Allocation of attention to scenes of peer harassment: Visual–cognitive moderators of the link between peer victimization and aggression

Abstract

As approximately one-third of peer-victimized children evidence heightened aggression (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001), it is imperative to identify the circumstances under which victimization and aggression co-develop. The current study explored two potential moderators of victimization-aggression linkages: (a) attentional bias toward cues signaling threat and (b) attentional bais toward cues communicating interpersonal support. Seventy-two fifth- and sixth-grade children (34 boys; M age = 11.67) were eye tracked while watching video clips of bullying. Each scene included a bully, a victim, a reinforcer, and a defender. Children's victimization was measured using peer, parent, and teacher reports. Aggression was measured using peer reports of overt and relational aggression and teacher reports of aggression. Victimization was associated with greater aggression at high levels of attention to the bully. Victimization was also associated with greater aggression at low attention to the defender for boys, but at high attention to the defender for girls. Attention to the victim was negatively correlated with aggression regardless of victimization history. Thus, attentional biases to social cues integral to the bullying context differentiate whether victimization is linked to aggression, necessitating future research on the development of these biases and concurrent trajectories of sociobehavioral development.

Attentional Biases to Bullies and Bystanders and Youth’s Coping With Peer Victimization

“…As expected, for girls at high levels of victimization, attention to defenders was positively associated with retaliatory coping. This finding is consistent with findings from these data showing that for peer-victimized girls, attention to defenders is positively associated with peer- and teacher-reported aggression (Troop-Gordon et al, 2019). Interestingly, retaliatory coping is not typically employed by girls, at least when compared with boys (Visconti & Troop-Gordon, 2010; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011).…”

“…Although biases in visual attention have been studied in relation to stable patterns of internalizing problems (Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van Ijzendoorn, 2007; Gotlib, Krasnoperova, Yue, & Joormann, 2004) and aggressive behavior (Horsley, de Castro, & Van der Schoot, 2010; Troop-Gordon et al, 2019), associations with immediate responses to unambiguous peer provocation have yet to be addressed. By integrating coping, SIP, and bullying role literatures, this study provided a novel examination of the link between biases in attention to social cues during bullying and coping with peer victimization.…”

“…The stimuli for the eye-tracking task included short video clips depicting 18 scenes of bullying, six scenes of ambiguous provocation, and six scenes of prosocial behavior. Four boy actors acted out each scene as well as four girl actors, such that 60 video clips in total were created (i.e., 30 with boy actors and 30 with girl actors; see Troop-Gordon et al, 2019). All actors were recruited from local theater groups, aged 10 to 13 years, and White.…”

“…Building upon an earlier analysis of this data set that focused narrowly on associations between attention to bullying roles and stable patterns of aggressive behavior (Troop-Gordon et al, 2019), the current study examined links between attentional biases and a broad set of coping responses within a specific social context—peer victimization. To test the hypothesized associations, the current study utilized eye tracking to assess attentional deployment as early adolescents watched video clips in which child actors portrayed a bully aggressing against a victim in the presence of a reinforcer and a defender.…”

“…Five coping responses were assessed—adult assistance, friend assistance, retaliation, behavioral avoidance, and internalizing coping—and potential moderating effects of peer victimization and gender were explored. In all analyses, we controlled for attentional difficulties (see Troop-Gordon et al, 2019). To avoid any masking of results, we tested seeking assistance from adults and from friends separately.…”