Child Development, July/August 2002, Volume 73, Number 4, Pages 11341142

Relationally and Physically Aggressive Childrens Intent Attributions and Feelings of Distress for Relational and Instrumental Peer Provocations
Nicki R. Crick, Jennifer K. Grotpeter, and Maureen A. Bigbee

Numerous studies have demonstrated that physically aggressive children exhibit hostile attributional biases in response to instrumental peer provocations, a social information-processing pattern that has been recognized as a contributor to peer-directed aggression. The present studies (N 127 and N 535) were designed to extend past research by evaluating the intent attributions and feelings of emotional distress of relationally and physically aggressive children in response to instrumental and relational provocation contexts. Results indicated that physically aggressive children exhibited hostile attributional biases and reported relatively greater distress for instrumental provocation situations, whereas relationally aggressive children exhibited hostile attributional biases and reported relatively greater distress for relational provocation contexts. Implications of these ndings for the understanding of factors that may contribute to relational as well as physical aggression are discussed.

INTRODUCTION Numerous past studies have demonstrated the utility of social information-processing models of childrens social behavior for increasing the understanding of the development and maintenance of aggressive behavior problems (Dodge & Crick, 1990). In one such model, it has been posited that childrens social behavior, including aggression, is a function of several cognitive steps: encoding social cues, interpretation of those cues, formulation of a goal, response access, and response decision (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Research based on this model has shown that aggressive children demonstrate deciencies at all processing steps that are likely to contribute to their engagement in aggressive acts (e.g., misinterpretation of a peers intent as hostile, which may lead to an aggressive, retaliatory act; Dodge, 1980). Further, evidence from longitudinal, experimental, and intervention research designs has demonstrated that these biased social information-processing patterns temporally antecede aggressive behavior patterns, and that changing these biases in adaptive ways results in behavioral improvement (e.g., Bierman, 1986; Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Guerra & Slaby, 1990; Hudley & Graham, 1993; Rabiner & Coie, 1989). The majority of past studies of the link between childrens social information processing and their use of peer-directed aggression have focused on forms of aggression that are most characteristic of boys. Specifically, past studies have focused primarily on overt, physical aggression and, because relatively few girls engage in this form of aggression (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Parke & Slaby, 1983), relatively little is known about the utility of social information-processing models

for understanding the aggressive behavior of girls. To address this serious concern, investigators have begun to assess forms of aggression that are most characteristic of girls, as well as those that are more typical of boys (e.g., Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Galen & Underwood, 1997; Grimes & Putallaz, 2001; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; McNeilly-Choque, Hart, Robinson, Nelson, & Olsen, 1996; Owens, 1996; Rys & Bear, 1997; Tomada & Schneider, 1997). These studies have demonstrated that the assessment of relational aggression (or related forms such as social or indirect aggression), in addition to physical aggression, is necessary to capture adequately the aggressive behaviors of both genders (for a review, see Crick et al., 1999). In contrast to physical aggression, in which peers are harmed through physical damage, relational aggression inicts harm through damage or control of friendships or other relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Research indicates that children view relationally aggressive behaviors as aversive and mean, and as occurring most frequently during the peer interactions of girls with other girls (Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996; French, Jansen, & Pidada, 2002). Consistent with these perceptions, existing studies indicate that girls are more relationally aggressive than are boys. Further, in sharp contrast to past studies that focused on physical aggression only, aggressive boys and girls are identied with almost equal frequency when both relational and physical forms of aggression are assessed (e.g., Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Crick
2002 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2002/7304-0010

Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee

1135

& Grotpeter, 1995; Hennington, Hughes, Cavell, & Thompson, 1998; McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996; Ostrov & Keating, 2002; Rys & Bear, 1997). A number of studies have demonstrated that, similar to physical aggression, relational aggression is associated with signicant socialpsychological adjustment problems for children (e.g., peer rejection, internalizing difculties, externalizing problems, borderline personality features; Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2000; Rys & Bear, 1997; Werner & Crick, 1999). Further, relational aggression predicts future adjustment difculties (i.e., peer rejection) for both boys and girls, and, for girls only, predicts unique information about future social maladjustment not accounted for by physical aggression (Crick, 1996). Given the signicance of the problems associated with relationally aggressive behavior patterns, it is important to identify factors that promote these behaviors so that empirically based interventions may be designed and implemented. Given its proven utility for understanding the development of physical aggression, it is likely that the social informationprocessing approach will also be a useful heuristic for identifying factors that contribute to relational aggression. The present research was based on this hypothesis and was designed to extend the scant literature in this area: only two studies (Crick, 1995; Crick & Werner, 1999) have been conducted on relational aggression and social information processing, in sharp contrast to the hundreds of existing studies on physical aggression and social information processing. One of the most widely studied components of social information processing involves childrens attributions of peers intent in social situations (an aspect of cue interpretation in the model described above; for a review, see Crick & Dodge, 1994). Intent attributions involve interpreting social cues and using those cues to infer the motives of others (e.g., determining whether peers are acting with benign or hostile intent). Studies of individual differences in childrens inferences about their peers intent have established that physically aggressive children exhibit hostile attributional biases in response to ambiguous, instrumental provocation situations. That is, physically aggressive children tend to attribute malicious intent to peer provocateurs even when such intent is not actually intended (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge, 1980; Fitzgerald & Asher, 1987; Guerra & Slaby, 1989; Quiggle, Garber, Panak, & Dodge, 1992; Sancilio, Plumert, & Hartup, 1989). According to social informationprocessing models of social behavior, hostile attributional biases increase the likelihood that a child will react to a provocative peer with aggression (i.e., because

aggression functions as a defense against a perceived threat; Crick & Dodge, 1994). An additional, related factor that has been hypothesized to play an integral role in childrens interpretation of social cues involves feelings of emotional distress that may arise in response to a provoking social situation (e.g., an altercation with a peer). Although few studies have directly assessed the role of emotions in social information processing and aggression, Crick and Dodge (1994) have argued that distressful feelings may signicantly inuence childrens interpretations of social situations in ways that contribute to aggressive response patterns. For example, feeling angry or upset about a peers actions may contribute to evaluating the peers intent as hostile, and thus, to enacting a retaliatory aggressive response. Only one study of the social cue interpretation processes of relationally aggressive children has been conducted (Crick, 1995). This study provided initial evidence that relationally aggressive children exhibit hostile attributional biases that are similar to those established in past research for physically aggressive children (i.e., they tend to attribute hostile intent to peer provocateurs more frequently than do nonaggressive peers). One important difference between physically and relationally aggressive children was also suggested by this prior study, however. Specically, relationally aggressive children in this research exhibited hostile attributional biases for relational provocation situations (e.g., being the only one not invited to a classmates birthday party), whereas, in contrast, past studies have revealed these biases for physically aggressive children in response to instrumental provocations (e.g., being pushed in the mud by a peer). These ndings support the hypothesis that the types of social situations that are provoking and likely to elicit hostile attributional biases (and subsequent aggressive acts) are specic to relational versus physical forms of aggression. However, because the Crick (1995) study did not include a physically aggressive comparison group, and other past studies did not include relationally aggressive children or assessments of intent attributions for relational provocations, this hypothesis remains untested. The rst goal of the present research was to address this issue. The second objective of this research was to provide a more gender-sensitive evaluation of childrens social cue interpretation processes than has been achieved in most previous studies. Prior studies have focused on the ways in which children process social information about social contexts that have been shown in stress research to be most salient, provocative, and distressing for males (e.g., Leadbeater, Blatt, & Quinlan, 1995; Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, & Hertzog, 1999;

1136

Child Development

Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Rudolph et al., 2000). These situations involve disagreements or provocations involving physical dominance, territory issues, or instrumental concerns. In contrast, the types of problematic situations that have been shown in stress studies to be most important for females involve interpersonal issues or relational concerns such as social exclusion, disagreements with friends, or being the target of peers gossip (e.g., Leadbeater, Blatt, & Quinlan, 1995; Leadbeater et al., 1999; Rudolph & Hammen, 1999; Rudolph et al., 2000). In the present research, the types of peer contexts that have been demonstrated to be most problematic for females (relational provocations), as well as those that have been more traditionally studied and have been shown to be most relevant for males (instrumental provocations), were both studied. This approach allowed for a relatively gender-balanced assessment of childrens social information processing and a less biased evaluation of gender differences in childrens processing. This information is crucial for understanding the social informationprocessing difculties of girls, and for more specically dening the limits of these problems for boys. In the present research, two studies were conducted in which the social cue interpretation processes (i.e., intent attributions and feelings of emotional distress) of relationally aggressive, physically aggressive, and nonaggressive children were compared. Due to the paucity of relevant past research, two independent samples (Study 1 and Study 2) were included so that the generalizability of obtained ndings across samples could be evaluated. In both studies, it was hypothesized that relationally aggressive children would exhibit hostile attributional biases and report emotional distress in response to relational provocations, but not instrumental provocations, whereas physically aggressive children would exhibit hostile attributional biases and report emotional distress in response to instrumental provocations, but not relational provocations. Gender differences in childrens interpretation processes were tested in Study 2 and it was predicted that girls would be more likely than boys to report emotional distress in response to relational provocations, whereas boys would be more likely to report distress for instrumental provocations.

classrooms in the participating schools were included in the study except those designed for children with special needs). These children were participants in a larger study of childhood aggression and adjustment. Approximately 38% were African American and 62% were European American, and all had parental consent to take part in the study (consent rate was 82%). These children completed the aggression instrument described below during one group-administered testing session conducted within their elementary school classrooms. Childrens scores from this instrument were used to identify groups of aggressive and nonaggressive children and participants from each group who were recruited for the second part of the study. The resulting extreme-group sample (n 127) completed the measure of intent attributions and emotional distress (and other instruments not related to the present study) during interviews conducted within their family homes. Study 2. A total of 535 third- to sixth-grade children (264 boys, 271 girls) from four elementary schools located in a moderately sized midwestern city participated in this study (all grade three, four, ve, and six classrooms in the participating schools were included in the study except those designed for children with special needs). Approximately 28% of the participants were African American and 72% were European American. All children had parental consent to take part in the study (consent rate exceeded 82%). Children completed the aggression, intent attribution, and emotional distress instruments during two 1-hr group sessions conducted in their elementary school classrooms. None of the Study 1 participants took part in Study 2. Assessment of Aggression In both studies, physical and relational forms of aggression were assessed with a peer-nomination instrument developed in prior research (e.g., Crick, 1997). This measure consisted of three subscales, each of which was composed of ve items: (1) physical aggression (e.g., This kid hits, kicks, or punches others), (2) relational aggression (e.g., When mad at a peer, this kid gets even by keeping the person from being in their group of friends), and (3) prosocial behavior (e.g., This kid says or does nice things for other kids; these items were used as positively toned ller items in the present research). Childrens responses to this instrument have been shown to be internally consistent in several past studies (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Rys & Bear, 1997; Tomada & Schneider, 1997) and evidence for favorable test retest reliability has also been generated (Crick, 1996).

METHOD Participants Study 1. A total of 825 third-grade children (406 boys, 419 girls) from 19 elementary schools located in a moderately sized midwestern city participated in the initial screening portion of Study 1 (all grade three

Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee

1137

For each item on the aggression instrument, children were asked to nominate up to three classmates who t the given behavioral descriptor. The number of nominations that children received for each item were summed and then standardized within classroom. Relational and physical aggression scale scores were then created by summing childrens scores for the items within each scale. Computation of Cronbachs showed both scales to be internally consistent for both samples, Study 1: .95 for physical aggression and .87 for relational aggression; Study 2: .96 for physical aggression and .86 for relational aggression. Identication of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Groups In both studies, childrens physical and relational aggression scores were used to identify groups of aggressive and nonaggressive children. Specically, children with scores 1 SD above the sample mean for relational aggression were classied as high in relational aggression and children with scores below this criteria were classied as not high in relational aggression. Similarly, children with scores 1 SD above the sample mean for physical aggression were classied as high in physical aggression and children with scores below this criterion were classied as not high in physical aggression. Note that due to time constraints, only a subset of the children who were identied as nonaggressive in Study 1 were recruited for participation. These children were randomly selected from all classrooms that contained at least 1 participating aggressive child. Study 1. For Study 1, use of these procedures resulted in 58 children (45 girls, 13 boys) who were classied as high in relational aggression, and 69 children (29 girls, 40 boys) who were classied as not high in relational aggression. Further, children 52 (9 girls, 43 boys) were classied as high in physical aggression and 75 children (49 girls, 26 boys) were classied as not high in physical aggression. Study 2. For Study 2, use of these procedures resulted in 83 children (36 boys, 47 girls) who were classied as high in relational aggression and 452 children (228 boys, 224 girls) who were classied as not high in relational aggression. Additionally, 68 children (55 boys, 13 girls) were classied as high in physical aggression and 467 children (209 boys, 258 girls) were classied as not high in physical aggression. Assessment of Intent Attributions A hypothetical-situation instrument developed in past research (Crick, 1995; Fitzgerald & Asher, 1987)

was used to assess childrens intent attributions in both studies. This instrument consisted of 10 situations, each of which described a provocation situation in which the intent of the provocateur was ambiguous. Five of the situations described instrumental provocations (e.g., a peer breaks the childs new radio while the participant is out of the room) and ve of the stories depicted relational provocations (e.g., the child overhears two peers talking about an upcoming birthday party to which the child has not been invited). Children were asked to respond to two questions for each situation, both of which assessed their intent attributions. In the rst question, children were presented with four possible reasons for the provocation and were asked to circle the most likely reason. Two of the reasons depicted benign intent (e.g., the kid was planning to invite me later) and two depicted hostile intent (e.g., the kid was trying to get back at me for something). In the second question, children were asked to circle whether the provocateurs intent was mean (i.e., hostile intent) or not mean (i.e., benign intent). Following procedures used in past research, childrens responses to the two question types were summed within each individual story and within story type (i.e., relational versus instrumental provocation) to yield two total intent attribution scores (i.e, one for each story type) that could each range from 0 to 10. Computation of Cronbachs revealed that childrens responses to both attribution scales were reliable for both samples, Study 1: .86 for the instrumental provocation situations and .78 for the relational provocation situations; Study 2: .77 for the instrumental provocation situations and .65 for the relational provocation situations. Assessment of Feelings of Distress Childrens feelings of distress were assessed using procedures developed in a prior study (Crick, 1995). These procedures involved asking children to respond to two questions for each of the above stories. For each story, after answering the two intent attribution questions, children were asked to rate how mad and also how upset they would be if the things in the story really happened to you. The response scale for these items ranged from 1 (not mad at all) to 3 (very mad) and from 1 (not upset at all) to 3 (very upset), respectively. Childrens responses to the distress items were summed across the ve stories within each provocation type (scores could range from 5 to 15). Computation of Cronbachs demonstrated that all four scales were reliable for both sam-

1138

Child Development

ples, s ranged from .68 to .74. For both samples, assessment of the association between the two types of emotional distress items within each context (e.g., anger versus distress for relational provocations) revealed high correlations, rs ranged from .83 to .88. Consequently, the item types were combined to form one emotional distress scale for each context type for each sample. RESULTS Intent Attributions for Instrumental Provocations Study 1. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) ANOVA was conducted using childrens intent attributions for instrumental provocations as the dependent variable. It was not possible to include gender as an independent variable in these analyses due to empty cells. This analysis yielded a signicant main effect for physical aggression, F(1, 121) 4.0, p .05, indicating that children who were high in physical aggression (M 4.3, SD 3.0) exhibited more hostile attributions in response to instrumental provocations than did children who were not high in physical aggression (M 3.2, SD 3.3). Additionally, a signicant interaction between relational and physical aggression was obtained, F(1, 121) 5.2, p .05. Student Newman-Keul post hoc tests, p .05, revealed that children who were high in physical aggression, but not also high in relational aggression, exhibited signicantly more hostile attributions than did their nonaggressive peers (see Table 1 for cell means and SDs). The main effect for relational aggression was nonsignicant for this context. Study 2. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (gender) 4 (grade) ANOVA was conducted using childrens intent attributions for instrumental provocations as the dependent variable.
Table 1 Study 1: Average Intent Attribution Scores for Instrumental Provocations for Relational by Physical Aggression Interaction Intent Attribution Score M (SD) 2.82a (3.30) 5.44b (2.29) 3.96ab (3.10) 3.76ab (2.91)

This analysis yielded a signicant main effect of physical aggression, F(1, 488) 6.4, p .01, indicating that children who were high in physical aggression (M 4.1, SD 2.6) exhibited more hostile attributions in response to instrumental provocations than did children who were not high in physical aggression (M 3.4, SD 2.5). A signicant main effect of grade was also obtained, F(3, 488) 5.3, p .001. Student NewmanKeuls post hoc tests, p .05, conducted on the cell means indicated that both third graders (M 3.7, SD 2.4) and fourth graders (M 4.1, SD 2.6) exhibited more hostile attributional biases than did sixth graders (M 2.9, SD 2.4). Further, fourth graders exhibited more hostile attributional biases than did fth graders (M 3.3, SD 2.6). All other effects were nonsignicant. Intent Attributions for Relational Provocations Study 1. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) ANOVA was conducted using childrens intent attributions for relational provocations as the dependent variable. It was not possible to include gender as an independent variable in these analyses due to empty cells. This analysis revealed a signicant main effect of relational aggression, F(1, 121) 6.17, p .01, indicating that children who were high in relational aggression (M 5.3, SD 2.4) exhibited more hostile attributions in response to relational provocations than did children who were not high in relational aggression (M 4.2, SD 2.7). All other effects were nonsignicant. Study 2. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (gender) 4 (grade) ANOVA was conducted using childrens intent attributions for relational provocations as the dependent variable. This analysis revealed a signicant main effect of relational aggression, F(1, 485) 4.7, p .05, indicating that children who were high in relational aggression (M 4.6, SD 1.8) exhibited more hostile attributions in response to relational provocations than did children who were not high in relational aggression (M 4.1, SD 1.8). All other effects were nonsignicant. Emotional Distress in Response to Instrumental Provocations Study 1. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) ANOVA was conducted using chil-

Aggression Group Nonaggressive (n 51) Physically aggressive (n 18) Relationally aggressive (n 24) Physically and relationally aggressive (n 34)

Note: Means with different subscripts differ signicantly.

Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee

1139

drens reports of emotional distress for instrumental provocations as the dependent variable. Results indicated that children who were high in physical aggression (M 24.8, SD 4.2) reported signicantly higher levels of emotional distress for instrumental provocations, F(1, 123) 4.7, p .05, than did their peers who were not high in physical aggression (M 21.9, SD 5.5). All other effects were nonsignicant for the instrumental provocation context. Study 2. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (gender) 4 (grade) ANOVA was conducted using childrens reports of emotional distress for instrumental provocations as the dependent variable. A marginally signicant effect of physical aggression, F(1, 489) 3.6, p .06, revealed that children who were high in physical aggression (M 25.9, SD 4.0) tended to report higher levels of distress in response to instrumental provocations than did children who were not high in physical aggression (M 25.1, SD 4.0). No other signicant effects were obtained. Emotional Distress in Response to Relational Provocations Study 1. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) ANOVA was conducted using childrens reports of emotional distress for relational provocations as the dependent variable. Results showed that children who were high in relational aggression (M 21.9, SD 5.5) reported signicantly higher levels of emotional distress for relational provocations, F(1, 119) 6.1, p .05, than did their peers who were not high in relational aggression (M 19.6, SD 4.6). All other effects were nonsignicant for this context. Study 2. A 2 (relational aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (physical aggression status: high versus not high) 2 (gender) 4 (grade) ANOVA was conducted using childrens reports of emotional distress for relational provocations as the dependent variable. Results showed that girls (M 20.8, SD 4.9) reported signicantly higher levels of emotional distress for relational provocations, F(1, 490) 4.6, p .05, than did boys (M 19.9, SD 4.9). A signicant effect of grade was also obtained, F(3, 490) 3.1, p .05. Student Newman-Keuls post hoc tests, p .05, revealed that third graders (M 21.2, SD 5.0) reported signicantly higher levels of emotional distress in response to relational provocations than did sixth graders (M 19.4, SD 5.0). All other effects were nonsignicant for this context.

DISCUSSION Findings from this research provide evidence for the utility of social information-processing models for increasing the understanding of an understudied risk grouprelationally aggressive children. Results also indicate that research on the social informationprocessing patterns of girls can be signicantly enhanced through the assessment of forms of aggression that are most salient for girls, and by the evaluation of social information-processing mechanisms in contexts that are meaningful and provoking to aggressive girls. As hypothesized, results of Study 1 and Study 2 revealed that both relationally and physically aggressive groups of children exhibited hostile attributional biases. More importantly, these biases were shown to be specic to relational provocation situations for relationally aggressive children, and to instrumental provocation contexts for physically aggressive children. These ndings indicate that the specic hostile attributional biases of relationally aggressive children reported previously by Crick (1995) are unique to this group, and not simply associated with aggression in general. These ndings provide insight into the peer interaction episodes that are most likely to provoke relational versus physical acts of aggression. According to social information-processing theory, inferring hostile intent is likely to result in the enactment of aggressive behavior (i.e., the perception of the peer as threatening results in a retaliatory, aggressive response). The present results indicate that physical aggression may be elicited by peer provocations of an instrumental nature (e.g., getting pushed into the mud by a peer), whereas relational aggression may be more strongly associated with peer provocations that involve a relationship slight (e.g., not getting invited to a peers birthday party). Evidence from this research also provides support for specicity in aggressive childrens emotional reactions to peer provocations. Results indicate that relative to nonaggressive peers, physically aggressive children (Study 1 and Study 2) are more likely to respond to instrumental provocations with anger and distress, whereas relationally aggressive children (Study 2) are more likely to feel negatively in response to relational provocations. According to social information-processing (Crick & Dodge, 1994) and frustration models of aggression (Berkowitz, 1993), these types of negative feelings are likely to contribute to, and increase the likelihood of, an aggressive response. The present ndings provide important evidence that not all provocations are created equal for aggressive children (i.e., that not all aggressive

1140

Child Development

children experience particular provocations in the same manner). Results of this investigation also demonstrate that the types of social contexts that evoke social information-processing decits for girls (i.e., emotional distress in this instance) may be quite different from those typically studied in past research. Consistent with ndings from past studies of childrens stress reactions (e.g., Leadbeater et al., 1999; Rudolph et al., 2000), provocations of an interpersonal nature were signicantly more distressing for girls than for boys. Given that instrumental provocations have captured the attention in the majority of past studies, the present ndings provide an important window of opportunity for signicantly increasing the understanding of the social information-processing biases of girls. Future studies should evaluate childrens processing for both relational and instrumental provocations, and should also search for additional social contexts that may be particularly problematic for girls. For example, there is some evidence that interpersonal difculties that occur in dyadic contexts (i.e., relational aggressive acts that occur within friendships) are particularly distressing for girls (Crick & Nelson, in press). Attention to these types of contexts seems warranted in future studies. In contrast to our predictions, boys and girls did not differ in their emotional reactions to instrumental provocations. This may be due, at least in part, to the greater salience of emotions involving distress for girls, relative to boys, during middle childhood (for a review, see Zahn-Waxler, 2000). That is, the present study may not have adequately captured the types of emotional reactions most relevant for boys due to its focus on distress. This issue warrants further investigation in future studies. Taken together, the ndings obtained for childrens hostile attribution and emotional distress patterns provide evidence for the generalizability of the Dodge social information-processing model to relational aggression. They also demonstrate that the processing patterns of aggressive children are specic to the form of aggression exhibited (for additional evidence to support this hypothesis, see Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987). Further, these results add to a growing body of research (for a review, see Crick et al., 1999) that indicates the need for expansion of methods and conceptual approaches employed in past research on physical aggression and boys, to gain an understanding of relational aggression and girls. These ndings also have important implications for intervention efforts with aggressive children. Specically, they indicate the need for greater attention in interventions to the role of context in eliciting social

information-processing patterns associated with aggression, and for the tailoring of treatment approaches to the form of aggression exhibited. Assessment of age-related grade differences in childrens intent attributions in Study 2 yielded signicant grade differences for instrumental provocations, but not for relational provocations. As was also found in the Crick (1995) study, younger children in Study 2 exhibited greater hostile attributional biases for instrumental provocation contexts than did older children. These ndings are consistent with developmentally related predictions based on social information-processing theory. That is, because physical aggression decreases in prevalence as children grow older, social cognitions associated with the maintenance of physical aggression should also decrease. In contrast to the ndings for physical aggression, no grade differences were found for childrens intent attributions for relational provocations (for similar results, see Crick, 1995). Although developmental changes in relational aggression have not yet been documented through longitudinal research, there is some indication from cross-sectional studies that these behaviors do not decrease during the age period studied here (e.g., Crick et al., 1996). The lack of grade differences in hostile attributions obtained in the present research is consistent with this hypothesis. One limitation of the presented studies concerns the inability to evaluate possible gender effects in Study 1. Although the results of Study 2 provide initial evidence that gender does not moderate the association between aggression and the social information-processing mechanisms studied here, it will be important to replicate these results in future studies before drawing rm conclusions regarding this issue. In sum, evidence from these studies indicates that assessment of social information-processing mechanisms within the context of basic research, as well as within the context of social cognitive intervention studies, should address the issue of the context of provocations, and the resulting differential intent attributions made by relationally versus physically aggressive children. Longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to evaluate whether, as has been demonstrated for physical aggression, biased social information-processing patterns play a causal role in the development and maintenance of relationally aggressive behavior patterns. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by a FIRST Award from the National Institute of Mental Health (#MH53524) and a Faculty Scholars Award from the William T.

Crick, Grotpeter, and Bigbee

1141

Grant Foundation to the rst author, and a Lola Cremeans Tilly Graduate Fellowship from the University of Illinois to the second author. Portions of this research were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April 1995, in Indianapolis, IN. The authors would like to thank Adams, Baum, Brush College, Coppenbarger, Dennis, Durfee, Enterprise, Franklin, French Academy, Gareld, Harris, Johns Hill, Mufey, Oak Grove, Parsons, Southeast, South Shores, Stevenson, and Washington elementary schools for their participation in these studies. The assistance of Juan F. Casas, David A. Nelson, Poom Nukulkij, Kathryn M. OBrien, Carol Rockhill, and Nicole E. Werner with data collection and Kaye OGeay with word processing is also gratefully acknowledged. ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS Corresponding author: Nicki R. Crick, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0345; e-mail: crick001@umn.edu. Jennifer K. Grotpeter is at the University of Colorado, Boulder; and Maureen A. Bigbee is at the Family and Childrens Service, Minneapolis, MN.

REFERENCES
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: Academic Press. Bierman, K. L. (1986). Process of change during social skills training with preadolescents and its relation to treatment outcomes. Child Development, 57, 230240. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, J. L. (1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320330. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.). New York: Wiley. Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313322. Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in childrens future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 23172327. Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression: Links to social psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 610617. Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Childrens normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 10031014.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 579588. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social informationprocessing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 9931002. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722. Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (in press). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me thered be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Crick, N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1999). Response decision processes in relational and overt aggression. Child Development, 69, 16301639. Crick, N. R., Werner, N. E., Casas, J. F., OBrien, K. M., Nelson, D. A., Grotpeter, J. K., & Markon, K. (1999). Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an old problem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 45). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and childrens aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162170. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 16781683. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social informationprocessing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in childrens playgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 11461158. Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social informationprocessing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 53, 11461158. Fitzgerald, P., & Asher, S. R. (1987, August). Aggressiverejected childrens attributional biases about likes and disliked peers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York. French, D. C., Jansen, E. A., & Pidada, S. (2002). United States and Indonesian childrens and adolescents reports of relational aggression by disliked peers. Child Development, 73, 11431150. Galen, B., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589600. Grimes, C., & Putallaz, M. (2001, April). Peer status, aggression, and victimization among girls: Family inuences and intergenerational continuities. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN. Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 23282338. Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1989). Evaluative factors in social problem solving by aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 277289. Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 2. Intervention. Developmental Psychology, 26, 269277.

1142

Child Development

Hennington, C., Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Thompson, B. (1998). The role of relational aggression in identifying aggressive boys and girls. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 457477. Hudley, C., & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to reduce peer-directed aggression among AfricanAmerican boys. Child Development, 64, 124138. Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression more typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 1112-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403414. Leadbeater, B. J., Blatt, S. J., & Quinlan, D. M. (1995). Genderlinked vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms, stress, and problem behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 129. Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 12681282. McNeilly-Choque, M. K., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C., Nelson, L. J., & Olsen, S. F. (1996). Overt and relational aggression on the playground: Correspondence among different informants. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11, 4767. Owens, L. D. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls and boys aggression in schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 4555. Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. (2002). Gender differences in preschool aggression during freeplay and structured interactions. Manuscript submitted for publication. Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 547642). New York: Wiley. Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. (2000, August). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social psycho-

logical adjustment of aggressors and victims. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Quiggle, N., Garber, J., Panak, W., & Dodge, K. A. (1992). Social information-processing in aggressive and depressed children. Child Development, 63, 13051320. Rabiner, D. L., & Coie, J. D. (1989). The effect of expectancy inductions on rejected childrens acceptance by unfamiliar peers. Developmental Psychology, 25, 450457. Rudolph, K. D., & Hammen, C. (1999). Age and gender as determinants of stress exposure, generation, and reactions in youngsters: A transactional perspective. Child Development, 70, 660677. Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., Burge, D., Lindberg, N., Herzberg, L., & Daley, S. E. (2000). Toward an interpersonal life-stress model of depression: The developmental contexts of stress generation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 215234. Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer rejection: Gender and developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 87106. Sancilio, F. M., Plumert, J. M., & Hartup, W. W. (1989). Friendship and aggressiveness as determinants of provocation outcomes in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 25, 812819. Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance among informants. Developmental Psychology, 33, 601609. Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and socialpsychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615623. Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). The development of empathy, guilt, and internalization of distress. In R. Davidson (Ed.), Wisconsin Symposium on Emotion: Vol. 1. Anxiety, depression, and emotion (pp. 222265). New York: Oxford University Press.