Getting Angry at Peers: Associations with Liking of the Provocateur

Abstract

We examined how preschoolers coped with anger in interactions with well liked and not well liked peers. The free-play interactions of preschool-aged children (M age = 66.27 months) were observed for 6 months. The frequency, causes, and intensity of children's anger, as well as their anger-related reactions, were compared for incidents provoked by peers who were "really liked" to those provoked by peers who were liked only " a little bit." Although there were no differences in the intensity of anger provocations by well liked and not well liked provocateurs, children's responses to provocations by well liked peers were more controlled than was the case for anger provoked by peers who were not well liked. In general, boys were more responsive to how they felt about the provocateur than were girls. These findings suggest that anger episodes with well liked children were less stressful than those with peers who were not well liked.

Young Children's Prosocial and Aggressive Behaviors and Their Experiences of Being Targeted for Similar Behaviors by Peers

“…Certainly, peers could be attributed different socializing potentials, as they differ in many respects, and occupy peripheral or central positions in children's social networks. For example, social influence may depend on whether the specific peer is well liked or less well liked (as indicated by Fabes, Eisenberg, Smith & Murphy, 1996), or whether or not the peer possesses friendship status (as indicated by Costin & Jones, 1992). Elucidating the significance of peer experiences for children's behavioral development probably requires instruments of a more sophisticated kind.…”

An Integrative Examination of Peer Conflict: Children's Reported Goals, Emotions, and Behaviors

“…Based on previous studies (Chung & Asher, 1996;Lochman et al, 1993;, friendly goal tendencies were expected to be associated with constructive behavioral tendencies. In addition, based on findings pertaining to associations within a given situation (Fabes et al, 1996;Laursen & Hartup, 1989;Whitesell et al, 1993), the reported intensity of children's anger across situations was expected to be associated negatively with reports of constructive behavior. However, because there is sparse information regarding sadness and behavior during conflict, no specific predictions were made regarding the relation between reported sadness intensity and the constructiveness of behavior.…”

“…Specifically, the initial provoking event and friendship with the peer were examined because they can impact children's reactions to conflict. Children enact more constructive behavior and experience less anger during conflict with friends than with non-friends (Fabes et al, 1996;Hartup, 1992;Whitesell & Harter, 1996). Children with close friendships also pursue friendly goals during hypothetical conflicts with a friend (Rose & Asher, 1999).…”

“…Children with close friendships also pursue friendly goals during hypothetical conflicts with a friend (Rose & Asher, 1999). Further, the initial provoking event is related to responses such that children's behavior tends to be relatively nonconstructive (e.g., insistence, aggression) when provoked by physical or object issues whereas constructive verbal strategies and friendly goals tend to occur An Integrative Examination of Peer Conflict 539 when they are provoked by relationship or rule violation issues (Fabes et al, 1996;Whitesell & Harter, 1996). The outcome of conflict also can provide insight into what happens during conflict.…”

Cognition, Context, and Goals: Significant Components in Social‐Emotional Effectiveness

“…Relative to emotion communication (and affective social competence relies very heavily on emotion communication), I have suggested that examining recurrent dimensions might be one productive approach (Saarni, 2000). Three dimensions that have considerable associated research are (a) the degree to which differences in power or status characterize the interaction (e.g., Kemper, 2000;LaFrance & Hecht, 1999), (b) the degree to which closeness of affiliation characterizes the relationship (e.g., Fabes, Eisenberg, Smith, & Murphy, 1996;Lewis & Feiring, 1981), and (c) the degree to which the emotional display is exposed, that is, public or private (e.g., Wagner & Lee, 1999). A fourth construct (although whether it can be dimensionalized is not clear) would be an individual's motivation to construct a desired identity that derives its meaningfulness from others' responses to the self's projected image, namely, impression management or self-presentation (e.g., Baumeister, 1993;Harter, 1998).…”