The Aggressor-Victim Dyad: How Does the Balance of Power between Aggressor and Victim Affect the Strength of the Relationship?

• In Event: 1-059 - Peer Status and Relationship as Contributors and Consequences of Aggression and Victimization

Abstract/Description

According to evolutionary and dominance theories, aggression may be used within a peer group to negotiate status hierarchies, gain valued resources from within the group, and inflict costs on same-sex rivals vying for attention from the other sex (Hawley, 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2003). Common to each of these goals is the notion of power; power may be necessary to gain resources, increase social status or position, and inflict costs on others.
Yet, little is known about the balance of power between aggressors and their victims. Furthermore, the degree to which power is balanced or imbalanced may be consequential in determining the strength of the relationship between aggressor and victim (using a measure of relationship strength that encompasses both reputational strength [are aggressor and victim widely known as such] and longevity [are aggressor and victim known across time]). The current study addressed these issues, considering three dimensions of power: social, physical, and gender-based power.
We used an analytic sample of 5,760 6th–8th grade aggressor-victim dyads. Relationship strength was based on the number of times unique aggressor-victim dyads were nominated by their peers across two timepoints (see Rodkin et al., 2014). Social power was assessed as social network centrality (using friendship nominations; Wasserman & Faust, 1994), and physical power was assessed as body mass index (using self-reported height and weight). For both social and physical power, a difference score (aggressor minus victim) was calculated to assess the power balance versus imbalance in favor of the aggressor within each dyad, as well as an absolute value of that difference score (to assess power imbalance regardless of whether the aggressor or victim was more powerful). Gender-based power was assessed by categorizing dyads as Girl-Girl, Boy-Boy, Boy-Girl (male aggressor, female victim), or Girl-Boy (female aggressor, male victim), based on self-reported gender.
Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-square tests, we found great variability in the power balance between aggressors and victims, though there were more dyads relatively balanced in power than imbalanced in power (see Figure 4). Using multilevel modeling procedures (because dyads are nested within aggressor and victim), we found that, across all indicators of power, dyads relatively equal in power had higher relationship strength than dyads wherein either aggressor or victim was higher in power than the other member of the dyad (e.g., negative absolute value for social and physical power indicates that power balanced dyads had higher relationship strength than dyads wherein either aggressor or victim was higher in power than the other member of the dyad; see Table 4).
From a social dominance perspective, it may be that aggressors who target similarly powered victims are able to gain more social rewards than aggressors who target victims who are more or less powerful than themselves (Andrews et al., 2017; Peets & Hodges, 2014). These novel findings greatly enhance the understanding of the dyadic nature of power within the aggressor-victim relationship, and are critical to our ability to decrease involvement in aggressive behavior and to encourage the healthy development of children and youth.

Authors

• Naomi Andrews, Mothercraft/York University
  Presenting Author

• Laura Hanish, Arizona State University

• Carol Lynn Martin, Arizona State University

• Dawn DeLay, Arizona State University

• Kimberly A Updegraff, Arizona State University