4.4 Article

A Cross-Lagged Structural Equation Model of Relational Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Peer Status in a Chinese Culture

期刊

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 301-315

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ab.21480

关键词

relational aggression; physical aggression; peer acceptance; peer rejection; perceived popularity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This short-term longitudinal study examined the associations among relational aggression, physical aggression, and peer status (i.e., acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity) across three time points, six months apart, in a Taiwanese sample. Participants were 198 fifth grade students (94 girls and 104 boys; Mean age=10.35 years) from Taipei, Taiwan. Study variables were assessed using peer nomination procedure. Results from the cross-lagged structural equation models demonstrated that there were longitudinal associations between relational aggression and each of the peer status constructs while only one longitudinal association was found for physical aggression such that physical aggression positively predicted subsequent peer rejection. The longitudinal associations did not vary with gender. Results also showed high stabilities of relational aggression, physical aggression, and the three peer status constructs over 1 year as well as high concurrent association between relational and physical aggression. In addition, relational aggression and physical aggression were concurrently related to less acceptance, more rejection, and less perceived popularity, especially at the outset of the study. Findings of this study demonstrated both similarities and differences in relation to previous literature in primarily Western cultures. This study also highlights the bidirectional and complex nature of the association between aggression and peer status, which appears to depend on the form of aggression and on the particular indicator of peer status under study. Aggr. Behav. 39:301-315, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据