Peer Status in Early Adolescence:Peer Status in Early Adolescence:A Longitudinal Study of Relational A Longitudinal Study of Relational

Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Prosocial BehaviorProsocial Behavior

Melanie Zimmer-GembeckMelanie Zimmer-GembeckGriffith University, Gold CoastGriffith University, Gold Coast

AustraliaAustralia

Tasha Geiger & Nicki CrickTasha Geiger & Nicki CrickUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of Minnesota

USAUSA

This work was completed while the first author was a This work was completed while the first author was a NIMH postdoctoral fellow in the NIMH postdoctoral fellow in the

Life Course Center, U of Minnesota Life Course Center, U of Minnesota and supported by NIMH grant # R29MH53524 awarded to and supported by NIMH grant # R29MH53524 awarded to

Nicki Crick.Nicki Crick.

Thanks to all the members of theThanks to all the members of the

Project Kids lab!Project Kids lab!

BackgroundBackgroundPhysical Aggression and Peer RejectionPhysical Aggression and Peer Rejection

Children who are physically aggressive are Children who are physically aggressive are more likely to be rejected by their more likely to be rejected by their classmates.classmates.

Boys are more likely nominated as Boys are more likely nominated as physically aggressive than girls.physically aggressive than girls.

Many studies focus on boys.Many studies focus on boys.

BackgroundBackgroundRelational Aggression and Peer RejectionRelational Aggression and Peer Rejection Behaviors that can harm others through Behaviors that can harm others through

damage (or threat of damage) to damage (or threat of damage) to relationships, feelings of acceptance, relationships, feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion.friendship, or group inclusion.

Relational aggression significantly Relational aggression significantly associated with rejection by peers.associated with rejection by peers.

BackgroundBackgroundProsocial Behavior and Peer AcceptanceProsocial Behavior and Peer Acceptance

Should also be considered.Should also be considered. Associated with acceptance by classmates.Associated with acceptance by classmates.

Study PurposeStudy Purpose

Investigate how children’s behaviors…Investigate how children’s behaviors…– physical aggressionphysical aggression

– relational aggressionrelational aggression

– prosocial behaviorprosocial behavior

impact their acceptance and rejection by peers impact their acceptance and rejection by peers over a short (1-year, grade 3 to 4) and a longer (3-over a short (1-year, grade 3 to 4) and a longer (3-year, grade 3 to 6) span of time. year, grade 3 to 6) span of time.

Additional Study AimsAdditional Study Aims

Examine stability of relational aggressionExamine stability of relational aggression Investigate moderating role of genderInvestigate moderating role of gender

– Gender nonnormative hypothesis?Gender nonnormative hypothesis?– Relational aggression has greatest impact on Relational aggression has greatest impact on

females’ peer relationships?females’ peer relationships?

ParticipantsParticipants

Children/adolescents participated in assessments Children/adolescents participated in assessments in classrooms up to 3 times over 4 years.in classrooms up to 3 times over 4 years.– Grade 3 (T1), Grade 3 (T1), NN = 2335, 95 classrooms (85% in Grade = 2335, 95 classrooms (85% in Grade

3 - some mixed grade classes).3 - some mixed grade classes).

– Grade 4 (T2) Grade 4 (T2)

– Grade 6 (T3)Grade 6 (T3)

Grade 3 to 4 = SHORT, Grade 3 to 4 = SHORT, nn = 1119, 51% female = 1119, 51% female Grade 3 to 6 = LONG, Grade 3 to 6 = LONG, nn = 464, 54% female, 94% = 464, 54% female, 94%

transitioned to middle school.transitioned to middle school.

Subsamples Representative?Subsamples Representative?

Compared to children who only participated Compared to children who only participated at Time 1, SHORT more accepted and more at Time 1, SHORT more accepted and more likely to be of white race/ethnicity.likely to be of white race/ethnicity.

Compared to children who only participated Compared to children who only participated at Time 1, LONG were more accepted, at Time 1, LONG were more accepted, prosocial, and more likely to female and prosocial, and more likely to female and white.white.

ProcedureProcedure

Peer nominations in (northern hemisphere) Spring Peer nominations in (northern hemisphere) Spring (February to May).(February to May).

70% or more of children in each class participated.70% or more of children in each class participated. Two interviewers in each class. One read Two interviewers in each class. One read

assessment, other helped students.assessment, other helped students. Alphabetized rosters of classmates with id Alphabetized rosters of classmates with id

numbers.numbers. Nominate up to 3 classmates (male or female) for Nominate up to 3 classmates (male or female) for

each item.each item.

MeasurementMeasurement Peer PreferencePeer Preference

– All students nominated 3 classmates liked most and 3 All students nominated 3 classmates liked most and 3 classmates liked least.classmates liked least.

Physical aggression, relational aggression, prosocial Physical aggression, relational aggression, prosocial behaviorbehavior– Nominate 3 classmates …Nominate 3 classmates …

» Physical aggression: 3 items, all overt physical behaviors (e.g., Physical aggression: 3 items, all overt physical behaviors (e.g., kids who hit other kids)kids who hit other kids)

» Relational aggression: 5 items (eRelational aggression: 5 items (e.g., ‘kids who try to make other .g., ‘kids who try to make other kids not like someone by spreading rumors or talking behind the kids not like someone by spreading rumors or talking behind the kid’s back’)kid’s back’)

» Prosocial behavior: 3 items (e.g, ‘Prosocial behavior: 3 items (e.g, ‘people who say or do nice people who say or do nice things for other classmates’)things for other classmates’)

ResultsResultsTable 1

Comparisons of peer acceptance and rejection, physical aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior by gender and grade

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 6

Males, M Females, M F (1,2254) Males, M Females, M F (1,1191) Males, M Females, M F (1,2274)

n 1145 1111 909 1004 1109 1167

Peer acceptance -.07 .10 16.1*** -.05 .14 17.5*** -.11 .11 29.3***

Peer rejection .14 -.16 56.1*** .06 -.12 17.1*** .14 -.14 44.8***

Physical aggression .74 -.76 217.4*** .79 -.93 209.5*** .34 -.33 342.2***

Relational aggression .16 -.14 4.0* -.34 .19 8.4** -.09 .08 24.5***

Prosocial behavior -.59 .68 106.6*** -.74 1.00 219.4*** -.35 .34 420.5***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Stability in Relational AggressionStability in Relational Aggression

SHORTSHORT– r = .47 (males .50, females, .46)r = .47 (males .50, females, .46)

LONGLONG– rr = .44 (males .47, females .43) = .44 (males .47, females .43)

Cross-Lag ModelsCross-Lag Models

Path modeling (with SEM) used to examine Path modeling (with SEM) used to examine cross-lag associations between children’s cross-lag associations between children’s aggressive and prosocial behaviors in grade aggressive and prosocial behaviors in grade 3 and peer status in grade 4 (or grade 6) 3 and peer status in grade 4 (or grade 6) while also estimating while also estimating – Stabilities in children’s behaviors and peer Stabilities in children’s behaviors and peer

preference across time.preference across time.– Concurrent associations between all constructs.Concurrent associations between all constructs.

Data Analytic ProcedureData Analytic Procedure Four Major StepsFour Major Steps

– 1. Estimated all longitudinal stabilities and all 1. Estimated all longitudinal stabilities and all correlations between constructs within each wave of correlations between constructs within each wave of measurement.measurement.

– 2. Added all possible cross-lag paths for one construct 2. Added all possible cross-lag paths for one construct ((e.g., associations of relational aggression in grade 3 with peer e.g., associations of relational aggression in grade 3 with peer acceptance, peer rejection, physical aggression, and prosocial behavior in acceptance, peer rejection, physical aggression, and prosocial behavior in grade 4)grade 4)

– 3. Fixed nonsignificant associations to 0 for the focal 3. Fixed nonsignificant associations to 0 for the focal construct in Step 2.construct in Step 2.

– 4. Repeated steps 2 and 3 for all five constructs.4. Repeated steps 2 and 3 for all five constructs.

Grade 4Grade 3

PeerAcceptance

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

RelationalAggression

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

ProsocialBehavior

PeerRejection

Final Path Model IllustrationFinal Path Model Illustration

SHORTSHORT

Grade 4

PeerAcceptance

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

RelationalAggression

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

ProsocialBehavior

.37

.37

.42

.44

.28

-.15

.20

PeerRejection

-.18

.11

.22-.14

.11

.08

-.09

Grade 3

.21

.29

.32

.23

.28

PeerAcceptance

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

RelationalAggression

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

ProsocialBehavior

.28

.32

.53

.38

.21

-.14

.21

PeerRejection

-.22

.09

-.14

.19

-.13

-.11

Grade 3 Grade 6

.12

.16

.26

.29

.21

.25

LONGLONG

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

Grade 4

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

.11

.08

Grade 3

.21

.29

SHORTSHORT LONGLONG

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

.19

Grade 6

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

Grade 3

.12

.16

.26

Grade 3 Grade 4

PeerAcceptance

.20

PeerRejection .11

.22-.14

Grade 3 Grade 4

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

.32

.23

.28

SHORTSHORT LONGLONG

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

.21

.09-.14

Grade 3 Grade 6

.29

.21

.25

SHORT - Moderating Effects of GenderSHORT - Moderating Effects of Gender

PeerAcceptance

PeerAcceptance

PeerRejection

RelationalAggression

RelationalAggression

PhysicalAggression

PhysicalAggression

ProsocialBehavior

ProsocialBehavior

.38,.37

.43,.30

.36,.38

.36,.30

.16,.26

-.16,-.15

.25,.24

PeerRejection

-.19,-.15

.19,.12

.26,.19-.14,-.15

.10ns,.13

.02ns,.02ns

-.08,.04ns

Grade 3 Grade 4

.23,.19

.33,.19

.28,.16

.24,.19

.21,.27

Males, Females

Model fit Statistics(22) = 47.0, p <.001GFI = 1.00NFI = .99RMSEA = .03/df = 2.1

ConclusionsConclusionsGender and Relational AggressionGender and Relational Aggression

Gender differences in relational aggression Gender differences in relational aggression depend upon grade level (all available study depend upon grade level (all available study participants)participants)

No gender differences in the stability of No gender differences in the stability of relational aggression (longitudinal relational aggression (longitudinal subsamples).subsamples).

ConclusionsConclusionsPath Models: Prediction Over TimePath Models: Prediction Over Time

Relational and physical aggression had Relational and physical aggression had independent positive effects on peer independent positive effects on peer rejection.rejection.

Prosocial behavior was not associated with Prosocial behavior was not associated with later peer status.later peer status.

In LONG, relational aggression also In LONG, relational aggression also positively associated with acceptance.positively associated with acceptance.

ConclusionsConclusionsGenderGender

Few gender differencesFew gender differences Little support for either the Gender Little support for either the Gender

Nonnormative Hypothesis or the hypothesis Nonnormative Hypothesis or the hypothesis that relational aggression is most associated that relational aggression is most associated with peer preference among girls.with peer preference among girls.