.73).
Training of adolescents and young people in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying. This is studied through three items that analyze these variables. Participants are asked to indicate the training obtained in each of the three contents. Each item is rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) (α = 0.85)
Areas from which they obtained training in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying. For those contents in which they claim to have training, they are asked about the areas from which they obtained it. The multiple-choice options are: “PS entity/facility”, “school”, “family”, “friends,” and “Internet/media”.
The questionnaire was designed based on research questions and a previous review of the literature. Clear, direct items were designed, organized into three scales (perception, response, and training), and also included the areas in which training was obtained. Subsequently, a small pilot study was carried out in two facilities, involving 21 adolescents and young people. With the support of the educators at the centers, who guided the administration of the questionnaire, we were able to identify problems with item comprehension and behavior, and reformulate the items as necessary.

2.3. Design and Procedure

To fulfill the work’s objectives, a correlational study was designed through a cross-sectional incidental sampling. Six entities of the Third Sector of the Spanish State, from the Jóvenes e Inclusión Network, randomly selected from different Autonomous Communities of the North, South, and East Coast, specifically Andalusia, Asturias, Ceuta, Valencian Community, Euskadi, Galicia, and the Balearic Islands, were asked to collaborate. For this purpose, an email was sent to the address of each entity, explaining the study, its objectives, and methodology. Subsequently, the entities were contacted by telephone to confirm their participation. All agreed to be part of the study, with the final participation of 58 centers/facilities. These centers/facilities offer comprehensive socio-educational care to children and adolescents in situations of vulnerability and at risk of social exclusion. The questionnaires, which were anonymous, confidential, and voluntary, were administered presentially with online support, between February and June 2022, through Qualtrix, with the support of the educators of the entities/facilities. These professionals explained the proposal to adolescents and young people and scheduled appointments individually with those who decided to participate voluntarily. Inclusion criteria were: (i) being 11 years of age or older [49], indicate that children and adolescents can reliably respond to a survey as of the age of 10); (ii) living in the protection center/facility for at least one month before the administration of the questionnaire; (iii) having a good understanding of Spanish; and (iv) having sufficient cognitive ability to answer the questionnaire. The educators were trained in the application of the questionnaire to understand all its items, facilitate its administration, resolve the adolescents’ and young participants’ doubts, and minimize the interviewer’s bias in their responses as much as possible. The educators of the entities guided the administration of the questionnaires, which were conducted in person and individually. All participants were informed of the confidentiality of their responses and their right to withdraw from the research at any time. The questionnaire was administered for approximately 30 min, in the presence of an educator at all times, to answer the questions of the participating adolescents and young people.

2.4. Data Analysis

The main data analyses, using the SPSS-24 software, consisted of descriptive analyses, including frequencies (%), number of participants (n), means (M), and standard deviations (SD). Student’s t-tests for independent samples and chi-square were carried out to identify differences in the variables analyzed according to the adolescents’ and young people’s gender and nationality. To conduct these analyses, the gender and nationality variables were transformed into binary variables. In the case of gender, adolescents and young people who identified with identity options other than man/woman were excluded. In the case of nationality, two groups were created: Spanish and non-Spanish adolescents and young people.
To analyze the relationships between perception and response to situations of gender-based bullying and the training received in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying, Pearson correlations (r) were carried out. Likewise, to identify differences depending on the training received in the perceptions and responses to situations of bullying and of gender-based bullying, Student’s t-tests for independent samples were also carried out. For this purpose, the training variable was dichotomized, with one group that had not received systematic training (which included the responses of “never” and “somewhat”) and one group that had received systematic training (which included the responses of “quite a lot” and “a lot”).

3. Results

3.1. Perceptions and Responses of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish PS to Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying: Differences as a Function of Gender and of Nationality

Regarding the perception of bullying and gender-based bullying, as can be seen in Table 1, 30.9% of the participants indicated that bullying situations occurred in their protection facility, of whom 9.2% stated that they occurred systematically (“quite a few times” and “many times”). Considering gender, it was observed that girls had a greater perception of bullying situations than their male peers, which was verified both in the differences in means (t = 3.21, p < 0.01) and in the differences in percentages (χ2 = 12.30, p < 0.01). No significant differences were found according to the nationality of adolescents and young people. Concerning sexist bullying, 37.7% of the participants identified this type of situation in their protection center/facility, with 8.8% stating that it occurred systematically. Again, depending on gender, it was observed that girls perceived this type of situation more significantly than boys (t = 3.08, p < 0.01; χ2 = 11.23, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences according to nationality. Concerning LGBTIQ-phobic bullying, 34.9% of the participants indicated that this type of situation occurred in their center/facility, of whom 10% indicated that it took place systematically. There were no significant differences in terms of gender or nationality. Regarding the perceived seriousness, 19.6% considered it not at all or not very serious, 17.3% indicated that it was somewhat serious, and 63% thought that it was quite or very serious. Significant differences were identified according to gender and nationality. Specifically, girls (t = 4.14, p < 0.001; χ2 = 16.34, p < 0.01) and male and female Spanish adolescents and young people (t = 2.57, p < 0.05; χ2 = 15.89, p < 0.01), compared to boys and non-Spanish male and female participants, perceived the situations of bullying and gender-based bullying as significantly more serious.
Regarding both emotional and behavioral responses to these bullying and gender-based bullying situations, as shown in Table 1, 28.5% reported feeling no or little empathy, 13.3% reported feeling some empathy, and 58.2% reported feeling a lot or a great deal of empathy. Again, significant differences were identified both according to gender and nationality, with girls (t = 5.90, p < 0.001; χ2 = 31.99, p < 0.001) and Spanish participants (t = 3.04, p < 0.01; χ2 = 16.17, p < 0.01) acknowledging that they felt more empathy towards victims of bullying and gender-based bullying. Regarding behavior, specifically having taken action to stop the situation of abuse, 28.9% indicated that they never did anything to stop it, 24.9% said that they sometimes did something, 10.8% said that they did something quite a few times, and 35.4% said that they almost always or always did something. As in the empathic response, girls (t = 4.51, p < 0.000; χ2 = 19.20, p < 0.001) and male and female Spanish adolescents and youth (t = 2.71, p < 0.01; χ2 = 15.58, p < 0.05) reported having intervened in some way to stop the situation of bullying or gender-based bullying.

3.2. Training in Gender Equality, Sexual Diversity, and Bullying of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish PS: Differences as a Function of Gender and of Nationality

As shown in Table 2, regarding the training received, in terms of training in gender equality, 63.4% reported that they had not received systematic training (including herein the answers, I have “never” received training or I have received “some” training), compared to 36.6% who had received systematic training (including herein the responses of I have received “a lot of training” and “very much training”). Girls reported having received significantly more training than boys (t = 3.24, p < 0.01; χ2 = 12.65, p < 0.01), as well as Spanish participants compared to non-Spanish participants (t = 3.86, p < 0.001; χ2 = 19.17, p < 0.001). Similarly, in terms of training received in sexual diversity, 71.5% had not received systematic training compared to 28.5% who had received it. Again, there were significant gender (t = 2.71, p < 0.01; χ2 = 9.13, p < 0.05) and nationality (t = 3.82, p < 0.001; χ2 = 15.87, p < 0.01) differences, with girls and non-Spanish participants indicating that they had received more training. The same pattern of responses was repeated for bullying training, with 63.8% who had not received systematic training compared to 36.2% who had received it, with girls (t = 3.35, p < 0.01; χ2 = 13.46, p < 0.01) and male and female Spanish participants (t = 4.92, p < 0.001; χ2 = 24.67, p < 0.001) indicating they had received significantly more training.
As for the areas from which they obtained this training, concerning training in gender equality, 51.4% indicated that they had received it at the SP center/facility, 49% at school, 23.3% self-taught on the Internet and other media, 19.7% through friends, and 16.1% in the family environment. Regarding training in sexual diversity, the PS center/facility continues to be the area that provided the most training, with 39.4% indicating that they had received it in this context, followed again by the school (34.1%), friends (21.3%), the Internet and other media (20.9%), and finally, the family environment (6.8%). Lastly, training in bullying was also obtained mostly in the school setting (45.4%) and in the PS center/facility (37.8%), followed by the Internet and other media (23.3%), friends (18.9%), and family (14.5%).

3.3. Relations Between Perceptions and Responses to Situations of Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying and Training Received in Gender Equality, Sexual Diversity, and Bullying of Adolescents and Young People in the Spanish PS

Regarding the relationships between variables, as shown in Table 3, it is observed that perceptions of bullying situations correlated moderately and positively with perceptions of gender-based bullying, including both sexist bullying and LGBTIQ-phobic bullying. They also correlated weakly to moderately and positively with the perception of severity and the empathic and behavioral response (having taken action to stop it). In the same vein, perceptions of sexist bullying correlated strongly and positively with perceptions of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying, and moderately and positively with the empathic and behavioral response. Moreover, perceptions of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying correlated weakly and positively with training in sexual diversity (r = 0.181, p < 0.01) and bullying (r = 0.183, p < 0.01). Regarding the perception of the seriousness of bullying situations, this variable correlated strongly and positively with the empathic and behavioral response, and weakly and positively with training in sexual diversity (r = 0.187, p < 0.01) and bullying (r = 0.179, p < 0.01). The empathic response correlated strongly and positively with the behavioral response and weakly to moderately and positively with training in gender equaltiy (r = 0.163, p < 0.01), sexual diversity (r = 0.250, p < 0.01), and bullying (r = 0.287, p < 0.01). Similarly, the behavioral response correlated moderately and positively with training in gender equality (r = 0.215 p < 0.01), bullying (r = 0.261, p < 0.01), and sexual diversity (r = 0.193, p < 0.01). Training in gender equality, sexual diversity and bullying correlated strongly and positively with each other.
To delve deeper into the relationships between perception, response, and training, differences in perception and responses to situations of bullying and gender-based bullying were analyzed according to the training received (see Table 4). Regarding the perception, it was observed that adolescents and young people who received systematic training in sexual diversity perceived more significantly situations of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying (t = −1.89, p < 0.05) and those who received more training in bullying also identified more significantly situations of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying (t = −2.63, p < 0.01), and also perceived bullying situations and gender-based as more serious (t = −2.17, p < 0.05). In relation to the emotional and behavioral response, specifically empathy and taking action to stop the bullying situation, it was found that students who had received systematic training in the three areas experienced more empathy (t = −2.51, p < 0.05, t = −2.68, p < 0.01, and t = −3.41, p < 0.01, respectively, for training in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying) and more significantly supported victims of bullying by taking action to stop the abusive situation (t = −2.88, p < 0.01, t = −2.27, p < 0.05, and t = −2.93, p < 0.01), respectively, for the three training areas).

4. Discussion

This study is novel, shedding light on a reality that has been little explored among especially vulnerable groups, such as adolescents and youth in the PS who suffer bullying and gender-based bullying. Based on our current knowledge, this paper investigates both phenomena for the first time from a perspective of gender, nationality, and the formative dimension within the context of the PS.
The results highlight that 30.9% of the participants indicated that bullying situations occur in their protection facility, and 9.2% affirmed that they occur systematically. This prevalence is similar to that obtained by Oláh et al. [24] in Hungarian adolescents placed in family-style group care; significantly higher than that obtained by Euser et al. [13] and significantly lower than that obtained in other studies, such as that of Segura et al. [19] or Sekol and Farrington [21]. This may be due to the fact that most of the centers and facilities in our study are small units, which allows adolescents and young people to live in quasi-family groupings, where a lower prevalence of bullying has been found [25].
The prevalence rises to 34.9% for cases of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying and to 37.7% for situations of sexist bullying, with 10% and 8.8% of the participants, respectively, systematically identifying them. These data highlight the sexism and rejection of sexual diversity in the PS [29], where sexual and sexist abuse of girls, especially attacking their sexual reputation, is naturalized and almost normative [20,27,30,31,32]. And where boys’ sensitivity and lack of aggressiveness are perceived as a symptom of feminization and homosexuality [29], such that LGBTQIA+ adolescents or those who are perceived as such suffer pervasive discrimination and violence from their peers [34,35,36].
Taking into account the differences according to gender and nationality, it is observed that girls, compared to boys, identify situations of bullying and sexist bullying more extensively, in line with the findings of the studies by Sekol and Farrington [21]. This may be because they suffer more significantly from relational bullying and sexist bullying, so they perceive it to a greater extent. It may also be due to differential gender socialization, which socializes girls to care for others and makes them more sensitive to the needs of their peers [48]. No differences were found in the perception according to nationality, in line with studies that indicate that there is no evidence that black minors or those belonging to an ethnic minority suffer more situations of bullying [27], which would not make them more sensitive to identify this type of situation.
In terms of the perceived seriousness, 63% perceive this problem as quite serious or very serious, contrary to what was identified by Mazzone et al. [25], who highlight that, similar to the school context, adolescents and young people in PS underestimate and minimize the seriousness of bullying. Again, as with perception, girls, compared to boys, attribute greater severity to these problems, which could also be explained by differential gender socialization. Along the same lines, Spanish participants, compared to foreigners, attribute greater seriousness to the problem of bullying and gender-based bullying. This different assessment could be due to cultural and educational differences, as suggested by data from this work in relation to training, which will be presented below.
Regarding the responses, concerning the empathy or emotional response experienced, 58.2% claim to have felt pretty much or a lot of empathy towards the victim. Similarly, regarding the behavioral response, referring specifically to “having done something to stop the situation”, 35.4% indicate that they always or almost always tried to do something. Significant differences are observed according to gender and nationality, with girls and male and female Spanish adolescents and young people perceiving these problems as more serious, experiencing more empathy towards the victim, and intervening more significantly to stop bullying situations. As for the differences according to gender, the data obtained are in line with the work of Sekol and Farrington [21], as well as with the studies carried out in a school context [48,49,50]. With regard to data according to nationality, we know of no studies analyzing this issue, but cultural and educational differences could be explaining this differential pattern of responses between Spanish/foreign adolescents and young people.
In relation to the training received, 36.6% received systematic training in gender equality and bullying, followed by 36.2% who received training in bullying, and 28.5% in sexual diversity. Despite the fact that the PS center/facility, together with the school, is the environment in which they mostly received this training, the data obtained align with other studies that indicate a lack of training in gender equality [25,41,42], sexual diversity [34,36,46], and bullying [15,16,25]. Likewise, it was observed that in the three types of content, the girls and Spanish participants received significantly more training. Concerning gender, these differences may be due to the greater interest of girls in these contents, in line with differential gender socialization. The differences between Spanish/non-Spanish adolescents and young people, as noted above, could be due to cultural and educational backgrounds and may be related to other differences identified in this study concerning the perception of seriousness and responses to these problems, as already mentioned.
Examining the relationships between variables, it is observed that adolescents and young people who perceive bullying situations the most are also those who perceive gender-based bullying situations the most. And in the case of bullying and sexist bullying, those who perceive these problems the most are also the ones who most express empathetic and behavioral responses in favor of the victims. Perceived severity is also associated with a greater emotional and behavioral response. Regarding training, it was found that training in sexual diversity and bullying correlates with a greater perception of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying, as well as with a greater perception of severity, and more emotional and behavioral responses in favor of the victim. Training in gender equality is also associated with a greater perception of seriousness and greater emotional and behavioral responses.
In this regard, concerning the differences in perception and responses to bullying and gender-based bullying depending on the training received, it was observed that participants who had received more training in gender equality displayed more empathic and behavioral responses to support the victim. This was also verified for training in sexual diversity and bullying, where it was also observed that adolescents and young people who are more trained in these contents also more significantly perceive situations of LGBTIQ-phobic bullying and attribute greater seriousness to peer abuse. These data are in line with those obtained by Jóvenes and Inclusión [44], which show that adolescents and young people in PS who have less training in equality perceive situations of inequality to a lesser extent and manifest significantly more sexist attitudes. It also aligns with the works on bullying in the school context that highlight that bullying must be understood within the framework of cultural discourses on normative and non-normative identities. These authors also observe that the most sexist students with more negative attitudes towards sexual diversity or the transgression of gender stereotypes participate more significantly as bullies [7,47,48] and support the victim the least [48].
The results of this work highlight the need to include inclusive policies and practices in the child PS that address bullying from a whole-institution approach [15,16,25], and from a problematizing perspective that attends to the causes of these behaviors [7]. In particular, studies carried out in the PS highlight that children should be aware that bullying is serious and hurts the victim, and that staff members should receive training to deal with bullying [25]. We need to include content related to gender equality [29,31,40,41,42], and, of course, content specific to sexual orientation and gender identity [36] that would favor the creation of safety, stability, support, and affirmation for LGBTQIA+ youth. Within these anti-bullying programs, works such as that of López et al. [46] defend the use of inclusive language, protocols on actions for LGBTQIA+ youth to undertake in the face of bullying and discrimination, an intersectional perspective, as well as meaningful supportive relationships and connections among educational professionals and these adolescents and youth.
In short, as in school contexts, bullying in the child PS must be understood from a problematizing perspective, attending to the social discourses about normative and non-normative identities. Therefore, it must be addressed by overcoming generic anti-bullying policies that do not address the causes of this problem. These anti-bullying policies should include mandatory training in gender-equality and sexual diversity, not only for adolescents and young people, but also for PS professionals. Some programs to reduce sexism stand out, such as the one evaluated by Roncero et al. [51] with male adolescent offenders. Likewise, these measures must be specified in anti-bullying prevention protocols that should be in force in every PS center/facility. Given the complexity of this phenomenon, its prevention and intervention, psychoeducational reinforcement for the educational professionals of these centers is also important [52]. Along these lines, as Álvarez-Fernández et al. [53] point out, this type of educational strategy could contribute to creating a climate of professional commitment to change, involving PS professionals in an active search for training that would lead to the emotional development of adolescents and young people. These educational policies and strategies, aimed at preventing violence and promoting coexistence among vulnerable adolescents and young people, contribute to their socio-affective development, which also has a positive impact on their psychological well-being and autonomy [54].
Along with the potentialities of this work, some limitations should be considered in future research. First, the work is correlational, which does not allow for cause-and-effect relationships, and the sample, although varied, is small and cannot be generalized to the Spanish State. Secondly, the problem is studied from the point of view of the adolescents and youth as spectators, but not as victims and/or aggressors. Thirdly, a quantitative approach is employed that overlooks the participants’ discourse on this issue. Fourth, the binary reduction in gender and nationality variables could exclude other identities relevant to the objectives of the work. Along the same lines, the binarization of the variable “training received” may have simplified the results. Furthermore, the fact that the questionnaires were administered individually and guided by an educator may have biased the responses positively. Thus, future research should be oriented towards experimental or even longitudinal studies, analyzing the perspectives not only of adolescents and youth but also of professionals, and, in any case, attending to the perspectives of victims, aggressors, and bystanders. The use of qualitative methodologies is also recommended, with interviews or discussion groups guided by educators and researchers from outside the facility, which would allow access to the study of the problem through the voices of the adolescents and young protagonists. Likewise, a larger and more representative sample would enable the generalization of the results to the Spanish State and the reorganization of variables such as gender, nationality, or training into non-binary categories.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.V.C.-F. and D.F.-S.; methodology, M.V.C.-F.; formal analysis and investigation, M.V.C.-F., D.F.-S. and N.B.-P.; resources, N.B.-P.; data curation, N.B.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.C.-F.; writing—review and editing, D.F.-S.; supervision, M.V.C.-F.; project administration, M.V.C.-F. and D.F.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Ethics Committee of the Doctoral Program in Education and Behavioral Sciences of the University of Vigo (Spain) (CE-DCEC-UVIGO-2021-09-28-1459).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Olweus, D. Understanding and researching bullying. Some critical issues. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools. An International Perspective; Jimerson, R.S., Swearer, S., Espelage, D.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 9–33. [Google Scholar]
  2. Carrera, M.V.; DePalma, R.; Lameiras, M. Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of Bullying in School Settings. Educ Psychol Rev. 2011, 23, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carrera-Fernández, M.V.; Blanco-Pardo, N.; Abal-Buceta, S.; Fernández-Simo, D. Explaining homophobic and gender-based bullying through the lens of Queer Theory. In Cambridge Handbook of Bias-Based Bullying Theories, Research & Interventions; Sapouna, M., Willems, R.A., Smith, P.K., Eds.; Cambridge: London, UK, 2026. [Google Scholar]
  4. Finkelhor, D.; Turner, H.; Hamby, S. Let’s prevent peer victimization, not just bullying. Child Abuse Neglect. 2012, 36, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vaillancourt, T.; McDougall, P.; Hymel, S.; Krygsman, A.; Miller, J.; Stiver, K. Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? Int. J. Behav. 2008, 32, 486–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carrera-Fernández, M.V.; Lameiras, M.; Rodríguez-Castro, Y. Performing intelligible genders through violence: Bullying as gender practice and heteronormative control. Gender Educ. 2018, 30, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carrera-Fernández, M.V.; Cid-Fernández, X.M.; Almeida, A.; González-Fernández, A.; Lameiras, M. Me and Us Versus the Others: Troubling the Bullying Phenomenon. Youth Soc. 2021, 53, 417–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Scherr, T.G.; Larson, J. Bullying dynamics associated with race, ethnicity, and immigration status. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools. An International Perspective; Jimerson, R.S., Swearer, S., Espelage, D.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  9. Thornberg, R. School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 2018, 39, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vaillancourt, T.; McDougall, P.; Hymel, S.; Sunderani, S. Respect or fear? The relationship between power and bullying behavior. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools. An International Perspective; Jimerson, R.S., Swearer, S., Espelage, D.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 211–222. [Google Scholar]
  11. Anagnostopoulos, D.; Buchanan, N.T.; Pereira, C. School staff responses to gender-based bullying as moral interpretation: An exploratory study. Educ Pol. 2009, 23, 519–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martin, J.L. Bullying, gender-based. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender; Nadal, K.L., Ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Euser, S.; Alink, L.R.A.; Tharner, A.; Van Ijzendoorn, M.H.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. Out of home placement to promote safety? The prevalence of physical abuse in residential and foster care. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2014, 37, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sterzing, P.R.; Auslander, W.F.; Ratliff, G.A.; Gerke, D.R.; Edmond, T.; Jonson-Reid, M. Exploring Bullying Perpetration and Victimization Among Adolescent Girls in the Child Welfare System: Bully-Only, Victim-Only, Bully-Victim, and Noninvolved Roles. J. Interpers. Violence 2020, 35, 1311–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sung, J.; Choi, J.; Espelage, D.L.; Wu, C.F.; Boraggina-Ballard, L.; Fisher, B. Are Children of Welfare Recipients at a Heightened Risk of Bullying and Peer Victimization? Child Youth Care Forum 2021, 50, 547–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sung, J.; Choi, J.; Padilla, Y.; Wu, C.F.; Lee, N.Y.; Espelage, D.L. Untangling the Effects of Welfare and Poverty on Children’s Involvement in Bullying. Child Welf. 2022, 100, 81–102. [Google Scholar]
  17. Euser, S.; Alink, L.R.A.; Tharner, A.; Van Ijzendoorn, M.H.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. The prevalence of child sexual abuse in out-of-home care: A comparison between abuse in residential and in foster care. Child Maltreatment 2013, 18, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Green, L.; Masson, H. Adolescents who sexually abuse and residential accommodation: Issues of risk and vulnerability. Br. J. Soc. Work 2002, 32, 149–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Segura, A.; Pereda, N.; Abad, J.; Guilera, G. Victimisation and poly-victimisation among Spanish youth protected by the child welfare system. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2015, 59, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Barter, C. Young people in residential care talk about peer violence. Scott. J. Resid. Child Care 2003, 2, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sekol, I.; Farrington, D.P. The nature and prevalence of bullying among boys and girls in Croatian care institutions: A descriptive analysis of children’s homes and correctional homes. Criminol. Soc. Integr. 2009, 17, 15–33. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sekol, I. Bullying in adolescent residential care: The influence of the physical and social residential care environment. Child Youth Care Forum 2016, 45, 409–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sekol, I.; Farrington, D.P. Psychological and background correlates of bullying in adolescent residential care. J. Soc. Work. 2016, 16, 429–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Oláh, B.; Fekete, Z.; Kuritárné Szabó, I.; Kovács-Tóth, B. Validity and reliability of the 10-Item Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (ACE-10) among adolescents in the child welfare system. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1258798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mazzone, A.; Nocentini, A.; Menesini, E. Bullying in residential care for children: Qualitative findings from five European countries. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 100, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khoury-Kassabri, M.; Attar-Schwartz, S. Adolescents’ report of physical violence by peers in residential care settings: An ecological examination. J. Interpers. Violence 2014, 29, 659–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gibbs, I.; Sinclair, I. Bullying, sexual harassment and happiness in residential children’s homes. Child Abuse Rev. 2000, 9, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cawson, P. Children living away from home. In Safeguarding Children: A Shared Responsibility; Cleaver, H., Cawson, P., Goring, S., Walker, S., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Green, L. Theorizing sexuality, sexual abuse, and residential children’s homes: Adding gender to the equation. Br. J. Soc. Work 2005, 35, 453–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bennett, A.; Clement, A.; Walton, R.; Jackson, Y.; Gabrielli, R. Youth Reported Perpetrators of Victimization Within a Foster Care Sample. Child Maltreatment 2024, 29, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Indias, S.; Arruabarrena, I.; De Paúl, J. Child maltreatment, sexual and peer victimization experiences among adolescents in residential care. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 100, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Witt, A.; Brown, R.C.; Plener, P.L.; Brahler, E.; Fegert, J.M. Child maltreatment in Germany: Prevalence rates in the general population. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2017, 11, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Farmer, E.; Pollock, S. Sexually Abused and Abusing Children in Substitute Care; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  34. López, M.; Gónzález, R.; Brummelaar, M.T.; van Mierlo, K. ; Wieldraaijer-Vincent. Working with LGBTQIA+ Youth in the Child Welfare System. Perspectives from Youth and Professionals; University of Groningen Press: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–124. [Google Scholar]
  35. Prince, D.M.; Ray-Novak, M.; Tossone, K.; Peterson, E.; Braveheart, G.; Mintz, L. Psychological comorbidities and suicidality in sexual and gender minority foster youth. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2024, 156, 107379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McCormick, A.; Schmidt, K.; Terrazas, S. LGBTQ Youth in the Child Welfare System: An Overview of Research, Practice, and Policy. J. Public Child Welf. 2017, 11, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mallon, G.P. We Don’t Exactly Get the Welcome Wagon: The Experiences of Gay and Lesbian Adolescents in Child Welfare Systems; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 1–1993. [Google Scholar]
  38. Woronoff, R.; Estrada, R.; Sommer, S. Out of the Margins—A Report on Regional Listening Forums Highlighting the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth in Care; Child Welfare League of America: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mallon, G.P. LGBTQ Youth Issues. A Practical Guide for Youth Workers Serving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, & Questioning Youth; CWLA Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 1–180. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cabellos-Vidal, A. Roles de Género en Acogimiento Residencial. Una Aproximación a Partir de las Representaciones Sobre el Modelo Familiar de las Mujeres Jóvenes Tuteladas y ex Tuteladas de Bizkaia. Trabajo Fin de Grado; Universidad de las Islas Baleares: Palma, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carbonel, A.; Fernández, I.; Navarro-Pérez, J.J. Sexismo y mitos del amor romántico en adolescentes que residen en centros de acogida. OBETS Rev. Cienc. Soc. 2021, 16, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fernández-García, O.; Gil-Llario, M.D.; Ballester-Arnal, R. Sexual Health among Youth in Residential Care in Spain: Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jimeno, M.V.; Cantero, M.J. Percepción de la violencia psicológica hacia la mujer en la relación de pareja y sexismo en adolescentes en acogimiento residencial: Comparación con un grupo de adolescentes no institucionalizados. Rev. Española De Investig. Criminológica 2020, 18, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jóvenes e Inclusión. Informe Estatal del Red-Lab de Identidades “Igualdad y Equidad de Género en la Juventud en Riesgo”; Jóvenes e Inclusión: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2021; Available online: https://joveneseinclusion.org/informes/igualdad-y-equidad-de-genero-en-la-juventud/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  45. González, R.; Hofman, S.; ten Brummelaar, M.; López, M. Care professionals’ perspectives and roles on resilience among LGBTQIA+ youth in out-of-home care: A multidimensional perspective. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2023, 150, 107012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. López, M.; Martínez-Jothar, G.; ten Brummelaar, M.D.C.; Parra, L.A.; San Román, B.; Mallon, G.P. “They told me that you can be with whomever you want, be who you are”: Perceptions of LGBTQ+ youth in residential care regarding the social support provided by child welfare professionals. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2024, 159, 107498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Carrera-Fernández, M.V.; Lameiras, M.; Rodríguez-Castro, Y.; Vallejo, P. Bullying among Spanish Secondary Education students: The role of gender traits, sexism and homophobia. J. Interpers. Violence 2013, 28, 2915–2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Carrera-Fernández, M.V.; Almeida, A.; Cid-Fernández, X.M.; González-Fernández, A.; Fernández-Simo, J.D. Troubling Secondary Victimization of Bullying Victims: The Role of Gender and Ethnicity. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP13623–NP13653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Finkelhor, D.; Hamby, S.L.; Ormrod, R.; Turner, H. The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire: Reliability, validity and national norms. Child Abuse Negl. 2005, 29, 383–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boulton, M.; Lloyd, J.; Down, J.; Marx, H. Predicting Undergraduates’ Self-Reported Engagement in Traditional and Cyberbullying from Attitudes. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2012, 15, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roncero, D.; Fernández-Moreno, A.; Benedicto, C. Efectividad de un programa de intervención para la reducción del sexismo hostil y benévolo en adolescentes infractores varones [Effectiveness of an intervention program for the reduction of hostile and benevolent sexism in male juvenile offenders]. Pedagog. Soc. Rev. Interuniv. 2025, 46, 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ruíz-Galacho, S.; Martínez-Solbes, V.M. Estudio exploratorio sobre las tendencias de la práctica profesional frente a la violencia en entornos de acción socioeducativa [Exploratory study on trends in professional practice against violence in socio-educational action settings]. Pedagog. Soc. Rev. Interuniv. 2021, 37, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Álvarez-Fernández, M.V.; Pintado-Rey, V.P.; San Fabián-Maroto, J.L. Elaboración de propuestas didácticas orientadas a mejorar los programas socioeducativos para jóvenes en situación de riesgo social [Making didactic proposals aimed at improving socioeducational programs for youngsters at risk of social exclusion]. Pedagog. Soc. Rev. Interuniv. 2014, 23, 151–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Juanas-Oliva, A.; Díaz-Esterri, J.; García-Castilla, F.J.; Goig-Martínez, R. La influencia de la preparación para las relaciones socioafectivas en el bienestar psicológico y la autonomía de los jóvenes en el sistema de protección [The influence of socio-affective relationship training on psychological well-being and autonomy in young people in the care system]. Pedagog. Soc. Rev. Interuniv. 2022, 40, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Perceptions and responses of adolescents and youth in the Spanish PS to bullying and gender-based bullying situations: gender and nationality differences.
Table 1. Perceptions and responses of adolescents and youth in the Spanish PS to bullying and gender-based bullying situations: gender and nationality differences.
Gender Nationality Total
GirlsBoysχ2SpanishNot
Spanish		χ2n (%)
n (%)n (%)
PerceptionsBullying (general)Never55 (59.1)114 (76.5)12.30 **69 (74.2)103 (66)2.02172 (69.1)
Sometimes24 (25.8)28 (18.8)16 (17.2)38 (24.4)54 (21.7)
Quite a few times6 (6.5)5 (3.4)4 (4.3)8 (5.1)12 (4.8)
Very often8 (8.6)2 (1.3)4 (4.3)7(4.5)11 (4.4)
M (SD)1.65 (0.94)1.30 (0.60) 1.39 (0.77)1.48 (0.79) 1.45 (0.78)
t-Test3.21 ** −0.914
Sexist bullyingNever49 (52.7)103 (69.1)11.23 *57 (61.3)98 (62.8)7.63155 (62.2)
Sometimes29 (31.2)39 (26.2)27 (29)45 (28.8)72 (28.9)
Quite a few times8 (8.6)4 (2.7)8 (8.6)4 (2.6)12 (4.8)
Very often7 (7.5)3 (2)1 (1.1)9 (5.8)10 (4)
M (SD)1.71 (0.92)1.38 (0.64) 1.49 (0.70)1.51 (0.81) 1.51 (0.77)
t-Test3.08 ** −0.181
LGBTIQ-phobic bullyingNever55 (59.1)105 (70.5)3.3259 (63.4)103 (66)2.47162 (65.1)
Sometimes28 (30.1)32 (21.5)27 (29)35 (22.4)62 (24.9)
Quite a few times7 (7.5)8 (5.4)4 (4.3)13 (8.3)17 (6.8)
Very often3 (3.2)4 (2.7)3 (3.2)5 (3.2)8 (3.2)
M (SD)1.55 (0.77)1.40 (0.72) 1.47 (0.73)1.49 (0.78) 1.48 (0.76)
t-Test1.49 −0.140
SeverityNot at all5 (5.4)21 (14.1)16.34 **5 (5.4)21 (13.5)15.89 **26 (10.4)
A bit serious4 (4.3)19 (12.8)9 (9.7)14 (9)23 (9.2)
Somewhat serious12 (12.9)31 (20.8)8 (8.6)35 (22.4)43 (17.3)
Pretty serious 30 (32.3)35 (23.5)35 (37.6)34 (21.8)69 (27.7)
Very serious 42 (45.2)43 (28.9)36 (38.7)52 (33.3)88 (35.3)
M (SD)4.08 (1.15)3.40 (1.40) 3.95 (1.16)3.53 (1.38) 3.68 (1.32)
t-Test4.14 *** 2.57 *
ResponsesDid you feel empathy?Not at all9 (9.7)40 (26.8)31.99 ***12 (12.9)37 (23.7)16.17 **49 (19.7)
A little2 (2.2)18 (12.1)8 (8.6)14 (9)22 (8.8)
Somewhat 8 (8.6)25 (75.8)5 (5.4)28 (17.9)33 (13.3)
Pretty much 28 (30.1)32 (21.5)30 (32.3)32 (20.5)62 (24.9)
Very much46 (49.5)34 (22.8)38 (40.9)45 (28.8) 83 (33.3)
M (SD)4.08 (1.24)3.01 (1.53) 3.80 (1.39)3.22 (1.54) 3.43 (1.51)
t-Test5.90 *** 3.04 **
Did you do something to stop it?Never17 (18.3)55 (36.9)19.20 **19 (20.4)53 (34)15.58 *72 (28.9)
Sometimes19 (20.4)42(28.2)20 (21.5)42 (26.9)62 (24.9)
Quite a few times11 (11.8)14 (9.4)11 (11.8)16 (10.3)27 (10.8)
Almost always15 (16.1)17 (11.4)21 (22.6)14 (9)35 (14.1)
Always31 (33.3)21 (14.1)22 (23.7)31 (19.9)53 (21.3)
M (SD)3.26 (1.55)2.38 (1.43) 3.08 (1.49)2.54 (1.52) 2.74 (1.53)
t-Test4.51 *** 2.71 **
Note. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Training in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying of children and youth in the Spanish PS: differences as a function of gender and of nationality.
Table 2. Training in gender equality, sexual diversity, and bullying of children and youth in the Spanish PS: differences as a function of gender and of nationality.
Gender Nationality Total
GirlsBoysχ2SpanishNot
Spanish		χ2n (%)
n (%)n (%)
Training inGender equalityNot at all19 (20.4)46 (30.9)12.65 **12 (12.9)54 (34.6)19.17 ***66 (26.5)
A bit31 (33.3)61 (40.9)34 (36.6)58 (37.2)92 (36.9)
Pretty much24 (25.8)32 (21.5)33 (35.5)27 (17.3)60 (24.1)
A lot19 (20.4)10 (6.7)14 (15.1)17 (10.9)31 (12.4)
M (SD)2.46 (1.04)2.04 (0.89) 2.53 (0.90)2.04 (0.98) 2.22 (0.98)
t-Test3.24 ** 3.86 ***
Sexual diversityNot at all30 (32.3)63 (42.3)9.13 *23(24.7)70 (44.9)15.87 **93 (37.3)
A bit29 (31.2)55 (36.9)31 (33.3)54 (34.6)85 (34.1)
Pretty much20 (21.5)23 (15.4)26 (28)20 (12.8)46 (18.5)
A lot14 (15.1)8 (5.4)13 (14)12 (7.7)25 (10)
M (SD)2.19 (1.06)1.84 (0.88) 2.31 (1.00)1.83 (93) 2.01 (0.98)
t-Test2.71 ** 3.82 ***
BullyingNot at all23 (24.7)56 (37.6)13.46 **13 (14)66 (42.3)24.67 ***79 (31.7)
A bit27 (29)51 (34.2)33 (35.5)47 (30.1)80 (32.1)
Pretty much21 (22.6)30 (20.1)25 (26.9)27 (17.3)52 (20.9)
A lot22 (23.7)12 (8.1)22 (23.7)16 (10.3)38 (15.3)
M (SD)2.45 (1.11)1.99 (0.95) 2.60 (1.00)1.96 (1.00) 2.20 (1.05)
t-Test3.35 ** 4.92 ***
Note. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Correlations between perceptions and responses to bullying and gender-based bullying, and training received.
Table 3. Correlations between perceptions and responses to bullying and gender-based bullying, and training received.
P-BP-SBP-LGBTIQ-BP-SERBRTGETSD
P-SB0.308 **
P-LGBTIQ-B0.382 **0.422 **
P-S0.161 *0.1150.036
ER0.239 **0.259 **0.1150.541 **
BR0.169 **0.171 **0.0740.422 **0.568 **
TGE−0.0530.0460.0870.0960.163 **0.215 **
TSD−0.002−0.0300.181 **0.187 **0.250 **0.193 **0.694 **
TB0.0650.011 0.183 **0.179 **0.287 **0.261 **0.597 **0.678 **
Note. P-B = perceptions of bullying situations; P-SB = perceptions of sexist bullying situations; P-LGBTIQ-B = perceptions of LGBTIQ-bullying situations; P-S = perceptions of severity; ER = Empathic response; BR = Behavioral response; TGE = Training in gender equality; TSD = Training in sexual diversity; TB = Training in bullying.* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Differences in perception and responses as a function of the training received in bullying and gender-based bullying.
Table 4. Differences in perception and responses as a function of the training received in bullying and gender-based bullying.
Training in
Gender EqualitySexual DiversityBullying
NoYest-TestNoYest-TestNoYest-Test
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
P-B1.491.361.361.471.390.6551.451.430.189
P-SB1.511.510.0081.541.421.081.521.490.264
P-LGBTIQ-B1.461.53−0.7151.421.63−1.89 *1.381.66−2.63 **
P-S3.603.82−1.283.573.97−2.20 *3.553.92−2.17 *
ER3.253.75−2.51 *3.283.82−2.68 **3.203.84−3.41 **
BR2.533.10−2.88 **2.603.08−2.27 *2.533.11−2.93 **
Note. P-B= perceptions of bullying situations; P-SB = perceptions of sexist bullying situations; P-LGBTIQ-B = perceptions of LGBTIQ-bullying situations; P-S = perceptions of severity; ER = Empathic response; BR = Behavioral response. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carrera-Fernández, M.V.; Fernández-Simo, D.; Blanco-Pardo, N. Perceptions and Responses of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish Protection System to Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying Situations, and Their Relationship with the Training Received. Adolescents 2025, 5, 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5040053

AMA Style

Carrera-Fernández MV, Fernández-Simo D, Blanco-Pardo N. Perceptions and Responses of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish Protection System to Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying Situations, and Their Relationship with the Training Received. Adolescents. 2025; 5(4):53. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5040053

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carrera-Fernández, María Victoria, Deibe Fernández-Simo, and Nazaret Blanco-Pardo. 2025. "Perceptions and Responses of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish Protection System to Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying Situations, and Their Relationship with the Training Received" Adolescents 5, no. 4: 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5040053

APA Style

Carrera-Fernández, M. V., Fernández-Simo, D., & Blanco-Pardo, N. (2025). Perceptions and Responses of Adolescents and Youth in the Spanish Protection System to Bullying and Gender-Based Bullying Situations, and Their Relationship with the Training Received. Adolescents, 5(4), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5040053

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop