An Examination of Network Position and Childhood Relational Aggression: Integrating Resource Control and Social Exchange Theories

Abstract

Applying resource control theory and social exchange theory, we examined the social network conditions under which elementary age children were likely to engage in relational aggression. Data on classroom peer networks and peer-nominated behaviors were collected on 671 second- through fourth-grade children in 34 urban, low-income classrooms. Nested regression models with robust cluster standard errors demonstrated that the association between children's number of relationships and their levels of relational aggression was moderated by the number of relationships that their affiliates had. Children with more peer relationships (i.e., higher network centrality) exhibited higher levels of relational aggression, but only when these relationships were with peers who had fewer connections themselves (i.e., poorly connected peers). This finding remained significant even when controlling for common predictors of relational aggression including gender, overt aggression, prosocial behavior, victimization, social preference, and perceived popularity. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for advancing the literature on childhood relational aggression and their practical applications for identifying children at risk for these behaviors.

Seeing and being seen: Predictors of accurate perceptions about classmates’ relationships

“…In the United States, children ages 6 to 12 are estimated to spend over thirty hours per week in school (Hofferth, 2009; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001) and interact with the same classroom peers daily (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). The structure of these classroom peer networks has been linked to a variety of positive and negative behaviors including aggression (e.g., Ahn, Garandeau, & Rodkin, 2010; Farmer & Xie, 2007; Molano, Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2013; Neal & Cappella, 2012), and academic engagement and motivation (e.g. Cappella, Kim, Neal, & Jackson, 2013; Kindermann, 1993).…”

Peer victimization and changes in physical and relational aggression: The moderating role of executive functioning abilities

“…As seen in Figure 1b, (Neal & Cappella, 2012). On the other hand, good EF skills may enable relationally victimized children to preserve social connections within the peer group, providing them with greater opportunities to respond in relationally aggressive ways.…”

“…One possibility is that relationally victimized children with impaired EF are highly vulnerable to more global peer rejection, due to the combination of frequent damage to their social relationships and poor cognitive skills. As a consequence, these children may have very few social connections, which may reduce the likelihood that they can manipulate or damage others' relationships (Neal & Cappella, 2012). On the other hand, good EF skills may enable relationally victimized children to preserve social connections within the peer group, providing them with greater opportunities to respond in relationally aggressive ways.…”

The association between peer network centrality and aggression is moderated by moral disengagement

“…Existing research on the etiology of aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence has focused on examining biological (including genetic) and environmental factors in families (e.g., Liu, Li, & Guo, ; Marshall, Feinberg, Jone, & Chote, ), but there also has been considerable emphasis on peer group and relationship influences (e.g., Neal & Cappella, ; Walcott, Upton, Bolen, & Brown, ; Xie, Farmer, & Cairns, ). This is because peer groups and their social interactions play a critical role in adolescents’ socialization, including expression of prosocial and aggressive behavior (Dishion, Ha, & Veronneau, ; Harris, ).…”

“…As suggested by group socialization theory, the peer group is the main context that shapes and reinforces an individual's behavior, including aggressive behavior (Harris, ), via effects of peer group structure (Neal & Cappella, ), group norms (Henry et al, ), and group and individual social status and prestige (Walcott et al, ). These effects grow in strength over adolescence, as youth spend more and more time with their peers in a “social network” (e.g., Neal, ; Tseng, Banny, Kawabata, Crick, & Gau, ).…”