Effect of Children's Perceived Rejection on Physical Aggression

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2004, pp. 551–563 ( C© 2004)

Effect of Children’s Perceived Rejectionon Physical Aggression

Vito S. Guerra,1,3 Steven R. Asher,1 and Melissa E. DeRosier2

Received July 29, 2003; revision received March 4, 2004; accepted March 10, 2004

This study investigated whether the perception of self as socially rejected might contribute to increasedphysical aggression among elementary-school children. It was hypothesized that physically aggressivechildren would become more physically aggressive over time if they perceived that they were rejectedand tended to blame peers for social failure experiences. Third-grade boys and girls (n = 941) wereassessed in the Fall and Spring of the school year. Peer-report data on physical aggression and socialpreference were collected, along with self-report data on perceived rejection and attributions forsocial failure experiences. Results for boys were consistent with hypotheses, whereas the resultsfor girls revealed a different pattern of relations. These results constitute prospective evidence thatchildren’s self-perceptions of social rejection can uniquely influence externalizing behavior. Resultsare discussed in terms of mechanisms that might mediate the relation between perceived rejectionand physical aggression.

KEY WORDS: perceived rejection; physical aggression; social preference; social attributions.

INTRODUCTION

Children’s social status, a construct indexing the ex-tent to which a child is broadly liked or accepted by peers,has received a great deal of empirical attention over thepast two decades, owing largely to evidence suggestiveof a link between children’s rejection by peers and laterinternalizing, externalizing, and academic problems (e.g.,Bierman & Wargo, 1995; Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski,1995; Coie, Terry, Lenox, Lochman, & Hyman, 1995;Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998; Dodgeet al., 2003; Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991; Ollendick,Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992; Renshaw & Brown, 1993).Several years into the current era of peer relations research,however, Hymel and Franke (1985) noted the dearth ofinformation available regarding children’s perceptions of

1Department of Psychology: Social and Health Sciences, Duke Univer-sity, Durham, North Carolina.

2Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

3Address all correspondence to Vito S. Guerra, Department of Psychol-ogy: Social and Health Sciences, Duke University, Box 90085, Durham,North Carolina 27708; e-mail: [email protected].

their own social acceptance. They also described, anec-dotally, marked individual differences in the degree towhich such self-perceptions were concordant with chil-dren’s “actual” social status, an observation stronglysupported in later empirical work (Boivin & Begin,1989; Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999; Hughes, Cavell, &Grossman, 1997; Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993;Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990; Zakriski & Coie,1996). Hymel and Franke hypothesized that these individ-ual differences might mediate associations between rejec-tion by peers and later differential outcomes, and urgedresearchers in the field to move beyond questions of per-ceptual accuracy, asserting that self-perceptions of socialacceptance would influence children’s affective responsesand social behavior whether or not those perceptions wereveridical.

Although Hymel and Franke (1985) did not makespecific predictions regarding the affective and behavioralsequelae likely associated with individual differences inchildren’s perceptions of social status, Hymel and her col-leagues, among others, have since focused on the me-diational role played by such perceptions in proposed“pathways” linking sociometrically assessed rejec-tion to later internalizing problems, such as depressive

551

0091-0627/04/1000-0551/0 C© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, In.

552 Guerra, Asher, and DeRosier

symptomatology, loneliness, and withdrawal (e.g., Boivinet al., 1995; Panak & Garber, 1992; Rubin, Hymel, Mills,& Rose-Krasnor, 1991; Sandstrom & Zakriski, 2004).Panak and Garber (1992) tested such a model in a short-term longitudinal investigation and found that low per-ceived social acceptance fully mediated the associationbetween sociometric rejection and depressive symptoma-tology among the elementary-school children in their sam-ple. At least two other studies employing prospective de-signs have likewise found low perceived social acceptanceto be predictive of internalizing problems (Hymel, Rubin,Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Kistner, Balthazor, Risi, &Burton, 1999). In Kistner et al.’s (1999) research, negativesocial self-perceptions were associated with heighteneddepressive symptomatology even in the absenceof “actual” peer rejection, supporting Hymel and Franke’s(1985) hypothesis that the perception of social rejectioncan have significant affective–motivational consequencesirrespective of the accuracy of that perception.

Internalizing sequelae notwithstanding, Coie and hiscolleagues (e.g., Coie, 1990; Coie et al., 1995; Sandstrom& Coie, 1999; Zakriski & Coie, 1996) have suggestedthat the perception of rejection might ultimately advan-tage children who are, in fact, rejected by their peers, espe-cially in those cases where rejected children acknowledgeresponsibility for their own social circumstances. The per-ception of rejection functions as a double-edged sword inthis view, possibly precipitating the internalizing problemsdiscussed above, but also engendering socially adaptivebehavior change. That is, one can paint a picture of a childwho is saddened and troubled by the rejection the child ac-curately perceives, but who is thereby motivated to makethe changes, behavioral and otherwise, necessary to im-prove his or her social fortunes. For example, althoughdata suggest that many (physically) aggressive–rejectedchildren maintain overly optimistic views of their ownsocial standing (e.g., Hughes et al., 1997; Hymel et al.,1993; Zakriski & Coie, 1996), those aggressive–rejectedchildren who are aware of their negative status may makeefforts to decrease their physically aggressive behaviorin order to secure a better standing among peers. Fromthis perspective, it is children who perceive themselvesto be accepted in the face of actual sociometric rejectionwho may be at most risk for continued social and be-havioral problems (for similar views, see Boivin, Poulin,& Vitaro, 1994; Hughes, Cavell, & Prasad-Gaur, 2001;Patterson et al., 1990). At least two studies have, in fact,reported a concurrent association between inflated per-ceptions of acceptance and heightened levels of physicalaggression (David & Kistner, 2000; Hughes et al., 1997),although to our knowledge such a relation has not been

demonstrated prospectively (see Hughes et al., 2001). Insummary, then, while the perception of peer rejection hasbeen hypothesized to be a risk factor for internalizingoutcomes, perceived rejection has been hypothesized tohave, if anything, a salubrious influence on externalizingbehavior.

It is suggested here, however, that the perceptionof rejection can, under certain conditions, predict an in-crease in at least one salient type of externalizing be-havior, that of physical aggression. As such, the primarygoal of this study was to examine prospectively the in-fluence of perceived rejection on children’s physical ag-gression. For reasons to be articulated below, the direc-tion and strength of this influence was expected to dependjointly upon children’s attributions for social failure ex-periences, and upon children’s initial level of physicalaggression.

Attributions for Social Failure Experiences

A number of investigators (e.g., Asher, Parkhurst,Hymel, & Williams, 1990; Sobol & Earn, 1985) have sug-gested that children’s causal attributions for social fail-ure experiences might influence their affective and be-havioral responses to peer rejection. (Note that these in-vestigators make the implicit assumption that the childis aware of his or her social rejection.) Although sev-eral dimensions of causal attributions have been identi-fied by attribution theorists (see Weiner, 1990), the degreeto which children internalize versus externalize responsi-bility for social failure (e.g., self- vs. peer-blaming) hasreceived the most consistent attention within the peers lit-erature (e.g., Crick & Ladd, 1993; Ollendick et al., 1992;Sandstrom & Coie, 1999). As has been true with respectto the existing literature on perceived rejection, children’sattributions regarding social failure have been discussedprimarily in the context of internalizing outcomes.Specifically, researchers have hypothesized that sociomet-rically rejected children who tend to make internalattributions for social failures (e.g., an attribution of“personal incompetence”) are those at particular riskfor experiencing internalizing symptomatology. Al-though no direct test of this moderation model has beenpublished, internal (and stable) attributions for social fail-ure experiences have predicted depressive symptomatol-ogy (Panak & Garber, 1992), loneliness (Renshaw& Brown, 1993), and withdrawal (Goetz & Dweck,1980).

It is more common, however, for children to make ex-ternal attributions for social failure experiences (Sobol &

Perceived Rejection and Physical Aggression 553

Earn, 1985), a self-serving bias observed throughout thebroader attribution literature (see Weiner, 1990). Blam-ing peers for one’s social difficulties is one clear exampleof an external attribution. Recent research suggests thatsociometrically rejected children, especially those whomaintain their negative status over time, make this typeof external attribution at a higher rate than do otherchildren (Crick & Ladd, 1993; Sandstrom & Coie,1999).

The broader attribution literature suggests that blam-ing others for personally relevant negative outcomes of-ten elicits anger (see Weiner & Graham, 1984). Moreover,it seems reasonable to predict that children who tend toblame peers for negative social experiences will likelysubscribe to the belief that peers are generally hostileand “rejecting” and therefore maintain fairly negative ex-pectations regarding future interactions with such peers.These types of beliefs and expectations have been linkedto both physically aggressive behavior and aggression-encouraging cognitive biases in a number of studies(Burks, Laird, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1999; Downey,Lebolt, Rincon, & Freitas, 1998; Lochman & Dodge,1998; MacKinnon-Lewis, Rabiner, & Starnes, 1999).Downey et al. (1998, study 3), for example, presentedfifth- through seventh-grade boys and girls with hypo-thetical vignettes depicting ambiguous social rejectionscenarios. They reported that children’s “angry expec-tations of rejection” in response to these vignettes pre-dicted increased self- and teacher-reported physical ag-gression 1 year later, after controlling for earlier levels ofaggression. In another study, Burks et al. (1999) foundthat eighth-grade children who held “hostile” generalizedbeliefs about peers (e.g., “mean” rather than “friendly”;“jerks” rather than “cool”) were more likely than othersto display externalizing symptomatology, as well as bi-ases in social information-processing (a latent variableindexing hostile attribution biases, aggressive responsegeneration, and aggressive response selection) that havefrequently been linked to physically aggressive res-ponding (see Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, Pettit,McClaskey, & Brown, 1986). The influence of children’sexpectations/beliefs about peer interactions on their socialinformation-processing was also examined by Lochmanand Dodge (1998), who found that boys’ expectationsregarding the level of aggression likely to be displayedby both self and partner during a dyadic interactiontask predicted their postinteraction perceptions of enactedaggression, even after controlling for actual observedaggression. This would suggest that children whoexpect aggression are biased to perceive it, a bias linkedto increased aggressive behavior (Lochman, 1987).

Baseline Physical Aggression

Children who both perceive that they are rejectedand who tend to blame their peers for social failure expe-riences may, then, be primed to be physically aggressivetowards their peers. Of course, not all children thus biasedtowards aggressive responding will necessarily behaveaggressively (Erdley & Asher, 1996; Quiggle, Garber,Panak, & Dodge, 1992). Countervailing factors can func-tion to inhibit actual aggressive responding. For exam-ple, Erdley and Asher (1996) studied children who tendedto attribute hostile intent to peers (i.e., children vulnera-ble to “reactive” aggression; see Crick & Dodge, 1994),and found that there existed a sizable subgroup of thesechildren who tended to endorse nonaggressive behavioralresponses; children in this subgroup were both less con-fident in their ability to enact aggressive behavior (lowself-efficacy for aggression; see Bandura, 1977) and lesslikely to report antisocial goals (e.g., revenge-seeking)than were children who tended to endorse aggressive be-havioral responses. Although these and other potentialcountervailing constraints, such as negative outcome ex-pectancies for aggressive behavior (see Crick & Werner,1998; Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen, 1986) and negativebeliefs about the morality or appropriateness of aggres-sion (see Erdley & Asher, 1998; Huesmann & Guerra,1997), were not assessed in the current study, it is pre-sumed that children already engaging in significant ag-gressive behavior are those least likely to be inhibitedby countervailing factors when “primed” by the anger,negative expectations, and perceptual/attributional biasesthat are expected to be manifest when children both per-ceive they are rejected and blame others for their socialfailures.

On the basis of this reasoning, a three-way interac-tion between perceived rejection, social failure attribution(i.e., self- vs. peer-blame for social failure experiences),and baseline physical aggression was hypothesized. Thatis, among children high in baseline aggression, the per-ception of rejection coupled with the tendency to blamepeers for social failure experiences was expected to lead toincreased physically aggressive behavior. Children low inbaseline aggression, on the other hand, were not expectedto engage in increased aggression in response to the com-bined effects of perceived rejection and peer-blaming forsocial failure experiences. Further, and consistent with ahypothesis forwarded by Sandstrom and Coie (1999), theperception of rejection coupled with the tendency to blameoneself for social failure experiences was expected to leadto decreased aggressive behavior among children high inbaseline aggression.


No a priori hypotheses regarding possible gender dif-ferences were generated. However, it has been commonfor investigators interested in children’s physical aggres-sion to use all-male samples or, where gender is mixed, toemploy analytical approaches (e.g., extreme-group analy-ses with relatively small, unbalanced cell sizes) that makeit difficult to conduct tests of gender interactions withsatisfactory statistical power (though see Crick, 1997;Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1998; Erdley & Asher, 1998;Feldman & Dodge, 1987). The hypotheses forwarded hereare, then, based to some degree on prior research that mayor may not be generalizable to girls. As such, a final goalof the present study was to consider whether the hypoth-esized three-way interaction described above would holdfor girls as well as boys.

METHOD

Participants

Eligible participants included all third-grade chil-dren (in mainstream classes) attending any of 11 selectedschools. Each of these schools operated within a largeCounty-wide public school system serving both urban andrural communities in the southeastern United States. Thethird-grade population within each of these 11 schoolsranged from 100 to 169 children. The ethnic makeupof the total sample reflected that of the larger County—approximately 69% Caucasian, 27% African American,and 4% other ethnic minority groups (e.g., Hispanic;Asian). Individual-level data on family income and socioe-conomic status (SES) were not obtained. However, the fullrange of SES was represented in the County from whichthe sample was drawn; approximately 30% of the childrenin these schools qualified for a free or reduced price lunch.

Consent letters were sent to the parents of 1,374 chil-dren in September of the children’s third-grade year, andpermission to participate was obtained for 1,255 children(91.34% consent rate). Because of either school absenceor noncompletion of specific measures, full data on the in-struments pertinent to this study were available for 1,071children at Time 1 (October of the third-grade year). Ofthe 1,071 children with full data at Time 1, 941 also hadfull data available at Time 2 (April of the third-grade year).The attrition of approximately 12% between Time 1 andTime 2 was attributable either to school transfer or toschool absence at the Time 2 assessment. All analysesto be reported below included the 941 children (470 boysand 471 girls) for whom complete Time 1 and Time 2 datawere available.

A series of t tests were conducted using Time 1 as-sessments to examine whether children who completed

both waves of data (n = 941) differed significantly fromchildren lost to attrition (n = 130). The two groups did notsignificantly differ with respect to either self-report mea-sure (perceived rejection; social failure attribution). How-ever, children lost to attrition had higher peer-assessedaggression scores, t(1069) = 4.09, p < .01, and lowerpeer-assessed social preference scores, t(1069) = 4.16,p < .01, than did study completers.

Procedure

The data presented here were collected as part of alarger longitudinal investigation conducted by the thirdauthor. All instruments were group-administered withinchildren’s classrooms. Time 1 (Fall) assessment occurredduring two 30 to 45-min sessions in October of the chil-dren’s third-grade year. Time 2 (Spring) assessment oc-curred during two 30 to 45-min sessions in April of thatsame school year. The school year in this County hadbegun in mid-August, allowing children approximately2 months of interaction with grademates prior to the initialassessment.

Instruments

Social Preference

Participants were provided with rosters listing all ofthe children in their grade. They were asked to circle thenames “of all the kids that you like the very most” usingthe first roster, and to circle the names “of all the kidsthat you like the very least” using the second roster. Theuse of an unlimited nomination procedure was guided byresearch suggesting that this methodology is psychomet-rically preferable to a limited nomination procedure (seeTerry, 2000).

The number of “like most” (LM) and “like least”(LL) nominations each participant received was calcu-lated and then standardized within each of the 11 schools.Following the often utilized Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli(1982) method, social preference (SP) scores were com-puted by subtracting children’s standardized LL scorefrom their standardized LM score, and then standardiz-ing that difference. In the current study, SP scores rangedfrom −4.53 to 3.07 at Time 1, and from −5.56 to 2.78 atTime 2.

Physical Aggression

During the session in which the sociometric assess-ment was completed, participants were provided with


another roster listing all children in their grade and wereasked to circle the names “of all the kids in your grade whofight a lot.” Single-item peer assessments of children’sphysical aggression, such as the one employed here, arecommonly used (e.g., Hecht, Inderbitzen, & Bukowski,1998; Hughes et al., 1997; Hymel et al., 1993; Kupersmidt& Coie, 1990; MacKinnon-Lewis et al., 1999; Parkhurst& Asher, 1992; Patterson et al., 1990; Sandstrom & Coie,1999) and have been found to be stable over time (e.g.,Coie & Dodge, 1983; Deater-Deckard et al., 1998).

A proportion score was calculated for each child bydividing the number of nominations that child receivedby the number of grade mates responding to the item (fora similar approach to calculating aggression scores, seeEgan et al., 1998; Erdley & Asher, 1996; Parkhurst &Asher, 1992). So, for example, if child A was nominatedby half of those grade mates completing the assessment,child A would have an aggression score equal to .50. Thismethod was preferred to an often-used alternative meansof determining a child’s aggression score, wherein nomi-nations are summed and then standardized by classroomor school. Use of the proportion score, which was not stan-dardized by school, more flexibly allows for the possibilitythat the schools may vary in the prevalence of physical ag-gression. While there are subtle conceptual implicationsof using one versus the other of these computations, it isworth noting that the correlation between the two derivedvariables is generally quite high. In this study, this corre-lation was .92 at Time 1 and .94 at Time 2. At Time 1,proportion scores ranged from .000 (i.e., a child nomi-nated by 0 grade mates) to .382 (i.e., a child nominatedby 38.2% of grade mates). At Time 2, scores ranged from.000 to .458.

Perceived Rejection

Children’s perceived rejection was assessed using asingle-item measure from the Social Interactions Survey(SIS; DeRosier, 2001). SIS was designed to measure chil-dren’s perceptions regarding the quality of their relation-ships with peers, parents, teachers, and other adults. EachSIS item consists of a brief vignette describing a child ina particular social scenario. Participants are instructed toindicate the degree to which they fit the description of thechild depicted within the vignette by drawing a mark alonga line that is anchored on one end by the descriptor Notat all, and on the other end by the descriptor Exactly. Theitem specifically pertaining to the perception of rejectionreads as follows:

Some kids are very disliked or rejected by lots of otherkids in their grade.

Often, other kids don’t like to play with them or even beon the same team with them.Other kids may try to avoid them or leave them out oftheir group.How much are you the kind of child that most other kidsreally don’t like?

Not at all Exactly

Participants’ responses were transformed using a 100-point analog scale (a score of 50 was assigned to a mark atthe midpoint of the line), such that scores ranged from 0to 100, with higher scores indicative of greater perceivedrejection.

In a pilot study with third- through fifth-grade stu-dents, the 1-week test–retest reliability of the perceivedrejection measure was .67 (DeRosier & Parkhurst, 2004).Drawing from the same sample used in the current study,DeRosier and Parkhurst also found the item to correlatein the expected direction (r = −.42, p < .001) with the“Social Acceptance” subscale of the Self-Perception Pro-file for Children (SPPC; Harter, 1982, 1985), the mea-sure most frequently used in past research to measurechildren’s perceived acceptance/rejection (e.g., Boivin &Begin, 1989; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Hughes et al., 1997,2001; Kistner et al., 1999; Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991;Panak & Garber, 1992; Patterson et al., 1990). The “SocialAcceptance” subscale of SPPC, however, actually con-sists of items assessing perceptions about friendships andgeneral social competence in addition to perceptions ofacceptance, and thereby confounds these three constructs(see Zakriski & Coie, 1996, for a similar analysis). More-over, there is no specific item on SPPC that taps whetherchildren perceive themselves to be actively disliked (i.e.,rejected). For these reasons, SPPC was not used in thisstudy.

Self- Vs. Peer-Blame for Social Failure Experience

Children completed a modified version of the PeerAttribution Questionnaire (PAQ; see Panak & Garber,1992), an instrument that assesses children’s attributionsfor both social success and social failure situations alongthree dimensions: internal–external (self vs. peer), global–specific, and stable–unstable. Each of the instrument’s18 items presents two possible attributions that mightbe made in response to the situation described. Partic-ipants must decide which of the two attributions theyare more likely to make, and then indicate the degree towhich they endorse that attribution. For this study, weused the two items that gauged children’s tendency toplace blame on either the self or peers in social failuresituations. On the questionnaire, these items were sepa-rated by a number of other items. The two items were


as follows:

Item responses were assigned a scale score of 1–4, with higher scores indicative of a greater tendency toblame peers for one’s social failures. A summary score wasderived by averaging children’s scores on these two items.Across the 941 children in the sample, item scores weremoderately correlated (Time 1: r = .40, p < .001; Time2: r = .41, p < .001). Detailed inspection of children’sresponses suggested that children were responding to thetwo items in an internally consistent manner. At Time 1,93% (n = 874) of the children gave responses to the twoitems that were either identical or within one scale score.The comparable statistic at Time 2 was 92% (n = 870). Asa check, the full regression model described in the Resultssection was reestimated without the 67 children (7% ofsample) who responded in a generally inconsistent mannerto the two items at Time 1. Findings were very similar.

Table I. Time 1 and Time 2 Summary Statistics on Continuous Variables

Entire sample (N = 941) Boys (n = 470) Girls (n = 471)

Measure Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2

Aggression 0.04 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) 0.06 (0.06) 0.06 (0.06) 0.03 (0.03) 0.03 (0.04)Social Preference 0.07 (0.98) 0.07 (0.99) −0.07 (0.96) −0.02 (1.02) 0.21 (0.97) 0.16 (0.95)Perceived Rejection 29.43 (30.49) 28.26 (30.09) 30.21 (31.20) 27.87 (30.29) 28.64 (29.77) 28.64 (29.91)Social Failure Attrib. 3.18 (0.62) 3.08 (0.66) 3.18 (0.67) 3.03 (0.67) 3.19 (0.58) 3.13 (0.65)

Note. Aggression is expressed as a proportion score (e.g., on average, boys were nominated by approximately 6% of their peers as beinga child who “fights a lot”); Social Preference, a Z-Score, has a non-zero sample mean because SP was standardized by school; PerceivedRejection ranged from 0-100, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived rejection; Social Failure Attrib[ution] ranged from 1–4,with higher scores reflecting a greater tendency to blame peers for social failure. Values represent mean(standard deviation).

The regression model was also reestimated after excludingonly the 17 children (2% of sample) who responded mostinconsistently to these two items at Time 1 (i.e., assignedscale scores of 1 and 4 on the items). Again, results werevery similar.

RESULTS

Mean-Level Differences as a Function of Gender

Table I presents full sample and gender-specificmeans and standard deviations on each of the four contin-uous variables employed in this study. Gender differenceson the two self-report variables were not statistically sig-nificant. Consistent with previous research, however, boysreceived significantly higher physical aggression scoresthan did girls at both Time 1 (p < .001) and Time 2(p < .001), and received significantly lower social pref-erence scores than did girls at both Time 1 (p < .001) andTime 2 (p < .01).

Distribution of Perceived Rejection Scores

Table II summarizes the distribution of perceived re-jection scores at Time 1. The distribution of perceivedrejection scores at Time 2 was similar and is not dis-played. For the purpose of presenting this distributionof scores, children were classified as either aggressive ornonaggressive, and also as either rejected or nonrejected.Children were categorized as aggressive if they receivedphysical aggression scores that were at least 1 standarddeviation above the mean score; all other children wereconsidered nonaggressive. At Time 1, 113 children (ap-proximately 12% of the sample) met “aggressive” crite-ria. Children were categorized as rejected if they receiveda social preference score less than −1, a standardized“like most” score less than 0, and a standardized “likeleast” score greater than 0 (for an overview of sociometric


Table II. Distribution of Time 1 Perceived Rejection Scores

Nonrejected (n = 831) Rejected (n = 110)

Perceived Entire sample Nonaggressive Aggressive Nonaggressive Aggressiverejection (N = 941) (n = 760) (n = 71) (n = 68) (n = 42)

0–25 554 (58.87%) 466 (61.32%) 34 (47.89%) 31 (45.59%) 23 (54.76%)26–50 168 (17.85%) 141 (18.55%) 11 (15.49%) 11 (16.18%) 5 (11.90%)51–75 107 (11.37%) 85 (11.18%) 11 (15.49%) 9 (13.24%) 2 (4.76%)76–100 112 (11.90%) 68 (8.95%) 15 (21.13%) 17 (25.00%) 12 (28.57%)

Note. Median score for entire sample was 18.

classification methodology, see Coie et al., 1982; Terry,2000); all other children were considered nonrejected. AtTime 1, 110 children (approximately 12% of the sample)met “rejected” criteria.

As can be seen in the table, 23% of the full sample en-dorsed the perceived rejection item at a level greater than50, the midpoint on the scale, and 12% of the full sam-ple endorsed the item at a level greater than 75, a scorethat is approximately 1.5 standard deviations above themean. Note also that although previous studies have foundaggressive children to exhibit a tendency to inflate theirself-perceptions of social acceptance (e.g., Hughes et al.,1997; Zakriski & Coie, 1996), the current data suggest thatthere are, nevertheless, a considerable percentage of ag-gressive children (some of them sociometrically rejected)who believe themselves to be quite strongly disliked.

Zero-Order Correlations

The within-time and across-time zero-order correla-tions of the four continuous measures are summarized inTables III and IV, respectively. Gender-specific correla-tions are not displayed because correlations were of thesame general strength and direction for boys and girls.With respect to the within-time correlations reported inTable III, several points are worth highlighting. First, thezero-order associations (or lack thereof) between variables

Table III. Zero-Order Correlations Among Measures at Each Timeof Testing

Measure AGG SP PR ATT

Aggression (AGG) — −.44∗ .09∗ −.05Social Preference (SP) −.44∗ — −.10∗ .02Perceived Rejection (PR) .06 −.16∗ — .01Social Failure Attribution (ATT) −.11∗ −.05 .01 —

Note. Fall correlations are above the diagonal; spring correlations arebelow the diagonal.∗ p < .01.

at the Fall assessment were quite similar to those obtainedat the Spring assessment. Second, consistent with previ-ous research (see Coie et al., 1990), social preference andaggression scores were negatively (and moderately) corre-lated. Third, at neither assessment was there a significantassociation between perceived rejection and social failureattributions. The independence of these two self-reportmeasures is helpful with regard to testing the major hy-potheses of the study. Finally, the correlation between per-ceived rejection and peer-assessed social preference wasonly −.10 in the Fall and −.16 in the Spring. The smallmagnitude of these two correlations is entirely consistentwith data from previous studies (e.g., Hughes et al., 2001;Kistner et al., 1999; Panak & Garber, 1992).

The across-time correlations displayed in Table IVreveal the high degree of stability of physical aggressionand social preference scores. The stability coefficients forperceived rejection and social failure attributions weremore modest. Note that there was not a significant zero-order association between Fall perceived rejection andSpring aggression (r = .04, ns); nor did there exist a sig-nificant zero-order association between Fall social failureattribution and Spring aggression (r = −.08, ns).

Testing the Moderation Model

The hypotheses forwarded in this study were testedwithin a multiple regression framework, in which Time 1

Table IV. Zero-Order Correlations of Fall Measures With SpringMeasures

Spring measure

Fall measure AGG SP PR ATT

Aggression (AGG) .83∗ −.40∗ .06 −.09∗Social Preference (SP) −.43∗ .79∗ −.16∗ −.03Perceived Rejection (PR) .04 −.08 .23∗ −.06Social Failure Attribution (ATT) −.08 .03 .02 .22∗

∗p < .01.


(Fall) data was used to predict Time 2 (Spring) physical ag-gression. All variables except gender, which was dummycoded (girl = 0; boy = 1), were continuous. Following thesuggestion of McClelland and Judd (1993), an alpha levelof .10 was established for statistical tests of interactions.For all other tests, an alpha level of .05 was used. To ex-amine whether the positively skewed distribution on thecriterion variable (skewness = 2.85) would unduly biastests of inference, the model to be described below wasestimated twice, once using the raw proportion scores foraggression and once using an arcsine square root transfor-mation of that proportion score. Results using the trans-formed and nontransformed variables were very similar.Since the nonnormal distribution of the criterion does notbias ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates of populationparameters, only those results using the nontransformedproportion score are reported.

The estimated model included all 941 children in thesample and formally tested for the presence of a four-wayinteraction between perceived rejection, social failure at-tribution, baseline (i.e., Fall) aggression, and gender. Theprocedures recommended by Aiken and West (1992) forthe testing and probing of interaction effects were fol-lowed. When estimating the model, all lower order termscomprising the four-way interaction of interest were in-cluded. This constituted the four variables involved inthe interaction, 6 two-way interactions, and 4 three-wayinteractions. Moreover, to facilitate the interpretation ofregression coefficients and to minimize multicollinearitybetween predictor variables and their interaction terms,children’s scores on continuous measures other than so-cial preference were standardized prior to estimating theregression model. Social preference scores had alreadybeen standardized by school, so these scores were cen-tered, but not restandardized, prior to estimating the re-gression model. With the variables thus standardized, the“raw” regression coefficients output by statistical softwarepackages are appropriately interpreted as standardized re-gression coefficients (betas [β]). These are the coefficientsthat are reported below. In the context of this study, betasindex the standard deviation change in Spring aggression(SD = 0.054 [5.4%]) associated with a 1 standard devia-tion change in the Fall predictor.

Variables were entered into the model in two steps. Inthe first step, Spring aggression was regressed on a blockof control variables that included gender, Fall aggression,and Fall social preference. Approximately 69% of thevariance in Spring aggression was accounted for by thelinear combination of these three variables, F(3, 937) =702.80, p < .0001. Fall aggression was strongly predic-tive of Spring aggression (β = .77, p < .0001). Genderand social preference also made significant unique contri-

Table V. Regression Analysis With All Predictor Terms Included

Outcome (Time 2) Predictors (Time 1) R2 β

Aggression .702∗∗∗Gender .15∗∗∗Aggression (AGG) .65∗∗∗Social Preference (SP) −.10∗∗∗Perceived Rejection (PR) −.05†

Social Failure Attribution −.02(ATT)

PR × ATT −.03PR × AGG −.11∗∗PR × Gender .01AGG × ATT −.01AGG × Gender .15∗∗∗ATT × Gender −.01PR × ATT × AGG −.05PR × ATT × Gender .06PR × AGG × Gender .12∗∗AGG × ATT × Gender −.02PR × ATT × AGG × Gender .08∗

† p < .10. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

butions to the prediction of Spring aggression, t(937) =3.52, p = .0004, and t(937) = −4.18, p < .0001, respec-tively. Boys were more likely than girls to behave aggres-sively in the Spring (β = .13), and higher Fall social pref-erence scores were associated with lower levels of Springaggression (β = −.09).

The remaining predictor terms—perceived rejection,social failure attribution, 6 two-way interactions, 4 three-way interactions, and the four-way interaction betweenperceived rejection, social failure attribution, aggression,and gender—were entered in the second step. Perceivedrejection and social failure attribution were not entered inan intermediate step because all hypotheses pertaining tothese variables involved interactios.1 The full model ac-counted for just over 70% of the variance in Spring aggres-sion, and the increment in the proportion of variance ex-plained (.0145) was significant, F(13, 924) = 3.52, p <

.01. This 1.5% increment in explained variance repre-sents 5% of the variance in Spring aggression unaccountedfor by the control variables. Table V displays the betas

1We recognize that some readers will have an interest in viewing datathat describe the relation between these two variables and Spring ag-gression without consideration of any of the hypothesized interactions.As such, in a separate analysis, Fall perceived rejection and Fall socialfailure attribution were entered as a second block of variables. Therewas a marginally significant inverse association between Fall perceivedrejection and Spring aggression (β = −.03, p = .0797), and a signifi-cant inverse relation between Fall external attributions and Spring ag-gression (β = −.04, p = .0496). Caution need be taken in trying tointerpret these betas as “main” effects, however, giving the significantinteraction to be described.


Table VI. Relation (β) of Fall Perceived Rejection to Spring Aggression as a Function of Fall Aggression,Fall Social Failure Attribution, and Gender

Fall aggression

Boys Girls

Fall 10th 50th 85th 95th 10th 50th 85th 95thAttribution .8% 4.0% 10.9% 17.6% 0.0% 1.9% 5.2% 8.3%

Self-blaming −.07 −.12 −.23∗∗∗ −.33∗∗∗ .00 .01 .03 .05Peer-blaming −.03 .00 .08† .15∗ .07 .00 −.12∗∗ −.24∗∗∗

Note. Column headings index level of Fall Aggression by both percentile and gender-specific rawproportion score.† p < .10. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

associated with each predictor term included in the fullmodel. Fall social preference, the only measured vari-able not involved in higher order predictor terms, con-tinued to make a unique contribution to the prediction ofSpring aggression (β = −.10, p < .0001). Gender, Fallaggression, 2 two-way interactions, 1 three-way inter-action, and the four-way interaction also made signifi-cant unique contributions to the prediction of Spring ag-gression. Given the significant four-way interaction (β =.08, p = .0356), the standardized slopes (betas) associ-ated with the five lower order predictor terms are bestinterpreted as conditional effects, characterizing the rela-tion between the predictor and Spring aggression when allother predictors involved in the four-way interaction are attheir mean. These lower-order effects will not be discussedfurther.

To understand the nature of the significant four-wayinteraction, a series of betas was calculated, each describ-ing the association between Fall perceived rejection andSpring aggression, given a particular constellation of “lev-els” on the three moderating variables (i.e., gender, Fallaggression, and Fall social failure attribution). The choiceof probe levels for gender was self-evident. The choiceof probe levels for Fall aggression and Fall social failureattribution was informed by both theoretical and empiri-cal considerations. Selection of probe levels for physicalaggression took into account the much wider range of pro-portion scores among children in the top, as opposed to thebottom, quartile. As such, probing was done at the 10th,50th, 85th, and 95th percentiles of aggression for eachgender (in absolute terms, this reflects eight probe levelsfor aggression). Two levels of social failure attributionswere selected, one to index relatively high peer-blame forsocial failure (scale score of 4.0) and one to index rel-atively strong self-blame for social failure (scale scoreof 1.5). These somewhat asymmetrical probes reflect thenegatively skewed distribution of attribution scores gen-erally (only 1% of children received a scale score of 1.0

on the measure, whereas 22% of children received a scalescore of 4.0). Probing “self-blame” at 1.5 rather than 1.0greatly reduces the standard error associated with parame-ter estimation. Once levels had been chosen, probing of thefour-way interaction was conducted within the full regres-sion model, such that associations between Fall perceivedrejection and Spring aggression at different levels of themoderator variables were considered only after control-ling for all other predictors entered into the model.

Table VI summarizes the simple slopes (βs) that char-acterize the conditional relations between Fall perceivedrejection and Spring physical aggression. There was nosignificant relation between these variables among chil-dren who exhibited either low (10th percentile) or mod-erate (50th percentile) levels of Fall aggression. The re-lation of Fall perceived rejection to Spring aggressionamong children who displayed high levels of Fall aggres-sion (85th and 95th percentiles) varied as a function ofboth gender and children’s attribution for social failure.Results for boys were consistent with hypotheses. Amongboys who were aggressive and self-blaming in the Fall,higher levels of Fall perceived rejection were associatedwith lower levels of Spring aggression. By contrast, amongboys who were aggressive and peer-blaming in the Fall,higher levels of Fall perceived rejection were associatedwith higher levels of Spring aggression. A different patternof results emerged for aggressive girls. Among girls whowere both aggressive and self-blaming in the Fall, therewas no significant association between Fall perceived re-jection and Spring aggression. Moreover, higher levels ofFall perceived rejection were associated with lower lev-els of Spring aggression among girls who were aggressiveand peer-blaming in the Fall.

To summarize, perceived rejection was significantlyrelated to subsequent physical aggression for three“groups” of children, groups that can be described bytheir standing on measures of Fall aggression and Fall so-cial failure attribution as follows: (a) aggressive boys who


tend to blame peers for social failure experiences, (b) ag-gressive boys who tend to blame themselves for socialfailure experiences, and (c) aggressive girls who tend toblame peers for social failure experiences. Perceived rejec-tion was positively associated with later aggression amongchildren meeting the criteria defining the first group,whereas perceived rejection was negatively associatedwith Spring aggression among children meeting the crite-ria defining either of the latter two groups.

Although the findings pertaining to the two groupsof boys are consistent with hypotheses, taken alone theyare not unambiguously supportive, as regression coeffi-cients do not necessarily index absolute change. Take, forexample, only those boys who were aggressive (85th or95th percentile) and peer-blaming in the Fall. The positiveassociation (β = .08 and β = .15, respectively) betweenperceived rejection and later aggression could reflect ei-ther an increase in aggression among boys who were highon perceived rejection in the Fall (the hypothesis), or itcould instead reflect a maintenance of aggression that is“positive” only in the sense that it contrasts with a reduc-tion in aggression exhibited by boys who were low on per-ceived rejection in the Fall. To better gauge the meaningof the conditional betas obtained during probing of the in-teraction, average raw change scores were calculated foreach of the three “groups” just defined.2 These furtheranalyses suggested that the obtained betas did reflect ab-solute changes in aggression over time within this sample.One such analysis, for example, considered the group ofboys who were aggressive (i.e., at or above the 85th per-centile) and peer-blaming (i.e., at or above an attributionscore of 3.0) at the Fall assessment. Of these boys, thosewho were high on perceived rejection at Time 1 (i.e., at orabove 75 [1.5 SD above the mean]) received aggressionscores that increased from Time 1 (M = 0.166) to Time 2(M = 0.186). Moreover, this increase was evident amongboth the sociometrically rejected and nonrejected boys inthis group.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study support the position that chil-dren’s perceptions of their own social acceptance can in-fluence the degree to which they engage in physical ag-

2For the entire sample, approximately 44% of the children (197 girls;219 boys) received a greater aggression score at Time 2 (Spring) thanat Time 1 (Fall). Approximately 47% (216 girls; 226 boys) received alower aggression score at Time 2 than at Time 1. Aggression scores didnot change for approximately 9% of the children (58 girls; 25 boys).Recall that participants were not limited in the number of nominationsthey could make, so the changes in aggression scores do not merelyreflect a redistribution of a fixed number of nominations.

gression, even after controlling for children’s “actual”social acceptance by their peers. The nature of this influ-ence, however, seems to depend upon several other par-ticipant characteristics.

For boys, findings were consistent with the hypothe-sized three-way interaction. Perceived rejection wasprospectively related to changes in physical aggressiononly for boys already exhibiting high levels of aggression,and the direction of those changes varied as a function ofboys’ attributions for social failure experiences. The per-ception of rejection predicted decreased aggression amongaggressive boys who tended to blame themselves for socialfailure experiences, whereas the perception of rejectionpredicted increased aggression among aggressive boyswho tended to blame peers for social failure.

The decrease in aggression among self-blaming ag-gressive boys is consistent with Sandstrom and Coie’s(1999) hypothesis that the perception of rejection, cou-pled with some acceptance of personal responsibility forsocial failure experiences, might motivate a child to makeefforts to decrease the problematic behavior(s) thoughtto be “causing” the rejection. Although this does seem arather plausible account of the reduction in physical ag-gression among these boys, at least one alternative hypoth-esis also merits consideration. As discussed above, priortheory and research suggests that children who both per-ceive themselves to be rejected and blame themselves forsocial failures may be at particular risk for developing in-ternalizing problems (Asher et al., 1990; Goetz & Dweck,1980; Panak & Garber, 1992). It seems possible that thedecrease in aggression evidenced by this group of aggres-sive boys may reflect not an adaptive, motivated choice,but rather a serendipitous “side effect” of internalizingsymptoms such as social withdrawal or a diminished en-ergy level. Further research is needed to determine which,if either, of these mediation hypotheses is viable.

Identification of the mechanism(s) mediating the as-sociation between perceived rejection and increases inaggression among aggressive boys also awaits future em-pirical investigation. In this study, it was hypothesizedthat perceived rejection, coupled with the externalizationof blame for social failure, would precipitate increasesin children’s anger, negative expectations, and attribu-tional and perceptual biases during peer interactions, in-creases that would, in turn, be associated with a height-ened propensity to behave aggressively. Of course, it maybe that other processes either partially or fully account forthis link between perceived rejection and increased ag-gression. Consider, for example, how children’s selectionof friends may play a mediating role. Most children whobelieve themselves to be generally disliked will, neverthe-less, continue to seek a sense of “belongingness” within


the peer culture (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Becausephysical aggression is not uncommon among boys in el-ementary school (Coie & Dodge, 1998), an aggressiveboy who perceives that he is rejected by the mainstreampeer culture stands a good chance of finding other phys-ically aggressive boys among his grade mates who sharea similar predicament, boys who may manifest a moreaccepting attitude towards him. In this way, then, the per-ception of mainstream rejection may motivate a physicallyaggressive boy to spend more time with other aggressivechildren. Indeed, this is consistent with evidence that thefriends of physically aggressive boys tend, themselves, tobe rather aggressive (Bagwell, Coie, Terry, & Lochman,2000; Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy, 1988).Once involved in such friendships, a child’s aggressive be-havior is likely to further consolidate, as he regularly inter-acts with peers who both model and reinforce aggression(Bagwell, Andreassi, & Keeley, 2001; Dishion, Patterson,& Griesler, 1994).

Results obtained for girls in this study contrastedsharply with the results obtained for boys. Perceived re-jection bore no significant relation to later physical ag-gression among aggressive girls who tended to blamethemselves for social failure experiences, while perceivedrejection predicted a decrease in physical aggressionamong aggressive girls who tended to blame their peers forsocial failure experiences. Perhaps the latter result may beat least partially understood by again considering friend-ship selection processes. During elementary school, phys-ical aggression is much less common among girls than it isamong boys (Coie & Dodge, 1998). It is therefore unlikelythat a physically aggressive girl who perceives that she isrejected will find many other physically aggressive girlswith whom to associate. Cross-gender friendships are rel-atively rare among children this age (see Maccoby, 1990,1998), so it is also improbable that a physically aggres-sive girl will establish many ties to her male counterparts.The opportunity for peer modeling and reinforcement ofphysical aggression should, then, be much reduced. Thishypothetical girl, believing that peers are generally reject-ing and hostile (i.e., peer-blaming for social failure expe-riences), may wind up withdrawing from most, if not all,of her peers. In such a case, the reduction in peer-assessedphysical aggression would simply index a more generalreduction in social interaction. Research is needed to testthe validity of this interpretation.

Future research might also examine whether and howthe perception of rejection can influence forms of aggres-sive behavior that are not manifest physically. Consider,for example, relational or social aggression, behavior en-acted with intent to inflict harm upon another person’s rela-tionships or social reputation (e.g., spreading false rumors

about a person; see Crick, 1997; Underwood, 2003). Re-lational aggression occurs far more frequently than doesphysical aggression among girls (Crick, 1997; Crick &Grotpeter, 1995). If the perception of rejection influencesfriendship selection in the manner described above, therelation of perceived rejection to subsequent relational ag-gression may be quite different from the relation betweenperceived rejection and subsequent physical aggression.Girls who engage in high levels of relational aggressionshould be able to find other relationally aggressive girls tobefriend if and when they perceive that those in the peer“mainstream” are rejecting of them. As such, the percep-tion of rejection might lead to increased relational aggres-sion among already aggressive girls who tend to blameothers for their social misfortunes.

Finally, we would offer a cautionary note regardingthe self-report instruments used in this study. Althoughwe have argued that the measure of perceived rejectionemployed herein is an improvement over existing multi-item scales that confound perceived acceptance/rejectionwith other social self-perceptions (e.g., general socialcompetence; self-concept; friendship), we are aware thatsingle-item self-report measures have psychometric draw-backs. It may be prudent to develop alternative measure-ment strategies that capitalize on the psychometric benefitsof multi-item scales while still retaining a narrow focus onthe construct of perceived rejection. Likewise, psychome-tric considerations would argue for expanding upon thetwo-item attribution measure used in this study.

These suggestions for future empirical investigation,whether pertaining to mediation pathways, gender differ-ences, relational aggression, or construct measurement,highlight limitations of the research presented here. Evenwithout further explication, however, these data speakeffectively to the import of considering ways in whichchildren’s self-perceptions of social status might influ-ence behavior independent of their actual level of ac-ceptance among peers. Whereas previous research hasdemonstrated a unique effect of social self-perceptionsupon internalizing emotional experience (Kistner et al.,1999; Panak & Garber, 1992), the present results con-stitute the first prospective evidence that self-perceptionsof social rejection can uniquely influence externalizingbehavior.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported, in part, by a grant to thethird author from the National Institute of Mental Health(MH54227-01A1). The authors thank the staff and stu-dents of the Wake County Public School System for their


cooperation. They also thank David Gardner for his rolein data management.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1992). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Asher, S. R., Parkhurst, J. T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G. A. (1990).Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S. R. Asher & J. D.Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253–273). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Bagwell, C. L., Andreassi, C. L., & Keeley, S. J. (2001, April). Thefriendships of aggressive boys: Relationship quality and conflictmanagement. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Soci-ety for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Bagwell, C. L., Coie, J. D., Terry, R. A., & Lochman, J. E. (2000). Peerclique participation and social status in preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 280–305.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desirefor interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal courseassociated with aggressive–rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), andrejected (nonaggressive) status. Development and Psychopathol-ogy, 7, 669–682.

Boivin, M., & Begin, G. (1989). Peer status and self-perception amongearly elementary school children: The case of the rejected children.Child Development, 60, 591–596.

Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33,135–145.

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of socialwithdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predict-ing loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development andPsychopathology, 7, 765–785.

Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peerrejection in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 483–498.

Burks, V. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J.E. (1999). Knowledge structures, social information processing,and children’s aggressive behavior. Social Development, 8, 220–236.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J.(1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support orpeer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bellmore, A. D. (1999). Accuracy of social self-perceptions and peer competence in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 650–676.

Coie, J. D. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher &J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 365–401). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in chil-dren’s social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-PalmerQuarterly, 29, 261–282.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior.In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 779–862).New York: Wiley.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions andtypes of social status: A cross-age perspective. DevelopmentalPsychology, 18, 557–570.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group be-havior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peerrejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Coie, J., Terry, R., Lenox, K., Lochman, J., & Hyman, C. (1995). Child-hood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of stable patternsof adolescent disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 697–713.

Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnorma-tive forms of aggression: Links to social–psychological adjustment.Developmental Psychology, 33, 610–617.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation ofsocial information-processing mechanisms in children’s social ad-justment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,and social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1993). Children’s perceptions of theirpeer experiences: Attributions, loneliness, social anxiety, and socialavoidance. Developmental Psychology, 29, 244–254.

Crick, N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1998). Response decision processes inrelational and overt aggression. Child Development, 69, 1630–1639.

David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions havea “dark side”? Examination of the link between perceptual biasand aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327–337.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998).Multiple risk factors in the development of externalizing behav-ior problems: Group and individual differences. Development andPsychopathology, 10, 469–493.

DeRosier, M. E. (2001). Social interactions survey. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FrankPorter Graham Child Development Center.

DeRosier, M. E., & Parkhurst, J. T. (2004). Linking social self-perceptions with behavioral and emotional adjustment at school.Manuscript in preparation.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptationsin the development of antisocial behavior: A confluence model. InL. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives(pp. 61–95). New York: Plenum Press.

Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S.,Fontaine, R., et al. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior prob-lems in children. Child Development, 74, 374–393.

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986).Social competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Re-search in Child Development, 51(2, Serial No. 213).

Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincon, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejectionsensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Develop-ment, 69, 1074–1091.

Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Social–cognitiveinfluences on change in aggression over time. Developmental Psy-chology, 34, 996–1006.

Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s social goals and self-efficacy perceptions as influences on their responses to ambiguousprovocation. Child Development, 67, 1329–1344.

Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1998). Linkages between children’s be-liefs about the legitimacy of aggression and their behavior. SocialDevelopment, 7, 321–339.

Feldman, E., & Dodge, K. A. (1987). Social information processingand sociometric status: Sex, age, and situational effects. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 15, 211–227.

Goetz, T. Z., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). Learned helplessness in socialsituations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 246–255.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. ChildDevelopment, 53, 87–97.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children.Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Hecht, D. B., Inderbitzen, H. M., & Bukowski, A. L. (1998). The rela-tionship between peer status and depressive symptoms in childrenand adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 153–160.


Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefsabout aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 72, 408–419.

Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Grossman, P. B. (1997). A positive viewof self: Risk or protection for aggressive children? Developmentand Psychopathology, 9, 75–94.

Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Prasad-Gaur, A. (2001). A positive view ofpeer acceptance in aggressive youth risk for future peer acceptance.Journal of School Psychology, 39, 239–252.

Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus with-drawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptionsin multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879–896.

Hymel, S., & Franke, S. (1985). Children’s peer relations: Assessing self-perceptions. In B. H. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham(Eds.), Children’s peer relations: Issues in assessment and inter-vention (pp. 75–91). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’speer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and ex-ternalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Devel-opment, 61, 2004–2021.

Kistner, J., Balthazor, M., Risi, S., & Burton, C. (1999). Predicting dys-phoria in adolescence from actual and perceived peer acceptance inchildhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 94–104.

Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggres-sion, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing problemsin adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350–1362.

Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peer rejection,aggression, withdrawal, and perceived competence as predictorsof self-reported behavior problems in preadolescence. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 19, 427–449.

Lochman, J. E. (1987). Self and peer perceptions and attributional bi-ases of aggressive and nonaggressive boys in dyadic interactions.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 404–410.

Lochman, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Distorted perceptions indyadic interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive boys: Effectsof prior expectations, context, and boys’ age. Development andPsychopathology, 10, 495–512.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmentalaccount. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming to-gether. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Rabiner, D., & Starnes, R. (1999). Predictingboys’ social acceptance and aggression: The role of mother–childinteractions and boys’ beliefs about peers. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 35, 632–639.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of de-tecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin,114, 376–389.

Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992).Sociometric status and academic, behavioral, and psychologicaladjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 60, 80–87.

Panak, W. F., & Garber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection, andattributions in the prediction of depression in children. Developmentand Psychopathology, 4, 145–165.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school:Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal con-cerns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 231–241.

Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Griesler, P. C. (1990). Children’sperceptions of self and of relationships with others as a function ofsociometric status. Child Development, 61, 1335–1349.

Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive sociallearning mediators of aggression. Child Development, 57, 700–711.

Quiggle, N. L., Garber, J., Panak, W. F., & Dodge, K. A. (1992). Socialinformation processing in aggressive and depressed children. ChildDevelopment, 63, 1305–1320.

Renshaw, P. D., & Brown, P. J. (1993). Loneliness in middle childhood:Concurrent and longitudinal predictors. Child Development, 64,1271–1284.

Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., Mills, R. S. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Con-ceptualizing different developmental pathways to and from socialisolation in childhood. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Inter-nalizing and externalizing expressions of dysfunction (pp. 91–122).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sandstrom, M. J., & Coie, J. D. (1999). A developmental perspective onpeer rejection: Mechanisms of stability and change. Child Devel-opment, 70, 955–966.

Sandstrom, M. J., & Zakriski, A. L. (2004). Understanding the experienceof peer rejection. In J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Chil-dren’s peer relations: From development to intervention (pp. 101–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sobol, M. P., & Earn, B. M. (1985). Assessment of children’s attributionsfor social experiences: Implications for social skills training. In B.H. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’speer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 93–110).New York: Springer-Verlag.

Terry, R. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use ofsociometric techniques. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski(Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance andrejection in the peer system (pp. 27–53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York:Guilford.

Weiner, B. (1990). Attribution in personality psychology. In L. A. Pervin(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 465–485). New York: Guilford Press.

Weiner, B., & Graham, S. (1984). An attributional approach to emo-tional development. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.),Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 167–191). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Zakriski, A. L., & Coie, J. D. (1996). A comparison of aggressive–rejected and nonaggressive–rejected children’s interpretations ofself-directed and other-directed rejection. Child Development, 67,1048–1070.

Effect of Children's Perceived Rejection on Physical Aggression

Documents

Transcript of Effect of Children's Perceived Rejection on Physical Aggression