University of Miami

Scholarly Repository
Open Access Dissertations

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2011-08-02

Social Aggression in Children and Adolescents: A

Meta-Analytic Review
Cathy Longa
University of Miami, cathylonga@gmail.com

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations

Recommended Citation
Longa, Cathy, "Social Aggression in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic Review" (2011). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 625.

This Open access is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Scholarly Repository. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository. For more information, please contact
repository.library@miami.edu.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

SOCIAL AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: A METAANALYTIC REVIEW

By
Cathy Longa
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty
of the University of Miami
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Coral Gables, Florida

August 2011

2011
Cathy Longa
All Rights Reserved

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

SOCIAL AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: A METAANALYTIC REVIEW

Cathy Longa

Approved:

Debbiesiu Lee, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Educational
and Psychological Studies

Terri A. Scandura, Ph.D.

Dean of the Graduate School

Soyeon Ahn, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Educational
and Psychological Studies

Ora Prilleltensky, Ed.D.

Clinical Assistant Professor of
Educational and Psychological Studies

Annette La Greca, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and
Pediatrics

LONGA, CATHY
Social Aggression in Children and Adolescents:
A Meta-Analytic Review

(Ph.D., Counseling Psychology)

(August 2011)

Abstract of a dissertation at the University of Miami.

Dissertation supervised by Professors Debbiesiu Lee and Soyeon Ahn.
No. of pages in text. (112)
Social aggression has been widely studied; however, findings have been inconsistent
leading to confusion within the current literature. Previous research has linked social
aggression to negative outcomes; including poor peer relations, internalizing symptoms,
and low levels of empathy; as well as positive attributes, including prosocial behaviors,
high social status, and social intelligence. This meta-analysis examined the relationship
between social aggression and various correlates, both positive and negative, as well as
how age and gender moderate these relationships. With 896 correlations derived from
108 studies (of a total of 107 published articles), the results using the random-effects
model for computing overall effect sizes indicated that social aggression is related with
maladaptive correlates, such as externalization ( r = 0.46), internalization ( r = 0.16),
negative individual traits ( r = 0.32), as well as negative peer relations ( r = 0.28).
However, findings also suggest that social aggression is associated with popularity ( r =
0.22) and social skillfulness ( r = 0.16). Implications, limitations, and future directions
are discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................4
Theoretical Models ......................................................................................................... 6
Early childhood. .......................................................................................................... 8
Middle Childhood. ...................................................................................................... 9
Adolescence. ............................................................................................................. 12
Previous Meta-Analyses on Social Aggression ............................................................ 14
Current Study ................................................................................................................ 17
Meta-Analysis ............................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 3. METHODS .................................................................................................20
Search Procedure .......................................................................................................... 20
Coding of Studies.......................................................................................................... 23
Power ............................................................................................................................ 25
Effect Size ..................................................................................................................... 26
Analysis......................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ...................................................................................................29
Characteristics of Studies.............................................................................................. 29
Publication Bias ............................................................................................................ 30
Overall Model ............................................................................................................... 30
Gender differences. ................................................................................................... 32

iii

Age differences. ........................................................................................................ 32

Relationship Between Individual Characteristics and Social Aggression .................... 36
Gender differences. ................................................................................................... 39
Age differences. ........................................................................................................ 42
Relationship Between Peer Relations and Social Aggression ...................................... 46
Gender differences. ................................................................................................... 46
Age differences. ........................................................................................................ 49
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................53
Future Interventions ...................................................................................................... 65
Future Research ............................................................................................................ 69
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 71
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 72
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................74
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................93

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study selection chart...........................................................................................21
Figure 2. Funnel plot of effect sizes against study sizes ....................................................31
Figure 3. Overall model .....................................................................................................33

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overall Model of Relationships with Social Aggression.................................... 31
Table 2. Differences by Gender in Overall Model. .......................................................... 34
Table 3. Differences by Age in Overall Model................................................................. 35
Table 4. Relationship between Individual characteristics and Social Aggression............ 37
Table 5. Differences by Gender in the Relationship between Social Aggression and
Individual Characteristics. ................................................................................................ 40
Table 6. Differences by Age in the Relationship between Social Aggression and
Individual Characteristics ................................................................................................ 43
Table 7. Relationship between Peer Relations and Social Aggression. ............................ 47
Table 8. Differences by Gender in the Relationship between Social Aggression and Peer
Relations. .......................................................................................................................... 48
Table 9. Differences by Age in the Relationship between Social Aggression and Peer
Relations. .......................................................................................................................... 50

vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
It is no question that children can be extremely cruel to one another, as aggression
is a widely studied construct within the psychological literature. Aggressive behaviors
can take a variety of forms: physical aggression, verbal insults, relationship manipulation,
and nonverbal expressions of disdain. Much of the previous research on aggression has
focused on physical aggression (Underwood, Galen, & Paquette, 2001). Recently, there
has been an explosion of interest in forms of aggression that emphasize nonphysical
strategies: indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992), relational
aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and social aggression (Galen & Underwood,
1997).
Much has been made in the media and popular psychology books (e.g., Dellasega
& Nixon, 2003; Simmons, 2002; Wiseman, 2002) concerning the negative consequences
of social aggression, particularly as it relates to girls. It has been suggested that socially
aggressive behaviors are maladaptive, hurtful, and related to negative outcomes in both
the victim and the aggressor (e.g., Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Lagerspetz, 1994; Crick,
Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Heilbron &Prinstein, 2008). There have even been efforts to
determine if socially aggressive behaviors belong within the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual [DSM] (Keenan, Coyne, & Lahey, 2008).
Although the introduction of these constructs has generated a very useful body of
research (Underwood, Galen, & Paquette, 2001), within this literature many
disagreements, discrepancies, and questions remain. Included among these incongruities
is whether social aggression represents a form of maladjustment arising from deficiencies

2
and leading to negative outcomes, or a form of socially skillful, though perhaps not
desirable, behaviors leading to positive social attributes. One way to explain these
differences in the literature is to consider a developmental perspective, where aggression
is proposed to change with development. As children mature, their social skills, cognitive
abilities, and emotional development also change. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect
that the nature, correlates, and consequences of social aggression may also change with
age. Thus, it is fair to expect differing associations between social aggression and various
outcomes based on developmental stage.
Two previous meta-analyses (Archer, 2004; Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little,
2008) have been conducted to explore and better understand social aggression. Archers
(2004) meta-analytic review of gender differences indicated more evidence of social
aggression in girls among children; however the gender differences were not as consistent
as would have been expected from previous individual studies. Archers (2004) study is
limited in that he utilized a more narrow definition of social aggression, searching only
for indirect aggression, therefore including only 41 studies of this construct. In
addition, he used a fixed-effects model for his analysis, which may have affected the
generalization of findings.
Card et al.s (2008) meta-analysis found that girls use more social aggression than
boys, but that this result was trivial in magnitude. In addition, Card et al. found that
social aggression was more strongly associated with internalizing problems (i.e.,
depression and anxiety) than physical aggression, with no gender moderation of these
relationship found. Card et al.s (2008) study is limited by several issues, such as
excluding many studies that solely focused on social aggression, failing to examine age

3
as a potential moderator, and not examining social adjustment or potentially positive
outcomes associated with social aggression.
Although both studies provide useful information concerning social aggression,
the studies have limitations and questions remain. Given these discrepancies in the
literatures, it seems that a comprehensive review and analysis of the literature is
warranted. By including more studies, examining age as a moderator, and examining a
wider range of correlates, a better understanding of social aggression can be yielded.
Thus, this study aimed at clarifying and providing a better understanding of the correlates
(both positive and negative) of social aggression, while examining the role age and
gender play in these relationships.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Researchers have struggled for decades to describe and measure aggressive
behavior (see Coie & Dodge, 1998, for a review). Despite the numerous articles devoted
to this topic, there are significant challenges for understanding aggression. One
significant difficulty is the vast number of subtypes suggested by investigators. For
example, Underwood, Galen, and Paquette (2001) argue that aggression is difficult to
define operationally because neither the intentions of an aggressor nor the perceptions of
harm by a victim can be directly observed. What is considered aggressive behavior relies
greatly on social judgments, of both the aggressor and the perceiver (Underwood, Galen,
& Paquette, 2001).
In general, definitions of aggression involve the intent to inflict harm on others
(Archer & Coyne, 2005). Harre and Lamb (1983) noted that researchers have proposed
over 200 different definitions of aggressive behavior, but that most of these definitions
share two common features: (1) the behavior is intended to harm, and (2) the behavior is
perceived as hurtful by the victim. Direct acts of verbal and physical aggression in
situations of interpersonal conflict readily fit such a definition. However, research has
demonstrated that children engage in a variety of aggressive behavior. Hence, although
the injury necessary for a behavior to be labeled aggression has been most often
interpreted by researchers to mean bodily harm, these terms could also apply to damage
to ones self-esteem or social standing (Galen & Underwood, 1997).
In considering the various types of aggression it is important to note that all forms
of aggression can be considered social strategies that have evolved to represent different

5
means to harm others (Archer & Coyne, 2005). In arguing the significance of
nonphysical forms of aggression, Olweus (1996) stated that negative actions can be
carried out by physical contact, by words, or in other ways, such as making faces and
nasty gestures or by intentional exclusion from a group (p. 16). While physical
aggression involves overt actions such as threatening physical injury, nonphysical forms
of aggression are behaviors intended to cause social or interpersonal harm through overt
or covert ways, such as gossiping, excluding from social interactions, and spreading
rumors (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008).
Nonphysical forms of aggression have been given three different names in the
literature: indirect aggression (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988), relational
aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and social aggression (Cairns, Cairns,
Neckerman, Feguson, & Gariepy, 1989). Indirect aggression refers to behaviors such as
gossiping or exclusion that harms others without direct confrontation of the victim
(Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Relational aggression involves harming others by manipulating
peer relationships (Crick, 1995). Finally, social aggression refers to behaviors aimed at
damaging the victims self-esteem or social status. Social aggression includes actions
such as negative facial expressions, verbal rejection, rumors, or social exclusion (Galen
& Underwood, 1997).
Researchers using these three labels disagree over which term is the most
practical for describing these nonphysical forms of aggression. Further, these is some
dispute regarding how similar indirect, relational, and social aggression really are, as well
as which term best depicts the behaviors (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Underwood, et al., 2001).
Although there may be subtle differences, the constructs converge around the common

6
theme of behaviors that attack a victims actual or perceived social relations with others,
often (though not always) in ways that avoid direct confrontation (Card, et al., 2008). For
the purposes of this paper, the term social aggression will be utilized to refer to the
behaviors in question.
Along with the general constructs of aggression, bullying can be characterized as
a subset of aggressive behaviors. As with aggressive behaviors, bullying intentionally
causes harm to the recipient (Aluede, Adeleke, Omoike, & Afen-Akpaida, 2008). This
harm can be both physical and psychological and has an influence on the victims
physical, emotional, social, and educational well-being (Smith, 2004). Rigby (2002)
points out that it seems like splitting hairs to distinguish between aggression and
bullying (p. 30).
Recent research on bullying has differentiated between the various types of
bullying. Like aggression, bullying can manifest in several ways, including physical
bullying, verbal bullying, and social bullying (e.g., disrupting the social relationships
between victims and peers; Berger, 2007). Given that bullying is a subset of the broader
category of aggression, and that researchers have acknowledged that both bullying and
aggression can be classified as indirect or social, it seems odd that researchers continue to
study these constructs as completely separate phenomena. Therefore, this study included
both social aggression and nonphysical forms of bullying to obtain a better understanding
of the similar behaviors that frequently occur within the child and adolescent population.
Theoretical Models
To varying extents, theoretical models are beginning to be constructed to explain
social aggression. In general, these theories can be divided into two groups: those who

7
argue that social aggression is maladaptive and engaged in by children who have a deficit
in their social or cognitive competence (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Michiels, Gietens,
Onghena, Kuppens, 2008; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), and those who argue that social
aggression is used by socially skilled and manipulative individuals (e.g., Hawley, 2007;
Garandeau & Cillessen, 2006). The first group links aggression with negative outcomes,
including poor peer relations, internalizing symptoms, and low levels of empathy. The
latter group links aggression with positive attributes, including prosocial behaviors, high
social status, and social intelligence. Interestingly, there is evidence to support both
theories.
One way to explain why some theorists view social aggression as maladaptive and
other theorists see it as beneficial may be that this behavior has different effects at
different developmental stages. A developmental model of social aggression can assist in
our understanding of developmental processes over time by highlighting the importance
of individual and environmental interactions (Pepler & Craig, 2005; Rutter, 1990). From
a developmental perspective, the nature and form of aggression is assumed to change
with development. These changes emerge as a result of maturation within the child
together with changing social interactions and expectations (Pepler & Craig, 2005). Thus,
it is reasonable to expect differing associations between social aggression and various
outcomes based on developmental stage.
Although the conceptualization of aggression as a form of psychopathology
predominantly dominates the empirical literature, there are notable exceptions to this
emphasis (e.g., Hawley et al., 2007). For some children and adolescents, socially
aggressive behavior is positively related to dominance, social impact, perceived

8
popularity, and higher levels of social power (Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008). A review of
the literature on social aggression reveals conflicting findings at different developmental
stages (i.e., early childhood, middle childhood, adolescence).
Early childhood. Although researchers have only recently begun to investigate
the occurrence of social aggression in early childhood, some researchers suggest that
preschool children as young as age 3 engage in these behaviors (e.g., Crick, Casas,
Mosher, 1997; Juliano, Werner, Cassidy, 2006; McNeilly-Choque, Hart, Robinson,
Nelson, Olsen, 1996). Crick and colleagues (1999) suggest that the manifestations of
social aggression at these ages are simple and obvious (e.g., directly telling a peer they
will not play with them unless certain conditions are met) and enacted as a response to an
immediate problem. Thus, young children are beginning to learn social skills and as such
social aggression at this developmental stage may take the form of overt, straightforward
forms (Underwood, 2003).
Although the study of social aggression in early childhood remains a relatively
new area of research, several studies have examined the link between social aggression
and measures of problematic adjustment, positive attributes, social skills, and language
ability with mixed findings. For example, social aggression has been associated with
impulsive, oppositional, anxious, or depressive behaviors (Juliano, et al., 2006), as well
as high levels of deception (Ostrov, 2006) and poor expressive language skills (Estrem,
2005). However, other studies have found social aggression related with a variety of
markers of positive adjustment in young children, including verbal skills (Bonica, et al.,
2003) and receptive language ability (Hawley, 2003), moral maturity (in girls; Hawley,
2003) and the ability to express guilt (Hawley, 2003).

9
With regard to social relationships, research has indicated that social aggression is
associated with current and future peer rejection (Crick, et al., 1997; Crick, Ostrov, &
Werner, 2006; Ostrov & Crick, 2007), peer exclusion (Ostrov & Keating, 2004), lower
prosocial behavior (Crick, et al., 1997; Ostrov & Keating, 2004), and lower levels of peer
acceptance (McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996). In contrast, other studies have suggested that
social aggression is linked with average to above average social skills (Carpenter &
Nangle, 2003), social competence (Vaugh, Vollenweider, & Bost, 2003), increased
friendship intimacy (Burr, et al., 2005), higher numbers of stable and mutual friendships
over the course of the school year (Burr, et al., 2005), higher peer acceptance (Crick, et
al., 1997), and higher sociability (Nelson, Robinson, & Hart, 2005).
Middle Childhood. The socially aggressive acts employed by grade-schoolers
likely reflect the social and cognitive advances of the middle-childhood period (Crick et
al., 1999). Although important at any age, needs for acceptance by peers and for mutually
satisfying friendships become increasingly relevant during the grade-school years and are
typically met through relationships with same-gender peers (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989;
Crick et al., 1999; Maccoby, 1990). Bjrkqvist and colleagues (1992) posits that because
physical aggression becomes socially unacceptable as children mature, social aggressive
strategies replace overt aggression. Furthermore, these researchers propose that as
children mature cognitively, they reduce their use of physical forms of aggression and
increase their use of social forms of aggression (Bjrkqvist, et al., 1992). It seems likely
that the increase in the importance of social issues (i.e., socially accepted behaviors), in
addition to the language and cognitive skills acquired during middle childhood (e.g.,
increases in memory and vocabulary, the ability to view ones own thoughts, feelings and

10
behaviors from another persons perspective), contributes to childrens ability to use the
peer group as an effective means for hurting others (Crick et al., 1999).
Accordingly, the socially aggressive behaviors expected at this developmental
stage are suggested to involve relatively covert actions, with less confrontation and a
focus on the interactions with other peer group members (Crick et al., 1999). These
covert forms of social aggression require a certain degree of cognitive complexity for
both the aggressor (i.e., to recognize that the action will be an effective strategy) and the
victim (i.e., to recognize that others are being mean to them on behalf of the aggressor;
Crick et al., 1999). The ability to understand anothers perspective and information in the
broader social network makes the nonconfrontational aggressive strategy more feasible at
this period of development (Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 2005). Thus, as social competence
increases, children learn additional ways of harming others, including ways that do not
place him or her at the direct risk of retaliation (Bjrkqvist, et al., 1992). However, other
researchers argue that it is the lack of social-emotional competencies that contribute to
the development of aggressive behaviors (Benson, 2006).
Social-emotional learning is described as the process of acquiring competencies to
regulate emotions, understand the perspectives of others, establish and maintain positive
relationships with others, and manage challenging interpersonal situations (Durlak et al.,
2011; Elias et al., 2007). It is posited that these abilities provide a basis for positive
social actions, less behavioral problems, and better emotional regulation (Greenberg et
al., 2003). Theorists suggest that by achieving social-emotional competence, children
and adolescents learn to internalize values and beliefs that promote caring and concern

11
for others, as well as taking responsibility for ones choices and behaviors (Bear &
Watkins, 2006).
Developmental researchers suggest that failure to acquire social-emotional
competencies is associated with a variety of personal and social difficulties (e.g.,
Eisenberg, 2006; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008). Research has suggested that many students
do not develop these social-emotional abilities as they mature which, in turn, has a poor
effect on behavior. For example, in one study, social competencies such as empathy and
conflict resolution skills were only noted in about 30% of a national sample of middleand high-school students (Benson, 2006). Similar to research among children in early
childhood, studies examining social aggression among children in middle childhood have
also examined the association between social aggression and measures of internalizing
and externalizing difficulties. Numerous studies have linked social aggression with
internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Crick, 1997), specifically higher levels of
anxiety (Marsee, Weems, & Taylor, 2008), depressive symptoms (Crick & Grotpeter,
1995; Henington, et al., 1998; Murray-Close & Crick, 2007; Zimmer-Gembeck, Hunter,
& Pronk, 2007), general aggression (Crick, Ostrov, & Werner, 2006), delinquency (in
boys; Crick, Ostrov, & Werner, 2006), impulsivity (Musher-Eizenman, et al., 2004),
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004), as well as lower
emotional regulation (Bowie, 2010). However, there has been a lack of attention paid to
the measurement of possible indices of positive adaption (Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008).
In terms of social relationships, research has also found discrepant findings within
the middle childhood population. For example, studies have indicated that social
aggression is associated with increased peer rejection (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter,

12
1995; Rys & Bear, 1997; Tomada & Schneider, 1997), lower social acceptance (Crick,
1996; Henington, et al., 1998; Lancelotta & Vaughn, 1989), lower social preference
(Johnson & Foster, 2005; Murray-Close & Crick, 2006; Werner & Crick, 2004; ZimmerGembeck, et al., 2007), and fewer mutual friendships (Johnson & Foster, 2005). In
contrast, other studies have suggested that social aggression is positively associated with
social intelligence (Kaukiainen, et al., 1999), peer-perceived popularity (Andreou, 2006;
Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002), and higher rates of friendship exclusivity, selfdisclosure by friends, and social intimacy (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996).
Adolescence. The developmental period of adolescence contains several
challenges including puberty, entering new schools, beginning to separate from parents,
developing an individual identity, and, for many, developing romantic relationships
(Underwood, 2003). Social methods of aggression may be favored by adolescents
because they are considered socially acceptable and less easy to identify by on-lookers
as bullying or aggression. Furthermore, the increased importance of social status and
romantic relationships may have an effect on interpersonal relations of adolescents (Xie,
Cairns, & Cairns, 2005). Competition for friends, a romantic partner, and social visibility
or status may generate interpersonal conflicts that evoke the use of social aggression
(Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 2005). According to Underwood (2003), younger adolescents
social aggression might be used to protect the boundaries of social groups and for
confirming high peer status. For older adolescents, social aggressive strategies,
particularly gossip, may be used less for self-protection and more in the service of selfunderstanding, identity development, and moral negotiation (Underwood, 2003). During
adolescence, social means of aggression are expected to coexist with direct verbal means,

13
with the individual using the strategy that is most suitable in the particular situation
(Bjorkqvist, et al., 1992).
Research among adolescent samples have resulted in much the same types of
findings as those for middle childhood. Several studies have documented both
externalizing and internalizing difficulties among socially aggressive adolescents. For
example, research has revealed positive associations with externalizing behavior
(Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001), anger to provocation (Marsee & Frick, 2007),
callous-unemotional traits (Marsee & Frick, 2007), lower empathy (Kaukiainen, et al.,
1999), social anxiety (Loukas, Paulos, & Robinson, 2005), and negative selfrepresentation (Moretti, Holland, & McKay, 2001). Conversely, several studies have
demonstrated links between social aggression and positive adjustment among adolescents
(Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008). For example, studies have shown that socially aggressive
individuals have higher levels of social intelligence (Kaukiainen, et al., 1999), ability to
influence peers (Xie, et al., 2002), and ratings of Olympian traits (i.e., athletic,
attractive; Xie, et al., 2002).
Investigations into the social relationships of socially aggressive adolescents have
yielded mixed findings. Some studies have suggested that social aggression is positively
associated with higher peer acceptance (Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Salmivalli,
Kaukiainen, & Lagerspetz, 2000), social preference (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), peerperceived popularity (e.g., Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004;
Leadbeater, Boone, Sangster, & Mathieson, 2006; Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006), social
network centrality (Xie, et al., 2002), and social impact (Zimmer-Gembeck, et al., 2005),
as well as lower levels of peer rejection (Salmivalli, et al., 2000). Conversely, other

14
studies have indicated that socially aggressive adolescents have higher levels of peer
rejection (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006) and lower levels of social preference (Cillessen
& Mayeux, 2004; Lafontana & Cillessen, 2002; Rys & Bear, 1997; Zimmer-Gembeck, et
al., 2005).
Previous Meta-Analyses on Social Aggression
Social aggression has been explored in two previous meta-analyses (Archer,
2004; Card, et al., 2008). Archers (2004) meta-analytic review of gender differences in
various forms of aggression included 41 published and unpublished studies that examined
social forms of aggression. These researchers found more evidence of social aggression
in the female direction among children. However, the sex differences were not as large or
consistent as would have been expected from previous individual studies of children
(Archer, 2004).
Archer (2004) found that the method of measurement for social aggression (i.e.,
self-report, peer report, teacher report, and observation) was an important moderator to
explain variations in study findings. Specifically, when social aggression was measured
using observations, the largest gender difference on social aggression was found,
indicating that females showed more social aggression (d = -.74); however, this result
was based on only four studies. Data from peer-ratings suggested that females engage in
more social aggression (d = -.19), and gender differences increases with age (d = -.00 for
under age 11; d = -.13 for ages 12-13; d = -.35 for ages 14-17). Similarly, teacher-reports
also revealed social aggression in the female direction (d = -.13). In contrast, although
small, self-reports suggested that males engage in greater levels of social aggression (d =

15
.03). This effect also increased with age (d = .03 for ages 6-13; d = .12 for ages 14-17;
Archer, 2004).
While Archers (2004) study provides a basis for understanding gender
differences in aggression, the analysis has several limitations. Archer only used the term
indirect aggression in its search for relevant articles, therefore including only 41 studies
of this construct, Further, inclusion required the sample to contain both males and
females. In addition, Archer used a fixed-effects model for his analysis, which may have
affected the generalization of findings.
In 2008, Card et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 107 published and unpublished
studies examining the correlation between gender and type of aggression (i.e., physical
and social), the relationship between physical and social aggression, and the association
between type of aggression and psychosocial adjustment. In terms of gender differences,
Card et al.s (2008) results found that girls use more social aggression than boys, but that
this result, although statistically significant (r = -.03), was trivial in magnitude and
therefore negligible (p. 1194). Similar to Archer (2004), Card and colleagues found
method of measurement (i.e., self-report, peer report, teacher report, parent report, and
observation) moderation effects when looking at the relationship between gender and
social aggression. However, in contrast to Archer, Card et al.s meta-analysis indicated
that the magnitude of such effects was trivial regardless of the reporter. In particular,
Card et al.s findings found statistically significant gender differences for social
aggression in the female direction based on parent (r = -.08) and teacher (r = -.07), but
not researcher-observation (r = -.05) or peer nominations (r = -.02). Statistically

16
significant gender differences in the male direction were found based on self-report (r =
.03).
Card et al.s (2008) meta-analysis also found physical and social aggression to be
strongly correlated (r = .76), yet separable demonstrating the presence of two related, yet
different constructs. In addition, Card et al. explored the relationship between form of
aggression and psychosocial adjustment. Their findings indicate that physical and social
aggression are uniquely related to various aspects of maladjustment. Specifically,
physical aggression was more strongly related to emotional dysregulation and conduct
problems, while social aggression was more strongly associated with internalizing
problems (i.e., depression and anxiety). No gender moderation of these relationships was
found.
Card et al.s (2008) study provides a useful step in the understanding of social
aggression, however is also limited by several issues. First, their criteria for study
inclusion into the meta-analysis (e.g., only studies including both social and physical
aggression) excluded many studies whose focus was solely on social aggression. Second,
these authors did not examine age as a potential moderator for the relationships in
question. Third, the psychosocial adjustment factors studied by Card et al. represent a
limited representation of the possible correlates associated with social aggression. By
focusing solely on maladjustment in the form of internalizing and externalizing
behaviors, Card et al. did not examine social adjustment or the potential positive
outcomes associated with social aggression, thereby limiting the results and subsequent
understanding of this phenomenon.

17
Thus, although both meta-analyses (Archer, 2004; Card et al., 2008) have
provided useful information, the studies have limitations and the results raise further
questions. By including more studies using a broader definition of social aggression,
including age as a moderator, and examining all potential correlates (both positive and
negative), a better understanding of social aggression can be yielded. This understanding
can, in turn, affect the generalizability of study findings.
Current Study
From the review above it is clear that there are many inconclusive findings in the
research concerning social aggression. Within the literature, social aggression has been
viewed as either maladaptive or adaptive, each with empirical evidence to support the
claim. Some researchers have suggested that social aggression is related to negative
outcomes such as peer rejection, psychological distress, and behavioral difficulties.
Conversely, other researchers have argued that although socially aggressive behaviors are
not desirable, they are associated with positive outcomes, such as peer acceptance, social
skills, and prosocial behavior. Although a previous meta-analyses explored the
relationship of social aggression and some areas of psychosocial adjustment, it contained
notable limitations.
Furthermore, given the effort to explore and combat social aggression among
girls, it is important to determine the role of gender in the association between social
aggression and different outcomes. Although prior meta-analyses have explored this area,
results are unclear and would benefit from further clarification. In addition, because of
the discrepancy in the results of various studies, it is important to determine if these
inconsistencies are due to another factor, such as age. A resolution of conflicting

18
evidence is necessary to further advance the field of social aggression and to apply these
findings to future and current interventions. The more able we are to identify how social
aggression relates to other facts, such as peer relations, social skills, and psychological
distress, the more able we are to create interventions that specifically target these types of
behaviors. Thus, the purpose of this current study is to, (1) examine the relationship
between social aggression and both positive and negative correlations, (2) explore
whether the relation among these variables are moderated by gender, and (3) explore
whether the relation between these variables are moderated by age.
Meta-Analysis
One way to address mixed findings to a research question is to conduct a metaanalysis (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). Meta-analysis allows for the combining the
results from multiple, as well as discover moderators and mediators that can examine
mixed findings (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). This allows for researchers to generate
results that are more generalizable than can be presented in any one study. As Rosenthal
and DiMatteo (2001) note,
Meta-analysis is more than a statistical technique; it is a methodology for
systematically examining a body of research, carefully formulating hypotheses,
conducting an exhaustive search and establishing inclusion/exclusion criteria for
articles, recording and statistically synthesizing and combining data and effect
sizes from these studies, searching for moderator and mediator variables to
explain effects of interest, and reporting results. (p. 62)

19
Thus, a meta-analysis was used to better understand the phenomenon of social
aggression and its connection to various correlates by other important moderators, such
as gender and age, which might explain inconsistent findings.

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Search Procedure
A comprehensive search for empirical research focusing on social aggression,
broadly defined, was used. Studies to be included in the meta-analysis were selected
using the following search procedures. A broad search was conducted in several relevant
online databases, including: PsycINFO, ERIC (Educational Resources Information
Center), Social Science Citation Index, and Family & Society Studies Worldwide in April
2010. Because of the disagreement among researchers on terms used to describe social
aggression, a wide search with several search terms was carried out to ensure a thorough
collection of relevant articles. Specific keywords included: social aggress* or indirect
aggress* or relational aggress* or covert aggress* or nonphysical aggress* or
bullying. The broad keyword bullying was also used because bullying behaviors were
often not indicated within the keywords of articles. Although related constructs, terms
specific to physical aggression and peer victimization were not included in the search in
order to focus on the specific behaviors of social aggression and the factors associated
with aggressors.
This initial search process resulted in the identification of over 20,000 articles
with potential for inclusion in the meta-analytic database (see Figure 1). These articles
were further narrowed by several criteria within each search database: (1) written in
English, (2) examined a sample of children and/or adolescents, aged 2-17, excluding
college students, (3) be an empirical study, and (4) be within a peer-reviewed journal. In
databases where the age of participants was not provided as a search criteria, additional

20

21

22
search terms were added, specifically: child or childhood or children or
adolescent or adolescence or youth. All citations were subsequently placed into
EndNote X3 (a computer citation software program) and analyzed for duplicate
references. This initial search process resulted in the identification of over 4,600 articles
with potential for inclusion in the meta-analytic database.
As shown in Figure 1, abstracts of all collected citations were reviewed to
eliminate articles that clearly did not meet the goals of the present meta-analysis.
Abstracts were excluded if they did not examine social aggression (N = 2488); examined
the general concept of bullying, rather than assessing a particular form of social
bullying (N = 1510)); did not meet the initial criteria (as outlined above, N = 203); did not
provide sufficient information for computing effect size (N = 76); or were primarily
composed of children with mental retardation or pervasive developmental disorders (N =
19) in which social development would presumably be impaired. The remaining 365
studies were included in the initial database. Of those, studies that were relevant to
individual characteristics or peer relations were extracted, yielding a total of 107 studies
included in the present meta-analysis.
A reliability check of included and excluded articles was conducted. A graduate
student in psychology reviewed a random sample of 10% of the initially identified
articles. Studies were randomly chosen by selecting every 10th study in the database (i.e.,
within the database of identified articles, study #1, #10, #20, and so on were selected).
The graduate student independently categorized the chosen studies as included or
excluded. Interrater reliability was assessed by computing the percent of total agreement
between the author and graduate student. The agreement rate for this study was 98%.

23
Coding of Studies
Studies which were deemed to be relevant to the present investigation were
collected and coded. Coding involves evaluating each study and collecting the pertinent
information into a coding form. If an article contained multiple samples, each sample was
treated as an independent study sample. Similarly, if an article contained multiple studies,
each study was coded separately. Data from each study was coded on forms created in
Microsoft Access and then automatically transferred to a database created in Microsoft
Excel . This automatic exporting of data minimized opportunity of human error on data
entry.
To ensure reliability of the coding process, another individual was recruited to
code the articles in the database. This individual is a fellow graduate student in
Psychology and was trained on the specific categories that were assessed in the current
research. The authors coding form was compared item-by-item to the research assistants
form for each study. Calculation of the reliability estimate was done via agreement rate
within each study. The inter-rater agreement for this subset of studies was 97%. All
discrepancies found during the reliability check were on items not included in these
analyses (i.e., names of measures, and source of funding).
Each article was coded on five general characteristics:
1) Study characteristics: general article information, such as authors, publication
year, journal, and whether the study was part of a funded project.
2) Sample information: number of participants; location of sample; age; education
level (i.e., preschool, elementary, etc.); gender information; ethnicity.

24
3) Social aggression: information regarding what term was used by authors (e.g.,
indirect aggression, relational aggression); information regarding measures;
sources of data (e.g., peer-rating, self-report, teacher-report).
4) Correlates: information regarding the outcomes of each study was identical to that
of measures of social aggression; whether correlate was considered positive (e.g.,
social skills, popularity) or negative (e.g., peer-rejection, psychological distress).
5) Summary statistics: information relating to each of the measures and results,
including correlations and sample size for computing the associated variances.
Each variable was sorted into categories (i.e., individual characteristics, peer
relations) created to address the research questions. Within each category, the correlates
were divided based on their coding as either positive or negative and further separated
into subcategories with the goal of maximizing similarities.
The subcategories for individual characteristics included: externalization,
internalization, positive individual traits, and negative individual traits. Within each
subcategory, several groupings of correlates were created (Please see Appendix for
examples of measures for each subcategory). For externalization, they included: conduct
problems, deception, defiance, delinquency, externalizing behavior, hyperactivity,
impulsivity, inattention, sexual activity, and substance use. Correlates for internalization
were grouped into: anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation, internalizing symptoms,
and withdrawal. For positive individual traits, groups included: self-efficacy, social
skills, sociability, self-esteem, empathy, cooperative, leadership, language ability, peervalued traits (e.g., athleticism, attractiveness, humor, etc.), and positive personality
features (i.e., agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness). Negative individual traits

25
were grouped into: anger, dominance, undesirable traits (e.g., bossy, mean, jealousy,
etc.), callous-unemotional traits, narcissism, emotional, and borderline personality
features.
The subcategories for peer relations included positive and negative groupings. For
positive peer relations, groupings of correlates included: peer-acceptance, social support,
social intimacy, peer-liking, popularity, positive social friendships, and prosocial
behavior. Negative peer relations were grouped into: peer-conflict, peer-dislike, peerrejection, and peer-victimization. This process of grouping variables was conducted by
the author and research assistant independently. Complete agreement (100%) was
reached for the placement of correlates into categories and subcategories. In addition, the
categories and placement of variables in the respective categories were reviewed by a
professor in Counseling Psychology as an added verification for content validity. Any
discrepancies were discussed until there was complete agreement.
Power
Prospective power analyses are useful to make sure that the power of statistical
tests is sufficient for the effect size to be of practical significance in any given situation
(Hedges & Pigott, 2001). Before a meta-analysis is conducted, a power analysis can
provide the chance of obtaining a statistically significant result provided certain criteria:
expected magnitude of the overall effect size, estimated number of studies included in the
review, and the average sample size within the studies (Hedges & Pigott, 2001).
Given that, at the onset of the analysis process, the factors were undetermined
(i.e., number of studies, typical sample size), the lower acceptable numbers for each
factor were used to determine the range of power. With a small effect size of 0.10, 25

26
studies, and a minimum average sample size of 50, the power obtained for finding a
statistically significant overall result is 0.94. Given these factors, analysis of moderators
with as few as five studies would result in a range of power from 0.82 for large betweengroup heterogeneity to 0.99 for small between-group heterogeneity. These results indicate
that, even when using the lowest acceptable criteria, the chance of obtaining a statistically
significant result was above 0.80. Thus, the power analysis of the current study adds an
additional confidence yielding statistical inferences with an acceptable power.
Effect Size
The results of each study were standardized into a common metric, known as an
effect size. Effect sizes express the magnitude and direction of the relationship between
two variables (Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009). The majority of the studies in this
meta-analysis reported correlational coefficients regarding social aggression and the
associated outcomes. Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of linear
association, and thus it provides an indication of the degree of the relationship between
two variables. Consequently, Pearsons product moment correlation (r) is the primary
effect size used for the meta-analysis. However, because correlation coefficients are not
normally distributed they were transformed to Fishers z (Borenstein, 2009). Each of the
estimates (e.g., mean, 95% confidence interval) computed based on Fishers z was then
converted back to the r metric using the formula provided by Borenstein (2009). This
conversion allowed the estimates to be interpreted as correlation coefficients. Rosenthal
and DiMatteo (2001) noted several advantages of using the Pearson r in meta-analyses;
including the fact that r is more simply interpreted in terms of practical importance.

27
Analysis
As described previously, meta-analyses allows for estimating the overall
relationship using a number of studies examining the same phenomenon (Cooper, 2009)
and further examining the sources of mixed findings, using moderators (Rosenthal &
DiMatteo, 2001). Three methods of meta-analysis are often used in contemporary studies
(Field, 2001): The methods devised by Hedges and Olkin (1985); by Rosenthal and
Rubin (see Rosenthal, 1991), and by Hunter and Schmidt (2004). The current study
employed the methods put forward by Hedges and Olkin (1985) and described by
Cooper, Hedges, and Valentine (2009). According to these authors, first one must
establish which model (i.e., fixed-effect, random-effect, or mixed-effect) is most
appropriate for the data. Essentially, in fixed-effects models (also called the
homogenous case) the effect size is assumed to be from the same underlying
population for all studies included in the meta-analysis (Field, 2001). In contrast,
random-effects models (also called the heterogeneous case) assume that effect sizes
vary from study to study such that the population effect size is likely to be different than
any other study in the meta-analysis (Field, 2001).
To determine which model was more appropriate for the data in the current study,
an overall homogeneity test of effect sizes using the heterogeneity statistics (also known
as Q statistics) was performed using the method described in Konstantopoulos and
Hedges (2009). The heterogeneity Q statistic approximately follows a chi-square
distribution with its associated degree of freedom (k), where k indicates the number of
effect sizes (Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2009). If the Q statistic was statistically
significant, indicating that the fixed-effects model was not supporting that the effect sizes

28
were from the same population, a random-effects model for computing the overall effect
sizes or mixed-effects model with predictors for comparing effect sizes by predictors was
applied. If the Q statistic was not significant, the mean effect size was computed under
the fixed-effect model, in which the effect sizes were weighted by the inverse of their
associated variance.
As discussed in the literature review of this paper, there are several discrepancies
in the relationship between social aggression and various correlates. Moderator analyses
can help clarify these discrepancies. For this meta-analysis, moderators were chosen in
advance based on theory and included: gender and age group (e.g., preschool,
elementary, etc.). Mean correlation by each categorical moderator were compared under
the mixed-effects categorical model.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Characteristics of Studies
Upon completion of the primary study coding process, it was determined that 108
studies would contribute data for the current meta-analytic database. These 108 studies,
derived from 107 published articles, produced 896 correlation coefficients (r). One article
provided statistical findings from two studies, and thus these findings were treated as two
independent study samples. The majority of studies (s = 76; 70.4%) were from the
United States. International studies were from Asia (s = 6; 5.6%), Australia (s = 2;
1.9%), Europe (s = 11; 10.2%), and North America (s = 12; 11.1%, excluding the United
States). One study used samples from multiple locations (i.e., Russell, Hart, Robinson, &
Olsen, 2003 used samples from the United States and Australia). Articles were published
between 1996 and 2010, with the majority of articles (s = 101; 93.5%) published within
the last ten years. Of the seven articles published in the previous decade, two were
published each year from 1996 to 1998, with one article published in 1999.
The total number of participants across all studies was 52,173. Sample sizes
ranged from 37 to 7,290 (M=487.60, SD = 843.86). The age of participants ranged from
2 to 17 years old, with an average age of 10.2 years (SD = 3.8). The majority of studies (s
= 48; 44.4%) focused on the 10 to 13 year old or middle-school range, with other studies
(s = 60; 55.6%) evenly representing the other age groups (e.g., ages 2-5: s = 22, 20.4%;
ages 6-9: s = 21, 19.4%; ages 14-17: s = 15; 13.9%). Two studies (i.e., Dukes, 2009;
Graves 2007) did not provide participants age information. There were 26,865 (51.5%)
female and 22,285 male participants. Six studies did not provide gender information (i.e.,

29

30
Albrecht, Galambos, & Jansson, 2007; Cillessen, Jiang, West, & Laszkowski, 2005; Ellis
& Zarbatany, 2007; Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008; Ostrov et al., 2009; Yu & Gamble,
2008). Seven studies (i.e., Linder & Gentile, 2009; Loeber et al., 2009; Marsee & Frick,
2007; Mikami, Lee, Hinshaw, & Mullin, 2008; Ohan & Johnston, 2007; Putallaz et al.,
2007; Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004) used all-female samples, while no studies used all-male
samples.
Publication Bias
One way to assess publication bias is to examine a funnel plot. A funnel plot is a
graphic representation of the relationship between effect sizes and its associated sample
sizes. If there is no publication bias, the plot of effect sizes against sample sizes appears
to be funnel-shaped. In the current study, a scatter plot of 2,078 correlation coefficients
against sample sizes appeared asymmetrical and did not resemble a funnel shape (see
Figure 2), suggesting possible publication bias. In addition to the visual inspection of the
funnel plot, a statistical test commonly used to detect publication bias was conducted.
Eggers regression test for funnel plot asymmetry (Sutton, 2009) was found to be
statistically significant for correlation coefficients (t

(2076)

= 18.84, p < .01), thus

indicating the presence of potential publication bias. Such results were due to the
inclusion of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, which would limit the
generalizability of findings in the current meta-analysis.
Overall Model
The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the relationship between social
aggression and various correlates. After coding all of the articles, correlates were grouped

31

32
into two general categories: individual characteristics and peer relations (as seen in
Figure 3). Under the random-effects model, each category was found to be significantly
correlated with social aggression: individual characteristics (r = 0.25, p < .01), peer
relations (r = 0.10, p < .01; see Table 1). Post-hoc comaprisons using Bonferonni
adjustments indicated that individual characteristics had a statistically higher mean
correlation with social aggression than peer relations (z = 6.71, p < .01). Several
moderators were examined to determine their role in each relationship and are discussed
below.
Gender differences. Table 2 shows results from the moderator analysis using
gender. The relationship between individual characteristics and social aggression
significantly differed by gender; however, not for peer relations. Under the mixed-effects
model, the relationship between individual characteristics and social aggression, was
significant for female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Similarly, the
relationship between peer relations and social aggression was significant and positive for
female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferonni adjustments indicated that the relation of social aggression to individual
characteristics was statistically higher for female-only than for male-only (z = 2.40, p <
.01).
Age differences. Table 3 shows results from the moderator analysis by age.
Mixed-effects models showed that the overall relationship between social aggression and
individual characteristics and peer relations differed by age. The relationship between
social aggression and individual characteristics was significant and positive for
preschool-, elementary-, middle-school-, and high-school-aged samples. Simiarly, the

33

34

35

36
relationship between peer relations and social aggression was significant and positive for
preschool-, middle-school-, and high-school-aged groups; however, not significant for
elementary-aged samples. Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferonni adjustments indicated
a statistically higher difference in the relation of social aggression to individual
characteristics for high-school than for middle-school-aged samples (z = 2.83, p < .01).
Post-hoc comparisons also indicated a statistically higher difference in the relation of
social aggression to peer relations for preschoolers as compared to elementary- (z = 3.77,
p < .01) and high-school-aged samples (z = 2.60, p < .01); as well as for middle-school in
comaprison to elementary-school children (z = 2.50, p < .01).
Relationship Between Individual Characteristics and Social Aggression
A more specific goal of the present study was to determine whether positive or
negative correlates were related to social aggression. For each general category,
correlates were separated into those respective groups and analyzed independently.
Again, gender and age moderators were examined to determine their roles in each
relationship.
The general category of individual characteristics was divided into four
subcategories (i.e., externalization, internalization, positive individual traits, negative
individual traits) and then estimated separately for its relationship with social aggression.
Overall, the four types of individual characteristics showed significant and positive
relationships with social aggression (see Table 4). Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferonni adjustments indicated statistically different relationships between social
aggression and externalization as compared to internalization (z = 3.88, p < .01) and
positive individual traits (z = 5.89, p < .01). Additionally, post-hoc comparisons showed

37

38
statistically different relationships between social aggression and negative individual
traits as compared to internalization (z = 3.33, p < .01) and positive individual traits (z =
5.42, p < .01). Finally, post-hoc comparisons indicated statistically different relationships
between social aggression and internalization as compared to positive individual traits (z
= 3.05, p < .01).
Correlates categorized into the externalization of individual characteristics were
each estimated separately for their relationship with social aggression. All but one of the
subcategories (i.e., sexual activity) were significantly and positively associated with
social aggression. Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferonni adjustments indicated
statistically lower relationships between social relations and conduct problems as
compared to defiance (z = 2.98, p < .01) and inattention (z = 3.00, p < .01). In addition,
post-hoc comparisons showed statistically lower relationships between social relations
and substance use as compared to defiance (z = 3.64, p < .01), inattention (z = 5.59, p <
.01), delinquency (z = 2.63, p < .01), externalization (z = 1.20, p < .01), and hyperactivity
(z = 2.19, p < .01).
Variables grouped into the internalization of individual characteristics were also
estimated separately for their association with social aggression. The overall correlation
indicated positive and significant relationships between emotional dysregulation and
social aggression, as well as between internalizing symptoms and social aggression. Posthoc using Bonferonni adjustments indicated statistically different relationships between
social aggression and internalizing symptoms as compared to emotional dysregulation (z
= 3.05, p < .01).

39
Correlates classified into the positive individual traits were estimated separately
for their relationship with social aggression. The overall correlation indicated positive
and significant relationships for social skills, sociability, leadership, language ability, and
peer-valued traits with social aggression. Several correlates indicated negative
relationships with social aggression, such as self-efficacy, empathy, cooperative, and
positive personality traits, however these correlations were not statistically significant.
Variables grouped into the undesirable individual traits were also estimated
separately for their association with social agression. The overall correlation indicated
positive and significant relationships for anger, dominance, callous-unemotional traits,
narcissism, and borderline personality traits. Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferonni
adjustments indicated statistically lower relation between social aggression and
borderline traits as compared to anger (z = 3.40, p < .01), dominance (z = 5.55, p < .01),
callous-unemotional traits (z = 2.69, p < .01), and narcissism (z = 3.80, p < .01).
Gender differences. Table 5 shows results from the moderator analyses by
gender. Mixed-effects models showed that the relationship between social aggression and
externalization, internalization, positive individual traits, and negative individual traits
significantly differed by gender. The relationship between externalization and social
aggression was significant and positive for female-only and mixed-gender groups;
however, not significant for male-only groups. The association between internalization
and social aggression was significant for female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender
groups. Conversely, the correlation between positive individual traits and social
aggression was significant for mixed-gender groups; however, not significant for femaleonly or male-only groups. Finally, the relationship between negative individual traits and

40

41
social aggression was significant for female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups.
Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferonni adjustments indicated that the relations of social
aggression to externalization was statistically higher for female-only than for mixedgender (z = 2.57, p < .01).
Of the effect sizes related to externalization, three were able to be analyzed for
gender differences: defiance, externalizing behavior, and hyperactivity. Defiance was
positively and significantly related to social aggression for female-only groups and
mixed-gender groups. Female-only groups showed a significant relationship between
externalizing behavior and social aggression, while male-only groups did not. The
association between hyperactivity and social aggression was significant for female-only,
male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Post-hoc comparisons on the relation of defiance to
social aggression indicated statistically higher relationships for female-only than for
mixed-gender groups (z = 2.72, p < .01). Similarly, post-hoc comparisons on the
association between hyperactivity and social aggression indicated statistically different
relationships for female-only than for male-only (z = 5.53, p < .01) and mixed-gender
groups (z = 4.02, p < .01).
All of the effect sizes related to internalization were able to be analyzed for
gender differences. The association between depression and social aggression was
significant for mixed-gender groups; however, not significant for female-only or maleonly groups. Emotional dysregulation was positively and significantly related to social
aggression for female-only groups and mixed-gender groups. Similarly, internalizing
symptoms was significantly associated to social aggression in female-only, male-only,

42
and mixed gender groups. Neither anxiety nor withdrawal showed significant
associations for female-only or mixed-gender groups.
Of the effect sizes related to positive individual traits, two were able to be
analyzed for gender differences: language ability and sociability. Language ability was
positively and significantly associated with social aggression for female-only and mixedgender groups; however, was negatively and significantly related male-only groups.
Sociability was not significantly related to social aggression for either female-only or
mixed gender groups. Post-hoc comparisons on the association between language ability
and social aggression indicated statistically different relationships for female-only as
compared to male-only groups (z = 3.39, p < .01).
Three effect sizes related to negative individual traits were able to be analyzed for
gender differences: dominance, negative traits, and callous-unemotional traits. Both
dominance and callous-unemotional traits were positively and significantly associated
with social aggression for female-only and mixed-gender groups. Negative traits, such as
being mean or jealous were significantly associated with social aggression for
mixed-gender groups; however, not significant for female-only groups. Post-hoc
comparisons indicated that the relation of social aggression to callous-unemotional traits
was statistically higher for female-only than for mixed-gender groups (z = 5.89, p < .01).
Age differences. Table 6 shows results from the moderator analyses by age.
Mixed-effects models showed that the relationship between social aggression and
externalization, internalization, positive individual traits, and negative individual traits
significantly differed by age of sample. The relationship between externalization and
social aggression was significant for preschool-, elementary-, middle-school-, and high-

43

44
school-aged groups. The association between internalization and social aggression was
significant for middle-school- and high-school-aged children; however, this relationship
was not significant for preschoolers or elementary-school children. Conversely, the
relationship between positive individual traits and social aggression was significant for
preschool- and elementary-school-aged samples; however, not significant for middleschool or high-school groups. Finally, the relationship between negative individual traits
and social aggression was significant for preschool-, elementary-, middle-school-, and
high-school-aged groups. Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferonni adjustments indicated
that the relationships of social aggression to externalization was statistically higher for
elementary-school than for high-school-aged children (z = 2.74, p < .01).
Several correlations related to externalization were able to be analyzed for age
differences. Delinquency was significantly related to social aggression for elementary-,
middle-school-, and high-school-aged children. Conduct problems was significantly
associated with social aggression for preschool-, middle-school-, and high-school-aged
groups; however, was not significant for elementary-school children. Both deception and
impulsivity were significantly correlated with social aggression for preschoolers and
middle-school-aged children. Although both externalizing behaviors and inattention were
significantly related to social aggression for middle-school children, only inattention was
also significant for elementary-school children. Finally, substance use was significantly
associated with social aggression for high-school groups, but not for middle-school
groups. Post-hoc comparisons on the association of conduct problems and social
aggression indicated a statistically higher relation for preschoolers as compared to
middle-school-aged children (z = 2.56, p < .01).

45
Two correlates related to internalization were able to be analyzed for age
differences. Internalizing symptoms was significantly related with social aggression for
both elementary- and middle-school-aged samples. Depression was significantly
associated with social aggression for high-school gorups; however, this relationship was
not significant for preschoolers or elementary-school aged children. Post-hoc
comparisons on the relation of social aggression to internalizing symptoms indicated
statistically higher relation for middle-school- than for elementary-school children (z =
2.06, p < .01).
Two effect sizes related to positive individual traits were able to be analyzed for
age differences. Language ability was positively and significantly related to social
aggression for preschoolers, but negatively and significantly associated for middleschool-aged children. Social skills was not significantly related to social aggression for
preschool- or middle-school-aged children.
Four effect sizes related to negative individual traits were able to be analyzed for
age differences. Dominance was significantly associated with social aggression for
preschoolers and high-school children. Both anger and narcissism were significantly
associated with social aggression for middle-school- and high-school-aged children.
Callous-unemotional traits were significantly correlated with social aggression for
elementary-, middle-school-, and high-school-aged groups. Post-hoc comparisons on the
association between social aggression and callous-unemotional traits indicated
statistically lower relation for middle-school children than for elementary- (z = 3.71, p <
.01) and high-school-aged groups (z = 4.02, p < .01).

46
Relationship Between Peer Relations and Social Aggression
Peer relations was divided into positive and negative subcategories and estimated
separately for its association with social aggression (see Table 7). While both positive
and negative peer relations were both positively associated with social aggression, only
negative peer relations was significantly related. Correlates categorized into positive peer
relations were each estimated separately for their association with social aggression. The
overall correlation coefficients indicated positive and significant relationships for
intimacy and popularity, as well as negative and significant relationships for peer-liking
and positive social relations. Prosocial behavior, social acceptance, and social support did
not show statistically significant relationships with social aggression. Post-hoc
comparisons using Bonferonni adjustments indicated statistically different associations
between social aggression and popularity as compared to peer-dislike (z = 3.88, p < .01)
and negative friendships (z = 6.01, p < .01). Correlates grouped into negative peer
relations were also estimated separately for their association with social aggression. All
of the subcategories (i.e., social conflict, peer dislike, peer rejection, peer victimization)
were positively and significantly associated with social aggression. Post-hoc comparisons
using Bonferonni adjustments indicated statistically higher relationships between social
aggression and peer-victimization as compared to peer-rejection (z = 2.50, p < .01).
Gender differences. Table 8 shows results from moderator analyses by gender.
Mixed-effects models showed that the relationship between social aggression and both
positive and negative peer relations significantly differed by gender. The relationship
between positive peer relations and social aggression was significant for mixed-gender

47

48

49
groups; however, was not significant for female-only or male-only groups. Conversely,
the association between negative peer relations and social aggression was significant and
positive for female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Post-hoc comparisons
using Boneronni adjustments indicated that the relationships of social aggression to
negative peer relations was statistically higher for female-only than for mixed-gender
groups (z = 2.65, p < .01).
Of the effect sizes related to positive peer relations, all but one (i.e., intimacy)
were able to be analyzed for gender differences. Popularity was significantly associated
with social aggression for female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Peer-liking
was significantly related to social aggression in mixed-gender groups, however not for
female-only or male-only groups. Positive friendships was significantly associated with
social aggression for female-only groups; however, was not significantly related for
male-only or mixed-gender groups. Finally, neither social acceptance, social support, or
prosocial behavior was significantly associated with social aggression for female-only,
male-only, or mixed-gender groups.
All of the effect sizes related to negative peer relations were able to be analyzed
for gender differences. Both social conflict and victimization were significantly related to
social aggression for female-only, male-only, and mixed-gender groups. Peer-dislike and
peer-rejection were significantly correlated with social aggression for female-only and
male-only groups, however not for mixed-gender groups.
Age differences. Table 9 shows results from the moderator analyses by age.
Mixed-effects models showed that the relationship between social aggression and both
positive and negative peer relations significantly differed by age of sample. The

50

51
relationship between positive peer relations and social aggression was significant and
positive for middle-school- and high-school-aged groups, as well as significant and
negative for elementary-school children. However, this association was not significant for
preschoolers. The association between negative peer relations and social aggression was
significant for preschool-, elementary-, and middle-school-aged children, however not
significant for high-school groups. Several effect sizes related to positive peer relations
were able to be analyzed for age differences. Popularity was significantly related with
social aggression for middle-school and high-school groups. Social acceptance and peerliking were significantly associated with social aggression for elementary- and highschool-aged children, however not for preschoolers or middle-school children. Positive
friendships was significantly related to social aggression for preschool and elementaryschool groups, but not for middle-school- or high-school-aged children. Social support
was significantly correlated with social aggression for high-school groups, but not for
elementary-school aged children. Finally, prosocial behavior was not significantly
associated with social aggression for any age group. Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferonni adjustments on the relation of social aggression and popularity indicated a
statistically higher relation for high-school than for middle-school-aged children (z =
3.61, p < .01).
All of the effect sizes related to negative peer relations were able to be analyzed
for age differences. Peer-dislike was significantly associated with social aggression for
elementary- and high-school-aged children. Both peer-rejection and peer-victimization
were significantly related with social aggression for all age groups. Finally, social

52
conflict was significantly correlated with social aggression for elementary and middleschool groups, but not for high-school-aged children.

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis was inspired by the hypothesis that social aggression can be
associated with both positive and negative psychosocial correlates. To explore this
premise, correlates were separated into positive and negative groups and their association
with social aggression was analyzed. In addition, age and gender were considered as
moderators to this relationship. Below, the findings of this meta-analysis are reported;
theoretical and practical implications are discussed; shortcomings are identified; and
directions for future research are suggested.
As described in the literature review of this paper, there is evidence that social
aggression is associated with both positive and negative correlates. In order to examine
this discrepancy, correlates of each category were grouped into positive (i.e., positive
individual traits, positive peer relations) and negative characteristics (i.e., externalization,
internalization, negative individual traits, and negative peer relations). In general, results
suggest that social aggression is more greatly associated with negative correlates.
However, evidence of significant relationships for some positive socially-oriented
variables with social aggression was also identified.
Research linking social aggression to indices of maladjustment has made an
impressive contribution to the scientific literature. Experiences of social aggression in
children and adolescents have been implicated in concurrent social and emotional
difficulties for both boys and girls by previous studies (e.g., Crick et al., 2002a; Crick &
Bigbee, 1998; Prinstein et al., 2001). Similar findings were noted in the current metaanalysis. Within the category of individual characteristics, positive significant

53

54
relationships with social aggression were found for externalization, internalization, and
negative individual traits. Although significant, the association between positive
individual traits and social aggression was trivial in magnitude. Further, analyses
indicated that positive individual traits had a statistically lower relationship with social
aggression than externalization, internalization, and negative individual traits. That is, for
the correlates grouped into individual characteristics, those that were deemed negative
were more greatly associated with social aggression than those that were considered
positive.
In terms of maladjustment, findings indicate significant relationships between
social aggression and both externalizing and internalizing difficulties. Current results
reveal positive and significant associations with social aggression for several aspects of
externalization, including: deception, defiance, delinquency, externalizing behaviors,
hyperactivity, impulsivity, inattention, conduct problems, and substance use. These
unsurprising results are akin to previous research findings. For example, social
aggression has been associated with impulsive and oppositional behaviors (Juliano,
Werner, & Cassidy, 2006). Social aggression has been related to higher rates of
externalizing difficulties (Crick, 1997), delinquency (Crick et al., 2006b), attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004), and impulsivity (MusherEizenman et al., 2004) in elementary-school children. In middle- and high-school
students, social aggression has been found to be positively associated with externalizing
behavior (Prinstein et al., 2001) and anger to provocation (Marsee & Frick, 2007).
Further, Ostrov (2006) found that social aggression was related to higher rates of
deception.

55
Interestingly, results indicate that the relationship of social aggression to the
general category of externalization was greater for females and not significantly related
for males. Further, analyses revealed that the association of social aggression to defiance
and hyperactivity was greater for females. Although some studies have suggested that the
prevalence and impact of social aggression may be strongest among girls (e.g., French,
Jansen, & Pidada, 2002; Rys & Bear, 1997; Xie et al., 2004), these results are surprising
given the widely assumed gender difference in externalizing behaviors.
The tendency for boys to externalize and girls to internalize distress is consistent
with cultural gender role norms. Both biological and social bases for these gender roles
exist (Eitzen & Zinn, 1994). Traditional gender role socialization encourages boys to be
active, aggressive, and expressive of anger but not sadness, whereas girls are encouraged
to be passive, compliant, and expressive of sadness but not anger (Huselid & Cooper,
1994). Gender differences in the expression of behavioral and emotional problems from
childhood and adolescence have been well-documented and typically support social
gender role norms theory (Huselid & Cooper, 1994; Kazdin, 1993; Leadbeater et al.,
1999; Marchand & Hock, 1998; Prinstein & La Greca, 2004). Although boys are more
commonly found to exhibit externalizing behavior problems, it is important to note that
girls exhibit these behaviors as well (Prinstein & La Greca, 2004). This, further research
examining the relationship between social aggression and externalizing difficulties, as
well as the way gender affects this relationship, is needed.
With respect to internalization, positive and significant associations with social
aggression were found for internalizing symptoms and emotional dysregulation.
Internalizing symptoms have been linked with high levels of social aggression in

56
previous literature (Crick, 1997; Crick et al., 2006b; Murray-Close et al., 2007). Although
several studies have suggested positive associations between social aggression and
depressive symptoms (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Crick et al., 1997; Henington et al.,
1998; Juliano, Werner, & Cassidy, 2006; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2007) no significant
relationship was found in the current study. Similarly no significant relationship between
anxiety and social aggression was found in the present analyses, contrary to the findings
of previous research (e.g., Juliano, Werner, & Cassidy, 2006; Marsee et al., 2008). Many
of the studies included in the current study used the broader construct of internalizing
symptoms where depression, anxiety, withdrawal, and other internalizing difficulties
were grouped and examined together. Differences in the results between the present
findings and previous research may be due to this grouping of variables.
Comparisons of different age groups in the present analyses indicated greater
relationship between social aggression and the category of externalization for younger
children (i.e., elementary-school groups as compared to high-school groups). This age
difference was also found for conduct problems (i.e., preschool groups as compared to
middle-school groups). In contrast, the association between social aggression and
correlates included in the internalization category was greater for older children. For
example, internalizing symptoms was found to have a higher relationship with social
aggression for middle-school-aged children as compared to elementary-school-aged
youth. In addition, depression was associated with social aggression for high-school
groups, but not for preschool or elementary-school groups.
These age differences may be explained by developmental changes in childrens
difficulties. Researchers have proposed that as young children attain more cognitive,

57
language, and emotional regulation skills, they are better able to cope with developmental
challenges and may outgrow behavior problems (Campbell, 2002). In fact, research has
shown a normative developmental pathway of externalizing behavior problems that
shows a decline with age (Tremblay, 2000). In contrast to externalizing problems,
internalizing problems, on average, tend to increase gradually with age (Gilliom & Shaw,
2004). Increases in internalizing problems might be the result of cognitive maturation
(Kovacs & Devline, 1998), because advancements in cognitive abilities allow children to
self-reflect, recall, and foresee negative events. Nevertheless, the specific relationships
between these variables and social aggression across different ages should continue to be
examined.
Several correlates within the negative individual traits category were found to be
significantly related with social aggression, including anger, dominance, callousunemotional traits, narcissism, and borderline personality traits. These results are
comparable to earlier research findings. For example, previous research also noted higher
levels of dominance in socially aggressive children (Ostrov & Keating, 2004). In
elementary-school children, social aggression has been related with higher levels of
borderline personality traits (Crick et al., 2005). Additionally, social aggression has been
related to callous-unemotional traits in middle- and high-school students (Marsee &
Frick, 2007). Callous-unemotional traits were found to have a greater association with
social aggression for females.
Interestingly, although the relationship between social aggression and the positive
individual traits category was found to be trivial in magnitude, several socially-related
correlates included in the category were found to have a greater association with social

58
aggression. Small positive relationships with social aggression were found for social
skills, sociability, leadership, language ability, and peer-valued traits. Peer-valued traits
were positive characteristics that were deemed to be important to children and
adolescents, such as athletic competence, attractiveness, being cool, having style, and
being humorous. These findings are consistent with the theory that the use of social
aggression requires a certain level of social skills (Kaukiainen et al., 1999).
Previous studies have also suggested a link between social aggression and
positive individual characteristics. Social aggression has been associated with above
average social skills (Carpenter & Nangle, 2006; Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Xie et al.,
2002). Similarly, Xie and colleagues (2002) found that social aggression was associated
with reports of Olympian characteristics (i.e., good at sports, good-looking) and with
the ability to influence peers. Further, social dominance, the ability to influence others
attention and compliance in gaining access, resources, or prestige (Hawley, 1999), has
been associated with the successful use of aggression (Pope & Bierman, 1999). While
aggression may be one way to gain dominance, other characteristics, such as physical
attractiveness or personality characteristics, can also be influential in gaining dominance
(Hawley, 1999). Further, social dominance is typically associated with being liked by the
peer group (Hawley, 2003). In addition, research has suggested that appealing and
charming individuals also have a need for social dominance and can reveal high levels of
aggression (Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990).
Other positive individual characteristics were not found to have a significant
relationship with social aggression. For example, unlike previous studies that have
suggested a correlation between social aggression and empathy (Kaukiainen et al., 1999;

59
Xie et al., 2002), the current results did not find a significant relationship between these
constructs. Similarly, self-esteem and cooperation were not found to be significantly
related to social aggression. In terms of language ability, previous studies showed
conflicting results with regard to the relationship with social aggression. Some studies
have suggested that social aggression is associated with higher verbal abilities in boys
and girls (Bonica et al., 2003), others note higher receptive language ability in girls only
(Hawley, 2003b), and others report negative association with expressive language skills
(Estrem, 2005). The current results clarify this relationship by taking into account gender
and age as moderators. Language ability was found to be positively associated with social
aggression for females, and negatively associated for males. Further, there was a positive
relationship with social aggression for preschoolers, and negative relationship for middleschool students.
Many socially aggressive strategies rely on verbal means emphasizing the positive
association between language development and social aggression. Although social
aggression can be nonverbal, many socially aggressive strategies are facilitated by verbal
sophistication (McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996). Thus, children who have higher language
skills at younger ages can more easily engage in social aggression. Further, girls verbal
development tends to precede boys (Keenan & Shaw, 1997) suggesting that younger
girls have more language skills to employ social aggression than boys of the same age.
Given these findings, interventions for social aggression should be aimed at younger
children, particularly girls, who are acquiring the skills necessary for aggression as early
as the preschool years.

60
Although social aggression is linked with multiple forms of maladjustment, these
findings suggest that social aggression is also affiliated with social skillfulness and, to
some degree, favorable outcomes (Sutton & Keogh, 2000). Thus, it appears that some
savvy children are using maladaptive behaviors in adaptive ways. These results indicate
that social aggression and social competence are not mutually exclusive. Although socialcognitive abilities have traditionally been seen as antecedents of good social adjustment,
it seems that social skills can be regarded as a neutral tool, which may be used for both
prosocial and antisocial purposes (Bjorkqvist, 2001; Kaukiainen et al., 1999).
In terms of relations with peers, results indicated that social aggression was only
significantly related with the subcategory of negative peer relations and not with positive
peer relations. All of the correlates included in negative peer relations were positively and
significantly associated with social aggression, including: peer-victimization, social
conflict, peer-dislike, and peer-rejection. The intuitive finding that those who are more
socially aggressive are less liked by peers has been found across various studies
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Keane & Calkins, 2004; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Social
aggression has been found to be related with higher levels of peer exclusion (Ostrov &
Keating, 2004). Further, other studies have demonstrated social aggression is associated
with higher levels of peer rejection (e.g., Johnson & Foster, 2005; Murray-Close & Crick,
2006; Ostrov & Crick, 2007; Werner & Crick, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005). In
addition, social aggression has been associated with fewer mutual friendships (Burr et al.,
2005; Johnson & Foster, 2005).
Recent findings suggest that the link between social aggression and peer relations
is more complex, though. For some utilizing social aggression, there seems to be no link

61
to negative feelings from the peer group, with some actually gaining peer status
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007). While previous studies have consistently found a negative
association between relational aggression and liking (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Keane
& Calkins, 2004; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), it has been
suggested that relational aggression does not always lead to negative status in the peer
group (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007). Thus, the disadvantages of aggression have been
observed in the peer group in terms of peer rejection. At the same time, however,
aggression is associated with social intimacy and popularity.
In the present study, social aggression was related to measures of social
competence but not to measures of social acceptance. This pattern shows that social
aggression may be related to group-level variables but that it is not associated with
person-to-person variables such as acceptance. It is conceivable that the association
between social aggression and the dyad cannot be captured in a simple bivariate
correlation and instead needs to be studied according to specific patterns of attraction
between peers. Whatever the reason for this difference, these findings point to the
necessity of distinguishing between levels of social complexity and of studying the
functional interactions between them (Vaugh et al., 2003).
Although the general subcategory of positive peer relations was not significantly
related with social aggression, two of the individual correlates were found to have
positive relationships: social intimacy and popularity. In contrast to studies suggesting
that social aggression is associated with social acceptance (e.g., Cillessen & Borch, 2006;
Crick et al., 1997; Ostrov et al., 2004; Salmivalli et al., 2000) and prosocial behavior
(e.g., Crick et al., 1997; Ostrov et al., 2004), the current study found no significant

62
association between these variables. In addition, although previous research has indicated
that social aggression is related to higher rates of mutual friendships (Burr et al., 2005;
Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Rys & Bear, 1997), the present results show that the association
between social aggression and positive friendships was negative and statistically
significant, yet trivial in magnitude.
Results suggest that the friendships of socially aggressive children are described
by higher levels intimacy. It is possible that social aggression is an efficient means to
establish and maintain close friendships. These findings offer the groundwork of the
potential social advantages related to social aggression. For example, there are some
theories which suggest that sharing gossip provides a way to establish a sense of cohesion
among peers (Gottman & Mettetal, 1986). Gossip among friends may suggest offers for
emotional intimacy. Thus, when gossip is shared and positively reinforced by a peer, an
increased feeling of trust and a decreased perception of vulnerability may develop, which
may encourage self-disclosure and emotional intimacy (Gottman & Mettetal, 1986).
Present results also indicate that socially aggressive youth also show high levels
of popularity. These findings were greater for high-school students than for middleschool students, indicating an increase in the relationship with age. Previous research has
also found a link between social aggression and social network centrality (Xie, Cairns, &
Cairns, 2002). Findings are consistent with the theory that, in some cases, aggressive
youth are appealing to their peers (Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000). Further, the
ability to successfully control ones social environment, even if in harmful ways, appears
to be crucial in attaining a prominent position in the social group. In addition, results
indicate that this association does not differ by gender.

63
The literature on popularity has identified two types: sociometric popularity and
peer-perceived popularity (Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).
Sociometric popularity is a measure of liking another person; perceived popularity
reflects their social visibility (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1999; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,
1998). Interestingly, not all children who are perceived as popular are well liked.
Whereas sociometric popularity occurs at a dyadic level (i.e., one person has affection for
another), peer-perceived popularity concerns the group level (i.e., perception according to
position in the group). Although physical aggression only requires two participants
aggressor and victim with social aggression requires at least three individuals to be
successful aggressor, victim, and follower(s) (Coie et al., 1999; Pepler & Craig, 2005;
Xie et al., 2000). Followers are needed to spread gossip and participate in exclusion of
peers, for example. In social aggression, the larger social group is an important
component to the aggressive behavior (OConnell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999; Owens, Shute,
& Slee, 2000).
Research has shown that although social aggression is negatively correlated with
sociometric popularity, it is positively associated with perceived popularity (Cillessen &
Mayeux, 2004). Prinstein and Cillessen (2003) studied social aggression and perceived
popularity in children and found two important findings. One is that the association
between aggression and perceived popularity fits an inverted curve with the most
aggressive children showing lower levels of perceived popularity than seen among
children whose level of aggression is moderately above the mean. In other words, the
truly aggressive are not perceived to be popular and they are not liked whereas those
whose level of aggression is moderately above the mean are seen as being popular but are

64
not necessarily well-liked. A second important finding is that this latter group (i.e.,
moderately aggressive children who are seen to be popular but are not liked) may be
given power and status by the peer group but they are not give affection (Prinstein &
Cillessen, 2003). As a result, future research exploring the role of aggression in peer
status should consider this important distinction between the two types of popularity.
In addition, given the findings that social aggression is associated with
internalizing symptoms, knowing whether perceived popular adolescents who engage in
social aggression also experience emotional difficulties is an important future line of
research. Research suggests that adolescents experiencing higher levels of distress (e.g.,
feeling unhappy or depressed) are more likely to seek help, including professional help
(Rickwood & Braithwaite, 1994). Aggressors who experience internalizing difficulties
may have also have a motivation for change in behavior, given that improving their
actions may benefit their emotional well-being. Perceived popular aggressors who do not
experience emotional problems may have little motivation to change.
The interesting link between perceived popularity and social aggression may
reflect the use of aggression by adolescents as a means of establishing their social
position. Perceived popular children and adolescents tend to be the most powerful
members of their peer group (Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992; Rodkin et al., 2000). Thus,
perceived popular youth may increasingly manipulate their social worlds through social
aggression to maintain and enhance their already high status. Research has suggested that
the social aggression of high status youth is tolerated, and perhaps rewarded, by peers
(Hawley, Little, & Rodkin, 2007). This potential for social influence is one reason the

65
relationship between antisocial behavior, such as social aggression, and popularity is
important.
According to researchers, perceived popular youth are generally socially skilled
and may carry out some socially aggressive acts with relative anonymity (e.g., starting a
rumor) and deny the malicious intent of others (e.g., excluding others). Peers may also
forgive negative behavior for high-status youth. As a result, perceived popular social
aggressors may not face negative repercussions for their behavior. In contrast, if lowerstatus youth socially aggress in less strategic ways or if others are less willing to forgive
their behavior, they may not escape consequences (e.g., social censure, punishment from
adults) that could carry risk for maladjustment. Moreover, relations with externalizing
and internalizing symptoms are likely reciprocal. For example, individuals with
internalizing symptoms are seen as unattractive relationship partners (Rudolph, Hammen,
& Daley, 2006), and socially aggressive children and adolescents with internalizing
difficulties may have particularly low social standing.
Future Interventions
Despite the number of books and movies on social aggression, there have been
few empirically based interventions specifically designed to address these harmful
behaviors (Leff & Crick, 2010). Further, many programs focus exclusively on physical
acts of aggression and do not include social aggression (e.g., Walker et al., 1998). Given
that different developmental factors may be involved in social and physical aggression
(see Zhan-Waxler et al., 2006), programs developed to reduce or prevent physical
aggression may not be appropriate for social aggression. Although a segment of general
bullying programs may target socially aggressive behaviors, a recent review did not

66
reveal any programs that have fully examined their effectiveness on social aggression
(Leff, Gullan, Paskewich, Abdul-Kabir, Jawad, Grossman, et al., 2009). As Yoon and
colleagues (2004) note, there is a need for greater understanding of social aggression and
for more effort in developing effective and original approaches to combat these behaviors
in particular.
Given that social aggression often occurs in school environment, it appears that
school-based programming is needed. How well a program is integrated within a school
and wider community may also be a crucial factor for the programs sustainability and
long-term success (Leff et al., 2009). Because of the extremely complex nature of social
aggression, it is important that key individuals within the school and community are
integrated into the intervention team. Thus, it is central that school-based professionals,
especially school psychologists, be involved in the development, implementation, and
evaluation of school-based interventions for social aggression (Leff et al., 2009).
Psychologists can provide school-wide workshops and trainings raising awareness that
childrens aggression includes both physical and nonphysical manifestations (e.g., social
exclusion, gossip, ignoring). Psychologists can also take a central role in the
implementation and evaluation of interventions for social aggression by serving as
teacher trainers or co-implementers with teachers in classrooms.
Developing early interventions for social aggressors and victims hold much
promise for improving the health and well-being of school-age children, their schools,
and their communities. Results of the current study indicate that the outcome of social
aggression differs based on age. Therefore, adjustment challenges and the experience and
expression of social aggression differ depending upon the age of the child. For instance,

67
prevention programs for very young children need to have concrete and visual activities
to help address the direct manifestations of social aggression. Programs for preschoolers
and kindergarteners need to address the direct nature of social aggression through
developmentally appropriate visual and concrete strategies that teach and reinforce
positive peer interactions. For example, some programs have used very brief teaching
sessions using puppets or the reading out loud of fairy tales (Ostrov et al., 2009; Harrist
& Bradley, 2003).
Given research indicating that the way elementary and/or middle school children
approach and evaluate social cues affects their behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994),
programs could incorporate a social problem-solving model (e.g., Fraser et al., 2005; Leff
et al., 2009; Van Schoiack-Edstrom et al., 2002). Programs could include a systemic
approach to prevention by incorporating a broader perspective to enhancing the school
and community context. Given recent research suggesting that adolescents use electronic
media as an additional means of aggressing (William & Guerra, 2007) and that social
aggression may occur within the context of a romantic relationship (Ellis et al., 2009),
future social aggression intervention programs need to take these issues into account for
adolescents.
This study demonstrated that social aggressors often exhibit peer relationship
challenges and psychosocial adjustment difficulties while at the same time being viewed
as popular and influential within their peer group. Given this, intervention programs
should integrate more opportunities for these youth to demonstrate their social influence
and potential leadership in a prosocial manner. Interventions which focus only on those
who aggress are expected to fall short, given that social aggression is important in

68
preserving social hierarchies and clearly involves the social group (Young, Boye, &
Nelson, 2006). Further, youth may indirectly endorse the socially dominant child in her
or her social aggression. Consequently, successful intervention programs must tackle
both the individual actions as well as the greater peer-group.
Findings from a recent meta-analysis on social-emotional learning programs
indicated that school-based programs had positive effects on the social-emotional
competencies and prosocial behaviors of children (Durlak et al., 2011). Improved socialinteraction and reduced conduct problems, such as aggression and bullying, was also
found. Further, results suggested that classroom teachers and other school personnel
were able to effectively provide these programs at all education levels. Thus, schools can
provide an important role in fostering both cognitive and social-emotional development
of children as a way to reduce aggressive behaviors.
It is important to identify the necessary ingredients of programs to address social
aggression. Open discussions about social aggression between children and adults may be
important in order for children to deem this a topic that can be discussed. Adults and
children may engage in discussions, projects, and role-plays to increase awareness of
social aggression and create an environment where children feel free to report behaviors.
Taking into account the social and cognitive development of children can help children
understand the negative consequences of social aggression. Similarly, it would be
important to use these developmental advancements to promote prosocial norms with
social settings.
In working with children and adolescents, it would be important to identify and
work to influence peer beliefs about aggression. Further, there is a need to promote the

69
role of the bystander to reduce aggression rather than support it. In addition, joining
aggressive and nonaggressive children in cooperative, significant, and overt social actions
would likely promote a more prosocial peer environment. Parents and other adults (i.e.,
teachers, psychologists) should be involved in the peer network to encourage prosocial
norms. In terms of addressing the social context, it would be important to provide
opportunities for children to participate in activities that cross the boundary created by
school cliques. These opportunities would encourage non-aggressive social norms, and
promote social leadership and responsibility.
Future Research
Several interesting questions arise from these findings that may direct future
research. Does a childs position in the peer group allow for them to develop these
aggressive strategies, or is it that aggression provides them the position in the group, or,
as is typically the case, is it both? In order words, it might be the case that social
aggression is not causing their peer status, but rather that peer status leads to social
aggression. Future longitudinal research with more precise measures is needed to answer
these questions.
There appears to be various avenues for potential research to pursue. More
research that regards the subtle and obvious contexts of social aggression would be
beneficial. It is clear that social aggression occurs, however it is not clear what contexts
generate and continue its use (Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). Thus, it is important to
understand social aggression from the perspectives of the group system as well as the
individual actions. In particular, longitudinal research aimed at understanding the
differing outcomes for boys and girls over time is needed. Including how parents,

70
siblings, and communities contribute to the use of social aggression would be important
for future research. Further, continuing to explore the experiences of victims and
aggressors is an important aim of future research. In addition, drawing from this current
research, it is important to compare perceived popular yet not well-liked children to those
who are considered to be sociometrically popular.
Similarly, most of the research on aggression in children and adolescents has
studied two broad categories, victims and aggressors. However, our knowledge about
children who are both victims and aggressors is limited compared to what is known about
victims and aggressors in general. Children who aggress against other children and are
also victims of aggression themselves are referred to as bully-victims (Haynie et al., 2001;
Schwartz, 2000). It is likely that aggressors, victims, and those who fall into both
categories not only play different roles in aggression, but also exhibit different patterns of
social behavior. Aggressive children and bully-victims both demonstrate aggressive
behavior; however, little is known about the aggressive behavior of bully-victims,
particularly those who engage in social aggression (Pellegrini, 1998). It is important to
investigate the correlates of social aggression among those who are aggressors, victims,
and bully-victims as this area is understudied.
Finally, interventions for social aggression should be designed and assessed.
Successful interventions will likely need to consider the developmental level, gender, and
culture of the target youth (Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). Taken together, the research
focusing on social aggression underscores the importance of targeting this form of
aggression when designing programs for aggressive youth (Leff, Angelucci, Goldstein,
Cardaciotto, Paskewich, et al., 2007).

71
Limitations
Before concluding, a brief discussion on the limitations in this research is
provided. That is, despite the anticipated positive contributions of the current research,
several limitations should be noted. First, an inherent limitation of this study, as with all
meta-analyses, is that the quality of conclusions must rely on the literature available. That
is, a central concern in any meta-analysis is that the conclusions are only valid to the
extent to which the included studies represent the population of research. Further, the
present analyses relied on the individual studies label and definition of each correlate
limiting the results.
A second consideration is whether the obtained sample of studies was less likely
to include some findings than others (e.g., nonsignificant results). This threat is
considered within the general term of publication bias to reflect the possibility that
nonsignificant and otherwise unacceptable results are less likely to be published (and
therefore less likely to included in meta-analyses) than studies finding significant or
commonly accepted results. Given that publication bias was found in this study, future
studies including both published and unpublished studies could correct for this limitation
and shed additional light on the findings.
Third, a substantial limitation is the reliance on correlational data which clearly
means that the results should not be interpreted as causal. That is, the analyses speak to
the magnitude of association but say nothing about the direction of influence. Each aspect
of maladjustment or peer relation could be conceptualized as an antecedent or a
consequence of social aggression or simply as a correlation arising from common thirdvariable causes. Unfortunately, longitudinal investigations that evaluate these directions

72
of influence are rare and those that do exist are so varied in terms of time span and other
methodological features that meaningful meta-analytic combination is not yet possible.
Further experimental and longitudinal research using well-planned time spans,
appropriate analytic strategies, and wider sampling of ages and measurement strategies
within these longitudinal investigations would be beneficial to the field (Card & Little,
2007).
Fourth, many of the relationships observed in the current research were based on a
small number of primary studies. This is particularly true for analyses of moderators. In
contrast to the ample body of research from which to analyze main effects, analysis of
moderators of these effects (e.g., age, gender) were often hampered by incomplete
coverage across levels of these moderators. Whenever results were presented based upon
a smaller number of effect sizes, those findings should be interpreted with caution. In
addition, analyses of the interaction of moderators were not able to be computed due to
insufficient number of studies. Future research may target these areas for the purpose of
building up the meta-analytic database to the point where more meaningful meta-analyses
may be conducted.
Conclusion
Social aggression is a serious phenomenon affecting young people. There is a
large literature on the effect these actions have on victims. However, little is understood
about those that perpetuate social aggression. The current meta-analysis was able to
clarify the relation among social aggression and various psychosocial correlates. Results
suggest that social aggression is more greatly associated with negative correlates,
including externalization, internalization, and negative peer relations. Age differences

73
were found, where younger children were more likely to engage in externalization while
older children were more likely to experience internalization. However, current findings
suggest that social aggression is also associated with social skillfulness and peerperceived popularity. Thus, although these children may not be well-liked, they maintain
peer status and popularity which are necessary components to facilitate acts of social
aggression. Future studies should explore the position social aggressors hold in social
groups and the long-term consequences for aggressors.

REFERENCES
*Adams, R.E., Bartlett, N.H., & Bukowski, W.M. (2009). Peer victimization and social
dominance as intervening variables of the link between peer liking and relational
aggression. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 102-121.
Adler, Patricia A., Steven J. Kless & Peter Adler. 1992. Socialization to gender roles:
Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of education 65:
169-187.
*Albrecht, A.K., Galambos, N.L., & Janson, S. M. (2007). Adolescents internalizing and
aggressive behaviors and perceptions of parents psychological control: A panel
study examining direction of effects. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 673-684.
Aluede, O., Adelke, F., Omoike, D., & Afen-Akpaida, J. (2008). A review of the extent,
nature, characteristics and effects of bullying behavior in schools. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 35, 151-158.
*Ando, M., Asakura, T., & Simons-Morton, B. (2005). Psychosocial influences on
physical, verbal, and indirect bullying among Japanese early adolescents. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 268-297.
*Andreou, E. (2006). Social preference, perceived popularity and social intelligence:
Relations to overt and relational aggression. School Psychology International,
27(3), 339-351.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic
review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212-230.
*Baldry, A.C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and
physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 343-355.
*Barry, C.T., Pickard, J.D., & Ansel, L.L. (2009). The associations of adolescent
invulnerability and narcissism with problem behaviors. Personality and
Individual Differences, 47, 577-582.
Berger, K. S. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental
Review, 27, 90-126.
Bjorkqvist, K. (2001). Different names, same issue. Social Development, 10(2), 272-274.

74

75
Bjrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and
boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 18(2), 117-127.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert
aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20(1), 27-33.
*Bonica, C., Arnold, D. H., Fisher, P. H., Zeljo, A., & Yershova, K. (2003). Relational
aggression, relational victimization, and language development in preschoolers.
Social Development, 12(4), 551-562.
Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for studies with continuous outcome data (2nd ed.).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
*Bosacki, S.L. (2003). Psychological pragmatics in preadolescents: Sociomoral
understanding, self-worth, and school behavior. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 32, 141-155.
Bowie, B. H. (2010). Understanding the gender differences in pathways to social
deviancy: Relational aggression and emotion regulation. Archives of Psychiatric
Nursing, 24(1), 27-37.
*Brown, S.A., Arnold, D.H., Dobbs, J., & Doctoroff, G.L. (2007). Parenting predictors of
relational aggression among Puerto Rican and European American school-age
children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 147-159.
Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L.K, & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Variations in patterns of
attraction to same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 147154.
Bukowski, W., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory,
measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer
relationships in child development (pp. 15-45). New York: Wiley.
Burr, J. E., Ostrov, Jamie, M., Jansen, E. A., Cullerton-Sen, C., & Crick, N. R. (2005).
Relational aggression and friendship during early childhood: "I won't be your
friend!". Early Education and Development, 16(2), 161-184.
*Burnette, M.L., South, S.C., & Reppucci, N.D. (2007). Cluster B personality pathology
in incarcerated girls: Structure, comorbidity, and aggression. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 21, 262-272.
*Burnett, M.L., & Reppucci, N.D. (2009). Childhood abuse and aggression in girls: The
contribution of borderline personality disorder. Development and
Psychopathology, 21, 309-317.

76
*Butovskaya, M.L., Timentschik, V.M., Burkova, V.N. (2007). Aggression, conflict
resolution, popularity, and attitude to school in Russian adolescents. Aggressive
Behavior, 33, 170-183.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Garipy, J.-L. (1989).
Growth and aggression: I. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 25(2), 320-330.
Campbell, S. B. (2002). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and
developmental issues (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2007). Longitudinal modeling of developmental processes.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 297-302.
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect
aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender
differences. Child Development, 79(5), 1185-1229.
*Carpenter, E. M., & Nangle, D. W. (2006). Caught between stages: Relational
aggression emerging as a developmental advance in at-risk preschoolers. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 21, 177-188.
*Casas, J.F., Weigel, S.M., Crick, N.R., Ostrov, J.M., Woods, K.E., Yeh, E.A.J.,
Huddleston-Casas, C.A. (2006). Early parenting and childrens relational and
physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 27, 209-227.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Borch, C. (2006). Developmental trajectories of adolescent
popularity: A growth curve modeling analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6),
935-959.
*Cillessen, A.H.N., Jiang, X.L., West,T.V., & Laszkowski, D.K. (2005). Predictors of
dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29(2), 165-172.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement:
Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status.
Child Development, 75(1), 147-163.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2007). Variations in the association between
aggression and social status: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In P. H.
Hawley, T. D. Little, & P. C. Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The
bright side to bad behavior (pp. 135-156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

77
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp.779-862). New York:
Wiley.
Coie, J. D., Cillessen, A. H. N., Dodge, K. A., Hubbard, J. A., Schwartz, D., Lemerise, E.
A., & Bateman, H. (1999). It takes two to fight: A test of relational factors and a
method for assessing aggressive dyads. Developmental Psychology, 35, 11791188.
Cooper, H. M. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step by step approach
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of
research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
*Crain, M.M., Finch, C.L., & Foster, S.L. (2005). The relevance of the social information
processing model for understanding relational aggression in girls. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 51, 213-249.
Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of
distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 313-322.
*Crick, N.R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial
behavior in the prediction of childrens future social adjustment. Child
Development, 67, 2317-2327.
*Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of
aggression: Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology,
33(4), 610-617.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization:
A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,
337347.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social-information
mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in
preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 579-588.

78
Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically
aggressive children's intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and
instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73(4), 1134-1142.
Crick, N. R., Murray-Close, D., & Woods, K. (2005). Borderline personality features in
childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology,
17, 10511070.
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Werner, N. E. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational
aggression, physical aggression, and children's social-psychological adjustment.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(2), 131-142.
Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Burr, J. E., Cullerton-Sen, C., Jansen-Yeh, E., & Ralston, P.
(2006b). A longitudinal study of relational and physical aggression in preschool.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 254-268.
Crick, N. R., Wellman, N. E., Casas, J. F., OBrien, K. M., Nelson, D. A., Grotpeter, J.
K., & Markson, K. (1999). Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an
old problem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 75140). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
*Cullerton-Sen, C., Cassidy, A.R., Murray-Close, D., Cicchetti, D.,Crick, N.R., &
Rogosch, F.A. (2008). Childhood maltreatment and the development of relational
and physical aggression: The importance of a gender-informed approach. Child
Development, 79, 1736-1751.
*Culotta, C.M., Goldstein, S.E. (2008). Adolescents aggressive and prosocial behavior:
Associations with jealousy and social anxiety. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 169, 21-33.
*Curtner-Smith, M.E., Culp, A.M., Culp, R., Scheib, C., Owen, K., Tilley, A., Murphy,
M., Parkman, L., & Coleman, P.W. (2006). Mothers parenting and young
economically disadvantaged childrens relational and overt bullying. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 15, 181-193.
*David, C.F., & Kistner, J.A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions have a dark side?
Examination of the link between perceptual bias and aggression. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327-337.
Dellasega, C., & Nixon, C. (2003). Girl wars: 12 strategies that will end female bullying.
Simon and Schuster Digital Sales.
*Dukes, R.L., Stein, J.A., & Zane, J.I. (2009). Effect of relational bullying on attitudes,
behavior and injury among adolescent bullies, victims and bully-victims. The
Social Science Journal, 46, 671-688.

79
Eitzen, D. & Zinn, M. (1994). Gender inequality. In Social Problems (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L.(2009). Fundamental
dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable
environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human
Nature, 20, 204268.
*Ellis, W.E., & Zarbatany, L. (2007). Explaining friendship formation and friendship
stability: The role of childrens and friends aggression and victimization. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 53(1), 79-104.
*Ellis, W.E., & Zarbatany, L. (2007B). Peer group status as a moderator of group
influence on childrens deviant, aggressive, and prosocial behavior. Child
Development, 78, 1240-1254.
Estrem, T. L. (2005). Relational and physical aggression among preschoolers: The effect
of language skills and gender. Early Education and Development, 16(2), 207-231.
*Farrel, A.D., Sullivan, T.N., Kliewer, W., Allison, K.W., Erwin, E.H., Meyer, A.L., &
Esposit, L. (2006). Peer and school problems in the lives of urban adolescents:
Frequency, difficulty, and relation to adjustment. Journal of School Psychology,
44, 169-190.
Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison
of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161-180.
Fraser, M.W., Galinsky, M.J., Smokowski, P.R., Day, S.H., Terzia n, M.A., Rose, R.A.,
& Guo, S. (2005). Social information processing skills training to promote social
competence and prevprocessing prevent aggressive behavior in the third grade.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Psychology, 73, 1045-1055.
French, D. C., Jansen, E. A., & Pidada, S. (2002). United States and Indonesian
childrens and adolescents reports of relational aggression by disliked peers.
Child Development, 73, 11431150.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social
aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589-600.
Garandeau, C. F., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible
aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation.
Aggression & Violent Behavior, 11(6), 641-654.
*Garner, P.W., Dunsmore, J.C., Southam-Gerrow, M. (2008). Mother-child
conversations about emotions: Linkages to child aggression and prosocial
behavior. Social Development, 17, 259-277.

80

Gilliom, M., Shaw, D.S., 2004. Codevelopment of externalizing and internalizing

problems in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology 16, 313333.
*Gleason, K.A., Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Richardson, D.S. (2004). Agreeableness as a
predictor of aggression in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 43-61.
*Golmaryami, F.N., & Barry, C.T. (2010). The associations of self-reported and peerreported relational aggression with narcissism and self-esteem among adolescents
in a residential setting. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39,
128-133.
*Graves, K.N., Frabutt, J.M., & Vigliano, D. (2007). Teaching conflict resolution skills
to middle and high school students through interactive drama and role play.
Journal of School Violence, 6, 57-79.
Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and
friendship. Child Development, 67(5), 2328-2338.
Harre, R., & Lamb, R. (1983). The encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. London:
Blackwell.
Harrist, A., Bradley, K.D., (2003). You cant say you cant play: intervening in the
process of social exclusion in the kindergarten classroom. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 18, 185205.
*Hart, C.H., Nelson, D.A., Robinson, C.C., Olsen, S.F., & McNeilly-Choque, M.K.
(1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children:
Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based
evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97-132.
*Hawley, P. H. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers:
An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 213235.
Hawley, P. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social
competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little,
and P. C. Rodkin (Eds.) Aggression and Adaptation: The Bright Side to Bad
Behavior (pp. 1-29). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., Card, N.A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend: Relationship
quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial skills.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 170-180.

81
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2007). Aggression and adaptation: The
bright side to bad behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001). The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 6, 203-217.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in metaanalysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
Heilbron, N., & Prinstein, M. (2008). A review and reconceptualization of social
aggression: Adaptive and maladaptive correlates. Clinical Child & Family
Psychology Review, 11(4), 176-217.
*Henington, C., Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Thompson, B. (1998). The role of
relational aggression in identifying aggressive boys and girls. Journal of School
Psychology, 36(4), 457-477.
*Hoff, K.E., Reese-Weber, M., Schneider, W.J., & Staff, J.W. (2009). The association
between high status positions and aggressive behavior in early adolescence.
Journal of School Psychology, 47, 395-426.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. Clark, &
M. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ:
Leadership Library of America.
*Horner, S.B., Fireman, G.D., & Wang, E.W. (2010). The relation of student behavior,
peer status, race, and gender to decisions about school discipline using CHAID
decision trees and regression modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 135161.
Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (2004), Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting
error and bias in research findings (2nd Edition). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Huselid, R. F., & Cooper, M. L. (1994). Gender roles as mediators of sex differences in
expressions of pathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 595-603.
Johnson, D. R., & Foster, S. L. (2005). The relationship between relational aggression in
kindergarten children and friendship stability, mutuality, and peer liking. Early
Education and Development, 16(2), 141-160.

82
*Juliano, M., Werner, R. S., & Cassidy, K. W. (2006). Early correlates of preschool
aggressive behavior according to type of aggression and measurement. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 395-410.
*Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg,
S., et al. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three
types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(2), 81-89.
*Kawabata, R., Crick, N.R., & Hamaguchi, Y. (2010). Forms of aggression, socialpsychological adjustment, and peer victimization in a Japanese sample: The
moderating role of positive and negative friendship quality. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 38, 471-484.
Kazdin, A. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs.
American Psychologist, 48, 127-141.
Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status from
toddler and preschool problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
32, 409423.
Keenan, K., Coyne, C., & Lahey, B. B. (2008). Should relational aggression be included
in DSM-V? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
47(1), 86-93.
*Kerestes, G., & Milanovic, A. (2006). Relations between different types of childrens
aggressive behavior and sociometric status among peers of the same and opposite
gender. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 477-483.
Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Fixed-effects
models. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.). The handbook of
research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Kovacs, M., & Devline, B. (1998). Internalizing disorders in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 47-63.
*Kuppens, S., Gietens, H., Onghena, P., & Michiels, D. (2009). Relations between
parental psychological control and childhood relational aggression: Reciprocal in
nature? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 117-131.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1999). Childrens interpersonal perceptions as a
function of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 160, 225242.

83
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Childrens perceptions of popular and
unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635647.
Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjrkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children.
Aggressive Behavior, 14(6), 403-414.
Lancelotta, G. X., & Vaughn, S. (1989). Relation between types of aggression and
sociometric status: Peer and teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81(1), 86-90.
*Lansford, J.E., Costanzo, P.R., Grimes, C., & Putallaz, M. (2009). Social network
centrality and leadership status: Links with problem behaviors and tests of gender
differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55, 1-25
*Lansford, J.E., Killeya-Jones, L.A., Miller, S., & Costanzo, P.R. (2009). Early
adolescents social standing in peer groups: Behavioral correlations of stability
and change. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 1084-1095.
*Larke, I.D., & Beran, T.N. (2006). The relationship between bullying and social skills in
primary school students. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 38-51.
Leadbeater, B. J. (2010). Can we see it? Can we stop it? Lessons learned from
community-university research collaborations about relational aggression. School
Psychology Review, 39(4), 588-593.
*Leadbeater, B.J., Banister, E.M., Ellis, W.E., & Young, R. (2008). Victimization and
relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of
parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth
Adolescence, 37, 359-372.
Leadbeater, B. J., Boone, E. M., Sangster, N. A., & Mathieson, L. C. (2006). Sex
differences in the personal costs and benefits of relational and physical aggression
in high school. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 409-419.
Leadbeater, B.J., Kuperminc, G.P, Blatt, S.J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate
model of gender differences in adolescents internalizing and externalizing
problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 12681282.
*Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children's social constructions
of popularity. Social Development, 11(1), 87-109.
*Lee, E. (2009). The relationship of aggression and bullying to social preference:
Differences in gender and types of aggression. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 33, 323-330.

84
Leff, S. S., Angelucci, J., Goldstein, A. B., Cardaciotto, L., Paskewich, B., & Grossman,
M. (2007). Using a participatory action research model to create a school-based
intervention program for relationally aggressive girls: The Friend to Friend
Program. In J. Zins, M. Elias, & C. Maher (Eds.), Bullying, victimization, and
peer harassment: Handbook of prevention and intervention in peer harassment,
victimization, and bullying (pp. 199-218). New York: Haworth Press.
Leff, S.S., Crick, N.R. (2010). Interventions for relational aggression: Innovative
programming and next steps in research and practice. School Psychology Review,
39, 504-507.
Leff, S. S., Gullan, R. L., Paskewich, B. S., Abdul-Kabir, S., Jawad, A. F., Grossman, M.,
et al. (2009). An initial evaluation of a culturally-adapted social problem solving
and relational aggression prevention program for urban African American
relationally aggressive girls. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the
Community, 37, 260274.
*Linder, J.R., & Gentile, D.A. (2009). Is the television rating system valid? Indirect,
verbal, and physical aggression in programs viewed by fifth grade girls and
associations with behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30,
286-297.
*Lindsey, E.W., Chambers, J.C., Frabutt, J.M., & Mackinnon-Lewis, C. (2009). Marital
conflict and adolescents peer aggression: The mediating and moderating role of
mother-child emotional reciprocity. Family Relations, 58, 593-606.
*Loeber, R., Pardini, D.A., Hipwell, A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Keenan, K., &
Sembower, M.A. (2009). Are the stable factors in preadolescent girls
externalizing behaviors? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 777-791.
*Loukas, A., Paulos, S. K., & Robinson, S. (2005). Early adolescent social and overt
aggression: Examining the roles of social anxiety and maternal psychological
control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 335-345.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American
Psychologist, 45, 513-520.
Marchand, J. F., & Hock, E. (1998). The relation of problem behaviors in preschool
children to depressive symptoms in mothers. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
159(3), 353-366.
*Marsee, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive and emotional correlates
to proactive and reactive aggression in a sample of detained girls. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 969-981.

85
*Marsee, M.A., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P.J. (2005). The association of psychopathic
traits with aggression and delinquency in non-referred boys and girls. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 23, 803-817.
*Marsee, M., Weems, C., & Taylor, L. (2008). Exploring the association between
aggression and anxiety in youth: A look at aggressive subtypes, gender, and social
cognition. [Article]. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 17(1), 154-168.
*Mayeux, L., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2008). Its not just being popular, its knowing it, too:
The role of self-perceptions of status in the associations between peer status and
aggression. Social Development, 17(4), 871-888.
*McCarroll, E.M., Lindsey, E.W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Chambers, J.C., & Frabutt,
J.M. (2009). Health status and peer relationships in early adolescence: The role of
peer contact, self-esteem, and social anxiety. Journal of Child Family Studies, 18,
473-485.
*McNeilly-Choque, Hart, C. H., Robinson, C.C., Nelson, L. J., & Olsen, S. F. (1996).
Overt and relational aggression on the playground: Correspondence among
different informants. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11, 47-67.
Michiels, D., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., &, Kuppens, S. (2008). Parent-child interactions
and relational aggression in peer relationships. Developmental Review, 28, 522540.
*Mikami, A.Y., Lee, S.S., Hinshaw, S.P., & Mullin, B.C. (2008). Relationships between
social information processing and aggression among adolescent girls with and
without ADHD. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 761-771.
Moretti, M. M., Holland, R., & McKay, S. (2001). Selfother representations and
relational and overt aggression in adolescent girls and boys. Behavioral Sciences
& the Law, 19(1), 109-126.
*Murray-Close, D., & Crick, N. R. (2006). Mutual antipathy involvement: Gender and
associations with aggression and victimization. School Psychology Review, 35(3),
472-492.
Murray-Close, D., & Crick, N. R. (2007). Gender differences in the association between
cardiovascular reactivity and aggressive conduct. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 65(2), 103-113.
*Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Boxer, P., Danner, S., Dubow, E. F., Goldstein, S. E., &
Heretick, D. M. L. (2004). Social-cognitive mediators of the relation of
environmental and emotion regulation factors to children's aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 30(5), 389-408.

86
*Nelson, D.A., Hart, C.H., Yang, C., Olsen, J.A., Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in
China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression. Child
Development, 77, 554-572.
Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., & Hart, C. H. (2005). Relational and physical Aggression
of preschool-age children: Peer status linkages across informants. Early
Education and Development, 16(2), 115-139.
*Nesdale, D., Milliner, E., Duffy, A., & Griffiths, J.A. (2009). Group membership, group
norms, empathy, and youth childrens intentions to aggress. Aggressive Behavior,
35, 244-258.
OConnell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Issues and
challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.
*Ohan, J.L., & Johnston, C. (2007). What is the social impact of ADHD in girls? A
multi-method assessment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 239-250.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bullying at school: Knowledge base and an effective intervention
program.
*Ostrov, J.M. (2008). Forms of aggression and peer victimization during early childhood:
A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 311322.
*Ostrov, J.M., & Bishop, C.M. (2008). Preschoolers aggression and parent-child
conflict: A multiinformant and multimethod study. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 99, 309-322.
*Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (2007). Forms and functions of aggression during early
childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 2243.
*Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression
during free play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social
Development, 13(2), 255-277.
*Ostrov, J. M., Crick, N. R., & Stauffacher, K. (2006). Relational aggression in sibling
and peer relationships during early childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 27(3), 241-253.
*Ostrov, J.M., Massetti, G.M., Stauffacher, K., Godleski, S.A., Hart, K.C., Karch, K.M.,
Mullins, A.D., & Ries, E.E. (2009). An intervention for relational and physical
aggression in early childhood: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 24, 15-28.

87
*Ostrov, J. M., Massetti, G. M., Stauffacher, K., Hart, K. C., Mullins, A. D., Ries, E. E.,
et al. (2009). An intervention for relational and physical aggression in early
childhood: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(1), 1528.
*Ostrov, J.M., Ries, E.E., Stauffacher, K., Godleski, S.A., & Mullins, A.D. (2008).
Relational aggression, physical aggression and deception during early childhood:
A multimethod, multi-informant short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 664-675.
Ostrov, J. M., Woods, K., Jansen, E., Casas, J., & Crick, N. R. (2004). An observational
study of delivered and received aggression, gender, and social-psychological
adjustment in preschool: This White Crayon Doesnt Work. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 19, 355371.
Owens, L., Shute, R., and Slee, P. (2000). "I'm in and you're out ..." Explanations for
teenage girls' indirect aggression. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 2(1), 19-46.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived
popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 18, 125144.
*Pellegrini, A.D., & Long, J.D. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of
sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 85, 257-278.
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. (2005). Aggressive girls on troubled trajectories: A
developmental perspective. In D. J. Pepler, K. C., Madsen, C. Webster, and K. S.
Levene (Eds.) The development and treatment of girlhood aggression (pp. 3-28).
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and
antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation.
Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 335-346.
Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer
aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly:
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 310-342.
Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as
predictors of adolescent girls externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 103112.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression
in adolescents: Socialpsychological adjustment of aggressors and victims.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 479-491.

88

*Puckett, M.B., Aikins, J.W., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2008). Moderators of the associations
between relational aggression and perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34,
563-576.
*Putallaz, M., Grimes, C.L., Foster, K.J., Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D., & Dearing, K.
(2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives
within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523-547.
*Reed, T.J., Goldstein, S.E., Morris, A.S., & Keyes, A.W. (2008). Relational aggression
in mothers and children: Links with psychological control and child adjustment.
Sex Roles, 59, 39-48.
Rickwood, D. J., & Braithwaite, V. A. (1994). Social psychological factors affecting
help-seeking for emotional problems. Social Science & Medicine, 39, 563572.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. Philadelphia: J. Kingsley.
*Roach, C.N., & Gross, A.M. (2003). Assessing child aggression: A tale of two
measures. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 25, 19-38.
*Rose, A.J., & Swenson, L.P. (2009). Do perceived popular adolescents who aggress
against others experience emotional adjustment problems themselves?
Developmental Psychology, 45, 868-872.
*Rose, A.J., Swenson, L.P., & Carlson, W. (2004). Friendships of aggressive youth:
Considering the influences of being disliked and of being perceived as popular.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 25-45.
*Rose, A.J., Swenson, L.P., & Waller, E.M., (2004). Overt and relational aggression and
perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective
relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378-387.
Rodkin, P., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). The heterogeneity of
popularity in boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 1424.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (rev. ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in
quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 5982.

89
Rudolph, K., Hammen, C., & Daley, S. (2006). Adolescent mood disorders. In D. A.
Wolfe & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavioral and emotional disorders in adolescence:
Nature, assessment, and treatment (pp. 300-342). New York: Guilford.
*Russell, A., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F. (2003). Childrens sociable and
aggressive behavior with peers: A comparison of the US and Australia, and
contributions of temperament and parenting styles. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27(1), 74-86.
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S.
Masten, D Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and
protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181-214).
Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press.
*Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations: Gender and
developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 43(1), 87-106.
*Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and sociometric
status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 41(1), 17-24.
*Sandstrom, M.J. (2007). A link between mothers disciplinary strategies and childrens
relational aggression. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 399-407.
*Sandstrom, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2003). Sociometric status and childrens peer
experiences: Use of the daily diary method. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 427452.
*Sandstrom, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct
implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 30, 305-314.
*Sebanc, A.M. (2003). The friendship features of preschool children: Links with
prosocial behavior and aggression. Social Development, 12, 249-268.
Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York:
Harcourt.
*Smith, R.G., & Gross, A.M. (2006). Bullying: Prevalence and the effect of age and
gender. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 28, 13-37.
*Smith, R.L., Rose, A.J., & Schwartz-Mette, R.A. (2010). Relational and overt
aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender
differences and associations with peer acceptance. Social Development, 19, 243269.

90

*Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez, B., & Niemiec, C.P. (2008). The
intervening role of relational aggression between psychological control and
friendship quality. Social Development, 17, 661-681.
*Sullivan, T.N., Farrell, A.D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early
adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug
use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students.
Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119-137.
*Sullivan, T.N., Helms, S.W., Kliewer, W., & Goodman, K.L. (2010). Associations
between sadness and anger regulation coping, emotional expression, and physical
and relational aggression among urban adolescents. Social Development, 19, 3051.
Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In B. S. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine
(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Sutton, J., & Keogh, E. (2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying,
Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,
443457.
*Terranova, A.M., Morris, A.S., & Boxer, P. (2008). Fear reactivity and effortful control
in overt and relational bullying: A six-month longitudinal study. Aggressive
Behavior, 34, 104-115.
*Tiet, Q.Q., Wasserman, G.A., Loeber, R., McReynolds, L.S., & Miller, L.S. (2001).
Developmental and sex differences in types of conduct problems. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 10, 181-197.
Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer
acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance among
informants. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 601-609.
Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What
have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 24, 129141.
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford Press.
*Underwood, M.K., Beron, K.J., & Rosen, L.H. (2009). Continuity and change in social
and physical aggression from middle childhood through early adolescence.
Aggressive Behavior, 35, 357-375.

91
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten challenges for
understanding gender and aggression in children: Why can't we all just get along?
Social Development, 10(2), 248-266.
*Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating
roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 396-408.
*Vaillancourt, T., Miller, J.L., Fagbemi, J., Cote, S., & Tremblay, R.E. (2007).
Trajectories and predictors of indirect aggression: Results from a nationally
representative longitudinal study of Canadian children aged 2-10. Aggressive
Behavior, 33, 314-326.
Van Schoiack-Edstrom, L., Frey, K. S., & Beland, K. (2002). Changing adolescents
attitudes about relational and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a
school-based intervention. School Psychology Review, 31, 201216.
*Viding, E., Simmonds, E., Petrides, K.V., & Frederickson, N. (2009). The contribution
of callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems to bullying in early
adolescence. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 471-481.
*Wallenius, M., Punamaki, R.L., & Rimpela, A. (2007). Digital game playing and direct
and indirect aggression in early adolescence: The roles of age, social intelligence,
and parent-child communication. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 325-336.
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (2004). Maladaptive peer relationships and the
development of relational and physical aggression during middle childhood.
Social Development, 13(4), 495-514.
*Werner, N.E., & Grant, S. (2009). Mothers cognitions about relational aggression:
Associations with discipline responses, childrens normative beliefs, and peer
competence. Social Development, 18, 77-98.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14S21.
*Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Busseri, M.A. (2004). Where is the syndrome?
Examining co-occurrence among multiple problem behaviors in adolescence.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1022-1037.
Wiseman, R. (2002). Queen bees and wannabees: Helping your daughter survive cliques,
gossip, boyfriends, and other realities of adolescence. New York: Crown.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school
children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 135155.

92
Xie, H., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2005). The development of aggressive behaviors
among girls: Measurement issues, social functions, and different trajectories. In
D. J. Pepler, K. C., Madsen, C. Webster, and K. S. Levene (Eds.) The
development and treatment of girlhood aggression (pp. 105-136). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). The development of social aggression and
physical aggression: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts. Aggressive
Behavior, 28(5), 341-355.
*Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in
social interaction and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of
interpersonal conflicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11(2), 205224.
*Yamasaki, K., & Nishida, N. (2009). The relationship between three types of aggression
and peer relations in elementary school children. International Journal of
Psychology, 44, 179-186.
*Yeung, R.S., & Leadbeater, B.J. (2007). Does hostile attributional bias for relational
provocation mediate the short-term association between relational victimization
and aggression in preadolescence? Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 973-983.
*Yu, J.J., & Gamble, W.C. (2008). Familial correlates of overt and relational aggression
between young adolescent siblings. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 655-673.
*Zalecki, C. A., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2004). Overt and relational aggression in girls with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 33(1), 125-137.
*Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Hunter, T. A., & Pronk, R. (2007). A model of behaviors, peer
relations and depression: Perceived social acceptance as a mediator and the
divergence of perceptions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(3), 273302.
*Studies included in meta-analysis.

APPENDIX

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112