Forms of Defending 1 Aggressive, Assertive And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aggressive, Assertive and Non-confrontational Forms of Defending: Differentiation of Forms and Consequences of Defending Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Meter, Diana J. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 24/09/2021 18:43:27 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/595651 Running head: FORMS OF DEFENDING 1 AGGRESSIVE, ASSERTIVE AND NON-CONFRONTATIONAL FORMS OF DEFENDING: DIFFERENTIATION OF FORMS AND CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDING by Diana J. Meter __________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of NORTON SCHOOL OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2015 FORMS OF DEFENDING 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Diana J. Meter, titled Aggressive, Assertive and Non-confrontational Forms of Defending: Differentiation of Forms and Consequences of Defending and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (Enter Date) Noel Card _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/29/2015 Stephen Russell _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/29/2015 Sheri Bauman _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/29/2015 Michael Sulkowski _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 10/29/2015 Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 10/29/2015 Dissertation Director: Noel Card ________________________________________________ Date: 10/29/2015 Dissertation Director: Stephen Russell FORMS OF DEFENDING 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Diana J. Meter FORMS OF DEFENDING 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was made possible by the support and guidance of my committee members. I would first like to thank Dr. Noel Card for teaching me the skills necessary to succeed as a researcher, and for always encouraging me to challenge myself. I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Russell for allowing me to join his lab and for providing thoughtful feedback and advice on this project, but also on important career decisions; I value his guidance. I also wish to acknowledge and thank Dr. Sheri Bauman for providing me a new home in the College of Education and for modeling ambition, generosity and kindness in mentorship and collaboration. Thank you also to Dr. Michael Sulkowski for asking tough questions while helping me to feel confident. I also wish to extend a special thanks to my University of Arizona professors and peers for their enthusiasm, creativity and support. I especially would like to acknowledge Alysha Ramirez and Katie Paschall, who have provided endless love, encouragement, and statistics advice throughout graduate school. I thank my parents, Mario and Esther Meter, and my brother Jason for believing in me from preschool until now, for giving me the opportunities to learn and grow into the person I am today, and for being proud of me even when I have a bad day. Last, I thank Rip Nolan for being the most understanding partner. Thank you for understanding when I have to stay late at night at school. Thank you for understanding when I cannot hang out on the weekend. Thank you for understanding when I am too exhausted to help you clean the house. Thank you for understanding how important and difficult, but wonderful being a graduate student has been for me, and for helping me to be my best self through it all. FORMS OF DEFENDING 5 Table of Contents ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………..10 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….....11 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………..……11 Peer Victimization is a Group Problem………………………………………………….11 Participant Roles…………………………………………………………………………13 Importance of Defenders in the Peer Group……………………………………………..15 Characteristics of Defenders……………………………………………………………..18 Scales Used to Measure Defending……………………………………………………...20 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..23 Forms of Defending……………………………………………………………………...25 Developmental Changes in Victimization and Defending………………………………30 Dissertation Purpose and Goals……………………………………….…………………34 Part 1: The factor structure of the enacted defending scale (EDS).…....…….…34 Part 2: Differentiation of EDS by form of victimization………………….……..35 Part 3: Dependent variables associated with enactment of different strategies...36 Part 4: Effect of age on endorsement of different defending strategies………....36 Part 5: Age moderation of the investigated effects………………………………37 METHODS…………………………………………………………………………….…..…….37 FORMS OF DEFENDING 6 Participants ……………………………………………………………………...……….37 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………..…….38 Measures………………………………………………………………………..….…….39 Demographics…………………………………………………………….…..….39 Enacted Defending Scale………………………………………………………...39 Aggression…………………………………………………………….…………39 Victimization……………………………………………………………………..40 Acceptance…………………………………………………………………….…40 Rejection…………………………………………………………………………40 Popularity……………………………………………………………………..…40 Unpopularity……………………………………………………………………..40 Depressive Symptoms……………………………………………………….……41 Analyses………………………………………………………………………………….41 Planned Missingness Design………………………………………..……………………41 Parts 1 & 2: Investigation of Factor Structure of the EDS & Differentiation of Forms of Aggression…………………………………………………………………..42 Part 3: Effects of Different Forms of Defending on Defenders……………………….…44 Part 4 & 5: Effect of Age on Strategies of Defending & Age Moderation Analysis…….44 FORMS OF DEFENDING 7 RESULTS………………………………………………………..………………………………45 Parts 1 and 2 Discussion: EDS Model Fitting………………………………...…………45 Part 3: Effects of Different Forms of Defending on Defenders………………………….49 Part 4: Age Effects on Strategies of Defending………………………………..………...51 Part 5: Age Moderation…………………………………………………………..………52 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………55 Parts 1 and 2: Factor Structure of the EDS………………………………………………55 Part 3: Associations between Enacted Defending Strategies and Outcomes…………….58 Part 4: Age Effects on Strategies of Defending……………………………………….....64 Part 5: Age Moderation…………………………………………………………..………66 Limitations and Future Directions…………………………………………….…………67 Conclusions and Implications……………………………………………………………73 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Constructs Included in Each of the Tested Models of the Enacted Defending Scale……………………………………………………………………………………75 Table 2: Enacted Defending Scale (EDS)………………………………………………………..76 Table 3: Items Included in Proposed Analyses and their Inclusion in the 10-Form Planned Missingness Survey……………………………………………………………………77 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics and Percent Missing Data of Dependent Variable Indicators ….80 FORMS OF DEFENDING 8 Table 5: Covariances from the CFA of Defending Strategies Predicting Dependent Variables..81 Table 6: Covariances from the SEM of Defending Strategies Predicting Dependent Variables..82 Table 7: Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors from the SEM of Defending Strategies Predicting Dependent Variables………......................................................................…83 Table 8: Full Regression Results from the Part 4 Model………………………………………..84 Table 9: Covariances from the SEM of Defending Strategies Predicting Dependent Variables, Moderated by Age……………………………………………………………………...85 Table 10: Standardized Regression Coefficients from the SEM of Defending Strategies Predicting Dependent Variables, Moderated by Age........................………………....87 FIGURES Figure 1: Visual depiction of levels of constructs of enacted defending to be evaluted……...…88 Figure 2: Covariances between constructs of the Enacted Defending Scale (EDS)………….…89 Figure 3: Effect of endorsement of defending strategies on dependent variables, controlling for gender……………………………………………………………………………..…....90 Figure 4: Effect of age on endorsement of defending strategies, controlling for gender…...…...91 Figure 5: The relation between assertive defending and depression at different