No abstract

No abstract

The goal of this paper is to focus attention on the role of dyadic peer relationships in children’s aggression. The importance of dyadic relationships in antisocial developmented is highlighted. Data are presented from a recent observational study of relationship formation in boys’ peer groups. Boys met in groups of 6 for 5 consecutive days. Of the 5,263 aggressive behaviors observed in 387 dyads, a high proportion (50%) occurred in just 20% of dyads. Dyads were classified into 5 types: (1) mutually aggressive; (2) asymmetric; (3) low-conflict; (4) unstable, and (5) low-interaction. Angry reactive aggressive behavior was most likely to occur in high-conflict dyads, and proactive bullying behavior in asymmetric dyads. Analyses of within-dyad liking revealed that mutually aggressive dyads liked each other the least. Finally, boys who were socially rejected in their classrooms were more likely to develop mutually aggressive dyadic relationships than were average status boys. These data indicate the importance of considering the dyad as the unit of analysis in the study of boys’ aggression.

We review research on linkages between the family and children's peer relations including studies of attachment, parent-child relations and the social and economic contexts of family life. Whether based on observations of parent-child relations, teacher reports, parental reports or child reports, the literature has consistently documented connections between the quality of parent-child relationships and peer relations assessed in the school context. In addition, children's experience of stressors such as low income and parental divorce appear to be associated with difficulties in peer relations. Given that such connections would seem to exist, several recommendations for future research are offered, including the adoption of broader perspectives on the family (e.g. to incorporate marital as well as parent-child relations), the expansion of conceptualizations of peer relations (e.g. to include friendships and social networks as well as popularity and behavior) and greater consideration of social contextual factors (e.g. economic and other life circumstances and events) as they influence both the family and peer relations.