Predictive Validity and Early Predictors of Peer-Victimization Trajectories in Preschool

Barker, Edward D.; Boivin, Michel; Brendgen, Mara; Fontaine, Nathalie; Arseneault, Louise; Vitaro, Frank; Bissonnette, Catherine; Tremblay, Richard E.

doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.10.1185

Cited by 167 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 185 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These analyses were framed to examine whether young aggressors are less selective in their choice of targets. It is vital to understand more about these social processes involving the wider peer‐group in early childhood, which may be particularly beneficial for prevention and intervention programs among this age group (Barker et al, 2008). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who victimizes whom and who defends whom? A multivariate social network analysis of victimization, aggression, and defending in early childhood

Huitsing

Monks

2018

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this research was to investigate the interplay between victim‐aggressor relationships and defending relationships in early childhood to test the proposition that young aggressors are less selective than older children in their choice of vulnerable targets. Cross‐sectional multivariate statistical social network analyses (Exponential Random Graph Models) for a sample of 177 preschoolers from seven classes, 5‐ to 7‐years‐old, revealed that boys were more aggressive than girls, toward both boys and girls, whereas defending relationships were most often same‐sex. There was significant reciprocity in aggression, indicating that it was more often bidirectional rather than unidirectional. In addition, aggressors clearly defended each other when they shared their targets of aggression, whereas a marginally significant trend appeared for defending between victims who were victimized by the same aggressors. Furthermore, teacher‐rated dominance was positively associated with children's involvement in both aggression and victimization, and teacher‐rated insecurity was associated with less aggression, but not with victimization. These findings suggest that those who are reported as being victimized may retaliate, or be aggressive themselves, and do not display some of the vulnerabilities reported among older groups of victims. The findings are in line with the proposition that young aggressors are less strategic than older children in targeting vulnerable victims. The network approach to peer victimization and defending contributes to understanding the social processes facilitating the development of aggression in early childhood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who victimizes whom and who defends whom? A multivariate social network analysis of victimization, aggression, and defending in early childhood

Huitsing

Monks

2018

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Teachers were asked to indicate how frequently each type of behavior had occurred for the child during the past three months. Equivalent teacher ratings of peer victimization at school entry have been related to child self-ratings as well as to mother ratings of peer victimization in a normative population-based sample of English-speaking and French speaking children (Barker et al 2008). For each item, the response scale ranged from 0(never), 1(sometimes), to 2 (often).…”

Section: Measures and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This developmental period was selected because individual differences in theory of mind in preschool children have been found to predict individual differences in social behavior at the beginning of schooling (Cutting and Dunn 2002;Dunn 1995;Runions and Keating 2007; Renouf et al 2010). Moreover, evidence suggests that a substantial amount of kindergarteners are already exposed to peer victimization (Barker et al 2008;Kochenderfer and Ladd 1996). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further limitation is the use of a single informant (i.e., teachers) for aggressive behaviors and peer victimization. Although teachers are considered a valid and reliable source of information for measuring school-based behavior such as aggression and peer victimization (Dodge and Coie 1987;Barker et al 2008), they could be less privy than classmates to evaluate proactive aggression and peer victimization, which might not always take place in front of the teacher (Salmivalli and Nieminen 2002). The reliance on teacher ratings could also explain the low internal consistency observed for the proactive aggression and the peer victimization scales, which may have led to an underestimation of effect sizes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactive Links Between Theory of Mind, Peer Victimization, and Reactive and Proactive Aggression

Renouf

Brendgen

Séguin

et al. 2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the relation between theory of mind and reactive and proactive aggression, respectively, as well as the moderating role of peer victimization in this context. The 574 participants were drawn from a longitudinal study of twins. Theory of mind was assessed before school entry, when participants were 5 years old. Reactive and proactive aggression as well as peer victimization were assessed a year later in kindergarten. Results from multilevel regression CIHR Author Manuscript CIHR Author Manuscript CIHR Author Manuscriptanalyses revealed that low theory of mind was related to a high level of reactive aggression, but only in children who experienced average to high levels of peer victimization. In contrast, a high theory of mind was related to a high level of proactive aggression. Again, this relation was especially pronounced in children who experienced high levels of peer victimization. These findings challenge the social skills deficit view of aggression and provide support for a multidimensional perspective of aggressive behavior. KeywordsTheory of mind; Reactive and proactive aggression; Peer victimizationIn the study of aggressive behavior a fundamental distinction is made between reactive aggression and proactive aggression, which refer to two different underlying functions of aggression (Day, Bream and Paul 1992;Dodge and Coie 1987;Schwartz et al. 1998).Reactive aggression is defined as a retaliatory response to a real or perceived threat or provocation. It is associated with the frustration theory of aggression (Berkowitz 1989) and is accompanied by an activation of the autonomous system (Hubbard et al. 2002). In contrast, proactive aggression is considered a non-provoked behavior that is motivated by the desire for personal gains or the domination of others (Vitaro and Brendgen 2005). As an organized and planned behavior, proactive aggression is related to the anticipation of a positive outcome of the aggressive behavior (Dodge et al. 1997). Although studies usually report a high correlation between reactive and proactive aggression (mean r=0.68; Card and Little 2006), factor analyses and meta-analyses provide clear evidence for the validity of the distinction between the two functions of aggression (Card and Little 2006;Crick and Dodge 1996;McAuliffe et al. 2007;Poulin and Boivin 2000;Vitaro et al. 1998). As will be discussed in more detail below, evidence also suggests that these two functions of aggressive behavior are differentially related to social cognitive skills, particularly with respect to the decoding of social stimuli (Crick and Dodge 1996;Dodge et al. 1997;Dodge and Coie 1987;Hubbard et al. 2001;Schippel et al. 2003). The present study examines a specific and as yet unstudied aspect of decoding-related social cognitive skills, namely theory of mind, in relation to proactive and reactive aggression. The Role of Theory of Mind in Social BehaviorTheory of mind implies the capacity to attribute mental states to the self and to others in order to explain and predic...

show abstract

“…Where they have been investigated, findings regarding the impact of socio-economic conditions (Wolke et al 2001, Due et al 2009, parenting and bullying are inconsistent (Georgiou 2008, Veenstra 2005. Some studies have found that social deprivation, low father involvement, low parent support or low levels of family cohesion (Hart et al 2000) or harsh and reactive parenting (Barker et al 2008) and maltreatment (Shields and Cicchetti 2001) predicted victimisation. In contrast, others reported that socio-economic status is not related to victimisation (Wolke et al 2001) and that victims more often come from families characterised by high levels of cohesion (Bowers et al 1992), high levels of parental involvement and support (Bowers et al 1992, Baldry and Farrington 1998, Haynie et al 2001, Bowers et al 1994 and parental overprotectiveness (Berdondini and Smith 1996, Georgiou 2008, Perren and Hournung 2005.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LLCS Vol 3, Issue 1, Full Issue

2012

LLCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictive Validity and Early Predictors of Peer-Victimization Trajectories in Preschool

Cited by 167 publications

References 185 publications

Who victimizes whom and who defends whom? A multivariate social network analysis of victimization, aggression, and defending in early childhood

Who victimizes whom and who defends whom? A multivariate social network analysis of victimization, aggression, and defending in early childhood

Interactive Links Between Theory of Mind, Peer Victimization, and Reactive and Proactive Aggression

LLCS Vol 3, Issue 1, Full Issue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About