Relational and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood- A Comparison

8/2/2019 Relational and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood- A Comparison

1/58

Illinois Wesleyan University

Digital Commons @ IWU

Honors Projects Psychology

2001

Relational and Overt Aggression in MiddleChildhood: A Comparison of Hypothetical and

Reported ConflictsJillian M. Denoma '01Illinois Wesleyan University

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Digital Commons @ IWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors

Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ IWU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Copyright is owned by the author of this document.

Recommended CitationDenoma '01, Jillian M., "Relational and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood: A Comparison of Hypothetical and ReportedConflicts" (2001). Honors Projects. Paper 92.http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psych_honproj/92
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psych_honprojhttp://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psychmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psychhttp://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/psych_honprojhttp://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/


2/58

Running head: AGGRESSION IN TWO TYPES OF CONFLICT

Conf l i c t and Aggress ion 1

Rela t iona l and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood:A Comparison of Hypothet ical and Reported Conf l i c t s

Jill M. Denoma

I l l i no i s Wesleyan Univers i ty


3/58

Confl ic t and Aggress ion 2

Abst rac tFollowing recen t research pa t te rns in chi ldhood c o n f l i c t , th ecur ren t study examined ind iv idua l di f fe rences and gender t rendsin c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t y l e s . Rela t iona l and over t aggress ionwere i nves t iga t ed in 31 four th and f i f t h graders by use o f amult i -method eva lua t ion t ha t inc luded peer and t eacher ra t ings ,and hypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c t vigne t tes and repor ted c onf l i c t s . I twas hypothesized t ha t g i r l s would use r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion moreof ten than boys and t h a t boys would display over t aggress ionmore of ten than g i r l s . Teacher and peer measures wereconvergent in corresponding r a t ings of over t aggress ion , b ut noconvergence was apparent fo r e i t h e r over t o r r e l a t i ona laggress ion between hypothe t i ca l and repor ted c o n f l i c t s of bothaggress ive re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s . Gender di f fe rences inr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion emerged in repor ted c o n f l i c t s . Largee f f e c t s izes were computed fo r many of the t e s t s of genderdi f fe rences (overt : peer r a t ings , t each e r r a t i n g s , repor tedc o n f l i c t s ; r e l a t i o n a l : repor ted conf l i c t s ) .


4/58

Co n f l i c t and Aggress ion 3

..

Rela t iona l and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood:A Comparison of Hypothet ical and Reported Conf l i c t s

Conf l i c t ex i s t s within a l l human r e la t ionsh ips and i s acen t r a l fo rce in developmental change (C. U. Shantz & Hartup,1992) because it requi res indiv idua ls to use complex s o c i a ls k i l l s to in teg ra te personal des i re s and the wishes of o ther s .Although c o n f l i c t s a r i s e f requent ly wi thout se r ious consequencesfo r r e la t ionsh ips , they can presen t recur ren t problems fo ri nd iv idua l s who do not possess st rong c o n f l i c t r eso lu t ions k i l l s . Some ch i ld ren use aggress ion as a means to so lvec o n f l i c t . Unlike many o t h e r approaches used to reso lvenormative c o n f l i c t , however, the use of aggress ion by ch i ld renhas been l inked to many negat ive developmental outcomes such aspeer r e j ec t i o n (Dodge, e t . a l , 1990) and se r ious maladjustment

l a t e r in l i f e (C. U. Shantz , 1986). In order to preven t theseoutcomes from occurr ing , it i s important to unders tand exac t lyhow and why ce r t a in chi ldren use aggressive s t r a t e g i e s toreso lve conf l i c t s while others do not . I f researchers are ab leto more fu l ly determine th e causes and consequences of the useof aggress ion in c o n f l i c t s , they may be able to design andimplement e f fec t ive i n t e rven t ion programs aimed a t reducing th enegat ive e f f e c t s of aggress ion .

Researchers such as C. U. Shantz (1987) and Hartup (1992)have devoted much of t h e i r profe s s iona l l i f e to s tudy ing


5/58


i n t e rpe rsona l conf l i c t in chi ldhood and adolescence , and havei d e n t i f i e d common causes , re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s , andconsequences of these c o n f l i c t s . Other researchers , l i ke Crick(2000), have focused on the co n s t ru c t of aggress ion , and i t sgender-spec i f ic cor re l a t es . Although previous research hasi nves t iga t ed many i s sues of i n t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c t ( i . e . ,p re c i p i t a t o r s , dura t ion , frequency, outcomes) and aggress ion(pr imari ly i t s causes , mani fes ta t ions , and consequences) inchi ldren , it has not thoroughly addressed othe r impor tan taspec t s o f the topics (such as t rends in age and genderbehaviors and hypothe t i ca l versus repor ted c o n f l i c t r eso lu t ions ty l e s ) .

The cur ren t study inves t iga tes th e use of aggress ionemployed during ch i ld rens ' c o n f l i c t s . I t expands on prev iousresearch regard ing conf l i c t re so lu t ion by inves t iga t ing t rendsin middle chi ldhood, a group t h a t has not y et been e f f e c t i v e l yassessed . In an e f fo r t to thoroughly appra i se types ofaggress ion and t h e i r use in conf l i c t re so lu t ion , th e c u r r e n ts tudy eva lua tes these concepts using a multi-method approach ,which inc ludes the use of ques t ionnai res , hypothe t ica lv igne t tes , and verba l repor t s of s p ec i f i c , r e a l - l i f e c onf l i c t s .I t was predic ted t h a t aggress ion would not be used to so lve mostc o n f l i c t s , and t h a t boys and g i r l s would use it almost equa l ly .I t was predic ted , however, t h a t boys and g i r l s would t yp ica l ly


6/58


use d i f f e r e n t forms of aggress ion , namely o v e r t and r e l a t i ona l ,re spec t ive ly . F ina l ly , it was hypothesized t ha t chi ldren wouldrepor t th e use of s imi la r c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s inhypothe t i ca l and repor ted conf l i c t s , and t ha t i nd iv idua ld i f fe rences in aggress ion would be r e f l e c t ed across the fourmeasures (hypothet ical c o n f l i c t vigne t t e s , r epor t s of ac tu a lc o n f l i c t , peer r a t ings , and t eacher r a t i n g s ) .

The fol lowing sec t ions provide a review of the cur ren t ,re l evan t research in the f i e lds of i n t e rpe rsona l c onf l i c t andaggress ion in chi ldhood. After rev iewing th e l i t e r a t u r epre sen t ly ava i l ab le on these t op ic s , the cur ren t s tudy w i l liden t i fy some of th e gaps i n pa s t research , and a t tempt toexpand ex is t ing knowledge in gender t rends o f aggress ion andc o n f l i c t re so lu t ion .

In te rpersona l Conf l ic tIn te rpersona l c o n f l i c t has been descr ibed as a s t a t e of

r es i s tance or opposi t ion between i nd iv idua l s (Hartup & C. u.Shantz, 1992). Although mutual opposi t ion ( incompat ib i l i ty) i sgenera l ly accepted by scho lars as th e bas i s of c onf l i c t , debatee x i s t s over the spec i f i c s t ruc tu re and process involved in t h i stype of disagreement . Some researchers , such as Garvey (1984)view c o n f l i c t as a u n i l a t e r a l , two-par t event in which personA 's behavior provokes an objec t ion o r r e f u s a l from person B (asc i t e d in Laursen & Col l ins , 1994). An example of t h i s


7/58

Conf l i c t and Aggression 6

def in i t ion of c o n f l i c t would be as fol lows: John t r i e s to takeMike 's toy away from him, but Mike puts up a f i g h t to preven tJohn from doing so. Ins tead , o ther researchers argue t h a tc o n f l i c t i s a t h r ee - p a r t event t h a t requi res a dyadic s t a t e ofmutual opposi t ion in which person A's behavior provokes anobjec t ion from person B, and then person A responds bypers i s t ing in the o r ig in a l , countering behavior (C. U. Shantz ,1987). This def in i t ion could be exempl i f ied by the fo l lowingscenar io : John t r i e s to take Mike 's toy away from him, Mike putsup a f igh t to preven t John from doing so , but John cont inues toa t t empt th e change of possess ion . Regardless of the number ofs t eps def ined in a conf l i c t occurrence , researchers agree t h a tth e most c r i t i c a l fea ture in iden t i fy ing in t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c tbehavior i s the presence of indiv idua ls t ha t possess genu ine ly

incompat ible goals .For purposes of t h i s study, conf l i c t i s descr ibed as an

i n t e rpe rsona l , two-par t event in which person A 's behav ior f i r s tprovokes an objec t ion or r e fusa l from person B. I t i s f u r th e r bedescr ibed as an inc ident in which the par t i c ipan t s havegenuinely incompat ible in ten t ions . This ope ra t iona l def in i t ional lows fo r r e l i a b l e conf l i c t de tec t ion by researchers andp a r t i c i p a n t s , as wel l as separa t ion of c o n f l i c t from othe rassoc ia ted cons t ruc ts l i ke aggress ion and rough-and- tumble play ,each of which a re r e la ted to , but inc lude unique d i s t i n c t i o n s


8/58


from, i n t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c t .P r ec ip i t a to r s of Conf l i c t

Since conf l i c t can be def ined as one pe rson ' s obs t ruc t ionof ano ther pe rson ' s goal or des i re , it i s important to examinethe types of events t h a t most f requen t ly provoke c onf l i c t . Inyoung chi ldren , the major i ty of conf l i c t s involve di spu te s overe i t h e r th e possess ion or usage of objec ts (C. U. Shantz , 1987) ,or over the con t ro l of a person ' s behavior (Hartup, e t a l . ,1988). This l a t t e r type of conf l i c t may inc lude one pe rson ' sa t tempt to co n t ro l ano the r ' s b e l i e f s , ideas , and ac t ions . Someresearchers have repor ted t h a t as ch i ld ren grow olde r , fewer oft h e i r c o n f l i c t s involve objec t s and space , and more of t h e i rdisputes focus on the con t ro l of the s o c i a l environment (C . U.Shantz & D. W. Shantz , 1985) . Although the prev ious ly mentioned

circumstances have been found to most f requen t ly cause c o n f l i c tin ch i ld ren , a var ie ty of other s i t u a t i o n s can a lso provokedisagreement .

Most chi ldren are able to iden t i fy th e primary cause oft h e i r c o n f l i c t s . In a s tudy by C. U. Shantz (1993), n in e ty - s ixpercen t of second grade ch i ld ren vo lun ta r i ly s t a t ed th e i s sue a thand when asked to descr ibe a recen t c o n f l i c t . However, th eevent t h a t i n i t i a t e s a conf l i c t may not always con t inue to beth e i s sue of content ion throughout th e course of th e argument(C. U. Shantz , 1987) . For example, if a c o n f l i c t o r ig in a t e s


9/58


because tw o chi ldren disagree about who can con t ro l the

t e l ev i s ion remote, the prel iminary i s sue of dispu te (the con t ro lof th e t e lev i s ion) may be put as ide dur ing th e c o n f l i c t andreplaced by a new dispu tab le topic (such as who has b e t t e r t a s t ein t e l ev i s ion shows).Durat ion and Frequency of Conf l i c t

The major i ty of conf l i c t s are br i e f . The average dura t ionof c o n f l i c t s across severa l s tudies of p reschool aged ch i ld renwas twen ty-four seconds (as c i t ed in C. U. Shantz, 1987).Although c o n f l i c t s a re t yp ica l ly shor t , they sometimes includebr i e f in te r ludes , a f t e r which they occas iona l ly resume. Wheninves t iga t ing verba l conf l i c t s , Eisenberg and Garvey (1981)repor ted t h a t ninety- two percen t of preschoole rs ' d i sputesinc lude l e s s than ten exchanges between par tne r s , and s i x t y - s i x

percen t inc lude fewer than f ive .Since the va r i e t i e s of conf l i c t a re i n f i n i t e , it i s

d i f f i c u l t to make accura te gene ra l i za t ions about the spec i f i cs t r u c tu r e of ind iv idua l c o n f l i c t s . However, Hay (1984) foundt h a t preschool chi ldren are involved in approximate ly f ive toe i g h t conf l i c t s per hour. Laursen (1995) s t a t ed t h a t an averageof only seven conf l i c t s p er day was repor ted by ad o l e scen t s , whomore se lec t ive ly chose opposi t ions and r e la t ionsh ips thanyounger chi ldren do. The f requency of c o n f l i c t s dur ing middlechi ldhood has not been previously documented.


10/58


Resolut ion of Confl ic t

Certain pa t te rns of chi ldhood conf l i c t re so lu t ion havebecome apparen t in previous research s tud ies . Laursen andCol l ins (1994) repor ted t ha t most conf l i c t s r esu l ted in th edef in i t ion of a d i s t i n c t winner or lo se r , and inc luded th edisengagement or submiss ion of a t l e a s t one pa r ty . According toC. U. Shantz (1987), however, most c o n f l i c t s among ch i ld ren aresolved quick ly , with r e l a t i ve ly few ins tances o f adu l tin te rven t ion . Addi t iona l ly , she found t ha t c o n f l i c t s usua l lyend with one of th e fol lowing three outcomes: th e c lea remergence of a winner or lo se r , p a r t i a l equa l i ty of conf l i c t ingp a r t i e s (where one par ty concedes more than the o th e r ) , orcomplete equa l i ty of conf l i c t ing p a r t i e s (where an equalcompromise i s reached) .

Although c o n f l i c t s can be reso lved in a v a r i e ty of ways,ce r t a in re so lu t ion s ty les f requen t ly emerge. Researchers haveused somewhat d i f f e re n t names to descr ibe these ca tegor i e s butt he re i s considerab le commonality across systems. Chung andAsher (1996), fo r example, i den t i f i ed and examined f ive c o n f l i c tre so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s in ch i ld ren : adu l t - seek ing , pass ive ,asse r t ive , prosoc ia l , and hos t i l e /over t ly aggress ive . Becauseth e cur ren t research i s examining an add i t iona l cons t ruc t ,r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion , s ix ca tegor ies of c o n f l i c t r eso lu t ions ty les w i l l be appra i sed in t h i s study: adul t -seeking, pass ive ,


11/58


asse r t ive , prosoc ia l , hos t i l e /over t ly aggress ive , andr e l a t i ona l ly aggress ive . Adult -seeking behaviors are those inwhich chi ldren tend to appeal to parents , t eachers , or othe rpeople in au th o r i t a t i v e pos i t ions when t ry ing to reso lve ac o n f l i c t . Pass ive techniques inc lude r e t r e a t i n g and /or qu ie t lysa c r i f i c i n g one ' s des i re s to avoid conf ron ta t iona l ep i sodes .Asser t ive methods a re those t h a t involve a ch i ld who s t a t e sh i s /h e r opinions and r igh t s with c l ea r and d i r e c t languageduring a conf l i c t s i tua t ion . Prosoc ia l behav iors includea t tempts to compromise during c o n f l i c t , to gra t i f y both p a r t i e s 'des i res , and to take both p a r t i c i p a n t s ' fee l ings in tocons idera t ion . Host i l e techniques include many forms of ove r taggress ion such as grabbing, h i t t i ng , and punching, v e rb a ldominat ion, and t h rea t s of these behav iors . Fina l ly ,

r e l a t i ona l ly aggress ive s t r a t e g i e s are those in which ac t ionst h a t t h rea t en to negat ive ly af fec t r e la t ionsh ips (such asimplementing soc ia l exclus ion , s t a r t i ng rumors, and denyingcer t a in f r i endsh ips) a re present .

For purposes of t h i s s tudy, it was necessary to modify th elist of conf l i c t re so lu t ion s ty les used by Rose and Asher (1999)in order to account fo r the newly i d e n t i f i e d category ofr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion . As de ta i l ed below, Crick and herco l leagues (Crick, 2000; Crick & Grotpeter , 1995) have r ecen t lymade a d i s t i n c t i o n between over t and cover t forms of aggress ion .


12/58


To accura te ly assess a l l forms of conf l i c t r eso lu t ion , th einc lus ion of t h i s new category i s e s se n t i a l .

Hypothet ical Versus Reported Confl ic tQuest ions have been ra ised regarding the extent to which

the resolu t ion s ty les pre fe r red in hypothe t ica l c onf l i c t s ares imi la r to those ac tua l ly used in r ea l l i f e c onf l i c t s . Becausehypothe t ica l c o n f l i c t assessment i s f requent ly used, it i simportant to ver i fy the va l id i ty of t h i s assessment technique.In response to t h i s debate , Sternberg and Dobson (1987) s ta tedt ha t th e pa t te rns of conf l i c t resolu t ion s ty les i n co l l eges tuden t s fo r repor ted conf l i c t s were s imi la r to those found inprevious research fo r hypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c t s . They a lso arguedt h a t ind iv idua l s ' pa t t e rns of resolu t ion fo r repor ted andhypothe t ica l conf l i c t s were cons i s ten t . Reinisch and Sanders

(1986) a lso reported evidence t ha t ques t ionna i res regard inghypothe t ica l con f l i c t s i tua t ions pos i t ive ly correspond withfrequency of aggressive ac t s in adolescence. Chung and Asher(1996) and Dodge and Frame (1982) have claimed t h a t ava i lab leresearch sugges t s t ha t four th and f i f t h grade c h i l d re n ' sresponses to hypothe t i ca l s i tua t ions correspond with t h e i rac tua l observed behavior (as c i t ed in Rose & Asher, 1999).

Not a l l researchers , however, have found consi s t encybetween repor ted and hypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c t s . For example,Iskandar , e t a l . (1995) repor ted t ha t preschool aged ch i ld ren


13/58


more of ten c i t e th e use of in te rpersona l negot ia t ion (a processt h a t i s considered s imi la r to th e prosoc ia l ca tegory used int h i s study) during in terviews t ha t follow hypothe t i ca ls i tua t ions than they were ac tua l ly to use nego t i a t ion in r e a l l i f e c o n f l i c t s . Addi t iona l ly , Laursen, e t a l . (1996) repor tedt h a t while hypothe t i ca l co n f l i c t s tend to emphasize mit iga t ion ,ac tua l disagreements are resolved more of ten by coerc ion than bycompromise. I t i s poss ib le t ha t th e v a r i a t i o n between repor tedc o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s ty les and those observed to be employedduring ac tua l conf l i c t behavior may be par t i a l l y a t t r i bu t e d to asoc ia l de s i r a b i l i t y bias ( th i s bias may be re f l ec ted in th eincreased l ike l ihood of repor t ing compromise versus ac tua l lyusing it).

Although most previous research has suggested t h a t

r eso lu t ion s ty l e s used in hypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s ares imi la r to those used in r e a l - l i f e and repor ted c onf l i c t s , t h i sassumption has never been d i r e c t l y assessed using hypothe t i ca lv igne t t e s and r e a l - l i f e conf l i c t repor t s s imul taneous ly . Forexample, Sternberg and Dobson (1987) repor t t h a t t h e i r r e s u l t sregard ing c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s ty les used in repor ted c o n f l i c t sco r r e l a t e with those t ha t had been reported by re sea rche rs whoused hypothe t i ca l scenar ios in previous s tud ies . The cur ren ts tudy wil l inves t iga te t h i s cla im, cur ren t ly based onc o r re l a t i o n a l r e su l t s repor ted by d i f f e re n t re sea rche rs , by


14/58

11


s imultaneously comparing the ch i ld r en ' s responses to bothhypothe t i ca l and reported personal c o n f l i c t .

Aggress ionOver the years , the s tudy of aggress ion has been one o f th e

most popula r areas of s tudy in psychology. Aggress ive behav iorsare genera l ly descr ibed as those t h a t a re in tended t o hur t o rharm others (Berkowitz, 1993; Crick & Grotpe ter , 1995) . Sinceaggress ion has been l inked to many negat ive developmenta lep isodes , as mentioned e a r l i e r , researchers have argued t h a texp lor ing and understanding aggress ion i s a necessary s tep inpreven t ing these po ten t i a l ly negat ive consequences fromoccur r ing .

Co n f l i c t and aggress ion are l inked in ways t h a t a re of t enmisunders tood. Although aggress ive disp lays of t en occur dur ing

c o n f l i c t s , the major i ty o f co n f l i c t s do not involve aggress ion(C. U. Shantz & Hartup, 1992; C. U. Shantz , 1987) . Furthermore ,aggress ion can be dis t inguished from c o n f l i c t in t h a t aggress ioni s only one of many ways to so lve a c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n .Research has shown t h a t ce r t a in c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s , inc lud ingdisagreements over objec t s , t h r ea t s to one ' s ego (Hartup, 1974),and soc ia l manipu la t ions (Perry e t a l . , 1992) , may be morel i k e l y than others to provoke aggress ion .

Almost a l l of the t r a d i t i o n a l aggress ion research concludest h a t boys are more aggress ive than g i r l s (Crick, 2000;


15/58

Co n f l i c t and Aggression 14

Berkowitz, 1993; Mil le r , Danaher, & Forbes, 1986; Reinisch &Sanders , 1986; Parke & Slaby, 1983). Because of t h i sassumption, the major i ty o f s tud ie s on aggress ion have occurredwith male sub jec t s , and have pr imar i ly assessed ove r t forms o faggress ion .

Recent s tud ies , however, have a lso begun to focus on anewly i d e n t i f i e d form of aggress ion ca l led r e l a t i o n a l aggress iont h a t has been reported to be more preva len t in g i r l s (Cr ick ,2000; Crick & Grotpe ter , 1995) . The d i s t i n c t i o n between thesetw o forms of aggress ion , over t and r e l a t i o n a l , i s c r i t i c a l tounders tanding th e frequency of aggress ive ac t s in ch i ld ren . Forexample, Crick, e t a l . (1999) concludes t h a t gender di f fe rencesin aggress ion are minimal when both over t and r e l a t i o n a l formsof aggress ion are cons idered . I t i s a lso important to make th ed i s t i n c t i o n between these tw o forms of aggress ion whena t tempt ing to i den t i fy th e separa te consequences andi n t e rven t ion programs involved with r e l a t i o n a l and ove r taggress ion , re spec t ive ly .Overt Aggress ion

A pr inc ip le reason why researchers have focused on p h y s i ca laggress ion i s t h a t over t behaviors are much more e a s i l yi d e n t i f i e d and assessed than are cover t behav iors . Over t lyaggressive behaviors are those t h a t harm others through p h y s i ca ldamage or through th e t h r e a t of such damage (Crick, 2000; Crick


16/58


& Gro tp e t e r , 1995) . Acts l i ke kicking, punching, h i t t i n g , loudye l l ing , and t h r ea t s of v io lence a re more apparen t , andt he re fo re , more l i ke ly to be noted by observers , than are thecamouflaged i n d i r e c t , i n t e rpe rsona l , or cover t behav iors t h a tf a l l in th e r e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ive ca tegory .

Cer ta in t ypes o f co n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s have been i de n t i f i e das be ing more l i ke ly to evoke ove r t ly aggress ive responses thanothers a re . Resu l ts of previous s tud ie s have suggested t h a tins t rumenta l c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s ( e .g . , having a sc ience p r o j e c tpurposefu l ly des t royed by a peer or being cu t i n f ron t o f inl i ne by ano ther peer) most of ten e l i c i t ove r t ly aggress ivere sponses than othe r types o f c o n f l i c t (as c i t ed in Crick &Werner, 1998) .Rela t iona l Aggress ion

Although most aggress ion research has focused oni den t i fy ing and examining the incidence of over t behav ior , manyrecen t s tud ie s have begun to a l so exp lore r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion .Severa l decades before t h i s contemporary research was done,Feshbach (1969) i den t i f i ed a s imi l a r co n s t ru c t she l abe led" i n d i r e c t aggress ion ," which included behaviors such asr e j ec t i o n and soc ia l exclus ion . Contemporary researchersd is t ingu ish between i n d i r ec t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion in say ingt h a t i n d i r e c t aggress ion does not inc lude a l l forms o fr e la t ionsh ip manipula t ion (both i n d i r ec t and d i r e c t forms) ,


17/58


whereas r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion does (Crick, e t a l . , 1999) .

Curren t ly , researchers descr ibe r e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ivebehaviors as those which spec i f i ca l ly serve to harmr e la t ionsh ips (Crick, 2000). This form of aggress ion canmanifes t i t s e l f in many forms inc lud ing peer manipu la t ion ,r e j ec t i o n , cha rac te r defamation, and soc ia l exc lus ion .

According to sev e ra l s tud ie s , g i r l s exh ib i t s i g n i f i c a n t l yhigher l eve l s o f t h i s form of aggress ion than boys (Crick, 2000;Cairns , Cai rns , Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; Feshbach,1969) , and they compose the major i ty o f groups def ined asr e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ive (Rys & Bear, 1997). Ad d i t i o n a l l y , g i r l slook more favorab ly upon using r e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ivet echn iques in so lv ing r e l a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s than boys (Cr ick &Werner, 1998) .

Why are g i r l s more l i ke ly t o exh ib i t r e l a t i o n a l l yaggress ive behav iors than boys? Although the answer to t h i sques t ion has not yet been thoroughly examined, some i n i t i a lhypotheses have been advanced. One l i ne of reason ing t akes i n toaccount the di f fe rence in physica l s t ruc tu re between boys andg i r l s . Lagerspe tz , e t a l . (1988) , proposed t h a t s i n ce malesusua l ly possess a bigger s t a t u re and s ize than females , they cangene ra l ly a f fo rd to be more phys ica l ly conf ron ta t iona l . Hefu r the r s t a t ed t h a t g i r l s r ea l i z e they may not be ab le toac t ive ly defend themselves in d i r ec t c o n f l i c t , so they have


18/58


l ea rned ways of harming others t h a t do not r i sk d i r e c t

r e t a l i a t i o n . During middle childhood, however, it i s not r a refo r g i r l s possess physica l s t a tu re s imi l a r t o t h a t o f boys .With t h i s fac t in mind, the gender-based r a t i o n a l e presen ted byLagerspe tz , e t a l . (1988) may not be app l icab le to elementaryschool -aged ch i ld ren . Another body o f research sugges t s t h a ts ince aggress ion i s def ined as any behavior t h a t i s in tended toh u r t othe rs , and s ince i n t e rpe rsona l r e la t ionsh ips a re gene ra l lymore impor tan t to g i r l s than to boys, it l og ica l ly fo l lows t h a tone o f th e most e f f ec t i v e ways to hur t a g i r l i s to cause damageto an i n t e rpe rsona l re l a t ionsh ip of hers (Crick & Grotpe te r ,1995) .

Severa l negat ive outcomes have been i d e n t i f i e d in ch i ld renwho f requen t ly use r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion . Crick and Grotpe te r(1995) , repor ted t h a t r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion was s i g n i f i c a n t l yr e l a t ed to s o c i a l maladjus tment ( e .g . , peer nominat ions o fr e j ec t i o n and se l f - r e p o r t s o f poor peer accep tance) , lone l ines s ,depress ion , and s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n . This f ind ing sugges t s anurgent need fo r a g re a t e r unders tanding o f r e l a t i o n a laggress ion . Researchers must a t t empt to develop i n t e rv e n t i o nprograms t h a t spec i f i ca l ly address the p o ten t i a l so c i a l psycholog ica l maladjus tment t h a t may be presen t in r e l a t i ona l lyaggress ive ch i ld ren .

As noted e a r l i e r , s i t u a t i o n s such as dispu tes over


19/58


i n s t ru men ta l c o n f l i c t t op ic s , were more l i ke ly than othe rs topromote ove r t ly aggress ive responses in ch i ld ren who f requen t lyuse aggress ion as a means to reso lve c o n f l i c t s . Si mi l a r l y , ithas been repor ted t h a t r e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ive chi ldren tend toa t t r i b u t e h o s t i l e i n t e n t to peers in con tex ts t h a t includeambiguous, negat ive r e l a t i o n a l events ( e .g . , not r ece i v i n g ani nv i t a t ion to a f r i e n d ' s bi r thday pa r ty o r discover ing t h a t af r iend i s play ing with a d is l iked peer) (Crick & Werner, 1998).Although recen t l i t e ra t u re i s beginning to more c l e a r l y def inethe ac tua l co n s t ru c t o f r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion , little researchhas at tempted to inves t iga te th e ro le o f r e l a t i o n a l aggress ionin c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion .Curren t Study

The cur ren t s tudy approaches th e assessment o f i nd iv idua l

d i f fe rences in r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion l eve l s and c o n f l i c tre so lu t ion s t y l e s using a mult i -method ev a l u a t i o n . Generalmeasures of aggress ion a re evalua ted using a p ee r r a t i n g sca l eand a t e ach e r r a t ing sca l e . Overt and r e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ivec o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s are assessed by two s e l f - r e por tmeasures: hypothe t i ca l vigne t t e s and repor ted c o n f l i c t s . Theseins t ruments a re used in an e f fo r t to more fu l ly unders tand th econs t ruc t of r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion , i t s ra t e of f requency inc o n f l i c t s , and th e types of su b j ec t s and c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n swith which it i s most l i ke ly asso c i a t ed .


20/58


This research assesses the cor re la t ion between over t andr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion on each of th e four measures . I t wasexpected t h a t high scores on global measures of over t andr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion (peer and t eacher ra t ings) wouldcorrespond wi th high scores of over t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ionon the s e l f - r e por t measures of conf l i c t r eso lu t ion s ty l e(hypo the t i ca l vigne t t e s and reported c onf l i c t s ) , r espec t ive ly .I t was predic ted t ha t t eacher and peer r a t ings of both ove r t andr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion would be comparable . I t was f u r th e rexpected t ha t , across the tw o measures of s e l f - r e por t , the rewould be convergence of both the over t and r e l a t i ona l lyaggress ive c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s .

There were many hypothesized gender d i f fe rences fo r t h i ss tudy. I t was predic ted t ha t g i r l s and boys would ex h ib i ts imi la r overa l l r a t ings of aggress ion on t eacher and peerr a t ings , s ince both r e l a t i o n a l and over t forms were be s tud ied .I t was predic ted , however, t ha t when r e l a t i o n a l aggression wasused by an indiv idua l as a means to reso lve c onf l i c t , it wouldmore of ten be used by g i r l s than by boys. In con t ras t , it washypothesized t ha t boys would use over t ly aggress ive c onf l i c tr eso lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s more of ten than g i r l s .

MethodPar t i c ipan t s

The sub jec t s consi s t ed of 31 four th and f i f t h grade


21/58


s tuden t s (20 females, 11 males) from a suburban Midwestern U.S.elementary school . There were 18 four th grade s tuden t s and 13f i f t h grade s tudents .

MeasuresAggression

Peer Ratings . A por t ion of the peer nominat ion ins t rumentdeveloped by Crick (1995) and Crick and Grotpe te r (1995) wasused to assess sub jec t s ' r e l a t i o n a l and over t aggress ion l e v e l s .The inven tory cons is ted of f ive r e l a t i o n a l i tems (e .g . , kids whot r y to keep ce r t a in people from being in t h e i r group when it'st ime to play) and f ive over t i tems ( e .g . , kids who shove andpush others around) . For each i tem, the sub jec t was asked tora t e every par t i c ipa t ing classmate according to how s t rong lyhe/she f i t the desc r ip t ion . Addi t iona l ly , nine f i l l e r i tems

were added ( e .g . , kids who are smarter than most) . Theaggress ion scores were computed by summing and s t anda rd iz ing th escores each ch i ld rece ived on the r e l a t i o n a l and ove r t s ca l e s ,re spec t ive ly (see Appendix A fo r complete measure) . Eachp a r t i c i p a n t was ra t ed by three to f ive ch i ld ren , depending uponth e number of par t i c ipa t ing c lassmates .

Teacher Ratings . Teachers ra ted over t and r e l a t i ona laggress ion on Crick ' s inven tory r a t ing th e extent to which eachp a r t i c i p a t i n g ch i ld exempli f ied th e behavior descr ibed eachi tem. This measure was i den t i ca l to the peer r a t i n g , excep t


22/58

C onf l i c t and Aggress ion 21

t h a t it d id not inc lude any f i l l e r i tems. This assessment wascompared to the peer appra i sa l of each c h i l d ' s aggress ion l e v e lto determine whether th e r e s u l t s from th e tw o d i f f e r e n t groupswere pos i t i ve ly co r re la ted .

As Crick repor ted (2000) , these sca l es have been found topossess high i n t e rna l cons is tency (Cronbach's Alpha ranged from.82 to .89 fo r r e l a t i ona l aggress ion and from .94 to .97 fo rover t aggress io n) . Ad di t iona l ly , the t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t yscore fo r a four-week i n t e rva l was .82 for the r e l a t i o n a l sca l eand .90 for the over t sca l e . In a f ac to r ana lys i s , two d i s t i n c tf ac to r s emerged ( re l a t iona l and over t ) with scores ranging from.73 to .91 . Furthermore, t he c ross - load ings were moderate ( r. 54) , which provided evidence t ha t two separa t e , ye t r e l a t e df ac to r s were presen t .Conf l i c t Resolut ion Sty le

Students completed tw o d i f f e r e n t t asks t h a t assessed t h e i rc o n f l i c t r e so lu t ion behaviors . In an e f f o r t to i n v e s t i g a t e th ehypothes ized d i f fe rence in desc r ip t ion between hypo the t i ca l andrepor ted c onf l i c t s , and to most accura t e ly asse ss each s ub j ec t ' sr e so lu t ion s t y l e , tw o d i f f e r e n t measures were given topa r t i c i pa n t s . The f i r s t measure appra i sed the c h i l d r e n ' sc on f l i c t r eso lu t ion s ty l e s in hypo the t i c a l s i t ua t i ons , and th esecond one assessed ind iv idua l s ' r eso lu t ion choices i n r epo r t edc onf l i c t s t ha t had occurred in t h e i r l i ve s .


23/58


Hypothe t ica l Conf l i c t s . To assess which s t y l e p a r t i c i p a n t sfavor in hypothe t i ca l conf l i c t s i tua t ions , a measure based onthe Chi ldren ' s Conf l ic t Resolut ion Measure was crea ted (Chung &Asher, 1996). The o r ig in a l measure cons is ted of twelvevigne t t e s t h a t depicted cornmon conf l i c t s i tua t ions of ch i ld ren(e .g . , dispu tes over th e use of toys and how to spend f reet ime) . In t h i s s tudy, ch i ld ren were read e igh t v igne t tes t h a td e t a i l ed r e a l i s t i c , age appropr ia te , soc ia l c o n f l i c t scenar ios(see Appendix B). Severa l of these vigne t t e s were ones used bythe o r i g i n a l researchers , while a few were modif ied s l i g h t l y inorder to provide fo r easy c r o s s - cu l t u r a l comparisons t h a t w i l lbe made a l a t e r date .

Af te r ensur ing comprehension of each v igne t te , th e sub jec t swere asked to imagine themselves being involved in th e s i t ua t ion

with a c lassmate , and then asked to ra t e how l i ke ly they wouldbe to use each of s ix poss ib le responses using a f ive po in tsca le (each of the poss ib le choices was l i s t ed randomly andcorresponded wi th th e s ix , previously i d e n t i f i e d r eso lu t ions t r a t e g i e s - adu l t - seek ing , pass ive , asse r t ive , prosoc ia l ,h o s t i l e / co e r c iv e , and r e l a t i ona l ) . This process of reading th evigne t t e s and poss ib le resolu t ion s t r a t e g i e s c lose ly mirroredt h a t used by Chung and Asher (1996) (see Appendix C) . Scoreswith in each ca tegory were averaged from the su b j e c t ' s ranking ona l l v igne t tes .


24/58


Although each of the re so lu t ion s ty le responses had beenadapted to th e s p ec i f i c vigne t t e , each re t a ined a cons i s ten ts t r u c tu r e t h a t corresponded c lose ly with the descr ip t ion of eachca tegory . Adult-seeking responses consi s t ed of s ub je c t ' s appealto an au thor i ty f igure when reso lv ing c o n f l i c t . Pass iveresponses involved a r e t r e a t , and sur render ing o f one ' s wants .Asser t ive methods involved the su b j e c t ' s d i r e c t s ta tement o fpersona l r i g h t s or des i res . Prosoc ia l responses incorpora tedthe needs of both c o n f l i c t p a r t i c ip an t s and ended in some formof a compromise. Host i le /coerc ive responses involved ove r taggress ion of e i t h e r the physica l (h i t t i ng , shoving, grabbing)or verba l type (ye l l i ng) . F ina l ly , r e l a t i o n a l re sponsesinvolved th e t h r e a t or ac t ion of dest roying ano ther ' sr e la t ionsh ips , soc ia l standing, or repu ta t ion . For spec i f i cexamples of responses t ha t f a l l i n to each of these ca tegor ies ,see Appendix D.

Although the modif ied measure used in t h i s s tudy had notbeen formal ly evaluated for psychometr ic proper t i e s , Chung andAsher (1996) repor ted good psychometr ic c h a ra c t e r i s t i c s fo r as imi la r procedure . In te rna l consistency assessment was highes tfo r prosoc ia l and hos t i l e /coerc ive s t r a t e g i e s (Cronbach 's a lphacoef f i c i en t s were .79 and .90, r espec t ive ly ) . However, th ei n t e rn a l consi s t ency fo r the adu l t -seek ing , pass ive , andas s e r t i v e ca tegor ies was somewhat lower (providing c o e f f i c i e n t s


25/58


of .57, .55, and .40 r espec t ive ly ) . No data was ava i lab le onth e r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion response component.

Reported Conf l i c t s . For th e second c o n f l i c t r eso lu t ions ty le assessment , ch i ld ren were asked to repor t r ecen t c o n f l i c t st h a t had occurred in t h e i r l i ves . On each o f t h ree occasions,par t i c ipan t s were asked to r e c a l l an i n t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c t t h a thad taken place with in th e l a s t 3 days and to descr ibe it inde t a i l . The par t i c ipan t s were spec i f i ca l ly asked to t h ink of arecen t c o n f l i c t in t h e i r own l i f e , and to v i s u a l i z e t h i s even tas it occurred . From s t a r t to f in i sh , chi ldren were asked tor e c a l l the event , s t ep -by-s t ep , as it happened. The researcherswere able to ask sev e ra l prompting ques t ions regarding who th ec o n f l i c t involved and how it was reso lved (see Appendix E) toc l a r i f y th e s i t ua t i on ' s de ta i l s and to compile a l l of the

des i red in fo rmat ion , if necessary . This procedure was modeleda f t e r th e one descr ibed by C. U. Shantz (1993).

The f i r s t repor ted c o n f l i c t assessment occurred in personduring th e i n i t i a l in terview appointment , to assure t h a t a l lpar t i c ipan t s fu l ly unders tood the d i rec t ions of t h i s t a sk . Onthe subsequent two occas ions , par t i c ipan t s were asked to repor ta recen t c o n f l i c t over the phone. I t was b en e f i c i a l to askchi ldren to mention recen t conf l i c t episodes because doing somay have helped the par t i c ipan t to improve th e accuracy of t h e i rmemory and to minimize r e c a l l e r r o r .


26/58


Before complet ing each of th e three in te rv iews, chi ldrenwere reminded of th e opera t iona l d e f in i t i o n of c o n f l i c t : ase r ious , i n t e rpe rsona l , two-s tep event where person A 's behav iorprovokes an objec t ion or re fusa l from person B. Thiso p e ra t i o n a l def in i t ion was descr ibed to each p a r t i c i p a n t inappropr ia te te rms to ensure t he i r unders tanding of it. Chi ld renwere to ld t ha t an i n t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c t occurs when ~ t w o o rmore people have d i f f e r e n t ideas , opin ions , or wishes . Thesedi f fe rences may cause the people to argue , disagree , or f i g h twith one ano ther . H They were a lso given examples of seve ra ltypes of c o n f l i c t and t o ld tha t conf l i c t s could range from asimple di f fe rence in opinion to an a l l out physica l brawl .

This measure yie lds qua l i t a t ive data t h a t was codedindependent ly by two researchers . Fi r s t , researchers determineda pr imary re so lu t ion s t r a tegy . Secondly, they i de n t i f i e d a l lothe r con t r ibu t ing re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s apparen t in th ec o n f l i c t . The primary s ty le was t ransposed in to bothdichotomous and cont inuous values .

ProcedureThe s tuden t s were se l ec t ed according to an informed,

voluntary consent procedure . They were i n i t i a l l y rec ru i t ed bysending horne a l e t t e r explain ing the s tudy to th e pa ren t s of a l lfour th and f i f t h graders in th e t a rge ted school . Theinformat ion included th e purpose of the s tudy, th e de ta i l s of


27/58

i t s procedure , and discussed the p o ten t i a l r i sks and b en e f i t s of


th e par t i c ipan t s . The paren t s who re tu rned a prepa id pos tcard(31%) were con tac ted by te lephone. I f the parent grantedapproval of par t i c ipa t ion and scheduled an appointment , informedassen t was a l so obtained from the par t i c ipan t .

The in te rv iews were conducted a t the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s schoolduring a f t e r school hours . Following the completed consen t ofthe paren t and assen t of th e subjec t , the in te rv ieweradmin is te red th e peer r a t ing sca les and the hypothe t i ca lc o n f l i c t vigne t t e s . During t h i s f i r s t appointment , th ere sea rch e r a lso asked the p a r t i c ip an t to descr ibe one r ecen tc o n f l i c t in t h e i r l i f e . Follow-up phone c a l l s were made to th epar t i c ipan t s a t weekly i n t e rva l s . This process was mirroreda f t e r the one de ta i l ed by Pat te rson , Reid, and Dishion (1992).They s t a t ed t h a t phone in te rv iews provided a s tab le es t imate ofch i ld ren ' s behavior . On each of these subsequent occas ions , th ein te rv iewer fol lowed a standard format fo r phone in te rv iewsdeveloped by Jones (1974) which ca l led fo r a "m a t t e r -o f - f a c ts ty le with minimal personal conversa t ion" (as c i t ed inPat te rson , e t a l . , 1992) .

The r e sea rch e r manually t r ansc r ibed th e i n t e rv i ews . Al lcoding was done by tw o undergraduate s tuden t s . Theyindependent ly coded 100% of the t r a n sc r i p t s . Any di sc repanc ie sbetween the tw o coders were verba l ly discussed u n t i l consensus


28/58


was obta ined .

Resul tsHigh i n t e rn a l cons is tency was found fo r peer r a t i n g s ,

t eacher r a t ings , and hypothe t i ca l co n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s .Cronbach 's a lpha fo r over t aggress ion was .83, .96, and .80 fo rpeer r a t ings , t eacher r a t ings , and hypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c tmeasures , re spec t ive ly . Cronbach 's a lpha fo r r e l a t i o n a laggress ion was .80, .90, and .86 as assessed by peer r a t i n g s ,t eacher r a t ings , and hypothe t i ca l measures , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The fo l lowing sec t ions r ep o r t cor re la t ions o f o v e r t andr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion between measures . A ll co r r e l a t i o nco e f f i c i en t s can be seen on Tables 1 and 2 fo r o v e r t andr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion , re spec t ive ly .Within Measure Overt and Rela t iona l Aggress ion Comparisons

Pearso n ' s cor re la t ion coef f ic ien t was computed to assessthe re l a t ion between over t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion withinmeasures . Sign i f i can t cor re la t ions between o v e r t and r e l a t i ona laggress ion emerged with in peer r a t ings , = .83 , E < .01 ,t each e r r a t ings , r = .75, E < .01, and th e h y p o t h e t i ca l v i g n e t t eins t rument , = .84 , E < .01 .Teacher and Peer Rat ings of Global Aggress ion

Overt and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion as assessed by peer r a t i n g sand t each e r ra t ings were analyzed using Pearson co r r e l a t i o n s . As i g n i f i c a n t pos i t ive cor re la t ion emerged between p ee r and


29/58

Confl ic t and Aggression 28

t eacher measures of over t aggression, = .53, 2 < .05; however,the cor re l a t ion between these r a t ings o f r e l a t i o n a l aggressionwas not s i g n i f i c a n t , = .17 , ns.Comparison of Confl ic t Resolu t ion Between Vignet tes and ReportedConf l i c t s

Overt and r e l a t i o n a l aggressive c o n f l i c t s t r a t e g i e sobtained from th e assessment of hypothe t i ca l and repor tedc o n f l i c t s were compared. Each pa r t i c ipa n t ' s o v e r t andr e l a t i ona l ly aggressive re so lu t ion scores from the repor tedc o n f l i c t s were computed in tw o d i f f e re n t ways. Fi r s t , eachs tuden t ' s score was ca lcu la t ed as a percentage of the t imeshe/she reac ted to a c o n f l i c t using an over t o r r e l a t i ona l lyaggressive response. Then a dichotomous score was a lso computedfo r each aggress ion category. Each ch i ld was coded as to

whether or not the use of o v e r t or r e l a t i o n a l aggression in ac o n f l i c t was repor ted . Both Pearson 's cor re l a t ion ( forcontinuous var iables) and poin t b i s e r i a l co r r e l a t i o n s ( fordichotomous var iables) were used to compare o v e r t andr e l a t i ona l ly aggressive c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s acrossthese measures.

On the hypothe t i ca l vigne t t e measure, an average score of1.50 (SO = .50) was rece ived on the over t aggression categoryand an average score of 1.59 (SO = .64) was received on ther e l a t i ona l aggress ion category. Of the 77 repor ted c onf l i c t s


30/58


analyzed fo r t h i s s tudy, 16 (21%) were coded as being pr imaryove r t ly aggress ive and 9 (12%) were coded as being pr imar i lyr e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ive .

No s ig n i f i c an t e f f e c t s emerged from th e ca lcu la t ion o fPearson co r r e l a t i o n co e f f i c i en t s comparing ove r t and r e l a t i o n a laggress ion between hypot he t i ca l and repor ted c o n f l i c t measures .Resu l t s wi th in the over t aggress ion re so lu t ion ca tegory yie ldedr = .01, and r e su l t s with in the r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion r eso lu t ionca tegory y ie lded = .11. Likewise, the r e su l t s o f t he po i n tb i s e r i a l method i nd i ca t ed a pos i t ive , but i n s i g n i f i c a n tco r r e l a t i o n , rb = .19, ns and rb = .24, ns for over t andr e l a t i o n a l l y aggress ive co n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t y l e s ,re spec t ive ly .Comparison o f Global Rat ings of Aggression with Conf l i c tResolut ion St ra teg ies

Peer Rat ings and Hypothe t i ca l Conf l i c t Measures.Assessments between peer -eva lua ted aggress ive behav ior andhypot he t i ca l c o n f l i c t aggress ive responses yie lded nos ig n i f i c an t co r r e l a t i o n s . Resu l t s in the over t and r e l a t i o n a laggress ion ca tegor ies yie lded r = .09 and r = - . 0 6 ,re spec t ive ly .

Peer Rat ings and Reported Conf l i c t Measures.Comparisons of peer r a t ings and repor ted c o n f l i c t measuresyie lded no s i g n i f i c a n t cor re la t ions . Obtained values were r


31/58


.15 for over t aggression and r - .11 fo r r e l a t i ona laggress ions .

Teacher Ratings and Hypothet ica l Conf l i c t Measures. Nos ign i f i can t cor re l a t ion emerged between t eacher ra t ings ofglobal aggression and the hypothet ica l conf l i c t re so lu t ions ty les of aggress ion. Overt and r e l a t i ona l aggress ion bothproduced small , pos i t i ve cor re l a t ions , r = .24, ns and r = .36 ,ns r e spec t ive ly .

Teacher Ratings and Reported Confl ic t Measures. Nos ign i f i can t cor re l a t ions were found between global assessmentsof aggression and the aggressive conf l i c t resolut ion s ty l e s inthe teacher ra t ings and the reported conf l i c t measures,r e spec t ive ly . Pearson 's cor re l a t ion coe f f i c i en t was - .04 fo rover t aggression and - .35 fo r r e l a t i ona l aggress ion.Gender Differences

Differences in responses between boys and g i r l s wereanalyzed using t - t e s t s . I f Levene's t e s t showed t ha t thevariance of the two groups was s ign i f i can t l y d i f f e ren t , theWelch-Aspen adj ustment was used. This adjus tment uses a non-pooled er ror term and calcu la ted degrees of freedom. In theabsence of a s ign i f i can t Levene's Test , equal var iance wasassumed. For add i t iona l c la r i f i ca t ion of gender di f fe rencesamong the measures, also see Table 1.

Peer Ratings . The mean score fo r global over t aggress ion


32/58


on t h i s measure was 1.65 (SO . 75 ) . The average score fo rg i r l s ( = 1.53, SO = .43) was lower than fo r boys ( = 1 .29 , SO

.35) . A t - t e s t produced r e s u l t s t ha t were no t s i gn i f i c a n t ,! (25 ) 1 .23 , ns . The mean score fo r g loba l r e l a t i o n a laggress ion on peer r a t ings was 1.92 (SO = . 82 ) . The mean scorefo r g i r l s (M = 1.91, SO = .49) was h igher than fo r boys (M =1. 78, SO . 40) . This comparison of gender means was nots i gn i f i c a n t , t (25)= - . 71 , ns.

Cohen 's d' was used to examine the e f f e c t s i z e presen t fo rth e d i f f e r e n t genders in the over t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ionca t egor i es of the peer r a t ings . These ana lyses y ie lded amoderate r e s u l t of d' = .49 for over t aggress ion and a smal lr e s u l t of d' = .29 fo r r e l a t i ona l aggress ion .

Teacher Ratings . The globa l over t ca tegory y ie lded a meanscore of 2.12 (SO 1.21) on the teacher r a t i n g . The averagescore fo r boys ( 2.50, SO = 1.23) was h igher than fo r g i r l s( = 1 .93 , SO = 1 . 20) , bu t t h i s d i f fe rence was not s i g n i f i c a n t ,t (16 ) = .94, ns. The globa l r e l a t i ona l aggress ion sco re on th eteache r measure was 2.58 (SO = 1 .82) . This score d id no ts i gn i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r between boys (M 2.57, SO 1.11) andg i r l s (M = 2.58, SO = 1.12) , t (16) - . 03 , ns.


33/58


E f fec t s i ze s were ca l cu l a t ed by using Cohen's d'. Amoderate e f f e c t s i ze of .47 was found fo r o v e r t aggress ion , anda smal l e f f e c t s ize of .02 emerged fo r r e l a t i o n a l ag g res s io n .


34/58


Hypothe t ica l Vigne t tes . No s i gn i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e swere found in the over t and r e l a t i ona l l y aggress ive r e so lu t ionca t egor i es i n the hypo the t i c a l v igne t t e s . For over t aggress ion ,no s i gn i f i c a n t d i f fe rences were found, t (29) = - .06 , ns, betweenboys ( ~ 1.49 , SO = .44) and g i r l s ( = 1.50 , SO = . 55 ) . Forr e l a t i ona l aggress ion , t he re were no s i gn i f i c a n t sex d i f f e rences! (29) = .09, ns , and boy ' s means (M = 1 .60 , SO = .60) weres l i gh t l y h igher than g i r l s ( ~ 1.58 , SO = . 66 ) . Cohen's d'produced an e f f e c t s ize of .02 and .03 for over t and r e l a t i o n a laggress ion , r espec t ive ly .

Reported Conf l i c t s . Eleven of th e 16 over t ly aggre ss ivec onf l i c t s were repor ted by boys and 5 were repor ted by g i r l s .A ll 9 of the r e l a t i ona l l y aggress ive c onf l i c t s were repor ted byg i r l s . The Welch-Aspen t e s t ind ica ted t ha t raw over t scoresr e su l t ed in a i n s i gn i f i c a n t d i f fe rence between boys ( ~ .35 , SO= .37) and g i r l s ( ~ .13, SO = . 18) , t (12 .70) = 2.11 , ns . Thee f f e c t s ize of t h i s con t r as t was .76. Dif fe rences between th era w r e l a t i ona l aggress ion sco res o f boys ( ~ .00, so = .00) andg i r l s ( = .19, SO = .32) were s i gn i f i c a n t , t (19 ) = -2 .67 , ns,according to the Welch-Aspen t e s t . This ca t egory ' s e f f ec t s i zewas .70.

Chi square t e s t s were used to assess the po t e n t i a ld i f fe rence between observed and expected values fo r over t andr e l a t i ona l aggress ion as measured by dichotomous sco res . Overt


35/58


aggress ion in repor ted conf l i c t s was used boys 69% of th e t imeand by g i r l s 31% of th e t ime. A ch i square t e s t i nd ica t ed t h a tthe re was not a s ign i f i can t gender di f fe rence fo r over taggress ion , X2 (1) = 2.71, ns. One hundred percen t o f c o n f l i c t sinvo lv ing r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion were repor ted by g i r l s , andthus , a s i g n i f i c a n t gender di f fe rence emerged, X2 (1) = 4.09, ns.

DiscussionIn t h i s s tudy , gender di f fe rences in aggress ion and

c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s were examined using a mu l t i method approach. Analyses indica ted t h a t few gender d i f fe rencesemerged on any of the measures; r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion , however,was repor ted more of ten by g i r l s than boys on the repor tedc o n f l i c t measure. No s ign i f i can t cor re la t ions emerged betweenth e two se l f - r e p o r t measures (hypothet ical v igne t tes andrepor ted conf l i c t s ) fo r e i t h e r th e over t o r r e l a t i o n a laggress ion sca le .

The r e su l t s in t h i s r ep o r t a re the p re l iminary f ind ingsfrom the ana lys i s of the subse t o f da ta t h a t are cur ren t lyava i lab le . At i t s complet ion, t h i s study w i l l includeapproximate ly 120 p a r t i c ip an t s from th e United Sta tes ( = 60)and Indonesia ( = 60) . Many of the cor re la t ions and t e s t s ofgender di f fe rences done fo r t h i s paper prov ide r e su l t s t h a t a renot s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ign i f i can t a t the presen t t ime. When t h i ss tudy i s f in i shed, however, it i s poss ib le t h a t some o f the


36/58

Confl ic t and Aggress ion 35

r e s u l t s t ha t cur ren t ly approach s ign i f i cance may becomes i g n i f i c a n t . The r e su l t s from t h i s s tudy provide new i n s i g h tin to the c o n f l i c t s of four th and f i f t h grade s tuden t s . Resu l t sare cons i s ten t with e a r l i e r claims t h a t over t and r e l a t i ona laggression are r e la ted cons t ruc t s .

The f i r s t quest ion of i n t e r e s t was the correspondencebetween t eacher and peer r a t ings of over t and r e l a t i ona laggress ion . When peer and t eacher r a t ings of over t andr e l a t i ona l were examined, a s i g n i f i c a n t pa t te rn appeared . Botht eachers and peers cons i s ten t ly ra ted th e same ch i ld ren ase i the r high or lo w in overt aggression. The cur ren t s tudy ' sre su l t s a lso sugges t t h a t over t aggression may be more e a s i l yi d e n t i f i e d and observed by others than r e l a t i ona l aggress ion .

Teachers and peers were unable to agree on which ch i ld ren

were r e l a t i ona l ly aggress ive . Rela t iona l aggression i s cover tmay not be eas i ly seen by ou ts ider s . Subsequent research mustaddress th e i s sue of more ef fec t ive ly iden t i fy ing r e l a t i ona l lyaggress ive ch i ld ren .

Although t eachers and peers converged in the i de n t i f i c a t i onof globa l over t aggression, convergence did no t occur on the twos e l f repor t measures of conf l i c t r eso lu t ion s ty les (hypothe t ica lv igne t t e s and repor ted c onf l i c t s ) . Children d id notcons i s ten t ly ind ica te t he i r use of over t or r e l a t i ona l lyaggressive behaviors in these two measures. The cur ren t


37/58


incons i s ten t scores of over t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion across

hypothe t i ca l and reported co n f l i c t s support the cla ims ofLaursen, e t a l . (1996) and Iskander , e t a l . (1995) t h a t inhypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c t s , chi ldren underrepor t h o s t i l e andmanipulat ive re so lu t ion s t y l e s , and over repor t prosoc ia l s t y l e s .This phenomenon may be p a r t i a l l y due to a s oc i a l -de s i r a b i l i t yb ias . I t a lso i s poss ib le t h a t the hypothe t i ca l c o n f l i c tmeasure used in t h i s study was not age appropr ia te . Ult imate ly ,th e cur ren t f ind ings sugges t t ha t conclus ions drawn about ani nd iv idua l ' s c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s ty les based so le ly uponhypothe t ica l c o n f l i c t measures should be i n t e r p r e t ed withcaut ion as they may not be a va l id re f l ec t ion of the behav ior inr e a l l i f e con tex t s .

I t i s necessary to acknowledge th e po ten t i a l s o c i a lde s i r a b i l i t y e f f e c t t h a t may a f f e c t chi ldren when recount ingc o n f l i c t s . Since th e chi ldren were i n t e r ac t i n g with ano theri nd iv idua l , it i s a lso poss ib le t ha t they were af fec ted by anin te rv iewer b ias . On th e other hand, s ince a repor ted c o n f l i c ti s a c h i l d ' s rep re sen ta t ion of a r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n , it may bet h a t a more accura te representa t ion of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s t ruere so lu t ion s ty le may emerge with t h i s type of measure.

No s ign i f i can t cor re la t ions were found between th e measuresof g lobal over t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion ( teacher and p ee rra t ings) and the measures of c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion s t r a t e g i e s


38/58


(hypo the t i ca l vigne t t e s and reported conf l i c t s ) . Peer r a t i n g sd id not correspond wel l wi th e i t h e r of the c o n f l i c t r eso lu t ions t r a t e g i e s . Although f i n a l conclusions cannot be made u n t i l th ecomplete data se t i s analyzed, it may be t h a t four th and f i f t hgrade chi ldren may not be ab le to accura te ly eva lua te theaggressive behaviors of t h e i r peers using th e r a t ing procedureemployed in t h i s s tudy. Par t of the ch i ld ren ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s mayr e s u l t from the t rouble they exper ienced with es t ab l i s h in g normsfo r these behav iors . These t heor i e s may exp la in why Crick , e ta l . (1998) repor t s t h a t p ee r - t each e r r a t ing correspondenceinc reases with grade l eve l .

Teacher r a t ings a lso fa i l ed to co r r e l a t e s ign i f i c a n t ly withth e measures of c o n f l i c t re so lu t ion . However, t he re were a tl e a s t modest cor re la t ions apparent between these ins t ruments .Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the moderate co r r e l a t i o n of r e l a t i ona laggress ion between t eacher ra t ings and h y p o t h e t i ca l c o n f l i c tappra i sa l s . This correspondence w i l l be c lose ly examined whenth e complete data se t i s ava i l ab le .

Although no s ign i f i can t cor re la t ions of over t o r r e l a t i ona laggress ion were obta ined many of th e measures, ca lcu la ted e f f e c ts i ze s suggest t ha t po ten t i a l ly in a l a r g e r sample, c e r t a i nco r r e l a t i o n s , such as t eacher ra t ings with hypothe t ica l c o n f l i c tscores o f over t aggress ion and t eacher r a t ings with repor tedc o n f l i c t scores r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion , may become s ign i f i c a n t .


39/58


I t i s a l so poss ib l e , however, t h a t an increased sample s i ze w i l lnot r e su l t in s ign i f i can t gender di f fe rences in o v e r t o rr e l a t i o n a l aggress ion .

Despi te the sample s i ze in used in t h i s r epor t , some genderdi f fe rences in aggressive behavior emerged. Of spec ia l i n t e r e s ta re th e r e su l t s of th e repor ted c o n f l i c t s . Gir l s provided 100%of th e repor t s of r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion . The r e s u l t s of thedichotomous ana lys is provide support for the hypothes i s t h a tg i r l s and boys d i f f e r in t h e i r reported use of r e l a t i ona laggress ion .

Although boys provided 69% of th e o v e r t aggressionresponses in these c o n f l i c t s , the gender di f fe rence was no ts i g n i f i c a n t . Examining th e e f f e c t s izes of these two aggressionforms in repor ted conf l i c t s provides some support fo r th e

assumption t ha t with an increased sample s ize , s i g n i f i c a n tgender di f fe rences may r e s u l t .

The e f f e c t s i ze s of peer r a t ings a lso provide evidence t h a ta l a r g e r data sample may produce s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f fe rencesin aggression. The moderate e f f e c t s ize of over t aggress ion inpeer r a t ings repor ted in t h i s s tudy, combined with th eprev ious ly reported l a rge e f f e c t s i ze s o f ove r t aggress ion inp ee r r a t ings (Crick & Grotpeter , 1995), sugges t s t h a t th ecomplete data se t fo r t h i s s tudy may revea l di f fe rences in th el eve l s of over t aggress ion in boys and g i r l s .


40/58


To a l e s se r degree , the same pos s ib i l i t y e x i s t s with theteacher measures of over t and r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion . Teacherr a t ings of o v e r t aggress ion d id not produce s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t sin gender di f fe rences . However, a f t e r account ing fo r a l a rgee f f e c t s ize , it i s plaus ib l e t h a t a l a r g e r sample s ize maygenera te more evidence fo r gender di f fe rences in aggress ions t y l e .

I t i s poss ib le t h a t t eacher r a t ings , peer ra t ings , andhypothe t i ca l se l f - r e p o r t s do not cons i s ten t ly or accura t e lyappra i se r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion . This f inding may be p a r t i a l l ydue to th e f ac t t h a t r e l a t i o n a l aggress ion i s a cons t ruc t t ha ti s d i f f i c u l t fo r out s ide rs to observe . I t may a lso be t ha t ourmeasures possess poor ex te rna l va l id i ty and do not e a s i l y applyto the genuine cons t ruc t of re l a t iona l aggress ion . Fur thert e s t ing i s necessary to improve th e appra i sa l p o t e n t i a l of t h i scons t ruc t . Subsequent s tud ie s w i l l a lso increase r e s ea r ch e r ' sunders tanding of what ro l e peer , t eacher , hypothe t i ca l , andrepor ted c o n f l i c t s should have in the grea te r unders tand ing ofconf l i c t s during middle chi ldhood.

Since t h i s sample was taken from a suburban Midwest town,and examined pr imar i ly white p a r t i c ip an t s from middle c l a s sfami l ies , researchers should be ca re fu l when applying th er e su l t s of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r repor t to other popu la t ions . Manyconfounds, such as race , socioeconomic c l a s s , and geograph ica l


41/58


l oca t ions , may p l a y a ro le in these f ind ings . These r e s u l t s ,

however, are only a por t ion of a l a r g e r data se t t h a t w i l lexamine subjec ts from two d i f fe ren t count r ies (United Sta tes andIndonesia) , cu l tu res , socioeconomic c la s se s , and r e l i g io u sbackgrounds. The f indings of th e complete research p r o j ec t w i l lbe appl icable to a diverse group of chi ldren from var iousbackgrounds.


42/58


ReferencesAsher , S. R ., & Hymel, S. (1981) . Ch i l d ren ' s s o c i a l

competence in peer r e l a t i o n s : Soc iomet r ic and b eh av io ra lassessment . I n J . D. Wine & M.D. Smye (Eds . ) . So c ia lCompetence, New York: Gui l fo rd , 1981.

Berkowitz , L. (1993) . Aggress ion : I t s causes ,consequences , and co n t ro l . Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hil l .

Cai rns , R. B ., Cai rns , B. D., Neckerman, H. J . & Ferguson ,L. L. (1989) . Growth and aggress ion : I . Chi ldhood to e a r l yadolescence . Developmental Psychology, 25, 320-330.

Chung, T ., & Asher , S. (1996) . C h i l d r e n ' i s goa l s ands t r a t e g i e s in pe e r co n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . M err i l l -Pa lmerQu ar t e r ly , 42, 125-147.

Crick, N. R. (1995) . Rela t io n a l a gg r e s s i on : The ro l e o f

i n t e n t a t t r i b u t i o n s , fee l ings of d i s t r e s s , and provoca t ion t y p e .Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313-322.

Crick , N. R. (2000) . Engagement in gender normat ive ve r susnonnormat ive forms o f aggress ion : Links t o so c i a l -p sy ch o l o g i ca lad jus tment . In W. Craig (Ed. ) , Childhood s o c i a l development :The e s s e n t i a l read ings (pp .309-329) . Malden, MA: Blackwel l .

Cr ick , N. R ., Grotpe ter , J . K. (1995) . Rel a t i o n a la gg r e s s i on , gender , and so c i a l -p sy ch o lo g ica l ad jus tment . Chi ldDevelopment, 66, 710-722.


43/58


Crick , N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1998). Response dec i s ionprocesses in r e l a t i o n a l and over t aggress ion . Chi ldDevelopment, 69, 1630-1639.

Crick, N. R ., Werner, N. E ., Casas, J . F ., O'Br ien , K. M.,Nelson , D. A ., Grotpe ter , J . K., & Markon, K. (1999). Childhoodaggress ion and gender: A new look a t an o ld problem. Curren ttheory and research in motivat ion: Vol. 45. Gender andmot iva t ion (pp.75-141). Lincoln, NE: Universi ty o f NebraskaPress .

Dodge, K. A ., Coie, J . D., P e t t i t , G. S . , P r i ce , J. M.(1990). Peer s t a tus and aggress ion in boys ' groups :Developmental and con tex tua l anay lses . Chi ld Development, 61,1289-1309.

Dodge, K. A ., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Socia l cogn i t ive

b i a ses and d e f i c i t s in aggress ive boys. Chi ld Development, 53,620-635.

Eisenberg , A. R ., & Garvey, C. (1981). Chi ld ren ' s use o fv e rb a l s t r a t e g i e s in responding to c o n f l i c t s . DiscourseProcesses , 4, 149-170.

Feshbach, N. (1969). Sex di f fe rences in c h i l d re n ' s modesof aggress ive responses toward out s ide rs . M err i l l -Pa lmerQuar te r ly , 15, 249-258.


44/58


French, D. C ., Waas, G. A ., & Tarver-Behr ing, S. A. (1986).Nomination and r a t ing sca le soc iomet r ies : Convergent va l id i t yand c l i n i c a l u t i l i t y . Behavior Assessment , 8, 331-340.

Garvey, C. (1984). Chi ld ren ' s t a l k . Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univers i ty Press .

Hartup, W. W. (1974). Aggress ion in chi ldhood:Developmental perspec t ive . American Psycholog is t , 29, 337-341.

Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B ., Stewart , M. L ., & Eastenson, A.(1988). Conf l i c t and the f r i endsh ip r e l a t i o n s of youngch i ld ren . Chi ld Development, 59, 1590-1600.

Hay, D. F. (1984). Socia l conf idence in ea r ly chi ldhood.In G. Whitehurs t (Ed. ) , Annals of Chi ld Development (Vol. 1, pp.1-44) . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .

Iksandar , N., Laursen, B ., Finke l s t e in , B., & Fredr ickson ,

L. (1995). Co n f l i c t re so lu t ion among preschool ch i ld ren : Theappeal of negot ia t ion in hypothe t i ca l di spu te s . Ear ly Educat ionand Development, 6, 359-376.

Lagerspe tz , K. M. J . , Bjorkqv is t , K., & Pel tonen, T.(1988). I s i nd i rec t aggress ion t y p i ca l of females? Genderdi f fe rences in in aggress iveness in eleven to twelve year o ldch i ld ren . Aggress ive Behavior , 14, 403-414.

Laursen, B ., Hartup, W. W., & Koplas, A. L. (19976).Towards unders tanding peer c o n f l i c t . Merr i l l -Pa lmer Quar te r ly ,~ 76-102.


45/58


Laursen, B. (1995). Conf l i c t and soc ia l i n t e rac t ion inadolescent r e la t ionsh ips . Journal of Research on Adolescence ,2, 55-70.

Laursen, B ., & Col l ins , W. A. (1994). In t e rpe rsona lc o n f l i c t during adolescence. Psychological Bul le t in , 115, 1972 0 9 ~

Mil le r , P. M., Danaher, D. L ., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sexr e l a t e d s t r a t e g i e s fo r coping with i n t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c t inch i ld ren . Developmental Psychology, 22, 534-548.

Oden, S . , & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching ch i ld ren insoc ia l s k i l l s fo r f r i endsh ip making. Child Development, 48,495-506.

Pat te rson , G. R., Reid, J . B ., & Dishion, T. J . (1992). ASocial I n t e r ac t i o n a l Approach: Ant isoc ia l Boys (Vol. 4 ) . Oregon:

Cas ta l i a Publishing Company.Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development

of aggression. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) . Handbook of chi ldhoodpsychology: Vol. 4. Soc ia l i za t ion , persona l i ty , and s o c i a ldevelopment (4 th ed . , pp. 547-641) . New York: Wiley.

Perry , D. G. Perry , L. C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conf l i c tand th e development of an t i soc ia l behav ior . In C. U. Shantz &W. W. Hartup (Eds . ) . Conf l i c t in ch i ld and ado lescen tdevelopment (pp. 330-355) . New York: Cambridge.


46/58


Reinisch, J . , & Sanders, S. (1986). A t e s t of sex

dif ferences in aggressive response to hypothe t ica l c onf l i c ts i t ua t ions . Journa l o f Persona l i ty and Socia l Psychology, 50,1045-1049.

Rose, A. J . , & Asher, S. R. (1999). Children 's goa ls ands t ra teg ies in response to conf l i c t s with in a f r iendship .Developmental Psychology, 35, 69-79.

Rys, G. S ., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Rela t iona l aggress ionand peer re l a t ions : Gender and developmental i s sues . M e rr i l l Palmer Quarter ly , 43, 87-106.

Shantz, C. D. (1987). Confl ic t s between ch i ld ren . ChildDevelopment, 58, 283-305.

Shantz, C. D. (1993). Chi ld ren ' s conf l ic t s :Representa t ions and lessons learned. In R. R. Cocking & A.

Renninger (Eds. ) , The development and meaning of psycho log ica ldis tance (pp. 185-202). Mahweh, NJ: :Lawerence ErlbaumAssocia tes , Inc .

Shantz, C. D., & Hartup, W. W. (1992). Conf l i c t in ch i ldand adolescent development. New York: Cambridge.

Shantz, C. D., & Shantz, D. W. (1985). Conf l i c t betweenchi ldren: Soc ia l -cogni t ive and sociometr ic cor re la te s . In M. W.Berkowitz (Ed.) , Peer conf l i c t and psychologica l growth. SanFrancisco, Jossey-Bass .


47/58


Shantz, D. W. (1986). Confl ic t , aggress ion , and peer

s t a t u s : An observa t iona l s tudy. Chi ld Development, 57, 13221332.

Singleton, L. C ., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Peer p re fe ren cesin soc ia l in te rac t ions among th i rd-grade chi ldren in anin teg ra ted school d i s t r i c t . Journal of Educat ional Psychology,~ 330-336.

Sternberg , R ., & Dobson, D. (1987). Resolvingi n t e rpe rsona l c o n f l i c t s : An ana lys is of s t y l i s t i c consi s t ency .Journa l of Persona l i ty and Socia l Psychology, 52, 794-812.

Waas, G. A. (1988). Socia l a t t r i bu t iona l bia se s of pee r r e j ec t ed and aggressive ch i ld ren . Child Development, 59, 969975.

Youniss, J . , & Smollar , J . (1985). Parent and ado lescen t

re l a t ions in ado lescen t s whose paren t s a re divorced . Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 5, 129-144.


48/58


Table 1Corre la t ions of Over t Aggress ion Across Measures

Measure Teacher Peer Vignet te

Peer .53*Vignet te .24 .09Reported - .04 .15 .01

*Resul t was s ig n i f i c an t a t the .05 l e v e l


49/58


Table 2Corre l a t i ons of Rela t iona l Aggress ion Across Measures

Measure Teacher Peer Vignet te

Peer .17Vignet te .36 - .06Reported - .35 - .11 .11

Note. No s i gn i f i c an t co r re la t ions of r e l a t i ona l aggress ionemerged between any of the measures .


50/58

Table 3


Gender Dif fe rences in Over t Aggress ion Across MeasuresE f f e c t

Measure M SD t Value df Size (d')

Peer Rat ingsT ota lG i r l sBoys

Teacher Rat ingsT ota lG i r l sBoys

Hypo the t i c a l Vigne t t e s

T o t a l

1. 95 .751. 53 .431. 29 .35

2.12 1. 211. 93 1. 202.50 1. 23

1. 50 .50G i r l s 1. 50 .55Boys 1 . 49 .44

Repor ted C o n f l i c t s (Continuous)T ota l .19 .29G i r l s .13 .18Boys .35 .37

1 . 23 25 .49

.94 16 .47

.09 29 .02

.76.11

Note . None of the t - t e s t s i n d i ca t ed s i g n i f i c a n t genderd i f f e r e n c e s i n o v e r t aggress ion on any o f t h ese measu res .aWelch-Aspen T e s t s were used .


51/58


Table 4

Gender Dif fe rences in Rela t io n a l Aggress ion Across MeasuresE f fec t

Measure M SD t Value d f Size (d')

Peer Rat ingsTota l 1. 92 .75 - .71 25 .29Gi r l s 1. 91 .49Boys 1. 78 .40

Teacher Rat ingsT o t a l 2.58 1. 82 - .03 16 .02Gi r l s 2.58 1 .12Boys 2.57 1 .11

Hypothe t i ca l Vigne t t e sTota l 1. 59 .64 - .06 29 .03G i r l s 1. 58 .66Boys 1 . 60 .60

Repor ted Conf l i c t s (Continuous)T o t a l .12 .27 -2 .67* 19a .70Gi r l s .19 .32Boys .00 .00

*Resu l t was s ig n i f i c an t a t th e .05 l eve laWelch-Aspen Tes t s were used .


52/58

..How much does each of the following describe ?

Not Trueat All Not VeryTrue

Maybe Yes,Maybe No SomewhatTrue DefmitelyTrue

Lis taller than most other children?2. has nice hair?3. is liked by most children?4. likes to draw pictures?5. hits others?

>-'d'd/l)

p.'I , , ....

>-

Not TrueAt All Not VeryTrue Maybe Yes,Maybe Nq SomewhatTrue DefmitelyTrue6. is disliked by other children? ,7. ignores or stops talking to a kid when they'r e mad atthem?8. says mean things to others?9. is wanted as a friend by others?10. does not have many friends?

(")o

H'lI - ' ....()

III

p.>-()Q

()Q'1/l)tiltil....o

"""""VI


53/58

...Not TrueAt All Not VeryTrue Maybe Yes,Maybe No SomewhatTrue DefinitelyTrue11. laughs at jokes?12. tries to keep certain people from being in their groupwhen it 's time to play or do an activity?13. is good at sports?14. threatens or bullies others?15. is caring?

Not TrueAt All Not VeryTrue Maybe Yes,Maybe No SomewhatTrue DefmitelyTrue

16. others do not want to play with this child?17 likes to read books?

, . /. '

18. tries to make others not like a person by spreadingrumors about them or talking behind their backs?19. likes to share with others?20. pushes and shoves others around?

,

Not TrueAt All Not VeryTrue Maybe Yes,Maybe No SomewhatTrue DefmitelyTrue21. has many friends?22. tells others they will stop liking them unless they do asthey say?23. calls other kids mean names?24. is smart in school?25. gets even by keeping certain people from being in theirgroup of friends when they are mad at someone?

('")o::lHI.....

1-0nl"tlit::l0 .

>()Q()QPi(1)enen1-0o::l

..

VI


54/58

Conf l i c t and Aggress ion , 53

,Appendix BVignette Situations Used in Assessing Hypothetical Conf l ic t

1. Kids are saying very bad things about a classmate of yoursand you know they are not t rue . You s t i l l l ike yourclassmate and want to play w-ith him, but kids wil l make funof you i f you do .

2. You are playing bal l with a boy in your c lass . He decides hewants to play a different game, but you s t i l l want to playba l l . The boy takes the bal l from you and says he wil l notgive i t back unless you play the game he wants.

3. You get your snack a t the same time as another student . Youboth walk to the same seat next to where one of yourclassmates i s s i t t ing. You want to s i t next to yourclassmate, but so does the other s tudent .

4. You are in class one day when the boy next to you keeps doingbad th ings . When your teacher t e l l s him to stop, he l ies andsays tha t you were doing them.

5. You and another boy are each drawing a picture in a r t c lass .You have both spent a lo t of time on your pictures and theyare almost done. You both need the blue marker to f in ishyour pictures . You t e l l him that you need the blue marker soyou can f inish coloring the sky on your picture , but he


55/58

Con f c l i t and Aggress ion , 54

i n s i s t s t h a t he needs the blue marker to f in i sh the ocean onh is p ic tu re .

6. You and a classmate a re watching car toons one af te rnoon a tyour house. Your f avor i t e show i s on t e l ev i s ion , bu t yourclassmate decides t ha t he wants to watch h is favor i t e showt h a t i s on a t the same t ime. You do not want to change thechannel , bu t he says he wi l l h i t yo u if yo u do not .

7. You are playing with your f avor i t e toy during f ree t ime whenone of your classmates comes over to you and t r i e s to t ake itfrom you. You are having fun playing, and do no t want togive it up, but he says if you do not , he wi l l h i t you.

8. One morning, you to ld a classmate of yours a very impor tan tsec re t , and you made him promise not to t e l l it to anybody.Later t h a t af ternoon, you hear your classmate t e l l th e sec re tto somebody t h a t you do not l i ke .


56/58

Kids are saying very bad things about a classmate of yours and you know that they are not true. You still like your classmate and want to play withhim, but the other kids will make fun of you if you do. What do you do?1) Please mark how likely you would be to do each of the following: definitely maybe yes, definitelywould not do maybe no would do

You tell the other kids that they are being stupid and if they keep 1 2 3 4 5making fun or you or your classmate, you will beat them up.You tell your classmates that it is mean to talk badly about people 1 2 3 4 5behind their backs, and they should not do it. Then you invite himto come play with all of you. >'dYou find a teacher, explain the situation, and tell her that the other 1 2 . , 3 4 5 'dCDkids are being mean to your classmate. ::sp..

You tell the other kids that you will say bad things about them 1 2 3 4 5 >


57/58

C o n f l i c t and Aggress ion , 56

Hosti le /Coercive"You push th e s tuden t away from th e sea t , shoving him

before he can s i t down."Relat ional ly Aggressive

"You t e l l the o ther s tuden t to f ind ano ther s ea t because ifhe does not , you w i l l t e l l a l l the o ther kids a t school not tos i t with him ever again ."Pass ive

You move as ide and l e t th e o ther s tuden t t ake th e s ea t t h a tyou wanted."Assert ive

You t e l l the other s tuden t t ha t you were plann ing ons i t t i n g the re and he needs to f ind somewhere e l se to s i t . "Adult-Seeking

"You ask th e t eacher to t e l l the s tuden t t ha t th e s ea t i syours ."Prosoc ia l

"You t e l l th e s tuden t t ha t i f he l e t s you sit next to yourc lassmate today, then he can s i t t he re tomorrow."

Appendix DConf l i c t St ra tegy Descr ip t ions Used in Confl ic t S t ra tegy

Ques t ionnai re (Hypothe t ica l Vignet tes)


58/58

C o n f l i c t and A g g r e s s i o n , 57

Appendix EReported Conf l i c t Ques t ionnai re

1. Take a minute to imagine the conf l i c t you are th ink ing about .

Please t r y to t e l l me the s to ry of your c onf l i c t , from s t a r tto f in i sh .

2. Where did it happen? (prompts: Was it a t school? On the bus?Somewhere else?)

/3. Who was the c o n f l i c t with? How do you know t h i s person?4. What was th e c o n f l i c t about? (prompts: what s t a r t e d th e

conf l i c t ? What did you argue about?)5. Describe how th e c o n f l i c t happened: did you always argue

about th e same th ing? Did you f igh t fo r a long t ime or j u s t ashor t per iod? What types of th ings d id you say/do during th econf l i c t ?

6. How d id the disagreement end? (prompt: How did you s e t t l e th econf l i c t? )

7. What wa s the outcome of th e conf l i c t? (prompt: Did e i the rperson g e t what they wanted? Were you still upse t a f t e r thec o n f l i c t was over? Were yo u happy with how the c onf l i c tended?)

Relational and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood- A Comparison

Documents

Transcript of Relational and Overt Aggression in Middle Childhood- A Comparison