AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
Volume 32, pages 294–307 (2006)
‘‘We’re Not Friends Anymore! Unlessy’’:
The Frequency and Harmfulness of Indirect,
Relational, and Social Aggression
Sarah M. Coyne, John Archer, and Mike Eslea
Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
The frequency of items of indirect, relational, social, verbal, and physical aggression was assessed in the school environment of 422
adolescents, using the Indirect/Social/Relational Aggression scale (ISRA), a measure that combined items from indirect,
relational, and social aggression research. We also assessed the perceived harmfulness of each item. Comparing these findings with
the occurrence of aggression on television, we found that adolescents were exposed to nearly 10 times more indirect, relational, and
social aggression on television than they are in school. Overall, there was no sex difference in the amount of aggression reported by
boys and girls. However, when examining specific items, girls reported more gossiping and boys more hitting. Girls perceived
indirect, direct relational, and verbal aggression as more harmful than did boys. Limited evidence was found for a distinction
between indirect, relational, and social aggression, although it was clear that they were more similar than different. Aggr. Behav.
32:294–307, 2006. r 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Keywords: indirect aggression; relational aggression; social aggression; television; sex differences
INTRODUCTION
‘‘Hey, did you hear the news about Alicia?’’
‘‘Ew! Don’t hang out with him! He’s so gross!’’
‘‘We’re not friends anymore! Unlessy’’
These quotes are all examples of manipulative and
often covert forms of behavior known as indirect,
relational, or social aggression. These forms of
behavior have been found to be very emotionally
harmful to victims. Victims of indirect, relational,
and social aggression have been found to be more
depressed, anxious, lonely, and to have more
negative thoughts in a variety of categories, including
physical appearance, romantic appeal, global selfworth, and close friendships [e.g., Craig, 1998; Eslea,
2005; Henington et al., 1998; Paquette and Underwood, 1999], although it should be noted that the
relationship between victimization and these attributes may be bi-directional. These hurtful behaviors
occur frequently, especially in adolescent girls’ social
groups [e.g., Crick et al., 1999]. Although there may
be subtle differences between indirect, relational, and
social aggression [Archer, 2001], in a review of the
r 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
relevant research [Archer and Coyne, 2005], we
argued that they are much more similar than they are
different, and suggest ways in which the three terms
can be integrated into one research area.
Indirect Aggression
One major feature of indirect aggression, according to the Finnish research team which originally
examined it, is that ‘‘the aggressor may remain
unidentified, thereby avoiding both counterattack
from the target and disapproval by others’’ [Lagerspetz et al., 1988, p 404]. The defining feature of
indirect aggression is that harm is delivered circuitously, in a covert manner [Björkqvist et al., 1992c].
Examples of indirect aggression include gossiping,
spreading rumors, writing nasty notes to others, and
trying to get others to exclude a group member.
Indirect aggression may be verbal or physical
Correspondence to: S.M. Coyne, Department of Psychology,
University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2 HE, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted 9 November 2004
Published online 21 February 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20126
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 295
[Buss, 1961], although the emphasis is usually on its
non-physical forms. Verbal indirect aggression includes the examples mentioned above. Examples of
physical indirect aggression include covertly destroying someone’s property or robbing them. In the
earlier research on indirect aggression, researchers
did not make this distinction, but focused on verbal
indirect aggression. A more recent definition, however, takes the physical forms into account by
defining indirect aggression as ‘‘attempts to cause
psychological, in rare cases even physical harm to the
target person by social manipulation, often attacking
the target in circuitous ways through a third person
in order to conceal the aggressive intent, or otherwise
pretending that the attack was not aggressive at all’’
[Björkqvist et al., 2001, p 112]. The covert nature of
the behavior is nevertheless stressed.
Indirect aggression is typically found to be more
common among girls than boys up to the age of
18 years [e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1992b; Fesbach,
1969; Kaukiainen et al., 2001; Salmivalli et al.,
2000]. One of the most important aspects of an
adolescent girl’s life is her standing in the social
world. Indirect aggression that potentially could
harm a girl’s social standing in the group may be a
particularly effective way of hurting her at this age
[Björkqvist et al., 1992b]. However, it should be
noted that several studies of adults have found no
sex difference in indirect aggression [e.g., Green
et al., 1996; Richardson and Green, 1999; see
Archer, 2004]. By adulthood, being popular in the
‘‘social world’’, although still important, becomes
less of a priority than in adolescence. Therefore, any
sex differences in indirect aggression by adulthood
may become less apparent when compared to
adolescence [e.g., Green et al., 1996].
Relational Aggression
Relational aggression is similar to indirect aggression, but focuses on ‘‘behaviors that harm others
through damage to relationships or feelings of
acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion’’ [Crick
et al., 1999, p 77]. Relational aggression does not
need to be covert. Rather, it is often carried out
directly in front of the victim: e.g., a girl telling her
friend that they will no longer be friends unless she
does what the girl wants. Relational aggression
researchers argue that this construct is distinct from
indirect aggression [Crick et al., 1999]. Indirect
aggression researchers, however, maintain that the
two terms are identical [Björkqvist, 2001]. Although
several items of relational aggression fit the definition of indirect aggression (e.g., gossiping, and
backbiting), others do not (e.g., ignoring or stop
talking to someone). These are often included in
measures of indirect aggression [Archer and Coyne,
2005], so that the two constructs may be more
similar in practice than their definitions indicate.
Relational aggression has also been found to
occur more frequently in girls than boys [Crick and
Grotpeter, 1995; Crick et al., 1997], although some
studies have found no sex difference [Deveaux and
Daniels, 2000; Hart et al., 1998; Henington et al.,
1998]. Several primitive forms of direct relational
aggression may appear at earlier ages than covert
forms of aggression [Crick et al., 1999]. Preschoolers
typically use these direct forms of relational aggression (e.g., ‘‘We’re not friends unless you share your
ice cream cone with me!’’) and then progress to more
subtle forms as they mature and gain the social
intelligence needed to effectively manipulate the
social environment to their advantage [Salmivalli
et al., 2000].
Social Aggression
Social aggression is very similar to both relational
and indirect aggression. It is a term coined by Cairns
et al. [1989], and expanded by Galen and Underwood [1997, p 589], who described it as behavior
which is ‘‘directed toward damaging another’s selfesteem, social status, or both, and may take such
direct forms as verbal rejection, negative facial
expressions or body movements, or more indirect
forms such as slanderous rumors or social exclusion’’. It appears that social aggression encompasses
all the behaviors in relational and indirect aggression, while adding harmful non-verbal behaviors
(e.g., rolling eyes, giving dirty looks) to the
construct. Underwood et al. [2001, p 252] suggest
that researchers use the term social aggression
because it ‘‘so aptly describes what might be at least
one purpose of these behaviors’’. Unfortunately,
researchers are still arguing as to whether indirect,
relational, and social aggression are all distinct
forms of aggression, and what to call it if they are
essentially the same constructs [Archer and Coyne,
2005; Underwood et al., 2001].
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression
on Television
Indirect, relational, and social aggression not only
occur in the playground and the classroom, but also
on television, although the research in this field is
still in the early stages. Coyne and Archer [2004]
found that these forms of aggression occur more
frequently on television than do physical and verbal
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
296 Coyne et al.
aggression. They are more likely to be enacted by
attractive, female aggressors whose actions are
portrayed as justified and rewarded. Other studies
have revealed that viewing these forms of aggression
on television can increase indirect aggression in real
life [Coyne et al., 2004], and that indirectly
aggressive girls view significantly more programs
containing indirect aggression than other girls do
[Coyne and Archer, 2005].
Information processing theory can explain how
aggression, both physical and indirect, can be
learned after viewing either form of aggression on
television [Huesmann, 1988]. Each individual has a
variety of cognitive scripts that they use to explain
and interpret their environment. These scripts cover
a variety of topics, including appropriate aggressive
behavior. When an individual views indirect (or
physical) aggression on television, certain scripts
relating to aggression are activated in the person’s
memory, increasing the likelihood that the individual will behave aggressively in subsequent situations. Indirect/relational/social aggression is often
portrayed on television to be justified, rewarded, and
by attractive characters, all characteristics that have
been shown to increase the likelihood that viewers
will behave aggressively after viewing aggression on
television [e.g., Coyne and Archer, 2004; Donnerstein et al., 1994].
Individuals do not learn how to behave aggressively solely from watching aggression on television.
They can learn aggressive behavior from a variety of
sources, including from parents, friends, and others
in the social environment. One controversial defense
for the levels of violence on television today is that
this violence is a realistic mirror image of a violencefilled world. Critics of the levels of indirect,
relational, and social aggression on television may
assume such a stance, as these behaviors are (unlike
violent behavior) very common in schools, homes,
and the workplace. To discover if this perspective is
accurate, the levels of these forms of aggression on
television need to be compared with the levels of
aggression found in the real world, where individuals may find that such activities are often not the
justified or rewarded behaviors they view on
television.
Aims of the Present Study
One major goal of the current study was to assess
the frequency of items of relational, indirect, and
social aggression in the school environment of
adolescents, and to compare this with exposure to
these forms of aggression on television. We have
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
decided to examine adolescents, as this behavior
becomes particularly frequent and harmful during
pre- to early-adolescence [e.g., Björkqvist et al.,
1992b]. We then used this information to assess
whether the items that make up these constructs are
perceived as occurring together to a greater extent
than do items from different constructs [Archer,
2001; Björkqvist, 2001]. From this, we determined
the existence of any differences in the constructs of
relational, indirect, and social aggression.
Another aim of the study was to examine how
frequent and harmful the individual items subsumed
in these categories of aggression are perceived to be.
Often, researchers only report results for aggregate
indirect or relational aggression, instead of examining the individual items such as gossiping or
backbiting. It is important to know which individual
items occur more frequently than others, and which
items are perceived as more harmful so as to inform
future research which aggressive behaviors are
viewed differently than others. Based on previous
research, we predicted that all forms of indirect/
relational/social aggression will be more common
and hurtful for girls and that physical aggression
will be more common and hurtful for boys [e.g.,
Galen and Underwood, 1997]. As participants were
all in pre- to mid-adolescence, age differences were
predicted to be minimal as indirect, relational, and
social aggression are all very frequent at this stage
of life [e.g., Crick et al., 1999].
METHOD
Participants
After data screening was completed (see below),
422 participants’ data were analyzed, with seven
participants’ data being excluded. Two hundred and
sixteen males (51.18%) and 191 females (45.26%)
took part in the study (15 participants (3.55%) did
not report their sex). Participant age ranged from 11
to 15 years, with the mean age being 12.79 years
(SD 5 .90). Participants attended one of two average-sized high schools in North West England.
Seventy-seven participants were from year 7 (sixth
grade US equivalent), 156 were from year 8 (seventh
grade US equivalent), and 170 were from year 9
(eighth grade US equivalent) (19 participants did
not report their year).
Measures
The Indirect/Social/Relational Aggression scale
(ISRA) was used to assess the frequency and
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 297
harmfulness of different forms of aggression. This
measure was created by incorporating items from
several scales commonly used by indirect, relational,
and social aggression researchers. Items of indirect
aggression were taken from the Direct and Indirect
Aggression Scale [Björkqvist et al., 1992a]. This
measure asks participants to rate each class member’s level of aggression on a Likert Scale; therefore,
providing a multi-informant measure of an individual’s aggression. Relational aggression items were
taken from a peer nomination measure of relational
aggression [Crick and Grotpeter, 1995] and the
Social Experience Questionnaire, a self-report measure of victimization of aggression [Crick and
Grotpeter, 1996]. A few non-verbal items commonly
used by social aggression researchers were taken
from the Revised Social Experience Questionnaire,
a derivation of the above scale [Galen and
Underwood, 1997]. Items of physical and verbal
aggression from the Aggression Questionnaire were
also included [Buss and Perry, 1992]. These measures
were chosen as they provide a fairly representative
sample of the items used by researchers in this area.
As there are many items that overlap for indirect,
relational, and social aggression, these were difficult
to place in clear, distinct, categories. However, based
on conceptual groupings and a factor analysis
(reported later), we decided to classify these items
as indirect aggression (ten items), direct relational
aggression (six items), and non-verbal social items
(two items). There were also five items of physical
aggression and five items of direct verbal aggression
(see Table VI for a listing of the total 28 items).
For Part 1, participants were required to circle
how many times they heard about or witnessed each
aggressive behavior in the past week on a scale
ranging from 0 to 51.1 It should be noted that we
were investigating how frequently various forms of
aggression occur in a person’s social environment,
rather than the more usual method of measuring
individuals’ behavior. This methodology was used
so that we could compare exposure to aggression in
a participant’s social environment with exposure to
aggression on television. Self-report measures that
ask how frequently a person is an aggressor or
victim would not capture the total exposure of an
individual to these forms of aggression. Additionally, these measures have been criticized for not
being accurate as many individuals are unwilling to
report that they engage in any aggressive behavior
1
Originally, the scale ranged from 0 to 71. This was lowered to a 0 to
51 scale after pilot testing revealed that responses above 5 were nonexistent.
[Björkqvist, 2001]. Part 2 of the ISRA required each
participant to rate how harmful they felt each
aggressive behavior would be if it actually happened
to someone. Participants were asked to circle a
number on a Likert scale, with 1 representing ‘‘they
would NOT feel sad or hurt at all’’, 2 representing
‘‘they would not really feel sad or hurt, 3 representing ‘‘they would feel somewhat sad or hurt’’, and
4 representing ‘‘they would feel REALLY sad
or hurt’’.
Cronbach’s a for each scale in part 1 were:
Indirect (.84), Direct relational (.79), Social (.50),
Verbal (.81), and Physical (.75). Reliability was
acceptable for each scale, except for social aggression, which was most likely a result of the lower
number of items on this scale (Cortina, 1993).
However, the total reliability for all aggression
questions was high (.93). For part 2, Cronbach’s
a were: Indirect (.84), Direct relational (.76), Social
(.68), Verbal (.77), and Physical (.83). Again,
reliability for social aggression was low, and the
total reliability for this section was high (.94).
The responses to the questionnaire were later
compared to the results of a content analysis of
aggression in British television [for full results see
Coyne and Archer, 2004]. This analysis assessed the
frequency of indirect, relational, social, physical,
and verbal aggression in 228 hr of programming
(402 episodes) identified as popular by participants
in this study. Each participant was asked to list the
five television programs they viewed most frequently, and the 29 most popular programs overall
were included in the analysis. Each act of aggression
was coded on the following variables: type of
aggression, reward, punishment, justification, realism, relationship of aggressor and victim, aggressor
and victim characteristics, genre, and country of
origin, although these categories were not used in
the present study.
Procedure
The questionnaire was administered in 17 coeducational classrooms (consisting of between 20 and 28
students per classroom). For part 1, each participant
was given instructions to ‘‘Think about all the other
members of your year and the way they treated each
other in the past week. Now circle the number of
times that you either heard about or watched the
following behaviors taking place in the past week’’.
Teachers went through the following sample question with their class and answered any questions if
the students were in any way confused about how
to complete the questionnaire.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
298 Coyne et al.
Sample 1: Frequency
Hearing someone say something nice about someone
else
0 1 2 3 4 51
After completing the sample question, participants
were instructed to complete the questionnaire, by
following the same procedure they did in the sample
question.
For part 2, participants were instructed to ‘‘Now
think about how a person would feel if someone else
did the following behaviors to them. Please circle
how much you think that each of the behaviors
would make a person feel sad or hurt.’’
Sample 2: Harmfulness
Hearing someone say something nice about
them
1——2——3——4
After completing the sample question, participants
were instructed to complete the rest of the questions
on the test. Finally, participants were asked
to mark their sex, age, and year and how many
hours of television they watched each day (scale
of 0–8 hr).2
RESULTS
Data Screening
Several analyses were carried out to check for
univariate outliers and missing data. The variables
‘‘Total Aggression’’ and ‘‘Total Hurt’’ were transformed into z scores. Any participant receiving a z
score of over 3 was not used in the analysis. A total
of seven participants’ data was not analyzed. An
inspection of these participants revealed that they
appeared not to take the questionnaire seriously
(e.g., putting all 5s for how much aggression they
see, or putting a ‘‘not hurtful at all’’ for all types
of aggression). Assumptions of multi-collinearity,
singularity, and normality were met.
Factor Analysis
A series of exploratory factor analyses were
carried out to assess whether indirect, relational,
and social aggression appeared as distinct factors.
The factor analyses were only undertaken for the
frequency scale.3
2
Ethical approval was obtained from the University’s ethics
committee. Participants were treated in accordance with the Code
of Conduct, Ethical Principles, and Guidelines as established by the
British Psychological Society.
3
When combined, the factor analysis revealed two factors: one
containing all the frequency items and one containing all the
perceived harmfulness, thus the need to separate the two scales.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
All items. A principal components analysis
with promax rotation was undertaken for all the
items on the RISA. The suitability of the data for
factor analysis was assessed prior to performing
the analysis. An inspection of the correlation
matrix revealed that the majority of factors had
coefficients exceeding .30. The Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin
value was .93, exceeding the critical value of .60
[Kaiser, 1970]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant, w2 (378) 5 3,872.35, Po.001) suggesting
that the data are suitable for factor analysis
[Bartlett, 1954].
We decided to extract three factors based on
conceptual groupings and examination of the scree
plot. Altogether, this solution accounted for 49.45%
of the variance. Table I shows that most items
loaded strongly on only one factor, and three items
(‘‘prank phone calls’’, ‘‘destroying relationships’’,
and ‘‘rolling eyes’’) did not load on any factor. The
first factor accounted for 34.97% of the variance
and consisted of solely indirect, relational, and
social aggression (e.g., ‘‘gossiping’’, ‘‘spreading
rumors’’, ‘‘ignoring’’). The second component accounted for 8.71% of the variance and consisted of
mainly the physical aggression items (e.g., ‘‘destroy
property in front of someone’’, ‘‘biting’’, ‘‘scratching’’). There was one item of indirect aggression
(getting others to dislike) and two items of direct
relational aggression (‘‘not inviting to a party’’ and
‘‘threatening to end the friendship’’) that also loaded
highly on this factor. The third factor contributed
5.77% to the variance and consisted of mainly
verbal aggression items (e.g., ‘‘insulting’’, ‘‘yelling’’,
‘‘teasing’’). However, it should be noted that
‘‘hitting’’, the most common physical aggression
item also loaded highly on this factor. This may be a
result of the high frequency with which both hitting
and verbal aggression are witnessed. The results of
this analysis support the argument that there is
another form of aggression that is distinct from
physical and verbal aggression.
Indirect, relational, and social items. As
several items loaded on separate factors, a second
factor analysis was conducted to assess whether
there was any evidence for the distinction of the
terms indirect, relational, and social aggression.
A principal components analysis with promax rotation
was undertaken on the 18 items of the ISRA scale
involving relational, indirect, or social aggression.
Again, the data were suitable for factor analysis as
the majority of the items had a coefficient exceeding
.30, a Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin value of .92 and a
significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity, w2 (153) 5
2,403.48, Po.001).
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 299
TABLE I. Promax Rotation of the Three Factor Solution for all Frequency Items
Item
Component 1
(indirect, relational, and social items)
Spreading rumors
Break confidences
Become friends with another
Leaving people out on purpose
Ignoring someone
Gossiping
Make fun of someone so it makes them look stupid
Anonymous mean notes
Make fun of clothes or personality behind a person’s back
Getting others to help
Make fun of clothes or personality to a person’s face
Huddling
Try to destroy someone else’s relationshipa
Prank phone callsa
Biting
Destroy property behind back
Destroy property in front of someone
Not invite to party
Scratching
Get others to dislike
Threaten to break off friendship
Insulting
Yelling
Teasing
Calling someone a mean name
Give a dirty look
Hitting
Rolling eyesa
% of variance explained
Component 2
(physical items)
Component 3
(verbal items)
.77
.69
.69
.68
.67
.64
.56
.55
.51
.51
.50
.45
.79
.78
.77
.63
.62
.57
.55
.80
.80
.79
.75
.66
.57
34.97
8.71
5.77
Only loadings above .40 are displayed.
a
Item omitted.
Examination of the scree plot indicated a threefactor solution, altogether accounting for 52.66% of
the variance. Table II shows that most items loaded
strongly on only one factor. The first factor
accounted for 39.39% of the variance and consisted
mainly of direct ways of hurting someone (e.g., ‘‘not
invite to party’’, ‘‘threaten to end friendship’’,
‘‘sitting close together’’). The second component
accounted for 7.35% of the variance and consisted
of mainly indirect ways of hurting another (e.g.,
‘‘breaking confidences’’, ‘‘spreading rumors’’, ‘‘gossiping’’). The third factor contributed 5.93% to the
variance and consisted solely of two non-verbal
items (‘‘dirty looks’’ and ‘‘rolling eyes’’). One item
(prank phone calls) did not load on any factor
and was omitted from the analysis. There was
one ambiguous item (become friends with another as
revenge) which loaded highly on both factors 1 and
2. The results of this analysis partially support the
argument that items of indirect, relational, and
social aggression are different, at least as far as their
perceived occurrence is concerned.
Differences in Frequency
Table III shows the means and standard deviations for the frequency with which adolescents
witness or hear about indirect, direct relational,
social, verbal, and physical aggression.4 A mixed
factorial ANOVA was conducted to assess whether
these differences were significant and to examine the
moderating factors of sex and year in school.
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was significant, w2
(9) 5 243.55, df 5 9, Po.001; so Greenhouse–
Geisser statistics will be reported. There was an
4
All ‘‘51’’ responses were coded as ‘‘5s’’, therefore making the range
of means 0–5. It should be noted that because of this, answers of 51
may represent a number higher than 5, therefore deflating the mean.
However, as revealed in pilot testing, typical answers did not exceed
above 5, therefore, discrepancies would be minor if any.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
300 Coyne et al.
TABLE II. Promax Rotation of the Three Factor Solution for Indirect, Relational, and Social Items
Component 1
(direct relational items)
Item
Get others to dislike
Not invite to party
Threaten to break off friendship
Huddling
Try to destroy someone else’s relationship
Getting others to help
Anonymous mean notes
Spreading rumors
Make fun of someone so it makes them look stupid
Break confidences
Gossiping
Leaving people out on purpose
Make fun of clothes or personality behind a person’s back
Become friends with another
Ignoring someone
Prank phone callsa
Give a dirty look
Rolling eyes
% of variance explained
Component 2
(indirect items)
Component 3
(social items)
.85
.84
.77
.73
.60
.54
.43
.80
.75
.71
.66
.54
.46
.46
.45
.43
39.39
.77
.65
5.93
7.35
Only loadings above .40 are displayed.
a
Item omitted.
TABLE III. Frequency and Harmfulness of Aggressive
Behaviors
Frequencya
Type of aggression
Indirect
Direct relational
Social
Verbal
Physical
a
Mean
1.68
1.42
2.46
2.84
1.34
SD
1.04
1.09
1.41
1.35
1.09
TABLE IV. Frequency and Perceived Harmfulness of
Aggression for Boys and Girls
Mean
2.89
2.94
2.13
2.74
2.95
.60
.67
.80
.69
.78
The higher the score the more frequent (Scale of 0–5).
The higher the score the more harmful (Scale of 1–4).
overall significant difference in the frequency of
aggression reported by adolescents, F(3.14,1236.67) 5
203.74, Po.001. Simple effects analyses were conducted to assess where the differences occurred. All
comparisons were significant (Po.001) except for
between direct relational and physical aggression,
t (418) 5 1.56, P 5 .12 (not all reported here because
of the many comparisons). Adolescents reported
witnessing or hearing about verbal aggression the
most, then social aggression, indirect aggression,
and finally about direct relational and physical
aggression.
The mixed ANOVA also revealed a significant
main effect for year in school, F(2,394) 5 3.79,
Po.05, but not for sex, F(1,394) 5 .83, P 5 .36.
A significant interaction between year and sex was
Girls
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Frequency
Indirect
Direct relational
Social
Verbal
Physical
1.71
1.44
2.34
2.94
1.44
1.09
1.08
1.43
1.35
1.09
1.66
1.40
2.63
2.74
1.19
1.00
1.10
1.36
1.36
1.03
Perceived harmfulnessb
Indirectc
Direct relationalc
Social
Verbalc
Physical
2.78
2.81
2.12
2.69
2.75
.63
.68
.81
.71
.60
3.06
3.12
2.17
2.84
2.96
.52
.59
.79
.64
.50
SD
b
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
Boys
Harmfulnessb
a
a
The higher the score the more frequent (Scale of 0–5).
The higher the score the more harmful (Scale of 1–4).
Comparison is significant.
b
c
also not revealed, F(2,394) 5 1.72, P 5 .18. The
means and standard deviations for frequency of
different forms of aggression are shown in Table IV
for sex and Table V for year in school of the
participants.
A MANOVA was conducted to more fully
examine the age differences for the frequency of
different forms of aggression. This analysis revealed
a significant overall difference between year,
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 301
TABLE V. Frequency and Perceived Harmfulness of Aggression for Years 7, 8, and 9 Students
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Frequency
Indirectb
Direct relationalb
Social
Verbalb
Physical
1.64
1.56
2.21
2.45
1.34
1.08
1.16
1.38
1.31
1.20
1.87
1.62
2.66
3.03
1.45
1.06
1.18
1.48
1.34
1.04
1.54
1.17
2.44
2.86
1.19
.99
.90
1.33
1.35
1.02
Perceived harmfulnessc
Indirect
Direct relational
Socialb
Verbalb
Physical
3.01
3.06
2.37
3.00
3.05
.54
.59
.72
.57
.77
2.89
2.97
2.13
2.73
2.97
.60
.63
.78
.67
.73
2.88
2.90
2.06
2.68
2.94
.61
.70
.84
.73
.81
a
a
The higher the score the more frequent (Scale of 0–5).
Comparison is significant.
c
The higher the score the more harmful (Scale of 1–4).
b
F(10,788) 5 3.51, Po.001; and significant main
effects for indirect, F(2,397) 5 3.82, Po.05; direct
relational, F(2,397) 5 7.93, Po.001; and verbal
aggression, F(2,397) 5 5.04, Po.005. A series
of Tukey’s post hoc tests (Po.05) revealed that
Year 8 students reported being exposed to more
of these forms of aggression than Year 7 and
Year 9 students.
Differences in Perceived Harm
Table III shows the means and standard deviations for perceived harmfulness of overall types of
aggression. A second mixed factorial ANOVA was
conducted to assess whether these differences were
significant and to again examine the moderating
factors of sex and year in school. Mauchly’s test of
sphericity was significant, w2 (9) 5 271.96, Po.001,
so Greenhouse–Geisser statistics will again be
reported. There was an overall significant difference
in the perceived harmfulness of aggression reported
by adolescents, F(2.98,1176.24) 5 187.61, Po.001.
Simple effects analyses were undertaken to discover
where these differences occurred. A series of paired
samples t-tests revealed significant differences
(Po.001) between all variables except between
physical, direct relational, and indirect. Therefore,
these variables were all perceived as the most
harmful types of aggression, followed by verbal
aggression and finally by social aggression.
The mixed factorial ANOVA also revealed significant main effects for sex, F(1,394) 5 4.29, Po.05,
and for year in school, F(2,394) 5 3.52, Po.05, but
not for an interaction between the two,
F(2,394) 5 2.13, P 5 .12. The means and standard
deviations for perceived harmfulness of aggression
are shown in Table IV for sex and Table V for year
in school. Two separate MANOVAs were conducted to further examine these differences. An
overall effect was revealed for sex, F(5,398) 5 8.60,
Po.001. Girls perceived indirect, F(1,402) 5 26.50,
Po.001; direct relational, F(1,402) 5 25.19, Po.001;
and verbal aggression, F(1,402) 5 5.36, Po.05, as
more harmful than boys did. There was no difference
between girls and boys in the perceived harmfulness
of social, F(1,402) 5 .55, P 5 .46 or physical aggression, F(1,402) 5 1.21, P 5 .27. A MANOVA also
revealed a significant overall effect for year in
school, F(1,397) 5 4.25, Po.05; and significant main
effects for social, F(1,397) 5 4.25, Po.05; and verbal
aggression, F(1,397) 5 6.33, Po.005. A series of
Tukey’s post hoc tests (Po.05) revealed that in each
case Year 7 students rated these forms of aggression
as more harmful than Year 8 and Year 9 students.
Individual Aggression Items
Frequency. The frequency of individual aggression items was also examined. It should be noted
that the following comparisons are only descriptive
in nature; thus, these findings should be interpreted
with caution. Table VI shows the means and
standard deviations for each item. In particular,
for indirect items, ‘‘gossiping’’ occurred most
frequently, and ‘‘breaking confidences’’ occurred
least frequently. For direct relational items, ‘‘making
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
302 Coyne et al.
TABLE VI. Frequency and Harmfulness of Specific Aggressive Behaviors
Frequencya
Type of aggressive behavior
Harmfulnessb
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
1.35
1.08
1.26
1.36
2.75
1.69
1.65
2.16
1.36
2.06
1.61
1.40
1.57
1.55
1.71
1.53
1.68
1.97
1.38
1.67
3.06
3.28
3.03
2.84
2.61
2.74
2.80
2.79
2.72
3.08
.94
.91
1.00
.94
.95
.91
.91
1.00
1.10
.87
1.21
1.34
2.49
1.05
1.15
1.31
1.49
1.52
1.76
1.55
1.46
1.59
2.93
2.64
3.20
2.86
2.87
3.13
.89
.98
.91
1.08
1.01
.99
3.23
.68
1.69
1.70
2.18
2.07
.88
.86
Verbal
Calling a mean name
Insulting
Make fun of clothes or personality to a person’s face
Teasing
Yelling
3.43
2.74
2.25
2.86
2.95
1.75
1.83
1.81
1.84
1.72
2.70
2.76
3.12
2.75
2.37
.98
.92
.96
.99
.94
Physical
Biting
Destroy property behind their back
Destroy property in front of someone
Hitting or punching
Scratching
.68
.93
1.42
2.72
.94
1.36
1.34
1.60
1.91
1.39
2.86
3.00
3.13
3.19
2.62
1.09
.95
1.01
.96
1.04
Indirect
Anonymous mean notes
Break confidences
Get other people to help
Get others in the group to dislike someone
Gossiping
Ignoring someone
Leaving people out on purpose
Make fun of clothes or personality behind a person’s back
Prank phone calls
Spreading rumors
Direct relational
Become friends with another
Huddling
Make fun of someone so it makes them look stupid
Not invite to party
Threaten to break off friendship
Try to destroy someone else’s relationship
Social
Give a dirty look
Rolling eyes
a
The higher the score the more frequent (Scale of 0–5).
The higher the score the more harmful (Scale of 1–4).
b
fun of someone to make them look stupid in front of
the group’’ was the most frequent, while ‘‘not invite
to party’’ was the least frequent item. The most
frequent pure social aggression item was ‘‘giving
someone a dirty look’’ and the least frequent item
was ‘‘rolling eyes at someone’’. For verbal aggression, the most frequent item was ‘‘calling someone a
mean name’’. The least frequent item was ‘‘making
fun of clothes or personality to a person’s face’’,
although it should be noted that all these types of
verbal aggression were quite frequent when compared to other types of aggression. The most
frequent item of physical aggression was ‘‘hitting
or punching someone’’, and the least frequent item
was ‘‘biting’’.
Harmfulness. Specific aggressive behaviors
were also examined to assess which were perceived
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
as more harmful than others. Table VI shows the
means and standard deviations for the harmfulness
ratings. For indirect aggression, ‘‘breaking confidences’’ was perceived as the most harmful and
‘‘gossiping’’ was considered to be the least hurtful.
These are the direct opposite of the frequency
ratings. The most harmful direct relational aggression item was ‘‘making fun of others in front of the
group so as to make someone feel stupid’’, while the
least hurtful item was ‘‘huddling together to make
someone feel excluded’’. For pure social aggression,
‘‘giving dirty looks’’ was perceived as the most
hurtful and ‘‘rolling eyes’’ was considered the least
hurtful. The most harmful verbal aggression items
were perceived to be ‘‘making fun of clothes or
personality to a person’s face’’ and the least hurtful
was ‘‘being yelled at’’. Finally, for physical aggres-
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 303
sion, the most harmful item was perceived to be
‘‘hitting or punching’’, while the least hurtful was
‘‘scratching’’.
Sex differences. A MANOVA was used to
examine sex differences in specific aggressive items.
Box’s test for equality of covariance was significant,
F(406,261 899) 5 1.44, Po.001, so Pillai’s trace was
again used. A main effect for sex was found,
F(28,269) 5 2.48, Po.001. In particular, females reported significantly more gossiping, F(1,296) 5 7.96,
Po.005, and dirty looks, F(1,296) 5 10.32, Po.001,
than males. Males reported significantly more
making fun of others to make them look stupid,
F(1,206) 5 9.87, Po.005; and hitting, F(1,396) 5
5.93, Po.05. There were no significant sex differences in any other specific act of aggressive
behavior.
There were sex differences in a large number of the
harmfulness ratings for specific aggressive items, in
each case the girls rating the item as more harmful
than the boys. However, these items were largely
confined to indirect and direct relational aggression
(e.g., ‘‘gossiping’’, ‘‘spreading rumors’’, ‘‘ignoring’’).
The items on which the sexes did not differ were
almost entirely physical, verbal, and social aggression (e.g., ‘‘hitting’’, ‘‘teasing’’, ‘‘giving dirty
looks’’).
Relationship Between Aggression on
Television and in Real Life
Television hours viewed. Participants viewed
an average of 4.81 hr of television a day (33.67 hr
a week). An independent samples t-test found that
males and females did not differ in their reported
hours of television watching, t (383) 5 .41, P>.69.
A Pearson’s correlation found that as age increased,
television watching decreased, r 5 .16, Po.001,
although the overall correlation between the two
was rather small.
Total aggression. On average, respondents
heard about or witnessed 50.20 separate acts of
total aggression each week. For indirect, relational,
and social aggression, participants reported that
they were exposed to 33 acts of indirect aggression
during a typical week in everyday life.
Coyne and Archer [2004] found that indirect,
relational, and social aggression were portrayed
approximately 9.34 times per hour on television
programs popular among British adolescents. In this
study, participants reported they viewed an average
of 4.81 hr of television a day, or 33.67 hr per week.
This would result in the average adolescent viewing
approximately 319.20 acts of indirect, relational,
and social aggression each week on television. This
was compared to the amount of aggression an
adolescent is exposed to in the real world, which was
found to be 33 acts of these forms of aggression.
Based on these calculations, adolescents are exposed
to nearly 10 times more acts of indirect, relational,
and social aggression on television than they are
in real life.
DISCUSSION
The primary goals of this investigation were
threefold: to examine whether there is cause to
distinguish between the terms indirect, relational,
and social aggression, to confirm existing research
on sex and age differences for frequency and
perceived harmfulness of aggression, paying particular attention to the importance of individual
items, and to compare exposure to indirect/relational/social forms of aggression in real life to
exposure on television.
We found that the perceived frequency of items of
relational, indirect, and social aggression were
statistically distinct from each other, although they
also showed considerable overlap. All three categories of aggression contained items that may be
placed into more than one of the categories,
although it also appears that each of the terms
contains items of aggression that are unique. Factor
analysis showed three distinct factors, corresponding very closely to the three types of manipulative
and often covert types of aggression. Thus, there is
some support that the terms are distinct but overlapping concepts, at least as far as their perceived
occurrence is concerned.
When comparing these terms to physical and
verbal aggression, however, it is clear that they are
much more similar than they are different. The
majority of indirect, relational, and social items were
placed in a distinct factor when compared to verbal
and physical aggression. As Björkqvist [2001]
argued, all the terms are essentially describing the
same types of behavior—a very manipulative and
sneaky way of hurting others, particularly through
the use of social groups and relationships. Indeed,
indirect, relational, and social aggression researchers
could decrease confusion and argumentation by
creating one larger construct that encompasses all
the items. We have argued that this term should be
indirect aggression, as it has precedence over the
other two, and is practically identical with relational
aggression in both its form and strategic aims,
except in the case of dyadic relationships where the
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
304 Coyne et al.
aims and the acts involved are so different that this
should be treated as a separate category [Archer and
Coyne, 2005]. It is anyway clear that agreeing on a
single term would reduce the confusion that is
inherent in research using these three terms, and
would allow researchers to draw on a wider range of
relevant research and focus their activities.
Overall, we found that verbal aggression was the
type of aggression that was most frequently heard
about or witnessed by adolescents, with social
aggression (non-verbal) not far behind. Indirect
aggression was found to be perceived as occurring
more frequently than more direct forms of aggression aimed at harming relationships. This may be a
result of the high perceived occurrence of gossiping
as compared to other forms of indirect/relational
aggression. Physical aggression was actually one of
the least frequent types of aggression reported.
These findings are consistent with research on both
bullying and aggression. For instance, Eslea [2005]
found that name-calling was the most frequent type
of bullying for both children and adults, followed
closely by threats, rumors, and ignoring the victim.
Physical bullying was actually one of the least
frequent forms of bullying found in schools. Verbal
aggression was also found to be more common than
physical aggression in preschool children [McCabe
& Lipscomb, 1988]. This finding may be dependent
on the environment of the individual, as self-reports
in prisons revealed that physical aggression was
actually the most frequent form of bullying [Ireland
and Archer, 1996].
Overall, we found that participants perceived
indirect and direct relational aggression as the most
harmful, followed closely by physical aggression.
Verbal and social aggression (non-verbal forms)
were perceived to be the least harmful by adolescents. This may be because the effects of verbal and
social aggression are not as long-lasting as other
forms of indirect and direct relational aggression
(e.g., destroying someone’s relationships). A recent
study on bullying found that victims coped more
easily with verbal aggression than with indirect
aggression [Eslea, 2005]. Victims of indirect bullying
were most likely to try to ignore the aggressor or get
upset when bullied. Both of these forms of coping
skills were very ineffective in getting the bullying to
stop. Perhaps, this ineffectiveness of the coping
styles in response to indirect and relational aggression is what makes it particularly distressing for
adolescents.
The results of this study support previous findings
that females may be surrounded by as much
aggression in the social environment as males when
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
more covert forms of aggression are taken into
account [e.g., Ireland and Archer, 1996; Owens
et al., 2000]. This finding is inconsistent with the
results from some studies using individual measures,
which find that girls are more aggressive than boys
in indirect forms, while boys are more physically
aggressive than girls [e.g., Archer, 2004; Björkqvist
et al., 1992b; Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Crick et al.,
1997; Fesbach, 1969]. However, it does support
other findings showing similar levels of this type of
aggression in the two sexes [e.g., Forrest et al., 2002;
Hart et al., 1998; Linder et al., 2002; Rys and Bear,
1997]. One possible reason why our results did not
confirm previous research was the methodology
used. Since we were comparing these forms of
aggression to those witnessed on television, we were
interested in assessing an individual’s overall exposure to aggression, and not their direct experience
with being an aggressor or victim. When examining
aggression from this perspective, it appears that
boys and girls are exposed to equal amounts of
aggression in their social environment.
We also found that girls tended to perceive
aggression as being more harmful than boys did.
In particular, girls were more likely to rate indirect,
direct relational, and verbal aggression as more
harmful. This finding supports the majority of
other studies [Björkqvist et al., 1992b; Crick and
Grotpeter, 1995; Galen and Underwood, 1997;
Lagerspetz et al., 1988], as it suggests that girls value
social relationships more than boys do, and are thus
more hurt when these relationships are harmed or
put into jeopardy.
Although overall sex differences were not found,
we found that girls reported observing more
‘‘gossiping’’ while boys reported more ‘‘hitting’’
when examining each individual item. Perhaps,
previous findings that girls are more indirectly
aggressive really stem from their high use of
gossiping, rather than other less common but more
harmful types of indirect/relational/social aggression. Campbell et al. [1997, p 169] have argued that
gossiping among women should not even be
classified as aggression as the intent to harm another
person may not be there. They state that gossiping is
about ‘‘forming rapport with another woman, and
not aggressing’’. Although this may be true to some
extent, especially when the victim is a member of the
ingroup, we believe that gossiping can be hostile in
intent, particularly when the aggressor knows that
the victim is in an excluded outgroup and will
somehow hear about the gossip. Gossiping can also
taint other people’s view of the victim, and thus
hinder their chances of having a good relationship in
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 305
the future. Perhaps, the term malicious gossiping
should be introduced to distinguish it from gossip in
general, which has other functions, such as advertising status and networking [Dunbar, 1996, 2004].
Malicious gossip can therefore be defined as
‘‘another person saying something mean about
someone else behind his or her back. Gossip is only
a form of aggression if the perpetrator knows that
the victim’s feelings would be hurt if they heard
about what was said.’’ Gossiping is likely to get back
to the victim and therefore will hurt their feelings,
if not their reputation. Although the person’s main
intent may not be to harm the victim, it can still be
defined as aggression as they know that the victim
could possibly be harmed by the gossip. This type of
intent is called ‘‘inconsiderate intent’’ and occurs
when the aggressor knows that the action may cause
distress or harm but accepts this and places
his or her own interests above those of others
[Potter et al., 1995].
We also found limited support for age differences
in the use of aggression. Indirect, relational, and
social aggression researchers generally agree that
aggression goes through a developmental process
[e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1992b; Crick et al., 1999;
Underwood, 2003]. Early in life, children primarily
use physical aggression to achieve what they desire.
When verbal skills emerge, children can use this
newfound ability to aggress against others. Indirect/
relational/social forms of aggression do not appear
until preschool age, when peer relationships emerge
on the scene. Even then, these forms of aggression
are relatively primitive and are more likely to
involve direct relational than other forms. When
children develop the social intelligence to successfully manipulate the social circle for their gain,
aggression becomes even more covert. Björkqvist
et al. [1992b] stated that indirect aggression peaks at
age 11 and begins to decline thereafter. Our results
partially confirmed previous research concerning
age differences. In particular, participants in Year 8
(aged 12–13) were more likely to report witnessing
or hearing about indirect, direct relational, and
verbal aggression than participants in Year 7 (aged
11–12) and Year 9 (aged 13–14). Indirect strategies
of Year 7 students may not be fully developed,
especially as this is their first year in high school and
they are integrated with a large number of students
with whom they are not familiar. By the time they
reach Year 8, social groups may be fully established,
and indirect and direct relational aggression may
become particularly effective. The frequency of
aggression reported dropped by Year 9. By this
time, students may experience more social sanctions
against using aggression on their peers, or perhaps
the aggression has become so covert by this age that
it is not witnessed or heard about by the rest of the
Year. Again, these results should be taken with
caution, as the methodology used may inflate the
actual amount of aggression occurring, as more than
one student may be reporting each episode.
We found that adolescents are exposed to a great
deal more indirect/relational/social aggression on
television than they are exposed to in real life. They
witness nearly 10 times the amount of this form of
aggression while viewing their favorite television
programs than they experience when interacting
with their peers. Therefore, any claims that television is simply mirroring the level of indirect
aggression in real life are unfounded.
Because of the volume of this form of aggression
on television, it is possible that television is
influencing adolescents in their perceptions of
indirect/relational/social aggression, more so than
the aggression they are exposed to in school. Coyne
et al. [2004] found that adolescents who viewed
indirect aggression on television were more likely to
be indirectly aggressive in real life than those who
viewed no aggression. The information processing
theory [Huesmann, 1988] would predict that viewing
such a large amount of this form of aggression on
television may reinforce aggressive scripts and teach
adolescents that aggression used in social interactions is justified, rewarded, and normal. It should be
noted, however, that participants in the current
study only reported aggression that occurred at
school or among friends. Thus, the frequency may
be slightly higher when aggression in family relationships is included. Furthermore, although a fairly
exhaustive list of indirect/relational/social aggression behaviors was included on the measure, there
may be other items that we did not include.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found that adolescents are exposed to
a rather large frequency of indirect, relational, and
social aggression during school. However, they are
exposed to an even greater amount of aggression
while viewing television each day. This study
revealed some evidence for a distinction between
the terms indirect, direct relational, and social
aggression. Yet, we also found support for an
integration of the terms, as they are more similar
than distinct when compared to physical or verbal
aggression. We have suggested that researchers
agree on a system that acknowledges the similarities
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
306 Coyne et al.
in the terms, to enable them to focus more on how to
combat these hurtful forms of aggression, instead of
debating definitions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the head teachers and counsellors who
helped with scheduling the data collection.
REFERENCES
Archer J. 2001. A strategic approach to aggression. Soc Dev 10:
267–271.
Archer J. 2004. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings:
A meta-analytic review. Rev Gen Psychol 8:291–322.
Archer J, Coyne SM. 2005. An integrated review of indirect,
relational, and social aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 9:
212–230.
Bartlett MS. 1954. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi
square approximations. J R Stat Soc 16:296–298.
Björkqvist K. 2001. Different names, same issue. Soc Dev 10:
272–275.
Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Österman K. 1992a. Direct and indirect
aggression scales DIAS. In Björkqvist K, Österman K. (eds):
‘‘1998. Pro Facultate (4) Scales for Research on Interpersonal
Relations.’’ Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi University.
Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Kaukiainen A. 1992b. Do girls
manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to
direct and indirect aggression. Aggr Behav 18:117–127.
Björkqvist K, Österman K, Kaukiainen A. 1992c. The development
of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females.
In Björkqvist K, Niemelä P (eds): ‘‘Of Mice and Women. Aspects
of Female Aggression.’’ San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
pp 51–64.
Björkqvist K, Österman K, Lagerspetz K, Landau SF, Caprara G,
Fraczek A. 2001. Aggression, victimization and sociometric
status: Findings from Finland, Israel, Italy and Poland. In
Rameriez JM, Richardson DS, (eds): ‘‘Cross-Cultural Approaches to Aggression and Reconciliation.’’ Huntington, NY:
Nova Science Publishers Inc, pp 111–119.
Buss A. 1961. ‘‘The Psychology of Aggression.’’ Oxford, England:
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Buss A, Perry M. 1992. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc
Psychol 63:452–459.
Cairns R, Cairns B, Neckerman H, Ferguson L, Gariepy J. 1989.
Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence. Dev
Psychol 25:320–330.
Campbell A, Sapochnik M, Muncer S. 1997. Sex differences in
aggression: Does social representation mediate form of aggression? Br J Soc Psychol 36:161–171.
Cortina JM. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of
theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104.
Coyne SM, Archer J. 2004. Indirect, relational, and social aggression
in the media: A content analysis of British television programmes.
Aggr Behav 30:254–271.
Coyne SM, Archer J. 2005. The relationship between indirect and
physical aggression on television and in real life. Soc Dev 14:
324–338.
Coyne SM, Archer J, Eslea M. 2004. Cruel intentions on television
and in real life: Can viewing indirect aggression increase viewers’
subsequent indirect aggression? J Exp Child Psychol 88:234–253.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab
Craig W. 1998. The relationship among bullying, victimization,
depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Pers Individ Differ 24:123–130.
Crick NR, Grotpeter J. 1995. Relational aggression, gender, and
social–psychological adjustment. Child Dev 66:710–722.
Crick NR, Grotpeter J. 1996. Children’s treatment by peers:
Victims of relational and overt aggression. Dev Psychopath 8:
367–380.
Crick NR, Casas J, Mosher M. 1997. Relational and overt
aggression in preschool. Dev Psychol 33:579–588.
Crick NR, Werner N, Casas J, O’Brien K, Nelson D, Grotpeter J,
Markon K. 1999. ‘‘Childhood Aggression and Gender: A New
Look at an Old Problem. Gender and Motivation. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation,’’ Vol. 45. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press, pp 75–141.
Deveaux K, Daniels T. 2000. Children’s social cognitions: Physically
and relationally aggressive strategies and children’s goals in peer
conflict situations. Merrill-Palmer Quart, 46:672–692.
Donnerstein E, Slaby RG, Eron LD. 1994. The mass media and
youth aggression. In Eron LD, Gentry J, Schlegel P (eds):
‘‘Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence and
Youth.’’ Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,
pp 219–250.
Dunbar RIM. 1996. ‘‘Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of
Language.’’ London: Faber.
Dunbar RIM. 2004. Gossip in evolutionary context. Rev Gen
Psychol 8:100–110.
Eslea M. 2005. ‘‘School Bullying: Severity, Distress and Coping.’’
Preston, UK: Department of Psychology, University of Central
Lancashire, unpublished manuscript.
Fesbach N. 1969. Sex differences in children’s modes of aggressive
responses toward outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quart 15:249–258.
Forrest S, Eatough V, Shevlin M. (March) 2002. Developing a
measure of adult indirect aggression. Paper presented at the
British Psychological Society Annual Conference, Blackpool,
UK.
Galen BR, Underwood MK. 1997. A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Dev Psychol 33:
589–600.
Green L, Richardson D, Lago T. 1996. How do friendship, indirect,
and direct aggression relate? Aggr Behav 22:81–86.
Hart C, Nelson D, Robinson C, Olsen S, McNeilly-Choque M. 1998.
Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age
children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Dev Psychol 34:
687–697.
Henington C, Hughes J, Cavell T, Thompson B. 1998. The role of
relational aggression in identifying aggressive boys and girls.
J Sch Psychol 36:57–477.
Huesmann LR. 1988. An information processing model for the
development of aggression. Aggr Behav 14:13–24.
Ireland J, Archer J. 1996. Descriptive analysis of bullying in male
and female adult prisoners. J Comp Appl Soc Psychol 6:35–47.
Kaiser H. 1970. A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika
35:401–415.
Kaukiainen A, Salmivalli C, Björkqvist K, Österman K, Lahtinen A,
Kostamo A, Lagerspetz K. 2001. Overt and covert aggression in
work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees. Aggr Behav 27:360–371.
Lagerspetz K, Björkqvist K, Peltonen T. 1988. Is indirect aggression
typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11to 12-year old children. Aggr Behav 14:403–414.
Linder JR, Crick N, Collins WA. 2002. Relational aggression and
victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associa-
Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression 307
tions with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship
quality. Soc Dev 11:69–86.
McCabe A, Lipscomb T. 1988. Sex differences in children’s verbal
aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quart, 34:389–401.
Owens L, Shute R, Slee P. 2000. ‘‘Guess what I just heard!’’: Indirect
aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggr Behav 26:7–83.
Paquette JA, Underwood MK. 1999. Gender differences in young
adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical
aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quart 45:242–266.
Potter JW, Vaughan MW, Warren R, Howley K, Land A,
Hagemeyer JC. 1995. How real is the portrayal of aggression in
television entertainment programming? J Broadcasting Electr
Media 39:496–516.
Richardson R, Green L. 1999. Social sanction and threat explanations of gender effects on direct and indirect aggression. Aggr
Behav 25:425–434.
Rys G, Bear G. 1997. Relational aggression and peer relations:
Gender and developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quart 43:
87–106.
Salmivalli C, Kaukiainen A, Lagerspetz K. 2000. Aggression and
sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of
aggression matter? Scand J Psychol 41:17–24.
Underwood MK. 2003. ‘‘Social Aggression among Girls.’’ New
York: Guilford Press.
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? Soc Dev 10:248–266.
Aggr. Behav. DOI 10.1002/ab