See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316608364

The role of teacher behavior in children's relational aggression development:

A five-wave longitudinal study

Article  in  Journal of School Psychology · October 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.008

CITATIONS READS

7 276

6 authors, including:

Tessa Weyns Karine Verschueren

KU Leuven KU Leuven
4 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    156 PUBLICATIONS   2,243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Geertje Leflot Patrick Onghena

Thomas More University of Applied Sciences KU Leuven
8 PUBLICATIONS   253 CITATIONS    289 PUBLICATIONS   8,627 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The role of teachers in bullying at school View project

Randomization tests View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tessa Weyns on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 1

The Role of Teacher Behavior in Children’s Relational Aggression Development:

A Five-wave Longitudinal Study

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 2

Abstract

The present article examined the development of relational aggression in middle childhood and

the effects of observed teacher behavior on this development. Relying on social learning theory,

we expected that teacher praise would slow down the increase of relational aggression, whereas

teacher reprimands would promote the increase of relational aggression. A sample of 570

children (49% boys, Mage = 7 years and 5 months, > 95% Belgian) was followed from second

to fourth grade. Teacher praise and reprimands were observed at the beginning of second grade.

Child relational aggression was assessed using teacher and peer reports, collected at five points

in time: at the beginning and end of the second grade, at the beginning and end of the third

grade, and at the end of the fourth grade. Multilevel modeling showed that relational aggression

generally increased from second to fourth grade. Moreover, when teachers displayed more

praise, students’ relational aggression increased at a slower rate; when teachers displayed more

reprimands, students’ relational aggression increased at a faster rate. Overall, the results stress

the importance of supporting teachers to reduce reprimands and increase praise when

interacting with children.

Keywords: relational aggression, teacher behavior, praise, reprimands, middle childhood,

social learning theory, normative beliefs

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 3

The Role of Teachers in the Development of Children’s Relational Aggression:

A Five-wave Longitudinal Study

Over the past decades a lot of research has focused on aggression in the school

context. Aggressive behavior has repeatedly been found to increase the risk for later

behavioral, social, and academic maladjustment (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006; Eisner &

Malti, 2015). Aggression can take different forms. During middle childhood, relational

aggression increases and, along with verbal aggression, gradually replaces direct physical

aggression as the most common type (Michiels, Grietens, Onghena, & Kuppens, 2008;

Murray-Close, Ostrov, & Crick, 2007; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Relational

aggression is defined as “harming others through purposeful manipulation or damage to their

peer relationships” (Crick, 1996, p. 2317). According to Yoon, Barton, and Taiariol (2004)

relational aggression in middle childhood and adolescence may become more salient because

of developmental changes in interpersonal relationship quality and structure. For example,

during middle childhood children’s concerns about acceptance in the peer group rise sharply

and one way to promulgate their social reputation is to use relational aggression (e.g., gossip)

(Rubin, Bukowski, & Bowker, 2015; Rubin et al., 2006). Several studies have shown that

relational aggression has harmful, long-term effects, not only for victims but also for initiators

of these behaviors (Atherton, Tackett, Ferrer, & Robins, 2016; Crick, Ostrov, & Werner,

2006; Michiels et al., 2008; Rys & Bear, 1997). Therefore it is paramount to understand the

antecedents of relational aggression. This study focuses, more specifically, on the role of

teachers’ behavior in the development of relational aggression in middle childhood, which has

remained largely unexplored.

Referring to bio-ecological models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), proximal

processes, that is bidirectional interactions between the child and its immediate environment,

play a central role in child development. With regard to the antecedents of relational
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 4

aggression in this micro-context, most research to date has focused on parent-child

interactions (e.g., Michiels et al., 2008). Building on different theoretical frameworks, such as

Bandura’s social learning theory (1973), researchers have found evidence that power-assertive

discipline (i.e., using threats and aggression to discipline the child) increases the risk of

children also using aggressive strategies to achieve desirable outcomes in their relationships

with peers (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Hart, DeWolf, & Burts, 1992). In addition, lower

parental responsiveness has been found to relate to higher relational aggression in children

(Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998). A possible explanation is that

children copy the unresponsive, insensitive, and cold behavior of their parents in their own

peer relationships (Crick et al., 1999; Hart et al, 1998).

Similar to variables in the home context, variables in the school context are likely to

shape the development of relational aggression as well. From a social learning theory

perspective, teachers serve as role models for their students and teacher behavior is assumed

to influence child social behavior through modeling positive or negative relational skills (e.g.,

Gest & Rodkin, 2011; Luckner & Pianta, 2011). Teachers who use a lot of reprimands (i.e.,

punitive corrections for non-compliant behavior) focus on the negative behavior of others and

react with negative affect. Children may view such aggressive, angry, and/or irritated

behaviors used by their role models as successful strategies for social interaction (Kuppens,

Laurent, Heyvaert, & Onghena, 2013). When they are confronted with peers they may model

these behaviors by using similar aggressive behaviors, including relational aggression. In

contrast, teachers who use more praise (i.e., a positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior)

may model focusing on positive characteristics of others and using positive relational skills.

Relatedly, theory and research on the concept of normative beliefs suggest that when

children interact with or observe socializing agents, this influences their normative beliefs

(e.g., Linder & Werner, 2012; Werner & Grant, 2009). Normative beliefs are a person’s
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 5

cognitions about the acceptability or unacceptability of certain behaviors, for example

whether or not it is allowed to exclude someone when being angry at this person (Henry et al.,

2000; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). In a sample of third- to sixth-grade children, Werner and

Grant (2009), for instance, found that mothers’ normative beliefs about relational aggression

were significantly linked to their children’s normative beliefs regarding the appropriateness of

relational aggression. Similarly, Linder and Werner (2012) found that watching television

programs involving relational aggression raised third- to sixth-grade children’s beliefs that

this behavior is appropriate. In line with these findings, we contend that interacting with

teachers who display praise versus reprimands towards their class, can affect the normative

beliefs of their students regarding appropriate social behavior, which in turn can prompt

children to behave accordingly (Henry et al., 2000). Several studies have indeed found

associations between children’s normative beliefs about relational aggression and their actual

use of relational aggression. Werner and Hill (2010), for example, found that children who

viewed relational aggression as acceptable, showed more relational aggressive behavior one

year later.

Several studies have convincingly shown that positive teacher behaviors towards the

class group (such as emotional support) positively relate to students’ adaptive social behavior

and negatively to problem behavior (e.g., Mashburn et al., 2008). Negative teacher behaviors

towards the class, on the other hand, have shown to predict lower social competence among

students (e.g., Brophy-Herb, Lee, Nievar, & Stollak, 2007). Research also showed that teacher

praise and teacher reprimands have an effect on general aggression in elementary school (e.g.,

Gorman-Smith, & Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group, 2003). However, the role

of teachers in the development of relational aggression remains largely unexplored. Two

notable exceptions are the studies by Luckner and Pianta (2011) and Leff and colleagues

(2011). The first study examined associations between teacher behavior at the class level and
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 6

children’s relational aggression in a fifth grade sample of 894 children (50% boys). Multiple

regression analyses showed that higher classroom organization was related to lower levels of

relational aggression for children who had higher initial levels of relational aggression. A

possible explanation is that teachers who effectively manage time and behavior in the

classroom decrease the opportunities for negative peer interactions (Luckner & Pianta, 2011).

In addition, a marginally significant negative association between classroom emotional

support and children’s relational aggression was found. To explain this association, the

authors suggest that emotionally supportive teachers can model positive relational skills for

students to use in their own peer interactions (Luckner & Pianta, 2011). The second study

focused on developing a classroom climate observation assessment tool and preliminarily

validating it in 18 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms in a large urban public school

district. The results showed that teacher responsiveness, indicated by the ratio of observed

teacher praise to observed teacher reprimands, was negatively correlated with peer nominated

classroom levels of relational aggression (Leff et al., 2011). Both studies were cross-sectional,

leaving the question unanswered of whether teacher behavior impacts the development of

children’s relational aggression in the longer run. The present study aims at contributing to

this research domain, by examining the longitudinal effects of teacher behavior at class level

on the development of relational aggression, the most common form of aggression in middle

childhood.

Examining the role of teacher behavior in the development of relational aggression,

we differentiated between positive (i.e., praise) and negative (i.e., reprimands) teacher

behavior, in line with current research. We made this distinction given that both are unique

constructs and not merely opposites on one dimension (Hughes, Cavell, & Wilson, 2001). For

example, it is important that teachers do not model bad behavior, but in addition they also

need to model alternative, positive behavior (e.g., Gest & Rodkin, 2011). Research also
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 7

showed that positive and negative dimensions of teacher behavior make independent

contributions to several child outcomes. Hughes and colleagues (2001), for example, found

that teacher support and conflict had unique effects on peer perceptions of children’s

competencies and peer acceptance of children in third and fourth grade. Also, recently,

researchers have acknowledged the importance of examining single components of teacher

behavior in addition to more broad measurements (e.g., Evans, Harvey, Buckley, & Yan,

2009; Snyder et al., 2011). Single components have the benefit of providing a more detailed

image of the classroom situation and offer insight in the specific components of teacher

behavior that influence children’s development. Also, targeting these single components can

lead to more refined and focused interventions.

In addition, researchers have found contradictory results on the prevalence of

relational aggression among girls versus boys (Michiels et al., 2008). Some demonstrated that

girls use more relational aggression (e.g., Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997), others concluded

that boys display higher levels (e.g., Henington, Hughes, Cavell, & Thompson, 1998), and

still others found no difference (e.g., Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). Kuppens,

Grietens, Onghena, Michiels, and Subramanian (2008), among others, propose that a possible

explanation for gender differences is the assessment method. They argue that studies using

teacher reports have mostly shown higher relational aggression scores for girls, whereas

studies based on peer nominations found contradictory results, also showing boys to be more

relationally aggressive. A meta-analysis on other types of aggression found evidence that the

assessment method can explain gender differences (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008).

Several explanations have been offered for these assessment differences. First, teachers may

be biased by the general assumption that girls are more prone to gossiping and social

exclusion (Crick, 1996). A second option is that children are biased by the idea that boys are

more aggressive in general and therefore also more relationally aggressive (Crick, Casas, &
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 8

Mosher, 1997). The current study will test the possibility that gender differences in relational

aggression depend on the informant, by using both teacher and peer ratings of relational

aggression in one study.

In sum, the present study examines the development of relational aggression in middle

childhood and addresses the role of teacher behavior in this development. In line with theory

and previous research, we expect that relational aggression generally increases during middle

childhood. In addition, we contend that teacher praise will slow down the increase of

relational aggression, whereas teacher reprimands will promote the likelihood of children

harming classmates through manipulation or damaging of their peer relationships. Praise is

operationalized as a positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior, e.g., raising a thumb

when a child behaves appropriately, whereas reprimands are considered to be punitive

corrections for non-compliant behavior, e.g., shouting a child’s name through the class when

they wobble their chair (Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2013). Proactive boundary

setting was not considered to be a reprimand. We chose these specific behaviors given their

established importance in previous research. There is strong evidence regarding the

importance of praise for the prevention of negative student behavior and the promotion of

positive student behavior (e.g., Stormont, Smith, & Lewis, 2007). Also, studies have found

evidence for the negative effects of reprimands, i.e., punitive contingencies, on children’s

behavior, self-esteem, and the classroom climate (e.g., Gable, Hester, Rock, & Hughes, 2009;

Van Acker & Grant, 1996). Although sometimes it is inevitable to stop children displaying

negative behavior, research underlines the importance of using reprimands not too often (e.g.,

Gable, et al., 2009; Van Acker & Grant, 1996). Instead, teachers should focus their attention

on using praise for appropriate behavior in the classroom or on using proactive instead of

reactive behavioral management strategies. These teacher behaviors (i.e., praise and

reprimands) are assessed at the class level, using classroom observations. The observed
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 9

teacher behaviors in the beginning of second grade will be linked to both peer-nominated and

teacher-reported child behavior in a five-wave longitudinal study from second to fourth grade.

The present study extends the current research in several ways. First, we examine an

antecedent of relational aggression that has remained largely unexplored: teacher behavior.

Next, the use of a longitudinal design permits us to examine the effect of teacher behavior on

the longer run. Also, by using a multi-dimensional observation of teacher behavior, we can

examine the role of several teacher behaviors in detail. More specifically, the unique effects

of both praise and reprimands are assessed, allowing us to examine their specific

contributions to the development of relational aggression. Finally, as we will use two

assessment methods for relational aggression, we will be able to test whether gender

differences in relational aggression depend on the informant, as was hypothesized previously

(Kuppens et al., 2008).

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited in 15 schools, located in the Flemish Community of

Belgium. The schools were situated in rural to moderately urban communities with

populations ranging from 9 000 to 90 000 inhabitants (Algemene Directie Statistiek en

Economische Informatie, 2004). In each school, two second-grade classes took part, making

30 classes in total. All children in these classrooms were eligible for inclusion. A researcher

informed the school teams face-to-face about the purpose of the study. Parents were contacted

and informed through letters. Written active parental permission for participating in the study

was obtained for 570 children (97%), about half of which were boys (49%). The children's

mean age was 7 years and 5 months (SD = 4.6 months) at the beginning of the second grade.

Most children and their parents were Caucasian and had the Belgian nationality (> 95%).

More than half of the parents completed higher education (63% of mothers, 57% of fathers);
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 10

the other parents finished either high school (28% of mothers, 30% of fathers) or primary

school (9% of the mothers and 13% of the fathers). Teachers in the second grade (i.e., the

teachers who were observed in this study) were mostly female (28 out of 30). They had a

mean age of 35.91 years (SD = 9.41; range 21–52 years) and mean teaching experience of

13.20 years (SD = 9.14; range 0–33 years). As is usual in the Flemish educational system, the

children had a different teacher in each grade. Over the course of the three years, 64 children

dropped out of the study due to grade retention or moving away. These children had higher

initial levels of teacher-reported relational aggression, t(563) = -2.80, p = .005, d = 0.37, and

higher initial levels of peer-nominated relational aggression, t(69.37) = -3.39, p = .001, d =

0.46. Half of the classrooms in the study sample participated in an intervention (i.e., a Dutch

adaptation of the Good Behavior Game, GBG) during second and third grade; the other half

received education as usual (Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2013). The Good Behavior

Game is a universal preventive intervention that aims at promoting elementary school

children's on-task behavior and reducing disruptive behavior (Leflot et al., 2013). In the

present study, intervention status was controlled for in the statistical analyses (see further).

Regarding missing data, observations of verbal praise, non-verbal praise, verbal reprimands,

and non-verbal reprimands were obtained for all teachers. Teacher reports of relational

aggression were measured for 99.65%, 98.77%, 92.98%, 92.98%, and 88.42% of the students,

respectively across the five waves. Finally, peer nominations of relational aggression were

obtained for 99.12%, 97.12%, 89.65%, 92.63%, and 88.77% of the students, respectively

across all waves.

Design

Data collection occurred at five points in time: at the beginning (September/October,

Wave 1) and end of the second grade (May/June, Wave 2), at the beginning

(September/October, Wave 3) and end of the third grade (May/June, Wave 4), and during a
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 11

follow-up at the end of the fourth grade (May/June, Wave 5). Two trained researchers, both

holders of a Masters’ degree in Psychology, observed teacher behavior in the classroom

during the first wave. Teachers filled out a questionnaire on relational aggression for each of

their students at all five waves. Peer nominations of relational aggression were collected in

individual interviews with each child during the first four waves; in the fifth wave students

completed a questionnaire with the same peer nominations during a session in class

supervised by a researcher.

Measures

Teacher behavior. Four types of teacher behavior were observed at the class level

during the first wave: verbal praise (e.g., a teacher saying ‘Well done’), non-verbal praise

(e.g., teachers raising their thumb), verbal reprimands (e.g., remarks such as ‘If you do that

one more time, I will punish you by writing your name on the blackboard’), and non-verbal

reprimands (e.g., teachers giving students a hostile look). These teacher behaviors are distinct

reactions on children’s behavior, allowing us to tally them using a time sampling procedure.

For example, a reaction such as ‘Great job!’ was tallied as ‘one teacher behavior: verbal

praise’. Teacher behavior was measured following a procedure delineated by van der Sar

(1999, also see Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2010). Each teacher was observed for 10

minutes at three points in time, making 30 minutes in total. These 30 minute observations

took place in the morning and there were intervals of 36 minutes separating each of the 10

minutes. The 10 minutes were divided in intervals of 20 seconds, followed by 10 seconds of

registration time. All the teachers’ verbal and non-verbal praise and verbal and non-verbal

reprimands were tallied on an observation sheet. Mean scores over the three observation

periods were calculated for each of the four types of teacher behavior. Prior to Wave 1, the

two observers simultaneously rated the verbal and non-verbal praise and the verbal and non-

verbal reprimands in two live classroom situations in two different schools (Leflot et al.,
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 12

2010). Percentages of inter-rater agreement were 95.83% for verbal praise, 98.31% for non-

verbal praise, 80% for verbal reprimands, and 98.33% for non-verbal reprimands. To

determine the inter-rater agreement while controlling for chance, frequency scores were

dichotomized to represent presence or absence of the defined teacher behavior in each 20-

second observation interval and Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1) was calculated (Gwet,

2008). We chose AC1 over Cohen’s kappa, because the latter strongly depends upon the

prevalence of the observed behavior (Gwet, 2008). The AC1 was .96 for verbal praise, .98 for

non-verbal praise, .79 for verbal reprimands, and .98 for non-verbal reprimands. The AC1 can

be interpreted by using the same benchmark scales as Cohen’s kappa. When using Landis and

Koch’s criteria, for example, the AC1’s can be considered to be substantial to almost perfect

(Landis & Koch, 1977).

The verbal and nonverbal teacher behaviors were highly correlated (r = .60 for praise,

r = .59 for reprimands). A general teacher praise score was calculated by standardizing verbal

and nonverbal praise and averaging these two standardized scores into one teacher praise

score. The same procedure was applied to reprimands.

Relational aggression – Teacher-report. Relational aggression of the students at all

waves was measured with the ‘Relational Aggression’ subscale of the Problem Behavior at

School Interview - revised (PBSI-r; Erasmus Medical Center, 2000; Sturaro, van Lier,

Cuijpers, & Koot, 2011). Teachers rated their students’ behavior on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (often). The score was calculated by averaging the scores on the

three items of the subscale (‘Ignoring a child or refusing to talk to a child, when being angry

with this child’, ‘Gossips about classmates’, and ‘Excludes a child, when being angry with

this child’). These items were similar to those of the Children's Social Behavior Scale-Teacher

Form (CSBS-T; Crick, 1996). Studies have provided evidence for the validity of the CSBS-T,

for example by showing its correspondence with other measurements of relational aggression,
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 13

indicating its construct validity (e.g., Crick, 1996; Rosen & Underwood, 2003). Also,

evidence of convergent validity is provided by the association between relational aggression

assessed by this measure and peer difficulties (Collett, Ohan, & Myers, 2003; Rosen &

Underwood, 2003). In addition, the PBSI-r also has demonstrated adequate validity (e.g.,

Sturaro et al., 2011; van Baardewijk, Vermeiren, Stegge, & Doreleijers, 2011; Witvliet, van

Lier, Cuijpers, & Koot, 2009). Factor analyses supported that all three items loaded on one

underlying construct: relational aggression. This factor explained 73.37% to 79.28 % of the

variance of the three items over the five waves, with items loadings ranging from .79 to .93.

Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .82 to .87 over the five waves.

Relational aggression – Peer-nominations. Similar to past research (e.g., Crick,

1997; Smith, Rose, & Schwartz - Mette, 2010), the children were presented with a peer-

nominating procedure with items measuring relational aggression. Each child in every

classroom was asked to nominate all children in the classroom who met specific behavioral

descriptions (“Who tells other children that they can’t play along?” and “Who says mean

things about other children?”). These items are based on Crick and Grotpeter (1994) and

Crick (1997). The children could use a list of all the names of the children in their classroom.

A nomination score was calculated for each child by adding up the number of nominations on

each question and dividing this by the number of children in the class minus one, because

nominating oneself was not allowed (see also Cillessen, 2009). A general relational

aggression score was determined by averaging the nomination scores on the two questions.

The inter-item correlations ranged from .52 to .71 over the five waves.

Data-analysis

To examine the effects of teacher behavior on the development of relational

aggression, multilevel modeling was used, as the data had a nested structure (Peugh, 2010).

Multilevel growth models with three levels were fitted, with repeated measurements (Level 1)
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 14

nested in students (Level 2) and students nested in classrooms (Level 3). Two multilevel

growth models were fitted; Model 1 addressed the effects of praise and reprimands on peer-

nominated relational aggression and Model 2 contained the effects of praise and reprimands

on teacher-reported relational aggression. We included both teacher behaviors in each model,

to compare their unique contributions on the development of relational aggression. Each

model included an intercept, the effect of time (coded as 0, 2, 3, 5, and 8; with one unit =

approximately 4 months), the effect of condition (as a dummy coded control variable: 0 =

education as usual, 1 = GBG), the interaction effect of time and condition, the effect of sex (as

a dummy coded control variable: 0 = boy, 1 = girl), the effect of praise, the interaction effect

between praise and time (representing the effect of praise on the slope), the effect of

reprimands, and the interaction effect between reprimands and time (representing the effect of

reprimands on the slope).12 In doing so, the effect of teacher behaviors on the intercept as well

as on the development of relational aggression could be tested. Teacher behavior and

condition were both situated at Level 3. The time slope was not randomized because we did

not have theoretical reasons for this and we did not want to make the models unnecessarily

complex. SPSS 20 was used for calculating the descriptive statistics. The multilevel analyses

were carried out in MLwiN 2.24. Concerning missing values, every case that was available

was used for fitting the models. For example, when students were absent during one wave, the

remaining data of their four other waves was included in the analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Means and standard deviations for the four types of teacher behavior at Wave 1

showed that teachers mostly used verbal reprimands (M = 5.70, SD = 4.29), followed by non-

verbal reprimands (M = 1.13, SD = 1.58), verbal praise (M = 0.72, SD = 0.99), and non-verbal

praise (M = 0.16, SD = 0.26) respectively. The use of verbal reprimands was significantly
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 15

higher than the use of verbal praise (t(29) = 6.94, p < .001, d = 1.27). Non-verbal reprimands

were used significantly more than non-verbal praise (t(29) = 3.44, p = .002, d = 0.63). The

general praise and reprimand scores had equal means (M = 0), and almost equal standard

deviations (SDPraise = 0.90, SDReprimands = 0.89).

Means and standard deviations of teacher-reported and peer-nominated relational

aggression are reported in Table 1. Both measurements of relational aggression showed, in

general, an increase over time. In general, girls displayed higher levels of relational

aggression when reported by teachers, but boys displayed more relational aggression when

reported by peers. These findings were tested for statistical significance and the results are

presented in the main analyses.

Table 2 presents the Pearson correlation matrix of teacher-reported relational

aggression, peer-nominated relational aggression, teacher praise, and teacher reprimands. All

correlations between measurements of relational aggression at the five waves were significant

and in the expected direction. The two types of teacher behavior had a small positive

correlation with each other. Praise showed in most cases a negative correlation with relational

aggression and reprimands was in most cases positively correlated to relational aggression.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Main Analyses

First, two unconditional three-level means models were tested, with teacher-reported

relational aggression and peer-nominated relational aggression as dependent variables

respectively. These unconditional models resulted in the following ICC’s: for teacher-

reported relational aggression, the Level 2 ICC was .22 and the Level 3 ICC was .09; for peer-

reported aggression Level 2 and Level 3 ICC’s were .58 and < .001 respectively. These ICC’s

indicate the amount of variation that could potentially be explained at each level, in other
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 16

words: which proportion of the total outcome variation lies between the students (Level 2)

and which between the classes (Level 3) (Singer & Willett, 2003). Despite a very low ICC for

peer-reported aggression at Level 3, this level was included in all models, given that three of

the predictors were situated at the class level (Heck & Thomas, 2009). Next, two

unconditional growth models containing an intercept and the effect of time on teacher-

reported relational aggression and on peer-reported relational aggression, respectively, were

tested. In both models the intercept was significant, Wald = 1177.54, p < .001 and Wald =

321.07, p < .001, respectively. Further, the positive effect of time was significant in both

models, Wald = 138.21, p < .001 and Wald = 376.32, p < .001, respectively, demonstrating

that relational aggression increased significantly over time.3 Then the two multilevel growth

models were tested (see Table 3).

The common findings of the two models will be discussed first; next the specific

findings of each model will be described separately. In none of the models a significant main

effect of either condition or teacher behavior was found, showing that neither the GBG nor

teacher behavior have significant effects on initial relational aggression. The interaction term

of condition and time was significant (WaldModel 1 = 3.86; p < .05; WaldModel 2 = 4.40; p < .05).

This indicates that participation in the GBG had an effect on the development of relational

aggression (i.e., increasing the rate of peer-reported aggression and decreasing the rate of

teacher-reported aggression), in addition to the other effects. Sex also had a significant effect

on relational aggression in each of the models (WaldModel 1 = 12.47; WaldModel 2 = 18.03; p <

.001). This effect was positive when teachers reported on relational aggression, but negative

when peers rated relational aggression. So, from the teacher’s point of view, girls displayed

higher levels of relational aggression, whereas from the perspective of the peers, boys were

more relationally aggressive. There were also significant interaction effects between teacher
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 17

behavior and time, indicating that teacher behavior has an effect on the slope of relational

aggression. These interaction effects will be discussed next.

[Insert Table 3 about here]

Peer-nominated relational aggression – Model 1.

Model 1 tested the effects of praise and reprimands on peer-nominated relational

aggression. As reported in Table 3, the interaction effect of Time and Reprimands was

marginally significant, Wald = 3.01, p = 0.08. In addition, there was a significant negative

interaction effect of Time and Praise, Wald = 12.02, p < .001. This indicates that when

teachers displayed higher levels of praise at the start of second grade, students’ relational

aggression as reported by peers increased at a slower rate during the next three years. For

example, when teachers displayed one or two praise per 30 minutes, and all other variables

remained equal, the interaction would result in students scoring 0.024 and 0.048 points less,

respectively, on peer-nominated relational aggression (M = 0.22; SD = 0.19) three years later

(Van Den Noortgate, Pustjens, & Onghena, 2004; Wouters, De Fraine, Colpin, Van Damme,

& Verschueren, 2012).

Teacher-reported relational aggression - Model 2.

This model was fitted to test the effects of praise and reprimands on teacher-reported

relational aggression. There was a significant positive interaction effect between Time and

Reprimands, Wald = 23.04, p < .001 (see Table 3). This indicates that when teachers

displayed higher levels of reprimands at the start of second grade, teacher-reported relational

aggression of their students increased at a faster rate during the next three years. This means,

for example, when teachers displayed one or two reprimand(s) per 30 minutes, and all other

variables remained equal, the interaction would result in students scoring 0.208 and 0.416

points more, respectively, on teacher-reported relational aggression (M = 2.24; SD = 0.88)

three years later (Van Den Noortgate et al., 2004; Wouters et al., 2012). In addition, there was
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 18

a significant negative interaction effect between Time and Praise, Wald = 5.98, p < .05. This

implies that when teachers displayed higher levels of praise at the start of second grade,

teacher-reported relational aggression of students increased at a slower rate during the next

three years. For example, when teachers displayed one or two praise(s) per 30 minutes, and all

other variables remained equal, the interaction would result in students scoring 0.104, 0.208

and points less, respectively, on teacher-reported relational aggression (M = 2.24; SD = 0.88)

three years later (Van Den Noortgate et al., 2004; Wouters et al., 2012).

Discussion

This five-wave longitudinal study examined the development of relational aggression

in middle childhood and addressed the effects of observed teacher behavior on the

development of teacher-reported and peer-nominated relational aggression from second to

fourth grade, thereby contributing to the scarce research on the role of teachers’ behavior

towards their class in the development of relational aggression at school. Our analyses

showed that relational aggression generally increased from second to fourth grade. These

results supported the previous findings that relational aggression increases during middle

childhood (e.g., Michiels et al., 2008; Murray-Close et al., 2007). Moreover, the results

largely supported our hypothesis that the rate at which relational aggression increases can be

affected by teacher behavior. In general, when teachers displayed more praise towards the

class, their students’ relational aggression increased at a slower rate; and when teachers

displayed more reprimands, their students’ relational aggression increased at a faster rate.

Effects of praise were found in both models and effects of reprimands was significant in one

of two models and marginally significant in the other. Although not explicitly tested in our

study, social learning theory and the concept of normative beliefs can offer an explanation for

these effects (e.g., Gest & Rodkin, 2011; Kuppens et al., 2013; Linder & Werner, 2012;

Luckner & Pianta, 2011). When teachers display praise or reprimands, they serve as models
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 19

for their students and set expectations for either positive or negative social interactions in

class (Serdiouk, Rodkin, Madill, Logis, & Gest, 2015). It can be assumed that when teachers

display more praise or reprimands towards their class, their students view these behaviors as

successful strategies to interact with one another and will thus transfer these relational

behaviors in their own relationships with peers. Moreover, if students observe and interact

with a teacher who uses a lot of praise, this may affect the normative beliefs these children

hold on normal social behavior and will consequently lead them to use less relational

aggressive strategies when interacting with others. If, however, they develop the normative

belief that reprimands are an appropriate way of interacting with one another, this can lead

them to display more relational aggression (e.g., Henry et al., 2000).

All of the abovementioned linkages between teacher behavior and relational

aggression were found in a span of three years after the teacher behavior was observed. This

is in accordance with studies that show the strong and lasting effect of teachers on students at

earlier grade levels (Bierman, 2011; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Somewhat surprisingly, no

effects of teacher behavior on the initial level of relational aggression were found. This could

be due to the fact that relational aggression gradually becomes more salient throughout

elementary school. Thus, the behavior that teachers display early in elementary school seems

to have a delayed effect on behaviors of students that manifest themselves later-on.

The correlations between teacher and peer reports in each wave were moderate, which

is similar to correlations reported by other researchers. Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell

(1987), for example, also found a moderate correlation between peers and teachers in their

meta-analysis on the inter-informant consistency in reporting children’s behavioral and

emotional problems. Other, more recent studies equally showed low to moderate correlations

between peer- and teacher ratings for a variety of outcomes; such as aggression, shyness,

bullying, being liked by peers, etc. (e.g., Nabuzoka, 2003; Schwartz, Farver, Chang, & Lee-
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 20

Shin, 2002; Wu, Hart, Draper, & Olsen, 2001). Further, not all interaction effects between

teacher behavior and time were found for all informants. Both praise and reprimands had a

significant effect on the development of teacher-reported relational aggression. Praise also

had a significant effect on the development of peer-reported relational aggression and the

effect of reprimands on the development of peer-reported relational aggression was

marginally significant in the expected direction. Further research could examine the

robustness of these findings and why these differential associations may be found, for

example by conducting qualitative research on the manner in which teachers versus peers

derive meaning from situations in which relational aggression possibly occurs. In each case,

the differential correlates of teacher and peer reports, as well as their moderate inter-

correlations suggest that teachers and peers each have their own perspective on the occurrence

of relational aggression. The different views of teachers and peers regarding gender

differences in relational aggression also point in this direction.

Additionally, the analyses suggest that both teacher behaviors (i.e., praise and

reprimands) have unique effects on the development of relational aggression. This notable

finding underpins the importance of both using praise when interacting with children and

avoiding reprimands. Unfortunately, the results also showed that the amount of reprimands

used by teachers was significantly higher than the amount of praise. In particular, teachers in

this study gave on average seven to eight times more reprimands than praise to students. Leff

and colleagues (2011) reported similar findings regarding teachers’ use of reprimands and

praise in US elementary classrooms. The question remains if teachers are aware of their

relatively frequent use of reprimands and relatively low use of praise. And if they are, what is

their motivation for these behaviors? Further research can look deeper into these questions

and thereby explore possible explanations. The finding that teachers use more reprimands

than praise, however, does point to the need for awareness of the effects of teacher behavior
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 21

on students’ relational aggression among teachers and for interventions to increase the use of

more praise. Beaman and Wheldall (2000) note in their review on this subject that training

teachers regarding the use of reprimands and praise is highly effective, showing that these

behaviors can be adjusted.

Finally, the study provided support for the proposition that gender differences in

relational aggression can be attributed to the assessment method (Kuppens et al., 2008).

Previous research showed contradictory findings regarding the effect of gender on relational

aggression (Michiels et al., 2008). Depending on the study, either boys or girls scored

significantly higher on relational aggression, while in some studies no gender differences

were found (Kuppens et al., 2008). Our study showed that when teacher reports were used,

girls scored significantly higher on relational aggression, and when peer nominations were

used, boys had a significantly higher score on relational aggression. As mentioned above,

more research is needed to shed light on the underlying mechanisms between the different

views of teacher and peers on relational aggression. The hypotheses we proposed earlier -

teachers possibly being biased by the assumption that girls are more prone to gossip and/or

peers being biased by the idea that boys are more aggressive in general and therefore more

relationally aggressive - can offer a starting point.

The present study has several strengths, including the use of a three-year longitudinal

design, a multi-informant approach, and a multi-dimensional observational measurement of

teacher behavior. However, there are also some limitations which further research could take

into account. Most children in the sample had the Belgian nationality and most parents had

completed higher education. It would be useful to investigate if the findings can be replicated

in other and more diverse samples. Further, the proposed underlying mechanisms between

teacher behavior and the development of relational aggression, as suggested by social learning

theory and the concept of normative beliefs, were not directly tested in our study and should
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 22

be investigated in further research. Also, even though change in relational aggression was

measured after teacher behavior, our study does not permit us to draw causal conclusion.

Therefore, although rather unlikely, the effects could also be reverse. For example, classes

with students with more challenging behavior may have elicited less praise and more

reprimands from their second grade teachers and students in these classes may have shifted

from more overt disruptive behavior to more subtle relational aggression as they become

older. Furthermore, our study has focused on teacher behavior toward the entire class.

However, research shows that teachers develop a relationship with each individual child in

their class, and this relationship also has an effect on aggression (e.g., Decker, Dona, &

Christenson, 2007; Hughes, 2011). Further research should therefore include both individual

and class-level teacher-child interactions, to examine their unique contributions. Finally,

although we took the effect of the classroom average of relational aggression into account, we

did not control for the effects of other socializing agents, such as parents. Future research

could examine the relative effects of different socializing agents on the development of

relational aggression. For example, given the established effects of parents on the

development of relational aggression (e.g., Hart et al., 1998), future research should examine

the relative importance of the family and school context.

Our study has both theoretical and practical implications. The findings expand the

existing literature regarding relational aggression by highlighting the role of teacher behavior

toward the class in the development of relational aggression and, additionally, by confirming

the role of assessment method in finding gender differences in relational aggression. Further,

the literature concerning the importance of teacher-child interactions for social behavior in the

school context is enriched by drawing more attention to relational aggression, a

developmental outcome very relevant in middle childhood and beyond. It seems that even less

visible forms of problem behavior are under the influence of teacher behavior. Moreover, this
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 23

influence can start early on in elementary school when teachers perhaps are unaware of their

effect on this particular behavior, given that relational aggression is still present at lower

levels. In addition, the key finding that praise predicted reduced and reprimands predicted

increased development of relational aggression also has practical implications. Providing

teachers with information on how their behaviors may affect relational aggression and how

they function as role models may motivate them to further develop a positive behavioral style.

Also, interventions could focus on strengthening teachers’ skills in praising positive child

behaviors and in reducing reprimands, given the unique effects of both teacher behaviors.

Supporting teachers to make a positive change in their behavior while interacting with

children is an important aim for the future, especially given the low amount of praise used by

teachers at the moment and its importance for in the development of relational aggression.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by two grants from the Research Foundation—Flanders (G.0380.06,

G.0728.14).
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 24

References

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral

and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational

specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213

Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie (2004). Bevolking en huishoudens.

Huishoudens en familiekernen [Population and households. Households and family

nuclei]. Brussels, Belgium: Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie.

Atherton, O. E., Tackett, J. L., Ferrer, E., & Robins, R. W. (2016). Bidirectional pathways

between relational aggression and temperament from late childhood to adolescence.

Journal of Research in Personality. In press.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2000). Teachers' use of approval and disapproval in the

classroom. Educational Psychology, 20, 431–446. doi:10.1080/713663753

Bierman, K. L., (2011). The promise and potential of studying the “invisible hand” of teacher

influence on peer relations and student outcomes: A commentary. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology 32, 297–303. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.004

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development.

In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1:

Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). New York, NY:

John Wiley.

Brophy-Herb, H. E., Lee, R. E., Nievar, M. A., & Stollak, G. (2007). Preschoolers' social

competence: Relations to family characteristics, teacher behaviors and classroom

climate. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 134–148.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.12.004
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 25

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect

aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender

differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79,

1185 – 1229. doi: 0009-3920/2008/7905-0001

Cicchetti, D., Bronen, R., Spencer, S., Haut, S., Berg, A., Oliver, P., & Tyrer, P. (2006).

Rating scales, scales of measurement, issues of reliability. Resolving some critical

issues for clinicians and researchers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194,

557–564. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000230392.83607.c5

Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B.

Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1,

98-101.
Collett, B. R., Ohan, J. L., & Myers, K. M. (2003). Ten-year review of rating scales. VI:

Scales assessing externalizing behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child &

Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1143-1170.Crick, N.R. (1996). The role of overt

aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s

future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327.

Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of

aggression: Links to social–psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33,

610-617. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.610

Crick, N. R., Werner, N. E., Casas, J. F., O'Brien, 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.), Gender and motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation

(Vol. 45, pp. 75-142). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 26

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool.

Developmental Psychology, 33, 579−588. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.579

Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., &Werner, N. E. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational

aggression, physical aggression, and children's social–psychological adjustment.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 131−142. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-9009-4

Decker, D. M., Dona, D. P., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Behaviorally at-risk African

American students:The importance of student–teacher relationships for student

outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 83-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.004

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth.

In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Series Eds.), Handbook of child

psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 719–

788). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Eisner, M. P., & Malti, T. (2015). Aggressive and violent behavior. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),

Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 3, 7th ed., pp. 794-

841). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Erasmus Medical Center. (2000). Problem Behavior at School Interview. Rotterdam,

Netherlands: Erasmus University.

Evans, I. M., Harvey, S. T., Buckley, L., & Yan, E. (2009). Differentiating classroom climate

concepts: Academic, management, and emotional environments. Kōtuitui: New

Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 4, 131–146.

doi:10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522449

Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules,

praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195-

205. doi: 10.1177/1053451208328831

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 27

Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer

ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 288–296.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004

Gorman-Smith, D., & Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group. (2003). Effects of

teacher training and consultation on teacher behavior toward students at high risk for

aggression. Behavior Therapy, 34, 437-452.

Grusec, J. E. & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s

internalisation of values: A reconceptualisation of current points of view.

Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19.

Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter‐rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high

agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 29–48.

doi:10.1348/000711006X126600

Hamre, B.K., & Pianta R.C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of

children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.

doi: 0009-3920/2001/ 7202-0020

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, M. D., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Linkages among preschoolers’

playground behavior, outcome expectations, and parental disciplinary strategies. Early

Education and Development, 3, 265–283.

Hart, C. H., Ladd, G. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). Children's Expectations of the Outcomes

of Social Strategies: Relations with Sociometric Status and Maternal Disciplinary

Styles. Child Development, 61, 127–137.

Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S. F., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998).

Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting

style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687–697. doi:

10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.687
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 28

Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Henington, 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,

457−477. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(98)00015-6

Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative

influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 28, 59-81. doi: 10.1023/a:1005142429725

Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and

aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408-419.

Hughes, J. N. (2011). Longitudinal effects of teacher and student perceptions of teacher-

student relationship qualities on academic adjustment. The Elementary School

Journal, 112, 38-60. doi: 10.1086/660686

Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian, S.V. (2008). Individual

and classroom variables associated with relational aggression in elementary-school

aged children: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 639–660.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.005

Kuppens, S., Laurent, L., Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2013). Associations between parental

psychological control and relational aggression in children and adolescents: A

multilevel and sequential meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1697–1712.

doi:10.1037/a0030740

Landis J. & Koch G. (1977) Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

Leff, S. S., Thomas, D. E., Shapiro, E. S., Paskewich, B., Wilson, K., Necowitz-Hoffman, B.,

& Jawad, A. F. (2011). Developing and validating a new classroom climate

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 29

observation assessment tool. Journal of School Violence, 10, 165–184.

doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.539167

Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A. C., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2010). The role of teacher behavior

management in the development of disruptive behaviors: An intervention study with

the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 869–882.

doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9411-4

Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A. C., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2013). The role of children's on-task

behavior in the prevention of aggressive behavior development and peer rejection: A

randomized controlled study of the Good Behavior Game in Belgian elementary

classrooms. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 187–199.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.12.006

Linder, J. R., & Werner, N. E. (2012). Relationally aggressive media exposure and children’s

normative beliefs: Does parental mediation matter? Family Relations, 61, 488–500.

doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00707.x

Luckner, A., & Pianta, R. (2011). Teacher-student interactions in fifth-grade classrooms:

Relations with children’s peer behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 32, 266–275. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.010

Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology,
1, 86-92.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant,

D.,…Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and

children's development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development,

79, 732–749. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x

Michiels, D., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Kuppens, S. (2008). Parent–child interactions and

relational aggression in peer relationships. Developmental Review, 28, 522–540.

doi:10.1016/j.dr.2008.08.002
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 30

Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (2007). A short-term longitudinal study of

growth of relational aggression during middle childhood: Associations with gender,

friendship intimacy, and internalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology,

19, 187–203. doi:10.10170S0954579407070101

Nabuzoka, D. (2003). Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other behaviour

of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational Psychology, 23, 307–

321. doi:10.1080/0144341032000060147

Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology,

48, 85–112. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002

Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in

adolescents: Social–psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 479−491. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_05

Rosen, L. H., & Underwood, M. K. (2010). Facial attractiveness as a moderator of the

association between social and physical aggression and popularity in adolescents.

Journal of school psychology, 48, 313-333.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, B., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. In R. M.

Lerner, (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol 4,

Ecological settings and processes (pp. 175-222). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, B., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and

groups. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol 3, Social, emotional and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–

645). New York, NY: Wiley.

Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations: Gender and

developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 87–106.

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 31

Schwartz, D., Farver, J. M., Chang, L., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2002). Victimization in South Korean

Children’s Peer Groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 113–125. doi:

0091-0627/02/0400-0113/0

Serdiouk, M. Rodkin, P., Madill, R., Logis, H., & Gest, S. (2015). Rejection and victimization

among elementary school children: The buffering role of classroom-level predictors.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 5–17. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9826-9

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. Modeling change

and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Smith, R. L., Rose, A. J., & Schwartz - Mette, R. A. (2010). Relational and overt aggression

in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender differences and

associations with peer acceptance. Social Development, 19, 243-269. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00541.x

Snyder, J., Low, S., Schultz, T., Barner, S., Moreno, D., Garst, M., . . . Schrepferman, L.

(2011). The impact of brief teacher training on classroom management and child

behavior in at-risk preschool settings: Mediators and treatment utility. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 336–345. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.06.001

Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implementation of

precorrection and praise statements in Head Start classrooms as a component of a

programwide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education,

16, 280-290. doi: 10.1007/s10864-007-9040-3

Sturaro, C., van Lier, P. A. C., Cuijpers, P., & Koot, H. M. (2011). The role of peer-

relationships in the development of early school-age externalizing problems. Child

Development, 82, 758–765. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01532.x

Van Acker, R., & Grant, S. H. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for

aggression. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 316-335.

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 32

van Baardewijk, Y., Vermeiren, R., Stegge, H., & Doreleijers, T. (2011). Self-reported

psychopathic traits in children: Their stability and concurrent and prospective

association with conduct problems and aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assessment, 33, 236-245.

Van Den Noortgate, W., Pustjens, H., & Onghena, P. (2004). Multiniveau-analyse in de

praktijk. Deel 2: Verder uitwerking. [Multilevel-analysis in practice. Part 2: Further

elaboration]. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.

van der Sar, A. M. (1999). Observatie-instrument Taakspel [Observation-instrument Good

Behavior Game]. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: CED.

Werner, N. E., & Grant, S. (2009). Mothers' cognitions about relational aggression:

Associations with discipline responses, children's normative beliefs, and peer

competence. Social Development, 18, 77-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00482.x

Werner, N., & Hill, L. (2010). Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational

aggression. Child Development, 81, 826–836. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01436.x

Witvliet, M., van Lier, P. A., Cuijpers, P., & Koot, H. M. (2009). Testing links between

childhood positive peer relations and externalizing outcomes through a randomized

controlled intervention study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 77, 905–

915. doi:10.1037/a0014597

Wouters, S., De Fraine, B., Colpin, H., Van Damme, J., Verschueren, K. (2012). The effect of

track changes on the development of academic self-concept in high school: A dynamic

test of the Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 793-805.

doi: 10.1037/a0027732

Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draper, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics for

preschool children: Cross-informant concordance, temporal stability, and reliability.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 416–443. doi:10.1353/mpq.2001.0018

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 33

Yoon, J. S., Barton, E., & Taiariol, J. (2004). Relational aggression in middle school:

Educational implications of developmental research. Journal of Early Adolescence,

24, 303–318. doi:10.1177/0272431604265681

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 34

Footnotes
1
As mentioned previously, half of the children participated in a version of the GBG.

We statistically controlled for possible effect of the GBG on the development of relational

aggression in our analyses. In addition, we also tested whether the effect of teacher behavior

on relational aggression was moderated by intervention status. All these effects were non-

significant (p > .05), WaldModel 1 - praise = 3.08; WaldModel 2 - praise = 0.88; WaldModel 1 - reprimands =

0.04; WaldModel 2 - reprimands = 1.35. Given the non-significant effects and for clarity reasons, we

omitted the interaction term from further analyses. We did not include intervention x time x

praise and intervention x time x reprimands interactions given that models including these

three-way-interactions would be too complex for our relatively small sample size (i.e., only

30 classes at Level 2; Cohen, 1992). Also, power would be lowered, possibly leading to

unreliable and instable estimates (Maas & How, 2005).

2
To control for the socializing effect of peers, we additionally tested whether

including the effect of the classroom average of relational aggression at Wave 1 had an effect

on the results from our two models. The effect was significant and in the expected direction in

each model, WaldModel 1 = 37.04; p < .001; WaldModel 2 = 4.12; p < .05. However, adding this

effect had no effect on the significance level of any of the other predictors and only very

minimal effects on their estimates. This suggests that teacher behavior and peer relational

aggression have additive effects on individual children’s development of relational

aggression.
3
Research so far has not established whether the increase in relational aggression

develops according to a linear versus quadratic shape, therefore we exploratively also tested

the quadratic effect of time (see Singer & Willett, 2003). Two models containing an intercept,

the effect of time, and the quadratic effect of time on teacher-reported relational aggression

and on peer-reported relational aggression, respectively, were fitted. By comparing the

Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 35

deviance of these models with the deviances of the unconditional growth models, we could

determine whether a quadratic change trajectory would fit the data better than a linear change

trajectory. The difference in deviance statistics were 3.16 and 0.26, respectively; p > .05. We

can therefore conclude that the quadratic change trajectory does not fit the data significantly

better than the linear change trajectory. Given that higher order polynomials are preferably

only used when other approaches fail (Singer & Willett, 2003), we chose a linear change

trajectory.
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 36

Table 1

Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of Teacher-reported Relational Aggression (RA) and Peer-nominated Relational Aggression (RA) at

all Five Waves

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Teacher-reported RA
Overall 1.80 0.72 1.88 0.81 1.97 0.78 1.96 0.83 2.24 0.88
Boys 1.76 0.69 1.76 0.75 1.91 0.75 1.86 0.77 2.10 0.82
Girls 1.84 0.75 1.99 0.86 2.03 0.84 2.07 0.88 2.38 0.91

Peer-nominated RA
Overall 0.11 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.19
Boys 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.19
Girls 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.20 0.18
Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 37

Table 2

Correlation Matrix of Teacher-reported Relational Aggression (RA) at all Five Waves, Peer-nominated Relational Aggression (RA) at all Five

Waves and Teacher Behavior

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1. Teacher-reported RA Wave 1 1
2. Peer-nominated RA Wave 1 .35** 1
3. Teacher-reported RA Wave 2 .51** .33** 1
4. Peer-nominated RA Wave 2 .31** .57** .35** 1
5. Teacher-reported RA Wave 3 .30** .27** .21** .29** 1
6. Peer-nominated RA Wave 3 .34** .66** .40** .69** .37** 1
7. Teacher-reported RA Wave 4 .22** .24** .23** .31** .66** .36** 1
8. Peer-nominated RA Wave 4 .31** .62** .29** .64** .40** .77** .39** 1
9. Teacher-reported RA Wave 5 .20** .27** .29** .40** .34** .36** .38** .41** 1
10. Peer-nominated RA Wave 5 .38** .56** .39** .61** .31** .70** .31** .72** .48** 1
11. Praise -.11* -.04 .01 .05 -.07 -.07 -.00 -.09* -.03 .01 1
12. Reprimands .09* -.02 -.05 -.07 .17** .03 .15** .04 .07 -.04 .24** 1
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01 (2-tailed).
 Running head: TEACHERS’ ROLE IN RELATIONAL AGGRESSION 38

Table 3

Multilevel Growth Models for Change in Relational Aggression from Wave 1 to Wave 5

Parameter Model 1: Model 2:

Peer-nominated RA Teacher-reported RA
Fixed effects
Intercept 0.137*** (0.011) 1.717*** (0.075)
Time 0.015*** (0.001) 0.045*** (0.007)
Condition 0.004 (0.014) -0.035 (0.103)
Time*condition -0.003* (0.001) 0.020* (0.010)
Sex -0.039*** (0.011) 0.181*** (0.043)
Praise 0.010 (0.008) 0.016 (0.059)
Time* Praise -0.003*** (0.001) -0.013* (0.005)
Reprimands -0.001 (0.008) -0.040 (0.059)
Time* Reprimands 0.001† (0.001) 0.026*** (0.006)
Random effects
Level 3 0.000 (0.000) 0.056** (0.018)
Level 2 0.015*** (0.001) 0.153*** (0.015)
Level 1 0.009*** (0.000) 0.424*** (0.013)
Deviance -3834.418 5884.211
Parameters 12 12
Cases used 2694 of 2930 2664 of 2930
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses.
†
p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

View publication stats