| The purpose of the present study was to investigate several components of adolescents' social cognition as it pertains to relational aggression. One-hundred-and-three early adolescents (ages 11--15, 50 females) were individually interviewed. Participants were asked questions about whether relational aggression is wrong, how acceptable it is for parents and friends to have authority over relational aggression, and whether relational aggression is wrong if a parent or friend says that it is acceptable. It was also of interest to assess adolescents' thinking about physical aggression, conventional violations (i.e., neglecting to adhere to arbitrary rules of social conduct, such as failing to complete assigned chores), and personal behaviors (i.e., behaviors that typically only impact the actor, such as changing one's hairstyle). Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained. Results indicate that adolescents' thinking about different types of relational aggression varies substantially. Adolescents' evaluated gossip similarly to the way that they evaluated physical aggression, in that they felt that both behaviors were wrong and cited moral concerns (i.e., the rights and welfare of others) when explaining why they felt the behaviors were wrong. However, adolescents believed exclusion relatively acceptable and generally found parental and friend authority over exclusion unacceptable. These results are discussed in terms of how relational aggression can be integrated within the domain model of social cognition (Turiel, 1983, 1998), in that participants viewed gossip as a moral infraction whereas exclusion was a mixed domain event with characteristics of conventional and personal acts. Additionally, it is suggested that adolescents be educated as to the negative consequences of relational aggression. It is also suggested that adolescents be encouraged to turn to parents and friends when contemplating relational aggression in hopes that advice from those individuals might help curtail the behavior. |
