AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 35, pages 1–13 (2009)

Social Status and Shaming Experiences Related toAdolescent Overt Aggression at SchoolCecilia Aslund1�, Bengt Starrin2,3, Jerzy Leppert1, and Kent W. Nilsson1

1Centre for Clinical Research, Central Hospital of Vasteras, Uppsala University, Vasteras, Sweden2Department for Social Studies, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden3Faculty of Health and Social Studies, Lillehammer College, Lillehammer, Norway

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Feelings of rejection and humiliation in interpersonal interaction are strongly related to aggressive behavior. The aim of this studywas to investigate the association between social status, shaming experiences, gender and adolescent aggressive behavior by using astatus–shaming model. A population-based sample of 5,396 adolescents aged from 15 to 18 completed a questionnaire that askedquestions regarding psychosocial background, shaming experiences, social status of family, peer group and school and involvementin physical or verbal aggression at school. Shaming experiences, i.e. being ridiculed or humiliated by others, were strongly relatedto aggressive behavior. Social status and shaming were related in the prediction of aggressive behavior, suggesting that a person’ssocial status may influence the risk for taking aggressive action when subjected to shaming experiences. Medium social statusseemed to have a protective function in the association between shaming experiences and aggression. This study confirms theimportance of further evaluation of the role of perceived social status and shaming experiences in the understanding of aggressivebehavior. Moreover, the results indicate the need for different kinds of status measures when investigating the associations betweenstatus and behavior in adolescent populations. The results may have important implications for the prevention of bullying at schoolas well as other deviant aggressive behavior among adolescents. Aggr. Behav. 35:1–13, 2009. r 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Keywords: physical and verbal aggression; social status; shame; adolescence; gender differences

INTRODUCTION

Aggressive behavior in the form of violence andbullying is a common problem in many schoolstoday, causing immediate harm and suffering for theaffected individuals as well as long-term conse-quences for the victim’s mental health [Farrington,1993]. Aggressive behavior at school may also beseen as a predictor of future aggression anddelinquency, thereby making prediction and preven-tion of these behaviors important from both apersonal and a societal point of view [Farrington,1993, 1998].

Shaming Experiences

Self-evaluation and social comparison are impor-tant parts of our social interaction with other peoplein order to register our social position and the statusof our relationships with others. They also functionas a monitor to our behavior when necessary [Leary,2001; Wilkinson, 1999]. A common form of self-evaluation is the feeling of shame, which signals athreat to our social bonds to people around us

[Retzinger, 1991; Scheff, 1990, 2003]. Shame hasbeen defined as a class name for a large family ofemotions, ranging from social discomfort andembarrassment characterized by weak intensityand transitory duration to humiliation characterizedby powerful intensity and long duration [Retzinger,1991; Scheff, 1990, 2003]. Feelings of shame andpride are important factors in an individual’sevaluation of the self, and have served a purposeof social control and behavior regulation in allknown civilizations throughout history [Elias, 1978/1982/1983; Scheff, 1988]. However, experiences ofbeing repeatedly subjected to humiliation, ridiculeand social exclusion by other people may result instigmatization and ‘‘toxic’’ shame, which may form

Published online 16 October 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.

interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20286

Received 20 September 2007; Revised 11 August 2008; Accepted 27

August 2008

�Correspondence to: Cecilia Aslund, Centre for Clinical Research,

Central Hospital of Vasteras, Uppsala University, S-72189 Vasteras,

Sweden. E-mail: cecilia.aslund@ltv.se

r 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

a basis for psychological and physical pathologicalreactions [Scheff, 1992]. In this study we willinvestigate the relational aspect of feelings of shameby examining whether an individual has experi-enced, for example, ridicule and insult. The term weuse for this is ‘‘shaming experiences.’’

Aggression and Social Threat

Threatened social bonds signal the need for abehavioral change in order to raise our socialattractiveness in the eyes of other individuals. Oneway to deal with such threats may be throughappeasement gestures, another way is throughaggression. Recently, the importance of socialrejection in interpersonal interaction has beenemphasized as a common factor behind many typesof aggressive behavior [Leary et al., 2006]. It hasfurthermore been suggested that the experience offeeling disrespected, shamed and humiliated is themost frequent trigger of violent crimes [Gilligan,1996]. Social rejection may occur in a single event,such as being humiliated or degraded by anotherperson, but may also be a more or less long-lastingcondition owing to a subjective low position in asociety or hierarchy [Leary, 2001]. Adolescents oftenshow a particular vulnerability to feelings andexperiences of shame, as a consequence of physicaland cognitive maturational changes, increased sen-sitivity to peer evaluation and intensified concernabout gender roles [Reimer, 1996]. Consequently,perceived social status in the peer group may be astrong influence in the development of self-imageand self-esteem among adolescents [Goodman et al.,2001]. However, the relationship between status andaggression is known to be complex, as some studiesshow the associations between aggressive behaviorand peer rejection [Crick, 1996; Dodge, 1983],whereas others associate aggressive behavior withperceived popularity in the peer group [Cillessenand Mayeux, 2004; Hawley, 2003; Prinstein andCillessen, 2003].

Social Status and Aggression

Social status may be defined as one’s socialposition in relation to other individuals in a society,hierarchy or social context. But status can also referto power, authority, honor or prestige. Socioeco-nomic status (SES) as a measurement of income,education and occupation has been a frequentlyexamined factor concerning aggressive behavior, i.e.studies where low-status neighborhoods consistentlyhave been associated with a higher prevalence ofcrime and social problems [Aneshensel and Sucoff,

1996; Burgess, 1916; Farrington, 1998; Shaw andMcKay, 1942]. Today, the relationship betweenviolence and inequality is well established [Marmot,2004; Wilkinson, 1999, 2004] and is presumed to bea cause of unequal societies having lower levels ofsocial capital; people tend to trust each other less,are less likely to be involved in community life andlevels of hostility are higher between citizens[Sampson, 1995; Wilkinson, 2004]. Low SES hasalso been associated with aggressive behavioralproblems at elementary school, possibly as aconsequence of status-related socializing experiences[Dodge et al., 1994]. It seems that low SES is a well-established risk factor for aggressive behavior.On the other hand, theories of social rank

[Gilbert, 1992; Price et al., 1994] suggest thathumans and other species have through evolution-ary selection acquired behavioral strategies forcontesting and safeguarding resources relevant forreproduction. Consequently, hierarchical organiza-tions have developed where the rank ordering of anindividual within a hierarchy parallels that indivi-dual’s priority and access to resources. To maintainhierarchical positions, threats from a subordinatemay elicit down-hierarchy aggression to restrictresource access, whereas threats from a superiormay elicit appeasement efforts and up-hierarchysubordination in order to repair cooperative alli-ances and reduce aggression. Such behavioralstrategies have been identified among animals [Huh-man, 2006] as well as in hierarchical relationshipsbetween humans [Fournier et al., 2002]. Thesetheories suggest that a person with high social statuswho experiences social threat may be more inclinedto aggression in order to defend his/her socialposition and status-related privileges.To sum up, different theories and studies suggest

that aggressive behavior may be more commonbetween both individuals with low social status andhigh social status. This apparently contradictorystatement may make more sense when consideringthat conformity has been suggested to be high at themiddle and low at either end of a status hierarchy[Phillips and Zuckerman, 2001]. According to Dittesand Kelley [1956], conformity increases as actorsvalue their membership in a group but feel insecurein that membership. High-status individuals feelconfident in their social acceptance and are embol-dened to deviate from conventional behavior,whereas low-status individuals defy accepted normsas such a person will be excluded regardless of his/her actions [Hollander, 1958]. Another possiblecause for this apparent paradox may be that thedefinition of social status differs between studies,

2 Aslund et al.

Aggr. Behav.

ranging from socioeconomical conditions to psy-chological factors of respect and dominance in asocial community. We suggest the need to distin-guish between different forms of social status for thefurther understanding of how status may influencebehavior. Most prior research examining socialstatus gradients of health and behavior has usedmeasures of objective SES. However, when regard-ing social status as a stress factor related tohierarchical struggles and comparison of self withothers, it is likely that subjective SES as wellas beliefs of one’s status in social contexts willhave at least as strong an influence as objective SES.This theory has been supported in recent findings,where a person’s subjective beliefs about theirsocial position had strong implications for theirhealth [Adler et al., 2000; Macleod et al., 2005;Operario et al., 2004; Sing-Manoux et al., 2003].Moreover, it has been suggested that adolescentsocial status may be most effectively measuredthrough status in school and peer groups, as SESof this age group is more related to the socialposition of the parents [Goodman et al., 2001]. Inthis study we will investigate two different forms ofadolescent social status: attributed status, where weask the participants to rank their family’s SES andsocial standing compared with the rest of society,and, acquired status, where we ask the participantsto rank their own social status in peer group andschool.It has furthermore been suggested that people with

low social status are particularly vulnerable to actsof humiliation and disrespect from others [Wilk-inson et al., 1998], possibly owing to the lack of‘‘status shields,’’ a concept suggesting that high-status individuals have greater access to social andemotional capital, which makes them less sensitiveto insults [Hochschild, 1983]. In this study we willinvestigate whether shaming experiences may havedifferent influences on aggressive behavior, depend-ing on a person’s subjective social status.

The Status–Shaming Model

Aggression has previously been shown to be acommon reaction to shaming experiences such ashumiliation and ridicule. Similarly, there is evidencefor the associations between social status andaggressive behavior. We propose a model ofaggressive behavior related to both shaming experi-ences and social status, where an individual’s socialstatus position may influence the effects of shamingexperiences and predict the risk for aggressivebehavior.

Our hypotheses are that (1) shaming experienceswill increase the risk for being involved in aggressivebehavior, (2) there will be a difference in occurrenceof aggressive behavior depending on subjectivesocial status and (3) subjects with low or highsubjective social status will exhibit a higher risk ofaggressive behavior following shaming experiencesthan subjects with medium subjective social status.The aim of this study was to investigate the

influence of shaming experiences and subjectivesocial status on adolescent aggressive behaviorthrough the use of the status–shaming model(Fig. 1).

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

This study was part of the Survey of AdolescentLife in Vestmanland—2006, a survey regularlydistributed by the County Council of Vestmanland,Sweden, in order to monitor the psychosocialhealth of the adolescent population of the county.Vestmanland is a medium-sized county, locatedabout 100 km west of Stockholm. The Swedishschool system consists of 9 years of comprehensiveschool, followed by 3 years of high school. Allstudents in the county of Vestmanland who werein the ninth grade (15–16 year olds) of comprehen-sive school and second year (17–18 year olds)of high school comprised the target population(N5 5451). The participants completed a surveyduring class hours and participation was voluntaryand anonymous. Fifty-five of the participantsdid not state their gender and were excludedfrom the study, leaving 5,396 participants (1,608boys and 1,549 girls in grade nine; 1,200 boys and1,039 girls in second year of high school). Participa-tion was generally high, with an overall responserate of 80.3% of the total population and a 97.7%internal (form) response rate. The study wasapproved by the regional ethical review board ofUppsala University.

Social status

Shamingexperiences Aggression

Fig. 1. Status–shaming model.

3Social Status and Shaming

Aggr. Behav.

Measures

Gender and socio-demographic back-ground. The participants’ gender was recordedas boys (0) and girls (1). Three indicators of socio-demographic background were used. Parental se-paration was recorded as parents living together(0) or parents divorced/separated (1). Parents’role in the labor market was recorded as bothparents working (0) or one or both parentsunemployed (1). Type of housing was recorded asliving in a single-family house (0) or living in amultifamily house (1).

Ethnicity. The participants were recorded asScandinavian ethnicity (0) meaning that bothparents were born in Sweden or Scandinavia ornon-Scandinavian ethnicity (1) meaning that at leastone parent was born outside Scandinavia (1). Thereason for this classification was that the countriesof Scandinavia are very similar in culture andlanguage. Dividing the participants by Scandinavianand non-Scandinavian ethnicity was thereforedeemed to be the most appropriate way of classify-ing ethnicity.

Shaming experiences. The participants wereasked two questions: (1) Have you during thelast 3 months experienced that someone hasmade you an object of ridicule in front of others?(2) Have you during the last 3 months experiencedthat someone has insulted your dignity? The answeralternatives were: (0) no, never, (1) rather seldom,(2) sometimes, (3) rather often, (4) almost always. Asummation index of the two questions was createdwith a range of 0–8 points. We then divided theparticipants into two groups depending on thefrequency of shaming experiences. In the shaminggroups, 0–2 points counted as less shaming experi-ences (0) and 3 or more points counted as moreshaming experiences (1).

Social status. We used a modified version ofthe Goodman et al. [2001] scale of adolescentsocial status, where we formulated questionsregarding four different kinds of perceived socialstatus: family SES, family societal standing,social status in peer group and social status inschool. Goodman et al. suggest that traditionalmeasures of SES define a person’s social positionin society, and for adolescents this applies totheir parents’ social position. The social positionof the school community is suggested to be abetter measure of adolescent social status, as peernorms, perceptions and behaviors are such strongdeterminants of adolescent life [Goodman et al.,2001]. On the basis of this reasoning, we chose to

specify two different categories of adolescent socialstatus:Attributed status is the family’s SES and societal

position, which the adolescent is born into and haslittle or no means to influence.Acquired status is the social status in the peer

group and school environment, which the adolescenthas acquired by him/herself in social interactionwith other people. The status position is dependentupon how successful this interaction has been.The variables of attributed status were constructed

out of two questions:

* Family SES: Imagine society as being like aladder. At the bottom are those with the leastmoney, at the top are those with the most. If youthink about how wealthy your own family iscompared with the rest of society, where wouldyou place your family on this scale?

* Family societal standing: Imagine society as beinglike a ladder. At the bottom are those with thelowest standing, at the top are those withthe highest standing in society. If you think ofthe standing/position of your family comparedwith the rest of society, where would you placeyour family on this scale?

The variables of acquired status were constructedout of two questions:

* Peer-group status: Think about your standing/position among your group of friends. At thebottom of the scale are those with the loweststanding in the group, at the top are those withthe highest. Where would you place yourself onthis scale?

* Status in school: Think about your social stand-ing/position among your schoolmates. At thebottom of the scale are those with the loweststanding, at the top are those with the higheststanding at school. Where would you placeyourself on this scale?

Physical aggression. If the participant hadhit, kicked or in any other way inflicted physicalviolence upon another student at school at leastonce during the last school-year, this countedfor having been involved in physical aggression(no physical aggression5 0, involved in physicalaggression5 1).Verbal aggression. If the participant had seriously

teased another student at least once during the lastschool-year, this counted for having been involvedin verbal aggression (no verbal aggression5 0,involved in verbal aggression5 1).

4 Aslund et al.

Aggr. Behav.

Statistical Analysis

Our status scales were composed of seven incre-mental steps, 1 indicating the lowest status, 7 thehighest. We chose to divide the status scales intothree categories: steps 1–3 counted as low status (1),steps 4 and 5 counted as medium status (2) and steps6 and 7 counted as high status (3). These cut-offpoints were made in order to make the groupsas equal in proportion as possible, as most peoplehave a tendency to rank themselves as slightlyabove average regarding attractive personalqualities such as intelligence, friendliness and status[Evans and Kelley, 2004; Marmot, 2004] andthis trend being even more common amongadolescents [Goodman et al., 2001]. Summationindexes of attributed and acquired status werecreated by summarizing the two questions of eachcategory into indexes ranging from 2 to 14 points.These indexes were used in multiple regressionanalysis of the effects of shaming experiencesand social status, in relation to aggression, adjustedfor gender. We used binary logistic regression inorder to investigate the associations between thefactors of the study. The logistic regression resultedin an odds ratio, i.e. a ratio between two odds. Insimplified terms, the odds ratio can be said toexpress a kind of relative risk that an event or a statewill occur. In the logistic regressions, the referencevalue is 1.0. Correlations between the factors of themodels were carried out using Somer’s D, a measureof association between two ordinal variables, whichranges from �1 to 1. Somer’s D is an asymmetricextension of gamma that differs in the inclusion ofthe number of pairs not tied on the independentvariable.

The status–shaming model was created bycombining three different levels (low, medium, high)of four different contexts of subjective socialstatus (family SES, family societal standing, statusin peer group, status at school) with two levelsof shaming (less and more shaming experiences).These factors constituted four status–shaming mod-els depending on the four different contexts ofsubjective social status measured, each modelhaving six fields (low, medium and high statuscombined with less or more shaming experiences).The reference group of the status–shamingmodel was medium status–less shaming experiences.The logistic regressions were made separately foreach status–shaming model, split on girls and boys,as the tendency for aggressive behavior differedbetween genders. Nonparametric w2 was used foranalyzing gender differences of the included factors.

RESULTS

Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive data are reported in Table I. Therewas a slight over-representation of boys in the studypopulation. Girls slightly more often reported livingin an apartment; otherwise, there were no genderdifferences regarding the demographic backgroundfactors. There were, however, gender differences inself-reported status. In a within-group analysis ofeach status area, a significantly higher proportion ofgirls reported low social status at school comparedwith boys (w2 5 18.70, Po.001), whereas a higherproportion of boys reported high family SES(w2 5 41.09, Po.001), high family societal standing(w2 5 23.48, Po.001), high peer-group status(w2 5 13.38, Po.001) and high status at school(w2 5 29.27, Po.001) compared with girls (not givenin tables). Approximately 2/3 of the populationestimated their status to be what in this study wasdefined as medium status, whereas 1/3 estimatedtheir status to be either high or low. Girls reportedsignificantly more shaming experiences than boys,whereas boys were more often involved in bothphysical and verbal aggression (Table I).The correlations of family SES and family societal

standing were between .50 and .55, giving a mediumstrength of the correlation. The correlation of peer-group status and status at school was .41 and .43.All four measures of social status were related toeach other (Table II). The correlation between theindexes of attributed and acquired status was .304,showing no autocorrelation (not given in tables).More shaming experiences were reported by

27.4% of those with low, 13.8% of those withmedium and 13.9% of those with high SES(Po.001), 26.9% of those with low, 14.7% of thosewith medium and 13.5% of those with high familysocietal standing (Po.001), 32.4% of those withlow, 15.0% of those with medium and 13.6% ofthose with high peer-group status (Po.001) and31.2% of those with low, 13.2% of those withmedium and 13.9% of those with high school status(Po.001) (not given in tables).

Social Status, Shaming and Aggression

As given in Table III, multiple regression analysesshowed a negative relation between gender andphysical and verbal aggression, where girls were lessaggressive than boys. We also found that shamingexperiences were positively related to aggression.The two status measures showed opposite patternsin relation to aggression. Attributed status (family

5Social Status and Shaming

Aggr. Behav.

SES and family societal standing) was negativelyrelated to aggression, whereas acquired status(status of peer group and school) was positivelyrelated. All relations were significant (Po.001)except for attributed status in relation to verbalaggression, which was borderline significant(Table III). No significant interactions between

shaming experiences and the two status measureswere found in the multiple regression models.The participants with medium social status were

least involved in aggression at school regardless ofstatus area as given in Table IV. Medium status wastherefore held to be the reference in the logisticregressions. The participants with either low or high

TABLE II. Associations Between Investigated Factors

Boys

Girls

Family

SES

Family social

standing

Peer-group

status

Status in

school

Shaming

experiences

Physical

aggression

Verbal

aggression

Family SES – .536��� .122��� .138��� �.099��� �.066� �.014 ns

Family social

standing

.549��� – .194��� .192��� �.092��� �.041 ns �.004 ns

Peer-group status .140��� .175��� – .394��� �.116��� .115��� .110���

Status in school .173��� .232��� .468��� – �.130��� .058� .060�

Shaming

experiences

�.183��� �.136��� �.144��� �.186��� – .148��� .201���

Physical aggression �.107� �.122� .051 ns �.085 ns .276��� – .445���

Verbal aggression .001 ns �.042 ns .154��� .103�� .169��� .242��� –

Analysis was performed using Somer’s D. Boys are shown above the diagonal and girls below the diagonal. SES, socioeconomic status. Somer’s D���r.001, ��r.01, �r.05, ns, nonsign.

TABLE I. Descriptive Statistics of the Community Sample of Adolescents Aged 15–18 Years: Nonparametricv2 Analysis

Factor Boys, n (%) Girls, n (%) Total, n (%) P

Gender 2,808 (52.0) 2,588 (48.0) 5,396 (100) ��

Nuclear family 1,681 (62.9) 1,561 (62.8) 3,242 (62.9) �

Split family 991 (37.1) 925 (37.2) 1,916 (37.1) ns

Both parents working 2,090 (74.9) 1,876 (72.8) 3,966 (73.9) ���

At least one parent unemployed 700 (25.1) 700 (27.2) 1,400 (26.1) ns

Living in a house 2,096 (75.1) 1,866 (72.4) 3,962 (73.8) ���

Living in an apartment 695 (24.9) 710 (27.6) 1,405 (26.2) �

Scandinavian ethnicity 2,350 (85.7) 2,176 (85.4) 4,526 (85.6) ��

Non-Scandinavian ethnicity 391 (14.3) 371 (14.6) 762 (14.4) ns

Family SES

Low 450 (16.2) 599 (19.7) 949 (17.9) ns

Medium 1,875 (67.7) 1,765 (69.5) 3,640 (68.6) ns

High 446 (16.1) 274 (10.8) 720 (13.6) ���

Family societal standing

Low 341 (12.5) 379 (15.2) 720 (13.8) ns

Medium 1,950 (71.5) 1,806 (72.5) 3,756 (72.0) �

High 437 (16.0) 305 (12.2) 742 (14.2) ���

Peer-group status

Low 237 (8.6) 264 (10.4) 501 (9.4) ns

Medium 1,479 (53.5) 1,398 (54.8) 2,877 (54.1) ns

High 1,049 (37.9) 888 (34.8) 1,937 (36.4) ���

Status in school

Low 343 (12.7) 466 (18.4) 809 (15.5) ���

Medium 1,678 (62.0) 1,565 (61.9) 3,243 (62.0) �

High 684 (25.3) 498 (19.7) 1,182 (22.6) ���

More shaming experiences 403 (14.6) 457 (17.9) 860 (16.2) ���

Involved in physical aggression at school 509 (19.0) 126 (5.0) 635 (12.2) ���

Involved in verbal aggression at school 418 (15.6) 221 (8.7) 639 (12.3) ���

SES, socioeconomic status. w2 ���r.001, ��r.01, �r.05, ns, nonsign.

6 Aslund et al.

Aggr. Behav.

attributed status were equally more likely to beinvolved in verbal aggression. Involvement inphysical aggression was more common among thosewith low attributed status, the risk being doubledcompared with the reference group. Regardingacquired status, involvement in both physical andverbal aggression was more or less equally likelyamong the participants with both high and lowstatus, except among girls with high acquired statuswho were almost twice as likely to be involved inverbal aggression compared with girls with low ormedium acquired status. The participants who

reported more shaming experiences were more ofteninvolved in both physical and verbal aggression, i.e.girls who reported more shaming experiencesexhibited a four times increased risk of beinginvolved in physical aggression. The correlationbetween physical and verbal aggression was r5 .39(Table II).

Status–Shaming Model and PhysicalAggression

High or low attributed status in combination withmore shaming experiences was strongly related tophysical aggression as illustrated in Table V andFigure 2. Among those reporting more shamingexperiences, the participants with medium attributedstatus had the least risk for physical aggression.However, boys and girls showed opposite patterns.Boys with low attributed status and more shamingexperiences had highest risk for physical aggression,whereas the same was true for girls with highattributed status and more shaming experiences.For acquired status, the results showed similar

U-shaped curves. More shaming experiences incombination with either high or low acquired statuswere strongly related to aggression, whereas indivi-duals with medium status had the least risk for

TABLE IV. Aggressive Behavior

Physical aggression Verbal aggression

Boys Girls Boys Girls

% Odds ratio 95% CI % Odds ratio 95% CI % Odds ratio 95% CI % Odds ratio 95% CI

Family SES

Medium 15.7 1 4.3 1 13.4 1 7.6 1

Low 29.5 2.24��� 1.75–2.87 7.6 1.86�� 1.23–2.79 21.1 1.73��� 1.32–2.27 10.5 1.42� 1.01–2.00

High 21.8 1.49��� 1.15–1.94 4.5 1.07 ns 0.57–2.00 19.6 1.58�� 1.20–2.08 12.5 1.73�� 1.15–2.59

Family societal standing

Medium 16.2 1 3.7 1 13.3 1 7.9 1

Low 29.2 2.13��� 1.62–2.79 10.1 2.97��� 1.95–4.52 22.2 1.86��� 1.39–2.50 12.3 1.63�� 1.14–2.33

High 21.9 1.45�� 1.12–1.88 6.0 1.69 ns 0.99–2.89 20.0 1.63��� 1.24–2.14 10.0 1.29 ns 0.85–1.95

Peer-group status

Medium 14.7 1 3.8 1 12.0 1 6.6 1

Low 21.3 1.57� 1.10–2.24 6.5 1.76� 1.00–3.10 18.3 1.65�� 1.13–2.41 7.3 1.11 ns 0.67–1.86

High 24.3 1.85��� 1.51–2.28 5.9 1.60� 1.08–2.37 20.1 1.85��� 1.48–2.31 12.3 1.97��� 1.47–2.64

Status in school

Medium 14.9 1 3.7 1 12.8 1 7.1 1

Low 25.4 1.95��� 1.47–2.59 8.4 2.40��� 1.58–3.66 18.7 1.56�� 1.15–2.13 8.6 1.24 ns 0.85–1.81

High 25.7 1.98��� 1.59–2.46 5.7 1.57 ns 0.99–2.50 20.4 1.74��� 1.37–2.20 13.7 2.09��� 1.51–2.87

Shaming experiences

Less 16.2 1 3.3 1 12.4 1 7.1 1

More 34.5 2.73��� 2.15–3.47 12.2 4.01��� 2.76–5.82 33.6 3.59��� 2.81–4.60 16.3 2.56��� 1.89–3.46

Separate binary logistic regressions of physical and verbal aggression on family SES, family societal standing, peer-group status, status in schooland shaming experiences. SES, socioeconomic status. ��� Pr.001, ��Pr.01, �Pr.05, ns, nonsign.

TABLE III. Multiple Regression Models With B and PValues for Gender, Shaming Experiences, Attributed Status,

Acquired Status and Interactions Between Factors in Relationto Physical and Verbal Aggression

Physical aggression Verbal aggression

B P B P

1. Gender �.214 o.001 �.109 o.001

2. Shaming experiences .329 o.001 .244 o.001

3. Attributed status �.048 .006 �.043 .016

4. Acquired status .114 o.001 .150 o.001

2� 3 �.059 .215 .067 .168

2� 4 �.064 .180 �.095 .050

Adj R2 .094 .066

7Social Status and Shaming

Aggr. Behav.

TABLE

V.Status–ShamingModel

andPhysicalandVerbalAggression

Physicalaggression

Verbalaggression

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

%OR

(95%

CI)

%OR

(95%

CI)

%OR

(95%

CI)

%OR

(95%

CI)

Attributedstatus

FamilySES

���

���

���

���

Medium

status–less

shaming

13.9

13.3

110.6

16.1

1

Low

status–less

shaming

24.1

1.56(1.13–2.15)��

4.5

1.07(0.56–2.02)ns

16.6

1.44(1.01–2.07)�

9.2

1.21(0.77–1.92)ns

Highstatus–less

shaming

18.4

1.36(0.99–1.88)ns

2.2

0.71(0.28–1.81)ns

16.4

1.67(1.20–2.34)��

9.6

1.73(1.04–2.88)�

Medium

status–more

shaming

27.0

2.24(1.59–3.17)���

9.1

2.49(1.43–4.35)���

30.7

3.42(2.42–4.83)���

16.1

2.63(1.72–4.03)���

Low

status–more

shaming

47.4

4.46(2.85–6.98)���

14.9

3.79(2.11–6.78)���

36.5

3.83(2.39–6.15)���

13.6

1.83(1.05–3.17)�

Highstatus–more

shaming

40.4

4.08(2.27–7.34)���

21.2

5.89(2.28–15.24)���

39.7

5.68(3.17–10.18)���

30.3

5.49(2.41–12.51)���

Familysocietalstanding

���

���

���

���

Medium

status–less

shaming

14.0

12.8

110.6

16.4

1

Low

status–less

shaming

22.7

1.55(1.09–2.21)�

6.2

1.85(0.99–3.46)ns

17.6

1.64(1.11–2.41)�

11.3

1.32(0.82–2.13)ns

Highstatus–less

shaming

20.0

1.54(1.12–2.10)��

3.5

1.12(0.52–2.44)ns

16.1

1.63(1.17–2.27)��

7.0

1.09(0.64–1.85)ns

Medium

status–more

shaming

29.6

2.53(1.83–3.51)���

8.1

2.52(1.43–4.44)���

29.5

3.32(2.38–4.63)���

15.8

2.47(1.65–3.70)���

Low

status–more

shaming

50.0

4.72(2.83–7.85)���

18.9

6.22(3.37–11.50)���

37.8

3.72(2.17–6.38)���

14.3

1.75(0.94–3.26)ns

Highstatus–more

shaming

32.1

3.26(1.77–6.01)���

23.1

6.91(2.82–16.92)���

44.4

6.28(3.50–11.30)���

27.5

3.93(1.77–8.74)���

Acquired

status

Peer-groupstatus

���

���

���

���

Medium

status–less

shaming

12.5

13.0

18.9

15.5

1

Low

status–less

shaming

12.3

1.03(0.61–1.75)ns

1.8

.42(0.10–1.76)ns

9.5

1.14(0.63–2.06)ns

4.1

.70(0.29–1.65)ns

Highstatus–less

shaming

21.6

1.87(1.46–2.39)���

4.0

1.25(0.75–2.09)ns

17.6

2.18(1.66–2.87)���

10.2

1.88(1.31–2.70)���

Medium

status–more

shaming

28.0

2.67(1.82–3.91)���

7.6

2.39(1.28–4.44)��

30.9

4.55(3.09–6.69)���

12.9

2.27(1.38–3.72)���

Low

status–more

shaming

40.0

4.41(2.53–7.69)���

15.1

5.19(2.59–10.41)���

37.9

5.00(2.81–8.89)���

13.1

2.38(1.18–4.78)�

Highstatus–more

shaming

40.9

4.59(3.02–6.98)���

16.9

4.23(2.20–8.16)���

36.7

5.35(3.46–8.29)���

24.2

4.49(2.65–7.61)���

Statusin

school

���

���

���

���

Medium

status–less

shaming

13.5

12.8

110.4

15.8

1

Low

status–less

shaming

18.9

1.42(0.96–2.09)ns

4.5

1.82(0.96–3.45)ns

12.0

1.17(0.75–1.84)ns

6.1

1.03(0.59–1.78)ns

Highstatus–less

shaming

21.6

1.77(1.36–2.30)���

3.8

1.38(0.75–2.54)ns

17.0

1.72(1.29–2.29)���

11.9

2.20(1.49–3.23)���

Medium

status–more

shaming

25.3

2.13(1.46–3.10)���

8.6

2.62(1.39–4.91)��

30.6

3.66(2.54–5.27)���

15.2

2.57(1.62–4.10)���

Low

status–more

shaming

41.1

4.14(2.62–6.55)���

16.3

5.92(3.32–10.57)���

34.0

3.77(2.33–6.09)���

13.7

2.17(1.24–3.79)���

Highstatus–more

shaming

47.7

6.11(3.80–9.84)���

15.5

5.41(2.53–11.61)���

40.9

5.19(3.18–8.48)���

22.5

4.34(2.31–8.15)���

Binary

logisticregressionadjusted

forfamilycondition,parentalunem

ployment,typeofhousingandethnicity.SES,socioeconomic

status.��� P

r.001,��

Pr.01,� P

r.05,ns,nonsign.

8 Aslund et al.

Aggr. Behav.

aggression when reporting more shaming experi-ences (Table V and Fig. 2). More shaming experi-ences increased the risk for aggressive behavior in allstatus positions, although the risk was lowest whenhaving medium status (Fig. 2). Among boys, therewere also significant relations between low attrib-uted status and physical aggression as well as highacquired status and physical aggression whenreporting less shaming experiences. No such relationbetween status and physical aggression when report-ing less shaming experiences was found among girls(Table V).

Status–Shaming Model and Verbal Aggression

High status was related to verbal aggressionregardless of the level of the shaming factor(Table V). The relation was strongest when regard-ing acquired status of peer group and school, wherehigh status combined with less shaming experiencesshowed significant associations to verbal aggressionamong both boys and girls. The strongest risk forverbal aggression was found among those whoreported high status combined with more shamingexperiences. Boys with high attributed status andmore shaming experiences had nearly six times theincreased risk of becoming involved in verbalaggression, and boys with high acquired status andmore shaming experiences had five times theincreased risk compared with the reference group.

Girls with high attributed status and more shamingexperiences had four times the increased risk ofbecoming involved in verbal aggression, and girlswith high acquired status and more shamingexperiences had five times the increased riskcompared with the reference group (Table V).

DISCUSSION

In this study we have investigated the effects ofattributed and acquired social status and shamingexperiences on adolescent aggressive behavior atschool. The key findings were: Firstly, the partici-pants who reported more shaming experiences, i.e.being ridiculed and insulted by others, were moreoften involved in aggression at school. Secondly,social status had a significant but small importancefor aggressive behavior without the influence ofshaming experiences. Thirdly, when consideringsocial status and shaming experiences together, thefactors were related and formed a U-shaped curve inthe prediction of aggressive behavior. Mediumstatus seemed to have a protective function in theassociation between shaming experiences and ag-gression, whereas the participants with high or lowstatus who were subjected to shaming experienceshad a higher risk for aggression. It is possible that aperson’s social status may influence the risk fortaking aggressive action when subjected to shamingexperiences. Finally, we found gender differences inphysical aggression depending on attributed status,where boys with low status in combination withmore shaming experiences were most inclinedtoward physical aggression, whereas the same wastrue for girls with high status in combination withmore shaming experiences.Previous research has shown clear associations

between social status and aggression as well asshaming and aggression. Our results suggest that acombination of these two factors may contribute toa further understanding of aggressive behavior. Therisk for aggression following humiliation or insultmay partly depend upon social status and, in turn,social status may affect reactions to shamingexperiences. Shaming constitutes a social threat,and the way to deal with such threats may differdepending upon social status. To further understandthe mechanisms behind aggressive behavior, we needto better understand the interactions between statusand shaming.Our results showed strong associations between

the experiences of humiliation and aggression.However, people may differ in their ability to deal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

LowSES

MediumSES

HighSES

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

LowSES

MediumSES

HighSES

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Lowstatus

Mediumstatus

Highstatus

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Lowstatus

Mediumstatus

Highstatus

a)

c)

b)

d)

More shaming

Less shaming

Fig. 2. . Proportion of boys and girls who have been involved in

physical aggression depending on shaming experiences and family

socioeconomic status (a1b) and shaming experiences and status at

school (c1d).

9Social Status and Shaming

Aggr. Behav.

with insults. Hochschild [1983] used the metaphor‘‘status shield’’ for the suggestion that individualswith high social status have greater access toprotecting resources, such as social or emotionalcapital, which will make them less sensitive toinsults. It may be that such status shields differbetween age groups. Our results suggest thatmedium status, rather than high status, may act asa status shield in the adolescent population of thisstudy. Another possible explanation may be thatparticipants of medium status were not less sensitiveto insults, but rather more reluctant to using overtaggression. The theory of middle-status conformitysuggests that conformity is high at the middle andlow at either end of a status order [Phillips andZuckerman, 2001], creating a U-shaped curve whereindividuals at the extreme ends of a status scale aremore likely to engage in deviant behavior. Status-related aggression may take many different forms,depending on the social norms of a community. It ispossible that individuals of low, medium and highstatus are equally aggressive, but use different formsof aggression, which are more or less visible andnormative to society. It is possible that relationalaggression is a more common form of aggressivebehavior in a group where conformity is high andmembers are eager not to stand out or appeardeviant. Moreover, striving for conformity is knownto peak in adolescence and then decrease with age[Costanzo and Shaw, 1966; Kohlberg, 1976; Piaget,1965].The study further confirms the importance of

differentiating between family status and individualstatus when studying subjective social status amongadolescents, which has previously been suggested byGoodman et al. [2001]. This is particularly evidentwhen considering the gender differences in aggres-sive behavior related to shaming experiences andattributed status. It may be that insult sensitivitydepending on status might differ between boys andgirls. An interesting possibility is that boys and girlsmay be socialized differently not only depending oncultural gender roles [Block, 1983], but possibly alsodepending on social class. Boys from families with alow social position may grow up in a culture wherephysical strength and the capability to defendoneself when insulted are valued, whereas thesecapacities may not be equally accepted in girls.Furthermore, high social status in society and highereducation are more often associated with egalitariangender role attitudes [Bryant, 2003; Morgan andWalker, 1983], which could mean that girls infamilies of high social status may more often beencouraged to defend themselves in the event of a

threat or humiliation. The possibility that aggressionat school partly may be an effect of certainsocialization and upraising connected to social classneeds further investigation.Another issue concerning status and aggression is

that the norms may differ depending on statusposition. It is possible that some kinds of aggressivebehaviors are more commonly accepted in high-status groups, and aggression may even be a cause ofhigh social status in certain societal contexts ofadolescent life. In our study, both boys and girlsof high status regardless of status area were themost frequent verbal aggressors when subjectedto shaming experiences. The acceptance of physicalaggression among youth has been shown toincrease with age [Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004],and among adolescents several studies have shownassociations between aggressive behavior andpeer popularity [Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004;Leadbeater et al., 2006; Prinstein and Cillessen,2003; Vaillancourt and Hymel, 2006]. It has beensuggested that adolescent pro-social and antisocialbehavior is learned through a socialization processoccurring primarily through three sources—family,school and peer clusters [Oetting and Donnermeyer,1998]. The strength of the bonds between a youngperson and the socialization sources determineshow effectively norms are transmitted. Weakbonds between the youth and the primarysocialization sources are risk factors for deviantbehavior. For example, a youth with weak bondsto family and school may still evolve strongbonds to peer clusters, which as a socializationsource have a higher probability of transmittingdeviant norms [Oetting and Donnermeyer, 1998;Valois et al., 2002]. Aggressive behaviors maybe reinforced via social benefits in the peer grouprather than being censured and deemed as inap-propriate [Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004; Prinsteinand Cillessen, 2003].However, aggressive behavior may also cause

certain acquired status positions. For example, ithas been shown that adolescent girls who usephysical or verbal aggression suffer increased rejec-tion by their peers the more aggressive they become[Salmivalli et al., 2000]. On the other hand, it hasbeen suggested that human competition for re-sources involves competition for social status as away to elicit resources from others by appearingmore attractive to them [Sloman et al., 2003]. Accessto resources may also be gained through aggression,and consequently high status and dominance may beseen as a social reward of aggressive behavior[Prinstein and Cillessen, 2003].

10 Aslund et al.

Aggr. Behav.

It is important to point out that the majority ofour study population had never been involved inovert aggression, and the reason for this would bethat such aggression is generally seen as unaccep-table behavior. But when aggression appears, itappears in combination with status and shaming.Cultural norms regulate to which degree and whatkind of aggressive behavior is acceptable in asociety.A limitation of this study is that it relies solely

upon self-reports that involve a risk of informationbias depending on false-positive or false-negativereports from the participants. It has been suggestedthat people are inclined to underreport their ownaggressive behavior as aggression is generally notapproved of in society and is against most culturalnorms [Osterman et al., 1998]. Underreports may beeven more common among female populations asaggressive behavior is less normative for girls thanfor boys [Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004]. However, ithas been shown that accuracy in self-reports ofaggressive behavior increases with age, and amongadolescents self-reports are suggested to be morereliable [Peets and Kikas, 2006]. This may be owingto changes in the norms of adolescent societies,where aggression is seen to be becoming more‘‘normal,’’ or that aggressive behavior in someadolescent contexts is associated with popularityand high status, which gives no reason to deny suchbehavior [Peets and Kikas, 2006]. As the aim of thisstudy was to investigate the associations betweensubjective social status, experiences of shaming andaggressive behavior, self-reports were deemed as themost convenient choice of measurement, despite therisk for underreporting. There is also the possibilitythat aggressive adolescents overestimate their statusposition and popularity, which has been shown instudies of younger children [Leadbeater et al., 2006].A more desirable way to study these phenomenamay be to use a triangular method, combining self-reports, peer ratings and observations of aggressivebehavior and status.Another limitation is that the kinds of aggressive

behavior measured in this study are known to bemore common among boys, whereas girls may bemore inclined to indirect aggressive behaviors[Leadbeater et al., 2006; Osterman et al., 1998;Salmivalli and Kaukiainen, 2004; Vaillancourt andHymel, 2006]. However, some studies have shownthat boys perpetrate the majority of both direct andindirect aggression [Peets and Kikas, 2006]. Overtaggression is generally seen as more deviant andnorm-breaking than indirect aggression, which istypically not ‘‘seen’’ at all. As a consequence, overt

aggression would be a better way to examineassociations between status, social rejection anddeviant aggressive behavior. Also, indirect aggres-sion has been suggested to be particularly inclined tounderestimation in self-reports [Osterman et al.,1998]. Furthermore, the use of only two questions tomeasure physical and verbal aggression may be seenas suboptimal. We do not believe, however, thatadding more similar questions regarding overtaggression at school to our questionnaire wouldhave influenced our results in any direction.A third issue is the question of cause and effect

concerning status, shaming and aggression. It ispossible that certain status positions create psycho-logical vulnerability to shaming experiences, whichcould make even small disputes appear threateningand increase the risk of taking aggressive action.Aggressive behavior may elicit others to be aggres-sive in return, which could be a cause for subjectiveshaming experiences. Furthermore, aggression couldbe a direct cause for a certain status position in thepeer group and school, depending on the norms ofthe subgroup. It has been suggested that adolescentswith high social status may feel more free to useaggressive behavior as a means of expressingfrustration and anger, and that high social statusbrings the privilege of ‘‘getting away’’ with aggres-sive behavior [Cillessen and Mayeux, 2004]. Also, anachieved status position may possibly be maintainedthrough the use of aggression.Moreover, Bonferroni adjustments for multiple

statistical analyses could have been considered in thestudy. However, the data resulted in a positiveoutcome of a distinct hypothesis [Gilbert, 1992;Gilligan, 1996; Leary et al., 2006; Phillips andZuckerman, 2001; Wilkinson, 2004] and indirectlyreplicate previous findings. Therefore, it may beargued that results should be presented withoutBonferroni corrections, as such analysis wouldinvolve a serious risk for Type II errors [Perneger,1998]. There is, however, a need for carefulconsiderations whether our findings are theoreticallyplausible or whether the significant tests wererandom or unexpected findings.Further, social rejection and aggression may both

stem from some common underlying factor, such asbehavioral problems, psychological difficulties orpersonality disorders [Leary et al., 2006]. Typical fora person with antisocial or narcissistic personalitydisorder would be to rate oneself high in status, beextremely sensitive to social put down and possiblyhave a tendency for violent and aggressive behavior.Furthermore, it may be difficult to differ betweensubjective social status and self-esteem. A person

11Social Status and Shaming

Aggr. Behav.

with low self-esteem would be more inclined tointerpret social signals from interpersonal interac-tions as negative evaluations of the self, whereas aperson with high self-esteem may be more likely toassign oneself a high-status position.This study also has several strengths, particularly

considering the population-based design and thehigh participation rate. The high number ofparticipants gives great opportunity to generalizethe results to other adolescent populations as well.Moreover, the results give important contributionto the research on social status, shaming andaggressive behavior, particularly concerning theneed to distinguish between different measures ofsocial status, as well as the introduction of astatus–shaming model, where social status andshaming are related in the prediction of aggressivebehavior.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of aggressive behavior at school furtherconfirms the importance of influence from socialstatus and social rejection in the understanding ofhuman aggression. If our results regarding thestatus–shaming model are replicable, this wouldbring important implications to the research onsocial status and its influence on health and behavioramong both women and men as well as forprevention programs of bullying at school.

REFERENCES

Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. 2000. Relationship

of subjective and objective social status with psychological and

physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white

women. Health Psychol 19:586–592.

Aneshensel CS, Sucoff CA. 1996. The neighborhood context of

adolescent mental health. J Health Soc Behav 37: 293–310.

Block JH. 1983. Differential premises arising from differential

socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Dev

54:1335–1354.

Bryant AN. 2003. Changes in attitudes toward women’s roles:

Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex

Roles 48:131–142.

Burgess EW. 1916. Juvenile delinquency in a small city. J Am Inst

Crim Law Criminol 6:724–728.

Cillessen AHN, Mayeux L. 2004. From censure to reinforcement:

Developmental changes in the association between aggression

and social status. Child Dev 75:147–163.

Costanzo PR, ShawME. 1966. Conformity as a function of age level.

Child Dev 37:967–975.

Crick NR. 1996. The role of overt aggression, relational aggression,

and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future

social adjustment. Child Dev 67:2317–2327.

Dittes EJ, Kelley HH. 1956. Effects of different conditions of

acceptance upon conformity to group norms. J Abnorm Soc

Psychol 53:100–107.

Dodge KA. 1983. Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child

Dev 54:1386–1399.

Dodge KA, Pettit JE, Bates JE. 1994. Socialization mediators of the

relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct

problems. Child Dev 65:649–665.

Elias N. 1978/1982/1983. The Civilizing Process, Vols. 1–3.

New York: Pantheon.

Evans MDR, Kelley J. 2004. Subjective social locations: Data from

21 nations. Int J Public Opin Res 16:3–38.

Farrington DP. 1993. Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime

Justice 17:381–458.

Farrington DP. 1998. Predictors, causes, and correlates of male

youth violence. Crime Justice 24:421–475.

Fournier MA, Moskowitz DS, Zuroff DC. 2002. Social rank

strategies in hierarchical relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol

83:425–433.

Gilbert P. 1992. Depression: The Evolution of Powerlessness. New

York: Penguin.

Gilligan J. 1996. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes.

New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Goodman E, Adler NE, Kawachi I, Frazier AL, Huang B,

Colditz GA. 2001. Adolescents’ perceptions of social status:

Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics

108:E31.

Hawley PH. 2003. Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource

control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted

machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Q 49:279–309.

Hochschild AR. 1983. The Managed Heart—Commercialization of

Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hollander EP. 1958. Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit.

Psychol Rev 65:117–127.

Huhman KL. 2006. Social conflict models: Can they inform us about

human psychopathology? Horm Behav 50:640–646.

Kohlberg L. 1976. Moral stages and moralization. The cognitive-

developmental approach. In: Lickona T (ed.). Moral Develop-

ment and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Leadbeater BJ, Boone EM, Sangster NA, Mathieson LC. 2006.

Sex differences in the personal costs and benefits of relational

and physical aggression in high school. Aggr Behav 32:

409–419.

Leary MR. 2001. Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal

rejection. In: Leary MR (ed.). Interpersonal Rejection. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Leary MR, Twenge JM, Quinlivan E. 2006. Interpersonal rejection

as a determinant of anger and aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Rev

10:111–132.

Macleod J, Smith GD, Metcalfe C, Hart C. 2005. Is subjective social

status a more important determinant of health than objective

social status? Evidence from a prospective observational study of

Scottish men. Soc Sci Med 61:1916–1929.

Marmot, M. 2004. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing

Affects Our Health and Longevity. New York: Henry Holt.

Morgan CS, Walker AJ. 1983. Predicting sex role attitudes. Soc

Psychol Q 46:148–151.

Oetting ER, Donnermeyer JF. 1998. Primary socialization theory:

The etiology of drug use and deviance. I. Subst Use Misuse

33:995–1026.

Operario D, Adler NE, Williams DR. 2004. Subjective social status:

Reliability and predictive utility for global health. Psychol Health

19:237–246.

12 Aslund et al.

Aggr. Behav.

Osterman K, Bjorkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiainen A, Landau

SF, Fraczek A, Caprara GV. 1998. Cross-cultural evidence of

female indirect aggression. Aggr Behav 24:1–8.

Peets K, Kikas E. 2006. Aggressive strategies and victimization

during adolescence: Grade and gender differences, and cross-

informant agreement. Aggr Behav 32:68–79.

Perneger TV. 1998. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. Br

Med J 316:1236–1238.

Phillips DJ, Zuckerman EW. 2001. Middle-status conformity:

Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two

markets. Am J Sociol 107:379–429.

Piaget J. 1965. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free

Press.

Price J, Sloman L, Gardner R, Gilbert P, Rohde P. 1994. The social

competition hypothesis of depression. Br J Psychiatry

164:309–315.

Prinstein MJ, Cillessen AHN. 2003. Forms and functions of

adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer

status. Merrill-Palmer Q 49:310–342.

Reimer MS. 1996. ‘‘Sinking into the ground’’: The development and

consequences of shame in adolescence. Dev Rev 16:321–363.

Retzinger S. 1991. Violent Emotions. Shame and Rage in Marital

Quarrels. London: Sage Publications.

Salmivalli C, Kaukiainen A. 2004. ‘‘Female aggression’’ revisited:

Variable- and person-centered approaches to studying gender

differences in different types of aggression. Aggr Behav

30:158–163.

Salmivalli C, Kaukiainen A, Lagerspetz K. 2000. Aggression and

sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of

aggression matter? Scand J Psychol 41:17–24.

Sampson RJ. 1995. The community. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds).

Crime. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.

Scheff TJ. 1988. Shame and conformity: The deference-emotion

system. Am Sociol Rev 53:395–406.

Scheff TJ. 1990. Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion, and Social

Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Scheff TJ. 1992. Emotion and illness: Anger, by-passed shame and

heart disease. Perspect Soc Probl 3:117–134.

Scheff TJ. 2003. Shame in self and society. Symbolic Interact

26:239–262.

Shaw CR, McKay HD. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban

Areas. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Sing-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG. 2003. Subjective social

status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-

health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med 56:1321–1333.

Sloman L, Gilbert P, Hasey G. 2003. Evolved mechanisms in

depression: The role and interaction of attachment and social

rank in depression. J Affect Disord 74:107–121.

Vaillancourt T, Hymel S. 2006. Aggression and social status: The

moderating roles of sex and peer-values characteristics. Aggr

Behav 32:396–408.

Valois RF, MacDonald JM, Bretous L, Fischer MA, Drane JW.

2002. Risk factors and behaviors associated with adolescent

violence and aggression. Am J Health Behav 26:454–464.

Wilkinson RG. 1999. Health, hierarchy and social anxiety. Ann N Y

Acad Sci 896:48–63.

Wilkinson RG. 2004. Why is violence more common where

inequality is greater? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1036:1–12.

Wilkinson RG, Kawachi I, Kennedy BP. 1998. Mortality, the social

environment, crime and violence. Sociol Health Illn 5:578–597.

13Social Status and Shaming

Aggr. Behav.