DAVIS -- While experts often view aggressive behavior as a maladjustedreaction typical of social outcasts, a new University of California,Davis, study finds that it's actually popular adolescents--but notthe most popular ones--who are particularly likely to torment theirpeers.
"Our findings underscore the argument that--for the mostpart--attaining and maintaining a high social status likely involvessome level of antagonistic behavior," said Robert Faris, an assistantprofessor of sociology at UC Davis.
The study, co-authored by UC Davis sociology professor Diane Felmlee,is published in the February issue of the American SociologicalReview. It also finds that those students in the top 2 percent of theschool social hierarchy--along with those at the bottom--are theleast aggressive.
"The fact that they both have reduced levels of aggression is true,but it can be attributed to quite different things," Faris said. "Theones at the bottom don't have the social power or as much capacity tobe aggressive whereas the ones at the top have all that power, butdon't need to use it."
Students' popularity was determined by how central they were in theirschool's web of friendships. The authors define aggression asbehavior directed toward harming or causing pain to another. It canbe physical (hitting, shoving or kicking), verbal (name-calling orthreats) or indirect (spreading rumors or ostracism).
In general, the study, which followed kids over the course of aschool year, finds that increases in social status for both males andfemales are accompanied by subsequent increases in aggression until astudent approaches the top of the social hierarchy.
According to the researchers, adolescents in the top 2 percent of thesocial hierarchy--where aggression peaks--have an average aggressionrate that is 28 percent greater than students at the very bottom and40 percent greater than students at the very top. Aggression rate iscalculated based on the number of classmates a student victimized inthe past three months.
"Aggression usually requires some degree of social support, power orinfluence," Faris said. "This is mostly because students expect tosee each other on a daily basis at school and any act of aggressionbrings risk of retaliation. Those at the center of the web of socialties are, we believe, more powerful and may deter retribution."
Yet, those students at the very top of the social hierarchy--whoseemingly possess the most social capacity foraggressiveness--generally aren't aggressive.
"If an adolescent at the top of the social hierarchy were to actaggressively towards his or her peers, such action could signalinsecurity or weakness rather than cement the student's position,"said Faris. "And, it's possible that, at the highest level, they mayreceive more benefits from being pro-social and kind."
Faris also acknowledged the possibility that kids at the top levelare "somehow different" and "not disposed to aggressiveness in thefirst place."
The Faris/Felmlee study relies on data from The Context of AdolescentSubstance Use survey, a longitudinal survey of adolescents at 19public schools in three counties in North Carolina that began in thespring of 2002. The Faris/Felmlee study is based on 3,722 eighth-,ninth- and 10th -grade students who participated during the 2004-5school year.
While the study focuses on a sample of small-town and rural NorthCarolina students, Faris expects similar results in bigger cities.
"I would be surprised if kids in New York City or LA were radicallydifferent than kids in North Carolina," Faris said.
As for policy implications of the study, Faris said interventionstargeted specifically at aggressive kids or victims miss the point.
"I would start by focusing on the kids who are not involved and workon encouraging them to be less passive or approving of these sorts ofantagonistic relationships," he said. "It's through these kids whoare not involved that the aggressive kids get their power."
Source: University of California - Davis