How Is Bullying Victimization Associated with Depressive Symptoms Among Multicultural Adolescents in South Korea? A Serial Mediation and Network Analysis of Acculturative Stress and Ego-Resiliency

Bullying victimization is consistently associated with depressive symptoms among adolescents, yet the psychological processes underlying this association remain insufficiently understood, particularly among multicultural adolescents. This study tested a theoretically specified serial mediation model involving acculturative stress and ego-resiliency and further explored item-level conditional associations among the study variables. Cross-sectional data were obtained from 1338 multicultural adolescents in South Korea who participated in the fifth wave (2015) of the Multicultural Adolescents Panel Study (MAPS). Serial mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 6) was performed to examine the mediating roles of acculturative stress and ego-resiliency. A Gaussian graphical network was subsequently estimated to identify central nodes, bridge nodes, and node predictability among bullying victimization, acculturative stress, ego-resiliency, and depressive symptoms. Bullying victimization was positively associated with depressive symptoms. Significant indirect associations were observed through acculturative stress and ego-resiliency, both independently and through the theoretically specified serial pathway. In the network, physical aggression (BV4), appearance-related humiliation (BV6), and peer exclusion (BV1) occupied relatively central positions. Rumor spreading (BV5) showed the highest bridge expected influence, whereas BV4 and BV6 showed the highest bridge strength. Acculturative-stress items demonstrated the highest average node predictability. Bullying victimization was associated with depressive symptoms among multicultural adolescents in South Korea, with significant indirect associations involving greater acculturative stress and lower ego-resiliency. Serial mediation and network analyses provided complementary construct- and item-level perspectives, but the cross-sectional findings should be interpreted as associational rather than causal.