Communication 223SIDEBAR 7.1:Mean Girls? Relational Aggression
Spreading rumors, excluding someone, and threatening not to be someone’s friend. These
are not behaviors that first come to mind when one thinks of aggression. They are not physi-
cal aggression butrelational aggression, also known asindirect aggressionandsocial aggres-
sion. Relational aggression is hurting or threatening to hurt a relationship with another person.
Some examples are shown in Table 7.1. Research initially suggested that relational aggression
was the “female” form of aggression, the counterpart to boys’ physical aggression. In fact, a
number of studies have shown that girls are more relationally aggressive than boys (e.g., Lee,
2009) and across a number of cultures (Russia, China, Finland, and Indonesia; Crick et al., 1999;
French, Jansen, & Pidada, 2002). However, other research has shown no sex differences in rela-
tional aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Finally, a meta-analytic review of the literature was
undertaken (Card et al., 2008). It showed a significant sex difference in relational aggression
(in the direction of girls) but the size of the effect was very small, suggesting more similarity
than difference (d= −.06). Age did not moderate these findings, meaning that there was not a
particular age group in which girls were substantively more relationally aggressive than boys. A
more meaningful way of understanding sex comparisons and relational aggression is to say that
boys use physical aggression more than relational aggression, and girls use relational aggression
more than physical aggression. Within boys, conflict is more likely to overt, whereas within girls,
conflict is more likely to be covert.
Females and males have similar motives for engaging in relational aggression—to gain
power, to try to fit in to a group, as a response to jealousy, or in response to some characteris-
tic of the victim, such as lack of confidence (Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2010). There also is
some suggestion that intimacy contributes to relational aggression—at least among girls. Some
forms of relational aggression (e.g., rumors, gossiping) require intimate knowledge about the
person. In a study of fourth-graders, relationship aggression increased over the year for girls as
did intimate disclosure to friends (Murray-Close, Ostrov, & Crick, 2007). The two were related.
Because girls have intimate knowledge about their friends, they can use this knowledge in an
adverse way.
Both boys and girls view relational aggression as less harmful than physical aggression
(Murray-Close, Crick, & Galotti, 2006). The meta-analysis showed that relational aggression is
related to subsequent personal difficulties for both girls and boys—both internalizing problems
(e.g., depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., acting out, delinquency; Card et al., 2008).
The implications of relational aggression for relationships are less clear. The meta-analysis
showed that relational aggression was associated with greater rejection by peers but also with
greater prosocial behavior (Card et al., 2008). Card and colleagues suggested that relational ag-
gression requires the use of prosocial skills to gain the support of others. Relational aggression
has distinct effects on popularity when one distinguishes between sociometric popularity, which
is measured by having all the people in the class rate whom they like and dislike, and perceived
popularity, which entails having people nominate whom they perceive to be popular. The two are
positively correlated but become less strongly related as children grow older. Relational aggres-
sion is associated with lower sociometric popularity but greater perceived popularity—especially
for girls (Andreou, 2006; Cillessen & Borch, 2006).
What is the source of relational aggression? The environment plays a much larger role than
genetics (Brendgen et al., 2005). First, relational aggression may be acquired from modeling,
as one study showed that older siblings’ relational aggression predicted younger siblings’ rela-
tional aggression the following year (Ostrov, Crick, & Stauffacher, 2006). Second, to the extentM07_HELG0185_04_SE_C07.indd 223 6/21/11 8:11 AM