Developm~tal Psychology Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1997, Vol. 33, No. 4, 589-600 0012-1649t97/$3.00

A Developmental Investigation of Social Aggression Among Children

Britt Rachelle Galen and Marion K. Underwood
Reed College

Social aggressionconsists of actions directed at damaginganother's self-esteem,social status, or both,

and includes behaviors such as facial expressionsof disdain, cruel gossiping,and the manipulationof
friendship patterns. In Study 1, 4th, 7th, and 10th graders completed the Social Behavior Question-
naire; only boys viewed physical aggression as more hurtful than social aggression, and girls rated
social aggression as more hurtful than did boys. In the 1st phase of Study 2, girls participated in a
laboratory task in which elements of social aggression were elicited and reliably coded. In the 2nd
phase of Study 2, another sample of participants (elementary, middle, and high school boys and
girls) viewed samples of socially aggressive behaviors from these sessions. Girls rated the aggressor
as more angry than boys, and middle school and high school participants viewed the socially
aggressive behaviors as indicating more dislike than elementary school children.

Parents, teachers, and mental health professionals believe that
adolescent girls can be cruel to one another, as indicated by
remarks such as, "Boys may use their fists to fight, but at least
it's over with quickly; girls use their tongues, and it goes on
forever." The primary goal of this research was to further inves-
tigate girls' expressions of anger and contempt toward same-
sex peers, using a combination of methods: self-report question-
naires, observations of play sessions, and children's judgments
of videotaped samples of girls' aggressive behaviors. We pro-
pose that aggression among girls consists of more subtle behav-
iors, termed social aggression, than the physical abuse and ver-
bal threats of aggression more common in boys' behavior. Like
physical aggression, social aggression is also directed toward
inflicting harm on another, but it achieves this goal in a different
way. Social aggression is directed toward damaging another's
self-esteem, social status, or both, and may take direct forms
such as verbal rejection, negative facial expressions or body
Britt Rachelle Galen and Marion K. Underwood,PsychologyDepart-
ment, Reed College.
This research was conducted in partial fulfillmentof the requirements
for the bachelor of arts degree conferred on Britt Rachelle Galen. We
thank the members of the thesis committee for their helpful comments:
Allen Neuringer, Stacey Vallas, and Bill Wiest. This research was par-
tially supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH52110.
Portions of this research were presented at the 1994 meeting of the
Oregon Academy of Science, Corvallis, Oregon, and the 1995 biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,Indianapolis,
Indiana.
We gratefully acknowledgethe energetic participation of the children
and staff of the Portland Public Schools, with special thanks to Michael
Harris who supported our work consistently. We also appr~iate the
participation of the children and staff of the Lents Boys and Girls Club,
especially directors Tahja Jackson and Mark Kunhausen.Study 2 would
not have been possible without the superb assistance with coding pro-
vided by Brian Zamboni.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Marion K. Underwood, Psychology Department, Reed College, Port-
land, Oregon 97202. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to
marion.underwood @reed.edu.
movements, or more indirect forms such as slanderous rumors or
social exclusion. We prefer the term social aggression because it
aptly describes a class of behaviors that belong together because
they serve the same function in ongoing social interaction: to
hurt another person by doing harm to her self-concept or social
standing.
Psychologists and educators may focus less on forms of ag-
gressive behavior among girls because traditional definitions of
aggression emphasize behaviors more typical of boys, such as
physical fighting. However, formal criteria for aggression sug-
gest that other behaviors may also meet these standards. Harr6
and Lamb (1983) stated that although there are more than 250
different definitions of aggression found in the psychological
literature, two general features of aggression are broadly ac-
cepted: (a) aggressive behavior must be perceived negatively
by the victim and (b) aggressive behavior must be intentional,
where the aggressor is described as desirous of hurting or de-
stroying the victim physically or psychologically. Although pain
and injury have been most often interpreted by researchers to
mean bodily harm, these terms could also apply to damage to
one's self-esteem or social standing.
Gender Differences in Aggression
Two existing bodies of research are relevant to aggressive
behavior among girls: research on gender differences in aggres-
sion and investigations of bully-victim relationships. Although
many accept the general claim that boys are more aggressive
than girls (e.g., Block, 1983; Maccoby, 1990; Maccoby &
Jacklin, 1974, 1980), research on aggression in children has
not consistently supported this assumption. On the basis of an
extensive meta-analysis, Hyde (1984) concluded that boys are
more aggressive but noted that gender differences were not large
and were decreasing in recent investigations. Even more con-
temporary research has indicated that the magnitude of gender
differences in aggression depends on how aggression is defined
(e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1984; Eagly & Steffen, 1986).
Feshbach (1969) observed gender differences in direct and
indirect aggressive responses to a newcomer in first-grade chil-

589
590 GALEN AND UNDERWOOD
dren. Although boys and girls did not differ on direct aggression,
girls expressed more indirect aggression to the unknown peer.
Using a similar method with a sample of adolescents, Feshbach
and Sones ( 1971 ) found that girls waited longer to address the
newcomer than boys, and girls ignored the newcomer's ideas
more than boys. In their conclusion, they emphasized that "as
far as aggression is conceived as a motivated sequence of behav-
iors resulting in the infliction of pain, then a deliberate snub
and social exclusion may be functionally equivalent to a verbal
insult or even to a physical blow" (p. 385).
Naturalistic, observational studies confirm that whether or
not gender differences in aggression emerge depends on how
aggression is defined. For a sample of preschool, first-, and
second-grade children, Hartup (1974) found that boys exhibited
more hostile aggression, but no difference was found between
boys and girls for instrumental aggression. Archer, Pearson, and
Westeman (1988) observed elementary school children in class-
rooms and found no overall gender differences in aggressive
behavior but reported that boys exhibited more physical aggres-
sion than girls, whereas girls showed more verbal aggression
than boys.
Further evidence that girls and boys exhibit different forms
of aggression to different degrees comes from a longitudinal
study in which Cairns and Cairns (1984) administered measures
of aggression and conflict behavior to fourth-grade participants
and repeated these measures when the children were in fifth
grade. Although girls and boys were reported by peers to be
equally involved in conflicts, two gender differences were found:
Physical aggression was reported more frequently in boys' con-
flicts with other boys and participants reported more ignoring
in girls' conflicts with other girls. In a second longitudinal study
investigating developmental changes in aggression from fourth
grade to ninth grade, Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, and
Gariepy (1989) found that physical aggression continued in
male-male conflicts throughout childhood to early adolescence
but this phenomenon decreased with age in girls' conflicts with
both girls and boys. However, social alienation and ostracism
dramatically increased with age in female-female conflicts.
Also, boys rarely reported social alienation and ostracism, but
girls frequently mentioned these behaviors.
in a study that illustrates how girls and boys might view
specific types of aggressive behavior differently, Foster, DeLa-
wyer, and Guevremont (1986) asked second, fifth, and eighth
graders to think of two things that other children did that made
the participants like the children less, and two that made them
like the children more. For the negative incidents, they found
that boys reported more physical aggression and property dam-
age and girls reported more social exclusion.
In one of the few studies to focus specifically on girls' aggres-
sive behavior; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen (1988)
asked 11- and 12-year-olds to answer the question "What does
he [or she] do when angry with another boy [or girl] in the
class?" about themselves and same-sex peers in their class-
rooms. The results showed that girls used more indirect means
of aggression (e.g., tells untruth behind back, does not acknowl-
edge knowing that person, takes revenge in play, says to others
"let's not be with him [or her]," and starts being somebody
else's friend in revenge), whereas boys used more direct means
of aggression (e.g., tripping, sweating, kicking or hitting, and
shoving).
Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992) conducted
factor analyses on 8- and 15-year-old participants' responses
to these same questions, which yielded three types of anger
expressions for the 8-year-olds: (a) direct means (e.g., kicks-
strikes, pushes-shoves, and profanity), (b) indirect means
(e.g., gossips, suggests shunning of the other, says " I ' m not
your friend"), and (c) withdrawal (e.g., tells teacher, goes
away, sulks). For the 15-year-old group, factor analyses indi-
cated four types of anger expression: (a) direct physical aggres-
sion; (b) direct verbal aggression (e.g., name-calling, profanity,
arguing), (c) indirect aggression, and (d) withdrawal. Bjorkq-
vist et al. noted that the gender differences in physical aggression
were consistent across development, but the gender differences
in indirect aggression were more evident in the two older groups.
A recent third study (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) focused on
one of the elements of indirect aggression examined by La-
gerspetz et al. (1988) and Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) - - t h e manip-
ulation of friendship patterns. Crick and Grotpeter applied the
term relational aggression to behaviors such as telling others
that they will stop liking them if they do not obey their com-
mands, and trying to exclude certain people from activities. For
third- through sixth-grade boys and girls, peer nomination scales
were used to assess both relational and overt aggression (hitting,
yelling, fighting). Overt aggression and relational aggression
scores were significantly but only moderately related, suggesting
that the two forms of aggression are distinct. Girls were more
relationally aggressive whereas boys were more overtly
aggressive.
Although this research adds much to our understanding of
girls' aggressive behavior, the construct relational aggression
may not capture all of the forms of aggression evident in girls'
peer interactions. Negative facial expressions and gestures and
subtle jabs at another's self-esteem may also be important fea-
tures of gids' aggressive behavior. Children likely derive much
social information from the body language of peers; social ac-
ceptance or rejection and praise or ridicule can appear in facial
expressions and gestures as well as in words. Social ostracism
or relationship manipulation may begin with rolling of eyes,
tossing of hair, and turning away from a peer (Feshbach, 1969;
Olweus, 1991). Further evidence that a construct for social
aggression should include disdainful facial expressions comes
from research that shows a strong relation between peer nomina-
tions for relational aggression and negative facial expressions.
For a sample of fourth graders, Underwood (1992) found that
peer nominations for negative facial expressions ("These peo-
ple make mean faces and roll their eyes at other kids") were
strongly positively correlated with nominations for relational
aggression ("These people try to tell other kids who to be
friends with and who not to be friends with" ).
B u l l y - V i c t i m Relationships
Olweus (1991) defined bullying as negative actions repeat-
edly directed toward a child by one or more other children "by
physical contact, by words, or in other ways, such as by making
faces or dirty gestures" (p. 413). Olweus also distinguished
between direct bullying (e.g., open attacks on victim) and indi-
 SOCIAL AGGRESSION
rect bullying (e.g., social isolation and exclusion), and stated
that gifts experience more indirect forms of bullying than direct
forms. For a sample of grade-school children, Lowenstein
(1977) found that although there were twice as many male
bullies as female bullies in the sample, girls were more likely
to use psychological and verbal aggression whereas the boys
used physical aggression. Rigby and Slee (1991) used peer
nomination items to assess bullying among Australian children
and found that although boys reported being bullied more often
than gifts, the only behavior that yielded a significant gender
difference was being hit or pushed around. Although gifts may
engage in less bullying behavior overall, research on gender
differences in bully-victim relationships suggests that girls may
bully other gifts with psychological rather than physical means.
Social Aggression A m o n g Girls
On the basis of the few findings available, a picture of girls'
aggression emerges. Compared with boys, girls seem to use
more indirect aggression and aggressive behaviors directed to-
ward hurting others by damaging their relations with peers.
However, the question of why girls use these aggressive strate-
gies still remains. One reason may be that girls view indirect
or social aggression as more effective than other forms of ag-
gression. For a sample of adolescents, Rauste-von Wright
(1989) found that gifts perceived the function of verbal aggres-
sion as gaining status and admiration from peers whereas boys
perceived its function as "saving face."
Research on gifts' friendships suggests that gifts might use
social aggression because children's friendships are often segre-
gated by gender (see Daniels-Beirness, 1989; Maccoby, 1990),
and friendships among gifts take place in smaller groups and
are more exclusive than boys' friendships. Blyth and Foster-
Clark (1987) found that gifts' descriptions of relationships tend
to focus on intimacy and mutual support whereas boys' accounts
of friendships are based on activities and instrumental support.
Gifts' same-sex friendships are also characterized by higher
degrees of self-disclosure--especially in adolescence (e.g.,
Berndt, 1982; Maccoby, 1986, 1990). Berndt (1982) also ob-
served that girls are less willing than boys to include a nonfriend
in an ongoing conversation and are less desirous of making new
friends if they already have an established friendship. Lagerspetz
et al. (1988) proposed that the structure and function of gifts'
close friendships allow for greater opportunities for indirect
aggression as well as increase the effectiveness of indirect ag-
gression. Crick and Grotpeter ( 1995 ) hypothesized that "when
attempting to inflict harm on peers (i.e., aggressing), children
do so in ways that best thwart or damage the goals that are
valued by their respective gender peer groups" (p. 710).
Although prior research supports these claims, previous work
on relational and indirect aggression has been limited by overrel-
iance on peer nomination items and questionnaires. With the
exception of Feshbach's (1969) early work, previous investiga-
tors have not used observational methods to carefully examine
the form of these subtle behaviors and the process of how they
occur in ongoing social interaction.
The Current Research
The primary goals of this research were to determine the
extent to which children view behaviors that we include in the
591
construct of social aggression as hurtful and frequent among
same-sex peers and to develop a method to observe socially
aggressive behaviors among gifts. We chose to focus on same-
sex peer interaction because friendships are segregated by gen-
der for the two younger age groups studied here (Daniels-Bier-
ness, 1989). Also, previous research on indirect aggression sug-
gests that social aggression may be more common among same-
sex female dyads (Cairns & Cairns, 1984; Calms et al., 1989).
In the first study, we administered a questionnaire developed
for this research to 4th-, 7th-, and 10th-grade gifts and boys
to assess how they perceived physical and social aggression.
Although our overall goal was to focus on social aggression
among gifts, for Study 1 we included boys as participants be-
cause we wanted to examine gender as well as developmental
differences in children's perceptions of social and physical ag-
gression. We predicted that girls would view social and physical
aggression as equally hurtful, whereas boys would perceive
physical aggression as more hurtful than social aggression. We
also expected that gifts would report that social aggression oc-
curs more frequently among peers than boys.
By examining age groups from elementary, middle, and high
school, we extended work on relational aggression that has
focused only on children in the elementary grades. In light of
earlier research that showed that social exclusion in gifts' con-
flicts increased from childhood to early adolescence (Cairns et
al., 1989) and that gender differences for indirect aggression
seem more pronounced for older age groups (Bjorkqvist et al.,
1992), we predicted that older participants more than younger
participants would report that girls engage in social aggression
more frequently than boys.
In the first phase of Study 2, we developed a laboratory task
to create the provocation necessary to elicit elements of social
aggression in the most natural setting possible. A confederate
actor was trained to provoke two female adolescent friends
while playing an interactive board game. We sought to elicit
socially aggressive behaviors from the two friends toward the
confederate gift. Although many of the behaviors hypothesized
to be socially aggressive (such as relationship manipulation)
cannot be observed in a single laboratory session, our goal was
to directly observe some of the behaviors that may be elements
of social aggression among girls: disdainful facial expressions,
social exclusion, and derisive remarks.
In the second phase of Study 2, we showed videotaped seg-
ments from these play sessions to a third sample of elementary,
middle, and high school boys and gifts. The segments contained
actual samples of socially aggressive behaviors. We predicted
that gifts would perceive these examples of social aggression
as exhibiting more anger than boys, and also as indicating more
intense dislike for the victim. We expected that older children
would view these behaviors as indicating more dislike than
younger children.
In summary, these investigations add to previous research in
that they: (a) explore whether the behaviors hypothesized to be
characteristic of gifts' expressions of aggression are perceived
as hurtful; (b) include facial expressions, body language, and
attacks on self-esteem as well as social exclusion in the con-
struct of social aggression; (c) record these behaviors among
gifts in a laboratory setting; and (d) assess whether children
592 GALEN AND UNDERWOOD
perceive these samples of girls' socially aggressive behavior as
hurtful.
Study ]
Method
Participants. Two hundred thirty-four students in the 4th, 7th, and
10th grades of public school (average ages 9, 12, and 15 years, respec-
tively) participated in Study 1. There was a total of 113 girls and 121
boys in the sample: 50 girls and 63 boys in the 4th grade, 34 girls and
29 boys in the 7th grade, and 29 girls and 29 boys in the 10th grade.
All of the participants were recruited through passive parental consent
(i.e., the parents were asked to return the letter if they did not want
their child to participate). We chose to use passive parental consent
because we only asked participants to answer questions about hypotheti-
cal vignettes, we did not anticipate that completing our questionnaire
would be stressful, and the school system preferred that we use this
procedure. The great majority of the participants were of European
American descent from lower income, working-class families. Scott-
Jones (1993) noted that much research on low-income samples has
focused on African American children although the majority of children
living in poverty are White, and that research on lower income samples
has almost always focused on intervention rather than basic develop-
mental processes. This research is an attempt to fill both of these gaps
in that basic developmental research on anger expression was conducted
on a sample of lower income children, most of whom were European
American.
Given that one of our hypotheses was for a null finding, that girls
would perceive social aggression as no less hurtful than physical aggres-
sion, it was important that we conduct a power analysis to demonstrate
that our sample size was adequate to detect effects. Previous research
has not specifically explored children's perceptions of the hurtfulness
of different types of aggression, so it was not possible to reasonably
predict effect sizes from previous research. Because earlier work demon-
strated large gender differences in indirect aggression (Cairns et al.,
1989), it seemed conservative to assume a medium effect size. Using
Cohen's (1988) estimates that a medium effect size would produce an
omega squared value of .06 or greater, and following Keppel's (1991)
recommendation that an acceptable level of power for most research in
the behavioral sciences is .80, the number of participants required to
detect an effect of medium size would be 37 per cell, for a total of 222
participants in the sample. Therefore, our sample size of 234 partici-
pants, with most cells being close to including 37 participants, should
have been adequate to detect effects of medium size.
Measure. Participants completed an instrument constructed for this
research, the Social Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ), which consisted of
12 vignettes that describe social interactions between same-sex peers
(see the Appendix). We constructed two versions of the SBQ that were
identical in content, except that a boys' version featured male names
for characters in the vignettes and the girls' version had female names.
Six of the vignettes described physical attacks against the participant
(e.g., "You are bouncing a ball when a girl [or boy] comes over and
hits you hard, then grabs the ball, saying, 'I'm going to play with this
now' " ) and the other six describe social attacks (e.g. "Four girls [or
boys] in your grade are talking about a movie they have just seen when
you walk up to the group. The group sees you, stops talking, and turns
away with their noses turned upward"). Participants were asked to
imagine that these situations happen to them, and to respond to two
questions for all of the 12 vignettes: (a) "How hurt would you be if
this happened to you?" and (b) "How often does something like this
happen in the group of people you hang around with?" Participants
responded to questions on a 5-point scale that ranged from not at all to
very much.
Psychometric analyses indicated that this measure was reliable and
internally consistent. For hurtfulness, split-half reliability coefficients
for social and physical aggression were .73 and .79, respectively. For
frequency, split-half reliability coefficients for social and physical ag-
gression were .69 and .70, respectively.
Because this research explored whether children view particular be-
haviors as aggressive in the sense that they are hurtful, it seemed im-
portant to examine correlations among hurtfulness ratings for all 12
vignettes. Six of the vignettes described physical aggression; inter-item
correlations for hurtfulness ranged from .47 to .65 and item-total correla-
tions ranged from .66 to .71. The six physical aggression items correlated
with the Physical Aggression subscale total in the .75-.81 range, and
for each item, the correlation with the Social Aggression subscale total
was substantially lower. Six of the vignettes described social aggression;
inter-item correlations for hurtfulness ranged from .32 to .64 and item-
total correlations varied from .67 to .75. The six social aggression items
correlated with the social aggression subscale in the .65 to .82 range,
and each item was less strongly correlated with the physical aggression
subscale. Three of the social aggression vignettes depicted facial expres-
sions of disgust and disdain. These items correlated with the total hurt-
fulness scale in the .72-.75 range, and correlations with the social
aggression subscale varied from .77 to .82.
To explore whether this measure consisted of more than one underlying
factor with respect to hurtfulness, we conducted a principal components
factor analysis with varimax rotation. The results showed that hurtfulness
ratings for the 12 vignettes loaded on one factor, with factor loadings
ranging from .64 to .81.
Procedure. The questionnaire was administered in 12 coeducational
school classrooms (average size was 20-25 students) by Britt R. Galen,
who explained that she wanted to ask the students some questions about
"things that might happen between people their age." She then asked
the students to pretend that these situations really did happen to them
with other girls if they're a girl, and with other boys if they're a boy,
and to then answer the questions for each of the situations. The researcher
read each of the 12 vignettes out loud. Given that one adult woman was
working with large groups of children in a role similar to that of a
teacher, it seems doubtful that the sex of the researcher affected the
results of this study, and the use of a single researcher also ensured that
participants were presented with the same information.
Results
Participants' answers to the questions on the SBQ were ana-
lyzed using a mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), 2
(type of aggression in the vignette: physical or social) X 2
(gender) × 3 ( g r a d e ) . A n alpha level of .05 was used for
all statistical tests. To explore mean differences, we performed
follow-up contrasts using the modified Bonferroni correction.
Hurtfulness. For participants' ratings of how hurt they
would feel, the ANOVA indicated significant main effects for
type, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 13.39,p < .001; gender, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 20.27,
p < .001; and grade, F ( 2 , 228) = 14.28, p < .001. Overall,
children rated physical aggression as slightly more hurtful than
social aggression (for physical aggression, M = 2.77, SD =
1.12, and for social aggression, M = 2.59, SD = 0.99). Girls
rated aggression as more hurtful than boys (for girls, M = 2.96,
SD = 0.96, and for boys, M = 2.42, SD = 0.98). Fourth graders
rated aggression as more hurtful than 7th and 10th graders (for
4th graders, M = 2.97, SD = 1.07; for 7th graders, M = 2.27,
SD = 0.91; and for 10th graders, M = 2.56, SD = 0.79).
The ANOVA also indicated significant interactions for Type x
Gender, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 10.01, p < .01, and "I~¢pe x Grade, F ( 2 ,
 SOCIAL AGGRESSION 593

Table 1 Table 3
Mean Ratings for Hurtfulness by Type Mean Ratings for Hurtfulness by Type
of Aggression and Gender of Aggression, Grade, and Gender
Type of aggression Type of aggression
Gender Physical Social Grade and gender Physical Social
Female 4th
M 2.99. 2.92a Female
SD 1.09 0.93 M 3.47 3.19
Male SD 1.06 1.03
M 2.57b 2.27, Male
SD 1.12 0.95 M 2.84 2.53
SD 1.15 1.05
Note. Valuesnot sharing subscripts differ at p < .05. 7th
Female
M 2.47 2.60
SD 1.08 0.90
228) = 3.81, p < .05. Table 1 presents mean ratings for hurt- Male
M 2.05 1.89
fulness by type of aggression and gender. Follow-up contrasts SD 0.87 0.75
revealed that girls rated social aggression as more hurtful than 10th
boys, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 119.3, p < .0001. Only boys viewed physical Female
aggression as more hurtful than social aggression, F ( 1, 228) M 2.76 2.85
SD 0.77 0.62
= 26.3, p < .001; girls' ratings for the hurtfulness did not differ Male
for social and physical aggression. M 2.52 2.09
Because the prediction that girls would view social and physi- SD 1.10 0.72
cal aggression as equally hurtful was a null hypothesis and the
ANOVA could not confirm equality between the two ratings,
confidence intervals were examined. FOr girls' ratings of hurt-
fulness for the physical aggression vignettes, the mean was 2.99 gender, and grade. Although the three-way interaction did not
and the 90% confidence interval was 2.82-3.16. For the social achieve significance, it is interesting to note that at all three age
aggression vignettes, the mean was 2.92 and the 90% confidence levels, girls tended to rate social aggression as more hurtful
interval was 2.76-3.06. The fact that each mean falls well within than boys.
the 90% confidence interval for the other further suggests that Frequency. For participants' ratings of how often the behav-
girls' ratings of the hurtfulness of social and physical aggression ior portrayed in the vignette occurs, the ANOVA indicated sig-
were similar. nificant effects for several interactions: Type x Gender, F(1,
Table 2 presents mean ratings for hurtfulness by type of ag- 228) = 20.93, p < .001; Type × Grade, F ( 2 , 228) = 5.39, p
gression and grade. Follow-up contrasts showed that only 4th- < .01; Gender x Grade, F ( 2 , 228) = 7.84, p < .05; and Type
and 10th-grade children viewed physical aggression as more X Gender x Grade, F ( 2 , 228) = 3.15, p < .05. Means for
hurtful than social aggression for 4th grade, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 24.57, participants' ratings of frequency are presented in Table 4. To
p < .001, and for 10th grade, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 4.05, p < .05. limit the likelihood of spurious findings from conducting large
Table 3 presents hurtfulness ratings by type of aggression, numbers of follow-up comparisons, we conducted mean con-
trasts within grade only. Follow-up contrasts yielded no signifi-
cant differences between boys' and girls' ratings of frequency
for physical and social aggression in the 4th and 7th grades.
Table 2 For the 10th graders, however, girls reported significantly higher
Mean Ratings for Hurtfulness by Type frequencies for social aggression than boys, F ( 1 , 2 2 8 ) = 5.36,
of Aggression and Grade p < .05. Here it is also interesting to note that for social aggres-
Type of aggression sion, developmental trends in ratings of frequency went in oppo-
site directions for boys and girls. FOr boys, ratings of frequency
Grade Physical Social tended to decrease with age, whereas for girls, reported fre-
quency of social aggression tended to increase with age.
4th
M 3.12a 2.82b These results confirmed our hypothesis that girls would not
SD 1.15 1.09 view physical aggression as more hurtful than social aggression.
7th Our hypothesis that girls would report social aggression as more
M 2.27c 2.27c frequent was confirmed only for 10th-grade participants.
SD 1.00 0.90
10th
M 2.64d 2.47e Study 2: Phase 1
SD 0.95 0.77
The goal of the first phase of Study 2 was to develop a
Note. Valuesnot sharing subscripts differ at p < .05. laboratory task to observe socially aggressive behavior in girls.
594 GALEN AND UNDERWOOD

Table 4 was to investigate what girls do when they meet someone that they do
Mean Ratings f o r Frequency not like. The researcher then explained to the confederate that she should
behave in a manner that would make her a difficult play partner. She
Type of aggression was instructed to engage in the following behaviors: (a) boastful state-
ments (e.g., "My hair looks so good today!"); (b) critical comments
Grade and gender Physical Social (e.g., "You're not drawing very well"); (c) poor game-playing (e.g.,
showing others the cards); (d) bossiness (e.g., ' T m going first!i');
4th and (e) asking many questions. Previous research suggests that these
Female
M 1.80~ 1.73a behaviors might elicit social aggression. For example, Borja-Alvarez,
SD .88 .85 Zarbatany, and Pepper (1991) found that self-centered and disruptive
Male behavior did not lead to successful entry, and Gelb and Jacobson (1988)
M 1.99a 1.81, found that unpopular children were more likely than popular children
SD .86 .75 to draw attention to themselves and attempt to control the direction of
7th interactions. When the confederate was not deliberately calling attention
Female to herself, she participated normally in the board game or conversation.
M 1.71b 1.88b
SD .66 .66
Apparatus. The observational laboratory sessions were held in the
Male developmental psychology laboratory at a local college. The experimen-
M 1.84b 1.57b tal area consisted of a table with three chairs located in front of a one-
SD .74 .63 way mirror. The board game Pictionary was set up on the table, equipped
10th with pencils and pads of paper. Play sessions were recorded by a video-
Female camera located behind the one-way mirror.
M 1.83c 2.05c Procedure. The researcher introduced the participants to "the other
SD .68 .81
girl participating in the play session" and instructed them on how to
Male
M 1.44c,d 1.43d play the board game. The researcher also told the participants about the
SD .53 .51 one-way mirror and the videocamera and said that she would be behind
the mirror if they had any questions. The researcher then left the labora-
Note. Within grade level, values not sharing subscripts differ at p tory and entered the observation room to start the recorder and watch
< .05. the session. After 30 min, the researcher requested that the confederate
actor go to another room, and asked the 2 participants some questions
about how they liked the third girl and what they thought of her behavior.
Then the researcher told the participants that the other girl was really
We sought to demonstrate that elements o f Social aggression an actor who helped her with the study, and that the actor was told to
could be reliably elicited and coded in a laboratory context. act unpleasant, so that we could observe what girls their age do when
Because we believe that social aggression is facilitated when they do not like another girl. This debriefing session served to ensure
two or more girls direct anger and contempt toward another girl, that the participants understood that the confederate's behavior was
we thought that social aggression might be elicited when two not indicative of her personality or her views of participants. After the
girls who are friends interact with a third play partner who is participants left the play session, the primary researcher conversed at
difficult and unpleasant. length with the confederate actor to make sure that she was not feeling
hurt by the girls' responses to her in the play session.
After-game questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of five ques-
Me~od tions to which girls responded on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to
Participants. Participants in the preliminary phase of Study 2 were 5 = very much). The questions concerned how much they liked the
7 dyads of middle school girls (n = 14). Twelve of the participants confederate, how nice they thought she was, how mean did they thought
were in seventh grade (average age of 12 years), one was in eighth grade she was, if she made them mad, and how much they would want to be
( 13 years old), and one was in sixth grade ( 11 years old). Demographic her friend. Participants also responded to seven open-ended questions
characteristics of this group were similar to those for the sample in about what they did or did not like about the other girl, if they wanted
Study l. to do anything to her, and what they think boys and girls do when they're
Participant recruitment. Because Study 2 involved bringing partici- mad at or do not like another boy or girl. This measure was included
pants to a play session, active parental consent was required (parents as a manipulation check to make sure that the participants perceived the
returned signed letters for their daughters to participate). Girls were confederate as unpleasant.
asked if they would be interested in participating in a play session with Coding of videotapes. The videotaped laboratory sessions were
a friend of theirs at which they would play Pictionary with a third coded by a research assistant trained to observe provocation from the
seventh-grade girl. If they consented, they were then asked to choose a confederate and responses or actions from the participants. The coding
friend to come with them to the play session. Active parental permission system for the participants' responses was developed a priori by the
was then sought for both of the participants. primary researcher on the basis of previous research and personal recol-
Confederate. Based on her energetic behavior during a pilot study, lections of girls' behavior. The research assistant was trained using tapes
a 12-year-old seventh-grade girl of European American descent was of pilot sessions not included in this study. The research assistant coded
selected to be the confederate. The confederate was an attractive girl the type of provocation by the confederate to Participant 1 or Participant
who was well-groomed and stylishly dressed. The junior high school 2 and the behavior of Participant 1 or Participant 2 in response to each
that the confederate and the participants attended is divided into three provocation. Codes for the confederate's provocations were as follows:
large "houses" with an average of 300 students. Although they attended game-related criticism of participant (e.g., "You can't draw very
the same school, the participants were from different houses than the good!" ), criticism of participant's appearance (e.g., "Your hair needs
confederate and had not previously met the confederate. help"), other criticism of participant, inappropriate question (e.g.,
The confederate was informed that the goal of the research project "How come you wear so many necklaces?"), difficult game playing
 SOCIAL AGGRESSION
(e.g., bossing others around or showing everyone the cards), inter-
rupting, showing off, or some other inappropriate comment. For partici-
pants' responses, we considered several behaviors to be elements of
social aggression: facial expressions of disgust or dislike, ignoring the
actor, staring (either disapproving stare or intense stare), head roll,
glance (sideways or downward), sarcastic comments or insincere smile,
interruption, snide tone of voice, and certain types of backchannel re-
sponses (e.g., exasperated sighs). The research assistant also coded
occurrences of other types of responses, including physical aggression,
verbal abuse, and threat of physical attack.
Twenty-nine percent of the sessions (two of seven) were also coded
by the primary researcher for reliability. The kappa coefficients ranged
from .62 to .94 (all within the range of substantial agreement according
to Landis & Koch, 1977), with the majority of the kappas greater than
.90. Percentage of agreements ranged from 76% to 95%, with the major-
ity greater than 90%.
Results
Behavioral frequencies. In this exploratory study in which
we made every attempt to standardize behaviors by the provoca-
teur, we chose to focus on the behaviors of individual girls
as the unit of analysis. The following means reflect average
frequencies of each behavior per 30-min session. Participants'
responses were variable, but several behaviors were evident in
all sessions: staring ( M = 26.5, SD = 13.92), glancing ( M =
5.36, SD = 2.66), and ignoring ( M = 4.64, SD = 2.19). Other
frequently observed behaviors were using a snide tone of voice
( M = 3.14, SD = 3.75), making sarcastic comments (M =
2.71, SD = 4.12), and making a face (M = 2.36, SD = 3.21).
Positive responses to the provocations (e.g., "Alright, you go
first t h e n " ) were relatively rare ( M = 1.36, SD = 1.73), as
were more direct behaviors such as threats of violence ( M =
0.36, SD = .95) and physical responses ( M = 0.50, SD = 1.32).
After-game questionnaire. Girls' responses to this question-
naire indicated that they viewed the confederate as mean, rude,
and unpleasant. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing not at
all, participants reported that they did not like the confederate
very much ( M = 2.29, SD = 1.70, corresponding to a little on
the scale), and that they did not think the confederate was nice
( M = 2.14, SD = .95, corresponding to a little on the scale).
Girls did think she was mean ( M = 3.21, SD = 1.19, represent-
ing pretty mean on the scale) and reported that the confederate
made them mad ( M = 3.14, SD = 1.70, corresponding to pretty
mad), and that they were not excited about the prospect of
being friends with her ( M = 2.64, SD = 1.15).
These findings indicate that this game paradigm was success-
ful in eliciting elements of social aggression. Reliable coding
was possible even for nuanced facial expressions. Observing
these behaviors in the laboratory seems particularly important
given that social aggression may be subtle and difficult for out-
side observers to detect in naturalistic contexts.
S t u d y 2: P h a s e 2
To further bolster the ecological validity of this laboratory
paradigm and to explore children's perceptions of actual sam-
ples of social aggression, we sought, in the second phase of
Study 2, to investigate whether boys and girls in different age
groups viewed these behaviors as indicating anger and dislike.
Because we were especially interested in exploring whether
595
children viewed facial expressions as conveying anger and social
exclusion, we chose six segments of facial expressions of social
aggression from the videotaped sessions in Phase 1.
Method
Participants. The sample consisted of 75 members of a boys' and
girls' recreation center, and 32 ninth graders at a public school, both
located in predominantly lower working-class neighborhoods. There was
a total of 41 girls and 66 boys in the sample, and their ages ranged from
6 to I1 years (elementary school age, n = 48; 31 boys and 17 girls),
from 12 to 14 years (middle school age, n = 27; 16 boys and 11 girls),
and from 15 to 16 years (high school age, n = 32; 19 boys and 13
girls). The ethnic identity of the sample from the recreation center was
predominantly European American, and the participants from the school
were European, African, and Asian American. The participants were
recruited through the recreation center and through a freshman orienta-
tion class at the school. The participants from the recreation center
viewed the videotape during a time period set aside for age-specific
activities (average size of group = 8). The ninth-grade participants
viewed the videotape during a freshman orientation class (average size
of group = 15).
Procedure. The researchers showed each group of participants a
videotape consisting of six segments of socially aggressive behavior
(e.g., facial expressions of disdain, disapproving stares). The vignettes
were selected from the videotaped play sessions from the preliminary
stage of this study (parents and participants granted permission to show
these vignettes). Both the recreation center and the high school were in
neighborhoods far from the middle school from which we recruited
participants for the play sessions (remember that this research was con-
ducted in a large city). No participants said they recognized the girls
on the videotapes.
The researchers told the participants that they would view six very
short video clips of girls playing a game together, and would answer a
few questions. Each video clip included provocation by the confederate,
and a socially aggressive response by one of the participants. Each
vignette was shown twice, and the victim and aggressor were identified
by pointing to the video screen, with the target (the confederate actor)
always labeled as "the girl on the right," and the aggressor (one of the
two participants) as either "the girl on the left" or "the girl in the
middle." The researchers read aloud the questions from the accompa-
nying questionnaire.
Measure. Participants responded to four questions about how the
aggressor felt (happy, sad, angry, embarrassed), one question about how
much the aggressor liked the target of the aggression, and four questions
about how the participant would feel if they were the target of the
aggression (happy, sad, angry, embarrassed). Participants indicated their
answers on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all to very much.
Results
Participants' answers to the questions on the questionnaire
were analyzed using a 2 (gender) × 3 (age group: elementary,
middle school, and high school) ANOVA. To explore mean dif-
ferences, we performed follow-up contrasts using the modified
Bonferroni correction. Means for all questions represent the
mean on the 5-point scale ( 1 = not at all and 5 = very much).
For the question, " H o w do you think [the aggressor] feels?
Does she feel mad?", the ANOVA indicated a significant effect
for gender, F ( 1,101 ) = 4.15, p < .05. Girls rated the aggressor
as more angry ( M = 3.29, SD = 0.86) than boys ( M = 2.95,
SD = 0.85). For the question " H o w much do you think [the
aggressor] liked the [victim] ?", the ANOVA indicated a sig-
596 GALEN AND UNDERWOOD
nificant effect for age group, F( 1,101 ) = 4.09, p < .05. Follow-
up contrasts indicated that middle school (M = 1.72, SD =
0.52) and high school age (M = 1.57, SD = 0.45) participants
thought that the aggressor liked the victim less than elementary
school age children (M = 2.00, SD = 0.85), F(1,101) = 6.77,
p < .05. For the question "How would you feel if you were
[the victim] ? Would you feel mad?", the ANOVA also indicated
a significant effect for age group, F(2, 101) = 6.64, p < .01.
Follow-up contrasts indicated that elementary school age partici-
pants reported that they would feel more mad (M = 2.95, SD
= 1.10) than both middle school age (M = 2.19, SD = .97),
F(1, 101) = 7.43, p < .01) and high school age participants
(M = 2.36, SD = 0.63), F ( 1 , 1 0 1 ) = ll.05, p < .01). For the
question "How would you feel if you were [the victim] ? Would
you feel sad?", the ANOVA also indicated a significant effect
for age group, F(2, 101 ) = 13.64, p < .001. Follow-up contrasts
again revealed that elementary school age participants reported
that they would feel more sad (M = 2.56, SD = 1.11) than
both middle school age (M = 1.86, SD = .79), F(1, 101) =
26.08, p < .001, and high school age participants (M = 1.54,
SD = .49), F(1, 106) = 10.82, p < .01.
General Discussion
The results of the these exploratory investigations support the
hypothesis that girls use subtle means of expressing anger and
contempt, and that these behaviors deserve the label aggression
because girls perceive them as hurtful. Still, except for the 10th-
grade participants, boys and girls reported that same-sex peers
engaged in these behaviors equally often. The investigations
described here are among the first studies aimed at systemati-
cally investigating socially aggressive means of inflicting harm
and attempting to elicit these behaviors in the laboratory, and
future research will be needed to fully understand the frequency
and function of these behaviors among boys as well as girls.
One important question posed in Study 1 was how hurtful
the female participants found the socially aggressive vignettes,
especially in comparison with the physically aggressive vi-
gnettes. If aggression is commonly intended as behavior de-
signed to inflict harm (Harr6 & Lamb, 1983), we needed to
ascertain that social aggression achieves this goal in the eyes
of children. The results of this study confirmed our hypothesis
that girls view socially and physically aggressive behaviors as
equally hurtful. Although some researchers have suggested that
subtle or indirect behaviors showing contempt may not deserve
the title aggression (see Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), these re-
suits indicate that girls believe social aggression hurts just as
much as physical aggression. Results also supported the hypoth-
esis that girls would report a greater degree of hurtfulness for
the social aggression vignettes than boys. These findings support
the idea that social aggression may be more salient to girls
than to boys, and confirm previous findings that indirect and
relational aggression are perceived as having a greater impact
in girls' interactions than in boys' interactions (Bjorkqvist et
al., 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Feshbach, 1969; Feshbach &
Sones, 1971; Lagerspetz et al., 1988). However, the results must
be interpreted in light of the fact that girls also viewed physical
aggression as more hurtful than boys; perhaps girls feel more
vulnerable to all types of aggressive behavior.
Results from Study 1 support the claim that disdainful facial
expressions belong in the category of social aggression. Relia-
bility analyses showed high internal consistency for the Social
Aggression subscale that included negative facial expressions.
Even with facial expressions as the only aggressive behaviors
in several of the social aggression vignettes, girls rated social
and physical aggression as equally hurtful.
Another important goal of Study 1 was to explore develop-
mental differences in perceptions of social and physical aggres-
sion beyond the elementary years, which has been the upper
limit of previous research on relational aggression (see Crick,
1995b). Interestingly, although we did not predict that age
groups (regardless of gender) would differ in their perceptions
of hurtfulness of physical and social aggression, an interaction
between age group and type of aggression emerged for ratings
of hurtfulness. Regardless of gender, 4th and 10th graders rated
physical aggression as more hurtful than social aggression.
However, 7th graders seemed to rate social and physical aggres-
sion as equally hurtful. Perhaps the middle school years might
be a time when all children feel particularly vulnerable to social
aggression. This suggestion received further support from the
finding that when children viewed samples of social aggression
from the play sessions in Study 2, middle school children viewed
socially aggressive behaviors as showing more dislike than ele-
mentary school aged children.
The developmental hypothesis for frequency of social aggres-
s i o n - t h a t all girls but particularly those in the two older age
groups would report a higher frequency for socially aggressive
vignettes across age groups--was supported only by data from
participants in the 10th grade. These results contradict previous
research that indicated higher frequencies of indirect and rela-
tional aggression among elementary and middle school girls
than boys (Feshbach, 1969; Feshbach & Sones, 1971; La-
gerspetz et ai., 1988; Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Crick & Grotpeter,
1995 ). Perhaps this difference is due to the fact that our category
of social aggression included disdainful facial expressions.
These behaviors may occur more frequently among boys than
other forms of indirect and relational aggression. Another plausi-
ble explanation for the absence of a gender difference in reported
frequencies of social aggression for the younger age groups is
that children may have reported the frequency of these behaviors
among both boys and girls. Although the experimenter instructed
participants to answer the questions with reference to same-sex
peers, the question "How often does something like this happen
in the group of people you hang around with?" does not clearly
specify that participants were to indicate their perceptions of
frequency among same-sex peers.
Despite the fact that the results for frequency did not offer
unqualified support for our hypothesis that girls in all age groups
would report that social aggression is more frequent than boys,
interesting developmental trends emerged for ratings of the fre-
quency of social aggression. For girls, ratings of the frequency
of social aggression tended to increase with age, in keeping
with the finding of Cairns et al. (1989) that social alienation
and ostracism increased among girls from fourth to ninth grade.
For boys, the trend was in the opposite direction: Ratings of the
frequency of social aggression declined with age.
Of course, the results of Study 1 are severely limited by the
fact that these are based on self-reports on questionnaires, which
 SOCIAL AGGRESSION
may or may not reflect how children respond to social and
physical aggression in ongoing social interactions. Therefore,
in Study 2, we attempted to move beyond hypothetical vignettes
to create a method to observe socially aggressive behaviors
among girls.
In the first phase of Study 2, a small number of girls partici-
pated in a triadic interaction that elicited high rates of some
socially aggressive behaviors: glares, ignoring, snide remarks,
and facial expressions of disgust and dislike. Although we rec-
ognized that not all types of socially aggressive behaviors could
be observed in this setting (particularly aspects related to manip-
ulating friendship patterns), some of the specific behaviors ob-
served in response to an unpleasant stranger may be similar to
those involved in social exclusion among friends, such as not
responding to what a person says or does (i.e., ignoring) or
disdainful facial expressions (Olweus, 1991 ).
Results from the second phase of Study 2 demonstrated that
girls viewed actual samples of social aggression as indicating
more anger than boys and that older children viewed socially
aggressive behavior as indicating more dislike. That girls viewed
videotaped samples of negative facial expressions as indicating
more anger fits with the results from the questionnaire in Study
1, that girls view social aggression as more hurtful than boys.
This result also supports Crick's (1995b) finding that for a
different set of vignettes, girls reported that they would feel
more angry than boys in response to relational aggression.
For children's judgments of the videotaped samples of social
aggression in Study 2, some interesting developmental differ-
ences emerged. Elementary school age children reported that
they would feel more angry than middle or high school age
children. This result confirms Crick's (1995b) finding (again,
for hypothetical vignettes describing relational aggression) that
third graders said they would feel more angry in response to
relational aggression than sixth graders. Perhaps younger chil-
dren are less habituated to social and relational aggression, or
perhaps they are simply more likely to truthfully report this
distress on questionnaires.
Another intriguing developmental difference in Study 2 was
that middle school children viewed the samples of disdainful
facial expressions as indicating more dislike than elementary
school children. This finding suggests that in middle school,
children may more clearly recognize that these behaviors signal
social exclusion and even rejection by peers.
Given that facial expressions figured prominently in the SBQ
and that all of the video clips in Study 2 featured samples of
social aggression conveyed through faces, these results confirm
that negative facial expressions rightfully belong in the construct
of social aggression. Facial expressions were part of the Reliable
subscale for social aggression in Study 1. The triadic interaction
in Study 2, Phase 1 elicited high rates of negative facial expres-
sions toward the unpleasant play partner. In Phase 2, children
judged these facial expressions in the play sessions as indicating
dislike, and girls viewed them as showing more anger than boys.
On the one hand, these findings should not seem surprising.
Given that from as early as three months of age, infants learn
from parents that negative facial expressions are not warmly
received in social interaction (Malatesta & Haviland, 1982), it
is certainly to be expected that elementary, middle school, and
high school age children would know that facial expressions
597
are one way to convey disdain. Other investigators studying
more subtle forms of aggressive behavior among girls (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995) do not include facial expressions as a possible
channel for girls to express anger and contempt toward peers.
The conception of relational aggression and the peer nomination
items used to measure it do not include negative facial expres-
sions. This choice seems notable given that these authors con-
trast relational with overt aggression. Facial expressions of dis-
dain can often be a covert means of harming someone's social
standing, for example, making a face literally behind someone's
back when they are talking to convey contempt for what they
are saying. It is unclear where facial expressions belong in the
relational-overt dichotomy. The results of the research pre-
sented here clearly indicate that facial expressions belong in a
category of socially aggressive behaviors that hurt girls, and fit
with previous research demonstrating that girls convey anger
and contempt through facial expressions (Feshbach, 1969; O1-
weus, 1991 ).
This exploratory research also offers a method to actually see
socially aggressive behaviors among girls. Using peer nomina-
tion items, Crick and Grotpeter (1995) have contributed much
to our understanding of relationally aggressive behaviors such
as friendship manipulation. Although they sensibly argue that
direct observation would be difficult because it would require
prior knowledge about relationships among children, it seems
that observing interactions among friends in the laboratory
might allow observation of relational or social aggression among
children. We suggest (tentatively, because of the small number
of play sessions conducted here) that elements of social aggres-
sion can be elicited and reliably coded in laboratory paradigms.
Future researchers should use these methods with larger samples
including both boys and girls, and work on developing observa-
tional coding systems for use in naturalistic settings.
All of the results here must be qualified by several important
limitations. First, all three studies focused on children's percep-
tions of social and physical aggression among same-sex peers.
Given that physical aggression may be more common among
boys and social aggression may occur more among girls, it
would have been conceptually interesting to explore the effects
of gender of aggressor and gender of target on children's re-
sponses in Study 1. However, to do this in this study would
have required presenting children with 48 vignettes, which we
viewed as tedious and likely to undermine the validity of chil-
dren's ratings. Future research should explore these questions,
perhaps by showing children a smaller number of videotaped
vignettes in which the gender of both the target and the provoca-
teur varies.
A second limitation of Study 1 may have been the use of the
word hurt to describe the negative impact of the behaviors in
the first question "How hurt would you feel if this happened
to you?" Because hurt does not specify physical or emotional
damage, its meaning may seem ambiguous. However, we pur-
posefully chose this word for two very important reasons. The
first is related to the fact that previous literature on aggression
frequently uses words such as hurt, pain, injury, and harm as
criteria for what constitutes aggression, with a clear bias toward
interpreting hurt as physical damage only (e.g., Eron & Hues-
mann, 1989; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). We strongly believe
that these words also apply to psychological damage. Because
598 GALEN AND UNDERWOOD
it is obvious that the social aggression vignettes did not depict
any physical harm, the results for children' s reports of how hurt
they would feel from these behaviors indicate that the children
also recognized damage to one's self-esteem or social standing
as being hurt.
One serious limitation of Study 2 was that only girls' interac-
tions were observed. However, given that this research was ex-
ploratory and in the face of limited resources, our decision to
focus on social aggression among girls in Study 2 was deliber-
ate. Given that previous research suggested that these behaviors
were more common among girls (Cairns et al., 1989) and that
our results from Study 1 showed that girls perceive these behav-
iors as more hurtful, we sought to further explore these phenom-
ena among girls. We thought that focusing these exploratory
studies on girls would allow us to concentrate on the more
subtle behaviors that girls experience as hurtful and use to show
anger and contempt toward peers, and to refine coding systems
to capture these less overt behaviors. In future investigations,
we hope to explore gender differences in response to this labora-
tory task. Until both boys' and girls' interactions are observed,
it is premature to conclude that girls engage in social aggression
more than boys, particularly in light of the frequency data from
Study 1.
Although the second phase of Study 2 bolstered the ecological
validity of the laboratory task by assessing children's percep-
tions of actual samples of social aggression, these findings must
be interpreted in light of an important methodological weakness.
Perhaps one of the more devastating features of some socially
aggressive behaviors is that the victim may have no idea who
or what is initiating the social rejection. In more naturalistic
settings, perpetrators of social aggression may seem overtly
sweet and polite, while surreptitiously hurting another's social
standing. Because our method required that we ask other sam-
pies of children about the hurtfulness of particular behaviors
exhibited by the play session participants, we had to clearly
identify perpetrators and were not able to include the elements
of surprise and confusion that may often accompany social ag-
gression. Incomplete stories or hypothetical, open-ended vi-
gnettes may be better tools to assess attributions of intent or
anticipated outcomes of social aggression.
Although future research will be needed to determine the
extent to which boys use socially aggressive strategies, the re-
suits from both of these exploratory investigations offer support
for the hypothesis that girls are hurt by and use aggressive
behaviors that are related to social acceptance and standing
with their peers. Study 1 demonstrated that girls perceive social
aggression as equally hurtful as physical aggression. Study 2
suggested that socially aggressive behaviors among girls can be
directly observed, and that girls viewed videotaped samples of
these behaviors as indicating more anger than boys. Along with
Feshbach (1969; Feshbach & Sones, 1971), Lagerspetz et al.
(1988), Bjorkqvist et al. (1992), and Crick and Grotpeter
(1995), these studies confirm that research with a focus on overt
aggression has not fully assessed girls' aggressive behavior. The
research presented here adds to previous work in that it confirms
that girls perceive these behaviors as hurtful and angry, that
facial expressions may constitute one form of social aggression,
that social aggression can be reliably elicited and coded in the
laboratory, and that children view actual samples of social ag-
gression as conveying anger and dislike.
Although we sought to demonstrate that aggressive behavior
in girls can take a variety of forms, we in no way claim that
girls do not ever direct physical and verbal abuse toward one
another. Our experience with the adolescent girls participating
in these studies leads us to believe that girls in recent times are
increasingly using more overt methods to express their anger
and contempt, and research supports this intuition (Calms et
al., 1989; Schlossman & Cairns, 1993; Viemero, 1992).
These results clearly indicate that social aggression hurts girls
and that future research should address the social contexts in
which socially aggressive behavior occurs. Results also indicate
both the concurrent and future consequences of both engaging
in and being victimized by social aggression. Perpetrators of
social aggression may not have stable or positive peer relation-
ships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and these behaviors may pre-
dict future relationship and personality problems (Crick,
1995a). It also seems that victims of social aggression may
not be recognized as "victims," and therefore may not receive
teacher, parental, or peer support or interventions on their behalf
(Thouless, 1994). Social aggression may continue to be com-
mon among some women in later life, and it is easy to imagine
that these behaviors could impair relationships with friends and
work colleagues, disrupt romantic relationships, and interfere
with effective parenting. Recognizing social aggression among
girls as hurtful behavior is an important first step in understand-
ing this important complex of behaviors that may relate to girls'
social and personal adjustment.
References
Archer, J., Pearson, N. A., & Westeman, K. E. (1988). Aggressive be-
haviour of children aged 6-11: Gender differences and their magni-
tude. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 371-384.
Berndt, T.J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early
adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1447-1460.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls
manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct
and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.
Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential so-
cialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54,
1335-1354.
Blyth, D. A., & Foster-Clark, E S. (1987). Gender differences in per-
ceived intimacy with different members of adolescents' social net-
works. Sex Roles, 17, 689-718.
Borja-Alvarez, T., Zarbatany, L., & Pepper, S. (1991). Contributions of
male and female guests and host to peer group entry. Child Develop-
ment, 62, 1079-1090.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1984). Predicting aggressive patterns in
girls and boys: A developmental study. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 227-
242.
Cairns, R.B., & Calms, B.D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L.L., &
Gariepy, J. (1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320-330.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Crick, N. R. ( 1995a, April). Gender differences in the role of relational
and overt aggression in the prediction of children's future adjustment.
In N. R. Crick & M. K. Underwood (Co-chairs), Gender differences
in forms of aggression and strategies for attaining peer status: Boys
will be boys but what about girls? Symposium conducted at the
 SOCIAL AGGRESSION
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Indianapolis, IN.
Crick, N. R. (1995b). Relational aggression: The role of intent attribu-
tions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 313-322.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-
722.
Daniels-Beirness, T. (1989). Measuring peer status in boys and girls:
A problem of apples and oranges? In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J.
Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental
perspective (pp. 107-120 ). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior:
A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 100, 309-330.
Eron, L. D., & Huesmann, L. R. (1989). The genesis of gender differ-
ences in aggression. In M. A. Luszez & T. Nettelbeck (Eds.), Psycho-
logical development: Perspectives across the lifespan (pp. 55-67).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Feshbach, N. (1969). Sex differences in children's modes of aggressive
responses toward outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 249-258.
Feshbach, N., & Sones, G. (1971). Sex differences in adolescent reac-
tions toward newcomers. Developmental Psychology, 4, 381-386.
Foster, S. L., DeLawyer, D. D., & Guevremont, D. C. (1986). A critical
incidents analysis of liked and disliked peer behaviors and their situa-
tional parameters in childhood and adolescence. Behavioral Assess-
ment, 8, 115-133.
Gelb, R., & Jacobson, J. L. (1988). Popular and unpopular children's
interactions during cooperative and competitive peer group activities.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 247-261.
Harrt, R., & Lamb, R. (1983). The encyclopedic dictionary of psychol-
ogy. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Hartup, W.W. (1974). Aggression in childhood: Developmental per-
spectives. American Psychologist, 29, 336-341.
Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A
developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-
736.
Keppel, G. ( 1991 ). Design and analysis: A researchers handbook (3rd
ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjorkvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect
aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness
in 11- to 12-year-old girls. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414.
(Appendix follows)
599
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 150-174.
Lowenstein, L. E (1977). Who is the bully? Home and school, 11,
3-4.
Maccoby, E. E. (1986). Social groupings in childhood: Their relation-
ship to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In D.
Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antiso-
cial and prosocial behavior: Research, theories, and issues (pp. 263-
281). New York: Academic Press.
Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental ac-
count. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differ-
ences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacldin, C. N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression:
A rejoinder and reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-90.
Malasta, C., & Haviland, J. (1982). Learning display rules: The social-
ization of emotion expression in infancy. Child Development, 53,
991-1003.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Ba-
sic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. J.
Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of
childhood aggression (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ranste-von Wright, M. (1989). Physical and verbal aggression in peer
groups among Finnish adolescent boys and girls. International Jour-
nal of Behavioral Development, 12, 473-484.
Rigby, K., & Slee, E T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school chil-
dren: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. Journal of
Social Psychology, 131, 615-627.
Schlossman, S., & Cairns, R.B. (1993). Problem girls: Observations
on past and present. In G. H. Elder, J. Modell, & R. D. Parke (Eds.),
Children in time and place: Developmental and historical insights
(pp. 110-130). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Scott-Jones, D. (1993, April). Ethical issues in reporting and referring
in research with minority and low-income samples. In C. B. Fisher
(Chair), Ethical issues in the reporting and referring of research
participants. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Thouless, H. (1994). Aggression: Inside or outside? Unpublished senior
thesis, Reed College, Portland, OR.
Underwood, M.K. (1992). Peer nominations for social aggression.
Unpublished manuscript.
Viemero, V. (1992). Changes in patterns of aggressive behavior among
Finnish girls over a decade. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.),
Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 99-106).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
600 GALEN AND UNDERWOOD

Appendix

V i g n e t t e s f r o m the Social B e h a v i o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

Social Aggression Vignettes Physical Aggression Vignettes

1. During class, a girl passes you a note that says: "No one wants
to be your friend."
5. Four girls in your grade are talking about a movie they have just
seen when you walk up to the group. The group sees you, stops talking,
and turns away from you with their noses turned upward.
6. You hear two girls talking and they don't see you. One girl says:
"I heard that she's going to the party with Alex--but I wanted to go
with him. Let's tell everyone that she did something awful--then maybe
he'll go with me instead." Then they see you and say: "Be quiet? Here
she is now"
8. Yourteacher says that she will be assigning partners for a Classproject.
She tells you and another girl that you will be working togethen The other
girl looks at you, says "HER?", then rolls her eyes and make a face.
9. You are playing with a hand-held video game when a girl comes
over to you, stands with her arms crossed and says "I think your game
is over now," and then glares at you.
11. During lunch, a group of girls are talking about the big party this
Saturday. When you ask them if you're invited, they say: "You?? I don't
think so." Then they start laughing and walk away.
2. You are bouncing a ball when a girl comes over and hits you hard,
then grabs the ball, saying: "l'm going to play with this now."
3. Your teacher says that it's time to line up for lunch. As everyone
is lining up, another girl says "I don't want to stand next to you/" and
shoves you out of line.
4. Two girls come over to you during lunch and one says: "I heard
that you like Alex. Well, I like him, so you'd better not" Then they
shove you backward.
7. During lunch, a girl says "You stink!" and punches you in the
arm.
10. Four girls are talking in a group in the hallway. As you walk by
them, they push and trip you.
12. As you're leaving school one day, a group of girls gather around
you, push you around, and say: "We're gonna beat you up!"
Received July 28, 1994
Revision received April 1, 1996
Accepted April 1, 1996 •

Low Publication Prices for APA Members and Affiliates

Keeping you up-to-date. All A P A Fellows, M e m b e r s , Associates, and Student Affiliates
r e c e i v e - - a s part o f their a n n u a l d u e s - - s u b s c r i p t i o n s to the American Psychologist and
APA Monitor. High School T e a c h e r and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Affiliates receive subscriptions to
the APA Monitor, a n d they m a y subscribe to the American Psychologist at a significantly
reduced rate. In addition, all M e m b e r s a n d Student Affiliates are eligible for savings of up
to 60% (plus a j o u r n a l credit) o n all other A P A j o u r n a l s, as well as significant discounts on
subscriptions from cooperating societies and publishers (e.g., the A m e r i c a n Association for
C o u n s e l i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t , A c a d e m i c Press, and H u m a n Sciences Press).

Essential resources. A P A m e m b e r s and affiliates receive special rates for purchases of

A P A books, i n c l u d i n g the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,
and on dozens of n e w topical books each year.

Other benefits of membership. M e m b e r s h i p in A P A also provides eligibility for

competitive i n s u r a n c e plans, c o n t i n u i n g education programs, reduced A P A c o n v e n t i o n fees,
and specialty divisions.

More information. Write to A m e r i c a n Psychological Association, M e m b e r s h i p Services,

750 First Street, NE, W a s h i n g t o n , D C 20002-4242.