adolescents aggressive and prosocial behavior-associations with jealousy and social anxiety

21

Adolescents Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior: Associations With Jealousy and

Social Anxiety

CARMEN M. CULOTTA University of New Orleans

SARA E. GOLDSTEINMontclair State University

ABSTRACT. The authors examined how relational aggression, physical aggression, and proactive prosocial behavior were associated with jealousy and social anxiety in a diverse sample of 60 middle school students. After the authors controlled for gender and race, jeal-ousy predicted relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior, but it did not predict physical aggression. Additionally, social anxiety predicted proactive prosocial behavior. Adolescents who were more jealous in their peer relationships also tended to engage in relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior, and adolescents who were more socially anxious also tended to be proactively prosocial. The authors discuss the implica-tions of these findings and suggest directions for future research.

Keywords: jealousy, relational aggression, social anxiety, social development

A COMPLEX INTERPLAY of biological, psychological, and social factors occurs when an individual engages in a particular social behavior. With regard to aggressive behavior, it is important for researchers and practitioners to identify these factors so that effective prevention and intervention efforts can be devel-oped (e.g., Boxer, Goldstein, Musher-Eizenman, Dubow, & Heretick, 2005). Although much is known about the biopsychosocial variables that are important for the development of physical aggression, less is known about how such fac-tors contribute to the development of relational aggression, a type of aggressive

The authors thank the principal, teachers, parents, and students at the participating middle school. The authors are also grateful to Anne Crapanzano and Andrea DiBlassi for their assistance with data collection and to Linda Blanton, Carl Weems, and Paul Boxer for their helpful comments on earlier stages of the manuscript.

Address correspondence to Sara E. Goldstein, Department of Family and Child Stud-ies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA; [email protected] (e-mail).

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2008, 169(1), 2133Copyright 2008 Heldref Publications

22 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

behavior characterized by harming others through the manipulation of social relationships (e.g., Crick, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Relational aggression and victimization have been associated with a variety of psychosocial concerns such as loneliness, depression, and peer difficulties (see Underwood, 2003, for a review). Moreover, relational aggression is the type of aggression that aggres-sive females typically use when they act aggressively (sterman et al., 1998; Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004). Given these issues, additional knowledge about factors associated with relational aggression is critical for the design of gender-balanced aggression prevention and intervention programs (Boxer et al., 2005; Leff, Power, Manz, Costigan, & Nabors, 2001).

Relational aggression is both similar to and different from other types of aggressive behavior. For example, the end results of relational aggression and physical aggression are similar, in that harm is delivered. Both types of aggres-sion also share a clear intent, which is necessary for a specific behavior to be classified as aggression (Eron, 1987). Different mechanisms, however, are used to deliver harm in relational versus physical aggression. Physical aggression involves direct, physical harm such as pushing, shoving, or hitting, whereas relational aggression entails harming others through social relationships, for example, by social exclusion or by spreading a defamatory rumor (e.g., Paquette & Underwood, 1999). Researchers have noted several factors that predict both forms of aggression, such as social-cognitive factors (which we describe in greater detail later in this article). Conversely, other characteristics of relational and physical aggression are quite distinct. For example, relational aggression has unique associations with young adolescents perceived popularity, whereas physical aggression does not, suggesting that there may be something par-ticularly socially advantageous about relational aggression (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Researchers have also noted that relational aggression (and the closely related constructs of indirect aggression and social aggression; Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Garipy, 1989; Lagerspetz, Bjrkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988) represents a relatively socially sophisticated mechanism for delivering harm (e.g., Bjrkqvist, sterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992), whereas physical aggression typically involves less social sophistication. For instance, less may be at stake for the perpetrator of relational aggression. Relational aggression is not usually subject to formal rules and regulations, therefore the perpetrator is unlikely to receive punishment. Moreover, the identity of the per-petrator of relational aggression may be unknown (e.g., in the case of defama-tory gossip), making it difficult to deliver punishment even if the behavior could be punished. Last, there is often a fine line between the personal behaviors of friendship selection and termination and relational aggression (e.g., Goldstein & Tisak, 2006), thus making it unclear whether an act of aggression occurred. Nonetheless, youth typically acknowledge that clear examples of relational aggression are wrong and harmful to others (e.g., Goldstein & Tisak, 2004; Paquette & Underwood).

Culotta & Goldstein 23

Relational Aggression and Proactive Prosocial Behavior

Some evidence suggests that another form of social behavior shares simi-lar characteristics with relational aggression, in that it represents a relatively low-risk way for the perpetrator to achieve his or her particular interpersonal or material goals. Boxer, Tisak, and Goldstein (2004) suggested that a form of prosocial behavior, which they referred to as proactive prosocial behavior, is also associated with physical aggression and associated cognitions. Proactive prosocial behavior is motivated by the expectancy of a desired outcome from the behavior, whereas altruistic prosocial behavior is not motivated by a desired goal and occurs voluntarily without provocation. To illustrate, an example of proactive prosocial behavior is one girls inviting a second girl to her birthday party, only in the hope of receiving an invitation to the second girls pool. Thus, proactive prosocial behavior reflects a self-serving social cognitive style that may signify increased risk for different types of aggression. Unlike relational aggres-sion, however, proactive prosocial behavior does not carry the mean stigma and thus might be more socially acceptable. Proactive prosocial behavior, therefore, may be important for researchers to include when examining aggressive youths behavioral repertoire and when trying to identify youth for aggression treatment efforts. One limitation of Boxer et al.s study, however, was that the authors did not directly examine whether proactive prosocial behavior was positively corre-lated with relational aggression. Thus, specific ideas about similarities between proactive prosocial behavior and relational aggression still need to be tested. If proactive prosocial behavior does share similar social cognitive factors with rela-tional aggression, then this finding would be of interest for treatment providers and program developers. As we previously mentioned, measurement of proactive prosocial behavior might be a good screening device either for potential problems with relational aggression or for a social-cognitive pattern that places youth at risk for aggression.

Social-Cognitive Factors and Relational Aggression

For the purpose of prevention and intervention delivery, it is important to identify particular variables that are subject to modification through cognitive and behavioral restructuring, such as social-cognitive factors (e.g., Boxer & Dubow, 2002). In fact, social-cognitive approaches to treating aggression have been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a best practice method (Thornton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000). However, most of the research that focuses on developing and assessing aggression treatment programs concentrates on physical forms of aggressive behavior. Nonetheless, an emerg-ing line of research suggests that social-cognitive approaches may also be useful in the treatment of relational aggression (Boxer et al., 2005; Boxer, Terranova, Savoy, & Goldstein, in press).


Research shows that relationally aggressive youth, like physically aggressive youth, process social information differently than do their peers. For example, Musher-Eizenman et al. (2004) found that beliefs about the acceptability of respond-ing to provocation in a relationally aggressive manner predicted relational aggression, such that those youth who were more accepting of such responses were likely to have higher levels of relational aggression. Goldstein and Tisak (2004) reported that adolescents who expected relatively positive outcomes from relational aggression tended to have higher levels of relational aggression. Similarly, Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee (2002) found evidence for increased perceptions of hostile intent in ambigu-ous relationally provocative situations among relationally aggressive youth.

Another related factor that may be important in the processing of social infor-mation is the extent to which an individual feels jealous of his or her peers. For example, a jealous girl may observe a social interaction between her best friend and another classmate and feel a sense of betrayal or insecurity, thus increasing the likelihood of a potentially problematic chain of psychological and behavioral events. In this way, feelings of excessive jealousy within close peer relation-ships can be conceptualized as a challenge with processing social information. In support of this idea, some evidence indicates that jealousy is associated with aggression (e.g., Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992; Parker, Low, Walker, & Gamm, 2005; Puente & Cohen, 2003). However, these researchers either exam-ined aggression as a general construct or focused on aggression within romantic relationships and did not focus specifically on relational aggression within youths nonromantic peer relationships. It is important to know whether jealousy is a factor associated with relational aggression, because this is information that could potentially be integrated into intervention and prevention efforts.

Social anxiety, typically operationalized as a fear of being negatively evalu-ated or appraised in social situations, can also be conceptualized as a potential social-cognitive risk factor for aggression. Social anxiety represents a way of thinking about peer relationships that is somewhat similar to a hostile attribution-al bias, which is the tendency to attribute others intentions in ambiguous social situations to a hostile motivation. Previous research has shown that aggressive youth are more likely to have hostile attributional biases than are their peers (e.g., Crick, 1995; Dodge, 1980). Given the relationally oriented focus of social anxiety, it follows that this relationally focused negative attribution of others might predict relational aggression. There is some evidence that relationally victimized youth tend to be socially anxious (e.g., La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003). However, few researchers have specifically investigated whether social anxiety is a motivational factor for relational aggression.

The Present Study

In the present study, we examined associations between (a) jealousy and social anxiety and (b) relational aggression, physical aggression, and proactive prosocial


behavior in a sample of young adolescents. We conceptualized jealousy and social anxiety as social cognitive factors that may be associated with a propensity to engage in aggressive behavior and proactive prosocial behavior. We tested several specific hypotheses in the present study. First, we examined gender differences in study vari-ables. Based on past research on gender differences in jealousy and social anxiety (La Greca & Lopez, 1998; Parker et al., 2005), we expected that girls would have more jealousy and social anxiety than would boys. We also expected boys to engage in physical aggression more frequently than girls (e.g., Tremblay, Hartup, & Archer, 2005). On the basis of the little research available on proactive prosocial behavior and the mixed results regarding gender differences in mean levels of relational aggression (see Archer & Coyne, 2005, for a review), we did not forward formal hypotheses about gender differences in these constructs. Our second series of tests involved assessing associations among study variables. We hypothesized that jealousy and social anxiety would be associated with relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior, but not with physical aggression. We also expected relational aggression to share moder-ate correlations with physical aggression and proactive prosocial behavior.

Method

Participants

We drew the sample from a public middle school in a suburban area near a large city in the Southern United States. Sixty-four early adolescents assented to participate, but 4 male participants did not complete any answers on the survey. Thus, the final sample included 60 adolescents in grades 68 (M age = 12.52 years, SD = 1.32 years; range = 1116 years; 29 girls, 35 boys). We obtained parental consent for all participants. Participants were primarily White (43.3%), Black (23.3%), or Hispanic/Latino (23.3%).

Measures

Social anxiety. We adapted items concerning social anxiety from the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (La Greca & Lopez, 1998). On the basis of results regarding associations with gender and peer relationships reported by La Greca and Lopez, we used items based on the Social Avoidance and Distress General subscale in the present study. This subscale contained four items and focused on the extent to which adolescents experience general distress, discomfort, and inhibitions with regard to social situations. Respondents indicated how true items were using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). Reliability in the present sample was good, = .81.

Jealousy. We used the Friendship Jealousy Questionnaire (Parker et al., 2005) to assess jealousy. Each of the 15 items presented hypothetical situations


involving a best friend and a third party. Students indicated how true the state-ments were using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true of me at all) to 5 (really true of me). Reliability was good in the present sample, = .92

Prosocial behavior. We used items from the Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior Questionnaire (Boxer et al., 2004) to measure prosocial behavior. The items reported on in the present study involved proactive prosocial behavior (e.g., lend things to others to get what you want). There were 5 questions on this scale, and they focused on helping, doing a favor, sharing, lending something, and giving a compliment. For each item, respondents indicated how often they engage in the behavior using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Reliability was good for proactive prosocial behavior, = .78.

Aggression. To measure aggression, we adapted items from the Direct and Indirect Aggression Scales (Bjrkqvist et al., 1992). Additionally, we developed several new items focusing on relational aggression. The final relational aggres-sion scale had 15 items, and the physical aggression scale had 7 items. For each question, respondents indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) how often they engage in each relationally (e.g., keep other kids out of your group of friends) and physically (e.g., hit others) aggres-sive behavior. Reliability of the scales in present sample was good for relational aggression, = .90, and for physical aggression, = .89.

Procedure

Data collection took place at school in groups of 15 students or fewer. After listening to the instructions, adolescents completed the questionnaires indepen-dently. Researchers were available to answer questions. All procedures followed the ethical guidelines suggested by the American Psychological Association (2002).

Results

Preliminary Analyses: Gender Differences and Bivariate Correlations

The first series of analyses involved computing descriptive statistics and test-ing for gender differences, because gender has been identified as an important factor in many of the variables that we included in the present study. Second, we assessed bivariate correlations among all study variables.

Gender differences. We computed a series of t tests to assess gender differences in study variables. Means, standard deviations, t test results, and effect sizes are shown in Table 1. We found gender differences in two study variables. Consistent with our


hypotheses, girls, as compared with boys, reported significantly higher levels of social anxiety (girls: M = 2.02, SD = 0.96; boys: M = 1.56, SD = 0.68) and jealousy (girls: M = 2.24, SD = 0.89; boys: M = 1.69, SD = 0.79). Gender differences for relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior approached significance and also favored the girls, but we do not discuss them further in this article because the findings did not reach conventional significance levels. In contrast to our hypothesis about physical aggression, however, no gender differences were found.

Bivariate correlations. The next series of analyses involved computing bivariate correlations among study variables. These results are shown in Table 2. As indicated, several significant correlations emerged. Proactive prosocial

TABLE 1. Gender Differences Among All Scales

Gender

Male Female

Behavior M SD M SD t df d

Social anxiety 1.56 0.68 2.02 0.96 2.10* 57 .59Relational aggression 1.54 0.49 1.87 0.76 1.93+ 50 .55Physical aggression 1.50 0.57 1.74 0.85 1.24 58 .33Proactive prosocial 1.60 0.66 1.96 0.80 1.84+ 57 .49Jealousy 1.69 0.79 2.24 0.89 2.50* 57 .66

Note. Scores for social anxiety ranged from 15, with higher scores corresponding to greater social anxiety. Scores for relational aggression ranged from 15, with higher scores cor-responding to greater relational aggression. Scores for physical aggression ranged from 15, with higher scores corresponding to greater physical aggression. Scores for jealousy ranged from 15, with higher scores corresponding to greater jealousy. +p < .10. *p < .05.

TABLE 2. Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Social anxiety 2. Relational aggression .21 3. Physical aggression .13 .68** 4. Proactive prosocial .41** .70** .36** 5. Jealousy .29* .45** .17 .40**

*p < .05. **p < .01.


behavior was positively correlated with each of the other study variables. Addi-tionally, relational aggression was positively associated with physical aggression, proactive prosocial behavior, and jealousy. Adolescents who were more relation-ally aggressive also were more physically aggressive, proactively prosocial, and jealous. Physical aggression was positively correlated with proactive prosocial behavior. These results provide partial support for our hypotheses regarding asso-ciations among study variables, supporting our predicted associations between physical aggression and proactive prosocial behavior and also our expected rela-tions between relational aggression, proactive prosocial behavior, and jealousy.

Differences between relational and physical aggression. In addition to these bivariate correlations, of special interest was ascertaining whether relational aggression and physical aggression were differentially correlated with proactive prosocial behavior, jealousy, and social anxiety. If correlations between relational aggression and these constructs were significantly different from correlations between physical aggression and these constructs, then this would provide evi-dence for the distinctiveness of these constructs. To assess this issue, we tested differences between correlation coefficients for relational aggression versus physical aggression via a series of Fisher r-to-z transformations. We conducted one test for each variable (proactive prosocial behavior, jealousy, and social anxi-ety). The correlation of relational aggression with proactive prosocial behavior was significantly higher than the correlation of physical aggression with proac-tive prosocial behavior (z = 2.51, p < .01). Similarly, the correlation of relational aggression with jealousy was significantly higher than the correlation of physical aggression with jealousy (z = 1.79, p < .05). However, we found no significant difference between the correlation of relational aggression to social anxiety and the correlation of physical aggression to social anxiety (z = 0.34, ns).

Regression Models

Next, we examined how social anxiety and jealousy predicted aggressive and proactive prosocial behavior after controlling for gender and race. We conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses to address this question. Gender, race, jealousy, and social anxiety were independent variables, and relational aggres-sion, physical aggression, and proactive prosocial behavior were dependent vari-ables. We conducted one regression analysis for each dependent variable. In each analysis, we entered gender in Step 1, entered race (coded for White, Black, and Hispanic/Latino) in Step 2, and entered jealousy and social anxiety in Step 3. Results for this series of analyses are depicted in Table 3. As shown, jealousy (but not social anxiety) significantly predicted relational aggression after controlling for gender and race. Both jealousy and social anxiety predicted proactive proso-cial behavior after controlling for gender and race. Neither jealousy nor social anxiety significantly predicted physical aggression.1 These results provide further


TA

BL

E 3

. Hie

rarc

hica

l Mul

tipl

e R

egre

ssio

n A

naly

ses

for

Jeal

ousy

and

Soc

ial A

nxie

ty P

redi

ctin

g B

ehav

ior

Aft

er C

ontr

ollin

g fo

r G

ende

r an

d R

ace

Ty

pes

of b

ehav

ior

R

elat

iona

l agg

ress

ion

Phys

ical

agg

ress

ion

Proa

ctiv

e pr

osoc

ial

Step

1: G

ende

r

.

17

.05

.

11St

ep 2

: Rac

e

A

A

.15

.0

6 .0

7

E

A

.21

.

13

.20

HA

.

31

.09

.

11

R2

.06

.02

.07

Step

3: C

ogni

tive

vari

able

s

Je

alou

sy

.41*

* .1

4 .2

7*

Soci

al a

nxie

ty

.07

.06

.38*

*

R

2 .1

7**

.02

.23*

*

Fina

l R2

.31*

* .0

7 .3

6**

Not

e. F

or g

ende

r, fe

mal

e =

1, m

ale

= 2

. For

rac

e, A

A =

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an, E

A =

Eur

opea

n A

mer

ican

, HA

= H

ispa

nic/

Lat

ino;

rac

e w

as d

umm

y co

ded:

0

= n

o, 1

= y

es in

reg

ard

to w

heth

er o

r no

t the

par

ticip

ant w

as o

f th

e sp

ecif

ied

race

. Sco

res

for

jeal

ousy

ran

ged

from

15

, with

5 c

orre

spon

ding

to

grea

ter

jeal

ousy

. Sco

res

for

soci

al a

nxie

ty r

ange

d fr

om 1

5, w

ith 5

cor

resp

ondi

ng to

gre

ater

soc

ial a

nxie

ty.

* p

adolescents aggressive and prosocial behavior-associations with jealousy and social anxiety

Documents