The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2008, 169(1), 2133

Copyright 2008 Heldref Publications

Adolescents Aggressive and Prosocial

Behavior: Associations With Jealousy and
Social Anxiety
CARMEN M. CULOTTA
University of New Orleans
SARA E. GOLDSTEIN
Montclair State University

ABSTRACT. The authors examined how relational aggression, physical aggression, and
proactive prosocial behavior were associated with jealousy and social anxiety in a diverse
sample of 60 middle school students. After the authors controlled for gender and race, jealousy predicted relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior, but it did not predict
physical aggression. Additionally, social anxiety predicted proactive prosocial behavior.
Adolescents who were more jealous in their peer relationships also tended to engage in
relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior, and adolescents who were more
socially anxious also tended to be proactively prosocial. The authors discuss the implications of these findings and suggest directions for future research.
Keywords: jealousy, relational aggression, social anxiety, social development

A COMPLEX INTERPLAY of biological, psychological, and social factors

occurs when an individual engages in a particular social behavior. With regard to
aggressive behavior, it is important for researchers and practitioners to identify
these factors so that effective prevention and intervention efforts can be developed (e.g., Boxer, Goldstein, Musher-Eizenman, Dubow, & Heretick, 2005).
Although much is known about the biopsychosocial variables that are important
for the development of physical aggression, less is known about how such factors contribute to the development of relational aggression, a type of aggressive
The authors thank the principal, teachers, parents, and students at the participating middle
school. The authors are also grateful to Anne Crapanzano and Andrea DiBlassi for their
assistance with data collection and to Linda Blanton, Carl Weems, and Paul Boxer for
their helpful comments on earlier stages of the manuscript.
Address correspondence to Sara E. Goldstein, Department of Family and Child Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA; goldsteins@mail.montclair.
edu (e-mail).
21

22

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

behavior characterized by harming others through the manipulation of social

relationships (e.g., Crick, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Relational aggression
and victimization have been associated with a variety of psychosocial concerns
such as loneliness, depression, and peer difficulties (see Underwood, 2003, for
a review). Moreover, relational aggression is the type of aggression that aggressive females typically use when they act aggressively (sterman et al., 1998;
Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004). Given these issues, additional knowledge about
factors associated with relational aggression is critical for the design of genderbalanced aggression prevention and intervention programs (Boxer et al., 2005;
Leff, Power, Manz, Costigan, & Nabors, 2001).
Relational aggression is both similar to and different from other types of
aggressive behavior. For example, the end results of relational aggression and
physical aggression are similar, in that harm is delivered. Both types of aggression also share a clear intent, which is necessary for a specific behavior to be
classified as aggression (Eron, 1987). Different mechanisms, however, are used
to deliver harm in relational versus physical aggression. Physical aggression
involves direct, physical harm such as pushing, shoving, or hitting, whereas
relational aggression entails harming others through social relationships, for
example, by social exclusion or by spreading a defamatory rumor (e.g., Paquette
& Underwood, 1999). Researchers have noted several factors that predict both
forms of aggression, such as social-cognitive factors (which we describe in
greater detail later in this article). Conversely, other characteristics of relational
and physical aggression are quite distinct. For example, relational aggression
has unique associations with young adolescents perceived popularity, whereas
physical aggression does not, suggesting that there may be something particularly socially advantageous about relational aggression (Rose, Swenson, &
Waller, 2004). Researchers have also noted that relational aggression (and the
closely related constructs of indirect aggression and social aggression; Cairns,
Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Garipy, 1989; Lagerspetz, Bjrkqvist, &
Peltonen, 1988) represents a relatively socially sophisticated mechanism for
delivering harm (e.g., Bjrkqvist, sterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992), whereas
physical aggression typically involves less social sophistication. For instance,
less may be at stake for the perpetrator of relational aggression. Relational
aggression is not usually subject to formal rules and regulations, therefore the
perpetrator is unlikely to receive punishment. Moreover, the identity of the perpetrator of relational aggression may be unknown (e.g., in the case of defamatory gossip), making it difficult to deliver punishment even if the behavior could
be punished. Last, there is often a fine line between the personal behaviors of
friendship selection and termination and relational aggression (e.g., Goldstein
& Tisak, 2006), thus making it unclear whether an act of aggression occurred.
Nonetheless, youth typically acknowledge that clear examples of relational
aggression are wrong and harmful to others (e.g., Goldstein & Tisak, 2004;
Paquette & Underwood).

Culotta & Goldstein

23

Relational Aggression and Proactive Prosocial Behavior

Some evidence suggests that another form of social behavior shares similar characteristics with relational aggression, in that it represents a relatively
low-risk way for the perpetrator to achieve his or her particular interpersonal
or material goals. Boxer, Tisak, and Goldstein (2004) suggested that a form of
prosocial behavior, which they referred to as proactive prosocial behavior, is
also associated with physical aggression and associated cognitions. Proactive
prosocial behavior is motivated by the expectancy of a desired outcome from
the behavior, whereas altruistic prosocial behavior is not motivated by a desired
goal and occurs voluntarily without provocation. To illustrate, an example of
proactive prosocial behavior is one girls inviting a second girl to her birthday
party, only in the hope of receiving an invitation to the second girls pool. Thus,
proactive prosocial behavior reflects a self-serving social cognitive style that may
signify increased risk for different types of aggression. Unlike relational aggression, however, proactive prosocial behavior does not carry the mean stigma and
thus might be more socially acceptable. Proactive prosocial behavior, therefore,
may be important for researchers to include when examining aggressive youths
behavioral repertoire and when trying to identify youth for aggression treatment
efforts. One limitation of Boxer et al.s study, however, was that the authors did
not directly examine whether proactive prosocial behavior was positively correlated with relational aggression. Thus, specific ideas about similarities between
proactive prosocial behavior and relational aggression still need to be tested. If
proactive prosocial behavior does share similar social cognitive factors with relational aggression, then this finding would be of interest for treatment providers
and program developers. As we previously mentioned, measurement of proactive
prosocial behavior might be a good screening device either for potential problems
with relational aggression or for a social-cognitive pattern that places youth at
risk for aggression.
Social-Cognitive Factors and Relational Aggression
For the purpose of prevention and intervention delivery, it is important to
identify particular variables that are subject to modification through cognitive and
behavioral restructuring, such as social-cognitive factors (e.g., Boxer & Dubow,
2002). In fact, social-cognitive approaches to treating aggression have been
identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a best practice
method (Thornton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000). However, most of the
research that focuses on developing and assessing aggression treatment programs
concentrates on physical forms of aggressive behavior. Nonetheless, an emerging line of research suggests that social-cognitive approaches may also be useful
in the treatment of relational aggression (Boxer et al., 2005; Boxer, Terranova,
Savoy, & Goldstein, in press).

24

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Research shows that relationally aggressive youth, like physically aggressive

youth, process social information differently than do their peers. For example,
Musher-Eizenman et al. (2004) found that beliefs about the acceptability of responding to provocation in a relationally aggressive manner predicted relational aggression,
such that those youth who were more accepting of such responses were likely to
have higher levels of relational aggression. Goldstein and Tisak (2004) reported that
adolescents who expected relatively positive outcomes from relational aggression
tended to have higher levels of relational aggression. Similarly, Crick, Grotpeter, and
Bigbee (2002) found evidence for increased perceptions of hostile intent in ambiguous relationally provocative situations among relationally aggressive youth.
Another related factor that may be important in the processing of social information is the extent to which an individual feels jealous of his or her peers. For
example, a jealous girl may observe a social interaction between her best friend
and another classmate and feel a sense of betrayal or insecurity, thus increasing
the likelihood of a potentially problematic chain of psychological and behavioral
events. In this way, feelings of excessive jealousy within close peer relationships can be conceptualized as a challenge with processing social information.
In support of this idea, some evidence indicates that jealousy is associated with
aggression (e.g., Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992; Parker, Low, Walker, &
Gamm, 2005; Puente & Cohen, 2003). However, these researchers either examined aggression as a general construct or focused on aggression within romantic
relationships and did not focus specifically on relational aggression within
youths nonromantic peer relationships. It is important to know whether jealousy
is a factor associated with relational aggression, because this is information that
could potentially be integrated into intervention and prevention efforts.
Social anxiety, typically operationalized as a fear of being negatively evaluated or appraised in social situations, can also be conceptualized as a potential
social-cognitive risk factor for aggression. Social anxiety represents a way of
thinking about peer relationships that is somewhat similar to a hostile attributional bias, which is the tendency to attribute others intentions in ambiguous social
situations to a hostile motivation. Previous research has shown that aggressive
youth are more likely to have hostile attributional biases than are their peers (e.g.,
Crick, 1995; Dodge, 1980). Given the relationally oriented focus of social anxiety,
it follows that this relationally focused negative attribution of others might predict
relational aggression. There is some evidence that relationally victimized youth
tend to be socially anxious (e.g., La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Storch, Brassard,
& Masia-Warner, 2003). However, few researchers have specifically investigated
whether social anxiety is a motivational factor for relational aggression.
The Present Study
In the present study, we examined associations between (a) jealousy and social
anxiety and (b) relational aggression, physical aggression, and proactive prosocial

Culotta & Goldstein

25

behavior in a sample of young adolescents. We conceptualized jealousy and social

anxiety as social cognitive factors that may be associated with a propensity to engage
in aggressive behavior and proactive prosocial behavior. We tested several specific
hypotheses in the present study. First, we examined gender differences in study variables. Based on past research on gender differences in jealousy and social anxiety
(La Greca & Lopez, 1998; Parker et al., 2005), we expected that girls would have
more jealousy and social anxiety than would boys. We also expected boys to engage
in physical aggression more frequently than girls (e.g., Tremblay, Hartup, & Archer,
2005). On the basis of the little research available on proactive prosocial behavior and
the mixed results regarding gender differences in mean levels of relational aggression
(see Archer & Coyne, 2005, for a review), we did not forward formal hypotheses about
gender differences in these constructs. Our second series of tests involved assessing
associations among study variables. We hypothesized that jealousy and social anxiety
would be associated with relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior, but
not with physical aggression. We also expected relational aggression to share moderate correlations with physical aggression and proactive prosocial behavior.
Method
Participants
We drew the sample from a public middle school in a suburban area near a
large city in the Southern United States. Sixty-four early adolescents assented to
participate, but 4 male participants did not complete any answers on the survey.
Thus, the final sample included 60 adolescents in grades 68 (M age = 12.52
years, SD = 1.32 years; range = 1116 years; 29 girls, 35 boys). We obtained
parental consent for all participants. Participants were primarily White (43.3%),
Black (23.3%), or Hispanic/Latino (23.3%).
Measures
Social anxiety. We adapted items concerning social anxiety from the Social
Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (La Greca & Lopez, 1998). On the basis of
results regarding associations with gender and peer relationships reported by La
Greca and Lopez, we used items based on the Social Avoidance and Distress
General subscale in the present study. This subscale contained four items and
focused on the extent to which adolescents experience general distress, discomfort,
and inhibitions with regard to social situations. Respondents indicated how true
items were using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all
the time). Reliability in the present sample was good, = .81.
Jealousy. We used the Friendship Jealousy Questionnaire (Parker et al.,
2005) to assess jealousy. Each of the 15 items presented hypothetical situations

26

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

involving a best friend and a third party. Students indicated how true the statements were using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true of me at all)
to 5 (really true of me). Reliability was good in the present sample, = .92
Prosocial behavior. We used items from the Aggressive and Prosocial
Behavior Questionnaire (Boxer et al., 2004) to measure prosocial behavior. The
items reported on in the present study involved proactive prosocial behavior (e.g.,
lend things to others to get what you want). There were 5 questions on this
scale, and they focused on helping, doing a favor, sharing, lending something, and
giving a compliment. For each item, respondents indicated how often they engage
in the behavior using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very
often). Reliability was good for proactive prosocial behavior, = .78.
Aggression. To measure aggression, we adapted items from the Direct and
Indirect Aggression Scales (Bjrkqvist et al., 1992). Additionally, we developed
several new items focusing on relational aggression. The final relational aggression scale had 15 items, and the physical aggression scale had 7 items. For each
question, respondents indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (very often) how often they engage in each relationally (e.g., keep
other kids out of your group of friends) and physically (e.g., hit others) aggressive behavior. Reliability of the scales in present sample was good for relational
aggression, = .90, and for physical aggression, = .89.
Procedure
Data collection took place at school in groups of 15 students or fewer. After
listening to the instructions, adolescents completed the questionnaires independently. Researchers were available to answer questions. All procedures followed
the ethical guidelines suggested by the American Psychological Association
(2002).
Results
Preliminary Analyses: Gender Differences and Bivariate Correlations
The first series of analyses involved computing descriptive statistics and testing for gender differences, because gender has been identified as an important
factor in many of the variables that we included in the present study. Second, we
assessed bivariate correlations among all study variables.
Gender differences. We computed a series of t tests to assess gender differences
in study variables. Means, standard deviations, t test results, and effect sizes are shown
in Table 1. We found gender differences in two study variables. Consistent with our

Culotta & Goldstein

27

TABLE 1. Gender Differences Among All Scales

Gender
Male
Behavior
Social anxiety
Relational aggression
Physical aggression
Proactive prosocial
Jealousy

Female

SD

SD

df

1.56
1.54
1.50
1.60
1.69

0.68
0.49
0.57
0.66
0.79

2.02
1.87
1.74
1.96
2.24

0.96
0.76
0.85
0.80
0.89

2.10*
1.93+
1.24
1.84+
2.50*

57
50
58
57
57

.59
.55
.33
.49
.66

Note. Scores for social anxiety ranged from 15, with higher scores corresponding to greater
social anxiety. Scores for relational aggression ranged from 15, with higher scores corresponding to greater relational aggression. Scores for physical aggression ranged from 15,
with higher scores corresponding to greater physical aggression. Scores for jealousy ranged
from 15, with higher scores corresponding to greater jealousy.
+
p < .10. *p < .05.

hypotheses, girls, as compared with boys, reported significantly higher levels of social
anxiety (girls: M = 2.02, SD = 0.96; boys: M = 1.56, SD = 0.68) and jealousy (girls:
M = 2.24, SD = 0.89; boys: M = 1.69, SD = 0.79). Gender differences for relational
aggression and proactive prosocial behavior approached significance and also favored
the girls, but we do not discuss them further in this article because the findings did not
reach conventional significance levels. In contrast to our hypothesis about physical
aggression, however, no gender differences were found.
Bivariate correlations. The next series of analyses involved computing
bivariate correlations among study variables. These results are shown in Table
2. As indicated, several significant correlations emerged. Proactive prosocial
TABLE 2. Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables
Variable
1. Social anxiety
2. Relational aggression
3. Physical aggression
4. Proactive prosocial
5. Jealousy
*

p < .05. **p < .01.

.21
.13
.41**
.29*

.68**
.70**
.45**

.36**
.17

.40**

28

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

behavior was positively correlated with each of the other study variables. Additionally, relational aggression was positively associated with physical aggression,
proactive prosocial behavior, and jealousy. Adolescents who were more relationally aggressive also were more physically aggressive, proactively prosocial, and
jealous. Physical aggression was positively correlated with proactive prosocial
behavior. These results provide partial support for our hypotheses regarding associations among study variables, supporting our predicted associations between
physical aggression and proactive prosocial behavior and also our expected relations between relational aggression, proactive prosocial behavior, and jealousy.
Differences between relational and physical aggression. In addition to these
bivariate correlations, of special interest was ascertaining whether relational
aggression and physical aggression were differentially correlated with proactive
prosocial behavior, jealousy, and social anxiety. If correlations between relational
aggression and these constructs were significantly different from correlations
between physical aggression and these constructs, then this would provide evidence for the distinctiveness of these constructs. To assess this issue, we tested
differences between correlation coefficients for relational aggression versus
physical aggression via a series of Fisher r-to-z transformations. We conducted
one test for each variable (proactive prosocial behavior, jealousy, and social anxiety). The correlation of relational aggression with proactive prosocial behavior
was significantly higher than the correlation of physical aggression with proactive prosocial behavior (z = 2.51, p < .01). Similarly, the correlation of relational
aggression with jealousy was significantly higher than the correlation of physical
aggression with jealousy (z = 1.79, p < .05). However, we found no significant
difference between the correlation of relational aggression to social anxiety and
the correlation of physical aggression to social anxiety (z = 0.34, ns).
Regression Models
Next, we examined how social anxiety and jealousy predicted aggressive and
proactive prosocial behavior after controlling for gender and race. We conducted
a series of hierarchical regression analyses to address this question. Gender, race,
jealousy, and social anxiety were independent variables, and relational aggression, physical aggression, and proactive prosocial behavior were dependent variables. We conducted one regression analysis for each dependent variable. In each
analysis, we entered gender in Step 1, entered race (coded for White, Black, and
Hispanic/Latino) in Step 2, and entered jealousy and social anxiety in Step 3.
Results for this series of analyses are depicted in Table 3. As shown, jealousy (but
not social anxiety) significantly predicted relational aggression after controlling
for gender and race. Both jealousy and social anxiety predicted proactive prosocial behavior after controlling for gender and race. Neither jealousy nor social
anxiety significantly predicted physical aggression.1 These results provide further

.05
.06
.13
.09
.02
.14
.06
.02
.07

.17
.15
.21
.31
.06
.41**
.07
.17**
.31**

Physical aggression

.27*
.38**
.23**
.36**

.07
.20
.11
.07

.11

Proactive prosocial

Note. For gender, female = 1, male = 2. For race, AA = African American, EA = European American, HA = Hispanic/Latino; race was dummy coded:
0 = no, 1= yes in regard to whether or not the participant was of the specified race. Scores for jealousy ranged from 15, with 5 corresponding to
greater jealousy. Scores for social anxiety ranged from 15, with 5 corresponding to greater social anxiety.
*
p < .05. **p < .01.

Step 1: Gender

Step 2: Race
AA
EA
HA
R2
Step 3: Cognitive variables
Jealousy
Social anxiety
R2
Final R2

Relational aggression

Types of behavior

TABLE 3. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Jealousy and Social Anxiety Predicting Behavior After Controlling
for Gender and Race

Culotta & Goldstein

29

30

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

partial support for our hypotheses about associations among study variables, in
that we expected jealousy and social anxiety to predict both relational aggression
and proactive prosocial behavior, but not physical aggression.
Discussion
Our main goal in the present study was to examine whether jealousy or social
anxiety were associated with different forms of aggressive behavior (physical and
relational) and a type of prosocial behavior that has been associated with aggressionsupporting cognitions (proactive prosocial behavior). Although we did not find
that these factors predicted physical aggression, our results suggest that jealousy
was associated with both relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior.
Adolescents who reported being more jealous in their peer relationships also
reported higher levels of relational aggression and proactive prosocial behavior.
Jealous adolescents may misinterpret social cues as threatening their peer relationships, and relational aggression or proactive prosocial behavior may result
in part from this misinterpretation. In other words, jealousy may motivate both
behaviors in that if the adolescent does not have what he or she perceives other
youth as having, then he or she may be compelled to use some form of social
manipulation (whether it is being nice or being mean) to get what he or she wants.
Longitudinal research is necessary to address these directional relations; however,
the present results suggest that this is a possibility.
Social anxiety did not predict relational or physical aggression, but it did
predict proactive prosocial behavior. When adolescents reported higher levels
of social anxiety, they also tended to report more frequent proactive prosocial
behavior. Socially anxious adolescents experience distress with regard to social
situations, so proactive prosocial behavior may be instrumental for them to gain
peer acceptance. Socially anxious adolescents may expect that others will view
them positively because of their prosocial behavior regardless of the motivations
behind the seemingly kind act. It would be interesting for future researchers to
specifically test this hypothesis.
In addition to the regression models, several noteworthy bivariate correlations emerged. First, consistent with previous research (Boxer et al., 2004), we
found a correlation between physical aggression and proactive prosocial behavior. Relational aggression was also highly correlated with proactive prosocial
behavior. Thus, proactive prosocial behavior may be important to consider in
aggressive adolescents behavioral repertoire regardless of the type of aggression
in which they typically engage.
Although we found no gender differences in aggression, girls reports of
higher levels of jealousy and social anxiety could help to explain previous
research findings (Crick, 1995; Galen & Underwood, 1997; Goldstein & Tisak,
2004) indicating that girls, as compared with boys, perceive relational aggression as more harmful and hurtful. If girls focus on perceived issues with regard

Culotta & Goldstein

31

to friendships, then it makes sense that they also are more sensitive to infractions within friendships. Thus, taken together with previous research, the gender
differences found in the present study highlight the importance of considering
issues regarding gender in intervention and prevention programs. For example,
girls may particularly benefit from an increased understanding of perceived social
threats to their relationships.
A few limitations of the present findings should be mentioned. First, we
focused on early adolescents; thus, the results may not generalize to other age
groups. Second, because of the relatively small sample size, replication with a larger
sample would be useful. Nonetheless, with an N of 60 and a medium effect size,
power in the present sample was greater than .70, which is considered adequate
(Cohen, 1988). Third, we recruited all adolescents in the present sample from a
single middle school, which could compromise the generalizability of the findings.
Thus, it is important that future researchers explore similar issues with adolescents
from a variety of settings. Last, we did not address developmental change in the
study variables. It may be of interest for future investigators to study developmental
changes in adolescents aggressive and prosocial behaviors with regard to jealousy
and social anxiety using longitudinal methodology. For prevention and intervention
efforts, it is important to understand the temporal emergence of these behaviors.
Despite these limitations, the present results offer ideas for intervention and
prevention program development. For example, issues regarding jealousy may be
worthwhile to address in programs that target relationally aggressive behavior. In
addition to jealousy being an unpleasant experience in its own right, jealous individuals in the present study also tended to be relatively relationally aggressive.
Moreover, because proactive prosocial behavior and relational aggression were
highly associated and shared a common social-cognitive correlate (jealousy), it
might be useful for future researchers to include items measuring proactive prosocial behavior on screening measures to identify at-risk adolescents.
NOTE
1. To take another look at the similarities and differences between predictors of
relational and physical aggression, we conducted an additional regression analysis using
a general aggression construct (physical + relational) as the dependent variable. Results
for this regression were similar to results for relational aggression in that jealousy ( =
.39, p < .01), but not social anxiety ( = .02, ns), predicted aggression. Thus, jealousy may
predict aggression overall. However, when aggression is considered in terms of subtypes
(relational vs. physical), the present results only support associations with relational
aggression. Additional information about this analysis is available from the authors.
AUTHOR NOTES
Carmen M. Culotta is a graduate student in The Pennsylvania State Universitys developmental psychology program. Her current research interests include the social cognitive
processes associated with racial stereotyping. Sara E. Goldstein is an assistant professor in

32

The Journal of Genetic Psychology

the Department of Family and Child Studies at Montclair State University in New Jersey.
Her major research interests include peer relationships, aggression, and gender.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and
codes of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 10601073.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212230.
Bjrkqvist, K., sterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and
indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjrkqvist & P. Niemel
(Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 5164). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence:
A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297311.
Boxer, P., & Dubow, E. F. (2002). A social-cognitive information processing model for
school-based aggression reduction and prevention programs: Issues for research and
practice. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 10, 177192.
Boxer, P., Goldstein, S. E., Musher-Eizenman, D., Dubow, E. F., & Heretick, D. (2005).
Developmental issues in school-based aggression prevention from a social-cognitive
perspective. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 383400.
Boxer, P., Terranova, A. M., Savoy, S. C., & Goldstein, S. E. (in press). Developmental
issues in the prevention of aggression and violence in school. In T. Miller (Ed.) School
violence and primary prevention. New York: Springer.
Boxer, P., Tisak, M. S., & Goldstein, S. E. (2004). Is it bad to be good? An exploration
of aggressive and prosocial behavior subtypes in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 33, 91100.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Garipy, J. L. (1989).
Growth and aggression: I. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology,
25, 320330.
Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 425434.
Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of
distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313322.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological
adjustments. Child Development, 66, 710722.
Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive childrens intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental
peer provocations. Child Development, 73, 11341142.
Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and childrens aggressive behaviour. Child Development, 51, 162170.
Eron, L. D. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a
developing behaviorism. American Psychologist, 42, 435442.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 11, 590600.
Goldstein, S. E., & Tisak, M. S. (2004). Adolescents outcome expectancies about relational aggression within acquaintanceships, friendships, and dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 283302.
Goldstein, S. E., & Tisak, M. S. (2006). Early adolescents conceptions of parental
and friend authority over relational aggression. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26,
344364.

Culotta & Goldstein

33

Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjrkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403414.
La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and
romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 4961.
La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with
peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 8394.
Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Manz, P. H., Costigan, T. E., & Nabors, L. A. (2001). School-based
aggression prevention programs for young children: Current status and implications for
violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 30, 344362.
Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Boxer, P., Danner, S., Dubow, E. F., Goldstein, S. E., & Heretick,
D. M. L. (2004). Social-cognitive mediators of the relation of environmental and emotion regulation factors to childrens aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 389408.
sterman, K., Bjrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S., Fraczek, A., et
al. (1998). Cross cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior,
14, 403414.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents
experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 45, 242266.
Parker, J. G., Low, C. M., Walker, A. R., & Gamm, B. K. (2005). Friendship jealousy in
young adolescents: Individual differences and links to sex, self-esteem, aggression, and
social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 41, 235250.
Puente, S., & Cohen, D. (2003). Jealousy and the meaning (or nonmeaning) of violence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 449460.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and
perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378387.
Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). Female aggression revisited: Variable- and
person-centered approaches to studying gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 158163.
Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of peer
victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33,
118.
Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Tremblay, R. E., Hartup, W. W., & Archer, J. (2005). Developmental origins of aggression.
New York: Guilford Press.
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford Press.

Received December 7, 2006

Accepted September 7, 2007

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.