Aggressive and nonaggressive rejected students: An analysis of their differences

Abstract

The present study aimed to analyze differences between aggressive and nonaggressive rejected students in four sets of variables: personal, family, school, and social. Participants in the study were 843 Spanish adolescents ranging in age from 11 to 16 years old, of whom 47% were boys. Results indicated that these two subgroups of rejected students show a different profile. Aggressive rejected students informed of lower levels of family self-esteem, less parental support, higher levels of aggression between their parents at home, and a more offensive parent-child communication in comparison with nonaggressive rejected adolescents. Moreover, aggressive rejected students showed lower levels of academic self-esteem, a more negative attitude toward school and studies, poorer relationships with teachers, and more academic difficulties than did adolescents in the nonaggressive rejected subgroup. Finally, aggressive rejected students indicated the presence of more undesirable life events and changes in their lives and, in general, higher levels of perceived stress.

Psychosocial Intervention

“…their academic self-evaluations or school self-esteem (Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993). Rejected adolescents have also been found to have more negative attitudes toward studies and the school, this negative evaluation being more marked in the aggressive rejected subgroup (Estévez, Herrero et al, 2006), which could explain, at least partly, their poor academic motivation (Wentzel & Asher, 1995).…”

“…Likewise, the use of dysfunctional strategies to deal with family conflicts, such as threatening, insulting, verbal hostility, defensive attitudes, isolation, and physical violence, is associated in childhood with greater negative emotionality and school rejection, and a tendency to use violence as a way of solving social conflicts (Cummings, Goeke-Morey, & Papp, 2003). Similarly, adolescents rejected by their peers usually report the presence of negative and offensive family communication (Black & Logan, 1995;Estévez, Herrero et al, 2006;Helsen et al, 2000), and low parental support (Estévez, Martínez, Moreno, & Musitu, 2006).…”

“…Thus, social rejection has been associated with indicators of maladjustment such as anxiety, stress, presence of depressive symptoms (Coie, Lochman, Terry, & Hyman, 1992;Estévez, Herrero et al, 2006;Kiesner, 2002), feelings of loneliness, and low satisfaction with life (Hay, Payne, & Chadwick, 2004;Woodward & Fergusson, 1999). Rejected adolescents, compared to their popular peers, perceive themselves as socially less capable and have less positive expectations of social success, so they make fewer attempts to establish social interactions and, as a consequence, they are at greater risk of developing severe social isolation which in turn contributes to their emotional impairment .…”

“…Level of aggression is a commonly reported difference between popular and rejected adolescents, though recent studies indicate that not all rejected adolescents are aggressive and not all popular adolescents are well adjusted (Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker, & Rodkin, 2008;Estévez, Herrero, Martínez, & Musitu, 2006;Hoff, Reese-Weber, Schneider, & Stagg, 2009).…”

“…Although earlier studies of rejected adolescents focused on their high levels of aggression (Bierman, Smoot, & Aumiller, 1993), more recent work suggests that rejected students do not constitute a homogeneous group (Graham & Juvonen, 2002) -some adolescents in this category show excessive social withdrawal, itself a possible risk factor for social rejection by peers (Estévez, Herrero et al, 2006). At least two groups have been identified within the rejected category (Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997): 40-50% display aggressive behavior (Astor, Pitner, Benbenishty, & Meyer, 2002;Parkhurst & Asher, 1992) and the remainder display timidity and passivity (Cillessen, van Ijzendoom, van Lieshout, & Hartup, 1992;Verschueren & Marcoen, 2002) but not behavioral problems (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998).…”