Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Peer aggression occurs in the context of a rich network of social relationships and third-party actions (Huitsing, Snijders, van Duijn, & Veenstra, 2014). Third-party intervenors may attempt to avenge the harm to others, chastise aggressors for social norm violations, or reduce tensions between their peers (Reijntjes et al., 2016). Some actions discourage aggression (Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011) while others maintain it (Paluk & Shepard, 2013). Because self-appraisal, self-conscious emotions and perceived norms influence behavior (Krettenauer, Colasante, Buchmann, & Malti, 2014; Malti, & Krettenauer, 2013; Smetana, Jambon & Ball, 2014), the current study used a concurrent mixed method design to examine how two types of intervention are viewed by third-party actors. We asked adolescents to describe a time they attempted to reconcile and a time they attempted to avenge a peer who had previously been targeted for aggression, harassment or discrimination.
Speaking with interviewers of the same ethnicity, 270 youth between 13 and 18 (26.0% African-American, 24.2% European-American, 24.5% Mexican-American, 25.3 % Native-American) described each past event. They identified the strength of identity-relevant emotions they experienced (pride, guilt, shame) and explained why they felt them. They also appraised their actions with respect to three criteria: (1) whether their actions were helpful, (2) how much they felt like a good friend, and (3) the percentage of peers that they thought would approve of their actions. Because third-party revenge combines prosocial and antisocial elements—protection and harm—we predicted that adolescents would report more complex, less uniformly positive sets of identity-relevant emotions and thoughts after revenge than after reconciliation.
Two multivariate repeated measures analyses of variance revealed significant effects of intervention type on three identity-relevant emotions and three appraisals (both ps < 01). Subsequent univariate analyses (See table 1) showed that adolescents felt prouder, more helpful, more like a good friend, and expected more peer approval after attempting reconciliation than after revenge. They also felt less guilt and shame (ps < .001). Each ethnic group displayed the same significant differences between conditions, although Native- and European-Americans experienced less pride than African-Americans after resolution efforts (ps < .05). Overall, European-Americans expected more peer approval than Native- and African-Americans .
While quantitative results suggested clear differences between the two types of actions, qualitative analyses provided a more nuanced picture. Although dominance themes figured more prominently in rationales for emotions and appraisals following revenge, benevolent concern for the victim was a strong element after both revenge and reconciliation. Social norms regarding social welfare and justice appeared to energize both types of actions. Adolescents’ specific actions in the two conditions also overlapped. Confrontations in the revenge condition sometimes started peacefully but escalated out of control after the aggressor reacted rudely. The challenges of reconciliation may be evidenced in the large number of strategies attempted (29.2% more than in the revenge condition). In sum, these analyses portray adolescents who try multiple actions to support the welfare of victimized peers and evaluate their successes and failures in morally informed ways.
Karin Frey, University of Washington
Presenting Author
Zoe Higheagle Strong, Washington State University
Non-Presenting Author
Adaurennaya C. Onyewuenyi, The College of New Jersey
Non-Presenting Author
Saejin Kwak-Tanguay, University of Washington
Non-Presenting Author
Emma M. McMain, Washington State University
Non-Presenting Author