Abstract
Research has established that bullied, also referred to as victimized, youth have a high probability of negative mental health outcomes compared to noninvolved peers (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001). These negative outcomes have been confirmed in several at-risk and underrepresented groups including racially and ethnically diverse youth, and with sexual minority youth. Yet, little attention has been given to homeless and foster youth samples, who are also high risk due several unique environmental factors (e.g., such as lack of biological parents and stable housing). This is despite findings that these youth have high rates of mental illness and experiences of trauma far above the general population of students (Edidin et al., 2012; Vacca & Kramer-Vida, 2012). Nevertheless, nascent findings are beginning to suggest that the mental health impacts of victimization for these students are extremely severe (Benbenishty et al., 2018).Past research has shown that a variable closely related to subjective well-being, termed covitality, protects against the impacts of victimization and negative mental health outcomes in diverse samples (Furlong et al., 2014; O'Malley et al., 2021). Covitality is a latent variable comprised of intraindividual assets and interpersonal resources that help explain positive developmental outcomes in youth (Weiss et al., 2002). There is even less research examining protective factors for homeless and foster youth outside of findings suggesting benefits for youth who have prosocial relationships and supportive parents (Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Merrill & Hanson, 2016).
The present study used the California Health Kids Survey (CHKS) to investigate the moderating role of covitality for foster and homeless youth for two types of victimization, relational and physical, on two psychosocial outcomes, psychological distress, and suicidal thoughts. The sample was comprised of foster youth in grades 7-12. Results showed null findings for both samples with psychological distress as an outcome. When examining the role of covitality for foster youth on suicidal thoughts, results found a significant drop in suicidal thoughts for youth with scores of covitality at the mean compared to youth with covitality levels one standard deviation below the mean. There were no statistically significant findings for the homeless youth in the study. The current study suggests covitality helps protect against severe negative mental health correlates of victimization for foster youth but does not appear to have an effect for homeless youth. However, null findings should be considered within the limitations of the study including relatively small sample sizes, and technical problems with the victimization questions which may have impacted the results.