Using a naturalistic paradigm to investigate adolescents’ vocal responses to and perceptions of peer provocation

• In Event: Friendships and Peer Relationships in Adolescence

Abstract

Twenty-five percent of adolescents in Canada are victimized by their peers at least twice per week (HBSC Report, 2016). These rates are alarming given the plethora of negative outcomes linked to peer victimization, ranging from poor academic performance (Nansel et al., 2001) to suicidality (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Certain types of responses to peer provocation differentially impact the likelihood of whether youth will be revictimized. For instance, peer conflict is more likely to escalate when youth respond aggressively (as opposed to assertively) to peer provocation (e.g., Mahady Wilton & Craig, 2000). To date, previous studies have mostly relied on self-report measures to examine adolescents’ typical ways of responding to peer provocation and their associated outcomes. Thus, we have a limited understanding of how different types of responses to peer provocation are enacted by adolescents in the moment, and how these responses are directly interpreted by other adolescents. To address this gap, the current study used a novel experimental paradigm to examine whether adolescents’ self-reported strategies of responding to peer provocation are directly related to how their naturalistic vocal responses to hypothetical peer provocation scenarios are perceived by other adolescents.

First, 42 adolescents aged 12-13 years old completed the Peer Provocation Inventory (PPI, Multiple-Choice version; Dirks et al., 2007) and an enactment task. Responses to the PPI are coded as aggression, assertion, or withdrawal: scores for each type of response index the frequency with which adolescents endorse these strategies in response to peer provocation. During the enactment task, participants were asked to respond to hypothetical peer provocation scenarios by saying two target sentences (“I didn’t know that”; “Why are you saying that?”) as they would if they were in that situation. Their responses were audio-recorded. A second sample of 80 adolescents aged 10-14 years old rated these recordings in an online listening task. On a 1-7 scale, listeners were asked to rate how mean (1) or friendly (7) they perceived each vocal response to be.

We conducted a multiple linear regression analysis to examine whether adolescents’ aggression, assertion, and withdrawal scores on the PPI predicted how mean/friendly their vocal responses were rated by listeners. Naturalistic vocal responses enacted by adolescents who had higher scores on the assertion and withdrawal subscales of the PPI were rated as sounding significantly meaner (β = -.44, p < .001) and friendlier (β = .43, p < .001), respectively, by other adolescents (Fig. 1, A and B). Surprisingly, no significant effect of aggression was observed (Fig. 1, C), p = .20. These findings suggest that youth who endorse more assertive responses to provocation may be enacting responses that other teenagers view as hostile; in contrast, youth who endorse withdrawal strategies may opt for friendlier-sounding responses when facing provocation. These results have implications for intervention programs aimed at reducing revictimization. Although further work is needed to identify mechanisms linking enactment to perceptions, our findings highlight the importance of using naturalistic paradigms to better understand how responses to peer provocation play out in the real world.

Authors

• Daniel R. Nault, Queen’s University
  Presenting Author

• Riley J.T. Bonar, Queen's University

• Emma Ilyaz, Queen's University

• Melanie A Dirks, McGill University

• Michele Morningstar, Queen’s University