5/23/2018 1 Verbal Bullying Relational Bullying
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
5/23/2018 Bully‐Victim Relationships Are Common • Evidence has been provided establishing the normative Indirect Bullying: (routinely occurring) nature of bully‐victim Etiology, Effects, relationships in schools and Remedies (Smith & Brain, 2000) Dr. Laura M. Crothers Duquesne University Verbal Bullying Relational Bullying Aimed at damaging the target’s social status • Name calling or self esteem • Teasing Speaking in Mean • Criticizing Ignoring a cold or Gossiping Facial hostile tone Expressions Sarcastic comments Staring Spreading Rumors Blogging, Text Messaging, Exclusion Facebook (Remillard & Lamb, 2005) Males Females Girls are just as likely as boys to Physical Aggression Relational Aggression be aggressive in their friendships, but such aggression looks different Social Status: Social Status: Including a range of emotionally Expose others’ weaknesses Expose others’ faults hurtful behaviors Indirect Aggression Relational Aggression Social Aggression Both use social structure and gender enforcing to gain social status . Kolbert & Crothers, 2003 1 5/23/2018 Indirect Aggression Definitional Problems Indirect aggression, a precursor concept to relational A unified definition of relational aggression has and social aggression, was first defined by Feshbach in proved elusive 1969 in order to explain covert aggressive behavior In an article published in 2005, Archer and A Finnish group (Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, & Peltonen, Coyne reviewed a number of studies in 1988) identified that a unique feature of this latent form which the behaviors of relational, social, of aggression is that the bully could remain anonymous, and indirect aggression were investigated thus avoiding easy detection They concluded that these constructs are more alike than they are different, thus essentially comprising a unitary construct YASB: The Young Adult Social Behavior Scale Let’s 1.When I am angry with someone, that person is often the last to know. I will talk with others first. Measure! 2.When I am frustrated with my partner/colleague/friend, I give that person the silent treatment. • In order to provide 3.I deal with interpersonal conflict in an honest, straightforward manner. statistical evidence to either support or refute 4.When I do not like someone’s personality, I derive a certain degree of this claim, Crothers, Schreiber, Field, and pleasure when a friend listens to and agrees with my assessment of the Kolbert (2009) published person’s personality. I am also okay with my friend acting upon this negative the Young Adult Social assessment. Behavior Scale (YASB), developed to measure 5.I contribute to the rumor mill at school/work or with my friends and family. the self‐reported relational aggression in 6. I honor my friends’ need for secrets or confidentiality. adolescents and young adults 7.I break a friend’s confidentiality to have a good story to tell. YASB: The Young Adult Social Behavior Scale 8. I confront people in public to achieve maximum damage. Analysis 9. I criticize people who are close to me. 10. I respect my friend’s opinions, even when they are quite different from my • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to own. examine the factor structure of the Young Adult Social Behavior Scale (YASB) 11. I intentionally exclude friends from activities to make a point with them. • Three separate theoretical models were tested using CFA, which is a more rigorous analysis 12. I have attempted to “steal” a rival’s friend. technique than exploratory factor analysis because of the provision of both construct and 13. When I am angry with a friend, I have threatened to sever the relationship discriminative validity evidence and the ability to in hopes that the person will comply with my wishes. test alternative models offered in the CFA (Kline, 2006) 14. Working through conflicts with friends makes our friendship stronger. • Each item of the scale was measured through a five‐point Likert‐scale ranging from “Never” to “Always” 2 5/23/2018 e e e e Q1 Q2 Q9 Q11 Q13 Analysis .05 .11 .20 .54 .575 .33 .45 .74 .22 Best-fitting .76 Relational model for Aggression • Because such items are considered ordered categorical data with non‐normal distributions .81 .67 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998), a maximum likelihood with robust standard errors and corrected e test statistics for the parameter .74 .27 Social estimation in EQS 6.1 analysis Aggression Interpersonal software was chosen for Q4 Maturity .08 analysis (Bentler, 2003) .59 .75 .23 • In this study, the authors tested .46.61 .51 .66 .59 theoretically meaningful alternative models and Q5 Q7 Q8 Q12 Q3 Q6 Q10 Q14 equivalent models due to the .21 .37 .26 .56 .05 .43 .35 .35 fact measurement models, such as this, can have infinitely many equivalent versions eeeee eee Chi-square = 96.39, df = 71 CFI = .98 TLI .97 RMSEA = .023 [.009, .034] Standardized Results are presented with Square Multiple Correlations in Italics Figure 1. Relational Aggression Factor Social Aggression Factor I confront When I am angry with When I am frustrated with my I break a When I do not like someone’s people in someone, that person colleague/partner/friend, I give that friend’s personality, I derive a certain public to is often the last to know. Person the silent treatment confidentiality degree of pleasure when a friend achieve I talk with others first (Item 2) to have a listens to and agrees with my maximum (Item 1) good story assessment of the person’s damage When I am angry to tell I intentionally personality. I am also okay with (Item 8) I criticize with a friend, I (Item 7) exclude friends my friend acting upon this people who are have threatened from activities negative assessment close to me to sever the to make a point (Item 4) (Item 9) relationship in hopes I have attempted to with them that the person will “steal” a rival’s (Item 11) comply with my wishes I contribute to the rumor mill at school/work friend (Item 13) with my friends or family (Item 5) (Item 12) Interpersonal Maturity Factor Contradiction of Archer and Coyne I honor my friends’ (2005) I respect my needs for I deal with conflicts friends’ opinions secrets or • The findings of this research in an honest, even when they contradict Archer and Coyne’s confidentiality straightforward are quite different (2005) conclusion, based on manner (Item 6) their review of the literature, from my own that social, relational, and (Item 3) (Item 10) indirect aggression largely represent the same construct Working through conflicts makes our friendship stronger (Item 14) 3 5/23/2018 Intention vs. Form Relational Aggression –In the • The definitions of social and relational aggression Dyad reflected in the YASB differ in terms of the intention of the perpetrator • Crothers et al. (2009) • The definition of these constructs in some of the hypothesize that the previous models instead emphasize the form of aim of relational behavior aggression is to directly control another’s behavior Social Aggression One on One –in the Group • In perpetrating relational aggression, • Crothers et al. (2009) the actor’s primary focus is to influence the behavior of the person hypothesize that the within the dyadic relationship, and lacks the group context that typifies intent of social social aggression aggression is to manipulate and/or damage another’s social status or group membership, through either covert or overt means Social Aggression = Social Standing is the Group Dynamics Motivation • Social aggression requires the • Social aggressors may be more motivated manipulation of a social group by a need for dominance and thus use as the vehicle of harm, such as social aggression to inflate their own gossiping, spreading rumors, social standing in comparison to that of and social isolation their victim(s) • It is a more sophisticated form of aggression than relational aggression, since it requires knowledge of social dynamics, and the ability to subtly influence or orchestrate others’ behavior to achieve one’s own ends 4 5/23/2018 How Does Relational Genetic Influences Aggression Develop? • Research is controversial and provocative • There may be a biogenetic predisposition to • Precise causes are not entirely understood indirect aggression (Damberg et al., 2000) • Theory suggests personal, environmental, and • Biological links may help explain the behavioral influences act upon one another and preponderance of indirect aggression that is combine to produce different behaviors typically attributed to females (Westberg et al., • Factors at play include: 2003 and others) • genetic makeup • Brendgen et al. (2005) found that genetic influences accounted for about 50‐60% of the • cognitive processes variance for physical aggression, but only about • social‐psychological maladjustment 20% for relational aggression • family dynamics • Clear understanding of the role of genetics and • Gender differences provide further complication physiology in relational aggression will probably not be reached for some time Cognitive Psychosocial Influences Influences • Exaggerated positive self‐perceptions • Psychosocial maladjustment • Processing social information is taxing • Internalizing issues and peer relational • successful socialization contingent upon suppression of anger, especially in girls, problems (Marini et al., 2006) which may overburden attention‐ • Externalizing difficulties and peer rejection shifting and focusing resources • Bulimia and general dissatisfaction with life • Hostile Attribution Bias: a term used to in women (Werner & Crick, 1999) describe the tendency to view another’s • Conduct