I wrote this paper in 2016. I am sharing it for anyone interested in psychology. I have tried to preserve the format as much I can. The style is APA. This is a critical review. I suggest you read the paper I have cited in references before you read my review of it.
Running head: RELATIONAL AGGRESSION AND GENDER 1
Risk Factors for Relational Aggression: Variability in both Genders
Psychology of Adolescence
RELATIONAL AGGRESSION AND GENDER 2
Aggression in any dictionary conveys nearly the same concept. However, psychologists have divided aggression into various forms. One of those forms is Relational Aggression (RA). An expression of RA aims to damage the victim’s relationship or social status. The perpetrator does not engage with the victim directly though. Generally, males are portrayed as overtly aggressive (Loflin & Berry, 2016) while females as cunningly aggressive (RA). However, both males and females tend to exercise RA to some extent (qtd in Loflin & Berry, 2016, 22). In this study, Dr. Della C. Loflin from Auburn University and Dr. Christopher T. Barry from Washington State University extended previous research on social risk factors for RA and examined whether similar behavioral aspects relate to RA in both genders.
The researchers hypothesized that self-reported and peer-nominated RA are moderately related; gender would be the moderating variable in the relationship between social intelligence and RA; low self-reported peer status in males would be positively related to self-reported RA and negatively related to peer-nominated RA; higher self-reported peer status in females would be associated with higher RA.
217 male and 41 female dropouts, aged 16-19, attending a voluntary 22 week military-style youth residential program, participated in the study. Majority of them were white.
RELATIONAL AGGRESSION AND GENDER 3
They chose an “at-risk sample” from the resident sample because it may show more variety of aggression over community or detained samples (Loflin & Berry, 2016, 22). It also offers insights into how RA works in close-nit peer groups. Both assumptions were research-supported. Peer report of RA was assumed to be an appropriate reflection of the sample.
Assessments and Measures
For the purpose of the study, four measures were administered. First, Peer Conflict Scale sought self-proclaimed ratings (10 points scale) on a sundry of aggressive behaviors. Second, in Peer nomination of RA, the participants nominated up to three peers on 15 attributions, out of which four were explicit signs of RA. Third, Tromso Social Intelligence Scale consisted of three “subscales”: Social Information Processing, Social Skill, and Social Awareness. It asked for the participants’ reflection of their own social abilities and skills (7 point scales). Fourth, Personality Inventory for Youth captured, in true-false format, the participants’ self-reported “functioning in a variety of behavioral, emotional, and social domains” (Loflin & Berry, 2016, 24).
Self-reported RA and peer-nominated RA were not significantly correlated. In females, higher perceived social intelligence was found to be related to self-reported RA. Limited peer status and peer-nominated RA were not found to be significantly related to self-reported RA in both genders. However, self-reported social intelligence was found to be related to RA. This relationship was found to be significant for females, not so for males. Thus, gender was indeed the moderating factor.
RELATIONAL AGGRESSION AND GENDER 4
The at-risk sample was specifically residential. The participants were predominantly male. With more females, the relationship between perceived social intelligence and RA could have been less steep. Risk factors for RA could have had broader, more diverse samples (Loflin & Berry, 2016, 22). The measures used might have failed to completely capture RA. Then, the TSIS Social Skills scale had poor internal consistency, which suggests problems in self-reflecting “social adeptness” (Loflin & Berry, 2016, 25).
Contribution to Relational Aggression
Assuming that the limitations did not impact the study enough for it to yield inaccurate results, the invalidation of the first hypothesis does provide an insight into how wrong peers judge. While we may assume that peers or friends sometimes know about us and our behaviors more than ourselves, peer-report and self-report on RA are clearly not coherent. This may also mean that adolescents judge themselves wrong, while the peers are right. The second result that limited peer status is not related to self-related or peer-related RA points towards how people, here the researchers, wrongly assume that nerds, dorks, or simply introverts exhibit RA because they are frustrated by their social status. However, they can be completely fine and may have no aggressive inclinations. The last result that social intelligence in females relates to RA raises the next question: why?