Comparing Self and Peer Perceptions of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Pre and Early Adolescents

1
Comparing Self- and Peer Perceptions of
Aggressive and Nonaggressive Pre- and Early
Adolescents
Celina Vergel de Dios University of British
Columbia
Discussion
Abstract
Self- and peer evaluations of aggressive and
nonaggressive boys and girls were examined.
Teachers rated pre- and early adolescents to
identify aggressive and nonaggressive subgroups.
Self- and peer evaluations were collected on a
range of prosocial and antisocial behaviors.
Self-nominations on prosocial items were less
common for boys and aggressive participants who
both tended to evaluate themselves as antisocial.
On peer evaluations girls and nonaggressive
students were rated as more prosocial whereas
boys and aggressive participants received more
antisocial nominations. Aggressive students
displayed a self-peer evaluation agreement for
assessments on antisocial behaviors and helping
others. All self-appraisals of nonaggressive
participants as well as boys and girls mirrored
nominations obtained from their classmates.
Do self-evaluations of pre- and early
adolescents differ across aggressive status and
gender? Aggressive students were more likely to
evaluate themselves as antisocial and tended to
self-nominate less on share and kind to
others than their nonaggressive peers. In
contrast, Ledingham, Younger, Schwartzman, and
Bergeron (1982) reported a nonsignificant
difference in the self-ratings of aggressive and
control groups. Unfortunately, divergent measures
and methodologies utilized across the studies
preclude direct comparisons from being drawn.
Boys were less likely to perceive themselves
as prosocial displaying a greater inclination
towards self-nominations on break rules
compared to their female classmates. While some
investigators have also demonstrated favorable
but small differences in the social self-concept
of girls, others claim no such gender
distinctions (see Crain Bracken, 1994). Do
peer evaluations of pre- and early adolescents
differ across aggressive status and
gender? Aggressive youths received
substantially lower scores from their peers on
all prosocial measures. They were also nominated
significantly more for the antisocial behaviors
compared to their nonaggressive classmates.
According to Ladd and Profilet (1996), children
with higher teacher evaluations on their CBS
Aggressive with Peers subscale receive observer
ratings as being more aggressive and less
prosocial. Girls obtained more favorable
nominations on all prosocial dimensions while
boys were evaluated by their peers appreciably
higher on both antisocial items. Comparably, Ladd
and Profilet (1996) found that boys were rated by
their teachers as more aggressive than girls and
were subsequently given less positive nominations
by their fellow classmates. What are the
relationships between self- and peer evaluations
for aggressive and nonaggressive boys and girls
in pre- and early adolescence? Aggressive
participants displayed significant self-peer
evaluation agreement for all antisocial items and
the prosocial item of help others. Whereas
previous findings have connected biased
self-perceptions to aggression, the present study
has provided evidence supporting the notion that
aggressive individuals do not necessarily show
discrepant self-evaluations relative to
nominations from their classmates. Although
nonaggressive children have displayed
underestimated self-ratings relative to peer
appraisals in past research (Hughes et al.,
1997), self-reports of nonaggressive students in
this study were in line with both prosocial and
antisocial behavioral evaluations provided by
their classmates. Significant associations were
additionally uncovered for the self- and peer
evaluations of girls and boys. Similarly, Cole,
Maxwell, and Martin (1997) did not find
considerable differences between the self-reports
of boys and girls in comparison to the appraisals
obtained from other informants.
Results

• A series of logistic regressions, MANOVAs and
  correlations were conducted.
• Self-Evaluations of Pre- and Early Adolescents
  Across Aggressive Status and Gender
• Peer Evaluations of Pre- and Early Adolescents
  Across Aggressive Status and Gender
• Multivariate aggression main effects for
  prosocial (F(5,756) 20.02, p lt .001, Pillais
  Trace .117) and antisocial (F(2,759) 98.50, p
  lt .001, Pillais Trace .206) items.
• Multivariate gender main effects for prosocial
  (F(5,756) 6.11, p lt .001, Pillais Trace
  .039) and antisocial (F(2,759) 37.08, p lt .001,
  Pillais Trace .089) items.

Introduction
While some researchers have reported positively
biased self-evaluations among aggressive children
compared to ratings they receive from other
informants (e.g., David Kistner, 2000 Hughes,
Cavell, Grossman, 1997), it has been
alternatively argued by investigators such as
Burdett and Jensen (1983) that aggression is
linked instead to a depreciated self-concept.
This association between self-concept and
aggression has even been considered by some
investigators to be minimal or nonexistent
(Schaughency, Frame, Strauss, 1987). Given
that research has provided equivocal results thus
far, this study was conducted to further examine
the still uncertain nature of the relationship
among the critical variables of aggression and
self-perception. Diverse cross-sex
representations of aggression (Menesini et al.,
1997) warrant an evaluation of gender effects
while the emergence of complex social cognitive
abilities (Shirk Renouf, 1992) as well as
increased occurrence and acceptance of aggression
among the peer group from pre- to early
adolescence (Pellegrini Long, 2002) dictate the
need to investigate this transitional period.
Accordingly, the present study examines the
effects of aggression and gender on the self- and
peer evaluations of pre- and early adolescents.
Research Questions

• Do self-evaluations of pre- and early adolescents
  differ across aggressive status and gender?
• Do peer evaluations of pre- and early adolescents
  differ across aggressive status and gender?
• What are the relationships between self- and peer
  evaluations for aggressive and nonaggressive boys
  and girls in pre- and early adolescence?

Method

• Participants
• 764 grade 4-7 boys and girls with a mean age of
  10.64 years (SD .94) from 36 elementary school
  classrooms across three school districts in
  Canada.
• Measures
• Teacher ratings of aggression. On a modified
  version of Ladd and Profilets (1996) Child
  Behavior Scale (CBS) teachers rated students
  (Doesnt apply, Applies sometimes, Certainly
  applies) on seven items including fights with
  other children, bullies other children, is an
  aggressive child, taunts and teases other
  children, threatens other children, argues with
  peers, and kicks, bites, or hits other children.
  Aggressive participants were distinguished as
  students with an Aggressive with Peers composite
  score 1 SD or greater above the sample mean while
  the remaining pupils were classified as
  nonaggressive.
• Self and peer evaluations. Unlimited nomination
  procedures on the Peer Assessment of Social
  Behaviors Scale were utilized to identify
  participants who fit the prosocial and antisocial
  behavioral descriptions. Participants were also
  informed that they could select their own name.
  Peer assessments were derived by computing the
  nominational proportion scores for each
  participant. Self-report scores were calculated
  by distinguishing which behavioral descriptors
  students nominated themselves on (i.e., for each
  item, a score of either 0 or 1 was assigned
  respectively for the absence or presence of a
  self-nomination). These self- and peer
  nominations on prosocial (5 items share,
  cooperate, help others, cooperate in group, kind
  to others) and antisocial (2 items start fights,
  break rules) behaviors functioned as the
  dependent variables in subsequent analyses.

References
Asarnow, J. R., Callan, J. W. (1985). Boys
with peer adjustment problems Social cognitive
processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53, 80-87. Burdett, K., Jensen,
L.C. (1983). The self-concept and aggressive
behavior among elementary school children from
two socioeconomic areas and two grade levels.
Psychology in the Schools, 20, 370-375. Crain,
M. R., Bracken, B. A. (1994). Age, race, and
gender differences in child and adolescent
self-concept Evidence from a behavioral-acquisiti
on, context-dependent model. School Psychology
Review, 23(3), 496-511. Cole, D. A., Maxwell, S.
E., Martin, J. M. (1997). Reflected
self-appraisals Strength and structure of the
relation of teacher, peer, and parent ratings to
childrens self- perceived competencies. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 55-70. David,
C.F., Kistner, J.A. (2000). Do positive
self-perceptions have a dark side? Examination
of the link between perceptual bias and
aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 28(4), 327-337. Hughes, J.N., Cavell,
T.A., Grossman, P.A. (1997). A positive view of
self Risk or protection for aggressive children?
Development Psychopathology, 9(1), 75-94. Ladd,
G., Profilet, S.M. (1996). The Child Behavior
Scale A teacher-report measure of young
childrens aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial
behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(6),
1008-1024. Ledingham, J.E., Younger, A.,
Schwartzman, A.E. Bergeron, G. (1982).
Agreement among teacher, peer and self-ratings of
childrens aggression, withdrawal, and
likability. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 10, 363-372. Menesini, E., Eslea, M.,
Smith, P. K., Genta, M. L., Giannetti, E., Fonzi,
A., Costabile, A. (1997). Cross-national
comparison of childrens attitudes towards
bully/victim problems in school. Aggressive
Behavior, 23, 245-257. Pellegrini, A. D., Long,
J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying,
dominance, and victimization during the
transition from primary school through secondary
school. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 20, 259-280. Shirk, S. R. Renouf,
A. G. (1992). The tasks of self-development in
middle childhood and early adolescence. In R. P.
Lipka T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.),
Self- perspectives across the life span (pp.
53-90). Albany State University of New York
Press.