associations between aggression, social dominance,...
TRANSCRIPT
Associations Between Aggression, Social Dominance, and Peer Acceptance:
The Role of Gender Normative Behaviors in Early Childhood Ashley M. Wander
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
Introduction
Groups are arranged from the most dominant person to least dominant person. This is based on the assumption that all individuals in a group compete with each other at the dyadic level, and the result is a hierarchical arrangement of people. Aggression can be a main component in group hierarchy formation. Aggression is broadly defined as an act that is done to cause harm to another person (Ostrov et al., 2006). Aggression can be further specified into two categories: physical aggression, which is defined as the use of physical force or the threat of physical force to hurt or harm another individual (i.e., hitting, kicking, pushing; Ostrov et al., 2006) and relational aggression, which includes rejecting or excluding a peer from a playgroup or activity (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Boys tend to be more physically aggressive and girls tend to be more relationally aggressive (Crick, 1997; Ostrov & Godleski, 2010). Aggression can and often is used to access and maintain social dominance (Pellegrini, 2008).
According to social dominance theory, social dominance is defined as the ability to access resources (Hawley, 1999). Hawley (1999) developed a model to explain how prosocial strategies (i.e., persuasion, cooperation, helping) and coercive strategies (i.e., aggression, insults, threats) affect the social adjustment in children at different ages of development. According to Hawley’s model, coercive strategies in early childhood lead to positive outcomes and in turn may lead to peer acceptance.
It is predicted that gender-normative behaviors will be associated with increases in social dominance during early childhood. The associations between children who are able to engage in the gender normative behaviors with their peers and their acquired dominance status may be impacted by the gender of the focal child. It is also predicted that gender normative behaviors will be associated with increases in peer acceptance in early childhood. This association may also be moderated by the focal child’s gender as well. The exploratory nature of the moderation models may facilitate understanding of the role the focal child’s gender has on the situation.
Participants A secondary analysis of a short-term longitudinal study was
used. This data was collected as part of the Preschool Social Development Project (Godleski, Kamper, Ostrov, Hart, & Blakley-McClure, 2013) from four schools in Amherst, NY and Buffalo, NY. This data includes ninety-seven children (55 boys) who were on average 45.22 months old (SD = 6.99). The diverse sample of children consists of 5.2% African American/Black, 12.4% Asian/Pacific Islander/Indian, 58% Caucasian/White, 2.0% Hispanic/Latino, 12.4% multi-racial background, 1.0% Native American, and 8.2% from other or unknown backgrounds. Based on parent reports of occupation, these children were from primarily middle class families.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Jamie Ostrov (Honors Thesis Advisor), Sarah Blakely-McClure, UB Social Development Lab, Families, Teachers, and Schools involved in the UB Preschool Social Development Project.
Discussion This study was conducted to examine gender-normative behaviors
and their associations with both dominance and peer acceptance. Overall, gender-normative behaviors were significantly associated with social dominance, but not peer acceptance. A child who was initially physically aggressive to a male peer, which would be consistent with the normative aggressive behavior for males, was rated as increasing in social dominance. Also consistent with my hypothesis, a child who was initially physically aggressive to a female (gender non-normative behavior), rated as decreasing in social dominance. This could mean that children, even as young as preschool aged, already understand gender stereotypes and how someone is expected to act based on his or her gender. These findings are consistent with Hawley’s model of social dominance stating that children who use coercive strategies, such as aggression, receive positive feedback from peers (Hawley, 1999). The study expanded on the current theory by including gender and both forms of aggression in the regression model, which was not included in Hawley’s model (Hawley, 1999). Future research is necessary to expand on this literature and explore if these behaviors stay constant in various populations. Some findings are inconsistent with Hawley’s model and this may be due to the the age of the sample and the concurrent transition during this time. Future research should examine this further.
Method Measures
Observations of aggression. Each child was observed for a total of 80 minutes at each time point (160 minutes in total). During each observation, the focal child was observed for physical aggression to a male peer, physical aggression to a female peer, relational aggression to a male peer, relational aggression to a female peer, prosocial behaviors, and if they received any of the aforementioned behaviors. The gender of any child who interacted with the focal child was recorded
Research assistant ratings of behavior. After all observations were collected at each time point, observer report packets were completed to assess each child’s social dominance. The validity of this method has been supported in past studies (Murray-Close & Ostrov, 2009).
Research assistant ratings of social dominance. Research assistants completed the Ratings of Resource Control and Influence Among Peers measure (Hawley, 2003) at each time point. At both time points, Cronbach’s α’s > .80 for this measure.
Teacher Ratings of Peer Acceptance. The Preschool Social Behavior Scale- Teacher Form (PSBS-TF; Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997) was used to assess peer acceptance. This measure has shown acceptable reliability and validity in the past literature (Crick et al., 1997). Cronbach’s α’s > .80 for this measure at both time points.
Procedure The present study was approved by the university’s
Institutional Review Board. The parents of each participant gave written consent for their child before the study began. Observations lasted approximately two months at each time point with a 3.5 month break in between time 1 and time 2.
The teachers gave written consent before they began completing their questionnaire packet. Close to the end of the semester, when about half of the observations had already taken place, the teacher report packets were distributed.
Results Descriptive Statistics
Preliminary findings indicated that both social dominance and peer acceptance were stable across time. Consistent with the key hypothesis, being relationally aggressive to a female at time 1 showed significant associations with dominance at time 1. Physical aggression to a female at time 1 also showed significant associations with dominance at time 1. Regarding peer acceptance, being physically aggressive to a female at time 2 was associated with a lack of peer acceptance at both time 1 and time 2. Hierarchical Regression Models
In Model 1, which was significant, hierarchical regression was run to test if gender-normative aggressive behaviors at time 1 predicted social dominance at time 2. Peer acceptance and dominance at time 1 were both controlled for in step 1 along with gender. Consistent with the initial hypothesis, at step two, physical aggression to a male at time 1 was significantly associated with social dominance ratings at time 2. Thus, the children who initially used physical aggression with a male peer were rated as increasing in social dominance over time. Also consistent with the hypothesis, physical aggression to a female was negatively associated with social dominance at time 2. Thus, the students who were initially physically aggressive to a female peer were rated as decreasing in social dominance over time. Relational aggression to a female however, was inconsistent with the hypothesis given that it was not significant. Interestingly, relational aggression to a male did show positive associations with social dominance at time 2. Thus, the students who were initially relationally aggressive to a male peer were rated as increasing in social dominance. The hierarchal regression also revealed that the associations were not moderated by the gender of the focal child and thus are not discussed further. These findings support the contention that gender-normative behaviors do impact social dominance.
The second hierarchical regression model assessed if gender-normative behaviors at time 1 were associated with peer acceptance at time 2. This model however, was not significant.
Table 1. Correlations among aggression, peer acceptance, and dominance
Table 2 Associations between aggression at time 1, dominance at time 2, and peer acceptance at time 2
Note: PAcc = peer acceptance, DOM = social dominance, PAGG = physical aggression, RAGG = relational aggression, M= male, F= female, TR = teacher report, OBS = observations, T1= time 1, T2= time 2 *p < .05, **p< .001
Note: For ease of communication, the range is presented with whole numbers rather than the true values reflecting modification due to outliers. PAcc = peer acceptance, DOM = social dominance, PAGG = physical aggression, RAGG = relational aggression, M= male, F= female, T1= time 1, T2= time 2 *p < .05, **p< .001
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. T1 PAGG M X 2. T1 PAGG F .22* X 3. T1 RAGG M .21* .03 X 4. T1 RAGG F -.00 .10 .02 X 5. T1 PAcc -.27** -.05 .00 -.05 X 6. T1 DOM .20 .29** .11 .35** -.17 X 7. T2 PAGG M .37** .02 .06 .03 .07 .15 X 8. T2 PAGG F .21 .26* .07 .26* -.24* .17 .10 X 9. T2 RAGG M -.03 -.14 .06 .11 .06 .20 .20 .21 X 10. T2 RAGG F -.12 -.08 .11 .20 -.07 .05 -.17 .22* .45** X 11. T2 PAcc -.17 .04 .07 -.05 .56** .09 .07 -.24* -.01 -.10 X 12. T2 DOM .22 -.21 .33** -.04 .14 .27* .19 .04 .37** .14 .01 X 13. Gender -.30** -.03 .15 .08 -.01 .11 .33** .11 .12 .09 .07 -.05 M .78 .32 .23 .20 4.04 2.78 .72 .32 .31 .16 3.93 2.56 SD 1.20 .68 .49 .54 .86 .66 1.15 .68 .70 .40 .96 .74 Range 0-5 0-3 0-2 0-3 2-5 1-4 0-5 0-3 0-3 0-2 1-5 1-5
Outcome, Step & Predictors
β F, ΔF R2 ΔR2
Model 1: DOM TR T2 1. Gender PAcc TR T1 DOM TR T1 2. PAGG M OBS T1 PAGG F OBS T1 RAGG M OBS T1 RAGG F OBS T1 Model 2: PAcc TR T2 1. Gender PAcc TR T1 DOM TR T1 2. PAGG M OBS T1 PAGG F OBS T1 RAGG M OBS T1 RAGG F OBS T1
-0.10 0.19 0.31
0.25*
-0.38** 0.29* -0.10
0.05 0.59**
0.19
-0.05 0.02 0.04 -0.05
F(3, 77) = 3.39 p < .05
ΔF(4, 73) =7.69 p< .001
F(3, 77) = 13.72 p < .001
ΔF(4, 73) = 0.12, ns
0.12
0.35
0.26
0.00