Status Differences in Target-Specific Prosocial Behavior and Aggression

被引:22
作者
Closson, Leanna M. [1 ]
Hymel, Shelley [2 ]
机构
[1] St Marys Univ, Dept Psychol, 923 Robie St, Halifax, NS, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, Dept Educ & Counselling Psychol & Special Educ, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada
关键词
Aggression; Prosocial behavior; Likeability; Popularity; Dominance; Early adolescence; SOCIAL-STATUS; EARLY ADOLESCENCE; DEVELOPMENTAL-CHANGES; RESOURCE CONTROL; PEER RELATIONS; MIDDLE SCHOOL; POPULARITY; DOMINANCE; GIRLS; VICTIMIZATION;
D O I
10.1007/s10964-016-0481-7
中图分类号
B844 [发展心理学(人类心理学)];
学科分类号
040202 ;
摘要
Previous studies exploring the link between social status and behavior have predominantly utilized measures that do not provide information regarding toward whom aggression or prosocial behavior is directed. Using a contextualized target-specific approach, this study examined whether high-and low-status adolescents behave differently toward peers of varying levels of status. Participants, aged 11-15 (N = 426, 53 % females), completed measures assessing aggression and prosocial behavior toward each same-sex grademate. A distinct pattern of findings emerged regarding the likeability, popularity, and dominance status of adolescents and their peer targets. Popular adolescents reported more direct aggression, indirect aggression, and prosocial behavior toward popular peers than did unpopular adolescents. Well-accepted adolescents reported more prosocial behavior toward a wider variety of peers than did rejected adolescents. Finally, compared to subordinate adolescents, dominant adolescents reported greater direct and indirect aggression toward dominant than subordinate peers. The results highlight the importance of studying target-specific behavior to better understand the status-behavior link.
引用
收藏
页码:1836 / 1848
页数:13
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
Adler P.A., 1998, Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity
[2]  
Aiken L.S., 1991, Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1991, LEARNING DISABILITIE, V6, P83
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006 COMM PROF
[5]   Social intelligence minus empathy = aggression? [J].
Björkqvist, K ;
Österman, K ;
Kaukiainen, A .
AGGRESSION AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOR, 2000, 5 (02) :191-200
[6]  
BJORKQVIST K, 1992, AGGRESSIVE BEHAV, V18, P117, DOI 10.1002/1098-2337(1992)18:2<117::AID-AB2480180205>3.0.CO
[7]  
2-3
[8]   Class size, pupil attentiveness and peer relations [J].
Blatchford, P ;
Edmonds, S ;
Martin, C .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 73 :15-36
[9]  
Bukowski W.M., 2007, AGGRESSION ADAPTATIO, P185
[10]   DIFFERENCES AND CONSISTENCY BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OTHER-SEX PEER RELATIONSHIPS DURING EARLY ADOLESCENCE [J].
BUKOWSKI, WM ;
GAUZE, C ;
HOZA, B ;
NEWCOMB, AF .
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1993, 29 (02) :255-263