Title: Peer Status in Early Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study of Relational Aggression, Physical Aggression
1Peer Status in Early AdolescenceA Longitudinal
Study of Relational Aggression, Physical
Aggression, and Prosocial Behavior
- Melanie Zimmer-Gembeck
- Griffith University, Gold Coast
- Australia
- Tasha Geiger Nicki Crick
- University of Minnesota
- USA
2This work was completed while the first author
was a NIMH postdoctoral fellow in the Life
Course Center, U of Minnesota and supported by
NIMH grant R29MH53524 awarded to Nicki
Crick.Thanks to all the members of theProject
Kids lab!
3BackgroundPhysical Aggression and Peer Rejection
- Children who are physically aggressive are more
likely to be rejected by their classmates. - Boys are more likely nominated as physically
aggressive than girls. - Many studies focus on boys.
4BackgroundRelational Aggression and Peer
Rejection
- Behaviors that can harm others through damage (or
threat of damage) to relationships, feelings of
acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion. - Relational aggression significantly associated
with rejection by peers.
5BackgroundProsocial Behavior and Peer Acceptance
- Should also be considered.
- Associated with acceptance by classmates.
6Study Purpose
- Investigate how childrens behaviors
- physical aggression
- relational aggression
- prosocial behavior
- impact their acceptance and rejection by peers
over a short (1-year, grade 3 to 4) and a longer
(3-year, grade 3 to 6) span of time.
7Additional Study Aims
- Examine stability of relational aggression
- Investigate moderating role of gender
- Gender nonnormative hypothesis?
- Relational aggression has greatest impact on
females peer relationships?
8Participants
- Children/adolescents participated in assessments
in classrooms up to 3 times over 4 years. - Grade 3 (T1), N 2335, 95 classrooms (85 in
Grade 3 - some mixed grade classes). - Grade 4 (T2)
- Grade 6 (T3)
- Grade 3 to 4 SHORT, n 1119, 51 female
- Grade 3 to 6 LONG, n 464, 54 female, 94
transitioned to middle school.
9Subsamples Representative?
- Compared to children who only participated at
Time 1, SHORT more accepted and more likely to be
of white race/ethnicity. - Compared to children who only participated at
Time 1, LONG were more accepted, prosocial, and
more likely to female and white.
10Procedure
- Peer nominations in (northern hemisphere) Spring
(February to May). - 70 or more of children in each class
participated. - Two interviewers in each class. One read
assessment, other helped students. - Alphabetized rosters of classmates with id
numbers. - Nominate up to 3 classmates (male or female) for
each item.
11Measurement
- Peer Preference
- All students nominated 3 classmates liked most
and 3 classmates liked least. - Physical aggression, relational aggression,
prosocial behavior - Nominate 3 classmates
- Physical aggression 3 items, all overt physical
behaviors (e.g., kids who hit other kids) - Relational aggression 5 items (e.g., kids who
try to make other kids not like someone by
spreading rumors or talking behind the kids
back) - Prosocial behavior 3 items (e.g, people who
say or do nice things for other classmates)
12Results
13Stability in Relational Aggression
- SHORT
- r .47 (males .50, females, .46)
- LONG
- r .44 (males .47, females .43)
14Cross-Lag Models
- Path modeling (with SEM) used to examine
cross-lag associations between childrens
aggressive and prosocial behaviors in grade 3 and
peer status in grade 4 (or grade 6) while also
estimating - Stabilities in childrens behaviors and peer
preference across time. - Concurrent associations between all constructs.
15Data Analytic Procedure
- Four Major Steps
- 1. Estimated all longitudinal stabilities and
all correlations between constructs within each
wave of measurement. - 2. Added all possible cross-lag paths for one
construct (e.g., associations of relational
aggression in grade 3 with peer acceptance, peer
rejection, physical aggression, and prosocial
behavior in grade 4) - 3. Fixed nonsignificant associations to 0 for
the focal construct in Step 2. - 4. Repeated steps 2 and 3 for all five
constructs.
16Final Path Model Illustration
17SHORT
LONG
18SHORT
LONG
Grade 4
Grade 3
Grade 6
Grade 3
Peer Acceptance
Peer Acceptance
.16
.21
Peer Rejection
Peer Rejection
.26
.29
.19
.12
.11
Relational Aggression
Relational Aggression
.08
Physical Aggression
Physical Aggression
Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial Behavior
19SHORT
LONG
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 3
Grade 6
Grade 3
Grade 4
Peer Acceptance
Peer Acceptance
.20
.21
Peer Rejection
Peer Rejection
.11
.09
-.14
.22
-.14
Relational Aggression
Relational Aggression
.23
.21
Physical Aggression
Physical Aggression
.32
.29
Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial Behavior
.28
.25
20SHORT - Moderating Effects of Gender
Grade 4
Grade 3
Males, Females
.38,.37
Peer Acceptance
Peer Acceptance
.23,.19
-.16,-.15
.25,.24
-.19,-.15
.43,.30
Peer Rejection
Peer Rejection
.33,.19
.19,.12
.26,.19
-.14,-.15
.10ns,.13
Relational Aggression
Relational Aggression
.36,.38
.24,.19
Model fit Statistics c2(22) 47.0, p lt.001 GFI
1.00 NFI .99 RMSEA .03 c2/df 2.1
.02ns,.02ns
Physical Aggression
Physical Aggression
.36,.30
.28,.16
-.08,.04ns
Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial Behavior
.16,.26
.21,.27
21ConclusionsGender and Relational Aggression
- Gender differences in relational aggression
depend upon grade level (all available study
participants) - No gender differences in the stability of
relational aggression (longitudinal subsamples).
22ConclusionsPath Models Prediction Over Time
- Relational and physical aggression had
independent positive effects on peer rejection. - Prosocial behavior was not associated with later
peer status. - In LONG, relational aggression also positively
associated with acceptance.
23ConclusionsGender
- Few gender differences
- Little support for either the Gender Nonnormative
Hypothesis or the hypothesis that relational
aggression is most associated with peer
preference among girls.