Aggressive Forms and Functions on School Playgrounds

Abstract

Coders used real-time focal-child sampling methods to observe the playground behavior and victimization experiences of 600 third to sixth grade youth. Person-centered analyses yielded three profiles that specified aggressive function (reactive, proactive) and form (direct, indirect), and conformed to social-information-processing functional classifications of proactive, reactive, and pervasive aggressors. Consistent with social information processing models, direct reactors and pervasive aggressors evidenced poor self-regulation (argumentative, seldom agreeable), and pervasives were drawn to dominance-linked activity. The form and function of experienced victimization generally corresponded to the form and function of aggression typical of each profile. Indirect proactors were agreeable but heavily involved as perpetrators, facilitators, and victims of indirect aggression. Developmental differences in victimization, rough play, agreeable behavior, and bystander reinforcement of aggression suggest greater fluidity in social roles prior to adolescence. Possible links from

Unmasking School Bullying Witnesses: Five Different Psychological Profiles Related to Intention to Defend Victims

“…Rather, the profiles engage in all three reactions but show a greater propensity to engage in one of them. This is line with recent studies showing that witnesses could be defenders but also probullies at other times (Frey et al, 2014;Huitsing et al, 2014). Thus, the reasons why "prodefense witnesses" sometimes adopt passive behaviors and "antidefense" and "probullying" witnesses sometimes support school bullying victims must be explored further.…”

Reciprocal longitudinal associations of defender self‐efficacy with defending and passive bystanding in peer victimization

“…This approach addresses between-person questions (e.g., do students who exhibit higher levels of defending behavior compared with their peers experience an increase in defender self-efficacy over time?). Such an approach assumes an absence of time-invariant individual differences, which stands in contrast to empirical findings suggesting that a student's bystander behaviors vary over time (e.g., Frey et al, 2014;Levy & Gumpel, 2018). In this regard, the random intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM) constitutes an improved way of studying longitudinal associations as it accounts for time-invariant, trait-like stability by the inclusion of random intercepts (Hamaker et al, 2015).…”

Profiles of participation in school bullying: Association with student well‐being

“…Recent results demonstrated that individuals do perform multiple roles across different situations and contexts. Frey et al (2014) showed that bystanders can be defenders of targets at one time and encourage perpetrators at another depending on particular circumstances including the setting or people involved. Waasdorp and Bradshaw (2018) reported that bystanders could also be bullies or victims depending on the situation.…”