THE DIVERSE ADOLESCENT RELATIONAL AGGRESSION SCALE: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION by KARLA B. HORTON Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON May 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to acknowledge the “Most High” who guides my heart and soul. I recognize the blessings that I have received through the people that God has placed in my life. My mother and father have been the most influential people in my life; they have instilled in me a work ethic that has taken me to places only dreamed of. I would like to thank Dr. Norma Ewing from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. As my mentor, she provided advice, wisdom, and continues to be an excellent role model. I would also like to thank my chair, Dr. Debra Woody, for her patience, guidance and wisdom during my years in the School of Social Work PhD program; she kept me focused on the goal. Additionally, I would like to thank my entire dissertation committee for their guidance and suggestions, and my family and friends who always provided encouragement and love. I am eternally grateful for all that I have been given! April 7, 2010 ii ABSTRACT THE DIVERSE ADOLESCENT RELATIONAL AGGRESSION MEASURE: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION Karla B. Horton, PhD The University of Texas at Arlington, 2010 Supervising Professor: Debra Woody Relational aggression (RA) includes rumor spreading, social isolation, talking behind someone’s back, staring, and threats to withdraw friendship. RA is associated with verbal and physical aggression, and these aggression subtypes are often assessed together. This research developed and validated the Diverse Adolescent Relational Aggression Scale to assess RA in diverse populations. The population consisted of 191 students from 9th-12th grade (predominantly African American) from schools located in the south-suburban Independent School District of a major southern city. The measure consisted of 28-items developed from relational aggression research. Factor analysis, reliability tests, t-tests, and correlations were conducted on the data. The results indicated that The Relational Aggression Scale is valid and reliable for the Alternative School Group and the High School Group. Findings suggest that the Alternative School Group had higher scores on the Diverse Adolescent Relational Aggression Scale than the High School Group, but these differences were not significant. Additionally, the scale was more reliable for the High School Group than the Alternative School Group. Implications for further research and practice are discussed. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………….…….ii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………….iii LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………v Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION……………………..…………………………………….…………………..1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW……….………………………………………………………………10 3. METHODS..…………….…………………………………………………...…………………25 4. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………........................32 5. DISCUSSION..………………...………………………………………………………………44 APPENDIX A. RELATIONAL AGGRESSION SCALE……………………………………………………...51 B. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE……………………………………………………..…55 C. INDEX OF FAMILY RELTIONS…………………………………………..........................57 D. LOUDIN, LOUKAS, & ROBINSON RELATIONAL AGGRESSION SUBSCALE……………………………………………………………………...……………..59 E. VERBATIM ORAL INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO PARTICIPANTS………………………………………………………………...……………..62 F. INFORMED CONSENT/ASSENT LETTER………………………………..………….…...64 G. CORRELATONS MATRIX……………………………………………………………...……69 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..………..….…77 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION..………………………………………………...…………………90 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Brief Summary of Relational Aggression (RA) Measures……………………..………….20 2. Components Loadings…………………………………………………………..……………34 v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Since the Columbine High School shootings, the United States has experienced a heightened awareness of aggression and violence in schools. According to the US National School Safety Center’s Report on School Associated Violent Deaths (2007), during the school years 1992/1993 through 2006/2007, there were 50 deaths in (or around) elementary schools and 363 deaths in (or around) secondary schools. Incidents of other violence in schools are just as numerous throughout any given school year. In another report during the 2003/2004 school year, 74% of primary schools, 94% of middle schools, and 96% of high schools in the US reported incidents of crime and violence on campus (Guerino, Hurwitz, Noonan, Kaffenberger, & Chandler, 2006). Students have found themselves in the roles of victim, protector, and attacker. In 2005, the Center for Disease Control found that 6.5% of students surveyed reported they had carried a weapon on school property within the last 30 days (Eaton et al., 2005). In US schools, between the years 1993-2005, 7-9% of students have consistently reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property (Dinkes, Cataldi, Kena, & Baum, 2006). Additionally, attacks by students on teachers are becoming common in US schools. In the 2003/2004 school year alone, 6% of urban teachers, 10% of suburban teachers, and 5% of rural teachers reported that they were threatened with injury by students (Dinkes, Cataldi, Kena, & Baum, 2006). Further, approximately 30% of US students experienced either overt or relational aggression as the target or perpetrator (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simmons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001),and approximately 75% of secondary students have been victims of overt aggression and social/relational aggression (e.g. Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992; Kaufman et al., 1999). 1 Although the above statistics on school violence appear extremely high, incidents of school violence and aggression have constantly decreased within the past decade (http://tojou.wetpaint.com/page/Overview+of+School+Violence:+Causes+and+Current+Statistic s). Although school violence has been decreasing, bullying is prominent in schools and a strong predictor of school violence (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005). There have been national initiatives aimed at decreasing school violence, and national prevention measures designed to decrease/eliminate bullying in schools. Safe Schools Initiative. In the US, there have been a number of initiatives developed in an attempt to address the rising problem of aggression and violence in schools. In 2002, the US Department of Education, in conjunction with the Secret Service, developed the Safe Schools Initiative. This initiative reviewed police records, school records, court documents, interviews with school shooters, and other sources in an attempt to develop background information or a profile about the school shooter’s pre-attack behaviors and communications. The goal of this analysis was to develop information that would possibly prevent school-based attacks (http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml). One of many Safe Schools Initiative studies was conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug- Free Schools Program, and the U.S. Secret Service-National Threat Assessment Center (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). The researchers investigated school associated violent acts and found that in a number of school attacks, the attackers described being victims of severe bullying behavior often to the point of torment. Others have found similar results (Fein, Vossekuil, Pollack, Borum, Modzeleski, and Reddy, 2002) that reiterate the fact that most school attackers had a difficult time coping with significant losses or personal failures, and most had considered or attempted suicide. Anderson and colleagues (2001) found that perpetrators of school violence were more likely than victims to have been bullied by their peers. The U.S Department of Justice (2002) evaluated school shootings and found that one 2 contributing factor to the violence was bullying. Additionally, the results from the National Crime Victimization Survey on students reports of bullying, the researchers found that victims of bullying (which relational aggression/bullying is a subtype) is a predictor of school violence (DeVoe & Chandler, 2005). The researchers also found that victims of bullying were more likely than their non-bullied peers to have experienced criminal victimization at school, fear of being attacked at school, avoidance of certain areas in school for fear of being attacked, carrying a weapon to school, and were engaged in physical fights at school. These experiences can have detrimental effects on school-aged children and adolescents, yet bullying and/or aggression should first be defined before explaining the effects of relational aggression. Aggression Defined Aggression can be defined as an act that injures or agitates another individual. There are several forms of aggression: relational aggression (e.g. spreading rumors and social isolation), verbal aggression (e.g. arguing and name-calling), and physical aggression (e.g. physical attacks). Also, aggression is typically categorized as hostile or instrumental and can be perpetrated either overtly or covertly. Bushman and Anderson (2001) define aggression as follows: “Hostile aggression is impulsive, angry behavior that is motivated by a desire to hurt someone. Instrumental aggression is premeditated, calculated behavior that is motivated by some other goal (e.g. obtain money, restore one’s image, and restore justice) (p.273). Bullying is the most prominent form of aggression in schools (U.S Department of Justice, 2002). Olweus (1994) defined bullying as the repeated exposure to negative actions on the part of one or more students, coupled with an imbalance of power in the relationship. There are subtypes of bullying, or aggression, that can be classified as either direct (overt) or indirect (relational). Direct bullying entails physical and verbal incidents, while indirect bullying entails social incidents. Smokowski and Kopasz (2005) have identified four types of bullies. The physical bully uses pushing, hitting, or kicking to harm their victim; the verbal bully uses words to inflict harm or humiliate their victim; the reactive bully uses taunting then claims of self- 3 defense to harm their victim; and the relational bully uses social isolation and rejection to harm their victim (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). Relational bullying is also known as relational aggression, and is interchangeable with indirect and social aggression. Archer and Coyne (2005) found that relational aggression is a slightly wider category than indirect aggression (including relational manipulation), and social aggression is a slightly wider category than relational aggression (including nonverbal hostile gestures). Hence, relational aggression includes rumor spreading, criticizing behind one’s back, social isolation (ignoring peer), sarcasm, embarrassment in public, subtle-nonverbal expressions of disdain (mean-mugging/staring meanly), threats to withdraw friendship based on some request, and popularity hierarchy struggles (attempts at diminishing peers social status) (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Nicki Crick (1996) further defines relational aggression as “…behaviors that harm others through damage (or threat of damage) to relationships or feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion” (p. 77). It is important to understand that the harm inflicted through relational aggression can be inflicted overtly or covertly. Relational aggression can be further explained through the roles in a social group or clique; relational aggression is often perpetrated in close associations/friendships. The following are roles adapted from the Mean Girls professional seminar sponsored by Developmental Resources, Incorporated (as cited in Senn, p. 25, 2008): 1. Queen: the most powerful and popular in the social group; 2. Sidekick: the peer who supports the Queen; 3. Wannabee: the one who wants to be the most powerful and popular; 4. Gossiper: the one who seeks power by seeking information from others to improve their position; 5. Floater: the one who moves in and out of different social groups and does not seek power; 6. Direct Bully: the one who uses physical violence to gain power; 4 7. Target: the one the overt and relational aggression is targeted at, and might attempt to change in order to fit in; and 8. Bystander: the one who witnesses the overt and relational aggression, and is often afraid to go against the one in power. These roles provide insight into the influences of relational aggression in friendships, social groups, or cliques. Some students take on dominant roles within the social group, while others take a more subservient role. Social identity theory suggests ... “a substantial part of the self- concept is derived from our group memberships..., and we are motivated to evaluate these groups positively through social comparisons with other groups” (Tejfel, 1978, as cited in Tarrant, p. 111, 2002). It is important to understand that overt and relational aggression can influence and sustain the different roles in social groups. Some adolescents may choose specific relationally aggressive behavior based on their roles. Some of these behaviors can be carried out via the internet or text as a means of humiliation. Recently, this form of aggression was described as the underlying factor for recent suicides of some adolescents. Another form of aggression closely associated with relational aggression is cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is posting or sending text and/or images through the internet (or communication devices) that are intended to harm an individual’s reputation and relationships in a covert manner. The popularity and availability of internet websites and cellular devices (i.e. social networking sites and blogs, chat rooms, e-mails, and text-enabled cellular phones) has enabled the exchange of information to a large populace of peers and others. Also, these communication devices tend to be unsupervised by parents or guardians, and other adult supervision. Moreover, cyberbullying has influenced confrontations in schools, and has bolstered direct bullying and violence in schools (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Stover, 2006). The Importance of Relational Aggression Research to School Social Work School social work is a specialized area of practice within the field of social work. This practice entails the application of unique knowledge and skills of social work within the school 5