A cross-cultural analysis of the relations of physical and relational aggression with peer victimization

Abstract

To better address the many consequences of peer victimization, research must identify not only aspects of individuals that put them at risk for victimization, such as aggression, but also aspects of the context that influence the extent of that risk. To this end, this study examined the contextual influences of gender, same-sex peer group norms of physical and relational aggression, and nationality on the associations of physical and relational aggression with peer victimization in early adolescents from Canada, China, Brazil, and Colombia ( N = 865; Mage = 11.01, SD = 1.24; 55% boys). Structural equation modeling was used to test for measurement invariance of the latent constructs. Multilevel modeling revealed that both forms of aggression were positive predictors of peer victimization, but physical aggression was a stronger predictor for girls than boys. Cross-national differences emerged in levels of peer victimization, such that levels were highest in Brazil and lowest in Colombia. Cross-national differences were also evidenced in the relationship between relational aggression and victimization: the relationship was positive in China, Brazil, and Canada (listed in descending order of magnitude), but negative in Colombia. Above and beyond the cross-national differences, physical aggression was a stronger predictor of victimization in peer groups low in physical aggression, and relational aggression was a stronger predictor in peer groups low in relational aggression. Ultimately, this research is intended to contribute to a better theoretical understanding of risk factors for peer victimization and the development of more effective and culturally-appropriate prevention and intervention efforts.

Prospective relations of preschoolers’ prosocial and aggressive affect themes in pretend play with prosocial and aggressive behaviors across contexts

“…A composite measure of reactive and proactive aggression was used in the current study to parallel the aggressive affect themes that were included in the APS‐P coding scheme ( α = 0.91). This measure has been validated for use with similarly diverse samples (e.g., Baker, Raine, Liu, & Jacobson, 2008; Bass et al., 2018; Fung et al., 2018; Jambon & Smetana, 2018; Metin Aslan, 2018; Nivette, Eisner, Malti, & Ribeaud, 2014).…”

Unpacking the misfit effect: Exploring the influence of gender and social norms on the association between aggression and peer victimization

“…Consistent with evidence that the primary motive of social behavior is to gain social acceptance and status (Adler & Adler, 1998), social regulation mechanisms in adolescence generally involve decrements to either acceptance or social status (Velasquez et al, 2016), as summarized by the misfit effect of the person-group similarity model: Individuals who violate social norms are at risk for social consequences such as social rejection, peer victimization, or loss of acceptance or popularity (Boivin et al, 1995). This effect has been wellestablished for violations of peer group norms of aggression in a range of peer group contexts (e.g., Bass et al, 2016;Boivin et al, 1995;Santo et al, 2017;Velasquez et al, 2010Velasquez et al, , 2016. However, social norms and hence the misfit effect can operate at multiple levels of the social environment, yet no research to date has evaluated how the level of the context influences these effects.…”

“Would You Be My Friend?”: Friendship Selection and Contagion Processes of Early Adolescents Who Experience Victimization

“…Finally, even though we assessed aggression through four peer ratings, calculating an aggregated score with high internal consistency over time, it might be arguable whether all these items correctly address aggression. For instance, some studies have focused on relational or physical aggression, and have used more direct items to tackle aggressive behaviors, such as assessing active exclusion instead of ignoring others (Bass et al, 2018; Kraft & Mayeux, 2018). Seemingly, only two peer-rated items were used to assess prosocial behavior.…”