Peer Status in Early Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study of Relational Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Prosocial Behavior Melanie Zimmer-Gembeck Griffith University, Gold Coast Australia Tasha Geiger & Nicki Crick University of Minnesota USA

This work was completed while the first author was a NIMH postdoctoral fellow in the Life Course Center, U of Minnesota and supported by NIMH grant # R29MH53524 awarded to Nicki Crick. Thanks to all the members of the Project Kids lab!

Background Physical Aggression and Peer Rejection Children who are physically aggressive are more likely to be rejected by their classmates. Children who are physically aggressive are more likely to be rejected by their classmates. Boys are more likely nominated as physically aggressive than girls. Boys are more likely nominated as physically aggressive than girls. Many studies focus on boys. Many studies focus on boys.

Background Relational Aggression and Peer Rejection Behaviors that can harm others through damage (or threat of damage) to relationships, feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion. Behaviors that can harm others through damage (or threat of damage) to relationships, feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion. Relational aggression significantly associated with rejection by peers. Relational aggression significantly associated with rejection by peers.

Background Prosocial Behavior and Peer Acceptance Should also be considered. Should also be considered. Associated with acceptance by classmates. Associated with acceptance by classmates.

Study Purpose Investigate how children’s behaviors… Investigate how children’s behaviors… –physical aggression –relational aggression –prosocial behavior impact their acceptance and rejection by peers over a short (1-year, grade 3 to 4) and a longer (3- year, grade 3 to 6) span of time. impact their acceptance and rejection by peers over a short (1-year, grade 3 to 4) and a longer (3- year, grade 3 to 6) span of time.

Additional Study Aims Examine stability of relational aggression Examine stability of relational aggression Investigate moderating role of gender Investigate moderating role of gender –Gender nonnormative hypothesis? –Relational aggression has greatest impact on females’ peer relationships?

Participants Children/adolescents participated in assessments in classrooms up to 3 times over 4 years. Children/adolescents participated in assessments in classrooms up to 3 times over 4 years. –Grade 3 (T1), N = 2335, 95 classrooms (85% in Grade 3 - some mixed grade classes). –Grade 4 (T2) –Grade 6 (T3) Grade 3 to 4 = SHORT, n = 1119, 51% female Grade 3 to 4 = SHORT, n = 1119, 51% female Grade 3 to 6 = LONG, n = 464, 54% female, 94% transitioned to middle school. Grade 3 to 6 = LONG, n = 464, 54% female, 94% transitioned to middle school.

Subsamples Representative? Compared to children who only participated at Time 1, SHORT more accepted and more likely to be of white race/ethnicity. Compared to children who only participated at Time 1, SHORT more accepted and more likely to be of white race/ethnicity. Compared to children who only participated at Time 1, LONG were more accepted, prosocial, and more likely to female and white. Compared to children who only participated at Time 1, LONG were more accepted, prosocial, and more likely to female and white.

Procedure Peer nominations in (northern hemisphere) Spring (February to May). Peer nominations in (northern hemisphere) Spring (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 assessment, other helped students. Two interviewers in each class. One read assessment, other helped students. Alphabetized rosters of classmates with id numbers. Alphabetized rosters of classmates with id numbers. Nominate up to 3 classmates (male or female) for each item. Nominate up to 3 classmates (male or female) for each item.

Measurement Peer Preference Peer Preference –All students nominated 3 classmates liked most and 3 classmates liked least. Physical aggression, relational aggression, prosocial behavior Physical aggression, relational aggression, prosocial behavior –Nominate 3 classmates … »Physical aggression: 3 items, all overt physical behaviors (e.g., kids who hit other kids) »Relational aggression: 5 items (e.g., ‘kids who try to make other kids not like someone by spreading rumors or talking behind the kid’s back’) »Prosocial behavior: 3 items (e.g, ‘people who say or do nice things for other classmates’)

Results

Stability in Relational Aggression SHORT SHORT –r =.47 (males.50, females,.46) LONG LONG –r =.44 (males.47, females.43)

Cross-Lag Models Path modeling (with SEM) used to examine cross-lag associations between children’s aggressive and prosocial behaviors in grade 3 and peer status in grade 4 (or grade 6) while also estimating Path modeling (with SEM) used to examine cross-lag associations between children’s aggressive and prosocial behaviors in grade 3 and peer status in grade 4 (or grade 6) while also estimating –Stabilities in children’s behaviors and peer preference across time. –Concurrent associations between all constructs.

Data Analytic Procedure Four Major Steps Four Major Steps –1. Estimated all longitudinal stabilities and all correlations between constructs within each wave of measurement. –2. Added all possible cross-lag paths for one construct ( e.g., associations of relational aggression in grade 3 with peer acceptance, peer rejection, physical aggression, and prosocial behavior in grade 4) –3. Fixed nonsignificant associations to 0 for the focal construct in Step 2. –4. Repeated steps 2 and 3 for all five constructs.

Grade 4Grade 3 Peer Acceptance Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection Relational Aggression Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Prosocial Behavior Peer Rejection Final Path Model Illustration

SHORT Grade 4 Peer Acceptance Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection Relational Aggression Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Prosocial Behavior Peer Rejection Grade Peer Acceptance Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection Relational Aggression Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Prosocial Behavior Peer Rejection Grade 3Grade LONG

Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Grade 4 Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection Grade SHORT LONG Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection.19 Grade 6 Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Grade

Grade 3Grade 4 Peer Acceptance.20 Peer Rejection Grade 3Grade 4 Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior SHORT LONG Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection Grade 3Grade

SHORT - Moderating Effects of Gender Peer Acceptance Peer Acceptance Peer Rejection Relational Aggression Relational Aggression Physical Aggression Physical Aggression Prosocial Behavior Prosocial Behavior.38,.37.43,.30.36,.38.36,.30.16, , ,.24 Peer Rejection -.19, ,.12.26, , ns,.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 <.001 GFI = 1.00 NFI =.99 RMSEA =.03  /df = 2.1

Conclusions Gender and Relational Aggression Gender differences in relational aggression depend upon grade level (all available study participants) Gender differences in relational aggression depend upon grade level (all available study participants) No gender differences in the stability of relational aggression (longitudinal subsamples). No gender differences in the stability of relational aggression (longitudinal subsamples).

Conclusions Path Models: Prediction Over Time Relational and physical aggression had independent positive effects on peer rejection. Relational and physical aggression had independent positive effects on peer rejection. Prosocial behavior was not associated with later peer status. Prosocial behavior was not associated with later peer status. In LONG, relational aggression also positively associated with acceptance. In LONG, relational aggression also positively associated with acceptance.

Conclusions Gender Few gender differences Few gender differences Little support for either the Gender Nonnormative Hypothesis or the hypothesis that relational aggression is most associated with peer preference among girls. Little support for either the Gender Nonnormative Hypothesis or the hypothesis that relational aggression is most associated with peer preference among girls.