Gender Differences in the Links Gender Differences in the Links Among Friendship Characteristics Among Friendship Characteristics

and Aggressive Behaviorand Aggressive Behavior

Todd D. Little & Noel A. Card

Key Collaborators:

Jessica Brauner

Edward Dill

Bridgit Gamm

Patricia H. Hawley

Christopher C. Henrich

Stephanie M. Jones

Emily Ledford

Matthew Nock

Symposium Presentation at the Society for Research in Adolescence Meeting, March, 2004

Road MapRoad Map

•Rationale for the Study

•Brief Overview of the Unified Model of Aggression

•Methods

•Relations of aggression with friendship characteristics

•Moderation by friendship length

RationaleRationale

• Integrate work on adolescent friendships with work on adolescent aggression

The handful of studies show inconsistent results•Examine the relationships in the context of gender

normative vs. gender non-normative aggressione.g., overt/physical aggression is normative for boys

but non-normative for girls•Examine length of friendship as a likely moderator

Friendships that have endured for more than a year are likely to be more concordant than new, unproven, friendships

Inconsistent FindingsInconsistent Findings•Rys & Bear (1997)

Overt aggression in 3rd-graders was correlated with fewer reciprocated friendships, but not in 6th-grade

Relationally aggressive 3rd-grade boys had fewer reciprocated friendships

•Sebanc (2003) No relationship on # of friends in sample of preschoolers. Higher conflict in friendships Relational aggression = higher closeness

•Poulin & Boivin (1999, 2000) No relationship on # of friends in sample of 3rd– 6th-grade

boys (did not study girls)

•Grotpeter & Crick (1996)• Relational aggression = higher closeness• Overt aggression = lower closeness

OvertReactive

OvertInstrumental

RelationalReactive

RelationalInstrumental

Overt(Dispositional)

Relational(Dispositional)

A Unifying Model of AggressionA Unifying Model of Aggression

From Little, Jones et al., 2003

Reactive Instrumental Reactive Instrumental

Overt(Dispositional)

Relational(Dispositional)

A Unifying Model of AggressionA Unifying Model of Aggression

From Little, Jones et al., 2003

Reactive Instrumental Reactive Instrumental

Overt(Dispositional)

Relational(Dispositional)

Reactive Instrumental

A Unifying Model of AggressionA Unifying Model of Aggression

From Little, Jones et al., 2003

Overt(Dispositional)

Relational(Dispositional)

Reactive Instrumental

.12

.91

A Unifying Model of AggressionA Unifying Model of Aggression

From Little, Jones et al., 2003

SampleSample

• 1,503 6th-9th grade students from U.S.Average age 12.1 (sd 1.2)

•1271 Same-sex reciprocated friendship dyads•Urban district of greater New Haven (Hamden)•Approximately equal numbers of boys & girls•SES: lower to upper-middle class•Ethnicity:

68.2% Euro-American, 15.4% African-American, 6.8 % Hispanic-American, 9.6% other

•Assessed in October of 1998

MeasuresMeasures

•Self-report measure of aggression (Little, Jones et al., 2003)

Instrumental and Reactive functions

•Peer-nomination of aggression (10 nominations)

Overt and Relational forms

•Friendship Inventory (Little, Brendgen et al., 1999)

ClosenessConflictOvert victimization within friendshipRelational victimization within friendshipFriendship length (< 1 year or > 1 year)

Intercorrelations among variables in studyIntercorrelations among variables in study

Overt ---- .72*** .04 .08

Relational .66*** ---- .04 .02

Instrumental -.01 -.03 ---- .24***

Reactive .14*** .08 .13*** ----

Gender Differences: .16*** -.11*** .04 .11***

Overt Relational Instrumental Reactive

Note: Boys’ correlations are above the diagonal, Girls’ are below

Girls are coded 0 and Boys are coded 1;

** p < .01, *** p < .001

Form (Peer Report) Function (Self Report)

Predicting friendship characteristics among boysPredicting friendship characteristics among boys

Number of friends .03 -.08 -.05 -.06 .013

% old friendships -.19** .24*** .01 -.06 .031**

SR closeness .05 .03 .05 .04 .011

FR closeness .04 -.10 .04 -.02 .022*

SR conflict -.03 .15* .16 .03 .022*

FR conflict -.08 .19** -.03 -.04 .022*

SR Overt vic. .02 .17** .09* .10 .065***

FR Overt agg. .15* -.01 -.03 .04 .025*

SR Relational vic. -.03 .21*** .18*** .07 .082***

FR Relational agg. .08 -.03 .03 -.01 .005

Overt Relational Instrumental Reactive R2

Peer Report Self Report

Values of individual predictors are standardized regression coefficients

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Predicting Boys’ Friendship Characteristicsby Friendship Length

SR closeness -.05 .23 -.07 .05 .04 .01 .07 .04

FR closeness -.05 .14 .07 -.02 .06 -.13* .03 -.04

SR conflict .01 -.01 -.08 -.26* -.02 .14* .06 .05

FR conflict .00 .46** .14 .08 -.09 .15* -.04 -.04

SR Overt vict .01 .03 -.27* .09 .04 .17** .13** .09

FR Overt agg -.11 .50** -.04 -.09 .10 .00 -.07 .02

SR Relat vict .21 .07 -.21 .06 -.07 .22*** .20*** .06

FR Relat agg .10 -.11 .14 .11 -.08 .14* .04 -.02

Overt Relat Instr React Overt Relat Instr React

New Friends Old Friends

Values of individual predictors are standardized regression coefficients

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Predicting friendship characteristics among girlsPredicting friendship characteristics among girls

Number of friends -.16** .22*** -.07 .04 .030***

% old friendships -.12* .04 .06 .09* .020**

SR closeness -.19*** .19*** .01 -.13*** .045***

FR closeness -.24*** .15** -.01 .00 .031***

SR conflict .04 .15** .01 .19*** .074***

FR conflict .09 .14** .00 .03 .049***

SR Overt vic. -.05 .23*** .01 .13*** .057***

FR Overt agg. .11* .01 -.02 .08 .022**

SR Relational vic. .07 .14** -.02 .07* .046***

FR Relational agg. .04 .14** -.02 .04 .035***

Overt Relational Instrumental Reactive R2

Peer Report Self Report

Values of individual predictors are standardized regression coefficients

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Predicting Girls’ Friendship Characteristicsby Friendship Length

SR closeness -.57*** .21 -.33** .00 -.13* .17** .05 -.15***

FR closeness -.50** .03 -.18 .13 -.19*** .14** -.01 .00

SR conflict .31* .18 .06 .11 .00 .17 .02 .19***

FR conflict .39** .22 -.05 -.09 .05 .15** .02 .01

SR Overt vict .21 .20 .13 -.17 -.09 .27*** .00 .15***

FR Overt agg .47** -.03 .00 -.13 -.08 .31*** .04 .04

SR Relat vict .43** -.01 .03 -.17 .03 .17** -.02 .09*

FR Relat agg .64*** -.21 -.12 -.08 .03 .21*** .05 .07

Overt Relat Instr React Overt Relat Instr React

New Friends Old Friends

Values of individual predictors are standardized regression coefficients

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Conclusions & Future DirectionsConclusions & Future Directions• The associations vary as a function of aggression type, gender,

and length of friendship:• For boys, relational (non-normative?) aggression went along

with conflictual aspects of the friendship• For girls, both normative and non-normative aggression went

along with conflict, but normative (relational) aggression went along with intimacy.

• For both boys and girls, overt aggression went with lower % old friends and # of friends, but relational aggression went with higher % and # of friends

• The moderation by length of friendship was pronounced in girls

• For new friends, friendship characteristics were predicted by Overt aggression. For old friends they were predicted by Relational aggression