AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 29, pages 430–439 (2003)

Relational Aggression in College Students:

Examining the Roles of Social Anxiety and
Empathy
Jesse L. Loudin,1 Alexandra Loukas,1n and Sheri Robinson2
1
Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
2
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
This study examined the unique contributions of social anxiety and empathy to relational aggression in
300 19–to–25–year–old (M = 21.25; SD = 1.32) male (n = 97) and female (n = 203) college students
using hierarchical linear regression analysis. The interactive relations between gender and social
anxiety, and between gender and empathy, were also assessed. In addition to the gender and overt
aggression covariates, fear of negative evaluation and perspective taking were unique predictors of
relational aggression. Males, students who were more overtly aggressive, and those who reported
greater fear of negative evaluation were more relationally aggressive than were peers. Students with
higher levels of perspective taking reported using less relational aggression than did peers. A gender x
empathetic concern interaction indicated that for males only, lower levels of empathetic concern were
associated with higher levels of relational aggression. Results are discussed within a social information-
processing perspective. Aggr. Behav. 29:430–439, 2003. r 2003 Wiley–Liss, Inc.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Key words: relational aggression; indirect aggression; college students; social anxiety; empathy

INTRODUCTION
Females traditionally have been viewed as less aggressive than males [see Björkqvist, 1994].
A growing body of research, however, indicates that females may be just as aggressive as their
male counterparts, but the quality or form of aggression typical of females differs from that
of their male peers. Females tend to use non-physical forms of aggression, such as indirect
aggression [Björkqvist et al., 1992], social aggression [Galen and Underwood, 1997], or
relational aggression [Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Crick, 1996].
Indirect aggression is defined as harming others through covert or circuitous means
[Björkqvist et al., 1992]. Covert behaviors, such as gossiping or rumor spreading, are
intended to maximize the perpetrator’s anonymity and minimize threat of retaliation. Galen

n
Correspondence to: Alexandra Loukas, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, University of Texas at
Austin, Bellmont Hall 222, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: alexandra.loukas@mail.utexas.edu
Received 25 September 2001; amended version accepted 25 April 2002
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.10039

r 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 Relational Aggression in College Students 431

and Underwood [1997] defined social aggression as damaging another’s self-esteem, social
status, or both. Proponents of social aggression argue that hurtful behaviors may be indirect,
such as spreading rumors, but they also may be direct, such as making negative facial
expressions or body movements [see Underwood et al., 2001]. Similarly, relational aggression
may be indirect or direct and is characterized by harming others through purposeful
manipulation of and damage to interpersonal relationships, such as by excluding peers from a
group [Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Crick, 1996].
There is some debate regarding how similar indirect, relational, and social aggression really
are, as well as which term best captures the subtle harmful behaviors characteristic of females
[see Björkqvist, 2001; Underwood et al., 2001]. Recent findings also question gender
differences in these forms of aggression. Although some studies show that young girls are
more likely than boys to use relational as well as indirect aggression [Björkqvist, 1994; Crick
and Grotpeter, 1995; Crick, 1996], others report no gender differences among children,
adolescents, or adults [Richardson and Green, 1999; Rys and Bear, 1997; Walker et al., 2000]
and one study shows that 17–year old males are more indirectly aggressive than are female
peers [Lindeman et al., 1997].
Researchers agree, however, that these non-physical forms of aggression can be just as
hurtful to their victims as is physical aggression [see Underwood et al., 2001]. Moreover,
studies with children, and one study with young adults, have demonstrated that elevated levels
of relational aggression - the form of aggression examined in the current study - are associated
with poorer interpersonal functioning and psychological maladjustment [Crick and Grotpeter,
1995; Werner and Crick, 1999]. Werner and Crick [1999] found that among a sample of
sorority and fraternity members, peer-rated relational aggression was associated with higher
levels of peer rejection and lower levels of prosocial behavior, more antisocial personality
features, more borderline personality features, and among females, more bulimic symptoms.
Despite evidence that relational aggression has implications for individual and
interpersonal functioning, little effort has been directed at examining the factors that may
contribute to its use, particularly among young adults. The purpose of the current study was
to extend existing research by examining the processes involved in relational aggression in a
sample of male and female college students. The guiding framework of the study was a social
information-processing one [see Crick and Dodge, 1994]. From this perspective, elevated
levels of relational aggression result, in part, from how individuals perceive and interpret
others’ behaviors and intentions. Individuals who make hostile attributions regarding peer
intentions, even when none are actually intended, may be highly likely to use aggressive
means to retaliate. With respect to relational aggression, Crick [1995] showed that
relationally aggressive children tend to hold hostile attribution biases similar to those
displayed by their overtly aggressive peers. Unlike the attributions of overtly aggressive
children, however, attribution biases of relationally aggressive children are displayed in
response to relational conflict situations (e.g., subject not invited to birthday party) and not
to instrumental ones (e.g., subject’s property destroyed).
Dispositional empathy is one individual difference variable that may contribute to
individual attributions. Defined as the reaction of one individual to the observed experiences
of another, dispositional empathy is a multidimensional construct that has both an affective/
emotional component and a cognitive component [Davis, 1983]. The affective component
(empathetic concern) is characterized by the tendency to experience feelings of sympathy or
concern toward unfortunate others, whereas the cognitive component (perspective taking) of
empathy reflects the ability to understand another’s perspective [Davis, 1983]. Both the
432 Loudin et al.

cognitive and affective components have been associated with positive individual adjustment
and interpersonal functioning [Davis, 1983; Miller and Eisenberg, 1988].
Prior research has shown that empathy mitigates or lessens the likelihood of aggressive
behaviors [Carlo et al., 1999; Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Miller and Eisenberg, 1988].
Kaukiainen and her colleagues [1999] found that school-aged children with higher levels of
perspective taking were less physically, verbally, and indirectly aggressive. Carlo and his
colleagues [1999] showed that sympathy, comprised of empathetic concern and perspective
taking, mitigated the display of physically aggressive behaviors by early adolescent girls and
boys. Similarly, Mehrabian [1997] reported that among college students, the emotional
component of empathy was negatively related to aggression and violence.
Social anxiety also may influence individual attributions and is an important factor for
understanding adult interpersonal behavior and psychological adjustment [Leary and
Kowalski, 1995]. Defined as fearing negative evaluation and/or avoiding being with others
for any reason [Watson and Friend, 1969], social anxiety is not uncommon among
community samples of individuals [Burke and Stephens, 1999; Purdon et al., 2001]. Purdon
and her colleagues [2001], for instance, reported that almost all college students participating
in their study reported experiencing some symptoms of social anxiety from time to time.
Social anxiety may inhibit the development of positive interpersonal relationships [La Greca,
2001; Watson and Friend, 1969] and is linked to increased levels of depression and substance
use [Burke and Stephens, 1999; Leary and Kowalski, 1995]. According to Watson and Friend
[1969], individuals higher in social anxiety often are preoccupied with seeking approval because
of a need to avoid disapproval. Such individuals tend to avoid social situations. However,
when in the company of others, they tend to be overly concerned with others’ evaluations of
them. Because they are likely to assume that their actions are being negatively evaluated [Clark
and Wells, 1995; Purdon et al., 2001; Watson and Friend, 1969], individuals high in social
anxiety may be more likely than peers to use aggressive means to retaliate.
In sum, the current study aimed to extend existing research by assessing the roles of social
anxiety and empathy in the relationally aggressive behaviors of male and female college
students. Given the conflicting findings regarding gender differences in non-physical forms of
aggression, the role of gender in relational aggression was also assessed. In addition to
examining the main effect of gender, two-way interactions between gender and empathy and
between gender and social anxiety were examined to determine whether these relations
differed across males and females. Moreover, because previous research has shown that
individuals who are relationally aggressive also are overtly aggressive [Kaukiainen et al.,
1999; Werner and Crick, 1999], overt aggression was included as a covariate. Based on social
information processing theory, we hypothesized that higher levels of empathy would predict
lower levels of relational aggression whereas higher levels of social anxiety would be
associated with elevated levels of relational aggression.

METHODS
Participants
Participants were 3001 19–to–25–year–old (M = 21.25; SD = 1.32) students enrolled in
upper division health education and educational psychology classes at a large southwestern
1
Although 316 students participated in this study, age was missing for 16 students. Because listwise deletion is used in
linear regression analyses, the 16 cases were removed and all analyses were based on data from 300 participants.
 Relational Aggression in College Students 433

university. Sixty–eight percent of the students were female, 65.6% were non-Hispanic white,
14.4% were Hispanic, 13.7% were Asian, 4.5% were African American, 0.3% were Native
American and 1.7% reported another ethnicity. An 81–item self-report questionnaire assessing
the constructs listed below as well as several other measures was completed by students in
large group sessions. Students earned extra-credit points for participating in the study.

Measures
Overt aggression. The overt aggression covariate was assessed using an adapted version
of Crick’s [1996] 3–item peer nomination measure of aggression. Items were adapted for self-
report by modifying the wording of each item and asking students to rate how likely they
were to engage in each of the behaviors. Items were scored on a 5–point scale ranging from 0
(Not very likely) to 4 (Very likely) and were summed so that higher scores reflect more overt
aggression. Internal consistency of the 3–item scale was .60.
Dispositional empathy. Empathy was measured by two subscales from Davis’ [1980]
multidimensional Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). The IRI is a 28–item self-report
questionnaire comprised of four subscales (7 items each); perspective taking, fantasy,
empathetic concern, and personal distress. Only the Perspective Taking (PT) and Empathetic
Concern (EC) subscales were used. The PT subscale reflects the cognitive component of
empathy and assesses the ability to spontaneously adopt the viewpoint of others, whereas EC
reflects the affective/emotional component of empathy and assesses the tendency to
experience warmth, concern, and compassion for others. Students rated each item on a
scale ranging from 0 (Not at all like me) to 4 (Very much like me) and items were summed so
that higher scores reflect greater PT and more EC. Davis [1983] reported that all four
subscales have satisfactory internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities. Internal
consistency alphas for the present sample were .80 for PT and .82 for EC.
Social anxiety. Select items from Watson and Friend’s [1969] Social-Evaluative Anxiety
(SEA) scale were used to assess social anxiety. The SEA is comprised of two subscales; Social
Avoidance and Distress (SAD; 28 items) and Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE; 30 items).
For purposes of the current study, seven items assessed SAD (e.g., ‘‘I am usually nervous
with people unless I know them well’’) and ten items assessed FNE (e.g., ‘‘I usually worry
about what kind of impression I will make’’). The original 2–point scale (True/False) was
adapted for the current study by using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (Not at all like me) to 4
(Very much like me) for each of the items. Items were summed and higher scores reflect more
social anxiety. Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of the SAD and FNE subscales in the
current study were .90 and .79, respectively.
Relational aggression. Relational aggression was assessed using a 7–item scale adapted
from Werner and Crick’s [1999] peer-nomination scale. The scale was adapted by modifying
the wording of the items so that students could self-report how likely they were to engage in
each of the seven behaviors. A self-report format was used because it allows the collection of
information regarding hidden or concealed activities directly from the person who is most
aware of those behaviors [see Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Richardson and Green, 1999].
Moreover, because the individual behaviors often vary across contexts or situations, self-
reports likely reflect the full repertoire of behaviors whereas peer reports may be limited to
behaviors specific to particular contexts. Items were scored on a scale ranging from 0 (Very
likely) to 4 (Not very likely) and were summed so that higher scores reflect more relational
aggression. Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of the seven items was .69.
434 Loudin et al.

RESULTS
Prior to testing study hypotheses, preliminary analyses assessed differences between white
and non-white students on all study variables. The very sensitive Box’s M test was used to
examine the homogeneity of covariance matrices of the study variables across the two groups
[see Tabachnik and Fidell, 2001]. Results showed that the two groups did not differ in their
covariance matrices [Box’s M = 47.12; F(36, 142953) = 1.27, P = .13]. Thus, data were
combined and subsequent analyses were conducted without consideration of ethnicity.
Tables I and II report the Pearson product moment correlations, means, and standard
deviations for all study variables for females and males, respectively. Zero-order correlations
showed that relational aggression was significantly associated with PT and FNE. Students
endorsing lower levels of perspective taking reported engaging in more relational aggression,
as did students reporting greater fear of negative evaluation. For males only, EC was
marginally negatively associated with relational aggression. Moreover, relational aggression
was positively associated with overt aggression for both males and females. Although the
relationship between the two forms of aggression appeared to be stronger for females than it
was for males, a Fisher r-to-z transformation test demonstrated no significant gender
differences in the magnitude of the effects (z = 1.62).
Hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to test the study hypotheses and
assess the unique effects of dispositional empathy and social anxiety on college student
relational aggression. Two-way interactions between gender and each of the main effects
assessed whether gender moderated the relationships between empathy and relational
aggression and between social anxiety and relational aggression. Variables were entered in

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for All Study Variables for Females (n = 203)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean SD

1. Age — .03 .05 .03 .05 .01 .04 21.19 1.29

2. Overt Aggression — .16n .28nnn .06 .02 .46nnn 4.33 2.05
3. Empathetic Concern — .54nnn .11 .15n .08 23.24 3.84
4. Perspective Taking — .13+ .01 .28nnn 19.50 4.70
5. Social Avoidance and Distress — .48nnn .03 14.04 6.40
6. Fear of Negative Evaluation — .16n 20.88 7.61
7. Relational Aggression — 5.82 3.14
+
po.07. npo.05. nnn
po.001.

Table II. Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Males (n = 97)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean SD

l. Age — .14 .01 .03 .03 .15 .03 21.37 1.38

2. Overt Aggression — .05 .09 .14 .04 .28nn 5.08 2.50
3. Empathetic Concern — .35nnn . 03 .03 .19+ 20.60 4.23
4. Perspective Taking — .01 .17 .27nn 18.56 4.16
5. Social Avoidance & Distress — .13 .12 15.81 4.58
6. Fear of Negative Evaluation — .24n 19.12 6.30
7. Relational Aggression — 7.39 4.00
+
p.o.06. np.o.05. nn
po.01. nnn
po.001.
 Relational Aggression in College Students 435

4 steps. Student age, gender, and overt aggression covariates were entered in step 1. The two
components of empathy (EC and PT) and the two social anxiety indicators (SAD and FNE)
were entered in steps 2 and 3, respectively. Order of entry was based on theory and previous
research showing that individuals who accurately interpret the intentions/behaviors of others
have more rewarding interpersonal experiences [Davis, 1980] and should, therefore, report
lower levels of social anxiety. To assess the effects of social anxiety independent of empathy,
EC and PT were entered in step 2 whereas SAD and FNE were entered in step 3. Variance
Inflation Factors (VIFs) were examined to assess whether multicollinearity among the main
effect variables unduly influenced the resulting beta coefficients. A VIF larger than 10 is an
indication of multicollinearity [Neter et al., 1990].
Each two-way interaction between gender and one main effect (e.g., gender x EC) was
entered separately in step 4. Interaction terms were created by calculating the product of the
centered main effect (e.g., SAD centered) and gender (scored as 0 = male; 1 = female). Main
effect variables were centered to avoid nonessential multicollinearity [see Aiken and West,
1991]. Because only the gender x empathetic concern interaction was significant, all other
interactions were trimmed from the model and are not discussed further.
Table III reports the standardized beta coefficients and change in R-squares. Results from
the final model (without interaction; see step 3) showed that even after the variance
associated with the covariates was accounted for, PT and FNE were unique predictors of
relational aggression. Males, individuals who were more overtly aggressive, and those
students who were more likely to fear negative evaluation reported higher levels of relational
aggression than did peers. In comparison to their counterparts, students reporting higher
levels of perspective taking scored lower on relational aggression. Variance Inflation Factors
ranged from 1.01 for age to 1.47 for EC indicating that multicollinearity did not influence the
resulting beta coefficients.
Follow-up analyses were conducted to determine the nature of the significant interaction
between EC and gender (see step 4). As recommended by Aiken and West [1991], separate
regressions were calculated for males and females high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD
below the mean) in EC. Results showed that although EC was not significantly related to
relational aggression for females (beta = .06, P = .45), the relationship between EC and

Table III. Standardized Beta Coefficients and Change in R-Squares for the Associations Between
Empathy, Social Anxiety, and Relational Aggression (n = 300)
Standardized Beta

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

2 2 2
Beta DR Beta DR Beta DR Beta DR2

Age .05 .18nnn .05 .04nnn .04 .03nn .04 .01n

Gendera .15nn .14nn .16nn .14n
Overt Aggression .38nnn .33nnn .34nnn .35nnn
Empathetic Concern .00 .04 .18
Perspective Taking .20nnn .18nn .20nnn
Social Avoidance and Distress .07 .06
Fear of Negative Evaluation .20nnn .19nnn
Gender x Empathetic Concern .18n
a
Gender coded 0 = male/1 = female.
n
po.05. nnp.o .01.nnnp.o.001.
436 Loudin et al.

Fig. 1. Examining the gender x high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) empathetic concern
interaction.

relational aggression was negative and significant for males (beta = .18, P = .05).
Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 1, males low in EC (m = 7.21) scored higher on relational
aggression than did their female peers (m = 5.36) (beta = .25, Po.001). Mean levels of
relational aggression did not differ for males (m = 5.99) and females (m = 5.80) high in EC
(beta = .03, P = .75). These results indicate that for males only, low levels of empathetic
concern exacerbate risk for relational aggression.

DISCUSSION
Results of the current research further our understanding of the processes involved in the
use of relational aggression among college students by demonstrating that empathy and
social anxiety contribute uniquely to this form of aggression. In particular, results showed
that students who feared negative evaluation and those students with poorer perspective
taking skills were more likely than their peers to use relationally aggressive behaviors.
Additionally, males reporting less empathetic concern were more likely than other males to
exhibit relational aggression.
Higher levels of perspective taking were associated with less relational aggression
corroborating previous research showing that perspective taking mitigates or lessens the
likelihood of aggressive behaviors [Carlo et al., 1999; Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Mehrabian,
1997]. Because individuals with better perspective taking skills are likely to comprehend how
others might feel when harm is directed at them, they may be less likely than peers to
intentionally hurt others. In contrast, individuals with poorer perspective taking skills tend to
make faulty and often hostile attributions regarding others’ intentions [e.g., Crick, 1995].
Consequently, such individuals are more likely than their counterparts to retaliate against
others.
 Relational Aggression in College Students 437

Males low in empathetic concern also showed elevated levels of relational aggression.
According to Davis [1980], individuals low in empathetic concern may not vicariously
experience the negative emotions associated with harming others. It may be for this reason,
therefore, that males who are low in this component of empathy are more likely than their
peers to hurt others. Unexpectedly, empathetic concern was not associated with relational
aggression for female participants. In fact, the zero-order relationship between EC and
relational aggression was not significant and the mean relational aggression scores for women
high and low in EC did not differ (see Fig. 1). Perhaps because females have substantially
stronger socialization pressures to express feelings of concern toward others than do males
[Zahn-Waxler et al., 1993], the EC construct cannot differentiate between young women who
are high and low on relational aggression, as it does for young men. Alternatively, it is
possible that strong socialization pressures influence how women respond to items addressing
empathetic concern. Given the single-rater nature of the current study, it was not possible to
determine whether social desirability influenced female responses. Rather, further studies
using a variety of methods to assess empathy, including reporting individual responses to
hypothetical stories (i.e., story method) [see Miller and Eisenberg, 1988] are needed to explore
the role of socialization and social desirability in self-reports of empathy.
Results further showed that male and female students who reported greater fear of
negative evaluation exhibited higher levels of relational aggression. Consistent with theory
and expectation, individuals who believe they are being negatively evaluated, whether or not
they really are, may be likely to use aggressive behaviors as a means of retaliation [e.g.,
Dodge and Crick, 1990; Crick, 1995]. Because certain relationally aggressive behaviors
minimize direct confrontation and maximize anonymity (e.g., spreading rumors), this form of
aggression may be especially likely to be used by those who fear subsequent disapproval.
Although speculative, it is possible that individuals who fear negative evaluation use
relationally aggressive behaviors to deflect criticism/disapproval by focusing attention on the
weaknesses of others [Watson and Friend, 1969]. Another possibility is that such individuals
maintain the approval of a few select friends by excluding from their peer group precisely
those individuals from whom they fear negative evaluation. Interestingly, Grotpeter and
Crick [1996] reported that relationally aggressive children tended to demand that their friends
play only with them while excluding other classmates from their group. The authors
suggested that by doing so, relationally aggressive children maintained control over select
friendships.
Finally, relational aggression may precede or lead to more fears of negative evaluation.
Because relationally aggressive individuals are likely to be rejected by their peers [Werner and
Crick, 1999], they may begin to expect negative evaluation and therefore fear its subsequent
occurrence. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, it was not possible to determine the
temporal relation between social anxiety and relational aggression. Longitudinal studies are
needed to disentangle these possibilities and assess the unfolding of these processes.
In contrast to research by Crick and her colleagues [Crick, 1995; Crick and Grotpeter,
1995] showing that young girls are more relationally aggressive than boys, current findings
showed that male college students reported using more relational aggression than did their
female peers. Variability in findings across studies may be due to methodological differences
including differences in reporter (peer-report vs. self-report) and in the age of study
participants (children vs. young adults). Current findings are not completely unexpected,
however, and are consistent with findings reported by Lindeman et al. [1997] that 17–year old
males are more indirectly aggressive than are female peers. These findings also are consistent
438 Loudin et al.

with threat models of aggression [see Björkvist, 1994; Richardson and Green, 1999], which
indicate that because men are more likely than women to perceive threat in their interactions with
others, they also are more likely to use any form of aggression available to them for retaliation.
Others have suggested that as individuals grow older, they tend to use forms of aggression
that maximize the effect-danger ratio [Björkqvist, 1994; Walker et. al., 2000]. That is,
individuals increasingly use aggressive strategies that maximize the effect of the aggressive act
and minimize the danger involved. Consistent with this perspective, prior research has shown
that as individuals enter adulthood they exhibit fewer physically aggressive behaviors and
importantly, begin to increasingly use non-physical forms of aggression [Björkqvist et al.,
1992; Osterman et al., 1998; Richardson and Green, 1999]. When considered together, the
threat and effect-danger ratio models support the contention that young adult males are
more relationally aggressive than are their female peers.
Although the current study extends the existing research on aggression by demonstrating
the contributions of empathy and social anxiety to relational aggression among college
students, there are some limitations. First, relational aggression was assessed via self-report
primarily because certain relationally aggressive behaviors are covert and therefore
necessarily hidden from observers [Richardson and Green, 1999]. However, the single-rater
nature of the design and the effects of shared method variance give rise to the possibility that
the obtained relations are inflated. Prior to drawing firm conclusions from the current study,
findings should be replicated with information from multiple sources including the
perpetrators and their victims.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow temporal precedence to be
established. It is not clear whether empathy and social anxiety precede relational aggression
or if relational aggression leads to lower levels of empathy and increased social anxiety.
Further studies examining the pattern of these relations longitudinally are needed.
Longitudinal studies beginning in childhood and spanning across adolescence and early
adulthood also are needed to determine whether relational aggression is stable across
development and whether this form of aggression replaces other, more overt types of
aggressive behaviors [Björkqvist, 1994; Walker et al., 2000]. Continuity of relational
aggression could have implications for intervention strategies and would indicate that such
behaviors should be targeted early in development.
In summary, current findings underscore the importance of empathy and social anxiety in
the relationally aggressive behaviors of college students. In particular, analyses indicate that
low levels of empathetic concern (for males only), deficits in perspective taking skills, and fear
of negative evaluation may be especially likely to be linked to the use of this form of
aggression. Given the current findings, further research assessing the role of these individual
difference variables in the use of relational aggression by younger populations is warranted.

REFERENCES
Aiken LS, West SG. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, PA:
Sage.
Björkqvist K. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbal,
and indirect aggression: A review of recent research.
Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 30:177–212.
Björkqvist K. 2001. Different names, same issue. Social
Development 10: 272–274.
Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiainen A. 1992. Do
girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental
trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression.
Aggr Behav 18:117–127.
Burke RS, Stephens RS. 1999. Social anxiety and
drinking in college students: A social cognitive
theory analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 5:513–530.
Carlo G, Raffaelli M, Laible DJ, Meyer KA. 1999. Why
 Relational Aggression in College Students
are girls less physically aggressive than boys?
Personality and parenting mediators of physical
aggression. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research
40:711–729.
Clark DM, Wells A. 1995. A cognitive model of social
phobia. In: Heimberg RG, Liebowitz MR, Hope
DA, Schneier FR, editors. Social phobia: Diagnosis,
assessment and treatment. New York: Guilford
Press. p 69–93.
Crick NR. 1995. Relational aggression: The role of
intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provoca-
tion type. Dev Psychopathol 7: 313–322.
Crick NR. 1996. The role of overt aggression, relational
aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction
of children’s future social adjustment. Child Dev
67:2317–2327.
Crick NR, Dodge KA. 1994. A review and reformula-
tion of social information-processing mechanisms in
children’s social adjustment. Psychol Bull 115:
74–101.
Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. 1995. Relational aggression,
gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child
Dev 66:710–722.
Davis MH. 1980. A multidimensional approach to
individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology 10: 85.
Davis MH. 1983. Measuring individual differences in
empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
J Pers Soc Psychol 44:113–126.
Galen BR, Underwood MK. 1997. A developmental
investigation of social aggression among children.
Dev Psychol 33: 589–600.
Grotpeter JK, Crick NR. 1996. Relational aggression,
overt aggression, and friendship. Child Dev 67:
2328–2338.
Kaukiainen A, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Osterman
K, Salmivalli C, Rothberg S, Ahlbom A. 1999. The
relationships between social intelligence, empathy,
and three types of aggression. Aggr Behav 25:81–89.
La Greca AM. 2001. Friends or foes? Peer influences on
anxiety among children and adolescents. In: Silver-
man WK, Treffers PDA, editors. Anxiety disorders
in children and adolescents: Research, assessment,
and intervention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. p 159–187.
Leary MR, Kowalski RM. 1995. Social anxiety. New
York: Guilford Press.
439
Lindeman M, Harakka T, Keltikangas-Jarvinen L.
1997. Age and gender differences in adolescents’
reactions to conflict situations: Aggression, prosoci-
ality and withdrawal. J Youth Adolesc 26:339–352.
Mehrabian A. 1997. Relations among personality scales
of aggression, violence, and empathy: Validational
evidence bearing on the risk of eruptive violence
scale. Aggr Behav 23:433–445.
Miller PA, Eisenberg N. 1988. The relation of empathy
to aggressive and externalizing/ antisocial behavior.
Psychol Bull 103:324–344.
Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH. 1990. Applied
linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of
variance, and experimental design, third edition.
Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Osterman K, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiai-
nen A, Landau SF, Fraczek A, Caprara GV. 1998.
Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression.
Aggr Behav 24:1–8.
Purdon C, Antony M, Monteiro S, Swinson RP. 2001.
Social anxiety in college students. Anxiety Disorders
15:203–215.
Richardson DR, Green LR. 1999. Social sanction and
threat explanations of gender effects on direct and
indirect aggression. Aggr Behav 25:425–434.
Rys GS, Bear GG. 1997. Relational aggression and peer
relations: Gender and developmental issues. Merrill
Palmer Q 43:87–106.
Tabachnik BG, Fidell LS. 2001. Using multivariate
statistics, fourth edition. Allyn and Bacon Needham
Heights, MA: A Pearson Education Company.
Underwood MK, Galen BR, Paquette JA. 2001. Top ten
challenges for understanding gender and aggression
in children: Why can’t we all just get along? Social
Development 10: 248–266.
Walker S, Richardson DR, Green LR. 2000. Aggression
among older adults: The relationship of interaction
networks and gender role to direct and indirect
responses. Aggr Behav 26: 145–154.
Watson D, Friend R. 1969. Measurement of social-
evaluative anxiety. J Consult Clin Psychol 33:448–457.
Werner NE, Crick NR. 1999. Relational aggression and
social-psychological adjustment in a college sample.
J Abnorm Psychol 108:615–623.
Zahn-Waxler C, Robinson, JL, Emde, RN. 1993. The
development of empathy in twins. Dev Psychol
28:1038–1047.
Copyright of Aggressive Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.