Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The present study tests whether aggression and prosocial behavior can coexist as part of a socially functional and adaptive profile among early adolescents. Using a person-centered approach, the study examined early adolescents’ likelihood of being classified into profiles involving aggressive and prosocial behavior, social status (popular, liked, cool), machiavellianism, and both affective and cognitive components of empathy (empathic concern and perspective taking, respectively). Participants were 1170 early adolescents (10–12 years of age; 52 % male) from four schools in metropolitan Santiago, Chile. Through latent profile analysis, three profiles emerged (normative-low aggressive, high prosocial-low aggressive, and high aggressive-high popular status). Both empathic concern and perspective taking were higher in the high prosocial-low aggressive profile, whereas the high aggressive-high popular status profile had the lowest scores on both empathy components as well as machiavellianism. No profile emerged where aggressive and prosocial behaviors were found to co-exist, or to be significantly above the mean. The results underscore that aggressive behavior is highly contextual and likely culturally specific, and that the study of behavioral profiles should consider social status as well as socio-emotional adjustment indicators. These complex associations should be taken into consideration when planning prevention and intervention efforts to reduce aggression or school bullying and to promote positive peer relationships.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K. B. (2005). The two faces of adolescents’ success with peers: Adolescent popularity, social adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Development, 76, 747–760. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Berger, C. (2011). Agresividad, prosocialidad y estatus social: Identificando perfiles admirados entre preadolescentes chilenos. Magis, Revista Internacional de Investigacion en Educacion, 4, 357–368.
Berger, C., & Palacios, D. (2014). Associations between prosocial behavior, machiavellianism, and social status: Effects of peer norms and classroom social contexts. Journal of Latino/Latinamerican Studies, 6(1), 19–30.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1980(10), 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. CrossRef
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder: Westview Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. CrossRef
Gold, M. S., Bentler, P. M., & Kim, K. H. A. (2003). Comparison of maximum-likelihood and asymptotically distribution-free methods of treating incomplete nonnormal data. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 47–79. CrossRef
Golmaryami, F. N., & Barry, C. T. (2009). The associations of self-reported and peer-reported relational aggression with narcissism and self-esteem among adolescents in a residential setting. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 128–133. doi: 10.1080/15374410903401203 CrossRef
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132. CrossRef
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279–309. CrossRef
Hawley, P. H. (2006). Evolution and personality: A new look at Machiavellianism. Handbook of personality development (pp. 147–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawley, P. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, & P. Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Catalano, R. F., Hemphill, S. A., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2009). Longitudinal examination of physical and relational aggression as precursors to later problem behaviors in adolescents. Violence and Victimization, 24, 3–19. CrossRef
Juvonen, J., & Galvan, A. (2008). Peer influence in involuntary social groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In M. Prinstein & K. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. Duke series in child development and public policy (pp. 225–244). New York: Guilford Press.
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49–74. CrossRef
Mchoskey, J. W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, and social interest: A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23(4), 267–283. CrossRef
Ministerio de Planificación, Chile. (2005). Estadísticas sociales de los pueblos indígenas en Chile. Censo 2002. Santiago: Programa Orígenes MIDEPLAN-BID.
Muthén, B. O. (2004). Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998–2013). MPlus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Authors.
Peets, K., & Kikas, E. (2006). Aggressive strategies and victimization during adolescence: Grade and gender differences, and cross-informant agreement. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 68–79. CrossRef
Pellegrini, A. D., Roseth, C. J., Van Ryzin, M. V., & Solberg, D. (2011). The place of social dominance and aggression in children’s and adolescents’ popularity. In A. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Peters, E., Cillessen, A. H. N., Riksen-Walraven, J., & Haselager, H. (2010). Best friends’ preference and popularity: Associations with aggression and prosocial behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 398–405. CrossRef
Pountain, D., & Robins, D. (2000). Cool rules: Anatomy of an attitude. London: Reaktion Books.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social–psychological functioning of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 477–489.
Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). Socioemotional characteristics of withdrawn and aggressive children. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 518–534.
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., & Sunderani, S. (2010). Respect or fear? The relationship between power and bullying behavior. In S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, & D. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 211–222). London: Routledge.
Veenstra, R. (2006). The development of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Prosocial and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior,. doi: 10.1007/0-387-28032-4_6
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81, 480–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01411.x CrossRefPubMed
Warden, D., & Mackinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367–385. CrossRef
Wargo Aikins, J., & Litwack, S. (2011). Prosocial skills, social competence and popularity. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 140–162). New York: Guilford Press.
- Aggressive and Prosocial? Examining Latent Profiles of Behavior, Social Status, Machiavellianism, and Empathy
Jessica Duncan Cance
- Springer US