Friendship and Aggressiveness as Determinants of Conflict Outcomes in Middle Childhood

Transcription

1 Developmentl Psychology 1989, Vol 25,No.5,8l2-8l9 Copyright 1989 y the Americn Psychologicl Assocition, Inc /89/S00.75 ship nd Aggressiveness s Determinnts of Conflict Outcomes in Middle Childhood Michel F. M. Sncilio, Jodie M. Plumert, nd Willrd W. Hrtup University of Minnesot The ttriutions nd responses of ggressive nd nonggressive oys to miguously intended ctions of friends nd nonfriends were exmined. Thirty-seven ggressive nd 37 nonggressive third- nd fifth-grde oys were presented with descriptions of encounters etween peers in which one child experienced negtive outcome s the result of the miguously intended ctions of nother. Neither ggressive nor nonggressive sujects were influenced y the presence or sence of friendship etween themselves nd the child whose ehvior they were sked to interpret or respond to. Aggressive sujects ttriuted more hostile intent thn nonggressive sujects when the ojectionle ction ws directed t themselves ut not when directed t others. Both groups of sujects predicted less hostile responses y themselves thn y others. Although significnt degree of consistency ws found etween sujects' ttriutions nd responses, it ws lso true tht most hostile responses were predicted following nonhostile ttriutions. This finding is inconsistent with n ttriutionlly sed explntion of hostile rective ehvior. Conflict etween peers is fct of life throughout childhood. It occurs mong children of oth sexes, etween friends nd nonfriends like, whenever "one person does something to which second person ojects" (Hy, 1984, p. 2). Denned in this wy, conflict entils dydic exchnge in which the ctions of one child re met with opposition y nother. Thefirstchild need not hve intended to offend the second for conflict to rise. However, if offense is intended, ut none is tken, no conflict cn e sid to exist. Thus, n oppositionl or ntgonistic response y the offended prty is denning feture of conflict (Shntz, 1987). When potentil conflict sitution occurs, child's interprettion of tht sitution, prticulrly the intention tht he or she ttriutes to the other child involved, hs een shown to e importnt in determining the child's response (Drley, Klosson, & Znn, 1978; Dodge, Pettit, McClskey, & Brown, 1986; Mllick & McCndless, 1966; Rule, Nesdle, & McAr, 1974). If the child hs negtive experience nd elieves tht the other individul cted with hostile intent, then he or she is likely to respond with hostility. In contrst, if the child views the responsile peer s hving cted enignly, nonhostile response is more likely to result. This investigtion ws supported y Ntionl Institute of Child Helth nd Humn Development Grnt 5 PO1 HD 05027, y Ntionl Institute of Mentl Helth Reserch Trineeship (5-T32- MH17069) to Michel F. M. Sncilio, nd y Ntionl Institute of Child Helth nd Humn Development Trineeship (HD-07151) to Jodie M. Plumert. We grtefully cknowledge the ssistnce of Don Wgner, elementry-school coordintor for the Roinsdle Pulic Schools, s well s the principls, fculty, nd students of the following schools: Lkeview Elementry School, Medow Lke Elementry School, Neill Elementry School, nd Pilgrim Lne Elementry School. Correspondence concerning this rticle should e ddressed to Willrd W, Hrtup, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesot, 51 Est River Rod, Minnepolis, Minnesot Severl studies hve shown tht such ttriutions re, in turn, influenced y the reputtions of the individuls whose ehvior is eing interpreted {Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frme, 1982; Steinerg & Dodge, 1983). In these studies, children identified y peers s ggressive were more likely to hve their ehvior leled s hostileihon were nonggressive children, even though the ehvior eing interpreted ws the sme. Attriution of hostility to ggressive peers nd the tendency to respond ggressively to hostilely intended ctions my e moderted, however, y the reltionship existing etween the children. The rte t which conflicts occur nd the wys in which conflicts re mnged differ for friends nd nonfriends (Hrtup, Lursen, Stewrt, & Estenson, 1988), perhps ecuse ehvior is interpreted differently depending on whether it is performed y friend or y n cquintnce. Children my give "the enefit of the dout" more often to friends thn to nonfriends, consistent with Hymel's (1986) finding tht children "vry their perceptions nd explntions of the ehvior of peers s function of whether they like or dislike the individul" (p. 442). Alterntively, friendship etween two children my inhiit hostile responses to ojectionle ehvior or increse the likelihood tht the injured prty will just "shrug off" the offense. Previous studies hve shown tht ggressive children re, t times, ised in their interprettions of socil events. They re more likely thn nonggressive children to ttriute hostile intent to peers whose intentions re miguous (Aydin & Mrkov, 1979; Dodge, 1980; Steinerg & Dodge, 1983). Although this is ppers to e present only when ggressive children re sked to judge ehvior directed towrd themselves (Dodge & Frme, 1982), it is not known whether the is ppers in their interprettions of events involving friend. In fct, little is known out the friendships of ggressive children, nd whether they differ from those of their nonggressive peers. To explore these questions out the roles of friendship nd 812

2 FRIENDSHIP AND AGGRESSIVENESS 813 ggressiveness in determining children's ttriutions nd ehviors, we sked ggressive nd nonggressive third- nd fifthgrde oys to interpret clssmtes' intentions nd predict their own nd others' responses in hypotheticl potentil conflict situtions. Boys of differing ges were included in the smple in order to exmine the generlizility of the results within middle childhood. Girls were not included ecuse they were rrely nominted y their clssmtes s physiclly ggressive. Sujects were presented with short descriptions of encounters etween peers in which one child experienced negtive outcome s result of the miguously intended ctions of nother. In some of these stories, the sujects themselves were depicted s the trgets of the unplesnt events. In others, the trgets were either their friends or ggressive or nonggressive nonfriends. The identity of the ctor or perpetrtor of the miguously intended ctions in these stories ws lso systemticlly vried to include the est friend of the suject s well s ggressive nd nonggressive nonfriends. For ech story, sujects were sked to interpret the ctor's intentions nd to predict wht the response of the trget child (t times himself) would e. The different comintions of story prticipnts mde it possile to investigte how children's ttriutions nd predicted responses were influenced y the identities of oth the child who precipitted the potentil conflict nd the child who ws the trget of the offending ction. Becuse these story prticipnts vried in their socil reltionships with the sujects, s well s in their reputtions for ggressiveness, the influence of these fctors on ehvior in potentil conflict situtions could e exmined. The link etween ttriutions of intent nd predicted responses ws lso nlyzed. Sujects Method The sujects were 38 third-grde oys (9-yer-olds) nd 36 fifth-grde oys (11-yer-olds) selected from four middle-clss, suurn elementry schools. Hlf of the sujects from ech grde were identified s ggressive children, nd hlf, s nonggressive children. Following procedure similr to tht used y Dodge nd Somerg (1987), selection of sujects ws mde on the sis of peer nomintions nd techer rtings from mong 302 third grders (in 12 clssrooms) nd 337 fifth grders (in 13 clssrooms).' Using lpheticl lists of prticipting clssmtes, children identified their est friends (s mny s they wished) nd three peers who fit ech of three ehviorl descriptions. One of these items sked the children to "Circle the nmes of three clssmtes who strt fights nd hit other children." The other two items descried prosocil ehvior. The children lso rted how much they liked ech of their clssmtes on scle rnging from 1 (don't like) to 5 (like very much, s much s est friend). A socil preference score ws clculted for ech child y sutrcting the numer of rtings of 1 they received on this liking scle from the numer of 4s nd 5s. In ddition, techers completed the Techer's Checklist of Peer Reltionships (Dodge, 1986) for the oys in their clssroom. This checklist consisted of 6-item socil competence scle nd 5-item ggression scle. To e considered s potentil ggressive suject, oy hd to otin socil preference score elow the clss men, techer-rted socil competence score elow the clss men, nd techer-rted ggression score ove the clss men. From this pool, the 20 oys in ech grde who hd the highest peer nomintion scores for strting fights nd hitting other children (defined s the numer of nomintions received divided y the numer of clssmtes mking nomintions) were selected s ggressive sujects. Twenty oys meeting the inverse of the criteri used to define the ggressive sujects were selected s nonggressive sujects. Of the 80 ggressive nd nonggressive sujects originlly selected, 6 did not prticipte, either ecuse of sences on dys when dt were collected or, for 2 sujects, ecuse the purpose of the experiment ws indvertently disclosed y techer. The 37 ggressive nd 37 nonggressive sujects who prticipted differed significntly in peer nomintion scores for ggression, F(\, 70) = , p <.001. Aggressive sujects received nomintions for ggressive ehvior from n verge of 57% of their clssmtes (SD =.22); nonggressive sujects received nomintions from 4% of their clssmtes on verge (SD =.07). Mterils Nine different stories depicting potentil conflict situtions were red to ech suject. Ech story involved n incident in which child (the trget) experiences n unplesnt outcome (e.g., eing hit in the ck with ll) s result of n miguously intended ction y nother child (the ctor). The sme pproch ws used y Dodge (1980), Dodge nd Frme (1982), nd Sgr nd Schofield (1980). Two exmples of stories used in this study re given elow: Imgine tht you re drinking from wter fountin t school nd (the ctor) comes rushing down the hll. As he psses y, he umps you in the ck nd your fce is knocked into the wter nd gets ll wet. When you turn round the other kids see how wet you re. Imgine tht (the trget) is out on the plyground plying tg with severl other oys. (the ctor) is it nd he is chsing fter (the trget). When he tgs (the trget), (the trget) flls down nd scrpes his knee. Some girls stnding nery giggle. The other seven stories involved the trget () getting hit in the ck with ll, () hving milk spilled on him, (c) losing lunch g, (d) losing pencil, (e) flling down on the ice, (0 tripping over someone's foot, nd (g) getting splshed y someone running through puddle. In ech story, the trget ws identified s either the suject himself (s in the first exmple ove) or s specific clssmte (s in the second exmple). The ctor ws lwys clssmte, ecuse it did not mke sense to plce the suject in the role of ctor nd then sk him to interpret his own ehvior. For ech suject, three different clssmtes were chosen to e included in the stories, one to fit ech of the following ctegories: () friend, () n ggressive nonfriend, nd (c) nonggressive nonfriend. The following nine different trget-ctor comintions were used: Trget Self Self Self Nonggressive nonfriend Nonggressive nonfriend Actor Nonggressive nonfriend Nonggressive nonfriend Nonggressive nonfriend 1 The suject selection procedure ws identicl with Dodge nd Somerg (1987), except tht children were llowed to nominte s mny est friends s they wished (insted of only three). Moreover, socil preference scores were clculted y sutrcting the numer of Is received from 4s nd 5s (insted of using the frequency of Is received), nd rw preference scores were used insted of stndrdized scores.

3 814 M. SANCILIO, J. PLUMERT, AND W. HARTUP Ech of these different comintions ws used once in the nine stories presented to ech suject. The nine stories nd nine trget-ctor comintions were systemticlly vried cross sujects so tht ech piring of story nd trget-ctor pir occurred eqully often. The order in which the stories were presented ws lso systemticlly vried to eliminte ny order or position effects relting to either story or trget-ctor pir. Selection of Story Prticipnts Informtion from the sociometric questionnires used to select the sujects ws lso used to identify the clssmtes who would serve s the friend nd nonfriends of the suject in the stories. To e selected s friend, oy hd to e nominted y the suject s est friend nd e given rting of t lest 4 on the liking scle. The oy in the clss nominted s ggressive y the highest percentge of peers who ws not nmed s est friend of the suject ws included in the stories s the ggressive nonfriend. The nonggressive nonfriend ws chosen from mong those who hd qulified for the nonggressive suject pool, unless ll of these oys hd een nominted y the suject s est friends. In this cse, the oy with the lowest peer nomintion score for ggression who ws not nmed s est friend ws selected. The method of ssigning clssmtes s story prticipnts led to difference in the ggressive nonfriends of the ggressive nd nonggressive sujects, F(\, 70) = 5.09, p <.05. The ggressive nonfriends of the ggressive sujects were nominted s ggressive y n verge of 54% of their clssmtes (SD =.26), wheres the ggressive nonfriends of the nonggressive sujects were nominted y n verge of 66% of their peers (SD =.21). This occurred ecuse the ggressive sujects were usully the most ggressive children in their clss nd, therefore, the next most ggressive child ws used s the ggressive nonfriend in their stories. This rtifct of the selection procedure did not pper to ffect the results ecuse we found no interctions involving suject ggressiveness nd story trgets or ctors. There ws no difference etween suject groups in the ggressiveness of children identified s friends or nonggressive nonfriends. The sujects' friends received nomintions for ggressiveness from n verge of 19% of their clssmtes (SD =. 17); nonggressive nonfriends received nomintions from n verge of 6% of their clssmtes (SD =.09). Procedure The stories were presented to the sujects individully during one 30- min session t their schools. The interviewers (the first two uthors) were unwre of the children's sttus s ggressive or nonggressive sujects. The interviewer explined to ech child tht severl short stories would e red nd tht, in some of these, he would e prticipnt, nd tht other oys in his clss would e in them s well. The child ws then sked to listen crefully ecuse he would e sked some questions out ech story when it ws over. After ech story, the child ws first sked, "How do you think this hppened?" to elicit ttriutions out the ctor's intentions in the sitution, nd second, "Wht do you think would do next?" to elicit predictions out the wy the trget of the offending ction would respond. The child's responses were recorded vertim nd proed when necessry in nonleding mnner until the interprettions ttriuted to the ctor nd to the trget were cler (e.g., "Wht do you think ws going on here?"). After the nine stories, the child ws reminded tht these incidents were imginry, nd he nd the interviewer returned to the clssroom. Mesures Responses descriing the ctor's intentions were coded s 1 (hostile), if the child ttriuted hostile or negtive intent to the ctor, 2 (neutrl), if the child ttriuted neutrl or enign intent (e.g., "it ws n ccident" or "someone else mde him do it"), or 3 (positive), if the child thought he ws trying to ct enevolently (e.g., "he picked up my pencil to give it ck to me"). Similrly, the sujects' predictions out responses y the trgets were coded s hostile (e.g., "hit him ck," "tell the techer to get him in troule," or "just get md"), neutrl (e.g., "forget out it"), or positive (e.g., "thnk him for finding my pencil"), depending on the ffect expressed in the response (negtive, neutrl, or positive). All the responses were coded y the first uthor, nd rndom selection of 40% of the responses ws coded y the second uthor. The coders were unwre of the ggressiveness of the sujects nd story prticipnts nd of whether they were friends. Agreement etween the two coders, s ssessed using Cohen's kpp (Cohen, 1968), ws.86 for ttriutions nd.92 for predicted responses. Pln of Anlysis Results In order to exmine the roles plyed y friendship nd ggressiveness in determining the ttriutions nd predicted responses mde y the sujects, series of plnned comprisons were performed. Eight contrsts consisting of orthogonl groupings of the nine trget-ctor comintions were identified (see Tle 1). Ech plnned comprison ws mde y mens of seprte 2 (grde) X 2 (suject ggressiveness) X 2 (contrst grouping) nlysis of vrince (ANOVA). For ech ANOVA, the first two fctors were etween-sujects vriles, nd the third ws within-sujects vrile. These eight contrsts were performed on oth the sujects' ttriutions nd predicted responses. As cn e seen in Tle 1, trget-ctor comintions were grouped into contrsts, first, on the sis of the identity of the trget nd second, within ech type of trget, y the identity of the ctor. This mde it possile to exmine how ttriutions nd predicted responses were influenced y prticulr kind of trget, such s friend or n ggressive nonfriend, nd whether, for given trget, the identity of the ctor precipitting the potentil conflict mde difference. These contrsts were chosen ecuse the primry issues tht we wished to ddress relted to how ttriutions nd responses mde y the sujects in their role s trgets of ojectionle ehvior were influenced y the identity of the ctor involved. Adopting this trget-sed focus llowed us to compre sujects' responses in situtions involving themselves with their responses to situtions involving others s trgets (s in Dodge & Frme, 1982). Given this primry "self versus other" contrst, the remining comprisons, involving friends compred with nonfriends nd ggressive compred with nonggressive nonfriends, follow logiclly nd correspond to the questions tht the study ws designed to ddress. Specificlly, these comprisons provided mens of looking t how friendship nd ggressiveness influenced sujects' perceptions of others' intentions nd responses when the sujects themselves were not involved in the sitution. Results for ttriutions nd predicted responses re presented together, orgnized ccording to the identity of the trget. Actor comprisons re presented within ech trget section. The dependent mesures were the rtings of the sujects' ttriutions nd predicted responses; men rtings of ttriutions nd predicted responses for ech trget-ctor comintion re

4 FRIENDSHIP AND AGGRESSIVENESS 815 Tle 1 Plnned Contrsts Among Trget-Actor Pirs for Attriutions nd Predicted Responses Trget/Actor pirs Contrst S/F S/A S/N F/A F/N A/F A/N N/F N/A Note. S = self; F = friend; A = ggressive nonfriend; N = nonggressive nonfriend. In ech row, entries in the tle shring the sme letter were comined for purposes of the designted contrst. presented in Tle 2. All follow-up nlyses were conducted using simple effects tests. Self s trget. Contrst 1 exmined whether sujects responded differently s function of whether the miguously intended ction ws directed t themselves or someone else. No differences were found in the sujects' ttriutions. Predicted responses, however, differed ccording to suject ggressiveness, F(l, 70) = 11.53, p <.01, nd trget, F(\ y 70) = 21.44, p <.001. Aggressive sujects predicted more hostile responses thn nonggressive sujects (1.31 nd 1.50, respectively), nd sujects predicted less hostile responses y themselves thn y others{1.49 nd 1.33, respectively). Two other comprisons were mde to exmine the effect of different ctors on ttriutions nd predicted responses when the self ws the trget. Contrst 2 explored the influence of the socil reltionship existing etween the trget nd the ctor y compring friends with nonfriends s ctors when the self ws the trget. A significnt effect of suject ggressiveness for ttriutions ws found, F(\, 70) = 4.79, p<. 05. Aggressive sujects ttriuted more hostile intent thn nonggressive sujects, regrdless of whether the ctor ws friend or nonfriend (1.71 nd 1.86, respectively). There ws lso significnt effect of suject ggressiveness for predicted responses, F( 1, 70) = 7.72, p <.01. Aggressive sujects predicted more hostile responses y themselves thn did nonggressive sujects, regrdless of whether the ctor ws friend or nonfriend (1.37 nd 1.58, respectively). Contrst 3 compred ggressive nd nonggressive nonfriends s perpetrtors of the miguously intended ction when the suject ws the trget. Anlysis of sujects 1 ttriutions resulted in significnt Grde X Suject Aggressiveness X Actor interction, F( 1, 70) = 4.24, p <.05. Nonggressive third grders ttriuted more hostile intent to the ggressive nonfriend thn to the nonggressive nonfriend (1.63 nd 2.00, respectively), F(l, 70) = 7.06, p <.05. There were no significnt differences for the ggressive third grders or for either group of fifth grders. The nlysis of sujects' predicted responses gin yielded significnt effect of suject ggressiveness, F([, 70) = 10.18, p <.01. Aggressive sujects predicted more hostile responses y themselves thn did nonggressive sujects, regrdless of whether they were responding to n ggressive or nonggressive nonfriend (1.36 nd 1.65, respectively). s trget. Contrst 4 exmined whether sujects' ttriutions nd predicted responses differed s function of whether the trget ws friend or nonfriend. No significnt effects for ttriutions were found. For predicted responses, significnt effects were found for suject ggressiveness, F{ 1,70) = 5.27, p <.05, nd grde, F{1, 70) = 5.92, p <.05, ut not for trget (friend vs. nonfriend). Aggressive sujects predicted more hostile responses thn nonggressive sujects (1.26 nd Tle 2 Men Rtings of Attriutions nd Predicted Responses for Aggressive nd Nonggressive Sujects Trget/Actor pirs Mesure S/F S/A S/N F/A F/N A/F A/N N/F N/A Attriution Aggressive sujects Nonggressive sujects , Predicted response Aggressive sujects Nonggressive sujects Note. S = self; F = friend; A = ggressive nonfriend; N = nonggressive nonfriend.

5 816 M. SANCILIO, J. PLUMERT, AND W. HARTUP 1.41, respectively), nd fifth grders predicted more hostile responses thn third grders (1.26 nd 1.41, respectively), regrdless of whether the trget ws friend or nonfriend. Contrst 5 exmined the effect of ggressive compred with nonggressive ctors when the sujects' friends were the trgets. Anlysis of ttriutions yielded significnt ctor effect, F\\, 70) = 5.84, p <.05. Sujects ttriuted more hostile intent to the ggressive thn to the nonggressive nonfriend (1.66 nd 1.84, respectively). There ws no ctor effect for sujects' predicted responses. There were, however, significnt effects of grde, F( 1, 70) = 5.42, p <.05, nd Grde X Suject Aggressiveness X Actor interction, F(\, 70) = 6.29, p <.05. Nonggressive third grders expected friends to respond with more hostile intent to the ggressive thn to the nonggressive nonfriend (1.37 nd 1.74, respectively), h\\, 70) = 7.13, p <.01. Aggressive third grders nd the two groups of fifth grders did not distinguish etween ggressive nd nonggressive nonfriends s ctors. Nonfriends s trgets. The third trget effect tht we exmined concerned ttriutions nd predicted responses when the trget ws nonfriend. Contrst 6 determined whether ttriutions nd predicted responses differed depending on whether the trget ws n ggressive or nonggressive nonfriend. Anlysis of ttriutions yielded no significnt effects. The nlysis of predicted responses, however, showed min effect of suject ggressiveness, F{\, 70) = 6.66, p <.05, nd Trget X Grde interction, F([, 70) = 5.08, p <.05. Aggressive sujects predicted more hostile responses thn nonggressive sujects regrdless of the trget (1.23 nd 1.40, respectively). Third grders predicted more hostile responses y the ggressive nonfriend thn y the nonggressive nonfriend (1.26 nd 1.46, respectively), F( 1,70) = 8.02, p <.01. Fifth grders did not distinguish etween the two. The finl two contrsts exmined whether ctor effects were present when the trget ws n ggressive or nonggressive nonfriend. Contrst 7 compred friends with nonggressive nonfriends s ctors when n ggressive nonfriend ws the trget. Anlysis of ttriutions yielded significnt interction etween grde nd ctor, F\l,70) = 4.24, p <.05. Third grders ttriuted more hostile intent to the nonggressive nonfriend thn to the friend (1.71 nd 1.95, respectively), i^ 1, 70) = 6.99, p <.05. Fifth grders did not distinguish etween ctors. No differences for predicted responses were found. Contrst 8 compred friends with ggressive nonfriends s ctors when nonggressive nonfriend ws the trget. The nlysis of sujects' ttriutions yielded significnt interction etween grde nd ctor, ^(1, 70) = 5.31, p <.05. Third grders ttriuted more hostile intent to the ggressive nonfriend thn to the friend (1.61 nd 1.82, respectively), F( 1, 70) = 5.60, p <.05. Agin, fifth grders did not distinguish etween ctors. Predicted responses differed with respect to grde, F{ 1, 70) = 7.44, p <.01, nd suject ggressiveness, F\\, 70) = 11.1 l,p <.01. Fifth grders predicted more hostile responses thn third grders (1.25 nd 1.46, respectively), nd ggressive sujects predicted more hostile responses thn nonggressive sujects (1.23 nd 1.49, respectively), regrdless of the ctor. Link Between Attriutions nd Predicted Responses As descried erlier, previous investigtors hve found children's responses to peer ehvior to e significntly influenced y the interprettions tht they mke regrding the peer's intentions. To determine whether such linkge occurred in this study, we conducted Person chi-squre nlyses, using Yte's correction for continuity, on the linkge etween ttriutions (coded s hostile or nonhostile) nd predicted responses (coded s hostile or nonhostile) for ech of the 9 trget-ctor pirs. As shown in Tle 3, significnt linkge etween ttriutions nd predicted responses ws found for story pirs involving the self s trget nd for those involving ggressive sujects s ctors. No linkge ws found for the trget-ctor pirs involving friends nd nonggressive nonfriends s ctors when the self ws not involved. Becuse the ggressive nd nonggressive sujects did not differ significntly in the numer of hostile ttriutions tht they mde overll, ut differed in the numer of hostile responses tht they predicted, it is possile tht the reltion etween ttriutions nd predicted responses might vry for these two groups. Therefore, we conducted log-liner nlyses of the ssocition etween ttriutions nd predicted responses, with suject ggressiveness s third fctor. These nlyses showed tht there ws no significnt three-wy interction mong ttriutions, predicted responses, nd suject ggressiveness for ny of the nine trget-ctor pirs. Thus, the ssocition etween ttriutions nd predicted responses ws the sme regrdless of the ggressiveness of the sujects. Discussion Given the differences in conflict occurrence nd mngement tht exist mong friends nd nonfriends (Hrtup et l., 1988), it ws surprising to find tht our sujects' ttriutions nd response predictions were not influenced y their reltionships with the children whose ehvior they interpreted nd to whom they responded. Sujects were neither more likely to give their friends the "enefit of the dout" in interpreting their ehvior nor to "shrug off" provoction coming from friends rther thn nonfriends. The "hostile ttriutionl is" (Nsy, Hyden, & depulo, 1979) displyed y ggressive oys in response to miguous provoction ws present in their interprettions of ehvior y oth friends nd nonfriends like. This sence of effects relted to friendship suggests tht differences etween friends nd nonfriends in the occurrence nd mngement of conflict re not function of the wy tht children interpret nd respond to miguously intended ojectionle ehvior. Peer interctions involving unmiguous provoctive ehvior my provide more fruitful focus for ttempts t understnding conflict-relted differences in the ehvior of friends nd nonfriends. Although our sujects did not differ in their ttriutions regrding the ehvior of friends nd nonfriends, Hymel (1986) found tht ehvior y liked nd disliked children ws interpreted differently. The results of these two studies my pper inconsistent, ut it should e noted tht the comprison mde in the present instnce ws etween friends nd nonfriends, rther thn etween liked nd disliked peers. Although the children identified s friends in the present study were clerly liked y the sujects, the nonfriends were not necessrily disliked. Thus, the presence or sence of liking nd not friendship

6 FRIENDSHIP AND AGGRESSIVENESS 817 Tle 3 Conditionl Proilities nd Chi-Squre Tests of Assocition Between Attriutions nd Responses Trget/Actor pirs Proility of S/F S/A S/N F/A F/N A/F A/N N/F N/A Hostile response given hostile ttriution Nonhostile response given nonhostile ttriution Nonhostile ttriution given hostile response Chi-squre of differences Proility level Note. S = self; F = friend; A = ggressive nonfriend; N = nonggressive nonfriend. my e the determining fctor in whether peer is given the enefit of the dout in n miguous sitution. No differences in the wys tht ggressive nd nonggressive oys respond to ehvior y their friends emerged from the dt. The similrities nd differences tht were found to exist etween ggressive nd nonggressive oys cut cross the friend-nonfriend dimension, suggesting tht, if there re differences in the friendships of these two groups, they re not mnifested in ttriutions nd responses in potentil conflict situtions. Although the results otined here suggest tht the presence or sence of friendship is not n importnt determinnt of whether conflict will occur etween peers in miguous provoction situtions, other fctors were found to hve n effect. A child's reputtion for ggressiveness, for exmple, influenced oth sujects' ttriutions nd response predictions (see lso Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frme, 1982; Steinerg & Dodge, 1983). The effect ws somewht circumscried, however, ecuse three out of four suject groups did not mke different ttriutions out the intentions of ggressive nd nonggressive oys when the sujects themselves were the trgets of their ctions. Only nonggressive third grders mde distinction in this sitution. Furthermore, sujects did not predict tht they would respond differently to ojectionle ehvior coming from ggressive s opposed to nonggressive peers. When the sujects' friends were the ones on the receiving end of ojectionle ehvior, however, sujects ttriuted more hostile intent to the ggressive thn to the nonggressive nonfriends, nd nonggressive third grders predicted tht their friends would respond with more hostility to the ggressive thn to the nonggressive peers. In ddition, third grders, ut not fifth grders, expected tht ggressive oys would respond with more hostile intent thn would nonggressive oys. Thus, effects of peer's reputtion for ggressiveness were found lmost exclusively mong responses to ction directed t nd displyed y others, nd not for ehvior directly involving the sujects themselves. Previous investigtors hve not reported such conditionl effect of reputtion for ggressiveness ut, rther, hve found tht child's ggressive reputtion ffected ttriutions nd predicted responses regrdless of whether the suject ws prticipnt in the hypotheticl sitution (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frme, 1982). A second instnce in which responses vried s function of the sujects' involvement in the interction ws the tendency for sujects to predict significntly less hostile responses y themselves thn y others. This self-other disprity in predicted responses, lso displyed y the sujects in Dodge nd Frme's (1982) study, suggests tht children my see themselves s more virtuous, forgiving, or self-controlled thn their peers when provoked. Alterntively, sujects my hve een motivted, consciously or not, to mke less hostile nd perhps more socilly cceptle response predictions when they were tlking out their own ehvior, ut felt freer to predict more ntgonistic ehvior on the prt of their clssmtes. This pprent response is merits further investigtion. Yet nother exmple of differentil responding to hypotheticl situtions involving the self compred with others ws found in compring ttriutions mde y the ggressive nd nonggressive sujects. Aggressive sujects ttriuted significntly more hostile intent to the ctor thn nonggressive sujects in situtions involving the self s trget, ut the two groups did not differ when the self ws not involved. This indiction of circumscried ttriutionl is on the prt of ggressive oys, present only when ehvior ws directed t them, is consistent with previousfindings (Dodge & Frme, 1982). The presence of such hostile ttriutionl is in ggressive children hs een posited to e prtly responsile for the tendency of such children to rect ggressively in potentil conflict situtions (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Coie, 1987). Our findings support this hypothesis in tht () ggressive nd nonggressive sujects differed not only in ttriutions ut lso in how often they predicted themselves to respond in hostile mnner to miguously intended provoctions nd () these ttriutions nd predicted responses were significntly linked. Although the evidence (e.g., Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge & Frme, 1982) is now strong tht hostile ttri-

7 818 M. SANCILIO, J. PLUMERT, AND W. HARTUP utionl is in ggressive children is n importnt determinnt of individul differences in the disply of "rective ggression," the role of ttriutions in ccounting for hostile or ggressive ehvior per se is less cler. When our sujects mde hostile ttriution out ehvior directed t themselves, 77% of the time they predicted tht they would respond in hostile mnner (s shown in Tle 3). Hostile ehvior, however, ws lso predicted to follow nonhostile ttriutions 44% of the time. Becuse nonhostile ttriutions ccounted for more thn three qurters of ll ttriutions mde y sujects regrding ehvior directed t themselves, most of the hostile responses tht sujects predicted themselves to mke were preceded y nonhostile ttriutions. Indeed, 65% of the hostile predicted responses followed nonhostile ttriutions. This finding the mjority of hostile predicted responses were preceded y nonhostile ttriutions is not unique to this dt set ut ws lso present in Dodge's (1980) study (s reflected in the figures presented in his Tle 2, p. 168). Becuse nerly two thirds of the hostile responses tht sujects predicted for themselves followed nonhostile interprettions of their peers' ehvior, it would seem inpproprite to ccount for hostile rective ehvior in generl y recourse to the ttriution preceding it. This frequent tendency for sujects to predict hostile responses in pprent disregrd of their own previous ttriutions my seem surprising nd illogicl. The results of recent investigtion y Ferguson nd Rule (1988), however, my help to explin such ehvior. The 5- to 10-yer-old sujects in their study evluted the ppropriteness of ggressive physicl nd verl responses to intentionl nd unintentionl provoctive ehvior y peers. Even for the cses in which retlition ws rted to e most "nughty" nd deserving of punishment, these rtings were only moderte in degree, suggesting tht hostile or ggressive response to provoction is often considered cceptle y children. This ppers to e true even when the initil provoction ws unintended, helping to ccount for the high percentge of hostile responses following nonhostile ttriutions in the present study. These results suggest tht hostile or ggressive retlitory ehvior in response to unintended provoction is oth common nd cceptle during middle childhood. Selecting (or ccounting for) response to ojectionle ehvior, therefore, does not pper to e simple cse of mtching the "tone" or vlence of the response to tht of the ttriution (e.g., hostile to hostile; enign to enign). Models of children's socil ehvior my lso need to tke into ccount individul eliefs nd norms of the peer culture to reflect ccurtely the process y which children respond to socil cues (Sly & Guerr, 1988). Such norms undoutedly reflect n implicit understnding tht ffective s well s cognitive rections to socil events ply prt in determining ehvior. The significnt reltionship etween ttriutions nd predicted responses found to exist for potentil conflict situtions involving the sujects ws lso found for two of the trget-ctor comintions not involving the self. Although it seems justified to interpret the ttriution-response link in the self-s-trget stories s indicting tht sujects sed their ehviorl predictions, t lest in prt, on their preceding ttriutions, the mening of n ssocition etween ttriutions nd predicted peer ehvior for stories not involving the sujects is not so cler In these cses, the ssocition eing tested is tht etween the sujects 1 own interprettions of the sitution nd their predictions of nother person's ehvior. Sujects, however, were not provided with the other person's ttriutions, nor were they sked to speculte out them. Thus, they my t times hve elieved tht their peers would mke different ttriutions thn they did themselves (nd, indeed, some sujects told us this). These chi-squre nlyses, therefore, cnnot tell us whether sujects expected consistency etween the ttriutions nd ehvior of their peers. The two instnces in which significnt reltionships were found to exist etween the sujects' ttriutions nd their predictions of responses y others remin to e explined. It is noteworthy tht these ssocitions were found for the two interctions involving the ggressive nonfriend s ctor nd did not exist for the four interctions involving responses to either the friend or the nonggressive nonfriend. This pttern suggests tht the presence of n ggressive child s "provocteur" my hve incresed the likelihood tht sujects would expect responses from their friends nd nonggressive peers tht mtched the sujects' own interprettion of events. A possile explntion for this my e found in the figures presented in Tle 2, which show slight tendency for sujects to mke more hostile ttriutions when the ctor is the ggressive nonfriend. Becuse sujects lso tended to predict more hostile responses in generl, their ttriutions nd predictions of hostility my hve mtched up well enough to result in significnt chisqure. Although this study ws not designed to provide such informtion, questions rised in interpreting the reltion etween ttriutions nd predicted responses suggest it is importnt to increse our knowledge of the kinds of ttriutions children expect peers to mke, nd how these relte to child's own ttriutions in the sme sitution. Investigtions of children's eliefs out the ttriutionl tendencies of others nd their expecttions regrding consistency etween the ttriutions nd ehvior of their peers could shed vlule light on children's understnding of the ses of others' ehvior. Becuse children's implicit theories of ehvior cn e expected to influence their interprettions nd responses to the ctions of others, reserch in this re is likely to improve our understnding of ll types of socil interctions. As noted ove, ggressive sujects differed from their nonggressive counterprts in the hostility with which they predicted themselves to respond to provoction. A similr difference etween the ggressive nd nonggressive groups ws lso found in how often they predicted hostile response from their nonggressive peers. The two groups did not differ, however, in the responses tht they predicted from their friends nd from ggressive nonfriends {nor in the ttriutions tht they mde out these peers). This suggests tht ggressive nd nonggressive oys re similr in the wys tht they view others in these two ctegories. The discrepncy etween the two groups in the responses tht they predicted from nonggressive nonfriends, however, my reflect greter sensitivity on the prt of the nonggressive children to their peers' nonggressiveness. It should e noted, finlly, tht scttered grde effects were found in our nlyses. These were unnticipted, hving generlly een sent from other similr investigtions. Their occur-

8 FRIENDSHIP AND AGGRESSIVENESS 819 rence in this study did not follow prticulr pttern, nd no generl interprettion ppers possile. Their existence, however, suggests tht generliztions out the wy school-ge children will respond in potentil conflict situtions should e mde with cution. References Aydin, 0., & Mrkov, I. (1979). Attriution tendencies of populr nd unpopulr children. British Journl of Socil nd Clinicl Psychology, 18,291-29%. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kpp: Nominl scle greement with provisions for scle disgreement or prtil credit. Psychologicl Bulletin, 70, Drley, J. M, Klosson, E. C. & Znn, M. P. (1978). Intentions nd their contexts in the morl judgments of children nd dults. Child Development, 49, Dodge, K. A. (1980). Socil cognition nd children's ggressive ehvior. Child Development, 51, Dodge, K. A. (1986). A socil informtion-processing model of socil competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesot Symposi on Child Psychology (Vol. 18, pp ). Hillsdle, NJ: Erlum. Dodge, K. A., &Coie, J. D. (1987). Socil informtion-processing fctors in rective nd provoctive ggression in children's peer groups. Journl of Personlity nd Socil Psychology, 53, Dodge, K. A., & Frme, C. M. (1982). Socil cognitive ises nd deficits in ggressive oys. Child Development, 53, Dodge. K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClskey, C. U & Brown, M. M. (1986). Socil competence in children. Monogrphs of the Society for Reserch in Child Development, 51(2, Seril No. 213). Dodge, K. A., & Somerg, D. R. (1987). Hostile ttriutionl ises mong ggressive oys re excerted under conditions of threts to the self. Child Development, 58, Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1988). Children's evlutions of retlitory ggression. Child Development, 59, Hrtup, W. W., Lursen, B.. Stewrt, M. I., & Estenson, A. (1988). Conflict nd the friendship reltions of young children. Child Development, 59, Hy, D. F. (1984). Socil conflicts in erly childhood. In G. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annls ofchild development (Vol. l,pp. 1-44), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hymel, S. (1986). Interprettions of peer ehvior Affective is in childhood nd dolescence. Child Development, 57, Mllick, S. K., & McCndless, B. R. (1966). A study of cthrsis of ggression. Journl of Personlity nd Socil Psychology 4, Nsy, W., Hyden, B., & depulo, B. M. (1979). Attriutionl is mong ggressive oys to interpret unmiguous socil stimuli s displys of hostility. Journl of Anorml Psychology, 89, Rule, B. G., Nesdle, A. R., & McAr, M. J. (1974). Children's rections to informtion out the intentions underlying n ggressive ct. Child Development, 45, Sgr, H. A., & Schofield, J. W. (1980). Rcil nd ehviorl cues in Blck nd White children's perceptions of miguously ggressive cts. Journl of Personlity nd Socil Psychology, 39, Shntz, C. U. (1987). Conflicts etween children. Child Development, Sly, R. G.,&Guerr, N.G.( 1988). Cognitive meditors of ggression in dolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmentl Psychology, 24, Steinerg, M. S., &, Dodge, K.. A. (1983). Attriutionl is in ggressive dolescent oys nd girls. Journl of Socil nd Clinicl Psychology, 1, Received June 16, 1987 Revision received Decemer 27, 1988 Accepted Jnury 16, 1989