Context-Dependent Victimization and Aggression: Differences Between All-Girl and Mixed-Sex Schools

Abstract

Contextual differences in the association between different forms of aggressive behavior and victimization were studied with a sample of 197 boys and 149 girls from mixed-sex schools and in 336 girls from all-girl schools ( M = 10.21 years of age) in two cities in Colombia. Results showed that boys generally engage in more physical than relational aggression, whereas girls engage in more relational than physical aggression. Among boys, the association between aggression and victimization was significant only for the measure of relational aggression, whereas, for girls, victimization was significantly correlated only with physical aggression. This latter association was found to be significantly stronger for girls from the all-girl schools than for the girls from the mixed-sex schools. These findings are discussed in terms of how mixed-sex and same-sex groups, as different forms of peer context, affect the social dynamics related to the association between aggression and victimization.

Contextual influences on the relations between physical and relational aggression and peer victimization

“…Conversely, it also seems that, though the effect is smaller, the greater prevalence of relational aggression in girls may lead to the development of an accepted norm of relational aggression, and therefore girls who exhibit physical aggression may be more likely to targets of peer victimization. These patterns have been identified in previous research (Velasquez et al, 2010). We expand on these findings by exploring the role of classroom sex ratio as a factor in shaping group norms of aggressive behavior.…”

“…The current study aimed to replicate and expand on the findings of Velasquez et al (2010). We examined the association between individual relational and physical aggression with peer victimization.…”

“…This dynamic may also be expected to occur in classrooms with low girl to boy ratios, such that the greater difference between the normativeness of relational aggression and physical aggression will underlie a stronger relationship between relational aggression and peer victimization in girls. In support of between-group contrast effects on the relationship between forms of aggression and peer victimization, Velasquez et al (2010) found that the association between physical aggression and peer victimization was stronger among all-girls school girls compared to missed-sex school girls.…”

“…As emphasized by Bronfenbrenner's (1977) model of development, the complex dynamics of peer-relationships are best understood when attention is given to the contextual factors that influence them. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to replicate and expand on previous research that has explored the contextual influences of gender of the same-sex peer group and school gender composition on the relationships between relational and physical aggression and peer victimization (Velasquez et al, 2010). Specifically, this study aimed to assess the impact of gender norms in two ways, by first exploring the associations between these variables as a function of social norms for boys and girls and second in relation to classroom gender ratios.…”

“…The extent to which students act consistently with these norms can have serious consequences for children's social status and belonging (Chen et al, 2006;Wright, Giammarino, & Parad, 1986). According to the misfit effect of the person-group similarity model (Wright et al, 1986), children who are different from the group, or whose behavior is not consistent with peer norms, are often less popular, more likely to be rejected or victimized, and have lower social status (Velasquez, Santo, Saldarriaga, & Bukowski, 2010). For example, in an investigation of the persongroup similarity model, Wright et al (1986) found that children's popularity status is related to the normativeness of aggression in a group, such that aggressive children were likely to be considered unpopular in groups with low prevalence of aggression.…”