Developmental Psychology 2014, Vol. 50, No. 8, 2134 –2143

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0012-1649/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037137

Social Goals, Aggression, Peer Preference, and Popularity: Longitudinal Links During Middle School Tiina Ojanen and Danielle Findley-Van Nostrand

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of South Florida Social goals are associated with behaviors and adjustment among peers. However, it remains unclear whether goals predict adolescent social development. We examined prospective associations among goals, physical and relational aggression, social preference, and popularity during middle school (N ⫽ 384 participants, ages 12–14 years). Agentic (status, power) goals predicted increased relational aggression and communal (closeness) goals predicted decreased physical aggression. Popularity predicted increases and preference predicted decreases in both forms of aggression. Goals moderated longitudinal links between aggression and popularity: Aggression predicted increases in popularity and vice versa for youth with higher agentic goals, and popularity predicted increases in physical aggression for youth with higher agentic and lower communal goals. Implications for research on social goals, aggression, and popularity are discussed. Keywords: social goals, aggression, popularity, peer relationships, adolescence

unclear whether goals are longitudinally associated with behaviors and peer regard. Third, as recently noted (Rodkin, Ryan, Jamison, & Wilson, 2013), even cross-sectional research on goal-behaviorpeer regard links is still scarce and lacks integrated assessment of separate forms of aggression (e.g., physical and relational) and peer regard (peer acceptance and popularity). Specifically, studies on goals, forms of aggression, and peer acceptance have neglected popularity (Ojanen, Findley, & Fuller, 2012; Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, & Peets, 2005), whereas others have examined goals, bullying aggression, and popularity without distinguishing between forms of aggression (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). For comprehensive information on their links with social development, goals should be examined in relation to separate forms of aggression and peer regard, especially during adolescence, when aggression may be physical or relational and when concerns for popularity and peer acceptance peak (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). To address these limitations, we examined longitudinal links among agentic and communal goals, physical and relational aggression, peer acceptance, and popularity during middle school.

Social cognitions underlie behaviors, which, in turn, lend themselves to peer evaluation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Accordingly, social goals or desired outcomes in peer interaction are related to behavior and peer regard during early adolescence when frequency of peer interactions and their impact on well-being increase (Bukowski, Buhrmester, & Underwood, 2011). For instance, adolescent status and dominance goals are positively related to aggression and popularity (status and power in the peer group) and negatively to peer acceptance (likeability by individual peers), whereas closeness goals are positively related to prosocial behaviors and peer acceptance (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Ojanen, Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005). However, research on social goals remains limited in several ways. First, this research has traditionally focused on children, although it is during adolescence when clarity of goals (McAdams & Olson, 2010), freedom to pursue personal goals (ZimmerGembeck & Collins, 2003), and social skills facilitating goaloriented behaviors (Choudhury, Blakemore, & Charman, 2006) increase. For instance, with peaking concerns for popularity among peers (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), adolescent aggression is linked to goals for status among peers (Ojanen et al., 2005; Sijtsema et al., 2009). However, as a second limitation, this research remains mostly cross-sectional. Dawes and Xie (2013) recently examined popularity goal as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent popularity among peers but failed to find this association (although this goal moderated the aggression–popularity link for popular youth; Dawes & Xie, 2013). Thus, it remains mostly

Agentic and Communal Goals During Adolescence Social goals may be assessed by interviewing youth about their goals in hypothetical peer situations (Erdley & Asher, 1999) or, as in this study, as traitlike motivational orientations. Like any cognitions stored in long-term memory (Crick & Dodge, 1994), traitlike goals are presumably activated by contextual cues and affect information processing and behavior. For instance, links between status goals and peer-reported aggression (e.g., Caravita & Cillessen, 2012) suggest status goals become activated in peer interaction and further activate situation-specific goals and behaviors, such as aggression used to establish status during early adolescence (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Fundamental human motivations include agency and communion (Bakan, 1966), both critical for understanding adjustment

This article was published Online First June 9, 2014. Tiina Ojanen and Danielle Findley-Van Nostrand, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tiina Ojanen, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620. E-mail: [email protected] 2134

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

GOALS, AGGRESSION, PREFERENCE, AND POPULARITY

among peers (e.g., Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Ojanen et al., 2012). Broadly speaking, agency refers to interest in the self, independence, dominance, and mastery, and communion to relational needs, affiliation, and intimacy (Hagemeyer & Neyer, 2012). The Interpersonal Goals Inventory for Children (IGI–C; Ojanen et al., 2005) measures agentic and communal goals reflecting status and closeness motivation, respectively, among peers. In research using the IGI–C across nations, agentic goals are associated with high self-esteem, narcissism, aggression, peer rejection, and popularity, and communal goals are associated with temperamental affiliation, positive peer perceptions, prosocial behavior, and peer acceptance (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Ojanen et al., 2005, 2012; Salmivalli et al., 2005; Sijtsema et al., 2009; Thomaes, Stegge, Bushman, Olthof, & Denissen, 2008). However, it remains unclear whether goals predict changes in behavior or peer regard during adolescence. Longitudinal findings on social achievement goals predicting adjustment among peers from third to fifth grade (Rodkin et al., 2013) and dominance and intimacy goals predicting classroom behavior in the transition to middle school (Kiefer & Ryan, 2008) suggest so (see also Dawes & Xie, 2013).1

Social Goals, Forms of Aggression, and Peer Regard: An Integrated Perspective Longitudinal research on links among goals, behaviors, and peer regard is needed to advance understanding of social development among peers, the primary socialization agents during adolescence. In particular, research on aggression is critical during middle school when even normally developing youth may engage in aggression to seek agency and independence (Moffitt, 1993). In the following, we discuss goals’ established cross-sectional links to forms of aggression and peer regard, longitudinal links between forms of aggression and peer regard, and emerging research on goals as moderators of longitudinal aggression– popularity associations. Physical aggression (hitting, kicking, punching) is distinct from relational aggression aimed at inflicting harm via relationship manipulation like gossiping or social exclusion (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Although positively correlated, physical and relational aggression have diverging relations with psychosocial adjustment, including social goals. Supporting the view that adolescents may use aggression to establish dominance among peers (Pellegrini & Long, 2002), physical and relational aggression are both positively related to dominance goals in middle school; however, only physical aggression is also negatively related to communal goals (Ojanen et al., 2012). Whereas physical aggression directly compromises closeness with peers (a desired outcome of communal goals), relational aggression likely requires some (e.g., gossiping would not be effective without access to peers willing to spread rumors) and thus is logically unrelated rather than negatively related to communal goals (see Ojanen et al., 2012). However, it remains unclear whether social goals are related to changes in adolescent aggression. Further, awareness of and interest in approval by peers are heightened during adolescence (Kiefer & Ryan, 2011). As related yet distinct forms of peer regard, peer acceptance or social preference (acceptance while accounting for rejection; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982) reflects likeability, whereas popularity reflects status and power among peers. Preference is positively related to

2135

prosocial behaviors and negatively to aggression, but popularity is positively related to both (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Popularity becomes increasingly related to aggression during middle school (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), when concerns for popularity peak (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), and aggression may be admired as a sign of independence and power among peers (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Peer acceptance and popularity are also related to social goals (likely via behaviors; Ojanen et al., 2005): Communal goals are positively related to prosocial behaviors as well as peer acceptance, whereas agentic goals are positively related to aggression as well as popularity and negatively related to preference (e.g., Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Sijtsema et al., 2009). However, potential longitudinal goal–peer regard links remain unclear. Although more distal than goal– behavior links (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dawes & Xie, 2013), they are possible. Longitudinal associations between forms of aggression and peer regard are established. Aggression and social preference are negatively related concurrently and across time (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005): aggressive youth are not well liked by peers. Across time, aggression may decrease preference and preference may decrease aggression by facilitating feelings of belonging and the understanding that prosocial rather than aggressive behaviors create cohesive peer relationships (Coie, 1990). Further, physical aggression is more negatively related to preference than relational aggression is (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), which, relative to physical aggression, is more strongly related to popularity (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). Relational aggression may be especially effective in wielding social power (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Yet, popularity is also related to overt (physical and verbal) aggression during middle school (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), suggesting that physical altercations may also be admired by peers during adolescence. Across time, popularity predicts increased aggression more than the reverse (although some reciprocal links are found; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004). Although aggression explains concurrent variance in popularity (e.g., Sijtsema et al., 2009), it may not be enough to predict increases in popularity, which also requires sociability and leadership (Puckett, Aikins, & Cillessen, 2008). Popularity, in turn, may be maintained primarily with increasing aggression to perpetuate power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) and attack competitors for status (Adler & Adler, 1998). Links between aggression and popularity may further depend on, or be moderated by, goals for peer interaction. Aggression was recently found to predict increased popularity for popular youth with higher (but not lower) popularity goals (Dawes & Xie, 2013). This suggests that whether aggression predicts popularity or vice versa may depend on adolescent goals for peer interaction. Yet, research on longitudinal links from popularity to aggression and agentic and communal goals as fundamental motivations (Bakan, 1966; Hagemeyer & Neyer, 2012) in this context is missing. To 1 In the achievement goal framework, social goals reflect motives to develop versus demonstrate social competence, including social development, demonstration-approach, and demonstration-avoidance goals (Rodkin et al., 2013). Although different from goals reflecting desired outcomes in social interaction (content approach to social goals), social achievement goals are related to and predictive of social adjustment during elementary school (Rodkin et al., 2013).

2136

OJANEN AND FINDLEY-VAN NOSTRAND

address this and other noted limitations in existing research on social goals and adjustment among peers, our aims and hypotheses in the present study were as follows.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Present Goals, Hypotheses, and Analytic Strategy We addressed three main aims: (a) to examine goals’ longitudinal links to forms of aggression and peer regard, (b) to replicate established longitudinal links between forms of aggression and peer regard, and (c) to examine goals as moderators in longitudinal aggression–popularity and popularity–aggression associations. With respect to the first aim, we expected agentic (status) goals to predict increased relational aggression. Because relational more than physical aggression is related to status or popularity among peers (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), youth may use primarily relational aggression to seek status. Further, communal goals related negatively to physical aggression (Ojanen et al., 2012) were expected to predict decreasing physical aggression across time. Additionally, because successful peer interactions require coordination of multiple goals (Dodge, Asher, & Parkhurst, 1989), we also examined whether agentic and communal goals interacted in predicting subsequent physical aggression. On average, agentic goals may not predict increased physical aggression, but they may for youth with simultaneously low communal goals, that is, for those seeking status with little regard for closeness with peers. Further, although direct goal–peer regard links are more distal (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dawes & Xie, 2013), we also examined whether agentic goals predicted increasing popularity and decreasing preference and whether communal goals predicted increasing preference (e.g., Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Ojanen et al., 2005). Regarding the second aim and in line with existing literature, we expected popularity to predict increased aggression (more than vice versa) and relational more than physical aggression (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004). We also expected aggression and social preference to be mutually associated across time (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005). Because physical more than relational aggression is negatively related to preference (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), we expected primarily physical aggression to predict decreasing preference. Additionally, we also examined potential reciprocal links between physical and relational aggression and between preference and popularity. Aggression may develop from physical to social forms with age as social skills enabling youth to manipulate others increase and direct aggression becomes less acceptable (Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006), and relationally aggressive youth may also increasingly display physical aggression (Côté, Vaillancourt, Barker, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2007). Likewise, preference may predict gains in popularity and vice versa (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Our third aim was to examine goals as moderators of longitudinal links between aggression and popularity. In line with and extending recent research (Dawes & Xie, 2013), we expected popularity to predict increasing aggression and aggression to predict increasing popularity for youth with higher (but not lower) agentic goals. Motivated by status concerns, these youth are most likely to maintain existing popularity with aggression (see Keltner et al., 2003) and also use aggression intentionally (Rose et al., 2004) to gain popularity. Further, we expected these links with popularity to involve relational more than physical aggression (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). We also explored whether agentic

and communal goals jointly moderated the link between popularity and physical aggression: Popularity may predict gains in physical aggression for youth with higher agentic and lower communal goals (i.e., for those with high status motivation and less regard for closeness with peers). In addition to the main hypotheses, we also expected to observe gender differences in variable means and differences in construct stability between forms of aggression and forms of peer regard. First, boys were expected to score higher in agentic goals and physical aggression than girls (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), who were expected to score higher than boys in communal goals, preference, and potentially in relational aggression (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Puckett et al., 2008). Second, in line with past research (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Dijkstra, Berger, & Linderberg, 2011), we expected peer-reported physical and relational aggression to be equally prevalent in middle school. However, considering gender differences in assertiveness versus relational orientation (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), we also examined whether physical aggression was more prevalent among boys and relational aggression among girls. Third, we expected peerreported physical aggression to be more stable than relational aggression and popularity to be more stable than social preference (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Dijkstra et al., 2011) because levels of group consensus on overt versus relational aggression and popularity versus likeability by individual peers may differ. Our analytic strategy was as follows. First, we used path modeling to examine several simultaneous longitudinal associations in integrated models. On the basis of conceptual considerations, two models were estimated: one depicting longitudinal paths from goals to the forms of aggression and peer regard and one estimating longitudinal paths between forms of aggression and peer regard. In both models, gender was examined as a moderator. Although goals are usually related to behaviors and peer regard similarly across gender, some gender differences are possible in aggression–peer regard links (e.g., Rose et al., 2004; ZimmerGembeck et al., 2005). Second, to examine goals as moderators of longitudinal links between aggression and popularity, we estimated interactive effects while controlling for prior level of each outcome.

Method Participants The data were collected in urban southeast Finland. From the original participant pool of approximately 500 students, participant assent and parental consent to participate were obtained from 384 students in the first two grades of two local middle schools (12–14 years; 53% boys; 96% Finnish). Participants represented various socioeconomic status (SES) classes. In the Finnish education system, students from diverse backgrounds attend the same schools on the basis of township rather than SES (and there are no private schools or school districts).

Procedure and Longitudinal Attrition Data were collected at two occasions: T1 ⫽ March of the 7th and 8th grades and T2 ⫽ March of the 8th and 9th grades. Participant and parental consents were obtained prior to each

GOALS, AGGRESSION, PREFERENCE, AND POPULARITY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

occasion (consent return rates: T1 ⫽ 85%; T2 ⫽ 70%). Data collection took place in classrooms during school hours. Instructions were written down on the surveys and explained out loud by the researcher supervising the data collection. Approximately 30% of the data were missing by T2. We conducted the longitudinal analyses using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator, a reliable missing data imputation method (Enders, 2001), which estimates missing values on the basis of available data for all participants (N ⫽ 384 across time; comparison of results using imputed data versus listwise deletion indicated no differences in findings).

Measures Social goals. Adolescent social goals in the peer context were assessed with the IGI–C (Ojanen et al., 2005). Under the frame “When with my peers, it is important to me that . . . ,” participants were asked to rate the subjective importance of 33 interpersonal outcomes on a 7-point scale: 1 ⫽ I disagree; 2–3 ⫽ I somewhat disagree; 5– 6 ⫽ I somewhat agree; 7 ⫽ I agree. The IGI–C has evidenced criterion validity in terms of various self-, peer-, and teacher-reported variables across countries (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Salmivalli et al., 2005; Sijtsema et al., 2009; Thomaes et al., 2008) and includes eight subscales assessing goals in varying degrees of agency (status, power) and communion (closeness, affiliation; for all individual items, see Ojanen et al., 2005). With the exception of one scale (Submissive–Communal Goals; T1 ␣ ⫽ .62; T2 ␣ ⫽ .57), all subscales were internally consistent across time (␣ ⬎ .70). Sample items for each subscale are as follows (for a complete list of items in each scale, see Ojanen et al., 2005): agentic, “others think you are smart”; agentic and communal, “you are able to tell others how you feel”; communal, “real friendship develops between you and others”; submissive and communal, “others accept you”; submissive, “you are able to please others”; submissive and separate, “your peers do not laugh at you”; separate, “you keep others at a suitable distance”; and agentic and separate, “the group does what you say.” Following existing literature (e.g., Ojanen et al., 2005; Thomaes et al., 2008), information in the eight subscales was summarized into agentic and communal vector scores (Locke, 2003): Communal Goals ⫽ Communal ⫺ Separate ⫹ [.707(Communal and Agentic ⫹ Communal and submissive ⫺ Separate and Agentic ⫺ Separate and Submissive)] and Agentic Goals ⫽ Agentic ⫺ Submissive ⫹ [.707(Communal and Agentic ⫹ Separate and Agentic ⫺ Communal and Submissive ⫺ Separate and Submissive)] These scores were used to assess agentic and communal goals in this study. Physical and relational aggression. Peer reports were used to assess physical and relational aggression. Participants were asked to nominate up to 10 classmates from their homeroom who fit each item, but they were also told that they could

2137

nominate fewer classmates or nobody, if this was their genuine perception. Being able to nominate 10 peers was considered nonrestricting relative to class sizes that varied from 19 to 25 students. Students took all curriculum-critical classes with homeroom peers and thus spent a considerable amount of time with them on a weekly basis. Nominations could be given to any homeroom peers, but nominations for nonparticipating adolescents were not considered. Two items were used to measure physical aggression—“fights with others” (T1 ␣ ⫽ .88) and “pushes, kicks, or punches others” (T2 ␣ ⫽ .93)—and two items were used to measure relational aggression—“says mean things about others” (T1 ␣ ⫽ .73) and “gossips or spreads rumors about others” (T2 ␣ ⫽ .74). Nominations for each item were summed for each participant. To control for the variation in the number of nominators across homerooms, we standardized the scores by the number of participants in each class conducting the evaluation. At T1, physical aggression scores ranged from 0.00 to 1.22, and relation aggression scores ranged from 0.00 to 1.33. At T2, the respective ranges were 0.00 –1.47 and 0.00 –1.27. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that physical and relational aggression represented distinct constructs of aggression. At each time point, a CFA model in which the items loaded on two separate factors fit the data well and significantly better than a model in which all items loaded on a single factor of aggression, which fit the data poorly: for the T1 one-factor model, ␹2(3, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 465.22, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ .57, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .63; for the T1 two-factor model, ␹2(2, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 2.25, CFI ⫽ 1.00, RMSEA ⫽ .02; for the change in model fit, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 462.97, p ⬍ .001; for the T2 one-factor model, ␹2(2, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 142.25, CFI ⫽ .78, RMSEA ⫽ .51; for the T2 two-factor model, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 6.16, CFI ⫽ .99, RMSEA ⫽ .06; for the change in model fit, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 136.09, p ⬍ .001. The respective manifest variables were normalized to reduce skewness (Norusis, 1993). Social preference and popularity. On the basis of traditional sociometric rating procedures (Coie et al., 1982), social preference was measured by asking participants to nominate up to 10 homeroom peers they liked the most and up to 10 homeroom peers they liked the least (the peer-nomination procedure is outlined above). The number of nominations for each item was summed for each participant, and these scores were standardized by dividing them by the number of nominators present and conducting the evaluation. Finally, the standardized number of least-liked nominations was subtracted from the standardized number of most-liked nominations, and this score was further standardized into a z score to index social preference (Coie et al., 1982). T1 preference scores ranged from ⫺3.47 to 2.75, and T2 preference scores from ⫺3.00 to 2.63. Also following existing literature (e.g., Sijtsema et al., 2009), perceived popularity was assessed with the item “Who is the most popular?” (see the peer-nomination procedure outlined above). Nominations were summed for each participant and standardized by the number of nominators in each class conducting the evaluation. T1 popularity scores ranged from 0.00 to .81, and T2 popularity scores ranged from 0.00 to .73.

OJANEN AND FINDLEY-VAN NOSTRAND

2138 Results

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Descriptive Statistics Zero-order correlations and variable means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. As seen here, the overall pattern of associations emerged as expected. For instance, physical and relational aggression were positively related to popularity but negatively related to social preference at each time point. Mean-level comparisons by gender indicated that, at both time points, girls scored higher in communal goals than did boys: For T1 girls, M ⫽ 5.27, SD ⫽ 2.76; for T1 boys, M ⫽ 2.91, SD ⫽ 2.40, t(381) ⫽ 8.96, p ⬍ .01; for T2 girls, M ⫽ 4.08, SD ⫽ 1.97; for T2 boys, M ⫽ 2.13, SD ⫽ 1.67; t(268) ⫽ 8.76, p ⬍ .01. Boys scored higher in physical aggression, also consistently across time: For T1 boys, M ⫽ .30, SD ⫽ .85; for T1 girls: M ⫽ ⫺.16, SD ⫽ .48; t(381) ⫽ ⫺6.43, p ⬍ .01; for T2 boys, M ⫽ .29, SD ⫽ .83; for T2 girls, M ⫽ ⫺.13, SD ⫽ .48; t(273) ⫽ ⫺5.06, p ⬍ .01. The average levels of physical and relational aggression were similar rather than different across time. However, when examined separately by gender, boys scored higher in physical than relational aggression at T1 (physical: M ⫽ .30, SD ⫽ .85; relational: M ⫽ .00, SD ⫽ .79), t(201) ⫽ 5.91, p ⬍ .01, and T2 (physical: M ⫽ .29, SD ⫽ .83; relational: M ⫽ .10, SD ⫽ .78), t(141) ⫽ 3.35, p ⬍ .01, whereas girls scored higher in relational than physical aggression at T1 (physical: M ⫽ ⫺.16, SD ⫽ .48; relational: M ⫽ .14, SD ⫽ .90), t(180) ⫽ ⫺5.08, p ⬍ .01, and at T2 (physical: M ⫽ ⫺.13, SD ⫽ .48; relational: M ⫽ .04, SD ⫽ .83), t(132) ⫽ ⫺2.64, p ⬍ .05.

2007). On the basis of the hypotheses, two models depicting longitudinal associations among the variables were specified. Results are reported in Figure 1. In all models, autoregressive paths were estimated to control for prior levels of each outcome, and predictor and outcome variables were allowed to correlate. Model 1 estimated longitudinal paths from goals to the subsequent forms of aggression and peer regard and fit the data acceptably, ␹2(24) ⫽ 60.15, CFI ⫽ .95, RMSEA ⫽ .06. As seen in Figure 1A, agentic goals predicted increases in relational aggression, whereas communal goals predicted decreases in physical aggression and increases in preference. Multigroup comparisons by gender indicated no gender differences in these paths. We also examined whether agentic and communal goals interacted to predict physical aggression. This effect was in the expected direction but nonsignificant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⫽ .11. Multigroup model comparisons by gender (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) indicated that all associations were similar across gender. Model 2 estimated longitudinal paths between the forms of aggression and peer regard and fit the data well, ␹2(1) ⫽ 1.07, CFI ⫽ 1.00, RMSEA ⫽ .01. As seen in Figure 1B, physical and relational aggression did not predict changes in preference or popularity, but preference predicted decreases and popularity predicted increases in both forms of aggression. Physical aggression predicted increases in relational aggression (see Figure 1B). Multigroup model comparisons by gender indicated one gender difference, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 384) ⫽ 4.99, p ⬍ .01. Physical aggression predicted increases in relational aggression for girls, ␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05, but not for boys, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.01, p ⫽ .90.

Longitudinal Links Between Forms of Aggression and Popularity: Moderation by Goals

Prospective Associations Among Goals, Aggression, and Peer Regard: Path Analyses Path modeling (Mplus 5.2; Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2007) was used to examine longitudinal associations among the variables while controlling for their prior levels across time. Because the chi-square fit statistic is affected by sample size, model fit was evaluated on the basis of the CFI and the RMSEA. Model fit is acceptable when the CFI coefficient is equal to or above .95 and the RMSEA coefficient is below .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Steiger,

To examine whether goals moderated longitudinal links between the forms of aggression and popularity, we assessed continuous two- and three-way interactive effects while controlling for prior levels of each outcome. Follow-up tests were conducted examining the effect of the predictor variable on the outcome at different levels of the moderator variable (M ⫹/⫺ 1 SD; see Aiken & West, 1991). Results are reported in Table 2. As seen here, T1 agentic goals and popularity interacted in predicting T2 relational

Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables, Variable Means, and Standard Deviations Variable Time 1 1. Agentic goals 2. Communal goals 3. Physical aggression 4. Relational aggression 5. Social preference 6. Popularity Time 2 7. Agentic goals 8. Communal goals 9. Physical aggression 10. Relational aggression 11. Social preference 12. Popularity ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

ⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .01.

1

2

3

4

5

— ⫺.08 .05 .06 ⫺.06 .04

— ⫺.15ⴱⴱ .06 .11ⴱ .13ⴱ

— .46ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ

— ⫺.24ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ

— .21ⴱⴱ

.51ⴱⴱ ⫺.08 .08 .15ⴱ ⫺.08 .05

.09 .64ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ .00 .20ⴱⴱ .12ⴱ

.01 ⫺.15ⴱ .59ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ

.06 .04 .37ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ

.05 .13ⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

— ⫺.02 .05 .32ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .74ⴱⴱ

— .06 .04 .09 .03 .04

— ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 .13ⴱ .07

— .56ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ

— ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ

— .25ⴱⴱ

—

M

SD

⫺1.42 4.02 .08 .06 .00 .06

2.42 2.83 .75 .84 .98 .12

⫺1.24 3.07 .09 .06 .01 .07

1.90 2.06 .71 .80 .98 .14

GOALS, AGGRESSION, PREFERENCE, AND POPULARITY

2139

munal goals, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.14, p ⫽ .07; and nonsignificant for those with high communal goals, ␤ ⫽ .17, p ⫽ .16. Among youth with low communal goals, popularity predicted increases in physical aggression for those high with agentic goals, ␤ ⫽ .94, p ⬍ .001, but not for those with medium, ␤ ⫽ .35, p ⫽ .10, or low, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, p ⫽ .70, agentic goals.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Discussion In this study, we examined prospective associations among agentic and communal goals, physical and relational aggression, preference, and popularity among peers during middle school. Longitudinal associations among goals and aggression emerged as expected, and preference and popularity showed divergent longitudinal links with goals and forms of aggression. Further, agentic goals moderated longitudinal links between aggression and popularity and vice versa, and agentic and communal goals concurrently moderated the link between popularity and subsequent physical aggression. Implications for the study of social goals, aggression, and popularity among peers are discussed.

Longitudinal Links From Goals to Forms of Aggression and Peer Regard

Figure 1. A. Goals’ longitudinal associations with forms of aggression and peer regard. B. Longitudinal associations among forms of aggression and peer regard. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. Note: Standardized regression are coefficients reported.

aggression: Popularity predicted increases in relational aggression for those with medium or high (but not low) levels of agentic goals. Likewise, T1 agentic goals also interacted with T1 aggression in predicting T2 popularity: Relational and physical aggression both predicted increases in popularity for those with medium or high (but now low) levels of agentic goals (see Table 2). We also explored whether agentic and communal goals concurrently moderated the longitudinal link between popularity and physical aggression. This three-way interaction (Agentic Goals ⫻ Communal Goals ⫻ Popularity) was significant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⬍ .001. Follow-up analyses indicated that a two-way interaction between agentic goals and popularity in predicting physical aggression was significant for youth with low communal goals, ␤ ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .05; marginally significant for those with medium com-

Our first aim was to examine longitudinal links from goals to aggression and peer regard. As expected, agentic (status, power) goals for peer interaction were associated with increases in relational aggression across time. This finding extends established cross-sectional links between agentic goals and adolescent aggression (e.g., Caravita & Cillessen, 2012; Sijtsema et al., 2009) to longitudinal data, indicating that agentic goals are not only correlates but also predictors of increasing aggression during middle school when concerns for popularity (status and power) among peers peak and popularity may be sought with aggression (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). Further, agentic goals selectively predicted increases in relational aggression. Although dominance goals are positively related to relational as well as physical aggression (Ojanen et al., 2012), youth may realize that relational aggression is more effective in providing status and power at large (relative to physical aggression, it is more strongly related to popularity; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Also as expected, communal goals were negatively associated with physical aggression and with decreases in physical (but not relational) aggression across time. Whereas physical aggression is negatively related to communal goals (likely because physical altercations directly compromise closeness with peers; see Ojanen et al., 2012), relational aggression may require some closeness with peers (e.g., it would be difficult to gossip without having access to peers willing to spread rumors) and is unrelated to the level of communal goals in cross-sectional data (Ojanen et al., 2012). The present findings extend this literature by suggesting that communal goals, reflecting closeness motivation among peers, also decrease the risk of or protect against physical aggression across time during middle school. We also examined whether physical aggression increased across time for youth with high agentic and low communal goals, that is, for those with high status and low closeness motivation among peers. Respective interactive effect between agentic and communal goals was in the expected direction but nonsignificant. Further, we examined whether goals

OJANEN AND FINDLEY-VAN NOSTRAND

2140

Table 2 Longitudinal Links Between Aggression and Popularity: Moderation by Agentic Goals Follow-up tests with agentic goals as moderator Outcome

␤

Predictor

Outcome

Low agentic ␤

Medium agentic ␤

High agentic ␤

T1 Popularity T1 Popularity T1 Relational

T2 Relational Aggression T2 Physical Aggression T2 Popularity

.13ⴱ .01, ns .10ⴱ

T2 Relational Aggression — T2 Popularity

.08 — ⫺.07

.17ⴱ — .13ⴱ

.66ⴱⴱ — .30ⴱⴱ

T1 Physical

T2 Popularity

.13ⴱ

T1 Popularity — T1 Relational Aggression T1 Physical Aggression

T2 Popularity

⫺.08

.17ⴱ

.40ⴱⴱ

Two-way interaction

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

T1 Agentic ⫻ T1 Agentic ⫻ T1 Agentic ⫻ Aggression T1 Agentic ⫻ Aggression

Note. Dashes indicate no follow-up analyses were conducted. T1 ⫽ Time 1; T2 ⫽ Time 2. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

were longitudinally associated with social preference and popularity. Aligning with other recent research (Dawes & Xie, 2013), we did not observe links from goals to peer regard. Compared with goal-behavior links, these are more distal (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Ojanen et al., 2005).

Aggression and Peer Regard: Longitudinal Links and Moderation by Social Goals Our second aim was to replicate established longitudinal links between forms of aggression and peer regard. In line with existing research (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004), popularity predicted increases in physical as well as relational aggression. However, neither form of aggression, on average, predicted increases in popularity (for interactions with agentic goals, see below). Thus, although aggression is found to explain concurrent variance in popularity (e.g., Sijtsema et al., 2009), it may not predict increases in popularity, which may also require sociability and leadership (Puckett et al., 2008). Popularity, in turn, may be maintained with increasing aggression across time to perpetuate power (Adler & Adler, 1998; Keltner et al., 2003). However, as our third aim, we examined goals as moderators of the longitudinal links between aggression and popularity. Physical and relational aggression both predicted increases in popularity for youth with higher agentic goals. These findings suggest that aggression may predict increases in popularity when serving respective goals for peer interaction. We expected to observe this effect primarily for relational aggression, but our findings suggest that physical aggression may increase popularity for youth with high status motivation among peers. Although relational aggression is more strongly related to popularity (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), we speculate that youth with higher agentic goals may strategically engage in physical altercations to gain popularity, potentially when others are watching, given that aggression provides status, especially when witnessed by others (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Agentic goals also interacted with popularity in predicting subsequent aggression: Popularity predicted gains in relational (but not physical) aggression for youth with higher agentic goals. Collectively, these findings suggest that youth with high agentic goals may use relational or physical aggression to gain popularity but selectively use relational aggression to maintain existing popularity. We speculate that popular–aggressive youth with high agentic goals may also have high social skills (see Puckett et al., 2008) and thus may efficiently use various forms of aggression to

gain popularity while also understanding that relational aggression is most effective in maintaining it (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Further, agentic and communal goals jointly moderated the link between popularity and subsequent physical aggression: Popularity predicted increases in physical aggression for youth with higher agentic and simultaneously lower communal goals. This suggests that youth with high status and low closeness motives among peers may maintain existing popularity with increasing physical aggression. We speculate that these youth may not care about negative effects of physical aggression on closeness with peers because this is less important to them overall. This finding underlines the need to assess various goals simultaneously in the study of social development (see Dodge et al., 1989): Although research on aggression and popularity focuses on agentic goals, their implications for social development may depend on the level of communal goals among peers, especially during adolescence, when peer relationships and closeness among peers are developmentally critical (Bukowski et al., 2011; Coie, 1990). Regarding longitudinal links between aggression and social preference and in line with past research (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2005), preference predicted decreases in physical as well as relational aggression. Preference or likeability by peers may facilitate belonging and understanding that prosocial rather than aggressive behaviors create cohesive peer relationships (Coie, 1990). Although relational aggression is less negatively related to peer acceptance than physical aggression (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), it is related to perceived rejection and hostility among peers (Godleski & Ostrov, 2010). Thus, it is possible that peer preference decreases such social perceptions and thus also relational aggression. Collectively, our findings concur with existing literature and underline social preference as a protective factor and popularity as a risk factor for aggression during middle school, when aggression as well as concerns for popularity peak (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). The findings also suggest that youth with high agentic goals are at risk for increasing relational aggression, and especially so when popular among peers (see also Dawes & Xie, 2013). Communal goals, in turn, may protect against physical aggression, the risk of which may be elevated for youth with high agentic and low communal goals. Observed moderating effects of goals in longitudinal links between aggression and popularity suggest that whether popularity increases the risk of aggression across time or vice versa depends on adolescents’ goals for peer interaction.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

GOALS, AGGRESSION, PREFERENCE, AND POPULARITY

Additionally, we examined reciprocal links between forms of aggression and forms of peer regard. As expected, preference predicted gains in popularity and vice versa (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Youth who are liked by peers, on average, may also become increasingly popular across time, and those who are popular may become increasingly liked by peers. Further, physical aggression predicted gains in relational aggression for girls. Aggression may develop into social forms with age when skills to manipulate others increase and direct forms of aggression become less acceptable (Vitaro et al., 2006). It may be that because they are more relationally oriented than boys (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), girls may use different forms of aggression flexibly and adopt relational forms of aggression across time more than boys do.

Gender Differences and Temporal Stability of Forms of Aggression and Peer Regard As expected, boys displayed more physical aggression than girls did, whereas girls endorsed more communal goals than boys did. Relational aggression was equally typical across gender (Dijkstra et al., 2011). Further, when the participants were examined separately by gender, physical aggression was more typical than relational aggression for boys, whereas the opposite was the case for girls (potentially because of gender differences in social interaction; see Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Regarding temporal stability of aggression and peer regard, popularity was more stable than preference, potentially because group consensus on popularity is higher than consensus on likeability by individual peers (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Physical and relational aggression were equally stable across time (some studies have found the former more stable than the latter; e.g., Dijkstra et al., 2011).

Implications, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research The present findings support and advance increasing research on adolescent social goals from cross-sectional to longitudinal data and from piecemeal to an integrated assessment of goals and separate forms of aggression and peer regard. Conceptually, the findings indicate that agentic and communal goals are associated with changes in peer-reported aggression and moderate longitudinal links between aggression and popularity in both directions, and they highlight the need to consider motivational factors in social development during middle school. On practical grounds, the findings suggest agentic goals and popularity posit a risk for increasing relational aggression and, when further combined with low communal goals, a risk for increasing physical aggression during middle school. This underlines the role of peer ecology and motivation in the development of aggression, with implications for interventions. For instance, social skill building alone may not decrease aggression as popular– aggressive youth may already have higher skills (Peeters, Cillessen, & Scholte, 2010; Puckett et al., 2008) and may use aggression to gain or maintain popularity. It may be useful to target social goals to reduce aggression. Existing research indicates that, like other social cognitions, goals can be modified with targeted interventions and changes in goals (reduced antisocial and increased prosocial goals) are related to respective changes in behavior at school (Frey, Nolen, Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005). Alternatively,

2141

considering evolutionary-based group processes and adolescent need for agency (Moffitt, 1993; Pellegrini & Long, 2002), goals for status may be normative, but aggression as a means to gain status deserves intervention attention. After interventions of school bullying (see Orpinas, Horne, & Staniszewski, 2003), it may be possible to promote norms and values at school, which become associated with and award status (popularity) for prosocial rather than aggressive behaviors. This study had limitations. First, our measure of relational aggression did not assess social exclusion, a component of relational aggression (Grotpeter & Crick, 1996) that is potentially especially critical for popularity (Rose et al., 2004). This may partially explain why relational aggression (by itself) did not predict gains in popularity (some studies have observed this for girls; Rose et al., 2004). Second, we examined goals (motivation) separately from social skills relevant in this context: Popular– aggressive youth may have higher social skills and are the most popular when relationally aggressive (Puckett et al., 2008). Because agentic goals predicted increasing relational aggression and intensified links between aggression and popularity, youth with higher agentic goals, at least when relationally aggressive and popular, may also be socially skilled. However, they may use skills to gain status and power with aggression rather than closeness with peers with prosocial behaviors, potentially because of personality characteristics like narcissism (Findley & Ojanen, 2012). Integrated assessment of social skill and will (goals) could provide increasingly detailed insights on the development of aggression and popularity. Third, this study was limited to a short time frame of 12 months during middle school. Although middle school is especially relevant for the study of social goals, aggression, and popularity, our findings may not replicate in longer intervals or other age cohorts. For instance, links between aggression and popularity vary some across elementary, middle, and high school, potentially because of developmental differences in prevalence of aggression and relative priority of popularity among peers (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rodkin et al., 2013). Further, social goals may be especially closely tied to adjustment among peers during critical periods like transition to middle school, when youth navigate considerable changes in social and academic environments and motivational factors explain adjustment (Eccles & Wigfield, 2000). During this time, agentic goals as well as aggression increase (Ojanen et al., 2005; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Despite the limitations, this study documents the first longitudinal associations among adolescent social goals, physical and relational aggression, preference, and popularity. The findings highlight agentic goals and popularity as risk factors for increasing aggression during middle school and underline the need to consider goals or motives for peer interaction in the study of adolescent social development.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Oxford, England: Rand McNally. Bukowski, W. M., Buhrmester, D., & Underwood, M. K. (2011). Peer

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2142

OJANEN AND FINDLEY-VAN NOSTRAND

relations as a developmental context. In M. K. Underwood & L. H. Rosen (Eds.), Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence (pp. 153–179). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Caravita, S. C. S., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21, 376 – 395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x Choudhury, S., Blakemore, S.-J., & Charman, T. (2006). Social cognitive development during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 165–174. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl024 Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004 .00660.x 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). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557 Côté, S. M., Vaillancourt, T., Barker, E. D., Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). The joint development of physical and indirect aggression: Predictors of continuity and change during childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 37–55. doi:10.1017/S0954579407070034 Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 –101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74 Dawes, M., & Xie, H. (2013). The role of popularity goal in early adolescents’ behaviors and popularity status. Developmental Psychology, 50, 489 – 497. doi:10.1037/a0032999 Dijkstra, J., Berger, C., & Linderberg, S. (2011) Do physical and relational aggression explain adolescents’ friendship selection? The competing roles of network characteristics, gender, and social status. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 417– 429. Dodge, K. A., Asher, S. R., & Parkhurst, J. T. (1989). Social life as a goal coordination task. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 107–135). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Adolescence: Social patterns, achievement, and problems. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 46 –52). London, England: Oxford University Press. Enders, C. K. (2001). The performance of the full information maximum likelihood estimator in multiple regression models with missing data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 713–740. doi: 10.1177/0013164401615001 Erdley, C. A., & Asher, S. R. (1999). A social goals perspective on children’s social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 156 –167. doi:10.1177/106342669900700304 Findley, D., & Ojanen, T. (2013). Agentic and communal goals in early adulthood: Associations with narcissism, empathy, and perceptions of self and others. Self and Identity, 12, 504 –526. doi:10.1080/15298868 .2012.694660 Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Edstrom, L. V., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 171–200. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12 .002 Godleski, S. A., & Ostrov, J. M. (2010). Relational aggression and hostile attribution biases: Testing multiple statistical methods and models. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 447– 458. doi:10.1007/s10802010-9391-4 Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328 –2338. doi: 10.2307/1131626

Hagemeyer, B., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). Assessing implicit motivational orientations in couple relationships: The partner-related agency and communion test (PACT). Psychological Assessment, 24, 114 –128. doi: 10.1037/a0024822 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi:10.1037/0033295X.110.2.265 Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: The implications for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 417– 428. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.100.2.417 Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of characteristics associated with social success: Changes during early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 218 –226. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.05.002 LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130 –147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x Locke, K. D. (2003). Status and solidarity in social comparison: Agentic and communal values and vertical and horizontal directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 619 – 631. doi:10.1037/00223514.84.3.619 McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517–542. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100507 Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674 –701. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Norusis, M. (1993). SPSS for Windows: Base system user’s guide, Release 6.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and relational aggression in early adolescence: Associations with narcissism, temperament, and social goals. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 99 –107. doi:10.1002/ ab.21413 Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699 – 710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.699 Orpinas, P., Horne, A. M., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School bullying: Changing the problem by changing the school. School Psychology Review, 32, 431– 444. Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1041–1052. doi:10.1007/s10964-0099478-9 Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259 –280. doi:10.1348/026151002166442 Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Moderators of the association between relational aggression and perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 563–576. doi:10.1002/ab.20280 Rodkin, P. C., Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R., & Wilson, T. (2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1139 –1150. doi:10.1037/a0029389 Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behav-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

GOALS, AGGRESSION, PREFERENCE, AND POPULARITY ioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98 – 131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378 – 387. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.378 Salmivalli, C., Ojanen, T., Haanpää, J., & Peets, K. (2005). “I’m OK but you’re not” and other peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363–375. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.363 Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57– 67. doi:10.1002/ab.20282 Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893– 898. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017 Thomaes, S., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., Olthof, T., & Denissen, J. (2008). Development and validation of the Childhood Narcissism

2143

Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 382–391. doi:10.1080/ 00223890802108162 Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Barker, E. D. (2006). Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 12–19. doi:10.1177/0165025406059968 Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 175–204). Malden: Blackwell. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Geiger, T. C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender moderation and bidirectional associations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421– 452. doi:10.1177/0272431605279841

Received June 20, 2013 Revision received March 3, 2014 Accepted March 12, 2014 䡲