Interpersonal problem-solving styles of aggressive and victimized children: The aggressor/victim system

The main purpose of this study was to gain insight into the interpersonal problem-solving styles of aggressive and victimized children and to use this insight to help explain the stability of the aggressor/victim relationship. It was thought that aggressive and victimized children would have some similar limitations in their problem-solving styles and other differences that would be complementary. In order to help explain why these children have opposite behaviors despite their similar problem-solving limitations, personality characteristics of aggressive and victimized children were also examined.;Questionnaires containing story-completion tasks and Likert ratings of personality characteristics were administered to 138 fourth, fifth, and sixth graders from three different Massachusetts schools. Children's levels of aggression and victimization were assessed through peer nominations. Aggressors, victims, aggressive victims and comparison children were compared in terms of the following five aspects of problems solving (taken from the story completion tasks): (1) problem definition, (2) information-seeking, (3) evaluation of response options, (4) beliefs about abilities, and (5) consequential thinking. Based on the Likert scale questionnaires, children were also compared in terms of personality characteristics, self-esteem, and locus of control.;Results showed that both problem-solving and personality characteristics independently contributed to aggression and victimization. Aggressive children generally fell into a predicted pattern of problem-solving styles and personality characteristics, but victims did so only sometimes. However, although the results for victims were usually not as strong as expected, they were often in the hypothesized direction. In terms of problem-solving, as predicted, aggression was related to defining problems in hostile ways and not seeking additional information before deciding on responses in ambiguous situations. However, contrary to prediction, victimization was not related to problem definition and information-seeking. Moreover, as expected, aggression was related to favoring aggressive solutions, while victimization was related to favoring submissive solutions. Finally, as predicted, aggression was related to believing that aggressive solutions would be successful and easy to enact, but contrary to prediction, victimization was related to thinking that submissive solutions would be hard to enact. In addition, victimization was related to thinking that submissive solutions would be successful only when participants showed both aggression and victimization. In terms of personality characteristics, as predicted, victimization was positively related to shyness and aggression was negatively related to shyness. Moreover, aggression was positively related to impulsivity, but contrary to prediction, victimization was not negatively related to impulsivity.;There were three additional important findings of this study. First, aggressors actively disapproved of assertive, but non-aggressive, solutions (i.e., positive problem solving) even more than they disapproved of submissive solutions. Second, children's problem-solving styles often depended on their levels of both aggression and victimization. In other words, aggressors and victims were often not only different from each other, but also different from a group of aggressive victims. Finally, problem-solving and personality characteristics were related to aggression and victimization in different ways depending on the type of aggression and victimization (i.e., physical, verbal, or relational). Results are discussed in terms of the supported and unsupported aspects of the proposed model, and in terms of implications for future research and interventions aimed at reducing peer aggression.