Adolescents’ Social Reasoning About Relational Aggression

Abstract

We examined early adolescents' reasoning about relational aggression, and the links that their reasoning has to their own relationally aggressive behavior. Thinking about relational aggression was compared to thinking about physical aggression, conventional violations, and personal behavior. In individual interviews, adolescents (N = 103) rated the acceptability of relational aggression, physical aggression, conventional violations, and personal behavior, and justified their ratings. Results indicated that adolescents' views about relational aggression are complex. Although gossip was viewed as very wrong (comparable to beliefs about physical aggression), exclusion was perceived to be somewhat acceptable (less wrong than conventional violations, but more wrong than personal behaviors). With regard to associations between beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior, the results indicated that beliefs about gossip were associated with gossiping behavior, and that beliefs about physical aggression were associated with physically aggressive behavior. No links emerged between beliefs about exclusion and exclusionary behavior. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed within the frameworks of social domain theory and social information processing models of aggressive behavior.

Relations between forms and functions of aggression and moral judgments of aggressive transgressions

“…Our pattern of findings is in keeping with past literature that demonstrates unique associations between certain aggressive behaviors and cognitions that are specifically related to those behaviors (Bailey & Ostrov, 2008; Goldstein & Tisak, 2010; Werner & Nixon, 2005; cf. Crick, 1995).…”

“…Children who viewed physically aggressive behaviors as more wrong were less likely to be nominated as physically aggressive by their peers and showed lower levels of teacher-reported aggression. Similar to the literature connecting aggressive behavior with moral judgments, other research conducted in late middle childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood has established links between physical and relational aggression and beliefs in the normativity or acceptability of these behaviors (Bailey & Ostrov, 2008;Basow, Cahill, Phelan, Longshore, & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 2007;Goldstein & Tisak, 2010;Werner & Nixon, 2005). Acceptability beliefs are conceptually similar to moral judgments but involve having individuals rate the moral acceptability of a behavior, rather than degree of wrongness (see Goldstein & Tisak, 2010).…”

“…There were no gender differences, however, in judgments of reactive relational aggression. Murray‐Close et al (2006) and Goldstein and Tisak (2010) showed that girls judged acts of physical and relational aggression as more wrong than boys, but did not assess function in their studies. Thus, when taking function into account, women may tend to be more judgmental of proactive relational aggression than reactive relational aggression.…”

Susceptibility to peer influence during middle school: Links with social support, peer harassment, and gender

“…For relational aggression ( α = .60), students were asked how many times in the past month they had “purposely kept another student from joining group activities,” “spread a rumor about another student,” and “damaged another student's reputation.” For relational victimization ( α = .60), adolescents were asked how many times another student had engaged in these same behaviors directed toward them. These items were adapted from the relational aggression measure used in Goldstein and Tisak (). For both scales, adolescents answered the items using a 4‐point response scale with options ranging from 1 ( never ) through 4 ( five or more times ).…”

“…For relational victimization (α = .60), adolescents were asked how many times another student had engaged in these same behaviors directed toward them. These items were adapted from the relational aggression measure used in Goldstein and Tisak (2010). For both scales, adolescents answered the items using a 4-point response scale with options ranging from 1 (never) through 4 (five or more times).…”