relational and overt aggression in preschool

8/2/2019 Relational and Overt Aggression in Preschool

1/10

Developmental Psychology1997, Vol . 33 , No. 4 , 579- 588 Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, IncO012-1649/97/$3.0O

Relational and Overt Aggression in PreschoolNicki R. Crick and Juan F. CasasUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus Monique MosherCalifornia School of Professional Psychology

This research was designed as an initial attempt to assess relational aggression in preschool-agechildren. Our goal was to develop reliable measures of relational aggression for young children andto use these instruments to address several important issues (e.g., the relation between this form ofaggression and social-psychological adjustment). Results provide evidence that relationally aggres-sive behaviors appear in children's behavioral repertoires at relatively young ages, and that thesebehaviors can be reliably distinguished from overtly aggressive behaviors in preschool-age children.Further findings indicate that preschool girls are significantly more relationally aggressive and lessovertly aggressive than preschool boys. Finally, results show that relational aggression is significantlyrelated to social-psychological maladjustment (e.g., peer rejection) for both boys and girls.

Longitudinal investigations have shown that childhood ag-gression is one of the best known social predictors of futuremaladjustment (Berkowitz, 1993; Loeber, 1990; Parker & Asher,1987) . These studies have demonstrated the significance of ag-gression for identifying children at risk for developmental diffi-culties. However, although many important advances have beenmade in our understanding of childhood aggression, much ofthis knowledge has been gained through the study of aggressiveboys only (cf. Crick & Dodge, 1994; Parke, 1992; Robins,1986) . The lack of attention to aggressive girls has likely oc-curred because the study of overt aggression has been empha-sized, a form of aggression that is more characteristic of boysthan of girls (Berko witz, 199 3; Block, 1983 ; Parke & Slaby,1983) . However, in recent research, a relational form of aggres-sion has been identified that has been shown to be relativelymore characteristic of girls (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; La-gerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988).

In contrast to overt aggression, which harms others throughphysical damage or the threat of such damage (e.g., pushing,hitting, kicking, or threatening to beat up a peer), relationalaggression harms others through damage to their peer relation-ships (e.g., using social exclusion or rumor spreading as a formof retaliat ion). Crick and Grotpeter (199 5) proposed that, whenattempting to inflict harm on others (i.e., aggressing), children

Nicki R. Crick and Juan F. Casas, Institute of Child Development,University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus; Monique Mosher, Califor-nia School of Professional Psychology.This research was funded by grants from the University of IllinoisResearch Board and the United States Department of Agriculture. Por-tions of this research were presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research in Child Development, 1995, Indianapolis, Indiana.

The participation of the University of Illinois Child Development Labteachers and children in this research is gratefully ackno wledg ed. S pecialthanks to Brent McBride, Deborah Trouth, Jennifer K. Grotpeter, Mau-reen A. Bigbee, Carol Rockhill, Tammy Lindsey, Tracy Gustin, MichelleBauer, and Amy Bolin for their assistance with this study.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to NickiR. Crick or Juan F. Casas, Institute of Child Development, 51 East RiverRoad, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.

do so in ways that are most likely to thwart or damage the socialgoals of the target. Thus, boys are likely to use physical formsof aggression that hinder the instrumentally oriented dominancegoals that tend to be characteristic of boys (Block, 1983). Incontrast, Crick and Grotpeter hypothesized that girls are morelikely to use relational forms of aggression because they areeffective in hindering the affiliative, intimacy goals that tend tobe more typical of girls (Block, 1983).

Recent studies of relational aggression have demonstrated theimportance of a focus on this form of aggression in addition toovert aggression (for a review see Crick et al., in press). Thesestudies have provided evidence that relationally aggressive be-haviors are highly aversive and damaging to children. For exam-ple, the majority of children view these behaviors as mean,hostile acts that cause harm and that are frequently enacted inanger (Crick, 1995; Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996). In addi-tion, children who are frequently targeted as the victims ofrelationally aggressive acts experience significantly more psy-chological distress (e.g., depression, anxiety) than their nontar-geted peers (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Crick & Bigbee, inpress). Thus, being the frequent target of relational aggressionmay result in emotional difficulties for children.

Relational aggression may also be harmful for the initiatorsof these behaviors. Specifically, relationally aggressive childrenare more socially and emotionally maladjusted than their nonre-lationally aggressive peers. For example, relationally aggressivechildren report significantly higher levels of loneliness, depres-sion, and negative self-perceptions than do their peers (Crick &Grotpeter, 1995). In addition, frequent engagement in relationalaggression is significantly related to concurrent and future peerrejection for both boys and girls (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;Crick, 1996; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). These studies provideevidence that the current lack of research on relational aggres-sion has delayed our understanding of a salient and potentiallydamaging aspect of children's socialization within the peercontext.

Although important information has been generated in paststudies of relational aggression , one significant limitation of thiswork has been the exclusive focus on the study of school-agechildren. To date, no research has been conducted on relational57 9


2/10

580 CRICK, CASAS, AND MOSHERaggression as exhibited in the peer groups of young children.It is important to generate this knowledge because, as has beenproposed by a number of investigators (e.g., Ladd & Mars,1986; Levy-Shiff & Hoffman, 1989; Olson & Lifgren, 1988 ;Wasik, 1987), early detection of children's social difficulties(e.g., aggressive behavior patterns) serves an important functionin the prevention and treatment of childhood adjustment prob-lems. Further, research on relational aggression in young chil-dren is also needed because it would provide essential informa-tion regarding the development of these behaviors. That is, itwould provide knowledge needed to determine when and howrelationally aggressive strategies first appear in children 's socialbehavioral repertoires. Accordingly, the present research wasdesigned as an initial attempt to identify relational aggressionin the peer groups of young children. Our first goal was todevelop age-appropriate, reliable instruments that could be usedto assess relational aggression in preschool-age children.

In previous studies, all of which have been conducted withschool-age children, three methods have been used to assessrelationally aggressive behavior, namely peer, teacher, and self-report (e.g., Crick, 1995; Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;Lagerspe tz et al., 19 88). For the assessment of relational aggre s-sion, the results of these studies indicate that peer- and teacher-report methods are superior to self-report, a finding that hasalso been demonstrated for the assessment of overt aggression(Ledingham, \bunger, Schartzman, & Bergeron, 1982; Pekarik,Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub, & Neale, 1976; Semler, 1960). Fur-ther, these studies have shown that teachers' and peers' assess-ments of relational aggression are significantly related, and evi-dence for favorable reliability and validity of both types ofmeasures has been obtained (e.g., Crick, 1995, 1996; Crick &Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). However, a numberof investigators have proposed that peers are more valid infor-mants than teachers for the assessment of both relational andovert aggression in school-age children because (a) children inthe elementary-school years and beyond are mature enough tobe sensitive to the presence of adults iij social contexts and,thus, are unlikely to engage in aggression when teachers arepresent; and (b) peer assessment of aggression in school-agechildren is based on multiple informants (e.g., all of a child'sclassmates) and, thus, is likely to be a more reliable indicatorof children's behavior than teacher assessment, which is basedon a single informant (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990;Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz et al., 1988; Ledinghamet a l . , 1982 ) .

Although the above arguments seem valid for the assessmentof aggression in school-age children, a number of considerationsmay make them less applicable to assessment in preschool sam-ples. First, young children are less likely to be inhibited by thepresence of adults and, thus, are more likely than older childrento engage in aggression when teachers are looking on (Coie etal., 1990). Because they have greater access to children's peerinteractions than elementary-school teachers, preschool teachersmay be able to provide more valid information regarding chil-dren's social behavior. Second, in contrast to elementary-schoolteachers where one teacher typically leads each class, preschoolclassrooms often employ several teachers (e.g., a head teacherand one or more assistant teachers). Thus, more adult infor-mants are available in preschool classrooms to report on chil-

dren's behavior, a situation that may lead to more accuratebehavioral assessment by teachers. Third, past research hasshown that young ch ildren may have difficulty reporting reliablyon some aspects of their peers' behavior. Specifically, althoughpreschoolers have been shown to be reliable informants forbehaviors that are obvious and concrete (e.g., physical aggres-sion; Johnston, DeLuca, Murtaugh, & Diener, 1977; Ladd &Mars, 1986), research evidence indicates that they may be rela-tively unreliable informants for behaviors that are more subtle(e.g., social withdrawal; Ladd & Mars, 1986). Thus, youngchildren may have more difficulty identifying relational aggres-sion than overt aggression in their peer groups, because rela-tionally aggressive behaviors are often more indirect and subtle(e.g., it may be relatively easy for young children to recall whichpeers hit others but more difficult for them to recall which p eersexclude others from grou p activities when they are mad at them ).

On the basis of these considerations, we used a multi-infor-mant approach to the assessment of relational (and overt) ag-gression in the present research. Specifically, both teacher andpeer reports of aggression were elicited and the degree to whichthese informants agreed in their assessments was evaluated.Overt aggression was also assessed so that the relation betweenpeer and teacher reports of these behaviors could be comparedwith the relation between peer and teacher reports of relationalaggression.Another objective of this research was to assess the distinc-tiveness of relational and overt aggression in young children.Past research of school-age populations has demonstrated thatrelational and overt aggression are relatively distinct forms ofbehavior with most aggressive children exhibiting one form ofaggression or the other but not both (e.g., Crick, 1996; Crick &Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Because we pres-ently do not know at what age this pattern emerges, we soughtto assess whether it is apparent by the time children reach the

preschool years.An additional issue that was addressed in this research wasthe evaluation of gender differences in relational aggression.Past research with school-age samples has demonstrated that,in contrast to overt aggression, girls are more likely to exhibitrelational aggression than are boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;Lagerspetz et al., 1988). This relation was also assessed inthis study to determine whether gender differences in relationalaggression are apparent at young ages or whether these differ-ences do not appear until children are more mature.The final issue addressed in this study was consideration ofthe relation between relational aggression and social-psycho-logical adjustment in preschoolers. Because relational aggres-

sion has been shown to be significantly related to maladjustmentin school-age children (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995),we sought to assess whether these same patterns were apparentin young c hildren. If so, assessme nt of relational aggression maybe a useful tool for identifying children at risk for adjustmentdifficulties at young ages. Several aspects of social-psychologi-cal adjustment were assessed in this research including peerrejection, peer acceptance, depressed affect, and prosocial be-havior. These particular indices of adjustment were chosen be-cause they have been shown in past studies to be significantlyrelated to at least one of the forms of aggression under study


3/10

RELATIONAL AND OVERT AGGRESSION 581Table 1Factor Loadings for the Teacher Measure of Social Behavior (PSBS-T)

Item Relationalaggression Overtaggression Prosocialbehavior DepressedaffectTells a peer that he or she won't play with that peer or be that peer's friend unlesshe or she does what this child asksTells others not to play with or be a peer's friendWhen mad at a peer, this child keeps that peer from being in the play groupTells a peer that they won't be invited to their birthday party unless he or shedoes what the child wantsTries to get others to dislike a peerVerbally threatens to keep a peer out of the play group if the peer doesn't do whatthe child asksKicks or hits othersVerbally threatens to hit or beat up other childrenRuins other peer's things when he or she is upsetPushes or shoves other childrenHurts other children by pinching themVerbally threatens to physically harm a peer in order to get what they wantIs good at sharing and taking turnsIs helpful to peersIs kind to peersSays or does nice things for other kidsDoesn't have much funLooks sadDoesn't smile much

.84.83

.81

.89

.85 .81.75.82.72.83.81 .76.83.62.7 5.9 0.87.82

Note. All cross-loadings were less than .40. PSBS-T = Preschool Social Behavior ScaleTeacher Form.

(e.g., Bukowski & Newcomb, 1984; Coie & Dodge, 1983;Dodge, 1983; Crick & G rotpeter, 1995 ).Method

ParticipantsA total of 65 preschoolers participated , 31 from tw o junio r preschool

classrooms (3.5 to 4.5 years old; 16 boys and 15 girls) and 34 fromtwo senior preschool classrooms (4.5 to 5.5 years old; 18 boys and 16girls) , all of whom attended one preschool located in a moderately sizedmidwestem town. Children in the participating preschool were enrolledin either full-day (8-hr) or half-day (4-hr) programs. Each age groupin the study (i.e., junio r and senior) in cluded one full- and one half-day classroom. The parental consent rate was 9 7%. Approximately 73 %of the children were European American, 16% were Asian American,5% were African American, 5% were Latino, and 2% were AmericanIndian.Teacher Assessment of Social Behavior

A teacher rating measure of preschoolers' social behavior (PreschoolSocial Behavior ScaleTeacher Form; PSBS-T) was constructed foruse in me present research. This measure was adapted from a teacherrating instrument developed in prior research to assess the social behav-ior of elementary school children (Children's Social Behavior ScaleTeacher Form; CSBS-T; Crick, 1996). The resultant teacher measure(PSBS-T) consis ted of 23 items, 8 of which assessed relational aggres-sion (e.g., "T his child tries to get others to dislike a pe er ") , 8 of whichassessed overt aggression (e.g., "This child kicks or hits others"), 4of which assessed prosocial behavior (e.g., "This child is helpful top e e r s " ) , and 3 of which assessed depressed affect (e.g., "This childlooks sad" ; see Table 1 for item descriptions). T he response scale foreach item ranged from I (never or almost never true of this child) to5 (always or almost always true of this child). Teachers were provided

with both written and verbal instructions on how to complete the P S B S -T and were asked to fill it out for each of their participating students.In each classroom, the PSB S- T forms w ere completed jointly by all ofthe teachers (i.e., number of teachers per classroom ranged from 2 to3 ) . Specifically, all of the teachers for a particular classroom held ameeting to discuss the ratings that should be given for each child foreach item and the PSPB-T forms were completed at these meetings(i .e., on the basis of group consensus). Unlike most classrooms inelementary schools, preschools generally have more than one teacherper class. Because of this unique situation, each of the teachers maydevelop a different degree of knowledge and familiarity with each child.Thus, we asked the teachers to complete the rating forms as a group tohelp ensure that the most complete and reliable information possiblewas obtained for each child (only one form was completed for eachchild and the ratings on this form reflected the consensus opinion).Peer Assessment of Social Behavior

A peer-nomination measure was developed for use in the presentresearch that assessed peer reports of children's use of relational aggres-sion, overt aggression, and prosocial behavior (Preschool Social Behav-ior ScalePeer Form; PSB5-P). Similar to the teacher-rating measure,this instrument was based on a peer-nomination measure developed inprior research to assess the social behavior of elementary school children(e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). The items on the instrument and theprocedures used to administer them were adapted for use with youngerchildren. Adaptation of the items was aided by pilot observations ofpreschoolers' social behavior. Adaptation of the administration proce-dures was based on those developed in past research for the use of peer-nomination measures with young children (for a review, see Asher &Hymel, 1981). Both the items on the preschool measure and the adminis-tration procedures were pilot tested with preschool-age children beforetheir use in this research.The resultant peer-report measure consisted of 17 items, 6 of whichassessed overt aggression (e.g., pushing or shoving peers), 7 of which


4/10

582 CRICK, CASAS, A ND MO SH ERassessed relational aggression (e.g., telling peers that they can't cometo your birthday party unless they do what you say), and 4 of whichassessed prosocial behavior (e.g., being nice to peers). The measure wasadministered to children in two individual 15-min interviews, Sessions Aand B, by Juan F. Casas, Monique Mosher, or a trained undergraduateresearch assistant. Half of the items were administered in each session,which were completed approximately 1 week apart for each child. Theorder in which children completed Sessions A and B was randomized.

A picture-nomination procedure was used to administer the inter-views, a method that has been commonly used to elicit peer-reports ofsocial behavior and adjustment in young children (Asher & Hymel,1981) . Following standard procedures, during each interview the childwas shown pictures of each of her classmates (pictures were taken byJuan F. Casas prior to the start of the study) and was first asked to nameeach child. These procedures were followed to ensure that the childthought about the whole class before responding to each item and tomake sure that she recognized all of her classmates. Next, the child waspresented with several practice items that were designed to help herlearn the response format of the peer-nomination items. Specifically, shewas shown pictures of food items (e.g., corn, pizza, spinach) and wasasked to point to a food that she liked the most, a second food that sheliked the most, and finally a third food that she liked the most. Using asimilar format, she wa s then asked to point to three disliked foods. W henit became apparent that the child understood the response format, theinterviewer administered the behavioral items. For each item, the childwas asked to point to the pictures of up to three peers who fit thebehavioral descriptor (e.g., point to the picture of a kid who pushes andshoves other kids, point to the picture of one more kid who pushes andshoves other kids, point to the picture of one more kid who pushes andshoves other kids). The number of nominations children received fromtheir peers for each item on the peer-report instrument was summed andthen standardized within classroom.

Teacher and Peer Assessment of Social-PsychologicalAdjustment

In addition to the behavioral items, the teacher- and peer-report mea-sures also contained items that assessed children's social-psychologicaladjustment. Specifically, the teacher-rating measure included two peeracceptance items, one that assessed acceptance with same-sex peers(i .e., "This child is well liked by peers of the same sex") and one thatassessed acceptance with opposite-sex peers (i.e., "This child is wellliked by peers of the opposite sex"). Teachers responded to these itemsusing the same response scale described previously for the behaviorali tems. Tn addition, the prosocial behavior and the depressed affect scalesof the PSBS-T (described above) were also used as indicators of chil-dren's social-psychological adjustment.The peer-nomination instrument included two sociometric items inwhich children were asked to nominate up to three peers that they * 'likedto play with the most" (peer acceptance) and three peers that they"liked to play with the least" (peer rejection). As with the behaviorali tems, the number of nominations children received from each of their

peers for each of the two items was summed and then standardizedwithin classroom. In addition to the peer acceptance and peer rejectionscores, children's prosocial behavior scores from the PSB S- P were alsoused as indicators of children's social-psychological adjustment.Results

To address the stated objectives, we conducted analyses thatassessed (a) the psychometric properties of the newly developedpeer-nomination and teacher measures of children's social be-havior, (b) the distinctiveness of relational and overt aggress ion,(c) the relation between peer and teacher reports of relational

and overt aggression, (d) gender differences in relational andovert aggression, and (e) the relation between aggression andsocial-psychological adjustment.Assessment of Relational and Overt Aggression

Teacher-rating measure. A principal-components factoranalysis (varimax rotation) was first conducted to assesswhether, as has been demonstrated for teacher ratings of olderchildren (Crick, 1996), relational aggression would emerge asa separate factor independent of overt aggression. This analysisyielded the four predicted factors, relational aggression, overtaggression, prosocial behavior, and depressed affect. These fac-tors accounted for 8 1 % of the variation in scores. Specifically,the relational aggression factor accounted for 50% of the varia-tion (eigenvalue - 9.5 ), the overt aggression factor accou ntedfor 16% of the variation (eigenvalue = 3.0), the prosocial be-havior factor accounted for 10% of the variation (eigenvalue =1.9), and the depressed affect factor accounted for 6% of thevariation (eigenvalue 1.1). A factor loading of .40 was usedas the criterion for determining substantial cross-loadings (Ap-pelbaum & M cCall , 1983; Tabachnick & F idell, 19 83). Onlyfour of the items failed to meet this criterion (i.e., two overtaggression items and two relational aggression items had cross-loadings above .40) and these four items were dropped fromthe measure. Thus, the final version of the teacher instrumentconsisted of six relational aggression item s, six overt aggre ssionitems, four prosocial behavior items, and three depressed affectitems. Factor loadings for the items of the resulting four scaleswere moderate to high, ranging from .62 to .90 (see Table 1 foritem descriptions and factor loadings). Computation of Cron-bach's alpha showed all four scales to be highly reliable; a =.96, .94, .88, and .87 for the relational aggression, overt aggres-sion, prosocial behavior, and depressed affect scales, respec-tively. The relation between relational and overt aggression wasfurther assessed with correlation coefficients. These analysesyielded r = .76, p < .001, for boys, and r = .73, p < .001, forgirls, for the relation between teachers' assessments of relationaland overt aggression.

Peer-nomination measure. A principal-components factoranalysis with varimax rotation of the factors was also conductedon children's scores from the peer-nomination measure. Thisanalysis yielded the three predicted factors, relational aggres-sion, overt aggression, and prosocial behavior. These factorsaccounted for 57% of the variation in children's scores. Specifi-cally, the overt aggression scale accounted for 30% of the varia-tion (eigenvalue = 3.6), the relational aggression scale ac-counted for 16% of the variation (eigenvalue = 1.9), and theprosocial behavior scale accounted for 11 % of the variation(eigenvalue 1.3). As with the teacher-rating measure, a .40criterion was used to identify items on each scale with substan-tial cross-loadings (Appelbaum & McCall, 1983; Tabachnick &Fidell, 1983). On the basis of this criterion, 5 items weredropped from subsequent analyses of the peer measure: 2 overtaggression items and 3 relational aggression items. Thus, thefinal version of the peer measure consisted of 12 items: 4 overtaggression items, 4 relational aggression items, and 4 prosocialbehavior items (see Table 2 for item descriptions and factorloadings). Computation of Cronbach's alpha showed that chil-


5/10

RELATIONAL AND OVERT AGGRESSION 583Table 2Factor Loadings for the Peer Measure of Social Behavior (PSBS-P)

Item Overtaggression Relationalaggression ProsocialbehaviorKids who push or shove other kidsKids who say they will knock someone's stuff over or mess itup if they don't get to play with it tooKids who say they will push someone off a toy if they don'tget to play on it tooKids who throw things at other kids when they don't get theirwa yKids who say they won't invite someone to their birthdayparty if they can't have their own wayKids who won't let a kid play in the group if they are mad atthe kidthey might tell the kid to go awayKids who tell other kids that they can't play with the groupunless they do what the group wants them to doKids who won't listen to someone if they are mad at themthey might even cover their earsKids who are good at sharing and taking turnsKids who are nice to other kidsKids who help other kidsKids who smile at other kids a lot

.64

.80

.83

.61.76.69.71.64 .80.77.62.62

Note. All cross-loadings were less than .40. PSBS-P = Preschool Social Behavior ScalePeer Form

dren's responses to all three scales were reliable; a = .71, .77,and .68, for the relational aggression, overt aggression, andprosocial behavior scales, respectively. The relation betweenrelational and overt aggression was further assessed with corre-lation coefficients. These analyses revealed r = .46, p < .01,for boys, and r = .37, p < .05, for girls.The Relation Betw een P eer and Teacher Assessments ofAggression

It was next of interest to evaluate the degree to which tea chersand peers agreed in their assessments of children's relational andovert aggression. To address this issue, we computed correlationcoefficients that were conducted separately for boys and girls.The analyses of boys' scores yielded r = .32, p < .05, forteacher and peer assessments of overt aggression, and r = .11 ,ns , for teacher and peer assessments of relational aggression.The analyses of girls' scores yielded r = . 31 , p < .05, forteacher and peer assessments of overt aggression, and r = .42, p< .01, for teacher and peer assessments of relational aggression.Gender and Age D ifferences in Relational a nd Ove rtAggressionTo assess gender and age differences in aggression, we con-ducted four 2 (se x) x 2 (age group: junior and senior classes)analyses of covariance in which children's aggression scoresserved as the dependent variables. Because prior analysesshowed that relational and overt aggression were correlated,relational aggression served as the covariate for analyses ofgender and age differences in overt aggression a nd overt aggres-sion was used as the covariate for analyses of gender and agedifferences in relational aggression (see Price & Dodge, 1989,for a similar approach). In the first set of analyses, teacher- and

peer-assessed overt aggression served as the dependent vari-ables. In the second set of analyses, teacher- and peer-assessedrelational aggression served as the dependent variables.Analyses did not yield any significant effects d ue to age groupfor either teacher or peer reports of aggression. In addition,analyses did not yield significant effects due to gender for peerreports of aggression. However, analyses of overt aggression asassessed by teachers yielded a significant effect of gender, F( 1,60 ) = 23 .6 ,p < .00 1. Specifically, boy s (M = 12.5, SD = 4.8)

were significantly more overtly aggressive than girls (M = 8.8,SD = 4.1). In contrast, analyses of relational aggression asassessed by teachers yielded a significant effect of gender, F{ 1,60) = 16.4, p < .001. Specifically, girls (M = 13.9, SD = 5.8)were significantly more relationally aggressive than boys (M =10.1, SD = 4 .7) .

Gender differences in aggression were also assessed througha descriptive analysis of the percentage of boys versus girls whowere classified into extreme groups of aggressive and nonag-gressive children. For each aggression variable, children withscores one standard deviation above the sample mean were con-sidered aggressive and the remaining children were considerednonaggressive. Four distinct aggression groups were identified:(a) nonaggressive, (b) overtly aggressive, (c) relationally ag-gressive, and (d) relationally plus overtly aggressive. Two setsof groups were identified, one based on peer assessments ofaggression and a second based on teacher assessments of aggres-sion. The percentage of boys and girls classified into each of thefour groups for each set of classifications was then computed.

For classifications based on teacher assessments of aggres-sion, 74% of the boys and 65% of the girls were identified asnonaggressive; 12% of the boys and 3% of the girls were identi-fied as overtly aggressive; 0% of the boys and 26% of the girlswere identified as relationally aggressive; and 15% of the boys


6/10

584 CRICK, CASAS, AND MOSHERTable 3The Relation Between Aggression and Social-Psychological Adjustment by Gender

Type of Aggression

Peer-assessed aggressionOvertRelationalTeacher-assessed aggressionOvertRelational

Peer-assessed aggressionOvertRelationalTeacher-assessed aggressionOvertRelational

REJ-P

$]**#.34*.12.10

.28t.45**

.22

ACC-P

.20

.26t

.20.42**

.14.01- . 0 7- . 0 5

ACC-T SAMEBoys t (32)

- . 0 1.28*

- . 0 9,23fGirls r (29)

- . 1 6- . 0 4- . 3 3 *.16

ACC-T OPP

- . 2 8 f.00

- . 3 8 * *- . 1 6

- . 2 1- . 0 9- . 3 2 *- . 1 3

PRO-P

- . 0 4.20

- . 0 9.08

- . 1 5- . 2 3 t- . 1 4.05

PRO-T

21- . 1 5_ 4 9* *- . 4 5 * *

- . 3 2 *- . 3 0 *- . 5 8 * * *- . 5 3 * * *

DEP-T

- . 0 7- . 1 2

25f.18

- . 0 4- . 1 8.11.30*

Note. REJ-P - Peer-assessed rejection; ACC-P = Peer-assessed acceptance; ACC-T SAME = Teacher-assessed acceptance with same-sex peers;ACC-T O P P = Teacher-assessed acceptance with opposite-sex peers; PRO-P = Peer-assessed prosocial behavior; PRO-T = Teacher-assessed proso cialbehavior; DEP-T = Teacher-assessed depressed affect.jp < .10. *p < .05 . **p < . 0 1 . ***p < .001 .

and 7% of the girls were identified as overtly plus relationaUyaggressive.For classifications based on peer assessments of aggression,66 % of the boys and 87% of the girls were identified as nonag-gressive; 1 1% of the boys and 7% of the girls were identifiedas overtly aggressive; 9% of the boys and 3% of the girls wereidentified as relationaUy aggressive; and 14% of the boys and3% of the girls were identified as overtly plus relationaUyaggressive.

The Relation Between Aggression and Social-Psychological Adjustment

The relation between aggression (as assessed by both teachersand peers) and social-psychological adjustment was first evalu-ated with correlation coefficients (see Table 3). The indices ofsocial-psychological adjustment included in these analyseswere peer reports of peer rejection, peer acceptance, and proso-cial behavior, and teacher reports of peer acceptance with same-sex peers, acceptance with opposite-sex peers, prosocial behav-ior, and depressed affect. Consistent with prior analyses, thesecoefficients were computed separately for boys and girls.These analyses indicated that, in general, both forms of ag-

gression were significantly related to social-psychological mal-adjustment. However, the overall pattern of the obtained relationsvaried somewhat for boys versus girls, and for relational aggres-sion versus overt aggression. First, the correlations betweenpeers' assessments of relational aggression and peer-assessedrejection showed that relational aggression was related to rela-tively high levels of peer rejection for both boys and girls.However, in contrast to girls, both peer- and teacher-assessedrelational aggression were also positively related to peer accep-tance (as assessed by both peers and teachers) for boys. Thus,relational aggression was related to both peer acceptance and

peer rejection for boys but was related to peer rejection onlyfor girls.Analyses of the relation between overt aggression and peerstatus showed that overt aggression was positively related torejection by peers for both boys and girls. Further, overt aggres-sion as assessed by teachers was negatively related to teacher-assessed acceptance by opposite-sex peers for boys (marginallysignificant) and negatively related to acceptance by both oppo-site- and same-sex peers for girls.Analyses of the relation between aggression and prosocialbehavior showed that both forms of aggression (teacher-as-sessed for boys and teacher- and peer-assessed for girls) werenegatively related to teacher assessments of prosocial behaviorFinally, analyses of children's teacher-assessed depressed affectscores revealed that teacher assessments of overt aggressiontended to be positively related to depressed affect for boys.In contrast, teacher assessments of relational aggression werepositively related to depressed affect for girls.In addition to the assessment of the relation between aggres-sion and adjustment, it was also of interest to evaluate whetherrelational aggression would predict concurrent adjustment overand above overt aggression. To address this issue, we computeda series of hierarchical regression equations in which children's

adjustment scores served as the dependent variables and theirovert aggression and relational aggression scores served as thepredictors. Children's overt aggression scores were entered intoeach equation at Step 1 and their relational aggression scoreswere entered at Step 2 (i.e., so that the relative contribution ofrelational aggression could be assessed). These equations werecomputed only for those dependent variables that were shown inthe correlational analyses (described above) to be significantlyrelated to one of the forms of aggression. Analyses were con-ducted separately for boys and girls, and for teacher and peerreports of aggression.


7/10

RELATIONAL AND OVERT AGGRESSION 585Analyses revealed that, for boys, teacher reports of relationalaggression significantly predicted peer reports of peer accep-tance, FA(2, 31) = 4 .1, p < .01 (R 2A = 17.2), and teacherreports of acceptance by same-sex peers, FA(2, 31) = 4.5, p

< .01 (R 2A = 21.6). In addition, peer reports of relationalaggression tended to predict teacher reports of acceptance bysame-sex peers, FA(2, 31) = 1.8, p < .07 (R 2A = 10.2) .These analyses indicate that relational aggression adds uniqueinformation to overt aggression in the prediction of peer accep-tance for preschool boys.These analyses also revealed that, for girls, teacher reportsof relational aggression tended to predict peer reports of peerrejection, FA(2, 28) = 9.2, p < .07 (R 2A = 7.7), and teacherreports of depressed affect, F A (2 , 28) *= 1.8, p < .09 (R 2A =10.0) . In addition, peer reports of relational aggression signifi-cantly predicted peer reports of peer rejection, FA (2 ,2 8 ) = 3.8,p < .05 (R 2A = 13.3). These analyses indicate that relationalaggression adds unique information to overt aggression in theprediction of maladjustment (especially peer rejection) for pre-school girls.

D i s c u s s i o nFindings from this study significantly extend our knowledgeof relational aggression by demonstrating the importance of thisform of aggression for preschoolers. Results provide the firstevidence that relationally aggressive behaviors appear in chil-dren's behavioral repertoires at relatively young ages ( 3 - 5 yearsof age). Further, they demonstrate that relational aggression issignificantly associated with social-psycholdgical maladjust-ment for preschool-age children.Results of this study indicate that both teachers and peersviewed relationally aggressive behaviors in preschoolers as rela-tively distinct from ov ertly aggressive behaviors . Support for the

distinctiveness of these two forms of aggression was obtained inseveral way s. First, the factor ana lyses of both the teacher-ratinginstrument (PSBS-T) and the peer-nomination measure(PSBS-P) yielded separate factors for relational and overt ag-gression. Second, results showed that, although children's overtand relational aggression scores were positively correlated (par-ticularly for the teacher-based scores), they were not morehighly correlated than the associations found in past research forother forms of aggression. For example, in several past studies,correlations in the .70 to .80 range have been obtained for theassociation between reactive and proactive forms of aggression,two behaviors also hypothesized to be distinct (Crick & Dodge,1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Price & Dodge, 1989). Third,despite the significant degree of association obtained betweenrelational and overt aggression in the present study, it was possi-ble to identify distinct types of relationally and overtly aggres-sive children. In fact, a substantial proportion of the aggressivechildren identified in this study (63% using peer-based scoresand 65% using teacher-based scores) were classified as eitherovertly aggressive or relationally aggressive but not both. Theseresults are similar to those that have been obtained in pastresearch for school-age children (i.e., 9-12 year olds; Crick &Grotpeter, 19 95 ). These findings significantly extend our know l-edge of aggression by demonstrating that, although overlap isapparent, relational and overt forms of aggression are distinct

enough to be considered different constructs for children asyoung as 3 or 4 years of age.The degree to which the preschool-age children in this sampledistinguished between relational and overt aggression wasgreater than might be exp ected given results of previous res earchthat has shown that young children tend to hold relatively un-differentiated views of their pee rs' beha vior ("ibunger, Sc hwartz -man, & Ledingham, 1985, 1986). On the basis of the resultsof the factor analyses, the present findings provide evidencethat young children do not view their peers' aggressive acts incompletely undifferentiated terms (e.g., they do not seem toview both relational and overt aggression as simply "bad" or"mean" behavior). These results are encouraging as they sug-gest that young children may be useful informants for the identi-fication of relationally aggressive versus overtly aggressivechildren.Despite the favorable evidence supporting the hypothesizeddistinction between physical overt aggression and relational ag-gression in the present sample, it is also important to recognizethat there was considerable overlap in the two behavior types.Perhaps many children may engage in both of these types of

behaviors but exhibit one form of aggression predominately.Further, the method we used to construct the aggression scales(i.e., by dropping items that cross-loaded onto both the overtand the relational aggression scales) may have minimized thedegree of association between the two measures. Additionalresearch is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn regard-ing these issues.The comparison of teachers' and peers' reports of boys' ag-gression showed that, as we hypothesized, these two informantsagreed to a greater extent in their assessments of overt aggres-sion than in their assessments of relational aggression (i.e.,the association between teachers' and peers' reports of overtaggression w as significant whereas the association between theirreports of relational aggression was nonsignificant for boys).However, this hypothesized pattern was apparent for boys only.In contrast, the association between teachers' and peers' reportsof girls' aggression was significant for both overt and relationalaggression.The above results indicate that, contrary to our expectations,teachers' and peers' assessments of girls' use of relational ag-gression agreed to a relatively high degree. Although the ob-tained correlation was only moderate in magnitude (r = .42),it was larger than might be expected when compared with thepeer-teacher agreement typically obtained in past studies ofaggression. For example, in a meta-analytic review of studiesof behavioral and emotional problems in childhood, Achenbach,McConaughy, and Ho well (198 7) reported an average c orrela-

tion of .42 between teacher and peer reports of agg ressive, under-controlled behavior. Thus, the agreement obtained betweenteacher and peer reports of girls' relational aggression in thepresent re search was equivalent to that typically obtained in paststudies despite the fact that: (a) the correlation reported byAchenbach et al. was based on the assessment of forms ofaggression that are more visible and direct (e.g., physical ag-gression) than relational aggression, and (b) many of the studieson which Achenbach et al. based their findings included pa rtici-pants who were much older than the preschoolers who providedthe peer assessments in this research. In light of these considera-


8/10

586 CRICK, CASAS, AND MOSHERtions, the cross-informant agreement obtained here for girls'relational aggression appears promising. Overall, the presentresults regarding peer and teacher agreement indicate that thesetwo informants agreed at least to a moderate extent in theirassessments of relational and overt aggression for girls, and intheir assessments of overt aggression only for boys.

Findings from this research also indicate that the gender dif-ferences in relational aggression that have been documented inschool-age children (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) are also apparentin preschool-age children, at least for teachers' assessments ofaggression. That is, teachers but not peers rated preschool girlsas significantly more relationally aggressive and less overtlyaggressive than preschool bo ys, findings that are consistent w ithpast research conducted on school-age children (Crick & Grot-peter, 1995; Lagerspetz et al., 1988). It is not clear whether thelack of gender differences obtained for peer repo rts in this studyreflects a lack of statistical pow er (e.g ., because of the relativelysmall samp le size) or reflects developmental differences in chil-dren's usage or understanding of aggression (e.g., young chil-dren may be more willing than older children or teachers toreport gender-atypical instances of aggression). Given the gen-der-segregated nature of children's play at these ages (Mac-coby & Jacklin, 1987), it seems likely that children have littleopportunity to observe the aggressive behaviors of their oppo-site-sex peers. If so, they may be much less aware than teachersof gender differences in aggressive behavior, particularly rela-tionally aggressive behaviors that are less likely to draw atten-tion in a group than physically aggressive behaviors. Thus, therelatively high percentage of boys identified as aggressive bypeers, regardless of aggression form, may at least partly reflectchildren's stereotypes at this age (i .e., boys are " kn ow n" to bemore aggressive so in the absence of knowledge about boys'vs . girls' actual behaviors, peers may have nominated boysfrequently for all aggressive behaviors).

Finally, the present results provide the first evidence that rela-tional aggression in preschoolers is significantly related to so-cial-psychological maladjustment for both boys and girls. Simi-lar to the findings from past research on relational aggressionin school-age children (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)and consistent with past studies of overt aggression in preschooland kindergarten children (Ladd & Price, 1987; Levy-Sniff &Hoffman, 1989; Wasik, 1 987 ), relational and overt aggressionin preschoolers (both boys and girls) were shown in the presentstudy to be significantly related to relatively high levels of peerrejection. Longitudinal research with school-age children hasdemonstrated that relationally aggressive behavior predicts fu-ture peer rejection for both sexes (Crick, 1996), possibly be-cause these types of behaviors are aversive and upsetting topeers (Crick, 199 5; Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 19 96) or because,by their very nature, relationally aggressive ac ts limit the numberof potential playmates or friends available to the aggressivechild (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Longitudinal research withpreschool-age children is needed to determine whether this sametemporal pattern holds for the relation between relational ag-gression and peer rejection for young children. A similar tempo-ral pattern has been demonstrated in past research for the rela-tion between overt aggression and peer rejection for young chil-dren (e.g. , Denham & Holt , 199 3; Ladd & Price, 1987; Ladd,

Price, & Hart, 1988); however, it has not yet been investigatedfor other forms of aggression with this age group.Interestingly, the results from this study also show ed that, forboys only, relational aggression was significantly associatedwith relatively high levels of peer acceptance. The results basedon the teacher-report measure of peer acceptance suggest thatthis favorable peer status m ay be derived from the positive senti-ments of other boys (e.g., results of the regression analysesrevealed that, for boys, relational aggression as rated by bothteachers and peers predicted teacher-rated acceptance by same-sex peers). If so, these results may reflect a relatively positiveattitude toward relational aggression among some preschool-age boys . Further, they may indicate that, as has been found forschool-age children (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), the peer statusof some relationally aggressive children may be controversialin nature (i.e., they may be liked by some peers but disliked byother peers; see Coie et al., 1990, for a discussion of controver-sial peer status ). These findings are consistent with past researchthat has shown that a considerable proportion of children viewaggression among boys, but not among girls, as sometimes lead-ing to favorable status within the peer group (e.g., by makingthem look "t ou gh "; Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 199 6). Of course,given the relatively small sample size reported here, future re-search with larger samples is needed before firm conclusionscan be drawn regarding the peer acceptance of relationally ag-gressive preschoolers of both sexes.

Analyses of children's social-psychological adjustmentscores also showed that both relational and overt aggressionwere significantly related to relatively low levels of prosocialbehavior (e.g., sharing, helping others) for both boys and girls.These findings indicate that young relationally and overtly ag-gressive children may suffer from a lack of positive interpersonalskills, in addition to their difficulties with the inhibition of aver-sive beha viors. This dual beha vior pattern seem s likely to resultin poor adjustment outcomes for aggressive children (cf. Levy-Shiff & Hoffman, 19 89) . This may be especially true for girls,as past research has shown engagement in positive, prosocialbehaviors to be particularly important factors in the healthyadjustment of girls relative to boys (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli,1982) .

The present findings suggest a number of additional avenuesto pursue in future research. First, it seems important to recruita larger sample size than that used here in future studies ofyoung children. This would allow for identification of extremegroups of relationally and overtly aggressive children and as-sessment of the potential risk status of each g roup. Additionally,future studies should also expand on the present findings byincluding adjustment measures that are broader in scope, andthat are more independent of the assessmen ts of aggression (i.e .,so that different informants report on aggression vs. adjust-men t ) . Finally, another way to extend the present study wouldbe to develop an observational measure of relational aggression.Altho ugh this method is not without potential difficulties forthe assessment of these types of behaviors (Crick & Grotpeter,1995) , it seems likely that attempts to develop such a measureshould start with the assessment of young children (i.e., becauseyoung children are less likely than older children to engage informs of relational aggression tha t might be difficult to interpretas an outside observer).


9/10

RELATIONAL AND OVERT AGGRESSION 587In sum, results of the present study significantly enhanceour knowledge of the social difficulties of young children byproviding the first evidence of the importance of relational ag-

gression for the study of preschoolers' peer interactions. Theseresults indicate that assessment of relational aggression mayplay an important role in the early detection of children 's adjust-ment difficulties. It will be im portant in future research .to inves-tigate further the contribution of relational aggression to chil-dren's social development. In particular, longitudinal study ofthe relation between relational aggression and social-emotionaladjustment is needed to enhance our understanding of youngchildren's risk status and to provide an empirical basis for inter-vention with relationally aggressive children.

ReferencesAchenbach, T. M , M cConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1 98 7) . Ch ild/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulle-

tin, 101, 2 1 3 - 2 3 2 .Appelbaum, M . I., & McCalL R . B. (1 98 3). Design and analysis indevelopmental psychology. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) and W. Kes-sen (Vol. Ed. ), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. History, theory

and methods (4th ed., pp. 415-471). New York: Wiley.Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (19 81 ). Ch ildren's social competence in peerrelations: Soc iometric and beh avioral assessm ent. In J. D. Win e &M. D. Smye (Eds.) , Social competence (pp . 125 -157) . New \b rk :Guilford Press.Berkowitz , L. (1993) . Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and con-

trol. New \fork: Academic Press.Block , J. H. (1 98 3) . Differential prem ises arising from differential so-cialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54,1335-1354 .

Bukowski , W. M., & N ewcomb, A. F. (19 84) . Stability and determinantsof sociometric status and friendship choice: A longitudinal perspective.Developmental Psychology, 20, 9 4 1 - 9 5 2 .

Coie, J. D., & D odge, K. A. (19 83) . Continuities and changes in chil-dren's social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-PalmerQuarterly, 29, 2 6 1 - 2 8 1 .

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1 98 2). D imensions andtypes of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psy-chology, 18, 5 5 7 - 5 7 0 .

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. (19 90 ). Peer group behaviorand social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejectionin childhood (pp . 17-59) . New Yotk: Cambridge University Press.Crick, N. R. (1 99 5). R elational aggression: The role of intent attribu-t ions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development andPsychopathology, 7, 3 1 3 - 3 2 2 .Crick, N. R. (19 96 ). The role of relational aggression, overt aggression,and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future socialadjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317-2327.Crick, N. R., & B igbee, M. A. (in pres s). R elational and overt forms ofpeer victimization: A m ulti- informant ap proach. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology.

Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Children's normativebeliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways.Child Development, 67, 1003-1014 .Crick, N. R., & D odge, K. A. ( 19 94) . A review and reformulation ofsocial information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjust-ment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 7 4 - 1 0 1 .Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. ( 19 96 ). Social information-processingmechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development,67 , 9 9 3 - 1 0 0 2 .

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 7 1 0 -722.Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children's treatment by peers:Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psycho-

pathology, 8, 3 6 7 - 3 8 0 .Crick, N. R., Wellman, N. E., Casas, J. F., O'Brien, K . M , Nelson, D. A.,Grotpeter, 3. K., Markon, K . (in pr es s). Childho od aggression andgender: A new look at an old problem. In D . Bernstein ( Ed.) , Nebraska

Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 44. Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress.Denham, S. A., & Holt, R. W. (19 93 ). Preschoolers' likability as causeor consequence of their social behavior. Developmental Psychology,

29 , 2 7 1 - 2 7 5 .Dodge, K. A. (19 83) . Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child

Development, 54, 1386-1399.Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (19 87 ). Social information-processing fac-tors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146-1158 .Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N . R. (1 99 6) . Relational aggression, overtaggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328-2338 .Johnston,A., D eLuca, D., Murtaugh, K., & Diener, E. (197 7) . Validationof a laboratory play measure of child aggression. Child Development,

48 , 3 2 4 - 3 2 7 .Ladd, G. W., & M ars, K. T (1 98 6). R eliability and validity of preschool-ers ' perceptions of peer behavior Journal of Clinical Child Psychol-

ogy, 15, 1 6 - 2 5 .Ladd , G. W., & Price, J. M. (1 987). . Predicting childr en's social andschool adjustment following the transition from preschool to kinder-garten. Child Development, 58, 1168-1189.Ladd, G. W., Price, J. M., & Hart, C. H. (1 98 8). Predicting preschoolers'peer status from their playground behaviors. Child Development, 59,9 8 6 - 9 9 2 .Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirectaggression m ore typical of females? Gender differences in 11 - to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 4 0 3 - 4 1 4 .Ledingham, J. E., Younger, A., Schartzman, A., & B ergeron, G. (19 82) .Agreement among teacher, peer, and self-ratings of children's aggres-sion, withdrawal, and likeability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-

ogy, 10, 3 6 3 - 3 7 2 .Levy-Shiff, R., & Hoffman, M . A. (1 98 9). Social behavior as a predictorof adjustment among three-year-olds. Journal of Clinical Child Psy-

chology, 18, 6 5 - 7 1 .Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocialbehavior and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1 - 4 1 .Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in child-hood. InE . H. Reese (Ed.) , Advances in childdevelopment and behav-

ior (Vol. 20, pp. 239-287). New "fork: Academic Press.Olson, S. L., & Lifgren. K. (1988). Concurrent and longitudinal corre-lates of preschool peer sociometrics: Comparing rating scale and nom-ination measures. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9,4 0 9 - 4 2 0 .Parke, R. D. ( 19 92 ). Epilogue: Remaining issues and future trends inthe study of family -peer relationships. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd(Eds . ) , Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage ( p p. 4 2 5 - 4 3 8 ) .Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1 98 3). The development of aggression.In P. H. M ussen (Series E d.) and M. H etherington (Vol. Ed.), Hand-

book of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and socialdevelopment (4th ed., pp. 547-642). New York: Wiley.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer acceptance and later personaladjustment: Are low-accepted children "at ris k"? Psychological Bul-letin, 102, 3 5 7 - 3 8 9 .Pekarik, E. G., Prinz, R. J., Liebert, D. E., Wientraub, S-, & Neale, J. M.


10/10

588 CRICK, CASAS, AND M O S H ER( 1 9 7 6 ) . The pupil evaluation inventory: A sociometric technique forassessing children's social behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-chology, 4, 83-97.Price, J. M ., & Dodge, K. A. (1 98 9) . Reactive and proactive aggressionin childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimensions.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 4 5 5 - 4 7 1 .

Robins, L. N . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The consequences of conduct disorder in girls.In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development ofantisocial and pro social behavior: R esearch, theories, and issues (pp.3 8 5 - 4 1 4 ) . New%rlc: Academic Press,

Semler; I. J. (1960). Relationships among several measures of pupiladjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 6 1 - 6 4 .Tabachrdck, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Using multivariate statistics.New York: Harper & Row.

"tounger, A. J., Schwaruman, A. B., & Ledingham, J. B. (1985) . Age-related changes in children's perceptions ofaggression and withdrawalin their peers. Developmental Psychology, 21, 7 0 - 7 5 .Younger, A. J., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1986 ) . Age-related changes in children's perceptions of social deviance: Changesin behavior or in perspective. Developmental Psychology, 22, 531 542.Wasik, B. H. (1987). Sociometric measures and peer descriptors of

kindergarten children: A study of reliability and validity. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 16, 2 1 8 - 2 2 4 .Received October 5, 1994

Revision received May 21, 1996Accepted June 1, 1996

AME RICAN PSYCHO LOGICAL ASSOCIATIONSUBSCRIPTION CLAIMS INFORMATION Today's Date:.

We provide this form to assist members, institutions, and nonmember individuals with any subscription problems. With theappropriate information we can begin a resolution. If you use the services of an agent, please do NOT duplic ate claims throughthem and directly to us. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND IN INK IF POSSIBLE.

PRINT FULL NAME OR KEY NAME OF NSTTrUTIO N

ADDRESS

MEMBDROS.OJSTOMERNUMBER (MAY BE FOUND ON AKYPAST ISSUELABEL)

DATE YOUR ORDER WAS MAILED (OR PHONED)_ _ P R E P A I D C HEC K ^ _ C H A R O ECHECK/CARD CLEARED DAT E:_CITY

YOUR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER

TITLE

(If possible, cnd a copy, Hoot andback, ofyour cancelled check l o help ns JJIoui irscuebof your claim.)ISSUES: MISSINO DAMAG ED

VOLUME OR YEAR NUMBER OR MONTH

Thank you. Once a claim is received and resobed, delivery of replacement issues routinely lakes 4-6 weeks.ii I '- " i " i ii ' (T O BE F I L L E D O U T B Y A P A S T A F F )

D A T E R E C E I V E D : .ACTION TAKEN: _STAFF NAME:

DATE OF ACTION: _I N V . N O . & D A T E :LABEL NO. & DATE:

Send this form to AP A Subscription Claims, 750 First Street, NE, W ashington, DC 20002-4242PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. A PHOTOCOPY MAY BE USED.

relational and overt aggression in preschool

Documents