Aggressive Behaviors in Social Interaction

and Developmental Adaptation: A Narrative

Analysis of Interpersonal Conflicts During
Early Adolescence
Hongling Xie, Dylan J. Swift, Beverley D. Cairns, and
Robert B. Cairns, Center for Developmental Science,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract
Using conflict narratives reported by adolescents in grade 7 (mean age = 13.4 years),
this study investigated the interactional properties and developmental functions of four
types of aggressive behaviors: social aggression, direct relational aggression, physical aggression, and verbal aggression. A total of 475 participants from the Carolina
Longitudinal Study (Cairns & Cairns, 1994) were included. Results showed that the
majority of conflict interactions involved more than a dyad. The use of social aggression (e.g., concealed social attack) was associated with more individuals involved in
the conflict. Social aggression was primarily reported as an initiating behavior for
interpersonal conflicts, while direct relational aggression was a responding behavior.
Medium to high levels of reciprocity were found for physical, verbal, and direct relational aggression, whereas a low level of reciprocity was reported for social aggression. School authorities were most likely to intervene in physical aggression. The use
of social aggression was associated with higher network centrality among adolescents.
Developmental maladjustment in late adolescence and early adulthood was primarily predicted by physical aggression.
Keywords: social aggression; confrontational aggression; interpersonal conflict; social
networks; developmental prediction

Aggression is not a unitary construct, and there exist different forms. Some aggressive behaviors are prototypic, such as physical aggression and verbal aggression.
Others are less prototypic, but have the potential to produce pain. These include hurtful
acts that are less open, more disguised, indirect, and manipulative. Robert Sears and
his colleagues (Sears, 1961; Sears, Rau, & Alpert, 1965) first identified prosocial
aggression in contrast to antisocial aggression. Later Norma Feshbach (1969) used
indirect aggression to refer to subtly aggressive behaviors such as ignoring and
excluding another person. More recently, different terms have been used to label subtle
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hongling Xie, Center for Developmental
Science, 100 East Franklin Street, CB#8115, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,
NC 275998115, USA. Email: hlxie@email.unc.edu
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.

206

Hongling Xie et al.

aggressive behaviors, including social aggression (e.g., Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman,

Ferguson, & Garipy, 1989), indirect aggression (Lagerspetz, Bjrkqvist, & Peltonen,
1988), and relational aggression (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
A clarification of definition is imperative. Social aggression used by the Cairns and
their colleagues (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Cairns et al., 1989; Xie, 1998) refers to
actions that cause interpersonal damage and are achieved by non-confrontational
and largely concealed methods that employ the social community. It includes gossiping, social exclusion, and social alienation. Two characteristics of socially aggressive
behaviors should be noted: (1) it is non-confrontational, and (2) it uses the social
community as a vehicle to attack. Reports of interpersonal conflicts were used to
assess gender differences and developmental changes (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Cairns
et al., 1989). Later, Underwood and her colleagues (Galen & Underwood, 1997;
Paquette & Underwood, 1999) also included facial expressions and body gestures in
social aggression.
Feshbach and colleagues (Feshbach, 1969; Feshbach & Sones, 1971) used the term
indirect aggression to refer to such behaviors as ignoring, avoiding, and excluding
others from social interchanges during a laboratory observation session. Indirect
aggression in these studies was confrontational in the sense that the perpetrator
was present. Later, Lagerspetz and colleagues used the same term indirect aggression
to refer to a different set of aggressive strategies in which the harm was indirectly
achieved and thus the perpetrator could remain unidentified (Lagerspetz & Bjrkqvist,
1994; Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Individual differences in indirect aggression were
assessed by peer ratings on five behaviors including gossiping, social exclusion, and
social alienation. Similar to social aggression, indirect aggression as used by
Lagerspetz and her colleagues frequently refers to nonconfrontational behaviors. Indirect aggression differs from social aggression, however, in that the perpetrator does not
have to use the social community as a means to attack (e.g., Takes revenge in play).
Relational aggression has been defined as behaviors that damage another childs
friendship or feelings of inclusion by the peer group (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
Individual differences in relational aggression are assessed by the Peer Nomination
Instrument. It includes social isolation/exclusion, ignoring, withdrawing or threatening to end a friendship, and gossiping. Note that these behaviors can be either confrontational or nonconfrontational. Some of these behaviors (e.g., gossiping) involve
the social community, while others (e.g., threatening to end a friendship, ignoring) do
not. In contrast, social aggression refers exclusively to nonconfrontational actions that
employ the social community.
Distinct Features of Non-Confrontational Behaviors
One distinction among different terms of subtle aggression (i.e., social, indirect, and
relational) is the confrontation between the perpetrator and victim. Compared to
confrontational aggressive behaviors (e.g., physical fight), non-confrontational aggression (e.g., gossiping) has several important properties. First, non-confrontational
aggression enables the perpetrator to conceal or obscure his/her identity, whereas the
use of confrontational aggression reveals the identity of the perpetrator both to the
victim and to other individuals. As a result, carrying out confrontational aggression
runs two risks: direct revenge or escalation by the victim, and punishment by the
authorities. In contrast, non-confrontational behaviors of social aggression minimize
these risks (see also Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Lagerspetz & Bjrkqvist, 1994). The
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

207

damage may be largely delayed in time and transformed in context. As a result, the
chances of revenge by the victim and punishment by an authority may be largely
reduced.
Second, the effectiveness of non-confrontational aggression may depend on the use
of social networks as a vehicle for attack. The damage to the victim is not automatic
and requires a process of mediation through other individuals in the social community. For a social attack to be effective, the perpetrator has to engage the participation
and help of other individuals within the social network. In contrast, the effectiveness
of confrontational aggression is not dependent upon the mediation of other individuals in the social network.
Third, the use of non-confrontational aggression may require the processing and
utilization of more complicated social information than confrontational strategies. In
order for a social attack to be effective, a person needs accurate knowledge of the
networks of interpersonal relationships and subtle skills of manipulation. It was found
that high levels of indirect aggression were associated with high levels of social intelligence, while confrontational aggression (i.e., physical and verbal aggression) was
not (Kaukiainen, Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, et al., 1999).
The Current Study
It is important to understand how these distinctive forms of interpersonal aggression
serve different social functions (Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, in press). In this study, we differentiate two types of subtle aggression: social aggression that employs nonconfrontational strategies and direct relational aggression that uses confrontational
strategies. Direct relational aggression in this study refers to actions whereby interpersonal damage is achieved by confrontational strategies that involve the relationship between two persons. It includes not talking to or hanging around with someone,
deliberately ignoring someone, threatening to withdraw friendship or affection, and
excluding someone from a group activity by telling him/her directly that he or she is
not welcome. Social aggression includes gossiping, social exclusion, social isolation,
social alienation, writing notes to a third party, talking about someone behind his/her
back, stealing friends or romantic partners, the triangulation of friendship or romantic relationship, and telling secrets/betrayal of trust. These two subtle forms of aggression are studied along with two prototypic forms: physical aggression and verbal
aggression.
A general issue that concerned this study is whether different forms of aggression
serve different functions in development and in social interactions. Recent investigations (e.g., Crick, 1997; Kaukiainen et al., 1999) have focused on individual differences of aggression and the association between different forms of aggression and
concurrent social-psychological adjustment (e.g., peer rejection, externalizing and
internalizing problems, and social intelligence). Little is known about the differential
properties of different aggressive behaviors in social interactions and their long-term
developmental consequences (see also Underwood, Galen, & Paquette, 2001b). In this
study we employ a dual approach. On the basis of narrative reports of interpersonal
conflicts, we conduct a micro-analysis to examine the interactive properties of different aggressive behaviors in social interactions. On the macro-level, we assess individual differences to identify (1) developmental correlates in other domains that are
related to different aggressive behaviors (e.g., academic competence and popularity),
and (2) the linkage between aggressive behaviors and developmental maladjustment
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

208

Hongling Xie et al.

in late adolescence and early adulthood (i.e., school dropout, teen parenthood, and
criminal arrest).
Given the non-confrontational nature of social aggression, we expect a low level of
reciprocity (i.e., social aggression begets social aggression). In contrast, medium to
high levels of reciprocity are expected for physical aggression, verbal aggression, and
direct relational aggression. Further, conflicts involving social aggression would have
more participants than conflicts involving only confrontational aggression (e.g., physical aggression, verbal aggression, and direct relational aggression). Given the necessity for an individual to draw other persons participation in order to complete an
effective social attack, we expect that the use of social aggression is associated with
higher levels of social network centrality. On the basis of previous research (e.g.,
Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Pulkkinen, 1992; Underwood, Galen, & Paquette, 2001a), we
expect that different forms of aggression would have different developmental correlates (e.g., popularity and academic competence) and show different levels of robustness in predicting subsequent developmental outcomes such as school dropout.
Specifically, reliable prediction will be primarily yielded by physical aggression.
Narrative reports of interpersonal conflicts with peers are utilized to assess the interactional and developmental properties of different aggressive behaviors. These reports
represent an individuals accounts or perceptions of specific conflicts and aggressive
behaviors that are not directly observed by an investigator. We speculate that a primary
bias in these accounts may be the self-enhancement effect (e.g., Alicke, Koltz,
Breitenbecher et al.,1995; Brown & Dutton, 1995; Cairns & Cairns, 1988; Xie,
Mahoney, & Cairns, 1999). Participants may show a tendency to blame others and to
report negative behaviors of other individuals rather than their own. Given this consideration, we first examine the characteristics of narrative accounts, and then determine whether similar interactional patterns were reported for the self and others.

Method
Participants and Design
This study involves 475 seventh-grade participants (248 girls and 227 boys; Mean age
= 13.4 years, SD = .58) from the Carolina Longitudinal Study (Cairns & Cairns, 1994).
The mean socioeconomic status on the Duncan Scale (Stevens & Featherman, 1981)
is 31.6 (SD = 17.8), and the full range of occupations is represented in the sample.
The proportion of African-American participants in this study is 30% (141/475). Participants were recruited from three middle schools from the suburban and rural areas
in the mid-Atlantic United States. All students in the designated grade in each school
were invited to participate in the study. A signed consent was required from both parent
and student with an average participation rate of 68% (475/698). Comparison between
participants of this study and students of the entire grades revealed no participation
bias in terms of sex, race, and extreme cases of aggressive behaviors.
Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted annually through grade 12.
An effort was made to individually interview all original participants each year, regardless of whether they were in school or had dropped out (see Cairns & Cairns, 1994).
More than 98% of the participants were interviewed by the end of high school. For
the purpose of this investigation, aggressive behaviors were identified in interpersonal
conflicts reported by participants when they were in the first year of the study (i.e.,
the 7th grade).
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

209

Measures
Interpersonal Conflicts and Aggressive Strategies. In the course of a semi-structured
individual interview, participants were asked to (1) identify both the same-sex peer(s)
and the opposite-sex peer(s) who bothered them or caused them trouble, and (2)
describe the conflicts in detail. The following probes were used to help clarify the
narratives: How did it start?, What happened?, What did you do?, How did it
end?, Did anything else come of it?, How did you feel about it?, and How did
the other person(s) feel about it? About 10% (48/475) of participants denied any conflict with other person(s), 36% (172/475) reported only one conflict. The audio-taped
interviews were first transcribed verbatim by the research staff in the CLS project.
These transcripts were then coded during the course of this study.
The narrative accounts of each conflict were coded in terms of (1) the identity
of the other persons involved; (2) the participants attribution of responsibility for
conflict initiation (self, other, or both); (3) the total number of individuals involved;
(4) the participants aggressive behaviors in the conflict (social aggression, hostile
physical aggression, hostile verbal aggression, direct relational aggression, and
other negative behaviors); (5) the other persons aggressive behaviors in the conflict
(See Appendix A for the operationalization of these aggressive behaviors); and
(6) intervention and/or punishment by the school authorities (1intervened, 0not
intervened). All reported aggressive behaviors were coded. High levels of reliability
were established. A total of 50 interviews were independently coded by two research
assistants. Inter-coder agreement ranged from 89% to 99% (Kappa: .56 to .91 with
median = .84).
Aggressive Exchange in Conflict Interactions. In addition to the aggressive strategies,
we also coded the interactive sequence and responsive patterns of behaviors. For each
aggressive behavior, we coded the perpetrator, the victim, whether it is an initiating
behavior or a response to a previous attack, and the reactive behavior from the victim.
For socially aggressive behavior, we also coded (1) whether the identity of the perpetrator was revealed to the victim, and (2) the types of aggression generated between
the victim and a third party. In each conflict, up to two actions were included for each
type of aggression (social, physical, verbal, and direct relational). This operation
accounted for 96% of all aggressive acts. Another 50 interviews were independently
coded by two research assistants. Inter-coder agreement ranged from 82% to 96%
(Kappa: .45 to .87 with median = .75). Since parallel patterns were obtained across
the two conflicts, they were combined for analyses.
Peer-narrative Measures of Aggression. Scores on the peer-narrative measure of social
aggression were computed according to the number of times a child was identified
using social aggression strategies in the conflict narratives reported by their peers in
the same school. The measure yielded highly skewed distributions. About 84%
(397/475) of the participants scored 0, and only 4% (19/475) of the participants
received scores greater than 1. Such highly skewed distributions presented problems
in subsequent parametric analyses. A decision was made to treat the peer-narrative
measure of social aggression as a dichotomous variable (0receiving no report on
socially aggressive behaviors, 1receiving one or more reports).
Treating the peer-narrative measure as a dichotomous variable also permitted the
avoidance of standardizing scores on the peer-narrative measure in order to adjust for
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

210

Hongling Xie et al.

different numbers of participants in different schools. This standardization procedure,

though commonly used, could be misleading to the extent that (1) it may inappropriately assume that the mean levels and standard deviations of social aggression are the
same across different social units (e.g., classrooms and schools); (2) it tends to produce
a highly skewed distribution if the raw scores have a skewed distribution; (3) it tends
to create extreme outliers which would largely affect the outcomes of subsequent
analyses of variance; and (4) it assigns different z-scores to persons receiving the same
zero score in different schools.
Similarly, scores on the peer-narrative measures of the other three forms of aggression were computed according to the number of times a child was identified using
that specific form of aggression in the conflict narratives reported by their peers in the
same school. Peer-narrative measures of physical, verbal, and direct relational aggression followed a similar distribution as was found for social aggression. Fourteen
percent (67/475) of participants were identified as using physical aggression, 26% for
verbal aggression, and 11% for direct relational aggression.
Interpersonal Competence ScaleTeacher (ICST). In grade 7, a teacher or counselor
filled out the Interpersonal Competence Scale for each participant who remained in
school. This scale assessed social competence, behavioral characteristics, and cognitive development. There were a total of 15 items in the scale. Three major factors have
been identified across different samples: aggression (i.e., gets into a fight, gets in
trouble, argues), popularity (i.e., popular with boys, popular with girls, has
friends), and academic competence (i.e., good at spelling, good at math). High
test-retest reliability was obtained over three weeks: .89, .82, and .88 for aggression,
popularity, and academic factors respectively. In addition, two secondary factors have
also been found: Olympian (good at sports, win, good-looking), and affiliation
(smiles a lot, friendly). The test-retest reliability over a three-week period was .69
for affiliation and .87 for Olympian. (For a detailed report of the psychometric properties of this scale, see Cairns, Leung, Gest & Cairns, 1995.)
The scores ranged from 1.0 to 7.0. A higher score on a given factor represents higher
standing on that factor (e.g., an academic factor score of 7.0 means that the individual is judged to be highly competent, and 1.0 to be very low in competence).
Social Network Centrality. Peer social networks in the school were determined from
individual, tape-recorded interviews conducted with every participant. In one section
of the interview, participants were asked, Now tell me about your schoolare there
some people who hang around together a lot? and How about you? Do you have a
group that you hang around with? Later in the interview, participants were asked to
name any persons who were not members of any groups.
According to the nominations of peer groups from all respondents within a
grade, the social cognitive map (SCM) procedure was employed to identify social
groups (Cairns, Garipy, & Kindermann, 1991; Cairns, Perrin, & Cairns, 1985). A cooccurrence matrix was generated as a square matrix with all the students in a class
listed down the rows and across the columns. Each off-diagonal number in the matrix
summarized the number of times two students corresponding to the row and the
column were nominated in the same group. Each diagonal number of the cooccurrence matrix represented the total number of occasions that a given person was
named to any group. The distribution of numbers in a column was regarded as the
personal profile of co-occurrences with other students in the same groups.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

211

A correlational matrix was then generated by intercorrelating the columns in the

co-occurrence matrix. The magnitude of the correlation represented the degree of
similarity between two personal profiles of co-occurrences. If two participants were
groupmates, high similarity in their personal profiles of co-occurrences was expected.
According to Cairns and colleagues (Cairns et al., 1991), a cutoff point of .40 for the
correlation was employed to determine whether two people are in the same social
group.
Individual prominence in the social networks was determined by the number of
times the person was nominated into any social group. After the social groups were
identified, the relative group prominence within each classroom and individual prominence within each group was determined. Using the average of those two persons in
the group who received the highest number of nominations, groups were classified
as high- , medium- , and low-prominent groups. Similarly, nomination frequency was
used to determine individual prominence within a group: nuclear, secondary, and
peripheral. Specifically, groups (or individuals) in the upper 30% rank of nominations
were considered to be high-prominent (or nuclear); those in the lowest 30% were considered to be low-prominent (or peripheral); and those in the mid-range 40% were
considered to be medium-prominent (or secondary).
The overall social network centrality of each person was determined by both the
group prominence in the class and his or her own individual prominence within the
group. Each students centrality within the network was classified as either high,
medium, or low. High centrality within the social network meant that the individual
was a nuclear member of a nuclear group. Medium centrality meant that the individual had secondary centrality in a nuclear group, or nuclear or secondary centrality
in a secondary group. Low centrality meant that the individual was a peripheral
member of any group, or a member of a peripheral group, or an isolate (who does not
have any identifiable affiliation with any group). In this sample, 38% (182/475) of participants had high levels of centrality, 46% had medium levels of centrality, and 16%
had low levels of centrality. Additional information on the reliability and validity of
the social network identification procedure can be found in several research articles
(e.g., Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Garipy; 1988; Cairns et al., 1985; Farmer
& Rodkin, 1996; Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 1999).
School Dropout. Each year independent and convergent information was gathered
from the participants and the schools to determine current enrollment status (see also
Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989a). School dropout was established based on
whether or not the participant had dropped out of school prior to the end of 11th grade.
Three participants died before Grade 11. Information on the status of school dropout
was obtained for all other participants. Approximately 12% (28/246) of females and
18% (40/226) of males in this sample dropped out of school prior to the end of 11th
grade. The difference was not significant (c2(1,472) = 3.81, p = .051).
Teen Parenthood. Teen parenthood in this study was defined as becoming a biological parent before age 20. Information on childbirth was obtained in participant interviews and interviews with their parents and grandparents. The information was further
confirmed by other sources (e.g., newspaper announcements or official birth records).
In all cases involving mothers, we made direct observations of the child at one or two
years of age and/or interviewed the child at age 4 and up. For fathers, we made direct
contact with the biological mother and/or direct observations of the child. Informa Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

212

Hongling Xie et al.

tion on teen parenthood status was available for 460 participants by the time of the
most recent data collection. Five deaths occurred before age 20. Ten participants (3
females and 7 males) were not interviewed after high school, resulting in a recovery
rate of 97.9% (460/470). These original participants were not teen parents when we
last saw them. More teen mothers (21%, 50/243) were found than teen fathers (9%,
19/217; c2(1,460) = 12.56, p < .001).
Criminal Arrest. When the participants were in their early 20s, information on
criminal arrests was obtained from the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) for 95%
(453/475) of the participants who stayed in the original state. No arrest had occurred
for 89% of the participants, and 8.4% had been arrested more than once. The measure
for criminal arrest was then transformed into a dichotomous variable (0not being
arrested; 1being arrested at least once). A higher proportion of criminal arrests
occurred among males (16%, 35/213) than among females (6%, 15/240; c2(1,453) =
11.91, p < .001).
Results
Characteristics of Narrative Accounts
Whos to Blame? Not Me! There was a strong tendency for the participants to blame
others for the conflict. Among all the conflicts in which attributions were made, the
vast majority (93.6%, 627/670) was blamed on others (i.e., the opponent and/or the
third party). Only 1.5% (10/670) was solely blamed on the self. Joint responsibility
was claimed for a small proportion (4.9%, 33/670) of the conflicts.
Differential Reports of Aggressive Behaviors. The likelihood of a participant reporting others aggressive behaviors was compared with the likelihood of reporting his/her
own in the conflicts. The unit of analysis was the individual participant. As shown in
Table 1, 32% of participants solely reported others verbal aggression, and 5% solely
reported their own. The difference was highly significant (McNemars test Qm = 84.78,
p < .0001).1 About a quarter of the participants (23%) reported both their own and

Table 1. Proportions of Participants Showing Differential Reports of Different

Types of Aggressive Behaviors (Raw Numbers are Listed in the Parenthesis)
Behavior report

Aggressive behaviors
Physical aggression
Verbal aggression
Social aggression
Direct relational aggression

Self
only

Other
only

Both self
and other

No
report

.08 (35)
.05 (20)
.01 (6)
.12 (52)

.10 (43)
.32 (136)
.24 (102)
.06 (25)

.27 (114)
.23 (98)
.06 (26)
.09 (40)

.55 (235)
.41 (173)
.69 (293)
.73 (310)

Note: Forty-eight participants denied any conflict, resulting in a total n of 427 for each type of
aggression.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

213

other persons verbal aggression. A similar pattern of differential reports was observed
for social aggression (24% other vs. 1% self; McNemars test Qm = 83.56, p < .0001).
In contrast, participants were more likely to report direct relational aggression of their
own (12%) than to report others (6%; McNemars test Qm = 8.78, p < .01). No differential reports were found for physical aggression (McNemars test Qm = .63, n.s.).
Differential Properties of Aggressive Behaviors in Social Interactions
Beyond a Dyad. On average, three persons (mean = 3.03) were mentioned as being
actively involved in the initiation, escalation, or termination of an interpersonal conflict. Traditional models of dyadic social interaction seem to have limited generalization. Only 35% (244/693) of these reported conflicts involved a dyad, 41% (283/693)
involved three individuals, and 24% involved four or more individuals. In addition,
the use of non-confrontational behavior of social aggression was associated with more
individuals being involved in the conflict [Mantel-Haenszel test c2(1,691) = 86.94, p <
.001]. Specifically, four or more persons were reported in 53% (74/140) of conflicts
where social aggression was used (SA-conflicts), while only in 17% (91/551) of conflicts where social aggression was not used (non-SA-conflicts). The majority of nonSA-conflicts involved two (42%, 229/551) or three individuals (42%, 231/551). In
contrast, only 11% (15/140) of SA-conflicts involved two individuals as reported by
the participants.2
Reciprocity of Aggressive Interactions. The proportions of different reactive behaviors
towards a specific aggressive action were summarized in Table 2. When insufficient
information was available for coding a specific response behavior, the behavioral
exchange was excluded from the following analyses. In approximately 9.3% of socially

Table 2. Proportions of Different Reactive Behaviors as a Function of Different

Types of Aggressive Attacks
Aggressive attacks
Reported Responses
No reactive behavior
Social aggression
Physical aggression
Verbal aggression
Direct relational aggression
Authority-seeking
Making-up
Neutral response
Other negative behaviorsa
(Total valid N =

Social

Physical

Verbal

Direct relational

.30
.05
.05
.24
.09
.04
.03
.20
.01
132

.25
.00
.48
.03
.01
.06
.01
.14
.02
289

.15
.01
.13
.34
.08
.10
.01
.16
.02
358

.43
.02
.02
.06
.32
.01
.03
.08
.03
142)

Note: Figures in bold represent behavioral reciprocity.

a
Other negative behaviors include playful physical attack, playful verbal attack, negative facial
expression, and coercive behaviors (e.g., following someone).
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

214

Hongling Xie et al.

aggressive behaviors, the victim was not able to identify the perpetrator. These behavioral exchanges were also excluded from the analysis. It was reasoned that when a
victim did not know who the perpetrator was, no reactive action could have been taken
against the perpetrator.
The hypothesis of aggression begets aggression was tested (Table 1). The probability that social aggression begets social aggression was 5%. In contrast, the probability that physical aggression begets physical aggression was 48%. Medium levels
of reciprocity were found for verbal aggression (34%) and direct relational aggression
(32%). No significant difference was found between verbal and direct relational
aggression [c2(1,500) = .18, p > .60]. Significant differences were found for all other
pairs of comparisons on reciprocity (c2s > 9.58, ps < .01).
It should be noted that low reciprocity for socially aggressive behavior did not imply
that social aggression failed to elicit hostile aggressive responses. Verbal aggression
and physical aggression accounted for 29% of the reactions of the victim towards the
perpetrator. In addition, 22% (38/172) of socially aggressive acts led to physical and/or
verbal aggression between the victim and a third party not including the perpetrator,
a unique feature of social aggression.
Differential Reciprocity. Since children reported different levels of aggressive behavior for themselves and others, it is important to examine the differences in the
reported reciprocity as a function of self-initiated attack and other-initiated attack.
No systematic self-other bias on the reciprocity was obtained across different forms
of aggression. Both within-subject analyses and between-subject analyses revealed
no significant self-other differences for social and direct relational aggression. The
reported mean reciprocity of social aggression was 4% (SD = .20, n = 93) for the participants and 10% (SD = .31, n = 30) for others (within-subject F(1,14) = .32, p = .58;
between-subject F(1,92) = 1.73, p = .19). On average, participants reciprocated 43%
(SD = .49, n = 42) of direct relational attacks and others reciprocated 31% (SD = .45,
n = 80; within-subject F(1,11) = .02, p = .88; between-subject F(1,97) = 1.67, p = .20).
When participants reported both their own and others use of physical aggression,
a higher level of reciprocity was found for the self (.85 vs. .37; within-subject F(1,69)
= 38.24, p < .001). When participants only reported either their own or others use of
physical aggression, no significant self-other difference was found on the reciprocity
(.34 vs. .40; between-subject F(1,106) = .40, p = .53). In contrast, no significant difference in reciprocity was found when participants reported both their own and others
use of verbal aggression (.55 vs. .41; within-subject F(1,57) = 1.73, p = .19), while a
higher level of reciprocity was reported for others in between-subject tests (.18 vs.
.50; F(1,170) = 20.27, p < .001).
Whether it was aggressive behaviors of the self or of others, a consistent pattern of
difference was observed across different forms. Very low levels of reciprocity were
found for non-confrontational behaviors of social aggression, while moderate to high
levels of reciprocity were found for confrontational behaviors of physical, verbal, and
direct relational aggression.
Features of Provocation and Response. The likelihood of aggressive actions being
reported as an initiating behavior or a response to an attack was examined. Since the
four types of aggressive behavior differ in their reciprocity, only the first action of
each type in a conflict was included in the analyses. Eighty percent (80%, 78/98) of
the time, socially aggressive behaviors were reported as an initiating act for interper Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

215

sonal conflicts, and only 20% of the time were they reported as a response to a provocation. In contrast, direct relational aggression was rarely reported as an initiating
behavior (14%, 11/81) but primarily reported as a response to negative interchanges
(86%). The difference was highly significant (c2(1,179) = 77.30, p < .0001). A similar
pattern was observed for physical and verbal aggression. Sixty-one percent (109/178)
of physical aggression and 54% (113/210) of verbal aggression were reported at the
beginning of a conflict (c2(1,388) = 2.17, p = .14). Both social and direct relational
aggression differ from physical and verbal aggression (c2s > 9.74, ps < .01).
Intervention and/or Punishment by School Authorities. School authorities were most
likely to intervene in a conflict where physical aggression was used (42%, 93/223).
Intervention or punishment by school authorities was reported in about one-third
(100/312) of conflicts where verbal aggression was used. The lowest likelihood of
intervention by authorities occurred in conflicts where social aggression and/or direct
relational aggression were used [23% (35/151) for social aggression, and 20%
(25/128) for direct relational aggression]. Statistical comparisons indicated significant
differences between physical aggression and all other types of aggression (c2s > 7.55,
ps < .01).3 School authorities were more likely to intervene in verbal aggression than
direct relational aggression (c2(1,501) = 9.21, p < .01). No significant difference was
found between social and direct relational aggression (c2(1,192) = 0.39, p > .50), and
between social and verbal aggression (c2(1,292) = 3.50, p = .06).
Aggressive Behaviors and Social Network Centrality
Gender Differences in Aggressive Behaviors. Individual differences in the use of
aggressive behaviors were assessed by peer-narrative measures. More girls used social
aggression and direct relational aggression than boys (.23 Vs .09 for social aggression, and .17 Vs .04 for direct relational aggression, F(1,473)s > 6.79, ps < .001). In contrast, more boys used physical aggression than girls (.19 Vs .09, F(1,473) = 10.17, p <
.01). No gender difference was found for verbal aggression (.24 for boys and .27 for
girls, F(1,473) = .82, p > .30).
Social Network Centrality. The relations between a persons social network centrality
and his/her use of different aggressive behaviors were depicted in Figure 1. Analysis
of variance was performed where the peer-narrative measure of aggression was the
dependent variable and network centrality and gender were independent variables.
Social aggression was associated with higher levels of network centrality (F(2,469) =
4.09, p < .05). This association did not differ by gender (centrality X gender interaction: F(2,469) = .023, p > .80). None of the other aggressive behaviors (i.e., verbal, physical, and direct relational aggression) was significantly related to network centrality
(F(2,469)s < 1.97, ps > .10).
Different Types of Aggression and Developmental Adjustment
Relations Among Different Aggressive Behaviors. The correlations among peernarrative measures of different aggressive behaviors are summarized in Table 3.
Moderate levels of correlation were found between physical aggression and verbal
aggression (r = .35), and between verbal aggression and social aggression (r = .35).
Low levels of correlation were obtained between physical aggression and direct rela Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

216

Hongling Xie et al.

.40

.40

Proportion of children using aggression

Physical aggression

Verbal aggression

.30

.30

.20

.20

.10

.10

High Medium Low

High Medium Low

.40

.40

Direct relational aggression

Social aggression
.30

.30

.20

.20

.10

.10

High Medium Low

High Medium Low

Social network centrality

Figure 1. The use of different aggressive behaviors and social network centrality.

tional aggression (r = .10) and social aggression (r = .15). All other correlations were
modest. It should be noted that such patterns of correlation, to some extent, reflect the
co-occurrence of aggressive behaviors within an interpersonal conflict, since peernarrative measures of aggression were derived from narrative reports and often multiple aggressive behaviors were reported.
Aggression and Individual Adjustment. The relations between different aggressive
behaviors and teacher-ratings of concurrent adjustment were summarized in Table 4.
Given the inter-correlations among different aggressive behaviors, partial correlation
coefficients were calculated after controlling for gender and the other aggressive
behaviors. The peer-narrative measure of physical aggression was significantly correlated with most of the adjustment scores of teacher-ratings: high aggression, low
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

217

Table 3. Intercorrelations Among Different Aggressive Behaviors after Controlling for Gender
Aggressive behaviors

Physical aggression
Verbal aggression
Social aggression
Direct relational aggression

Physical

Verbal

Social

Direct relational

1.00
.35***
.15**
.10*

1.00
.35***
.25***

1.00
.27***

1.00

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

Table 4. The Unique Associations Between a Specific Aggressive Behavior

and Individual Adjustment after Controlling for Gender and other Aggressive
Behaviors
Aggressive behaviors
Adjustment

Physical

Verbal

Social

Direct relational

Concurrent adjustment
ICST-Aggression
ICST-Academic competence
ICST-Popularity
ICST-Olympian
ICST-Affiliation

.16***
-.19***
-.14**
-.06
-.17**

.21***
-.11*
-.05
-.11*
-.06

.03
.01
.02
.06
-.02

-.02
.00
.10*
.11*
.13**

.20***
.03
.20***

.08
.11*
.00

.06
.05
.08

Future adjustment
School dropout
Teen parenthood
Criminal arrest

-.09
-.09
-.03

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

academic competence, low popularity, and low affiliation. The use of verbal aggression was related to higher teacher-ratings of aggression, lower scores of academic
competence, and lower scores of Olympian. After controlling for the effects of gender
and the other aggressive behaviors, social aggression alone was not related to any of
the teacher-ratings. In contrast, the use of direct relational aggression was associated
with higher scores of popularity, Olympian, and affiliation.
Three indices were employed for subsequent maladjustment: school dropout, teen
parenthood, and criminal arrest. Partial correlation coefficients were calculated after
controlling for gender and other aggressive behaviors. The use of physical aggression
significantly increased the likelihood of school dropout and criminal arrest (Table 4).
Verbal aggression was associated with a higher risk for teen parenthood. The use of
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

218

Hongling Xie et al.

social aggression or direct relational aggression, however, did not increase the risk of
maladjustment in late adolescence and early adulthood.
Discussion
In this study we found that negative social interactions among adolescents often
involved more than a dyad. This finding is consistent with observational studies of
aggressive behaviors in natural settings (e.g., Pepler & Craig, 1995). Even more individuals were involved in negative exchanges when disguised social aggression was
used. If it takes two to fight, it takes at least three to gossip. The findings suggest that
laboratory observations of dyadic interactions may have limited generalizations to
natural settings. Furthermore, they suggest that broader social networks beyond dyadic
friendships should be assessed in order to understand the operation and social functions of aggressive behaviors.
This is not limited to social aggression, however. Once the attack is detected and
the identity was revealed, social aggression often resulted in open confrontations of
physical and/or verbal aggression between the perpetrator and the victim (29%). It
also led to physical and/or verbal aggression between the victim and a third party not
involving the perpetrator (22%). Some of the physical fights between two adolescents
were actually set up by other adolescents using social aggression (see also Artz, in
press). One seventh-grade male described how he was set up by other students in the
school to fight with another male:
. . . See people, they like to see a good fight and you know, they just like to see a fight
and theyll say like, he talked about your mother and all stuff like that . . .

Despite the fact that social aggression had a good chance of leading to physical
aggression, school authorities primarily focused their effort on intervening when physical aggression occurred. No doubt, it is hard for the authorities to identify the subtle
exchanges of social aggression, and physical aggression is more destructive and disruptive. Recognizing the early signs of social aggression among students, however, may
enable the authorities to intervene at an earlier stage and prevent disruptive confrontations later on.
Over 9% of the time, victims of socially aggressive attacks were not able to identify the perpetrator. Although this proportion may not appear high, it should be remembered that there were likely incidents of social aggression in which the victim did
not even know of the attack and hence failed to report it. In contrast, the perpetrators
identity was revealed in every episode of confrontational aggression (i.e., direct relational, physical, and verbal). Social aggression also generated low levels of immediate reciprocity even when the victim knew who the perpetrator was. These findings
confirmed previous speculations about the adaptive features of socially aggressive
behavior (Bjrkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Cairns & Cairns, 1994).
Namely, the use of social aggression enables the perpetrator to obscure his/her identity and avoid immediate escalation and revenge.
Cara found a rumor was going around about her stealing money from her mom; when
asked about the person who did it, Cara replied: They never did find out, . . they said
that Jenny said it, and Jenny said that Diane said it, but then um then, Jenny said that
Amy said it, then Amy said that Angie said, and Angie said that Amy said, and Amy said
that Jenny said it, so we never did find out who said it . . .

The use of aggression did not exclude adolescents from peer social networks. On
the contrary, high centrality in peer networks may enable the adolescents to use more
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

219

social aggression. The effective use of social aggression requires a person to be

embedded in his/her social networks. An effective social attack cannot be achieved
without a connection to the social networks. The more deeply a person is embedded
in the fabric of relationship networks, the more effective the social attack and the more
likely the perpetrator will successfully conceal his/her identity. Children and adolescents who are central in peer social networks may find themselves in a position to
effectively use social aggression.
This finding is consistent with a previous report that children who used indirect
aggression had higher social intelligence (Kaukiainen et al., 1999). Together they
suggest that the majority of socially aggressive children and adolescents may be
neither socially incompetent nor suffering from deficits in social cognition (see
also Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Ethnographic research has also shown that
socially aggressive behaviors serve important functions for the individual and social
groups. Social aggression can be used as a strategy to obtain desirable social status
and to realign social relationships (Archer, 2001; Goodwin, 1990; Hawley, 1999;
Merten, 1997). Adler and Adler (1998) noted that children (ages 8 to 12) who were
involved more in the group dynamics of inclusion and exclusion mastered the manipulative techniques earlier and were more successful in their peer interactions.
The use of physical aggression significantly increased a persons risk for school
dropout and criminal arrest. In a similar manner, verbal aggression was associated
with teen parenthood. Consistent with a previous report that facial aggression does not
predict developmental problems among girls (Pulkkinen, 1992), social aggression and
direct relational aggression in this study were not predictive of developmental maladjustment. These results suggest that subtle aggressive behaviors may be normative
in development (see also Underwood et al., 2001a).
Why? According to the holistic and interactive perspective on human development (e.g., Magnusson & Cairns, 1996), physical aggression alone does not significantly increase the risk for developmental maladjustment (e.g., Cairns et al., 1989a;
Magnusson & Bergman, 1990). Only when combined with other risk factors (e.g.,
poor academic performance) does physical aggression become an antecedent for
problematic developmental outcomes. In other words, it is not physical aggression
itself that predicts future maladjustment, but the at-risk configuration in which physical aggression is embedded. Consistent with this explanation, we found that the use
of physical aggression was related to poor adjustment in other domains: low academic competence, low popularity, and low scores of affiliation. Verbal aggression was
also related to low academic competence and low Olympian scores. In contrast, social
aggression was not related to risk factors in these domains, and the use of direct relational aggression was even associated with higher scores of popularity, Olympian, and
affiliation.
Prototypic forms of aggressionphysical aggression and verbal aggressionshare
multiple similarities in their interactive properties and developmental correlates.
Consistent with previous research, they were found to generate reciprocated counterattacks and be related to poor concurrent and future adjustment. These prototypic
aggressive behaviors differ from less prototypic aggressive behaviorssocial aggression and direct relational aggression. Neither social aggression nor direct relational
aggression was related to poor concurrent and future adjustment.
Social aggression and direct relational aggression differ from one another in their
interactive properties. Socially aggressive behavior is usually reported as an instigating behavior that produces the primary damage, whereas direct relational aggression
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

220

Hongling Xie et al.

is often reported as a responding behavior. Similarly, Underwood and her colleague

(Paquette & Underwood, 1999) have reported that in adolescents experience of victimization being gossiped about (a socially aggressive behavior) occurs more often
than being ignored (direct relational aggression) or being excluded from a group
(either direct relational aggression or social aggression). In addition, socially aggressive behavior is unlikely to be reciprocated within the same conflict episode, whereas
direct relational aggression tends to generate immediate reciprocal responses.
This study demonstrated that narrative reports of interpersonal interactions could
become an important avenue to study interactive properties of disguised aggressive behaviors such as social aggression. The natural course of socially aggressive
behavior in interpersonal interactions often moves through multiple contexts over
a substantial period of time, sometimes days or weeks. This unique feature of
social aggression makes it very difficult to study its interactive patterns by using
traditional methods of behavioral observation either in the laboratory or in a natural
setting. In this regard, narrative accounts of interpersonal exchanges may bear unique
information.
There exist limitations to this approach, however. The reported incidents of conflicts are likely to be prominent events in which negative exchanges may have been
escalated or repetitive. As a result, the peer-narrative measures of aggression have
limited range, and the interactive reciprocity obtained in the narrative reports may
be higher than what is observed for negative exchanges in general. About a quarter
of hostile aggressive behaviors were found to be reciprocated in natural observations (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1998), whereas reciprocity rates of 32% to 48% were found for confrontational aggression in the narrative
reports.
Narrative accounts are selective reports constructed from memories of a specific
episode. As we expected, participants blamed others. They were also more likely to
report others social and verbal aggression. This bias was not consistent across different aggressive behaviors, however. Participants were more likely to report their own
direct relational aggression and as likely to report others physical aggression as their
own. While the differential reports of aggression will certainly affect measures using
self-report, its impact on individual difference measures was limited in this study given
that peer-narrative measures were used to identify a persons aggressive actions. More
importantly, the micro-process of negative interactions (i.e., reciprocity) for the self
and for others did not show systematic differences. The bottom line is that differences
in the interactive properties of different aggressive behaviors are quite robust in the
narrative reports. Whether it was for the self or for others, non-confrontational behaviors of social aggression generated much lower levels of reciprocity than confrontational behaviors (i.e., physical, verbal, and direct relational aggression).
Since participants blamed others for the conflicts, it is likely that they might have
omitted their own negative behaviors precipitating the conflict. The findings that social
aggression tends to be an initiating behavior and is rarely used as a reactive behavior
should be interpreted with care. Since social aggression requires some forward planning and takes time to be effective, it may be used as a response to a previous conflict that might have been omitted by the participants. Its reciprocity may increase
when there is enough time lag between two conflicts. Given these considerations, the
findings on the interactional properties of different aggressive behaviors should be
validated using different methods (e.g., direct observation or ethnographic approach)
in future studies.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

221

In conclusion, developmental properties of different aggressive behaviors can be

analyzed simultaneously on two levels: interpersonal interactions and individual differences. Each level of analyses yields important information on behavioral and individual development. Studying individual differences without examining the operation
of a specific behavior in social interactions will severely limit our understanding of
the adaptive and developmental functions of the behavior (see also Cairns, 1972, 1979;
Lewin, 1931).
References
Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescents culture and identity. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Alicke, M. D., Koltz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995).
Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 804825.
Archer, J. (2001). A strategic approach to aggression. Social Development, 10, 267271.
Artz, S. (in press). To die for: A work in progress. In D. Pepler, K. Madsen, C. Webster, & K.
Levene (Eds.), Development and treatment of girlhood aggression. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bjrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys
fight? Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117127.
Brown, J. D. & Dutton, K. A. (1995). Truth and consequences: The costs and benefits of accurate self-knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 12881296.
Cairns, R. B. (1972). Fighting and punishment from a developmental perspective. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 20, 59124.
Cairns, R. B. (1979). Social development: The origins and plasticity of interchanges. San
Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Cairns, R. B. & Cairns, B. D. (1988). The sociogenesis of self concepts. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi,
G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp.
181202). Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989a). Early school dropout: Configurations and determinants. Child Development, 60, 14371452.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Garipy, J.-L. (1989b). Growth
and aggression: I. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320330.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S., & Garipy, J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology,
24, 815823.
Cairns, R. B., Garipy, J.-L., & Kindermann, T. (1991). Identifying social clusters in natural
settings. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Gest, S. D., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). A brief method for assessing
social development: Structure, reliability, stability, and developmental validity of the Interpersonal Competence Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(6), 725736.
Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. E., & Cairns, B. D. (1985). Social structure and social cognition in
early adolescence: Affiliative patterns. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 339355.
Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of
aggression: Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 610
617.
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722.
Farmer, T. W. & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social
positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174188.
Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Sex differences in childrens modes of aggressive responses toward
outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 249258.
Feshbach, N. D. & Sones, G. (1971). Sex differences in adolescent reactions to newcomers.
Developmental Psychology, 4, 381386.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

222

Hongling Xie et al.

Galen, B. R. & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression

among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589600.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97132.
Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S., &
Ahlbom, A. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types
of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 8189.
Koch, G. G. & Edwards, S. E. (1988). Clinical efficacy trials with categorical data. In K. E.
Peace (Ed.), Biopharmaceutical statistics for drug development (pp. 403457). New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J. & Bjrkqvist, K. (1994). Indirect aggression in girls and boys. In L. R.
Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 131150). New York:
Plenum.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjrkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 1112-year-old children. Aggressive
Behavior, 14, 303315.
Lewin, K. (1931). Environmental forces in child behavior and development. In C. Murchison
(Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (pp. 94127). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Magnusson, D. & Bergman, L. R. (1990). A pattern approach to the study of pathways from
childhood to adulthood. In L. N. Robins & M. Rutter (Eds.), Straight and devious pathways
from childhood to adulthood (pp. 101115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Magnusson, D. & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Toward a unified framework.
In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, Jr., & J. Costello, (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 730).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
McNemar, Q. (1962). Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley.
Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among
junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175191.
Paquette, J. A. & Underwood, M. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents experiences
of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,
233258.
Pepler, D. J. & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observations of
aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental Psychology, 31,
548553.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., & Roberts, W. L. (1998). Observation of aggressive and nonaggressive children on the school playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 5576.
Pulkkinen, L. (1992). The path to adulthood for aggressively inclined girls. In K. Bjrkqvist
& P. Niemel (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 113122). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Sears, R. R. (1961). Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 466492.
Sears, R. R., Rau, L., & Alpert, R. (1965). Identification and child rearing. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Stevens, G. & Featherman, D. C. (1981). A revised socioeconomic index of occupational status.
Social Science Research, 10, 364395.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and theory of mind: A critique
of the social skills deficit view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development, 8, 117
127.
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001a). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children: Why cant we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248266.
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001b). Hopes rather than fears, admirations rather than hostilities: A response to Archer and Bjorqkvist. Social Development, 10,
275280.
Xie, H. (1998). The Development and functions of social aggression: A narrative analysis of
social exchange in interpersonal conflicts. Unpublished dissertation, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

Aggressive Behaviors in Conflict Reports

223

Xie, H., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (in press). The development of aggressive behaviors
among girls: Measurement issues, social functions, and differential trajectories. In D. Pepler,
K. Madsen, C. Webster, & K. Levene (Eds.), Development and Treatment of Girlhood Aggression. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1999). Social networks and configurations in innercity schools: Aggression, popularity, and implications for students with EBD. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 147155.
Xie, H., Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1999). Through a looking glass or a hall of mirrors?
Self ratings and teacher ratings of academic competence over development. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 163183.

Notes
1. The null hypothesis tested was that there was an equal probability to report others aggressive
behavior as to report ones own (r0 = .50). The McNemar statistics were calculated, which had a chisquare distribution with 1 degree of freedom (see Koch & Edwards, 1988; also McNemar, 1962).
2. It should be noted that the use of social aggression implies the participation of a third person in completing the attack. In this analysis, we calculated the number of individuals who were explicitly reported
by the participants. In some of the conflicts involving social aggression, participants did not explicitly
mention a third person, although it was implied.
3. Pairwise comparisons were made excluding the conflicts containing both types of aggression. For
instance, the comparison between social and physical aggression on their likelihood of intervention by
authorities was conducted excluding conflicts containing both social and physical aggressive behaviors.

Acknowledgments
Support for this research was provided by Spencer Foundation and NIMH (MH61293,
MH45532, and MH52429). We thank Thomas W. Farmer and Kathryn E. Hood for their
constructive feedback, and Laura L. Bobis and Anne B. Matthews for their help in data coding.
We also appreciate the comments and suggestions made by the anonymous reviewers and
co-editor Hildy Ross.

Appendix A: The Operationalization of Different Types of Aggression

Social Aggression
Non-confrontational, use of networks of social relationships/peers as a way to attack,
and the identity of the perpetrator is not directly present.
Examples. Gossip/rumor, writing notes to a third party, talking about someone (negatively), telling secrets to a third party, triangulation (She wrote love letters to my
boyfriend), social alienation (Amy told me that Betty said bad things about me),
and social ostracizing (Cindy told us not to be friends with Diane any more).
Direct Relational Aggression
Confrontational, use of relationship between the dyad as a way to attack, and the identity of the perpetrator is directly present.
Examples. Ignoring someone, ignoring ones request as a way to revenge, not talking
to someone, not hanging around with someone, withdrawing or threatening to withdraw friendship or affection (I dont like you any more, We were no longer friends
anymore), keeping out of a group activity (We dont want to play with you), and
keeping out of a friend group (We dont want to be your friends anymore).
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

224

Hongling Xie et al.

Physical Aggression
Confrontational, use of physical force or weapon as a way to attack, non-playful acts,
and the identity of the perpetrator is directly present.
Examples. Beating up someone, a bad fight, throwing a chair at someone, jumping
on someone, getting in a fight, slap, swing, hit, push, and threatening to fight.
Verbal Aggression
Confrontational, use of negative words as a way to attack, non-playful verbal
exchange, and the identity of the perpetrator is directly present.
Examples. Verbal insult, hostile threat, verbal humiliation, curse, yell, argument, fuss,
name calling, questioning, blaming, and hostile teasing.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Social Development, 11, 2, 2002

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.