PSYC 785 The University Of New Hampshire Social Development Discussion

Description

For each assigned article, students will create a discussion question and provide a response. You are expected to submit a question per article – so for this week you have 3 assigned articles – that requires 3 questions with 3 answers. Each answers should be roughly 1-2 paragraphs (definitely no more than 2, no less than 1).To receive a passing grade:Submission contains questions and answers for all assigned articles that I have attached belowQuestion is relevant to one or more of the articles assignedAnswers use information from 1 or more of the assigned articlesGood discussion questions should not be solely opinion based but rather should be answered using evidence from the primary literature.

Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254 – 268
A longitudinal study of relational and physical
aggression in preschool
Nicki R. Crick a,⁎, Jamie M. Ostrov b , Jean E. Burr a , Crystal Cullerton-Sen a ,
Elizabeth Jansen-Yeh a , Peter Ralston a
a
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Twin-Cities Campus, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States
b
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, United States
Available online 6 March 2006
Abstract
To understand the development of relational aggression during early childhood, 91 girls and boys (M age = 39.0; SD = 7.6
months) and their teachers participated in an 18-month longitudinal study. Children were observed for relational and physical
aggression during free play in four time periods. Individually administered interviews were conducted to provide peer reports of
relational and physical aggression. Teachers completed measures of relational and physical aggression and peer rejection. Findings
support the psychometric properties of the observational methods for use during early childhood. Results suggest that girls are
more relationally aggressive than male peers and boys are more physically aggressive than female peers. Moreover, children
primarily direct their aggressive behavior at same-sex peers. Finally, relational aggression was found to be moderately stable during
early childhood and was associated with future peer rejection problems. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of
developing methods to investigate behavior patterns for understanding the early development of and future social–psychological
risks that may be associated with relational aggression.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Relational aggression; Physical aggression; Gender; Sex differences; Early childhood; Longitudinal patterns
1. Introduction
Due to its deleterious effects on children’s development, peer-directed aggression has been one of the most widely
studied adjustment problems in the past several decades. Although hundreds of studies, books, and journals have been
dedicated to the topic, past investigations of aggressive behavior have been limited in two crucial ways: (1) aggressive
boys have received most of the empirical attention, whereas aggressive girls have often been excluded from relevant
studies; and (2) forms of aggression that are salient to boys have been emphasized (e.g., physical aggression) whereas
forms that are salient to girls have been neglected (e.g., relational aggression; Bjorkqvist & Niemela, 1992; Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995; Robins, 1986). Compounding these limitations, current prevailing theories of the development of
aggression depict the behavioral problems of girls as virtually nonexistent until the onset of adolescence (Keenan &
Shaw, 1997; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). Due to these empirical and theoretical shortcomings, we currently know much
less about aggressive girls than aggressive boys, and we particularly lack knowledge of young girls’ behavior
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 10 612 624 3347.
E-mail address: crick001@umn.edu (N.R. Crick).
0193-3973/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.02.006
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
255
problems. Given the negative risk status typically associated with aggression and given the numerous advantages
afforded by early intervention (Bloomquist & Schnell, 2002), this lack of knowledge is significant.
In one attempt to “suspend our acceptance of the mythology of more benign childhoods for girls” (Zahn-Waxler, 1993,
p. 84), a relational form of aggression has been recently identified that has been shown to be more characteristic of girls
than the physical forms that have captured the majority of previous empirical and theoretical efforts (for a review see Crick
et al., 1999). In contrast to physical aggression, in which physical damage or the threat of physical damage serves as the
means of harm, relational aggression includes behaviors in which damage to relationships or the threat of damage to
relationships serves as the vehicle of harm (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Relational aggression includes both direct and
indirect acts such as threatening to end a friendship unless the friend complies with a request, using social exclusion or the
“silent treatment” as retaliatory behaviors, and spreading false rumors to encourage peers to reject a classmate.
One fundamental question that remains unanswered in studies of relational aggression concerns the early
developmental course of relational aggression for boys versus girls. This information is crucial for the generation of
theories regarding the etiology of relationally aggressive behavior patterns. Unfortunately, however, investigators
interested in these issues have been limited by a lack of reliable and valid observational methods for assessing relational
aggression. Researchers have primarily relied upon teacher and peer assessment tools that, although quite useful for
addressing a number of empirical questions, may also be subject to a variety of significant biases (e.g., they may be
influenced by explicit or implicit stereotypes about males and females, see Pellegrini, 2001b; Susser & Keating, 1990).
Recently, however, a naturalistic observational approach for assessing relational aggression among preschoolers has
been developed that appears both reliable (e.g., inter-rater reliability of .82) and valid (e.g., observed relational
aggression scores and teacher-based scores are associated r = .54; Ostrov & Keating, 2004).
1.1. Observations of relational aggression
Our first goal for the present study was to evaluate further the psychometric properties of the observational approach
developed by Ostrov and Keating (2004) by employing it in the first prospective study of relational and physical
aggression in young children. Specifically, we examined the predictive validity of children’s observationally based
relational aggression scores derived from this scheme as well as correspondence with other informants (i.e., teachers
and peers), and the association between relational aggression and physical aggression. This information is necessary for
establishing the appropriateness and generalizability of the Ostrov and Keating approach for use with a variety of
different types of samples and in prospective investigations.
After establishing the favorable psychometric properties of the Ostrov and Keating observational scheme for the
present sample, the second goal of this research was to use the scheme to evaluate sex differences in relational and
physical aggression during early childhood. Some but not all recent studies have demonstrated that, in sharp contrast to
current theories and empirical investigations of aggression that largely depict girls as lacking in behavioral problems
prior to adolescence, a significant proportion of girls can be identified as highly aggressive as early as the preschool
years if relational aggression is assessed in addition to physical aggression (e.g., Bonica, Yershova, Arnold, Fisher, &
Zeljo, 2003; Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; McNeilly-Choque, Hart, Robinson, Nelson, & Olsen, 1996; Ostrov &
Keating, 2004). In addition to studies conducted in the United States, cross-cultural research has demonstrated the
particular importance of relational aggression for identifying preschool age aggressive girls in other countries including
Russia, China, and Australia (see studies by Hart and co-workers, such as Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeillyChoque, 1998; Russell, Hart, Robinson, & Olsen, 2003). Studies of middle childhood have yielded similar results. For
example, in one study, 4.2% of the participating girls were identified as aggressive when only physical aggression was
taken into account whereas 21.6% were classified as aggressive when both relational and physical aggression were
considered (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). In this instance, a focus solely on physical aggression would have failed to
identify over 80% of aggressive girls but would have failed to identify only 7% of the aggressive boys. These studies
provide robust evidence to counter the stereotypical view that girls, in general, are not aggressive and that young girls
do not exhibit or experience behavioral problems.
1.2. Sex differences in relational and physical aggression
Although it is relatively clear that the study of relational aggression adds significantly to our ability to identify and
understand aggressive females, less clarity has been achieved regarding sex differences in children’s propensity to use
256
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
relational aggression. Mixed findings particularly abound for studies of early childhood. Specifically, studies in which
teacher reports of relational aggression have been utilized have tended to show that preschool-age girls are more
relationally aggressive than preschool age boys (cf. Hart et al., 1998), whereas studies that have relied on peer reports
have often failed to find significant sex differences (e.g., Bonica et al., 2003; Sebanc, 2003; for a review see Crick,
Ostrov, & Kawabata, in press-a). In the one study to utilize a reliable and valid naturalistic observational approach,
preschool girls were shown to be significantly more relationally aggressive than preschool boys (Ostrov & Keating,
2004). These discrepant findings may be due to a number of factors including reporter bias (for teacher and peer
reports; for further discussion of this issue see Pellegrini, 1996, 2001b) or possible changes in sex differences during
the preschool years that have not been taken into account in existing studies due to their cross-sectional designs. These
issues were addressed in the current study through the use of an assessment method (i.e., naturalistic observation) that is
less prone to bias than those employed in the majority of most previous studies (i.e., teacher and peer reports) and
through the use of a longitudinal design in which preschoolers were followed for approximately 18 months. We tested
the association between physical and relational aggression and based on past findings (e.g., Bonica et al., 2003; Crick et
al., 1997; Ostrov & Keating, 2004) we predicted that these constructs would be only slightly associated at each time
point using observational methods that are based on information from multiple independent observers. We also
predicted that observational assessments would be moderately associated with teacher report methods. We
hypothesized that preschool age girls would be significantly more relationally aggressive than preschool age boys.
We further predicted, in keeping with the gender-segregated nature of early childhood play settings (Maccoby, 1998)
and past findings (Ostrov & Keating, 2004) that relational aggression would be more frequently directed to female
peers than to male peers.
1.3. Stability of aggression subtypes
Our third objective was to provide the first examination of the stability of relational aggression in early childhood.
Existing evidence indicates that individual differences in physical aggression may be relatively stable beginning at
about two years of age (e.g., Fagot, 1984; Rose, Rose, & Feldman, 1989; Zahn-Waxler, Ianotti, Cummings, & Denham,
1990). This stability tends to persist into childhood (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; Coie &
Dodge, 1998; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Olweus, 1979; Pulkkinen, 1992; Yoshikawa, 1994) and is
most apparent from early childhood to third grade for a small group of extremely aggressive children (NICHD ECCRN,
2004). Thus, children who exhibit relatively high levels of physically aggressive behavior during the early preschool
years are at risk for continued behavior problems, a trajectory that has been shown to be associated with a host of serious
developmental difficulties. Studies of relational aggression indicate a relatively high degree of stability for individual
differences for older children (i.e., 9–12 year olds; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Crick, 1996; Crick, Ostrov, and Werner,
in pressb; Tomada & Schneider, 1997; Zimmer-Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005); however, no research has yet been
conducted on the stability of relational aggression among young children using naturalistic observations.1 Given the
importance of early detection of aggressive behavior patterns in the prevention and treatment of future, as well as
concurrent, adjustment difficulties (Levy-Shiff & Hoffman, 1989; Wasik, 1987), this lack of information has significant
negative implications for our ability to adequately identify young children at risk. Given initial evidence regarding the
greater prevalence of relational aggression among preschool girls (Ostrov & Keating, 2004), this lack of knowledge
about the stability of relational aggression during the preschool period has likely had the greatest impact on our
understanding of and our ability to appropriately serve young females. In this investigation, we predicted that individual
differences in relational, as well as physical, aggression would be relatively stable during the preschool years.
1.4. Peer rejection and aggression subtypes
Our fourth and final objective for this study was to examine the concurrent and future associations among relational
aggression, physical aggression, and peer rejection during early childhood. Evidence is mounting that relational
aggression is associated with social–psychological adjustment problems including social maladjustment, internalizing
problems, and externalizing difficulties (for a review see Crick et al., 1999). This association has been demonstrated for
1
Preliminary data with a small preschool sample indicated that relational aggression scores obtained in a semi-structured task were significantly
predictive of future naturalistically observed relationally aggressive behavior (Ostrov et al., 2004).
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
257
preschoolers (e.g., Crick et al., 1997; McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996; Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casas, & Crick, 2004), for
children in middle childhood (e.g., Blachman & Hinshaw, 2002; Crick, 1996, 1997; Crick et al., in press-a, b; Rys & Bear,
1997; Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004), for adolescents (e.g., MacDonald & O’Laughlin, 1997; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg,
2001), and for adults (e.g., Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002; Werner & Crick, 1999). Further, this relation has been shown to
hold for non-U.S. as well as U.S. samples including Italian, Russian, Chinese, and German samples (e.g., Hart et al., 1998;
Tomada & Schneider, 1997; for a review see Crick et al., 1999). Although longitudinal studies are few in number, available
evidence indicates that relational aggression predicts future as well as concurrent social–psychological adjustment
difficulties (Crick, 1996; Crick et al., in press-a, b; Werner & Crick, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005). For example,
relational aggression in third grade significantly predicts negative changes in peer rejection (i.e., becoming more rejected)
three years later in sixth grade, even after controlling statistically for physical aggression, peer status, and prosocial
behavior (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005). Taken together, findings from these studies generally demonstrate that
relationally aggressive behavior patterns may place children at risk for serious future difficulties. Further, they indicate that
a singular focus on physical aggression may seriously hamper our comprehensive understanding of these difficulties.
Thus far, prospective studies of relational aggression and adjustment have focused exclusively on children in middle
childhood and early adolescence. Consequently, the utility of assessing relational aggression for identifying young
children “at risk” for future social–psychological problems is currently unknown. We addressed this gap in the present
research. Specifically, we hypothesized that relational aggression would significantly predict future peer rejection for
preschool-age boys and girls. Although future associations have been evaluated for school age children (e.g., Crick,
1996; Crick et al., in press-a, b; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005), studies of preschoolers have been limited to concurrent
associations (e.g., Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997). In this research we hypothesized that relational aggression would
provide information about future peer rejection primarily for preschool-age girls.
To address these objectives, we followed prospectively a sample of preschool age children for approximately one
and a half years. Assessments of aggression and peer rejection were conducted at four time periods for each child (i.e.,
beginning of school year 1, end of school year 1, beginning of school year 2, and end of school year 2).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A total of 91 children (52 girls; 39 boys) between the ages of 30 and 52 months (M = 39.0; SD = 7.6) who were
recruited from two nationally accredited university affiliated preschools in a large Midwestern city participated in this
research. Written parental consent and verbal child assent were required for each child’s participation. During the first
round of recruitment, the overall consent rate between the two sites was 73%. All subsequent recruitment occurred
under blanket consent procedures and therefore was 100%. Demographic data on the socioeconomic status and
ethnicity of participants was collected at a single time point from one site when the consent rate reached 100%. Given
the nature of the sample, these figures are representative of both sites and all data collection time points. Sixty-five
percent of participants were European American, 21% were Asian American, 10% were African American, and 4%
were of other ethnicity. Twenty-nine percent of children’s families were known to be living 150% below the federal
poverty level. Twenty-three percent of children were learning English as a second language.
Children were recruited in two cohorts (Cohort 1, n = 37; Cohort 2, n = 54). There were no differences in demographic
information or other characteristics relevant to the present study between the cohorts, which were recruited from the
same schools and classrooms one year apart. For all analyses the two cohorts were combined and treated as one sample.
2.2. Procedures
Each child was evaluated twice over the course of two consecutive school years (i.e., four time points). The first
assessment was conducted during the fall semester, the second during the spring semester, the third during the
following fall, and the fourth took place during the following spring. Assessments occurred approximately 4–6 months
apart. During each of the four time periods (Time 1, 2, 3, and 4) children’s relational and physical aggression and peer
rejection were assessed using naturalistic observations (assessment of aggression), individually administered child
interviews (assessment of aggression), and teacher-reported rating scales (assessment of children’s aggression and peer
rejection). Each assessment method is described in further detail in subsequent sections of the method.
258
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
Typically, children remained in the same classroom throughout each school year. At the start of time 3, children
typically transitioned to a new classroom and/or a new teacher. At site 2, in keeping with school policy that strongly
discouraged direct research contact with participants, children only participated in the observational and teacher report
components and did not receive an individual interview. Each participating school received an honorarium to be used
within the school for academic and/or staff development purposes.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Observations of relational and physical aggression
Prior to data collection at each time point, observers spent considerable time in each participating classroom and on
the playground to facilitate children’s acclimation to their presence (Pellegrini, 1996). Many of the observations in the
classrooms were conducted from a visually shielded observation booth attached to the room in order to diminish
children’s reactivity to the presence of the observers. However, observers also conducted observations in the classroom
in order to hear and see the full peer interactions. When observers were in the presence of the children, in the classroom
and always on the playground, observers used a “minimally responsive manner” (Pellegrini, 1996) and were
specifically trained in controlling their movements, body language and nonverbal behavior to further diminish possible
reactivity. Assessments of reactivity (frequency of looks, comments, questions to the observer) noted by observers
when in the presence of children were low to nonexistent over the course of the study (less than 5% of the time; Atlas &
Pepler, 1998). Order of children observed was determined randomly within each day of observation and no child was
observed more than one time per day. Naturalistic observations were collected during each assessment period by a total
of six trained graduate students/professional staff and 18 undergraduates. The majority of observers changed at each
time period and rotated through different classrooms throughout the observation period. Both male and female graduate
and undergraduate observers participated at each assessment period.
Naturalistic observations of children’s relational and physical aggression were conducted during free-play using an
adaptation of procedures developed by Ostrov and Keating (2004). Using a focal child approach, each child was
observed for 10 continuous minutes per assessment by a trained observer who was located in an unobtrusive position
that was close enough to hear children’s conversations. Over an eight-week period, each child was observed eight times
(a total of 80 min per child per time point). In sum, 320 min of observation (5.33 h) was collected for each focal child at
each time period, which equates to a total of 29,120 min (485.33 h) of observation time for the present sample across the
study. As in prior research, the manner in which the observations were collected was not amendable to kappa coefficient
indices of reliability because observers did not specifically record intervals when the behaviors of interest were not
present. The use of Intra-Class Correlations (ICC) has been suggested for such cases (Bartko, 1976; McGraw & Wong,
1996) and has been used in past studies (e.g., Goldstein, Arnold, Rosenberg, Stowe, & Ortiz, 2001; NICHD ECCRN,
2004; Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Ostrov et al., 2004). Evidence for favorable interrater reliability of this observational
measure has been demonstrated in past research (i.e., ICCs of .75 for physical aggression, and .82 for relational
aggression; Ostrov & Keating, 2004).
In the present investigation, training consisted of readings, discussions and coding of videotapes of children’s
aggressive behavior from past studies (Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Ostrov et al., 2004). Observers were required to reach
an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability with the videotapes (ICCs N .80), pass a written multiple choice/matching
exam (with discussion for any incorrect responses), and conduct several live practice reliability observations in the
classroom and on the playground with the trainer. Assessments of reliability were conducted throughout the study to
avoid observer drift problems (see Pellegrini, 1996).
During every 10-min measurement interval, observers assessed the focal child’s display of the following behaviors
(including a full description of what occurred and the sex of all children involved) in each incident: a) physical
aggression (e.g., hitting, shoving, pulling, taking objects); and b) relational aggression (e.g., excluding from an activity,
using friendship withdrawal as a threat; covering ears to signal ignoring). Separate behaviors were recorded based on
temporal breaks in the interactions during the observation. Observers, for purposes of a different study, collected
several additional social behaviors (e.g., prosocial behavior, play behavior, victimization) not reported here. Each child
was observed on eight separate occasions and behaviors noted during observations were summed to yield total
behavior scores for each time period. The average number of instances of relational aggression and physical aggression
per ten-minute session was calculated for each child at each time point. Observations were also summed separately by
the sex of the recipient peer (i.e., relational aggression to a male or to a female peer). Interrater reliability was assessed
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
259
at each time point on 10–15% of observations, spread across each eight-week observation period. Interrater reliability
was assessed by using two observers recording behavior on the focal child at the same time. The observers stood as far
apart as possible and did not discuss their observations. Each child was observed for reliability and each observer was
tested for reliability across the entire study. Reliability was acceptable at each time point for relational aggression (ICCs
ranged from .77 to .91) and for physical aggression (ICCs ranged from .86 to .92).
2.3.2. Peer assessment of aggression
Trained research assistants (graduate students or professional staff members) interviewed children individually for
approximately 15 min in a quiet room/area in the preschool. Children provided verbal assent to participate prior to
beginning the interviews. During the interviews, a peer report measure of children’s relational and physical aggression
was administered in addition to several other measures that were part of a larger project. At the close of the interview,
children were thanked for their participation and escorted back to their classrooms.
An amended version of a previously developed peer-nomination instrument was used to assess peer reports of
children’s use of relational and physical aggression (Preschool Social Behavior Scale-Peer Form; PSBS-P, Crick et al.,
1997). This modified instrument consisted of 3 items, one depicting the use of physical aggression, a second for
relational aggression, and a third for prosocial behavior. The prosocial items served as positively-toned filler items for
the present study. In the original version of the measure, children are asked to nominate up to three of their peers who fit
the behavioral description presented in each item. Preschoolers’ responses to the PSBS-P items have been shown to be
reliable with Cronbach’s alphas greater than .70 for both the relational and physical aggression scales. Factor analyses
have also confirmed the existence of distinct factors for relational and physical aggression (Crick et al., 1997).
The measure was modified from a nomination to a rating format in the present investigation based on research
suggesting that rating approaches may be more reliable (i.e., higher test–retest reliability) than nomination procedures
with young children, as rating procedures require that each respondent provides data on all peers in the classroom
(Asher & Dodge, 1996; Asher & Hymel, 1986; Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, & Hymel, 1979; Hymel, 1983; Olson &
Lifgren, 1988). In addition, there is empirical evidence suggesting that the relation between sociometric nomination
and rating methods is quite strong (see Bukowski & Hoza, 1989).
During each interview, children began with several practice items, designed to help children learn the response
format for the peer-rating items. Specifically, children were presented with three age-appropriate pictures of food or
toys (a teddy bear, hammer, and camera; shown in past studies to generate a range of responses; Bauer, 1993). Children
were asked to consider each item, one at a time, and indicate acceptance of it. For example, the interviewer first held up
a small teddy bear and asked, “Do you like to play with the teddy bear, yes or no?” If children responded affirmatively,
they were further prompted with a follow-up question, “yes — a little or yes—a lot?” Children were taught to sort the
items into three boxes labeled with appropriate pictures, “no” with a frown face (0), “yes — a little” with a picture of a
neutral face (scored 1), or “yes — a lot” with a picture of a smiling face (scored 2).
Once children were familiar with the format of the ratings, they were asked to correctly identify each neutral
expression, head and shoulder photo of their classmates (a method that has been commonly employed to elicit peer
reports of social behavior and adjustment from young children, see Asher & Dodge, 1996; Asher et al., 1979; Denham
et al., 2000; Hart et al., 2000; Hymel, 1983; Olson & Lifgren, 1988). Once children correctly identified each of their
classmates, interviewers began to administer the ratings. Interviewers presented children with a photo of each
classmate, one at a time, and asked if the child in the photo was physically aggressive (i.e., “Does Bobby hit, push or
pinch other kids, yes or no?”), relationally aggressive (i.e., “Do you ever hear Suzie say, ‘You can’t come to my
birthday party, you can’t play’, yes or no?”), and prosocial (i.e., “Does Pat share and help other kids, yes or no?”). If
children responded affirmatively, they were further prompted with a follow-up question, “yes — a little or yes — a
lot?” Children then placed the photos into appropriately labeled boxes, (i.e., a box with a red stop-sign indicating “no”
and scored 0, a box with a yellow sign indicating “yes — a little bit” and scored 1, and a box with a green sign
indicating “yes — a lot” scored 2).2 The average rating that each child received from his/her peers for each item on the
PSBS-P instrument was calculated and then standardized within each classroom at each time point.
2
Traffic light colors were used here in order to avoid pairing a high amount of aggressive behavior with a smiling face. To make sure that the
children understood the change in response colors we first used toy cars and a traffic light to demonstrate the differences between the colors and
their associated meaning in the rating task (e.g., “green means I can move my car a lot, yellow means I can only move my car a little bit, red means
stop, no go.”).
260
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
2.3.3. Teacher ratings
Teachers completed several social behavior and peer rejection measures for each of their participating students at
each time point. Only those measures assessing aggression and peer rejection) were used in the present investigation.
Both written and verbal instructions for completing these instruments were given to teachers. Once completed, teachers
were thanked and given an honorarium for their participation.
2.3.4. Teacher ratings of aggression
The Preschool Social Behavior Scale-Teacher Form (PSBS-TF) developed in prior studies was used to assess
teacher reports of children’s aggression and prosocial behavior (Crick et al., 1997; Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999). This
instrument consists of 16 items, six of which assess relational aggression (e.g., “This child tries to get others to dislike a
peer,” “This child tells a peer they won’t be invited to their birthday party unless s/he does what the child wants”); six of
which assess physical aggression (e.g., “This child kicks or hits others”); and four of which assess prosocial behavior
(e.g., “This child is helpful to peers”). The prosocial items were included in this instrument for ethical and
methodological reasons (e.g., to avoid asking teachers negative questions only; to avoid negative response sets) and
served as positively-toned filler items in the present research. Teachers rated the degree to which children exhibited
relational and physical aggression against their peers using a 5-point rating scale (1 = never or almost never true to
5 = always or almost always true).
Evidence supports the favorable psychometric properties of the PSBS-TF (e.g., Bonica et al., 2003; Crick et al., 1997;
Hart et al., 1998; Ostrov & Keating, 2004). Specifically, teachers’ responses to this measure have been shown to be
reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha above .90 for both the relational and physical aggression scales. Also, factor analyses
have confirmed the existence of distinct factors for relational and physical forms of aggression for several preschool
samples. Similarly, in the present investigation, all sub-scales of this measure were reliable with Cronbach’s alphas N .70.
2.3.5. Teacher ratings of peer rejection
Teacher reports of children’s peer rejection using the two-item peer rejection scale from the previously described
PSBS-TF were used to assess children’s rejection by peers (Crick et al., 1997; Crick et al., 1999). Teachers indicated the
degree to which children were (1) rejected by same-sex peers (e.g., “This child is rejected by same-sex peers”) and (2)
rejected by opposite-sex peers (e.g., “This child is rejected by opposite-sex peers”) using the same five-point response
format described for the PSBS-TF behavioral items. Favorable psychometric properties for this subscale have been
demonstrated in prior research (e.g., Ostrov et al., 2004). In the present study, alphas were above .70 at all time points.
3. Results
In order to examine the study objectives, analyses were conducted to: a) evaluate the association between relational
and physical aggression for each informant; b) examine the psychometric properties of the observational scheme used
in this study; c) evaluate sex differences in relational aggression during early childhood; d) examine the stability of
relational aggression in early childhood; and e) examine the associations among relational aggression, physical
aggression, and future peer rejection during early childhood.
3.1. Association between relational and physical aggression
Correlation coefficients were computed in order to examine the concurrent associations between relational and
physical aggression for each informant. For girls, the correlations between observed physical and relational aggression
were not significant at any of the four time points (r’s ranged from .02 to .14). For boys, these correlations were
significant at time 1(r = .39, p b .01) and time 2(r = .61, p b .001) but not at time 3(r =− .05, ns) or time 4(r = .26, ns).
For girls, teacher reports of physical and relational aggression were significantly correlated at time 1(r = .68, p b .001),
time 2(r = .36, p b .01), time 3(r = .43, p b .01) and time 4(r = .45, p b .001). For boys this association was also significant
at time 1(r = .61, p b .001), time 2(r = .58, p b .001), time 3(r = .58, p b .001), and time 4(r = .69, p b .001).
For girls, peer reports of physical and relational aggression were not significantly associated with one another at time
1(r = .13, ns), time 2(r = .14, ns), and time 3(r = .27, ns) but were significantly correlated at time 4(r = .67, p b .01). For
boys, peer reports of physical and relational aggression were significantly associated at time 1(r = .68, p b .01) but were
not at time 2(r = .28, ns), time 3(r = .58, ns), and time 4(r = .59, ns).
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
261
3.2. Psychometric properties of the observational measure of aggression
3.2.1. Concurrent validity
We examined the concurrent validity of the observational scheme used in this study by conducting correlational
analyses between observations of aggression and the teachers’ ratings of relational and physical aggression (see
Table 1). In general, for girls at each time point, observed relational aggression were significantly correlated with
teacher-rated relational aggression with the exception that this association was not significant at time 2(p b .06).
For boys, observers and teachers agreed significantly in their assessment of relational aggression at time 2. For
girls’ physical aggression observers’ and teachers’ assessments were significantly correlated at all time points
except the last. For boys’ physical aggression, observers and teachers agreed at all time points. At all time
periods, correlations between peer reports of aggression and those of other informants did not significantly
converge for either form of aggression (see Table 1). Thus, peer reports were not considered further in subsequent
analyses.
3.2.2. Predictive validity
To explore the predictive validity of the observation scheme the association between observed aggression and future
teacher reports was evaluated. For girls, observed relational aggression at time 1 did not significantly predict teacher
reports of relational aggression at time 4, r = .26, p b .08. For girls, time 2(r = .36, p b .05) and time 3(r = .42, p b .01)
observed relational aggression significantly predicted teacher reported relational aggression at the end of the study
(time 4). For boys, observed relational aggression at time 1(r = −.09, ns), 2(r = .18, ns), and 3(r = .05, ns) did not predict
teacher reports of relational aggression at time 4.
For girls, time 3(r = .53, p b .001) observed physical aggression significantly predicted time 4 teacher reports of
physical aggression whereas time 1(r = .15, ns) and time 2(r = .19, ns) observations did not. For boys, time 1(r = .32,
p b .05), time 2(r = .35, p b .01), and time 3(r = .45, p b .01) observed physical aggression significantly predicted time 4
teacher reports of physical aggression.
3.3. Sex differences in aggression
To address our second objective, a series of repeated measures ANCOVAs using the children’s observed aggression
as the dependent variable were conducted. Age (in months) served as our covariate because of the relatively large range
Table 1
Interrater agreement of relational and physical aggression for boys and girls across four time points
Raters
Boys
Girls
Physical
Relational
Physical
Relational
Peer and teacher
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
.44
.32
.76⁎
−.05
.02
.29
.06
−.51
.47⁎
.69⁎
.17
.17
.10
.14
−.43
−.31
Peer and observerb
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
.79⁎⁎⁎
−.05
.28
−.16
.35
.11
.51
.05
.30
.67⁎⁎⁎
.37
.18
.10
.30
−.09
.01
.21
.44⁎⁎
.24
.13
.55⁎⁎⁎
.51⁎⁎⁎
.56⁎⁎⁎
.13
a
Observer and teacherc
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
.44⁎⁎
.35⁎
.50⁎⁎⁎
.44⁎⁎
Sample sizes (n’s) ranged from 7 – 25; bsample sizes (n’s) ranged from 8 – 25; csample sizes (n’s) ranged from 34 – 52.
⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎p b .001.
a
.55⁎⁎⁎
.27
.44⁎⁎
.41⁎⁎
262
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
of ages of the children in our sample. Given our a priori predictions and the relative independence of the two forms of
aggression, we analyzed relational and physical aggression in separate models.
3.3.1. Relational aggression
Mean (and SD) scores for relational aggression are presented in the upper portion of Table 2 for boys and girls and
sex of peer recipients of aggression. A 2 (Focal child sex: boys and girls) × 2 (Peer recipient sex: male and female
peers) × 4 (Time points) ANCOVA was conducted with the last 2 variables serving as within-participant factors and
relational aggression serving as the dependent variable. Child’s age in months at time 1 served as the covariate and thus
the reported means are adjusted. A main effect for focal child sex emerged, F(1, 86) = 5.92, p b .05, η2 = .06. Girls (M =
.12; SD = .01) were more relationally aggressive than boys (M = .08; SD = .02). A significant peer recipient sex × focal
child sex interaction was obtained, F(1, 86) = 13.22, p b .001, η2 = .13. Simple effects tests revealed that girls were
more relationally aggressive to female peers than were boys, F(1, 86) = 11.74, p b .001, η2 = .12 (see Table 2). No other
significant effects emerged.
3.3.2. Physical aggression
The mean (and SD) physical aggression scores are presented in the lower portion of Table 2 by time period and focal
child sex. A 2 (Focal child sex: boys and girls) × 2 (Peer recipient child sex: male and female peers) × 4 (Time points)
ANCOVA with repeated measures on the last 2 factors was conducted on observed physical aggression scores. Age (in
months) at the first time point served as the covariate. A main effect for focal child sex was revealed, F(1, 85) = 22.05, p b
.001, η2 = .20. Specifically, boys (M = .18; SD = .02) were more physically aggressive than girls (M = .07; SD = .02).
A time × focal child sex interaction emerged, F(3, 86) = 2.65, p b .05, η2 = .03. Simple effect tests revealed that boys
were more physically aggressive than girls at time 1, F(1, 87) = 14.13, p b .001, η2 = .14, at time 2, F(1, 87) = 17.10, p b
.001, η2 = .16, and at time 3, F(1, 88) = 7.97, p b .001, η2 = .08 At time 4, boys were not significantly more physically
aggressive than girls, F(1, 88) = 3.14, p b .08, η2 = .03. (see means in Table 2). A peer recipient sex × focal child sex
interaction was revealed, F(1, 86) = 25.39, p b .001, η2 = .25. Simple effects tests revealed that boys (M = .95; SD = .10)
were more physically aggressive to male peers than were girls (M = .22; SD = .09), F(1, 86) = 30.81, p b .001, η2 = .26.
No other significant effects emerged.
We next examined the extent to which aggressive girls would have been unidentified if relational aggression had not
been assessed in the current study. Specifically, we identified extreme groups of aggressive girls (i.e., those who were
physically aggressive only, relationally aggressive only, and physically plus relationally aggressive) using a criterion of
one standard deviation above the sample mean, a commonly used criterion in previous research (e.g., Crick, 1997; Crick
& Grotpeter, 1995). The findings indicate that without the inclusion of relational aggression we would have failed to
identify 42% (n = 5) of the more highly aggressive girls at time 1, 36% (n = 4) of the more highly aggressive girls at time
2, 50% (n = 5) of the more highly aggressive girls at time 3, and 46% (n = 6) of the more highly aggressive girls at time 4.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for aggression subtypes
Peer recipient sex
Relational aggression
Girls
Male
Female
Boys
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
1.05
2.12
.21
.25
1.28
.83
.24
.28
Physical aggression
Girls
Time
1
2
3
4
Boys
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
.15
.11
.19
.14
.05
.04
.05
.03
.45
.35
.41
.22
.15
.05
.19
.14
Note. Means are adjusted (age at time 1 served as the covariate). Means for relational aggression are composites across time.
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
263
3.4. Stability of aggression
To address our third objective, examination of the stability of relational and physical aggression across the four time
points, a series of bivariate correlations were computed using observed and teacher reports of aggression at times 1 and
4 (computed separately by focal child sex).
3.4.1. Relational aggression
For girls, observed relational aggression was stable from time 1 to 4, r = .39, p b .01. Teachers’ ratings of girls’
relational aggression were not significantly associated, from time 1 to 4, r = .28, p b .07. For boys, observed relational
aggression was not stable across the study, r = .07, ns. In addition, teachers’ ratings of boys’ relational aggression was
not significantly stable across the study, r = .22, ns.
3.4.2. Physical aggression
For girls, observed physical aggression was stable from time 1 to time 4, r = .42, p b .01. For girls, teacher reported
physical aggression was not stable from time 1 to 4, r = .17, ns. For boys, observed physical aggression was not
significantly stable from time 1 to 4, r = .24, ns. For boys, teacher reported physical aggression was stable across the
study, r = .46, p b .01.
3.5. Association between aggression and peer rejection
To address the fourth objective, we examined the association between relational and physical aggression and peer
rejection using a composite (average across time) measure of teacher reported peer rejection. Teacher reports were used
here because the peer reports were not as reliable at each of the time points and teachers have been shown to be accurate
informants concerning sociometric status during early childhood (see Wu, Hart, Draper, & Olsen, 2001). An average
score was calculated based on each child’s score on the peer rejection items of the PSBS-TF at times 2, 3, and 4. This
procedure yielded an acceptable internal consistency alpha for this composite (α = .77). Teachers’ ratings of time 1
rejection were not included because the main question was concerned with the prediction of future peer rejection. Given
our a priori predictions, analyses were conducted separately for girls and boys.
3.5.1. Relational aggression
For girls, observed relational aggression at time 1 significantly predicted future teacher reported peer rejection,
r = .25, p b .05. For boys, observed relational aggression at time 1 did not significantly predict future peer
rejection, r = .24, p b .07.
3.5.2. Physical aggression
For girls, observed physical aggression at time 1 did not predict future peer rejection, r = .12, ns. For boys, observed
physical aggression at time 1 did significantly predict future teacher reported peer rejection, r = .46, p b .01.
3.5.3. Unique association between relational aggression and peer rejection
Finally, to test the effects of relational aggression at time 1 in predicting peer rejection above and beyond the effects of
physical aggression at time 1, a hierarchical multiple regression was computed with age entered at step 1, observed
physical aggression at time 1 entered at step 2, and observed relational aggression at time 1 entered at step 3. Teacher
reported peer rejection at time 4 served as the dependent variable because time 4 peer rejection is a more conservative
estimate of future peer rejection. In keeping with prior analyses and our a priori predictions, the equations were computed
separately for girls and boys. The model results approached significance only for girls, ΔF(1, 47) = 3.75, p b .06, Δr2 =
.07, indicating that it might be fruitful to investigate relational aggression (β = .29) as potentially accounting for variance
in the prediction of future peer rejection for girls even after controlling for age and physical aggression.
4. Discussion
This research significantly extends our knowledge of aggression by providing the first prospective look at relational
aggression during early childhood. Findings indicated general support for our hypotheses. First, findings from this study
264
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
provided additional evidence for the reliability and concurrent validity of the observational scheme utilized (from Ostrov
& Keating, 2004) and, more importantly, provided the first evidence for the favorable predictive validity of this scheme
(this was particularly true for relational aggression for girls and physical aggression for boys). This observational
scheme had never been used before with participants as young as 2-1 / 2 years of age and the present results indicate that
observers can reliably observe both physical and relational aggression among very young preschoolers.
To date, findings regarding sex differences in relational aggression during early childhood have been mixed with some
studies demonstrating that girls are more relationally aggressive than boys and other studies finding no sex differences (for
a review see Crick, Ostrov, Appleyard, Jansen, & Casas, 2004). Typically, obtained sex differences have varied as a
function of informant type. The most consistent sex differences have been obtained with observational methods,
(McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996; Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Ostrov et al., 2004; cf. McEvoy et al., 2003), an assessment
approach that is less likely to be influenced by gender stereotypes and other types of informant biases than teacher- or peerreport methods. As a result, observational methods are commonly considered to be the “gold standard” for objective
measurement of social behavior. This study indicates agreement across the informants but suggests that peer informants
may not be as valid as observer or even teacher reports of young children’s aggressive behavior. Future research is needed
to clarify the utility of these methods. The present results add to the small, yet growing, body of evidence that girls are
indeed significantly more relationally aggressive with peers than boys when relatively objective assessments are employed.
Findings regarding sex differences also indicated that girls were more relationally aggressive with female peers than
were boys whereas boys were more physically aggressive to male peers than were girls. These findings are not
surprising given the gender-segregated nature of the early childhood play milieu and are consistent with sexual
selection theory (Maccoby, 1998; Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Pellegrini & Long, 2003). That is, given that young girls are
more likely to be relationally aggressive than boys in general and also given that young girls’ social interaction partners
are most likely to be girls, it stands to reason that girls would be more likely than boys to target their relationally
aggressive behaviors toward other girls. Similarly, given that boys are more likely to be physically aggressive during
the preschool years relative to girls and that preschool boys’ interaction partners are most likely to be boys, it is not
surprising that boys would be more likely than girls to target their physically aggressive acts toward other boys.
Although rarely pursued in past studies, the present results highlight the importance of assessing the sex of the
aggressor as well as that of the target in future research, which often can only be studied using systematic observations
(Pellegrini, 2001a). Such information may be particularly informative for understanding the nature and development of
bully-victim dyads and interactions. These findings further suggest that relationally aggressive behaviors directed at
male peers and physically aggressive behaviors directed at female peers are gender atypical during early childhood and
may be associated with greater adjustment problems. This point should be addressed in future research.
Evaluation of the utility of physical versus relational aggression for identifying aggressive girls showed that we
would have failed to identify between 36% and 50% of aggressive young girls (depending on the assessment period) if
we had not included assessments of relational aggression in this study. These results are consistent with those obtained
for older, elementary-school children (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) and they add to existing studies by pointing out
the significance of the study of relational aggression for identifying aggressive girls at much younger ages.
The present findings provide the first evidence that individual differences in observed and teacher-rated relational
aggression are moderately stable across an 18-month time period in early childhood. These findings are impressive
given that different independent observers and teachers contributed data at these different time periods. Interestingly,
the stability of relational aggression in this sample was obtained for girls, but not for boys. This suggests that
relationally aggressive behavior patterns may begin to crystallize at relatively young ages for girls. If so, it may be
particularly important for the healthy development of females for prevention and intervention efforts targeting
relational aggression to be initiated during early childhood. Future studies are needed that evaluate when (or if )
individual differences in boys’ relational aggression becomes stable over time and also whether individual differences
in girls’ relationally aggressive behaviors, apparent during preschool, remain stable during the early school years (e.g.,
during the transition to kindergarten). In contrast to relational aggression, findings for individual differences in physical
aggression, depending on the rater, indicated that both girls and boys demonstrated some stability in these behaviors
during the preschool years.
The future social–psychological risk associated with young children’s engagement in relational versus physical
aggression was examined for the first time in the present research. Results showed that observed relational aggression
at the beginning of the study predicted peer rejection 1-1 / 2 years later for girls and tended to for boys. In contrast,
observed physical aggression at the beginning of the study predicted peer rejection 1-1 / 2 years later for boys, but not
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
265
for girls. Further, the findings suggest relational aggression should be further examined as a predictor of future peer
rejection above and beyond physical aggression for girls. This is the first evidence that study of relational aggression
may be particularly important for understanding social–psychological risk for young girls whereas physical aggression
tells most of the story for young boys, findings that are consistent with prospective results obtained with older children
(e.g., Crick, 1996; Crick et al., in press-a, b) and concurrent results obtained with young children (Crick et al., 1997).
Future studies are needed that expand the range of social–psychological adjustment outcomes assessed during early
childhood in keeping with research conducted with older children showing that relational aggression is associated with
a multitude of adjustment problems including ADHD (e.g., Blachman & Hinshaw, 2002; Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004),
borderline personality disorder features (e.g., Crick, Murray-Close, & Woods, 2006), disruptive, oppositional behavior
(Hipwell, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Keenan, White, & Krone, 2002; Prinstein et al., 2001) and internalizing
problems (Murray-Close, Ostrov, & Crick, in press). In addition, future theory and research is needed to explore if there
are specific and unique adjustment outcomes for relational aggression. Future research is also needed to explore the
processes by which relational aggression leads to psychopathology. It will also be important to investigate what level of
relational aggression is considered harmful across development and what other developmental processes (e.g., theory
of mind, delay of gratification, impulsivity) may mediate or moderate these effects. Finally, the present findings further
indicate the important role that physical aggression plays in the lives of young children, particularly boys (see
Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000; NICHD ECCRN, 2004). Clearly, it will be important to assess both relational and
physical subtypes of aggression in future studies targeting the developmental outcomes of early childhood aggression
(for ideas consistent with this see NICHD ECCRN, 2004). Given the recent literature on bistrategic children (i.e.,
children that use both prosocial and coercive behaviors, see Hawley, 2003) future research should evaluate the
moderating role that prosocial behavior may play in the association between relational aggression and peer rejection
and other social–psychological adjustment problems.
4.1. Limitations
Despite the innovative and time intensive nature of our research design, several limitations exist. First, our sample
size, although large relative to past observational studies (e.g., McEvoy et al., 2003; Ostrov & Keating, 2004), may
have been insufficient for testing various effects. Future research with larger samples will be needed to replicate and
extend the present longitudinal findings. In addition, despite having multiple informants (i.e., teacher, peer, and
observer), we do not have any indication of how the participants in our study behaved at home with children in the
neighborhood, with their siblings or parents. Recent studies have documented the importance of the sibling
(Stauffacher and DeHart, 2005) and friendship (Burr, Ostrov, Jansen, Cullerton-Sen, & Crick, 2005; Johnson & Foster,
2005; Sebanc, 2003) relationship for the development of relational aggression during early childhood. Clearly,
additional research is needed to explore the role of relational aggression within these additional close relationship
contexts. Third, our findings with this university-based sample may not generalize to children from low SES
backgrounds. However, in contrast to the physical aggression literature (see Dubow & Ippolito, 1994) past research has
provided evidence that children from higher SES backgrounds and presumably some social–cognitive advantages
(e.g., language capacity) may be at greater risk for displaying relationally aggressive behavior (see Bonica et al., 2003;
McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996). Therefore, it is important to continue to study the role of SES in future studies during
early childhood. Fourth, the age range in the present study was large and did not permit a more specific investigation of
the potential qualitative differences between a 3-year-old and a 5-year-olds display of relational aggression. Future
research should include a more restricted age range to overcome this issue. A final limitation is that our study, although
longitudinal in nature, may not have started prior to the onset of the relationally aggressive behavior; future research
will be needed to explore the specific timing and/or onset of these behaviors during toddlerhood. Moreover, in the
present study we do not report on the children’s development beyond age 5 and more information is needed to
understand how relational and physical aggression exhibited during early childhood are predictive of academic and
social functioning during the important transition into kindergarten (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000).
4.2. Conclusion
In conclusion, based on over 29,000 min of observation on 91 preschoolers we have documented that relational
aggression between peers may be reliably and validly observed in early childhood free play contexts. This study helps
266
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
to clarify past mixed findings in the developmental literature, by documenting sex differences in relationally aggressive
behavior using a relatively objective assessment tool (naturalistic observations). Additional replication of these sex
differences are needed using multiple informants and methods across time. Future research is needed to explore how
older preschoolers may model and reinforce relationally aggressive behaviors for younger children in multi-age
preschool classrooms and in home contexts (i.e., siblings). In the first test of stability during the early childhood period,
relational aggression was found to be stable for girls. Relational aggression in peer relationships tended to be predictive
of future peer rejection even when controlling for the effects of physical aggression, but only for girls. Developmental
researchers must continue to study the role of relational aggression during early childhood, paying particular attention
to the mechanisms of action and possible developmental antecedents of relational aggression for young children.
Acknowledgment
This study was funded by a grant (BCS-0126521) from the NSF to the first author. Preparation of this manuscript
was facilitated in part by grants from NIMH (MH-63684) and NICHD (HD-046629) to the first author. The second
author was funded in part by a NIMH (MH-15755) traineeship to the Institute of Child Development. The third author
is now at Colby College. We thank the participating students, teachers, directors and children. We thank the entire
Preschool PALS Project staff and special thanks to Alison Eudeikis for her assistance with the coordination of this
project.
References
Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444−449.
Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1986). Coaching in social skills for children who lack friends in school. Social Work in Education, 8, 203−218.
Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology,
15, 443−444.
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86−99.
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762−765.
Bauer, P. J. (1993). Memory for gender-consistent and gender-inconsistent event sequences by twenty-five month old children. Child Development,
64, 285−297.
Bjorkqvist, K., & Niemela, P. (1992). Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Blachman, D. R., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Patterns of friendship among girls with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 625−640.
Bloomquist, M. L., & Schnell, S. V. (2002). Helping children with aggression and conduct problems. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bonica, C., Arnold, D. H., Fisher, P. H., Zeljo, A., & Yershova, K. (2003). Relational aggression, relational victimization, and language development
in preschoolers. Social Development, 12(4), 551−562.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),
Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15−45). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Burr, J. E., Ostrov, J. M., Jansen, E. A., Cullerton-Sen, C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational aggression and friendship during early childhood:
“I won’t be your friend!”. Early Education and Development, 16, 161−183.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J. L. (1989). Growth and aggression: Childhood to early adolescence.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 320−330.
Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment.
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 467−488.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social
status. Child Development, 75, 147−163.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). The development of aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol.3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., 776–862). New York: Wiley.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment.
Child Development, 67, 2317−2327.
Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus non-normative forms of aggression: Links to social–psychological adjustment.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 610−617.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35(2),
376−385.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 579−588.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710−722.
Crick, N. R., Murray-Close, D., & Woods, K. (2006). Borderline personality features in childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. Development and
Psychopathology, 17, 1051−1070.
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
267
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Appleyard, K., Jansen, E., & Casas, J. F. (2004). Relational aggression in early childhood: You can’t come to my birthday
party unless…. In M. Putallaz & K. Bierman (Eds.), Duke series in child development and public policy: Aggressive antisocial behavior, and
violence among girls: A developmental perspective, Vol. 1 (pp. 71-89). New York: Guilford Publications.
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Kawabata, Y. (in press). Gender differences in aggression and violence. In I. Waldman, D. J. Flannery, & A. T. Vazsonyi
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Werner, N.E. (in press). A longitudinal study of relational aggression, physical aggression and children’s social–
psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.
Crick, N. R., Werner, N. E., Casas, J. F., O’Brien, K. M., Nelson, D. A., Gropeter, J. K., et al. (1999). Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at
an old problem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), The Nebraska symposium on motivation: Gender and motivation, Vol. 45 (pp. 75-141). Omaha, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems
from early to middle childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 23−45.
Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (1994). Effects of poverty and quality of the home environment on changes in the academic and behavioral
adjustment of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 401−412.
Fagot, B. I. (1984). The consequents of problem behavior in toddler children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 385−395.
Goldstein, N. E., Arnold, D. H., Rosenberg, J. L., Stowe, R. M., & Ortiz, C. (2001). Contagion of aggression in day care classrooms as a function of
peer and teacher responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 708−719.
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nurseryschool-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687−697.
Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L. J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., et al. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of
socially withdrawn behavior in China, Russia, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 73−81.
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 85, 213−235.
Hipwell, A. E., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Keenan, K., White, H. R., & Krone-Man, L. (2002). Characteristics of girls with early onset
disruptive and antisocial behaviour. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 12, 99−118.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental
Psychology, 20, 1120−1134.
Hymel, S. (1983). Preschool children’s peer relations: Issues in sociometric assessment. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 29, 237−260.
Johnson, D. R., & Foster, S. L. (2005). The relationship between relational aggression in kindergarten children and friendship stability, mutuality, and
peer liking. Early Education and Development, 16, 141−160.
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on young girls’ early problems. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95−113.
Levy-Shiff, R., & Hoffman, M. A. (1989). Social behavior as a predictor of adjustment among three-year-olds. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
18, 65−71.
Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations
with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11, 69−86.
Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. CA: Stanford.
MacDonald, C., & O’Laughlin, E. (1997, April). Relational aggression and risk behaviors in middle school students. Poster presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
McEvoy, M. A., Estrem, T. L., Rodriguez, M. C., & Olson, M. L. (2003). Assessing relational and physical aggression among preschool children:
Inter-method agreement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 53−63.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intra-class correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30−46.
McNeilly-Choque, M. K., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., & Olsen, S. F. (1996). Overt and relational aggression on the playground: Correspondence
among different informants. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11(1), 47−67.
Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (in press). A short-term longitudinal study of growth of relational aggression during middle
childhood: Associations with gender, friendship intimacy, and internalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2004). Trajectories of physical aggression from toddlerhood to middle childhood. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 69 (4, Serial No. 278).
Olson, S. L., & Lifgren, K. (1988). Concurrent and longitudinal correlates of preschool peer sociometrics: Comparing rating scales and nomination
measures. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 409−420.
Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852−875.
Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and structured interactions. Social Development,
13, 255−277.
Ostrov, J. M., Woods, K. E., Jansen, E. A., Casas, J. F., & Crick, N. R. (2004). An observational study of delivered and received aggression,
gender, and social–psychological adjustment in preschool: “This white crayon doesn’t work…”. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,
355−371.
Pellegrini, A. D. (1996). Observing children in their natural worlds: A methodological primer. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). A longitudinal study of heterosexual relationships, aggression, and sexual harassment during the transition from primary
through middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 119−133.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Sampling instances of victimization in middle school: A methodological comparison. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.),
Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 125−144). New York: The Guilford Press.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2003). A sexual selection theory analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 257−278.
268
N.R. Crick et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 254–268
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social–psychological adjustment of
aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 479−491.
Pulkkinen, L. (1992). The path to adulthood for aggressively inclined girls. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of
female aggression (pp. 113−121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15, 147−166.
Robins, L. (1986). The consequences of conduct disorder in girls. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and
prosocial behavior: Research, theories, and issues (pp. 385−414). New York: Academic Press.
Rose, S. L., Rose, S. A., & Feldman, J. F. (1989). Stability of behavior problems in very young children. Development and Psychopathology, 1,
5−19.
Russell, A., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Children’s sociable and aggressive behavior with peers: A comparison of the U.S. and
Australia, and contributions of temperament and parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 74−86.
Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations: Gender and developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(1),
87−106.
Sebanc, A. M. (2003). The friendship features of preschool children: Links with prosocial behavior and aggression. Social Development, 12,
249−268.
Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (1999). Developmental pathways to antisocial behavior: The delayed-onset pathway in girls. Development and
Psychopathology, 11, 101−126.
Stauffacher, K., & DeHart, G. B. (2005). Preschoolers’ relational aggression with siblings and with friends. Early Education and Development, 16,
185−206.
Susser, S. A., & Keating, C. F. (1990). Adult sex role orientation and perceptions of aggressive interactions between girls and boys. Sex Roles, 23,
147−155.
Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and
concordance among informants. Developmental Psychology, 33, 601−609.
Wasik, B. H. (1987). Sociometric measures and peer descriptions of kindergarten children: A study of reliability and validity. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 16, 215−224.
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and social–psychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 108, 615−623.
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (2004). Maladaptive peer relationships and the development of relational and physical aggression during middle
childhood. Social Development, 13, 495−514.
Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draper, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics for preschool children: Cross-informant concordance,
temporal stability, and reliability. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 416−443.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28−54.
Zahn-Waxler, C. (1993). Warriors and worriers: Gender and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 79−89.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Ianotti, R. J., Cummings, E. M., & Denham, S. (1990). Antecedents of problem behaviors in children of depressed mothers.
Development and Psychopathology, 2, 271−291.
Zalecki, C. A., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2004). Overt and relational aggression in girls with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 125−137.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Geiger, T., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational aggression, physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender
moderation and bidirectional associations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421−452.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 44 (2016) 52–62
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
Associations of coolness and social goals with aggression and
engagement during adolescence
Sarah M. Kiefer ⁎, Joy Huanhuan Wang
University of South Florida, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 October 2014
Received in revised form 23 February 2016
Accepted 24 February 2016
Available online 24 March 2016
Keywords:
Coolness
Social goals
Aggression
Academic engagement
Middle school
a b s t r a c t
This study examined associations of coolness and social goals with aggression and academic engagement, and
whether social goals and gender moderated associations across the fall and spring of sixth grade (first year of
middle school). Students (N = 347; 49% females) self-reported social goals (popularity, dominance, intimacy)
and engagement (involved, disruptive behavior) and peer-reported coolness and aggression (overt, relational).
Results indicated relations of coolness and social goals with subsequent aggression and engagement, and goals
and gender moderated associations. Cool youth who endorsed intimacy goals had higher overt aggression;
cool boys with low popularity goals or high dominance goals had higher overt aggression. Cool youth endorsing
dominance goals and cool girls endorsing popularity goals had higher relational aggression. Cool youth and boys
endorsing dominance goals reported lower involved behavior. Youth endorsing popularity goals and cool youth
endorsing dominance goals reported higher disruptive behavior. Implications for examining adolescent coolness
and social motivation are discussed.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Coolness is a salient feature of the peer context and has been found
to have significant implications for social and academic functioning during early adolescence, especially during the first year of middle school
(Bellmore, Villarreal, & Ho, 2011; Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Hoff,
Reese-Weber, Schneider, & Stagg, 2009; Jamison, Wilson, & Ryan,
2015). Students are often concerned with fitting in with perceived
peer group norms (Galván, Spatzier, & Juvonen, 2011) and being cool
(Bellmore et al., 2011) as they navigate a larger, more complex peer system (Rubin, Bukowski, & Laursen, 2009). Due to changing social norms
(e.g., becoming more favorable towards aggression and less favorable
towards academic engagement), high peer status is increasingly related
to aggressive and disengaged behavior in middle school (Bellmore et al.,
2011; Bowker, Rubin, Buskirk-Cohen, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth-LaForce,
2010; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007). Students also strive for a variety of social goals among peers, including popularity, dominance, and intimacy,
which have significant implications for social and academic behaviors
(Anderman, 1999; Kiefer & Ryan, 2008; Patrick, Anderman, & Ryan,
2002). Although related, coolness and social goals are conceptually
distinct as coolness is an index of social status that reflects a consensus in the peer system (Jamison et al., 2015; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, &
Van Acker, 2006), whereas social content goals reflect cognitive
⁎ Corresponding author at: University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU
105, Tampa, FL 33620-5650, United States.
E-mail address: kiefer@usf.edu (S.M. Kiefer).

0193-3973/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
representations of what individuals are trying to achieve in peer interaction (Wentzel, 2000).
The present study makes a unique contribution to the field, studying
the intersection of social and academic factors in school by examining
the associations of coolness and social goals with subsequent aggression
and engagement during the first year of middle school. Although cool
peer reputation and social goals have important implications for
students’ functioning in school (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008; Rodkin, Ryan,
Jamison, & Wilson, 2013), research examining relations among constructs across the school year is scarce (see Dawes & Xie, 2014;
Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014 as exceptions). Studies have
focused on aggression as an outcome, yet additional research is needed
to distinguish between separate forms of aggression (overt and relational; Cillessen, Mayeux, Ha, de Bruyn, & LaFontana, 2014). Additionally, academic engagement has been understudied in relation to high
social status and social goals. It is important to examine factors that
shape engagement, as it is a precursor to achievement and amenable
to change (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Examining the relations of status and goals with aggression and engagement may provide
a comprehensive understanding of the behavior characteristic of high
status youth motivated by certain goals. Further, dominance goals are
relatively under-examined (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008) and most studies
have not simultaneously investigated popularity, dominance, and intimacy goals in relation to adjustment. Although recent research has examined social goals (i.e., popularity goals) as moderating relations
between high social status and aggression (Cillessen et al., 2014;
Dawes & Xie, 2014; Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014), there is
much we do not know.
S.M. Kiefer, J.H. Wang / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 44 (2016) 52–62
The current study had two main aims: to examine the associations of
coolness and social goals with later aggression (overt and relational)
and academic engagement (involved and disruptive behavior), and to
examine social goals and gender as moderators of these associations
across the sixth grade (i.e., first year of middle school). Research
indicates relations of high social status with aggression (Cillessen,
Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011; Dawes & Xie, 2014; Xie, Li, Boucher,
Hutchins, & Cairns, 2006) and engagement (Schwartz, Gorman,
Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006). However, there is not a consensus regarding the role of gender in moderating these relations. There is evidence
for gender differences in relation to coolness, social motivation, aggression, and engagement (Cillessen et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2006), but relations have not been found in other studies (Dawes & Xie, 2014).
Additional research is needed to clarify gender effects on cool status
and adjustment (Rose, Glick, & Smith, 2011). We examined meanlevel gender differences and changes in variables across the first year
of middle school due to puberty, social development, and school
transition-related factors (Eccles, 2004; Pellegrini & Long, 2002).
2. Cool peer reputation: associations with aggression and
academic engagement
Cool peer reputation, or coolness, refers to “the embodiment of some
combination of attributes that wins approval or earns the attention of
others,” (Jamison et al., 2015, p. 384). Coolness encompasses a range
of individual characteristics, including behaviors and attitudes, which
not only win youth approval among peers but also express rebellion towards parents or other authorities, and eventually place them on the
cutting edge of peer norms (Pountain & Robins, 2000). For example,
coolness may include fashionable appearance and dress styles, trendy
possessions, and sophisticated interpersonal skills (Adler & Adler,
1998; Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992). Coolness is a social construction
that is in constant flux (e.g., joining a jazz club in 1950’s and punk explosion in 1970’s; Pountain & Robins, 2000) and continually negotiated as
youth determine a consensus of what is valued in the peer system
(Adler et al., 1992). Cool youth are also characterized as being precocious (Pountain & Robins, 2000) and pseudomature (Allen, Schad,
Oudekerk, & Chango, 2014). This aligns with Moffitt’s (1993) “maturity
gap”, which indicates early adolescence is a time youth strive to appear
mature and adopt features associated with adult status that represent
increased autonomy and less childlike behaviors.
Cool peer reputation is used as an indicator of high social status. Research indicates the need to investigate coolness as an index of social
status in addition to others, such as popularity (Bellmore et al., 2011;
Rodkin et al., 2006). Youth can best define what coolness is for themselves (Pountain & Robins, 2000; Rodkin et al., 2006). Thus, peer nominated coolness is a developmentally appropriate index of high social
status that allows adolescents to fully capture the authentic meaning
of coolness. Although cool youth are a heterogeneous group with
some subgroups identified as displaying aggressive and antiacademic
behaviors and others displaying prosocial and positive academic behaviors (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker,
2000), they are often viewed as the most mean and manipulative of
all peers, and are often not well-liked (Eder, 1985; Merten, 1997;
Rodkin et al., 2006). Conceptually, coolness is similar to perceived popularity as they both assess peer status. However, coolness is distinct
from perceived popularity. Coolness focuses on individuality and
gaining peer approval or attention (Jamison et al., 2015; Pountain &
Robins, 2000), whereas popularity reflects social centrality and prominence within the peer group (Cillessen et al., 2011; Rodkin et al.,
2006). Although youth nominated as cool may be popular, social centrality by itself is not sufficient for coolness. We anticipate that coolness
may relate to study variables in similar and different ways from popularity and have unique implications for adjustment. For example, coolness and popularity may have similar relations with aggression and
engagement as they indicate high social status, yet relations may differ
53
as cool youth focus on individual attributes rather than social network
centrality. We expected that coolness will be relatively stable across
time, given research examining cool peer nominations during early adolescence (Bellmore et al., 2011; Jamison et al., 2015).
Coolness has been found to be associated with overt and relational
aggression during early adolescence (Bellmore et al., 2011; Hoff et al.,
2009; Rodkin et al., 2013; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Social status
is increasingly linked to peer-reported overt and relational aggression
(Graham & Juvonen, 2002; Rose et al., 2004) and both forms of aggression are used to gain and maintain status during early adolescence
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Hoff et al., 2009; Juvonen, Wang, &
Espinoza, 2013). Research has identified a subset of overtly aggressive,
high status youth (Rodkin et al., 2000; Rodkin et al., 2006) and ethnographic research indicates cool youth use relational aggression to maintain peer exclusivity and influence peers and group norms (Adler &
Adler, 1998; Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 2002). Although we expected coolness
to be related to both overt and relational aggression, we hypothesized
that the link with relational aggression would be stronger than overt
forms as overt aggression is less approved by peers during this developmental period (Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Hoff et al.,
2009).
Compared to the abundant research examining links between social
status and aggression, less is known regarding academic engagement.
We examined relations of cool peer reputation with aggression and engagement as few studies have examined social status in relation to both
social and academic functioning (see Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007 as an exception). Coolness is associated with a negative academic reputation
across the first year of middle school, although this varies across subgroups and is contingent upon prior disruptive behavior (Jamison
et al., 2015). Cool status is increasingly associated with academic disengagement (Schwartz & Gorman, 2011) and viewed as being incompatible with effort and achievement during adolescence (Anderman, 1999;
Galván et al., 2011; Juvonen & Murdock, 1995). Aligning with changing
norms is critical in ‘staying cool’ during the first year of middle school
and has implications for aggression (Bellmore et al., 2011), yet it is unknown what implications coolness may have for academic engagement.
Would adolescents consider “downplaying effort” or “being disruptive”
as individual attributes that embody coolness? We anticipated that cool
peer reputation will be positively related to subsequent disruptive
behavior and negatively related to later involved, on-task classroom
behavior.
3. Social goals: associations with aggression and academic
engagement
Two complementary approaches to social goals include an achievement orientation approach and a goal content approach. Achievement
goal theory within the social domain focuses on the development or
demonstration of social competence, as well as relations between students’ goal orientations, beliefs, and behaviors (Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). The achievement orientation approach
focuses on students’ different orientations towards social competence
and transcends specific goals (e.g., reasons why an individual is trying
to achieve; Ryan & Shim, 2008). In the current study, we asked students
what they like to strive for when they are with peers; thus the focus was
on outcomes that would make students feel happy or successful. Specifically, we assessed popularity, dominance and intimacy goals. This is
aligned with a goal content approach (e.g., cognitive representations
of what an individual is trying to achieve) and often serves to direct
their behavior towards outcomes (Ford, 1992; Wentzel, 2000). This
conceptualization and operationalization is similar to prior social goals
research (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996) and has been found to have significant implications for early adolescents’ adjustment in school
(Anderman, 1999; Patrick et al., 2002).
Compared to popularity and intimacy goals, dominance goals have
been relatively understudied (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008) and few studies
54
S.M. Kiefer, J.H. Wang / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 44 (2016) 52–62
have examined all three goals simultaneously. Further, social goal research has focused more on links to social functioning (e.g., aggression)
than academic functioning (e.g., engagement), and these constructs are
rarely studied together. Thus, our understanding of social goals during
early adolescence is incomplete.
Social goals play a key role in motivating behavior (Crick & Dodge,
1994; Erdley & Asher, 1999) and have implications for social and
academic functioning in school (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008; Ojanen &
Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014). Stored in the long-term memory, traitlike goals are activated by contextual cues and affect social information
processing and behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994). For instance, dominance goals may be activated when encountering an uncertain peer
context and goal-concordant behavioral strategies like aggression are
used to establish dominance in early adolescence (Pellegrini & Long,
2002). Social goals allow individuals to focus their attention on goalrelevant information, activating behavioral strategies associated with
the goal, and influence adjustment (Dawes & Xie, 2014; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Although moderately correlated, social goals (popularity, dominance, and intimacy goals) are distinct and differently related
to adjustment (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008).
Popularity goals refer to a focus on striving for high social status
characterized by visibility and prestige within the larger peer group
(Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996) and are distinct from peer status (Cillessen
et al., 2014). Popularity goals are positively related to teacher- and
peer-reported overt and relational aggression during early adolescence
(Dawes & Xie, 2014; Rodkin et al., 2013; Ryan & Shim, 2008). Although
examined less frequently, popularity goals are negatively related to academic values, effort, and achievement (Anderman, 1999; Cillessen &
Mayeux, 2007; Kiefer & Ryan, 2008). We expected that popularity
goals will be positively related to subsequent overt and relational
aggression as well as disruptive behavior, and negatively related to involved behavior. Popularity goals were also expected to increase or remain stable across time as the priority of popular status peaks during
early adolescence (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010).
Dominance goals refer to a focus on having power over peers, characterized by getting peers to comply with one’s wishes and instilling
fear in others (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996). Dominance goals are related
to peer- and teacher-reported overt and relational aggression (Ojanen,
Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005; Ojanen, Findley, & Fuller, 2012). Although
most research has examined implications of dominance goals for social
functioning, less is known regarding academic functioning. Dominance
goals are associated with off-task behavior and decreased achievement
(Kiefer & Ryan, 2008), as these goals often conflict with teacher-focused
goals. Examining implications of dominance goals for social and
academic functioning can help us understand dominance goals more
comprehensively. We expected dominance goals to have similar yet
stronger relations as popularity goals: dominance goals will be positively related to subsequent aggression (overt and relational) and disruptive behavior, and negatively related to later involved behavior.
Dominance goals were expected to increase across the first year of middle school when the peer hierarchy is in flux and students navigate a
new social ecology (Pellegrini & Long, 2002).
Intimacy goals refer to a focus on establishing peer relationships
characterized by mutual support and disclosure of thoughts and feelings
(Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996) and reflect a salient concern in adolescent
peer relationships (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Closeness goals (similar
to intimacy goals) are negatively related to overt aggression, but unrelated to relational aggression (Ojanen et al,. 2012). Although overt aggression (especially physical) undermines intimacy with peers,
relational aggression (e.g., spreading rumors) requires some closeness
with peers (Ojanen et al., 2012). Intimacy goals are related with positive
academic adjustment, including prosocial behavior, engagement, and
achievement (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008; Ojanen et al., 2005). We expected
intimacy goals to be negatively related to overt aggression and to have
little to no relation with relational aggression. Intimacy goals were
also expected to be positively related to subsequent involved behavior
and negatively related to later disruptive behavior. Intimacy goals
were expected to decrease across time, as peer norms increasingly reflect negative social and academic behaviors during early adolescence
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007; Galván et al., 2011; Kiefer & Ryan, 2011).
4. Social goals and gender as moderators
Cool youth often have opportunities to enact social goals that are not
available to individuals with lower status (Dawes & Xie, 2014; Rubin
et al., 2009). Cool youth may also encounter social pressures to “fit in”
with peer norms (Cillessen et al., 2011) and experience tension as
they strive for individuality and peer attention or acceptance (Jamison
et al., 2015; Pountain & Robins, 2000). Social goals may moderate relations of coolness with later aggression and engagement, with youth
striving to engage in goal-congruent behavior. We anticipated that
there will be enhanced negative relations of coolness with involved behavior as well as enhanced positive relations of coolness with aggression (overt and aggression) and disruptive behavior for youth who
endorse popularity and dominance goals. These youth may develop socially dominant or manipulative behaviors (Cillessen et al., 2011) or
negative attitudes towards school (Galván et al., 2011; Schwartz &
Gorman, 2011), as popularity and dominance goals are congruent
with strategies and outcomes associated with high status. Research
indicates that popularity goals moderate relations among high social
status and aggression during early adolescence. High status youth who
strive for popularity report high levels of concurrent peer-reported aggression, although forms of aggression (overt and relational) were not
examined (Cillessen et al., 2014). Popularity goals are related with concurrent relational aggression among high status youth (Dawes & Xie,
2014), whereas agentic and communal social goals moderate longitudinal links between popularity and aggression (Ojanen & Findley-Van
Nostrand, 2014). The current study contributes to this research by
examining popularity and dominance goals as moderating relations of
coolness with aggression (overt and relational) and engagement (involved and disruptive behaviors) across the sixth grade.
We expected that intimacy goals will diminish relations of coolness
with aggression as these goals are incongruent with strategies and
outcomes associated with cool status. Although coolness is related to
aggression (overt and relational), we anticipated that there will be diminished relations for cool youth who endorse intimacy goals. While
coolness is increasingly viewed as incompatible with engagement during adolescence (Galván et al., 2011; Jamison et al., 2015), we anticipated that there will be diminished relations of coolness with disruptive
behavior and enhanced relations with involved behavior for youth
who endorse intimacy goals.
We also examined gender as moderating associations of coolness
with aggression and engagement. Social cognitive theory suggests
many attributes and roles promoted for boys and girls are influenced
by a complex mix of experiences and guide gender-linked behavior
(Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). Coolness
differs among boys and girls, with physical aspects more salient
among boys and social-relational aspects more salient among girls
(Adler et al., 1992; Closson, 2009). Gender may moderate relations
among constructs (Rose & Rudolph, 2006; Ruble et al., 2006), with
stronger relations of coolness and goals with overt aggression for boys
(Rodkin et al., 2000) and stronger relations of coolness and goals with
relational aggression for girls (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Eder, 1985;
Merten, 1997). Despite recent advances, there are inconsistent findings
regarding gender effects on high social status and aggression (Cillessen
& Mayeux, 2004; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Rose et al., 2004; Xie et al.,
2006). Less research has examined gender differences in relations between cool status and engagement, and relevant longitudinal research
is limited (Schwartz et al., 2006). Given a lack of consensus and need
for additional research (Rose et al., 2011), no specific hypotheses were
made and gender as a moderator was examined on an exploratory basis.
S.M. Kiefer, J.H. Wang / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 44 (2016) 52–62
5. The present study
This study addressed two main aims: (a) to examine the associations
of coolness and social goals with aggression and academic engagement,
and (b) to examine social goals and gender as moderating associations
of coolness with aggression and engagement across the sixth grade.
The present study advances prior research (Cillessen et al., 2014;
Dawes & Xie, 2014; Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014) by examining three social goals (popularity, dominance, and intimacy) and gender
as moderators of the associations of coolness with aggression and
engagement. Examining these aims within the context of the first year
of middle school may have implications for understanding early adolescent adjustment.
An additional aim was to examine mean-level gender differences
and changes in study variables across time. We expected boys to strive
for dominance and popularity goals more and strive for intimacy goals
less than girls (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996; Kiefer & Ryan, 2008). Consistent with peer nomination research, we expected boys to have higher
levels of overt aggression and girls to have higher levels of relational aggression (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004, 2007). We expected boys to report
lower levels of involved behavior and higher levels of disruptive behavior compared to girls (Adler et al., 1992; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007).
Regarding change over time, we anticipated coolness to be relatively
stable (Bellmore et al., 2011; Jamison et al., 2015). We expected popularity goals to increase or remain stable, dominance goals to increase,
and intimacy goals to decrease across time (Kiefer & Ryan, 2011;
LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). We also expected
involved behavior to decrease, and disruptive behavior and aggression
to increase across time (Anderman, 1999; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004,
2007; Galván et al., 2011; Pellegrini & Long, 2002).
6. Method
6.1. Pr…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment