Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research

AVB-00911; No of Pages 11 Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research Ioanna Voulgaridou, Constantinos M. Kokkinos ⁎ Department of Primary Education, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 26 February 2015 Accepted 13 May 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Relational aggression Antecedents Correlates Assessment Interventions

a b s t r a c t The need for an integrated approach to studying relationally aggressive behavior is evident, considering the growing though scattered and fragmentary research documenting the predictors and outcomes of this behavior. In the current paper a comprehensive review of the extant literature concerning relationally aggressive behavior of adolescents is presented, taking into account the conclusive evidence supporting the prevalence of relational aggression during this developmental stage. It opens with a conceptual clarification of the term and discussion of the theoretical approaches to the study of this aggressive form of behavior. It focuses on the main findings of the relevant theory and empirical research providing insight into both individual and contextual antecedents as well as the correlates of relationally aggressive behavior. Assessment methods for identifying relational aggression in children and adolescents are described, with an emphasis on measurement techniques most sustainable for capturing this sometimesintangible construct. The article concludes with a discussion of proposed best practices for effectively preventing and responding to incidents of relational aggression within the context of social and emotional learning, positive behavioral or family-based interventions. Recommendations for future investigations with reference to the current theoretical conceptualizations and empirical findings on relational aggression are advanced. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Conceptual clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Gender differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Correlates and antecedents of relational aggression 5. Outcomes of relational aggression . . . . . . . . 6. Measuring relational aggression . . . . . . . . 7. Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Future directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction During the last couple of decades, the study of relational aggression has burgeoned (Murray-Close, Ostrov, & Crick, 2007). Researchers in the field of aggression have increasingly devoted their attention to a wider range of aggressive tactics and developed a broadened conceptualization of aggression to include nonphysical behaviors that are more covert ⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Education Sciences, Department of Primary Education, Democritus University of Thrace, N. Hili, GR 68100, Alexandroupolis, Greece. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Kokkinos).

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

or indirect in nature (Crick, Ostrov, & Kawabata, 2007; Underwood, Beron, & Rosen, 2009). Indeed, although previously physical behaviors have been the focus of the majority of research efforts on aggression, recent interest in the constructs of nonphysical forms has urged a reexamination of the forms and functions of aggressive behavior (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Kuppens, Grietens, Onghena, Michiels, & Subramanian, 2008; Leff, Waasdorp, & Crick, 2010). The dramatic increase of interest in relational aggression is evident not only from the large number of research findings that have been published in developmental and educational psychology journals but also from the mainstreaming of the topic into books, films and television programs

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006 1359-1789/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

2

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

(Merrel, Buchanan, & Tran, 2006). These nonphysical aggressive acts have been given various names, such as indirect, social and relational aggression. As research on these forms of aggressive behavior has substantially expanded, theorists have noted the conceptual confusion characterizing work in this area (Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008). Therefore, it may be instructive to begin by clarifying the underlying differences in constructs referred to as social, relational, an indirect aggression. Corroborating evidence suggests that relational aggression first signs emerge around 3 years old and continue to become more sophisticated throughout the early childhood period (Crick et al., 2007; Crick et al., 2006a). Despite the scarce empirical findings for developmental trends in relational aggression (Baillargeon et al., 2007), many researchers (e.g., Björkqvist, 1994; Crick et al., 2007; Yoon, Barton, & Taiariol, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck, Trevaskis, Nesdale, & Downey, 2014) claim that indirect aggression peaks during later childhood and adolescence, due to the developmental milestones (i.e., the development of greater verbal abilities, social sophistication) experienced during this period. The current review focuses on adolescents for two different reasons. First, social changes emerging in adolescence may provide fertile ground for the use of relational aggression (Murray-Close et al., 2007). Indeed, as adolescents begin to individuate and develop a sense of self separate from their parents, peer relationships and social standing take on greater significance. Adolescents' social relationships become more emotionally close and intimate as well as their social status and acceptance from same-sex and opposite-sex peers become important element of self-identity (Yoon et al., 2004). Moretti, Holland, and McKay (2001) hypothesized that during this time period, girls may view themselves as inadequate and in an effort to meet their relational needs they may seek to control and manipulate peer relationships in order to achieve social success. One unique feature of relational aggression during adolescence is that, as the establishment of romantic relationships becomes an important focus of development, this context provides an important opportunity for the exhibition of relational aggression (Crick et al., 2007). Similarly, according to Card et al. (2008) engaging in forms of aggression that are developmentally less appropriate (i.e., direct aggression during adolescence) may elicit harsher consequences by parents and teachers and more rejection by peers. Second, research suggests that relationally aggressive behavior, as a more sophisticated way of manipulation, requires an understanding of others' mental states (Card et al., 2008). Adolescence brings an enhanced understanding of social situations, including a better understanding of the emotions and motives of others, perspective taking, and emotion regulation (Eccles, Wigfield, & Byrnes, 2003). As adolescents progress in their social-cognitive abilities, they better perceive the manipulative and harmful methods of interacting and use more sophisticated or covert aggressive behaviors to withdraw specific relationship information in reply to behaviors occurred in the past (Prinstein et al., 2001; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). The need for an integrated approach to studying relationally aggressive behavior is evident, considering the growing though scattered and fragmentary research documenting the predictors and outcomes of this behavior. In an attempt to provide insight in the understanding of relational aggression in the current paper, a comprehensive review of the extant literature concerning relationally aggressive behavior of adolescents is presented, taking into account the conclusive evidence supporting the prevalence of relational aggression during this developmental stage. The main part of the review begins with a conceptual clarification of the term and discussion of the theoretical approaches to the study of this aggressive form. It focuses on the main findings of the relevant theory and empirical research by providing insight into both individual and contextual antecedents as well as the correlates of relationally aggressive behavior. Furthermore, several assessment methods for detecting relational aggression in children and adolescents are described, with an emphasis on measurement techniques most sustainable for capturing this sometimes-intangible construct. Finally, the

article concludes with a discussion of proposed best practices for effectively preventing and responding to incidents of relational aggression within the context of social and emotional learning, positive behavioral or family-based interventions. 2. Conceptual clarification Several researchers having studied and contributed to a growing body of literature on relational aggression support that there is still a lack of agreement on common terminology (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Leff et al., 2010; Merrel et al., 2006). Specifically, there is currently a debate in the field regarding which term is most appropriate to use when discussing nonphysical types of behaviors: indirect aggression (Björkqvist, 2001), defined as a way to harm the target by rejection or exclusion (Archer & Coyne, 2005), social aggression (Underwood, Gaelnand, & Paquette, 2001), used to describe manipulations in group acceptance aimed at damaging the victim's self-esteem or social status (Card et al., 2008), and relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) referring to behaviors carried out in a covert way, such as peer group exclusion or rejection, rumor spreading and embarrassment in a social setting (Griffin & Gross, 2004). Although Crick and Grotpeter first introduced the term relational aggression in 1995, similar behavior had been studied for years by researchers using the term indirect aggression, which as Björkqvist (2001) claimed was in use prior to the term social aggression. Underwood et al. (2001) argued in favor of using the term social aggression, not only because it is one of the earlier terms but also because it is a comprehensive term, including behaviors encountered in relational aggression and indirect aggression while being the only term that specifically incorporated nonverbal behaviors. Indirect aggression broadly refers to behaviors that may be covert (i.e., the aggressor does not intend to be known to the victim), such as ignoring, avoiding, or excluding others from social interactions (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). This term was first introduced by Feshbach (1969) to define the behavior of individuals who snubbed a newcomer during a laboratory observation session. Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, and Peltonen (1988) later used this term to refer to behaviors such as gossiping, befriending others, and exclusion that do not directly confront the victim. To date, indirect aggression definition involves behaviors that are done “behind their back”, such as spreading stories and lies about them (Gentile, Coyne, & Walsh, 2011). Possibly because of this rather limiting definition, indirect aggression is the least frequently studied of the three forms (Merrell et al., 2006). Shortly thereafter, the term social aggression was used by Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, and Gariepy (1989) to refer to behaviors that intentionally damage interpersonal relationships and social status through non-confrontational and generally covert methods (Underwood, 2003). This term refers to children's descriptions of manipulations in group acceptance through ostracism or character attacks (Card et al., 2008). These behaviors require the involvement of members of the social community (e.g., gossip, social exclusion, ostracism, negative facial expressions; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008). Indirect aggression differs from social aggression because the perpetrator does not necessary employ other members in the aggressive act (Xie et al., 2005). This broad definition of social aggression is designed to include both direct and indirect behaviors, verbal and nonverbal social exclusion, malicious gossip, and friendship manipulation (Underwood, 2003). Though similar to social aggression, the construct of relational aggression has subtle, but weighty differences. It includes behaviors that damage or threaten to harm relationships, acceptance and inclusion through manipulation of peer relationships (Crick, 1996; Crick et al., 2007). Relationally aggressive behavior primarily involves the direct manipulation of peer relationships and does not include negative facial expressions or gestures (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). These behaviors may

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

be confrontational (e.g., excluding a peer from the social group) or non-confrontational (e.g., character denigration) and may or may not involve members of the social community (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Despite the similarities in the above conceptualizations, prior studies of these aggressive forms have highlighted semantic and definitional issues. Nevertheless, the three terms do differ in their emphasis and how researchers have conceptualized them (Archer, 2004). The major confutation is between indirect and relational aggression researchers, with indirect aggression researchers arguing that the latter had renamed indirect aggression that had been studied for nearly a decade before (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Conversely, relational aggression researchers support that the two terms are distinct and involve different forms of behavior (e.g., Crick et al., 2006a). The term social aggression is used less often, but is regarded as encompassing the other two (Underwood, 2003). However as it is contended from other studies (Björkqvist, 2001; Merrell et al., 2006), this field should not be filled with too many terms and thus it is important for researchers to come to an agreement on a common term. In this regard, although each term adds uniquely to the construct, it appears that, overall, the behaviors described under each term are more similar than distinct (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006). This could be due to three reasons. First, although the three given names are used interchangeably, many of the same manipulative acts are found in all three categories (Archer, 2004). Namely, all capture to some degree behaviors that are intended to harm another's reputation, social relationships, or feelings of inclusion by the peer group (Xie et al., 2005). Ranging from direct and unambiguous exclusion to indirect and even disguised attacks (e.g., negative gossip in the guise of helpful advice) relational forms of aggression are characterized by the intent to do social harm, using relationships to inflict the damage. In the same line, they all show sex differences in the female direction, in contrast to direct forms of aggression (Gentile et al., 2011). Second, all these forms of aggression can be viewed as social strategies that have evolved and are used to attain certain competitive goals. Archer and Coyne (2005) argue that all three forms of aggression can be distinguished from direct aggression because they have different adaptive goals and because these are largely achieved in different ways. Instead of directly inflicting harm, they target at manipulating the reputation of another or excluding them from the group (Merrell et al., 2006). Third, in practice, factor-analytic studies have indicated two forms of aggressive behavior (e.g., Card et al., 2008; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). One factor includes physical reacts such as hitting and pushing as well as overt verbal attacks such as name calling or threatening. The second factor includes manipulation of relationships (e.g., sabotaging the target's friendships) and damaging the target's social status (e.g., spreading gossip, excluding from activities), often through indirect or covert means. As it is concluded from the above discussion the three terms essentially cover the same form of aggression with differences of emphasis in the defining characteristics. This argument provides a rationale for considering a single category, rather than three throughout the rest of the paper. Social aggression is thought to be too broad of a term, as it represents a wide category of aggressive behaviors that occur in social settings (Merrell et al., 2006). On the other hand, despite the advocating of the term indirect aggression (Merrell et al., 2006), it may be problematic in that it does not capture the full spectrum of behaviors. Sometimes the peer relationship can be used to aggress indirectly (i.e., telling peers not to talk to a specific person or spreading rumors) or directly (calling names). The term indirect aggression is also limited in that it excludes more direct attacks on social well-being (Card et al., 2008). Consequently, in the present literature review the term relational aggression has been chosen in terms of consistency, but studies on social and indirect aggression will be included as well.

3

3. Gender differences The issue of gender was initially central to the topic of relational aggression as it is claimed that historical conceptualizations of physical aggression did not include aggressive behaviors that may be more typical of females (Björkqvist, 2001; Crick, 1996). Previous evidence for the presence of mean-level gender differences in relational aggression has been equivocal (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Some studies claimed that relational aggression more typically reflects girl's aggressive engagement (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Nelson, Robinson & Hart, 2005; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Goosens, Duriez, & Niemiec, 2008), while other reported no gender differences (e.g., Prinstein et al., 2001; Putallaz et al., 2007) or even higher scores in boys (e.g., Juliano, Werner, & Cassidy, 2006). A number of issues, such as assessment method, information source (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Ostrov & Keating, 2004), culture from which the sample was drawn (Russell, Hart, Robinson, & Olsen, 2003) or subjects' age (Xie et al., 2005) may produce this inconsistency with regard to gender differences for relational aggression. 4. Correlates and antecedents of relational aggression In recent years, research examining the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of relational aggression has flourished (Crick et al., 2007). The importance of a better understanding of the processes that place children at risk for relationally aggressive conduct and its correlates is four-fold. First, recent findings on the consequences and prevalence of relational aggression denote the need to obtain a more lucid picture of this construct and stress the necessity for an in-depth investigation of the theoretical approaches interpreting this aggressive form (Spieker et al., 2012). Second, research suggests that both males and females tend to engage in relational forms of aggression with some frequency (Mathieson et al., 2011). Crapanzano, Frick, and Terranova (2010) found that although both boys and girls may be relationally aggressive, only girls are characterized by distinct profiles of relational aggression. Third, there is some evidence that, like physical aggression, individual differences in relational aggression are relatively stable over time. Thus, the earlier the behavior is identified and addressed, the more likely the repetition of the behavior can be reduced or stopped. In this regard, there is more to be learned about predictors of relational aggression, before potentially viable interventions are developed and successfully administered (Herrenkohl et al., 2007; Spieker et al., 2012). Fourth, there is presently debate over whether relational aggression should be considered “typical” or “atypical” behavior (Keenan, Coyne, & Lahey, 2008; Tackett, Waldman, & Lahey, 2009). Relational aggression is not currently captured in the recent editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as a form of psychopathology. A majority of studies has shown maladaptive effects of relational aggression for both victims (Crick et al., 2001; Prinstein et al., 2001) and perpetrators (Card et al., 2008; Crick, 1996; Crick et al., 2001; Ostrov & Houston, 2008). In addition, multiple studies have shown that relationally aggressive behaviors covary highly with other forms of externalizing behaviors and especially physical aggression (Card et al., 2008; Loeber et al., 2009; Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004). Other research has found that relational aggression shows higher associations with internalizing problems than do other forms of aggressive behaviors (Card et al., 2008), suggesting that it may be related to multiple psychopathology outcomes in children and adolescents (Crick, Ostrov, & Werner, 2006b). In order to discuss the antecedents and correlates of relationally aggressive behavior, two primary function types of relational aggression having emerged by psychological and psychiatric literature should be taken into account. These functions are given various names (e.g., proactive or reactive; premeditated or impulsive; predatory or defensive; cold blooded or hot blooded; instrumental or hostile; Houston et al., 2004), but practically aim to distinguish between aggressive

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

4

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

behavior that is controlled or planned versus behavior that is more retaliatory or impulsive. In the present paper, and in keeping with the developmental literature (e.g., Dodge & Coie, 1987; Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, Oligny, 1998), the terms proactive to denote aggressive behaviors that are displayed to serve an instrumental, goal-directed end, while reactive aggressive behavior that refers to responses to a threat and associated with negative affect (i.e., hostility or anger) will be used. These two main functions of aggression are based on different theoretical approaches, with proactive aggression being conceptually attributed to the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1973) and reactive aggression being a product of the Frustration Aggression Hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1989). The distinction between the two functions of aggression has often been examined in youths who use overt or physical aggression. Recently, researchers have also begun to examine these functions in relationally aggressive youths (Crapanzano et al., 2010; Marsee & Frick, 2007; Ostrov & Crick, 2007), with results suggesting that reactive and proactive relational aggression may show some divergent correlates. Primarily, on account of the interpretation of relational aggression, previous research supports (Merrell et al., 2006) that although biological influences are not normally viewed as a central characteristic affecting relational aggression, it must be presumed that they may have some influence, particularly in combination with other psychosocial variables. Indeed, one research team recently provided genetically informative investigation of relational aggression (Brendgen et al., 2008) in a sample of 7-year-old twins and Tackett et al. (2009) examined a sample of 6-to 18-year-old twin pairs demonstrating etiologic genetic influences on relational aggression. Temperament or personality based predispositions affecting emotional reactivity and self-regulation abilities are important risk factors according to several models of aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Dane & Marini, 2014). Specifically, reactive and proactive functions of aggression have been shown to be differentiated by temperament, defined as biologically-based individual differences in emotional, attentional and motor reactivity (Dane & Marini, 2014). It may influence the mental processes or internal states (e.g., cognitions, emotions, arousal levels, action tendencies) and by extension contribute indirectly to the development of conduct problems that arise in social situations (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Self-regulation processes, such as effortful and reactive control (Rothbart, 2011; Rothbart & Bates, 2006) have been found to associate with relational aggression (Dane & Marini, 2014). There are empirical and theoretical reasons to suggest that reactive-relationally aggressive behavior (i.e., retaliation through acts such as social exclusion or rumor spreading) may be facilitated by effortful control (Dane & Marini, 2014). Effortful control encompasses conscious, voluntary and cognitive strategies that facilitate the inhibition of a dominant impulse to permit the performance of a subdominant response, as well as planning and error detection (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). According to Card et al. (2008) the ability to inhibit impulses and regulate emotions is negatively related to the frequency of relational aggression. Another study (Ojanen, Findley, & Fuller, 2012) found both higher frustration and higher affiliation to be associated with higher relational aggression. It has been also reasoned (e.g., Dane & Marini, 2014) that fear would affect participation in reactive relational aggression. Indeed, some authors assuming an evolutionary point of view have declared that females tend to use relational rather than overt aggression primarily because they perceive it as a safer option (Vaillancourt et al., 2003; Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini, 2012). Consistent with this expectation, Terranova, Morris, and Boxer (2008) found that temperamental fearfulness was inversely associated with overt but not relational aggression. Research so far has documented that relational aggression is associated with several individual factors (e.g., personality, social cognition) (Banny, Heilbron, Arnes, & Prinstein, 2011). Despite the existing literature regarding the linkages between personality and relational aggression, a limited number of studies have examined this association using different personality models, such as Five Factor Model and behavioral

inhibition and activation systems (Miller, Zeichner, & Wilson, 2012). A small number of studies have provided some initial evidence that relational aggression appears to show overall personality trait associations that are consistent with physical aggression and rule breaking: specifically, low agreeableness and conscientiousness, and high neuroticism (Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, & Richardson, 2004; Tackett, Daoud, De Bolle, & Bort, 2013). Research has also supported the role of the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS) in aggression for adults, demonstrating negative associations with BIS, which regulates the experience to anxiety in response to threatening signals and inhibits behavior, and positive with BAS which is sensitive to cues of reward and non-punishment (Seibert, Miller, Pryor, Reidy, & Zeichner, 2010). On the contrary, a study examining the association between relational aggression and BIS/BAS in adult samples showed positive links with both systems (Miller et al., 2012). A study by Kokkinos, Voulgaridou, and Markos (2014) with a sample of Greek preadolescents found a positive association only between relational aggression and BAS. Infrequently studied as well are associations between relational aggression and personality pathology. Early theoretical and empirical conceptualizations suggested that relational aggression may be linked with early manifestations and a number of characteristics that parallel features of borderline personality disorder, including preoccupation with relational concerns, cognitive and emotional sensitivity to relational stressors, and intense, stormy, and enmeshed relationships (Banny et al., 2011; Crick, Murray-Close, & Woods, 2005; Ostrov & Houston, 2008; Underwood, Beron, & Rosen, 2011). Each borderline personality feature has been associated with relational aggression (Crick et al., 2005), while unique associations between relational aggression and borderline symptoms have also been found in late adolescence (Ostrov & Houston, 2008; Werner & Crick, 1999). Relational aggression has additionally been connected to antisocial and callous-unemotional personality disorders across development (Beauchaine, Klein, Crowell, Derbridge, & Gatzke-Kopp, 2009). Relationally aggressive children exhibit heightened sensitivity to relational events, including hyper-vigilance and distress in response to interpersonal stressors (Mathieson et al., 2011). With respect to dyadic relationships, relationally aggressive children desire friendship exclusivity and report high levels of intimacy, jealousy, conflict, and relational aggression within their friendships (Murray-Close et al., 2007). Initial evidence also implicates associations between relational aggression and narcissistic traits (Barry, Pickard, & Ansel, 2009; Tackett et al., 2013; Underwood et al., 2011), as well as traits reflecting social dominance among adolescents (Tackett et al., 2013). Barry et al. (2009) reported an association between relational aggression and maladaptive narcissism such as a sense of entitlement and tendency to exploit others which may serve to justify relational aggression as means to desired ends. Overall, relational aggression does appear to be associated with disinhibitory forms of personality pathology, although disorder specificity has not been clearly established (Schmeelk, Sylvers, & Lillienfeld, 2008). A growing body of research on students' engagement in aggressive behavior also stresses the role of cognition, social information processing and social interaction (Gini, 2006). Despite the greater empirical attention to relational aggression in the last decade, little is understood about cognitive influences on this form of aversive behavior (Crain, Finch, & Foster, 2005; Linder et al., 2010; Mathieson et al., 2011). The majority of research evidence supports that social information processing mechanisms are important for understanding relational aggression (e.g., Crick, 1996; Nelson, Mitchell, & Yang, 2008). According to Crick and Dodge's (1994) theoretical model of social-cognitive information processing, children learn to interpret social cues, set objectives and recognize the contingent means of achieving them when they face social problem situations. They then estimate, select, and respond in such a manner to achieve those goals that result in aggressive behavior. Under this model, children develop aggressive patterns to interpret social situations that lead them to behave aggressively when faced with

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

social problems. Indeed, an association between relational aggression and hostile attribution bias (i.e., interpreting malicious intent in ambiguous provocation contexts) was confirmed (Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008; Mathieson et al., 2011; Ostrov & Houston, 2008), while at the same time, in Crain et al.' s (2005) research, social cognitive variables failed to correlate significantly to peer nominated relational aggression. Crain et al. (2005), however, noted that the investigation of the possible relevance of other social cognitive factors (i.e., moral disengagement), except for social information processing, for understanding relational aggression appears to be essential. A plethora of research has shown that children and youth who endorse moral disengagement mechanisms are more likely to engage in general aggression (Gini, 2006; Hymel, Rocke-Henderson, & Bonnano, 2005). Regarding relational aggression, however, the findings are diverse with some studies reporting that moral justification predicts only physical forms of aggression (Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, & Caprara., 2008), whereas others reporting a significant correlation with all aggressive forms (Gini, 2006; Hymel et al., 2005; Kokkinos et al., 2014). Other theoretical frameworks (Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986) have, however, addressed that the immediate environment (e.g., home or classroom context) may influence children's behavior. Nevertheless, most studies on relational aggression have applied traditional singlelevel analytic techniques, ignoring the social context within which children develop (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Prinstein et al., 2001). Ecological or contextual theories (Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1986) have stressed that in order to study how relational aggression is manifested and perceived (Merrell, Buchanan, & Tran, 2006), researchers should not only pay attention to child characteristics, but also to the social context in which children' s development occurs. Indeed, Herrenkohl et al. (2007) found that the highest risk factors for relational aggression pertain mostly to family (e.g., family history of antisocial behavior) and peer influences (e.g., interaction with antisocial peers, gang involvement). Many of the efforts aiming to identify the antecedents of relational aggression have focused on parenting (Crick et al., 1999). However, studies on the associations between parenting and relational aggression have netted both positive and non-significant results with varying effect sizes (e.g., Nelson & Crick, 2002; Reed, Goldstein, Morris, & Keyes, 2008). Nelson and Crick (2002) and Nelson, Hart, Yang, Olsen, and Jin (2006) found parental control related to girls' relational aggression. It was also predicted that children whose relationship with their parent(s) was characterized by high levels of psychological control would be more likely to engage in relationally aggressive behaviors with their peers (Casas et al., 2006). Other studies, however, did not find significant associations between authoritarian parenting and children's relational aggression (Underwood et al., 2009). On the other hand, permissive parenting may be related to children's use of relational aggression (Casas et al., 2006) because it is thought to be a way of negative reinforcement. Permissive parents provide negative reinforcement for children's undesired or disruptive behaviors (e.g., aggression) (Nelson & Crick, 2002). Research has shown that permissive parenting, including lack of parental consistent monitoring, is associated with relational aggression at various developmental ages such as adolescence (e.g., Vaillancourt, Miller, Fagbemi, Cote, & Tremblay, 2007). Kokkinos and Voulgaridou (2015) found that low parental psychological autonomy and behavioral control correlated with relational aggressive behavior in a sample of adolescents. Although the evidence above is mixed, some researchers have suggested that the associations between negativity in the family and relational aggression in the offspring may be a function of gender (Spieker et al., 2012). ZahnWaxler, Park, Essex, Slattery, and Cole (2005) speculated that because girls have a strong interpersonal relationship orientation and greater receptivity to negative emotions in the family, girl's rejection within the family may become a breeding ground for relational aggression. Adolescents' interactions with peers have been also consistently linked to their social outcomes. In the case of relational aggression, although linkages with peer relationships have largely been understudied (Herrenkohl et al., 2007), friendship quality has been proven particularly

5

salient for the maintenance and elaboration of relational aggression (e.g., Soenens et al., 2008). Evidence for the relationship between friendship quality and relational aggression is provided by several studies (e.g., Kawabata, Crick, & Hamaguchi, 2010) which reported that higher quality of friendships may increase psychosocial adjustment of adolescents, which in turn is linked to decreased involvement in relational aggression (Zimmer-Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005). In particular, both Grotpeter and Crick (1996) and Crick and Nelson (2002) showed that when students are more likely to engage in relational aggression their friendships are characterized by higher exclusivity and abuse, less intimacy and validation. In the same line, Grotpeter and Crick (1996) proposed that high levels of disclosure by friends may provide relationally aggressive children with ammunition for aggression.

5. Outcomes of relational aggression An emerging line of research has been devoted to the examination of both positive and negative outcomes of relational aggression for those who perpetrate it across developmental periods (Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008). In this line a wide range of recent studies indicates that relational aggression is linked to a host of negative developmental outcomes (e.g., Card et al., 2008). Specifically, prior studies have clearly demonstrated that relational aggression is associated with a variety of adverse adjustment outcomes, both concurrent and future, for children from the preschool to the adolescent years (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Crick et al., 2006b; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005). A recent meta-analysis by Card et al. (2008) summarized what is known about specific concurrent associations between indirect aggression on the one hand and internalizing and externalizing problems on the other, indicating that relational aggression was more strongly associated with internalizing symptoms. Conversely, an investigation by Prinstein et al. (2001) showed that relationally aggressive children were more likely to experience externalizing symptoms associated with oppositional defiant and conduct disorders. In this regard two longitudinal studies by Murray-Close et al. (2007) and Crick et al. (2006a) have also provided evidence suggesting that relational aggression may serve as a risk factor for the development of internalizing difficulties (i.e., withdrawal, depression/anxiety, and somatic complaints) and externalizing problems (i.e., aggressive behavior, delinquency). In middle childhood and early adolescence, relationally aggressive behaviors may be associated with serious symptoms of psychopathology (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Blachman & Hinshaw, 2002; Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004; conduct problems and oppositional defiant symptoms, Keenan et al., 2008) and personality pathology (e.g., borderline personality features, Crick et al., 2005; psychopathy, Marsee & Frick, 2007). Indeed, two studies have demonstrated a link between relational aggression and ADHD (Blachman & Hinshaw, 2002; Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004). Recent preliminary findings also suggest a link between personality disorders and relational aggression. That is, a significant association between relational aggression and features of borderline personality disorder has been empirically supported (Crick et al., 2005) in recent longitudinal research with a large group of young adolescents. There is also evidence to suggest that relational aggression is linked to pathological personality, such as borderline personality, impulsivity, sensation seeking (Herrenkohl et al., 2007), and psychopathic-like traits (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003; Marsee, Silverthorn, & Frick, 2005). Corroborating evidence suggests that relational aggression is associated directly with poor social–psychological adjustment in several developmental periods (e.g., asocial behavior, peer rejection, peer exclusion, loneliness, lack of prosocial behavior and delinquency; Crick et al., 2007; Crick et al., 2006a; Ellis, Crooks, & Wolfe, 2009; Kawabata et al., 2010; Leff et al., 2010). Relational aggression is also related to a number of other difficulties including behavioral challenges, academic deficits (Preddy & Fite, 2012), teacher-student conflicts, lack of school

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

6

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

engagement (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Murray-Close et al., 2007; Prinstein et al., 2001). Despite the above negative outcomes, a substantial body of research has documented that relational aggression may also serve a variety of adaptive functions beyond the intent to harm for some children in certain contexts (e.g., Banny et al., 2011; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008). Although this initially seems counterintuitive, it appears that some relationally aggressive youth reap benefits through being adept at social manipulation (Leff et al., 2010) as they may have considerable social influence within the peer group (Puckett, Aikins & Cillessen, 2008). A recent multimethod and informant study revealed that relational aggression is associated with increases in both positive and negative friendship qualities (Banny et al., 2011). In addition, relational aggression is positively associated with perceived popularity (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), but these same children are often not accepted by their peers (e.g., Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). While several studies have reported positive associations between relationally aggressive acts and sociometric unpopularity or peer rejection (e.g., Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Nelson et al., 2005), others have revealed positive associations between perceived popularity and relationally aggressive tactics, such as pitting friends against each other or gossiping and telling derisive rumors to maintain a position at the top of the hierarchy (Adler & Adler, 1998). 6. Measuring relational aggression As the research on the topic of relational aggression is being accumulating, questions have arisen regarding its measurement and given the serious consequences of relational aggression, it is critical to identify an appropriate method for assessing it so that effective empiricallybased intervention efficacy may be maximized. Various approaches to measuring the construct of relational aggression have been reported and were recently reviewed by Archer and Coyne (2005). In this review, the authors pointed out the use of observational methods from preschool to school ages, up to 10 to 11 years. The original studies of indirect aggression by Feshbach (1969) measured social exclusion and rejection when a newcomer was introduced to an established playgroup. More recent studies have used technological aids, such as a wireless microphone and hidden camera, to observe children in school playgrounds and at other break times (Tapper & Boulton, 2002). The first systematic research on a range of categories of indirect aggression, carried out in Finland, used peer estimations or ratings (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Direct observation methods have been employed in the assessment of relational aggression (Crothers & Levinson, 2004). Ostrov, Gentile, and Crick (2006) used naturalistic observation methods during preschoolers' activities of free-play to assess relational and physical aggression, and reported acceptable levels of reliability (Doyle & DeFago, 2009). McEvoy, Estrem, Rodriguez, and Olson (2003) findings suggested that observation may be a more reliable measurement method of relational aggression for females than for males. Merrell et al. (2006) have asserted that observational methods have limited utility for assessing relational aggression because of their covert nature, although methods that have incorporated video and audio technology may have reduced reactivity and increased the reliability of observational data for assessing relational aggression (Doyle & DeFago, 2009). Teacher ratings have only recently been adapted to measure relational aggression. Previous research indicates that teacher ratings are highly reliable and informative (e.g., Xie, 1999) because teachers can base their ratings on observations across multiple contexts over a substantial period of time (Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2000). Other advantages to teacher ratings include their practicality, and ease of use, efficiency, and strong psychometric properties (Doyle & DeFago, 2009; Merrell et al., 2006). Potential limitations of teacher ratings of relational aggression may be informant bias resulting from a child's reputation or gender stereotypes, namely the personal belief that girls tend to

use subtle aggression and boys use physical aggression, a “wash out” effect of relational aggression in circumstances where high rates of physical aggression are evident, and possibilities that teachers are unaware of such covert behaviors (Doyle & DeFago, 2009; Merrell et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2005). Despite their limitations, teacher ratings are generally viewed as one of the best methods for evaluating students' social behavior (Merrell et al., 2006). An example of a widely used teacher rating scale developed specifically to evaluate relational aggression is the Children's Social Behavior Scale-Teacher Form (CSBS-T; Crick, 1996). Although parent ratings of relational aggression have been employed on only a limited basis (e.g., Ostrov & Bishop, 2008; Tackett & Ostrov, 2010), Crick adapted her teacher rating scale for use by parents (Crick & Bigbee, 1998). Parent ratings have been shown to be reliable indicators of this construct in large-scale population studies where implementation of sociometric approaches would not be practical (e.g., Vaillancourt, Brendgen, Boivin, & Tremblay, 2003). Most research utilizing parental informants has primarily relied on mother report (e.g., Ostrov & Bishop, 2008). However, some notable exceptions exist in the developmental and clinical literature (e.g., Casas et al., 2006) and these studies have indicated differential effects based on the gender of the caregiver. Sociometric assessment methods include peer nomination, peer rating, and peer ranking of an entire class that provide multiple assessments through evaluations from all classmates, and are designed to assess peer relations directly from within a peer social network (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Crick et al., 1999; Crothers & Levinson, 2004; Rose et al., 2004). These techniques frequently have been used in assessing relational aggression because the behaviors of interest are indirect and difficult for teachers and researchers to observe reliably in natural settings (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). A common method for measuring both indirect and relational aggression is peer ratings, wherein children rate multiple peers on Likert-type scales (e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1992) or use peer nomination methods (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Peer ratings appear to be the most popular method of assessment in the study of relational aggression, and perhaps for that reason they are often relied on as a basis of comparison for information from other sources (Tackett et al., 2009). The known advantages of sociometric methods include their generally favorable psychometric properties, their long history of use in peer relation research (Merrell et al., 2006), the synthesis of ratings from multiple informants and their direct assessment within the peer social network (Merrell et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2005). Limitations of peer nominations include potential age effects (i.e., the degree to which young children are able to reliably interpret peer behavior), gender-role stereotypes, and practical issues related to informed consent (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Doyle & DeFago, 2009; Merrell et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2005). As far as relational aggression is concerned two more disadvantages have been referred for peer nomination. First, it may be ineffective to identify subtle aggressive behaviors such as gossip. For instance, only obviously aggressive children may come easily to mind, while an effective social aggressor may not be publicly recognized for his or her bad behavior. As a result, it may identify only those who are not highly skilled in concealing their aggressive acts. Thus quieter, and maybe more manipulative, aggressors are not rated as such (Björkqvist, 2001). Second, nominations may be influenced by social stigma. For instance, a child may have been nominated for gossiping behavior as a result of character defamation by others (Xie et al., 2005). Self-report measures have been shown to be particularly appropriate for assessing depression, anxiety, and other types of internalizing problems (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Prinstein et al., 2001), but they have some disadvantages for assessing student perceptions of relational aggression as well. There does not appear to be a self-report measure of relational aggression that is empirically supported. Research on relational aggression has used measures of bullying which have some items related to relational aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005). A low correspondence between self-reports and others' reports has been reported (Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 2002). Given the disguised nature of covert

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

aggression, it is likely that the perpetrator will deny his or her aggressive actions (Xie et al., 2005). Archer and Coyne (2005) suggested that self-report methods are not reliable for assessing relational aggression in children because of their intention to keep such behaviors unknown to adults (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Merrell et al., 2006). On the other hand, numerous studies supported the validity of selfreport measures of aggression and antisocial behavior and indicated that youth can be accurate reporters of these behaviors (e.g., Marsee et al., 2011). However, differences exist in the dimensions of aggression assessed with self-report forms, with most measures focusing on either the forms of aggression (e.g., overt and relational) or its motivational functions (e.g., reactive and proactive) but not both. Recently, researchers have begun to integrate the forms and the functions of relational aggression into single measures in an attempt to assess them simultaneously (e.g., Marsee & Frick, 2007; Marsee et al., 2011; Ostrov & Houston, 2008). Student interviews, using unstructured, semi-structured or structured formats, have been employed in studies of relational aggression, especially with regard to investigations into the construction of this phenomenon and how it operates within peer networks (e.g., Xie et al., 2002). Merrell et al. (2006) and Doyle and DeFago (2009) have suggested that student interviews may be particularly useful for investigating effects of relational aggression on victims. The most common method of measurement of relational aggression includes teacher and peer reports, largely based on the idea that these informants are accurate reporters about a child's relational aggression with peers as they have access to the most covert behaviors (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Parent and self reports, in particular are referred as less valid sources for relationally aggressive behavior (Tackett et al., 2009). However, recent evidence has provided support for test-retest reliability, inter-informant reliability, and predictive validity for both parent and youth reports of relational aggression (Keenan et al., 2008). Also of note, different methodologies may be appropriate for different age groups (Archer & Coyne, 2005). It appears that observational studies or teacher ratings, or a multimethod approach that combines these, are proper for measuring indirect aggression among preschoolers (e.g., Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2003), while peer ratings are more appropriate for children and adolescents (e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1992) and self-reports during adulthood (e.g., Archer & Coyne, 2005). Although each assessment approach has its strengths and weaknesses, research has suggested the value of a multi-method, multiinformant assessment as best practice for accurate evaluation of social behaviors across settings (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Prinstein et al., 2001). The agreement and overlap from multi-method and multiinformants contribute to the validity of the assessments (McEvoy et al., 2003). In addition, different resources may provide useful insight to relational aggression in varying situations and settings that cannot be captured through one source (Merrell et al., 2006). Correspondence among different methods for assessing relational aggression has been reported in meta-analytic studies (Crick et al., 1999; Doyle & DeFago, 2009). Correlations between informants for relational aggression are often quite low (Juliano et al., 2006; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2000), although numerous studies have found evidence for small to moderate correlations among informants as well (Casas et al., 2006; Crick et al., 2006a, 2006b; Ostrov & Bishop, 2008; Putallaz et al., 2007; Tackett et al., 2009). Due to the variability in correspondence across measures of relational aggression, the use of multisource, multi-methods for assessing relational aggression are frequently recommended to compensate for limitations associated with any single measurement approach (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Coyne et al., 2008; Crick et al., 1999; Doyle & DeFago, 2009; McEvoy et al., 2003; Merrell et al., 2006). Indeed, Crapanzano et al. (2010) have reliably used both peer and self-report methods for assessing relational aggression concerning the potential biases that may limit validity of reports from a given source. Similarly, Tackett and Ostrov (2010) assessed relationally aggressive behaviors via both parent and self-report concluding in valid

7

results. In sum, research on relational aggression must proceed with a better understanding of the utility of different informants and methods to increase interpretation of results and ability to compare findings across studies (Tackett & Ostrov, 2010). 7. Interventions To date, a substantial body of literature has presented a wide variety of interventions targeting physically and verbally aggressive children. However, research that focuses on preventive intervention of relational aggression in children has just begun (Ostrov et al., 2009). Drawing from the research documenting the relatively high correlations between relational and physical aggression and some of the similar maladjustment profiles experienced by these individuals, some interventions for relational aggression (Shure, 2001) have been built on empirically supported programs for physical aggression. Although the scholarly work and innovations regarding relational aggression in children and adolescents to date have been primarily in the form of basic descriptive and predictive research, it seems imperative to extend current programs with strategies addressing relational aggression (Kuppens et al., 2008; Merrell et al., 2006). There are some substantial implications for educational practice that are derived not only from the evidence to date on relational aggression but also from related areas of research, including prevention and intervention of antisocial behavior in schools, social and emotional learning theory-based interventions, positive behavior support, and models for effective distribution of support services to reach all students. In terms of intervention techniques and models to address relational aggression in schools, it is claimed that specific interventions aimed solely at this target are the preferred option. Despite the fact that the state of the field of relational aggression has not yet reached a point where specifically targeted intervention programs are available on any widespread basis, it is claimed that even if such narrowly focused interventions were available, there is an inherent difficulty in targeting such a specific focus for intervention (Merrell et al., 2006). According to Kuppens et al. (2008) even if relational aggression does not seem to be a highly remarkable or disruptive problem within the school, promoting a greater understanding and recognizing its characteristics and consequences are possibly the first steps in managing relational aggression in the classroom. A brief training on this topic may benefit teachers and other staff members as it will increase their awareness and help prevent minor and isolated occurrences to become serious or widespread (Merrell et al., 2006). For instance, when teachers are aware of the dynamics and possible detrimental effects of relational aggression, they will probably be better able to recognize relationally aggressive acts and create classroom environments that are intolerant to such aggressive strategies. Classroom-based interventions aimed at enhancing pupils' social–emotional competence (Elias, Gara, Schuyler, Branden-Muller, & Sayette, 1991; Greenberg et al., 2003) may urge more positive and constructive relationships among pupils and decrease classroom aggression norms. To date, prevention and intervention research concentrating on social and emotional concerns provides support to the social emotional learning and positive behavior interventions as the best intervention programming to reduce antisocial behavior including relational aggression. Social and emotional learning describes “the process of acquiring the skills to recognize and manage emotions, develop caring and concern for others, make responsible decisions, establish positive relationships, and handle challenging situations effectively” (Merrell et al., 2006). Sound evidence suggests that social and emotional learning interventions enhance social and emotional outcomes for students (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). Positive behavior on the other hand refers to an “emphasis on school-wide systems of support that include proactive strategies for defining, teaching, and supporting appropriate student behaviors to create positive school environments” (Merrell et al., 2006). There is a substantial and growing body of

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

8

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

evidence that confirms the efficacy of school-wide positive behavior support in reducing antisocial behavior and creating a school climate that contributes to learning positive ways of interacting with peers and solving interpersonal problems (e.g., Sugai & Horner, 2002). There are few existing generic models or packaged educational programs for schools on the issue of relational aggression. Thus, the specifics of the training should be tailored to the needs of the specific school environment and staff and the particular concerns that are manifested in that setting (Merrell et al., 2006). Most of these programs refer to universal preventive interventions targeting all students and giving emphasis to the peer group and classroom climate. For instance, “Friendly Childhood Friendship Project” (Ostrov et al., 2008), “You can't stay you can't play” (Harrist & Bradley, 2003), and “I Can Problem Solve” (Boyle & Hassett-Walker, 2008) are curriculum based, universal prevention programs designed for kindergarten and elementary-aged children, while the “Second Step” (Van Schoiack-Edstrom, Frey, & Beland, 2002) is a classroom-based program that has been found to improve adolescents' social competence. On the other hand, multisetting programs (i.e., schools, families, and communities) have been also designed. A typical example is “Walk away, Ignore, Talk, Seek help” (Leadbeater, Hoglund, Woods, 2003), a comprehensive program that aims to improve students' emotional competence. School-based programs targeting only aggressive children have been also implemented. “Making Choices: Social Problem Skills for Children” (Fraser, Day, Galinsky, Hodges, & Smokowski, 2004) and “Friend to Friend” (Leff et al., 2009) are two group interventions addressing Social Information Processing deficits, improving problem-solving skills, and increasing prosocial behaviors among middle age relationally aggressive children. Two more programs “Social Aggression Prevention Program” (Cappella & Weinstein, 2006) and “Sisters of Nia” (Belgrave et al., 2004) were designed to reduce adolescent girls' use of relational aggression, while increasing their empathy skills, social problemsolving abilities, and prosocial behaviors. Most of these aforementioned programs incorporate a social problem-solving model (e.g., Fraser et al., 2004; Leff et al., 2009; Van Schoiack-Edstrom et al., 2002) given research findings highlighting that perpetrators' evaluation of social cues may influence their behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The importance of taking a systemic approach to prevention incorporating a broader perspective to enhance the school and community context is recognized by many of these programs (Leff et al., 2010). Despite the developmental research indicating that the experience of relational aggression varies as a function of gender (Murray-Close et al., 2007), some of the non-efficient program effects are due to the lack of sensitivity to the qualitative differences across gender. Additionally, having in mind that relational aggressors not only exhibit peer relationship challenges (Card et al., 2008) but also they might be viewed as quite popular and influential within the peer group (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), some intervention programs provided opportunities for this youth to exhibit their social influence and potential leadership in a prosocial manner (Leff et al., 2010). With regard to family interventions, since various aspects of maternal and paternal parenting have been documented to influence the development of relational aggression, the importance of developing parent training programs for parents that help to prevent or reduce relational aggression is necessary (Kawabata, Alink, Tseng, van IJzendoorn, & Crick, 2011). It is important to note that the development of universal, instead of targeted relational aggression programs might be preferred as rather small effect sizes were found for the association between parenting and relational aggression. Thus, as Kawabata et al. (2011) claimed, it is not possible to select specific groups at risk for relational aggression and to target interventions on the parents at large (McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000). Even the most promising relational aggression programs still require more systematic investigations using random assignment procedures in which alternative programs are used to control for nonspecific treatment factors (Leff et al., 2010). According to Merrell's et al. (2006)

review, a better approach, rather than targeting relational aggression as the exclusive focus of intervention, would be to promote positive social behavior and healthy emotional development, and to reduce antisocial behavior in general (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). In other words, there is little evidence to date indicating that intervening programs focusing exclusively on the problem of relational aggression are likely to result in meaningful and lasting results. On the other hand, there is corroborating evidence confirming the efficacy of systemic approaches in order to reduce antisocial behavior and promote positive social and emotional behavior (Greenberg et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2004). Finally, given the extremely complex nature of relational aggression, it is also important that key individuals within the school and the community are included into the intervention team, such as teachers, counselors, and administrators (Leadbeater et al., 2003). 8. Future directions The rapidly increasing research literature on the topic of relational aggression has adequately identified many of its key developmental issues and outcomes. However, the findings of this review denote the need to obtain a more lucid picture regarding the prevalence of relational aggression, data regarding the psychosocial profile of the participants, and the relationship between relational aggression and a number of personal and contextual parameters. One direction for future studies investigating relational aggression pertains to Internet aggression. With the advent of advanced technology, adolescents and even younger children frequently use Internet relational aggression, which can be harmful given that it is anonymous and widespread in nature. Recent studies that examined relational aggression via the Internet and digital text messages, revealed that such online relational aggression was associated with traditional relational aggression (which typically occurs in classrooms) and was predictive of social–psychological maladjustment (e.g., anxiety, loneliness, uneasiness) and negative peer experiences (e.g., traditional peer victimization) above and beyond the contribution of traditional relational aggression (Berger, 2007; Raskauskas & Stolz, 2007; Werner, Bumpus, & Rock, 2010). Hence, Internet relational aggression is an emerging area of study within the field of aggression and the examination of the mechanisms that may differentially lead to Internet aggression versus traditional, classroom-based aggression is an important area for future research. Given the recent research suggesting that adolescents use electronic media as an additional means of aggressing (William & Guerra, 2007) and that relational aggression may occur within the context of a romantic relationship (Ellis et al., 2009), future relational aggression intervention programs need to take these issues into account for adolescents. As far as relational aggression assessment methods are concerned, given the additional resources required in both research and clinical settings to collect information from multiple sources, it is important to determine whether distinct informants add incremental predictive power for constructs of interest. Similar questions exist for method of data collection. Interviews are often considered as the ideal assessment method in clinical settings, while questionnaires are more frequently used in research settings. Therefore, it is doubted to what extent these popular methods converge. In sum, research on relational aggression should proceed with a better understanding of the utility of different informants and methods to increase interpretation of results and ability to compare findings across studies. Future work should also examine whether and to what degree shared etiological influences are responsible for this relationship (Tackett et al., 2009). Nonetheless, questions regarding the best factorial structure of different types of aggression persist (Underwood et al., 2001) and will require comprehensive, structural examinations that are replicable across samples and age groups (e.g., Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Similarly, replication of results across different measures of relational aggression remains important (Tackett et al., 2013).

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

9. Conclusions The present review synthesizes the existing research on relational aggression during adolescence. This synthesis has resolved inconsistencies and misconceptions in the literature to reveal important information regarding the conceptualization of the term, its correlates and antecedents, assessment tools and available intervention programs. It does much to organize the existing literature so as to draw conclusions and guide future work. Primarily, an increasing body of research about relationally aggressive behavior has indicated that there is still a debate on common terminology (indirect, social, and relational aggression; Archer & Coyne, 2005; Leff et al., 2010; Merrel et al., 2006). Despite the similarities in the above conceptualizations, semantic and definitional issues have plagued prior studies of these aggressive forms reflecting the way researchers conceptualize them (Archer, 2004). In terms of demographic characteristics, prior research evidence generally demonstrates an absence of meaningful gender differences in relational aggression. Although it can be argued that some methods of assessing relational aggression yield some evidence of gender differences, the magnitudes of these gender differences are uniformly small. Nevertheless, it is concluded that relational aggression is not a “female form” of aggression. Existing findings seem to confirm the association between relational aggression and several personal and contextual factors. Despite the emerging line of research questioning relational aggression as a potential form of psychopathology based on its strong links with internalizing and externalizing problems (Card et al., 2008), more systematic research is needed to verify such evidence. According to the extant literature, a dispositional context for relational aggression behaviors is identified across multiple models of individual differences (i.e., personal traits, personality pathology, social cognition) and contextual factors (i.e., parenting, friendship quality). Nonetheless, questions regarding the correlates of different functions of relational aggression (reactive and proactive) remain important due to literature evidence indicating that these two forms differentially relate to several aspects of maladjustment (Marsee & Frick, 2007; Marsee et al., 2011; Ostrov & Houston, 2008). Although a number of awareness and intervention programs is available, no pertinent data have supported their efficacy (Leff et al., 2010). Notably, most of them are limited by methodological issues such as the psychometric properties of the measures used, method of assessment and informants' reports. Despite the recent initiation on relational aggression research, admittedly, notable efforts and great leaps have been taken during the last years, but undoubtedly, more research is still needed. Therefore, there is an apparent need for in-depth investigation, which will provide researchers with evidence regarding the role of intra-, inter-personal and contextual variables in the manifestation of relational aggression, which will evidently assist in the development and application of prevention and intervention programs. References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). Washington, DC: American psychiatric association. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Psychology, 53, 27–51. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322. Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212–230. Baillargeon, R. H., Zoccolillo, M., Keenan, K., Côté, S., Pérusse, D., Wu, H. X., et al. (2007). Gender differences in physical aggression: A prospective population-based survey of children before and after 2 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 43, 13–26. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall. Banny, A. M., Heilbron, N., Ames, A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Relational benefits of relational aggression: Adaptive and maladaptive associations with adolescent friendship quality. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1153–1166.

9

Barry, C. T., Pickard, J. D., & Ansel, L. L. (2009). The associations of adolescent invulnerability and narcissism with problem behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 577–582. Beauchaine, T. P., Klein, D. N., Crowell, S. E., Derbidge, C., & Gatzke-Kopp, L. (2009). Multifinality in the development of personality disorders: A biology × sex × environment interaction model of antisocial and borderline traits. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 735–770. Belgrave, F. Z., Reed, M. C., Plybon, L. E., Butler, D. S., Allison, K. W., & Davis, T. (2004). An evaluation of Sisters of Nia: A cultural program for African American girls. Journal of Black Psychology, 30, 329–343. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 83–96. Berger, K. S. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review, 27, 90–126. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73. Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188. Björkqvist, K. (2001). Different names, same issue. Social Development, 10, 272–274. Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. Blachman, D. R., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Patterns of friendship among girls with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 625–640. Boyle, D. J., & Hassett-Walker, C. (2008). Individual-level and socio-structural characteristics of violence an emergency department study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1011–1026. Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., Dionne, G., Tremblay, R. E., et al. (2008). Linkages between children's and their friends' social and physical aggression: Evidence for a gene–environment interaction? Child Development, 79, 13–29. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J. L. (1989). Growth and aggression: I. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320–330. Cappella, E., & Weinstein, R. (2006). The prevention of social aggression among girls. Social Development, 15, 434–462. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta‐analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. Casas, J. F., Weigel, S. M., Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Woods, K. E., Yeh, E. A. J., et al. (2006). Early parenting and children's relational and physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 209–227. Cillessen, A. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2006). “We're not friends anymore! Unless…”: The frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 294–307. Coyne, S. M., Nelson, D. A., Lawton, F., Haslam, S., Rooney, L., Titterington, L., et al. (2008). The effects of viewing physical and relational aggression in the media: Evidence for a cross-over effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1551–1554. Crain, M. M., Finch, C. L., & Foster, S. L. (2005). The relevance of the social information processing model for understanding relational aggression in girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 213–249. Crapanzano, A. M., Frick, P. J., & Terranova, A. M. (2010). Patterns of physical and relational aggression in a school-based sample of boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 433–445. Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327. Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347. Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. C. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35, 376–385. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social informationprocessing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Crick, N. R., Murray–Close, D., & Woods, K. (2005). Borderline personality features in childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 1051–1070. Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there'd be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599–607. Crick, N. R., Nelson, D. A., Morales, J. R., Cullerton-Sen, C., Casas, J. F., & Hickman, S. (2001). Relational victimization in childhood and adolescence: I hurt you through the grapevine. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), School-based peer harassment: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196–214). New York: Guilford Press. Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Burr, J. E., Cullerton-Sen, C., Jansen-Yeh, E., & Ralston, P. (2006a). A longitudinal study of relational and physical aggression in preschool. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 254–268.

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

10

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Kawabata, Y. (2007). Relational aggression and gender: An overview. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 245–259). New York: Cambridge. Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Werner, N. E. (2006b). A longitudinal study of relational aggression, physical aggression, and children's social–psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 127–138. Crothers, L. M., & Levinson, E. M. (2004). Assessment of bullying: A review of methods and instruments. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 496–503. Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). Overt and relational forms of reactive aggression in adolescents: Relations with temperamental reactivity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 60–66. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158. Doyle, H. S., & DeFago, J. (2009). Relational aggression and child outcomes. Ohio School Psychology, 54, 1–12. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Byrnes, J. (2003). Cognitive development in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Developmental psychology, 6. (pp. 325–350). New York: Wiley. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children's maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525. Elias, M. J., Gara, M. A., Schuyler, T. F., Branden-Muller, L. R., & Sayette, M. A. (1991). The promotion of social competence: Longitudinal study of a preventive school-based program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 409–417. Ellis, W. E., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2009). Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development, 18, 253–269. Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Sex differences in children's modes of aggressive responses toward outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 15, 249–258. Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., Galinsky, M. J., Hodges, V. G., & Smokowski, P. R. (2004). Conduct problems and peer rejection in childhood: A randomized trial of the Making Choices and Strong Families programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 313–324. Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 457–470. Gentile, D. A., Coyne, S., & Walsh, D. A. (2011). Media violence, physical aggression, and relational aggression in school age children: A short‐term longitudinal study. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 193–206. Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What's wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528–539. Gleason, K. A., Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & South Richardson, D. (2004). Agreeableness as a predictor of aggression in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 43–61. Goldstein, S. E., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 641–654. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379–400. Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328–2338. Harrist, A. W., & Bradley, K. D. (2003). “You can't say you can't play”: Intervening in the process of social exclusion in the kindergarten classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 185–205. Heilbron, N., & Prinstein, M. J. (2008). A review and reconceptualization of social aggression: Adaptive and maladaptive correlates. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 176–217. Herrenkohl, T. I., McMorris, B. J., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D., Hemphill, S. A., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2007). Risk factors for violence and relational aggression in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 386–405. Houston, R. J., Stanford, M. S., Villemarette Pittman, N. R., Conklin, S. M., & Helfritz, L. E. (2004). Neurobiological correlates and clinical implications of aggressive subtypes. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 3, 67–87. Hymel, S., Rocke-Henderson, N., & Bonanno, R. A. (2005). Moral disengagement: A framework for understanding bullying among adolescents. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 1–11. Juliano, M., Werner, R. S., & Cassidy, K. W. (2006). Early correlates of preschool aggressive behavior according to type of aggression and measurement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 395–410. Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R., Tseng, W. L., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 31, 240–278. Kawabata, Y., Crick, N. R., & Hamaguchi, Y. (2010). Forms of aggression, social–psychological adjustment, and peer victimization in a Japanese sample: The moderating role of positive and negative friendship quality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 471–484. Keenan, K., Coyne, C., & Lahey, B. B. (2008). Should relational aggression be included in DSM-V? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 86–93. Kokkinos, C. M., & Voulgardiou, I. (2015, August). Parenting and relational aggression: The role of adolescent personality traits. Poster to be presented at the meeting of American Psychological Association. (Toronto, Canada).

Kokkinos, C. M., Voulgaridou, I., & Markos, A. (2014, May). Personality and relational aggression among pre-adolescents: The mediating roles of moral disengagement and friendship quality. Paper presented at the Hellenic Conference of Developmental Psychology. (Rethymno, Greece). Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian, S. V. (2008). Individual and classroom variables associated with relational aggression in elementary-school aged children: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 639–660. Lagerspetz, K. M., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11‐to 12‐year‐old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403–414. Leadbeater, B., Hoglund, W., & Woods, T. (2003). Changing contexts? The effects of a primary prevention program on classroom levels of peer relational and physical victimization. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 397–418. Leff, S. S., Hoffman, J. A., & Gullan, R. L. (2009). Intervention integrity: New paradigms and applications. School Mental Health, 1, 103–106. Leff, S. S., Waasdorp, T. E., & Crick, N. R. (2010). A review of existing relational aggression programs: Strengths, limitations, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 39, 508–535. Linder, J. R., Werner, N. E., & Lyle, K. A. (2010). Automatic and controlled social information processing and relational aggression in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 778–783. Loeber, R., Pardini, D. A., Hipwell, A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Keenan, K., & Sembower, M. A. (2009). Are there stable factors in preadolescent girls' externalizing behaviors? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 777–791. Marsee, M. A., Barry, C. T., Childs, K. K., Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Munoz, L. C., et al. (2011). Assessing the forms and functions of aggression using self-report: Factor structure and invariance of the Peer Conflict Scale in youths. Psychological Assessment, 23, 792–805. Marsee, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive and emotional correlates to proactive and reactive aggression in a sample of detained girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 969–981. Marsee, M. A., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (2005). The association of psychopathic traits with aggression and delinquency in non‐referred boys and girls. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 803–817. Mathieson, L. C., Murray-Close, D., Crick, N. R., Woods, K. E., Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Geiger, T. C., et al. (2011). Hostile intent attributions and relational aggression: The moderating roles of emotional sensitivity, gender, and victimization. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 977–987. Mayeux, L., & Cillessen, A. H. (2008). It's not just being popular, it's knowing it, too: The role of self‐perceptions of status in the associations between peer status and aggression. Social Development, 17, 871–888. McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173–180. McEvoy, M. A., Estrem, T. L., Rodriguez, M. C., & Olson, M. L. (2003). Assessing relational and physical aggression among preschool children: Intermethod agreement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 51–61. Merrell, K. W., Buchanan, R., & Tran, O. K. (2006). Relational aggression in children and adolescents: A review with implications for school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 345–360. Miller, J. D., Zeichner, A., & Wilson, L. F. (2012). Personality correlates of aggression: Evidence from measures of the five-factor model, UPPS model of impulsivity, and BIS/ BAS. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2903–2919. Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims, and defenders in preschool: Peer, self-, and teacher reports. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 453–469. Moretti, M. M., Holland, R., & McKay, S. (2001). Self–other representations and relational and overt aggression in adolescent girls and boys. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 109–126. Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (2007). A short-term longitudinal study of growth of relational aggression during middle childhood: Associations with gender, friendship intimacy, and internalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 187–203. Nelson, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (2002). Parental psychological control: Implications for childhood physical and relational aggression. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 161–189). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nelson, D. A., Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression. Child Development, 77, 554–572. Nelson, D. A., Mitchell, C., & Yang, C. (2008). Intent attributions and aggression: A study of children and their parents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 793–806. Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., & Hart, C. H. (2005). Relational and physical aggression of preschool-age children: Peer status linkages across informants. Early Education & Development, 16, 115–140. Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and relational aggression in early adolescence: Associations with narcissism, temperament, and social goals. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 99–107. Ostrov, J. M., & Bishop, C. M. (2008). Preschoolers' aggression and parent–child conflict: A multiinformant and multimethod study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 309–322. Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (2007). Forms and functions of aggression during early childhood. A short-term longitudinal study. School Psychology Review, 36, 22–43. Ostrov, J. M., Gentile, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (2006). Media exposure, aggression and prosocial behavior during early childhood: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 15, 612–627. Ostrov, J. M., & Houston, R. J. (2008). The utility of forms and functions of aggression in emerging adulthood: Association with personality disorder symptomatology. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1147–1158.

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006

I. Voulgaridou, C.M. Kokkinos / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social Development, 13, 255–277. Ostrov, J. M., Massetti, G. M., Stauffacher, K., Godleski, S. A., Hart, K. C., Karch, K. M., et al. (2009). An intervention for relational and physical aggression in early childhood: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 15–28. Ostrov, J. M., Ries, E. E., Stauffacher, K., Godleski, S. A., & Mullins, A. D. (2008). Relational aggression, physical aggression and deception during early childhood: A multimethod, multi-informant short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 664–675. Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C., & Caprara, G. V. (2008). Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child Development, 79, 1288–1309. Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2000). Comparison of peer, teacher and selfassessments on adolescent direct and indirect aggression. Educational Psychology, 20, 177–190. Preddy, T. M., & Fite, P. J. (2012). Differential associations between relational and overt aggression and children's psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 182–190. Prinstein, J. M., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, M. E. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social–psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 479–491. Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W., & Cillessen, A. H. (2008). Moderators of the association between relational aggression and perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 563–576. Putallaz, M., Grimes, C. L., Foster, K. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dearing, K. (2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523–547. Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564. Reed, T. J., Goldstein, S. E., Morris, A. S., & Keyes, A. W. (2008). Relational aggression in mothers and children: Links with psychological control and child adjustment. Sex Roles, 59, 39–48. Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378. Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming who we are: Temperament and personality in development. Guilford Press. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Russell, A., Hart, C., Robinson, C., & Olsen, S. (2003). Children's sociable and aggressive behaviour with peers: A comparison of the US and Australia, and contributions of temperament and parenting styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 74–86. Schmeelk, K. M., Sylvers, P., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Trait correlates of relational aggression in a nonclinical sample: DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 269–283. Seibert, L. A., Miller, J. D., Pryor, L. R., Reidy, D. E., & Zeichner, A. (2010). Personality and laboratory-based aggression: Comparing the predictive power of the Five-Factor Model, BIS/BAS, and impulsivity across context. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 13–21. Shure, M. B. (2001). I can problem solve (ICPS): An interpersonal cognitive problem solving program for children. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 18, 3–14. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez, B., & Niemiec, C. P. (2008). The intervening role of relational aggression between psychological control and friendship quality. Social Development, 17, 661–681. Spieker, S. J., Campbell, S. B., Vandergrift, N., Pierce, K. M., Cauffman, E., Susman, E. J., et al. (2012). Relational aggression in middle childhood: Predictors and adolescent outcomes. Social Development, 21, 354–375. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: A critique of the ‘social skills deficit’ view of anti‐social behaviour. Social Development, 8, 117–127. Tackett, J. L., Daoud, S. L., De Bolle, M., & Burt, S. A. (2013). Is relational aggression part of the externalizing spectrum? A bifactor model of youth antisocial behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 149–159. Tackett, J. L., & Ostrov, J. M. (2010). Measuring relational aggression in middle childhood in a multi-informant multi-method study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 490–500.

11

Tackett, J. L., Waldman, I. D., & Lahey, B. B. (2009). Etiology and measurement of relational aggression: A multi-informant behavior genetic investigation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 722–733. Tapper, K., & Boulton, M. J. (2002). Studying aggression in school children: The use of a wireless microphone and micro‐video camera. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 356–365. Terranova, A. M., Morris, A. S., & Boxer, P. (2008). Fear reactivity and effortful control in overt and relational bullying: A six‐month longitudinal study. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 104–115. Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford Press. Underwood, M. K., Beron, K. J., & Rosen, L. H. (2009). Continuity and change in social and physical aggression from middle childhood through early adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 357–375. Underwood, M. K., Beron, K. J., & Rosen, L. H. (2011). Joint trajectories for social and physical aggression as predictors of adolescent maladjustment: Internalizing symptoms, rule‐breaking behaviors, and borderline and narcissistic personality features. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 659–678. Underwood, M. K., Galenand, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children: Why can't we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248–266. Vaillancourt, T., Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003). A longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis of indirect and physical aggression: Evidence of two factors over time? Child Development, 74, 1628–1638. Vaillancourt, T., Miller, J. L., Fagbemi, J., Côté, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Trajectories and predictors of indirect aggression: Results from a nationally representative longitudinal study of Canadian children aged 2–10. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 314–326. Van Schoiack-Edstrom, L., Frey, K. S., & Beland, K. (2002). Changing adolescents' attitudes about relational and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a school-based. School Psychology Review, 31, 201–216. Vitaro, F., Gendreau, P. L., Tremblay, R. E., & Oligny, P. (1998). Reactive and proactive aggression differentially predict later conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 377–385. Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222–238. Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidencebased practices. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Werner, N. E., Bumpus, M. F., & Rock, D. (2010). Involvement in internet aggression during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 607–619. Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and social–psychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615–623. Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 14–21. Xie, H. (1999). Through a looking glass or a hall of mirrors? Self-ratings and teacherratings of academic competence over development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 163–183. Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). The development of social aggression and physical aggression: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 341–355. Xie, H., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2005). The development of aggressive behaviors among girls: Measurement issues, social functions, and differential trajectories. In D. J. Pepler, K. C. Madsen, C. Webster, & K. S. Levene (Eds.), The development and treatment of girlhood aggression (pp. 105–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yoon, J. S., Barton, E., & Taiariol, J. (2004). Relational aggression in middle school educational implications of developmental research. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 303–318. Zahn-Waxler, C., Park, J. H., Essex, M., Slattery, M., & Cole, P. M. (2005). Relational and overt aggression in disruptive adolescents: Prediction from early social representations and links with concurrent problems. Early Education & Development, 16, 259–282. Zalecki, C. A., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2004). Overt and relational aggression in girls with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 125–137. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations gender moderation and bidirectional associations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421–452. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Trevaskis, S., Nesdale, D., & Downey, G. A. (2014). Relational victimization, loneliness and depressive symptoms: Indirect associations via self and peer reports of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 568–582. Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Building school success through social and emotional learning. New York.

Please cite this article as: Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M., Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of theoretical and empirical research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.006