Peer victimization is predictive of serious problems in adjustment, especially among children who are both victimized and aggressive. This study investigated how different types of aggression contribute to later victimization. Specifically, we examined prospective relationships between the types of aggression that children perpetrated and the types that they experienced at the hands of others. Trained observers coded schoolyard behavior of 553 children in grades 3-6 during the initial year of a bullying intervention program. Both observed aggression and victimization were specified by form (direct, indirect) and function (proactive, reactive). Total hourly rates of victimization were highest in the upper grades. Direct-reactive aggression uniquely predicted increases in victimization, while direct-proactive aggression predicted decreases, particularly in direct-proactive victimization. Indirect-proactive aggression (e.g., derogatory gossip) predicted increases in indirect-proactive victimization only in the control group. Indirect-reactive aggression and victimization occurred too rarely to detect change. Aggression-victimization relationships did not differ for boys and girls. Discussion considers why children might risk direct reactive aggression in the face of increased victimization. Different sequelae for different forms and functions of aggression highlight the need to resolve theoretical ambiguities in defining proactive and reactive aggression.

Theory and research using a social-information processing framework indicate that reward-focused (proactive) aggression has different social consequences than defense-focused (reactive) aggression. Students use norms that identify expected and socially approved behaviors as guides to their own actions. Differences in social-cognitive processing characteristics and social status linked to each type of aggression may increase the relevance of some normative sources relative to others. This study fills a gap in the literature by examining the contributions of personal beliefs, classroom beliefs, and classroom rates of aggression to future proactive and reactive aggression. During fall and spring, we observed students’ aggression on school playgrounds using a random subsample (n = 254) of consented students from 35 classrooms (Grades 3–6). We calculated classroom rates of proactive and reactive aggression from fall observations. Classroom means for beliefs endorsing retaliation were calculated from surveys of 536 students. Results of multilevel analyses revealed, as hypothesized, that personal beliefs predicted high rates of students’ proactive aggression, but not reactive aggression. Classroom beliefs predicted high rates of students’ reactive but not proactive aggression. Students in classrooms with high rates of fall proactive aggression showed low spring rates of both types of aggression. In contrast, students in classrooms with high rates of fall reactive aggression displayed high spring rates of proactive and reactive aggression. The latter pattern may represent classrooms in which students continue to struggle against status inequities. The discussion examines how inequities may impact intervention efforts.

African American, European American, Mexican American, and Native American adolescents (N = 270) described how they felt and appraised their own actions in response to a peer's victimization. Analyses compared times they had calmed victim emotions, amplified anger, avenged, and resolved conflicts peacefully. Adolescents felt prouder, more helpful, more like a good friend, and expected more peer approval after calming and resolving than after amplifying anger or avenging peers. They also felt less guilt and shame after calming and resolving. Avenging elicited more positive self‐evaluation than amplifying. Epistemic network analyses explored links between self‐evaluative and other emotions. Pride was linked to relief after efforts to calm or resolve. Third‐party revenge reflected its antisocial and prosocial nature with connections between pride, relief, anger, and guilt.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected Native American people and communities across the United States. Despite unequal losses during the pandemic, Native Americans have high vaccination rates. We provide insight into perspectives of COVID-19 and vaccinations through in-depth interviews with Native Americans. Through this research, we provide a holistic view of how Native Americans perceive vaccines by pairing Indigenous perspectives of risk and the Health Belief Model. We discuss the importance of tribal sovereignty in developing health communication strategies, and the need for messaging that is trusted and culturally appropriate.