Proactive and Reactive Sibling Aggression and Adjustment in Adolescence

Abstract

Existing research on aggression tends to narrowly focus on peers; less is known about sibling aggression, most likely due to its historical acceptance. Aggression is characterized by its forms (i.e., physical vs. social or relational aggression) and its functions (i.e., the motivations behind the aggressive act and categorized as proactive vs. reactive aggression). We use data from a two-wave study of middle (n = 197; M_age = 12.63 years at Wave 1) and older (n = 159; M_age = 16.50 years at Wave 1) adolescents to assess the extent to which proactive and reactive functions of sibling aggression make unique or conditional contributions to adolescent adjustment (i.e., depression, delinquency, and substance use). We find that proactive sibling aggression increases risk for problem substance use and delinquent behavior, reactive sibling aggression increases risk for depressed mood and delinquent behavior, and such results are observed even with statistical adjustments for sociodemographic and family variables, stressful life events, and prior adjustment. Few conditional effects of proactive or reactive sibling aggression by sex or grade are observed; yet, for all three outcomes, the harmful effects of reactive sibling aggression are strongest among adolescents who report low levels of proactive sibling aggression. The results speak to the importance of understanding the proactive and reactive functions of sibling aggressive behaviors for adolescent adjustment.

Keywords

adjustment adolescence aggression siblings

Siblings share an emotional intensity characterized by a combination of love and support and conflict and aggression (Dunn, 2007). Historically, the expression of sibling aggression has been accepted as typical of normal sibling relationship dynamics (Caspi, 2012). Such acceptance has likely contributed to it being the most common form of family violence (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980/2006). Aggression, once broadly defined by researchers in the past, is now most often characterized by its forms (i.e., physical vs. social or relational aggression) and its functions (i.e., the motivations behind the aggressive act and categorized as proactive vs. reactive aggression; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006). Usually, studies including both the forms and functions of aggression are found in the peer relationship literature, and these studies highlight the damaging effects of such aggression for adjustment in youth and childhood (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998). The study of sibling aggression is less common, most likely due to its historical acceptance, and it has been almost exclusively limited to forms of sibling aggression (e.g., Updegraff, Thayer, Whiteman, Denning, & McHale, 2005; Yu & Gamble, 2007).

In the present study, we build on our previous work describing the functions of sibling aggression (Tucker et al., 2013) to explore the links between proactive and reactive sibling aggression and adjustment in adolescence. Given the developmental significance and emotional quality of sibling relationships (Dunn, 2007), and the unique opportunity sibling relationships provide for engaging in aggressive behavior, understanding proactive and reactive sibling aggression will likely yield important implications for promoting adolescent adjustment. In addition, the interplay among these two different motives for sibling aggression is important to understand, as are grade- and sex-linked differences in the associations between proactive and reactive aggression and adjustment (Speiker et al., 2012). Here, we examine grade and sex differences in the relations between each of the functions of sibling aggression and adolescent adjustment. We also investigate the interaction between proactive and reactive sibling aggression and adolescent adjustment.

Research on the functions of aggression focuses on the motive of the aggressor (Card & Little, 2006). Proactive aggression and reactive aggression have been identified as distinct and reflect different underlying motivations or functions for the aggressor (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Vitaro et al., 2006). Proactive aggression, rooted in social-cognitive learning theory concepts (Bandura, 1973), is displayed to reach a goal, such as personal, material, or territorial gain, or social dominance over others (Card & Little, 2006; Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997; Vitaro et al., 2006). Proactive aggression is often unprovoked and preplanned (Vitaro et al., 2006), while reactive aggression is exhibited as a defensive process or is an impulsive retaliatory response to a real or perceived threat (Hubbard, McAuliffe, Morrow, & Romano, 2010). The conceptualization of reactive aggression is aligned with the frustration-anger theory of aggression (Berkowitz, 1962, 1993; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) because a reactively aggressive response is accompanied by the expression of anger. Although proactive and reactive aggression are often highly correlated (e.g., Card & Little, 2006; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge, Coie, Petit, & Price, 1990; Tucker et al., 2013), they have been shown to be distinct in factor analyses (Poulin & Boivin, 2000) and have unique correlates (e.g., Card & Little, 2006).

The research on proactive and reactive functions of aggression in peer relationships suggests the importance of exploring these two functions of aggression in other developmentally significant relational contexts such as the sibling relationship. Given the emotional quality of the sibling relationship, in addition to several other qualities such as temporal involvement and rivalry, there are abundant opportunities for the expression of proactive and reactive aggression in this relationship. For example, siblings’ extensive companionship and familiarity with each other (McHale & Crouter, 1996; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2008) heighten the potential for conflict. Siblings often experience conflict over family resources and try to achieve social dominance over one another. These sibling experiences shape individual adjustment (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012), even in adolescence, despite decreases in involvement with siblings as compared with sibling involvement in childhood (Buhrmester, 1992; Tucker et al., 2008). Research on adolescent sibling relationship quality and adjustment shows that warm, supportive sibling relationships are associated with better adjustment (Branje, van Lieshout, van Aken, & Haselager, 2004; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2001) but that conflicted relationships are associated with lower adjustment (Bank & Burraston, 2001; Stocker, Burwell, & Briggs, 2002). For some adolescents, proactive and reactive aggression could be displayed as part of a conflicted sibling relationship. Given the link between sibling conflict and adjustment and a consistent literature showing that aggression is linked to poorer adjustment (Coie & Dodge, 1998), it is likely that youth who engage in proactive and reactive aggression toward a sibling will exhibit poorer adjustment. Therefore, our work also will expand the literature on the links between sibling relationship quality and adjustment. Sibling and peer relationships share relationship qualities such as collaboration and negotiation (Tucker & Updegraff, 2009), but sibling relationships have distinct qualities; they are involuntary, and there is a historical acceptance of aggression that distinguishes them from peer relationships. These differences between sibling and peer relationships may reveal unique connections to adolescent adjustment not evident in the prior work on peers.

Our work also expands the work on proactive and reactive peer aggression, which has been characterized by a focus on young children or college students (Card & Little, 2006), despite speculation in previous work that reactive aggression decreases with age and proactive aggression remains relatively stable in adolescence (Vitaro et al., 2006). Prior research conducted with the present study’s sample of middle (8th grade) and older (12th grade) adolescents showed that older adolescents reported lower levels of both proactive and reactive sibling aggression than did middle adolescents (Tucker, Cox, Sharp, Van Gundy, Rebellon, & Stracuzzi, 2013). The decline in proactive and reactive sibling aggression may be linked to grade differences in adjustment correlates. Although findings from studies of peer proactive and reactive aggression and adjustment are mixed, some work suggests that the link between proactive and reactive aggression and adjustment diminishes with age (see Card & Little, 2006 for a meta-analysis). In the present study, we will examine grade differences in the links between proactive and reactive functions of sibling aggression and adjustment in a sample of middle versus older adolescents. We expect fewer or weaker links between proactive and reactive sibling aggression and adjustment for adolescents in late adolescence compared with those in middle adolescence.

Studies of the forms of aggression, such as physical and relational aggression (e.g., Speiker et al., 2012) and sibling conflict more broadly (e.g., Stocker et al., 2002), consistently demonstrate sex differences in the expression of aggression and its links to adjustment. Studies examining the functions of aggression and adjustment, however, have been limited by study samples that include only boys (Poulin & Boivin, 2000), while the results from the few studies that include both sexes are inconsistent. For example, a study of clinically referred children and adolescents showed no sex differences in the correlates of proactive aggression (e.g., drug use, hostility) but showed sex differences in the correlates of reactive aggression (e.g., hyperactive/impulsive behaviors; Connor et al., 2003), and a study of third graders (Mathieson & Crick, 2010) found no consistent pattern of sex differences across their concurrent and longitudinal analyses. While we expect sex differences in the links between sibling proactive and reactive aggression and adjustment, we consider our analyses exploratory.

Due to the distinct cognitive and motivational origins of proactive and reactive aggression and findings from previous research on peers (Card & Little, 2006), we expect that proactive and reactive aggression toward a sibling will have unique links to adolescents’ adjustment. Proactive aggression is related to externalizing behaviors, which may offer social gain such as delinquency (Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Lavoie, 2001; Raine et al., 2006; Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, & Olingy, 1998) and substance use (Fite, Colder, Lochman, & Wells, 2007, 2008). Reactive aggression, characterized by an emotional quality that includes anger and fear, has been consistently linked to internalizing responses like social anxiety and depression in children (Card & Little, 2006; Cornell et al., 1996; Raine et al., 2006) but has been shown also to be linked to externalizing behaviors like delinquency and substance use as well (see Card & Little, 2006; Fite et al., 2007, 2008). Thus, we expect reactive aggression toward a sibling to be related to emotional adjustment (i.e., depressed mood) and externalizing behavior (i.e., problem substance use and delinquent behavior), but that proactive aggression will be related to just externalizing behaviors. We also consider the never-explored conditional effects of proactive and reactive aggression for adolescents’ adjustment. Given the significant overlap in the expression of each function of aggression (e.g., Card & Little, 2006), it is likely that the extent to which each function is expressed is dependent on the expression of the other function of aggression. We expect that siblings who engaged in higher levels of both proactive and reactive aggression would report poorer adjustment.

In sum, we extend prior work on proactive and reactive peer aggression to siblings and broaden the study of sibling aggression to examine its functions. Specifically, we investigate how sibling proactive and reactive aggression is related to internalizing and externalizing indicators of adolescent adjustment using two waves of data controlling for previous adjustment. Also, we examine whether grade- and sex-linked differences in the effects of proactive and reactive sibling aggression are apparent. We expect that proactive and reactive sibling aggression will bear independent and combined effects on adjustment.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The data came from an ongoing longitudinal study of adolescents’ transition to adulthood. Self-reported paper-and-pencil questionnaires were administered to the population of 7th (M_age = 12.63 years, SD = 0.62) and 11th (M_age = 16.50 years, SD = 0.55) grade students attending all public schools in a northern New England county in spring 2008 (N = 656; 83% response rate), and again 1 year later, when most respondents were in 8th and 12th grades (86% follow-up rate, see Tucker et al., 2013). School-district recruitment began in fall 2007. Once we received approval from the University’s Internal Review Board and obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health, we recruited students from all 16 schools in all five public school districts in the county. School-district participation was approved either by superintendents or local school boards. We distributed consent forms and letters describing the study goals to students to submit to their parents. Parents who did not want their child to participate completed the forms, and students returned them to their teachers. Unless returned letters withdrew parent consent, students were eligible to participate.

We collected data during designated class times for all participating students in their schools. To protect students’ identities, we administered confidential surveys. When possible, students were seated with at least one empty seat separating them from other students in the room. We asked students to sign an assent form and instructed them not to put their names anywhere on their survey instruments. They were also asked to remain quiet and to raise their hands if they had any questions during survey administration. During that time, at least one member of the research staff roved the room to answer questions. Typically, questionnaires were completed in 30 to 40 min. Upon completion, students returned their questionnaires to a member of the research staff, who wrote the students’ pre-assigned identification numbers on their surveys, and gave each participant a $10 gift card to a local store.

Relative to participants at both data waves, Wave 1 adolescents who did not participate in Wave 2 were older and less likely to be living with both parents; no variations by sex or ethnicity were observed. In the present article, we used data from non-twin adolescents with at least one sibling who completed questionnaires at both waves (32 respondents did not have a sibling, representing 6% of the sample). As in prior work (Button & Gealt, 2010; Kiselica & Morrill-Richards, 2007), we included adolescents who reported on a closest-in-age sibling who shared the same household (e.g., biological, step-siblings; 92% of families had full or part biologically related children). The average age distance between adolescents and their sibling was 3.51 years (SD = 2.52). Many fathers (52%) and mothers (36%) had a high school degree or less. Unless otherwise specified, we eliminated observations missing data on variables we used in our multivariate analyses (see below). In the resulting sample (N = 356), participants were 95% non-Hispanic White, 45% (n = 159) 12th graders, and 41% (n = 145) male. Table 1 presents the means and proportions of the study variables by adjustment.

Table 1.

Means (SDs)/Proportions of Independent Variables by Adolescent Adjustment (N = 356).

	Depressed Mood	Problem Substance Use	Delinquent Behavior
Female
No	3.00 (0.44)	.16	.51
Yes	3.18 (0.46)	.20	.48
	p < .001	ns	ns
Grade 12
No	3.13 (0.49)	.10	.54
Yes	3.08 (0.43)	.29	.43
	Ns	p < .001	p < .05
Sibling is female
No	3.08 (0.48)	.17	.53
Yes	3.14 (0.44)	.20	.46
	Ns	ns	ns
Sibling is older
No	3.15 (0.46)	.13	.46
Yes	3.07 (0.46)	.23	.52
	Ns	p < .05	ns
Non-Hispanic White
No	3.29 (0.38)	.28	.83
Yes	3.10 (0.46)	.18	.48
	Ns	ns	p < .01
Living with both parents
No	3.23 (0.47)	.28	.55
Yes	3.03 (0.44)	.13	.46
	p < .001	p < .01	ns
Socioeconomic status^a
Low	3.20 (0.45)	.21	.51
High	3.01 (0.46)	.16	.47
	p < .001	p < .01	p < .01
Stressful life events^a
Low	2.94 (0.40)	.13	.33
High	3.28 (0.45)	.24	.66
	p < .001	p < .01	p < .001
Proactive aggression^a
Low	3.03 (0.44)	.15	.41
High	3.25 (0.46)	.24	.66
	p < .001	p < .05	p < .001
Reactive aggression^a
Low	2.99 (0.43)	.18	.38
High	3.24 (0.45)	.19	.63
	p < .001	ns	p < .001

Note. Presented are the means (standard deviations) of depressed mood, and the proportions of problem substance use and delinquent behavior, by sociodemographic and family variables, stressful life events, and proactive and reactive sibling aggression. ns = non-significant at p < .05 (two-tailed).

Low = below the mean; high = above the mean.

Measures

Sibling aggression

Measures of sibling aggression were unique to the second administration. Proactive and reactive sibling aggression functions were assessed using two 4-item scales adapted from the “Reactive Proactive Questionnaire” (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006), which was designed for adolescents’ self-report. This measure has been shown to be both reliable and valid (see Raine et al., 2006). Respondents were asked how often (0 = not at all to 4 = almost all the time) they engaged in proactive aggression (e.g., “ruined something of your sibling’s for fun”) and reactive aggression (e.g., “yelled at your sibling when she or he annoyed you”) toward their closest-in-age sibling. Mean scores across the items for each scale were obtained and standardized (converted to z scores) such that higher scores indicated higher levels of each sibling aggression type. Respective scores for proactive and reactive aggression ranged from −0.71 to 4.00 and −1.01 to 1.83. Forty-six and 6 percent of the sample reported no proactive and reactive aggression, respectively. As in prior studies (Card & Little, 2006; Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Raine et al., 2006), proactive and reactive aggression functions were correlated significantly (r = .50). Both measures were internally reliable (α = .86 for proactive aggression and α = .85 for reactive aggression), and results from factor analyses of the items provided evidence for the discriminant validity of these constructs (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Factor Loadings of Sibling Aggression Items.

How Often Have You . . .	Proactive Aggression	Reactive Aggression
1. . . . damaged something of your sibling’s because you felt mad?	.86	−.02
2. . . . ruined something of your sibling’s for fun?	.81	−.04
3. . . . hurt your sibling to win a game?	.73	−.02
4. . . . used physical force to get your sibling to do what you want?	.58	.16
5. . . . yelled at your sibling when she or he annoyed you?	−.04	.89
6. . . . gotten angry when frustrated by your sibling?	−.01	.85
7. . . . reacted angrily when your sibling provoked you?	.00	.84
8. . . . gotten angry when your sibling threatened you?	.14	.52
	(α = .86)	(α = .85)

Note. Presented are oblique promax-rotated factor loadings for sibling aggression items constrained to two factors. Estimates in bold load on the factor indicated at the top of each column (i.e., proactive aggression and reactive aggression). The sample size (N = 344) is reduced due to missing values on individual sibling aggression items.

Adjustment

Depressed mood was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale (Radloff, 1977). Respondents were asked how frequently in the past 30 days they experienced 20 symptoms such as “I felt depressed” and “I felt sad.” Response choices ranged from 0 = not at all to 3 = almost all the time. Items were summed such that higher scores reflected higher depressive symptoms. Due to the positively skewed distribution of the CES-D and other indexes of pathology (Mirowsky, 1999), our measure was transformed by taking its natural log to improve the efficiency of regression estimates with depressed mood as the outcome (Hamilton, 1992). Skew scores for the original CES-D and log-transformed CES-D were .86 and −.00, respectively. All analyses were based on this transformed measure. Logged scores ranged from 2.09 to 4.06 (M = 3.11, SD = 0.46; α = .93). Problem substance use was a dummy-coded measure based on a 15-item scale adapted from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994) criteria for substance abuse or dependence (Van Gundy et al., 2011). Respondents were asked how often in the past 6 months they engaged in behaviors such as being “under the influence of alcohol or drugs at school or work” or “when I could’ve gotten hurt physically.” Adolescents reporting at least one of the behaviors were scored 1; all others were scored 0. Approximately 19% of the sample reported being problem substance users. Delinquent behavior was assessed by a dummy-coded measure scored 1 for respondents who indicated that in the past 6 months they had engaged in at least 1 of 11 delinquent behaviors (adapted from Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985), for example, “taken something from a store without paying for it” or “seriously hit someone (not a family member),” and scored 0 for those who did not engage in any of these behaviors. Approximately 49% were classified as delinquent.

Demographic and control variables

We created dummy-coded measures for female (0 = male and 1 = female) and grade (0 = 8th grade and 1 = 12th grade) to be used as controls and as part of our examination of sex and grade interactions with proactive and reactive sibling aggression. Our other control variables included a series of dummy-coded measures: sibling is female (0 = closest-in-age sibling is male and 1 = closest-in-age sibling is female), sibling is older (0 = closest-in-age sibling is younger and 1 = closest-in-age sibling is older), non-Hispanic White (0 = other than non-Hispanic White and 1 = non-Hispanic White), and living with both parents (0 = not living with both parents and 1 = living with both parents). In addition, we controlled for socioeconomic status (SES) using a standardized composite score based on parents’ education, parents’ occupational prestige (Nakao & Treas, 1992), and family financial strain (Conger & Elder, 1994). Higher scores reflected higher SES; scores ranged from −2.76 to 3.26.

Controls for stress exposure and prior adjustment also were used. We used an index of stressful life events based on prior studies of adolescents and young adults (see Van Gundy, 2002; Van Gundy et al., 2011). Participants were asked if in the prior 12 months they experienced 19 stressful events, such as a “break up” with a girlfriend or boyfriend or “a serious accident or injury,” scored as follows: 0 = no events, 1 = one event, 2 = two events, 3 = three events, 4 = four events, 5 = five events, and 6 = six or more events. The measure was standardized; scores ranged from −1.34 to 1.90.

Prior adjustment was assessed at Wave 1, 1 year prior to our other study measures. We control for prior adjustment to better estimate temporal ordering between sibling aggression and adjustment than is possible with a cross-sectional design. For models predicting depressed mood, we used a seven-item version of the CES-D scale (Radloff, 1977; Van Gundy et al., 2011) only available at this wave to assess prior depressed mood. Response choices for the items ranged from 0 = not at all to 3 = almost all the time. Mean scores across the items were obtained and summed such that higher scores reflected higher depressed mood. This variable had acceptable skew and scores ranged from 1 to 3 (M = 0.83, SD = 0.63; α = .85). For models predicting problem substance use, we used a dummy-coded measure of prior problem substance use, scored 1 for those who reported at least 1 of 15 substance use problems in the prior 6 months and scored 0 for those who did not; about 15% of the sample reported a substance use problem at Wave 1. For models predicting delinquent behavior, we used a dummy-coded measure of prior delinquent behavior, scored 1 for those who reported engaging in at least 1 of 10 behaviors in the prior 6 months and 0 for those who did not; 57% reported delinquency at Wave 1.

Results

A series of multivariate regression models were used to test the effects of proactive and reactive sibling aggression on depressed mood, problem substance use, and delinquent behavior For analyses of depressed mood, ordinary least squares regression was used (see Table 3). For analyses of problem substance use and delinquent behavior, logistic regression was used (see Tables 4 and 5, respectively). Each model adjusted statistically for the effects of sociodemographic and family variables, stressful life events, and prior adjustment (specific to outcome). Separate analyses tested for interactive effects of proactive by reactive sibling aggression (e.g., Proactive × Reactive), as well as for conditional effects of sex or grade (8th vs. 12th grade) by each sibling aggression type (e.g., Reactive × Female, Proactive × Grade).

Table 3.

Effects of Sibling Aggression Functions on Depressed Mood (N = 356).

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Female = 1	0.12** (0.04)	0.09* (0.04)	0.10* (0.04)	0.10* (0.04)	0.10* (0.04)
Grade 12 = 1	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.01 (0.04)	−0.00 (0.04)
Sibling is female = 1	0.03 (0.04)	0.01 (0.04)	0.02 (0.04)	0.02 (0.04)	0.01 (0.04)
Sibling is older = 1	−0.06 (0.04)	−0.05 (0.04)	−0.05 (0.04)	−0.05 (0.04)	−0.05 (0.04)
Non-Hispanic White = 1	−0.07 (0.09)	−0.07 (0.09)	−0.06 (0.09)	−0.09 (0.09)	−0.08 (0.09)
Living with both parents = 1	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.02 (0.04)	−0.01 (0.04)
Socioeconomic status^a	−0.07** (0.02)	−0.08** (0.02)	−0.06** (0.02)	−0.06** (0.02)	−0.07** (0.02)
Stressful life events^a	0.13*** (0.02)	0.13*** (0.02)	0.13*** (0.02)	0.12*** (0.02)	0.13*** (0.02)
Prior depressed mood^b	0.23** (0.03)	0.23*** (0.03)	0.23*** (0.03)	0.22*** (0.03)	0.23*** (0.03)
Proactive aggression^a	0.07** (0.02)	—	0.04 (0.02)	−0.01 (0.03)	0.10** (0.03)
Reactive aggression^a	—	0.08*** (0.02)	0.07** (0.02)	0.07** (0.02)	0.04 (0.02)
Female × Proactive aggression	—	—	—	0.09* (0.04)	—
Proactive aggression × Reactive aggression	—	—	—	—	−0.07** (0.02)
Constant	2.96	2.99	2.96	3.00	3.01
Adjusted R²	.38	.39	.39	.40	.40

Note. Presented are ordinary least squares regression coefficients (and standard errors) predicting depressed mood.

Standardized scores (z scores).

Assessed 1 year prior.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Table 4.

Effects of Sibling Aggression Functions on Problem Substance Use (N = 356).

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Female = 1	1.27	1.16	1.26	1.22
Female = 1	(0.65, 2.43)	(0.61, 2.20)	(0.66, 2.45)	(0.63, 2.36)
Grade 12 = 1	4.15***	3.45**	4.16***	4.21***
Grade 12 = 1	(1.93, 8.89)	(1.67, 7.11)	(1.93, 8.92)	(1.96, 9.06)
Sibling is female = 1	1.06	0.94	1.05	0.96
Sibling is female = 1	(0.56, 1.98)	(0.50, 1.75)	(0.58, 1.99)	(0.50, 1.83)
Sibling is older = 1	2.56**	2.51**	2.57**	2.71**
Sibling is older = 1	(1.30, 5.05)	(1.27, 4.93)	(1.30, 5.10)	(1.35, 5.45)
Non-Hispanic White = 1	0.80	0.74	0.81	0.69
Non-Hispanic White = 1	(0.20, 3.21)	(0.20, 2.69)	(0.20, 3.22)	(0.19, 2.58)
Living with both parents = 1	0.51*	0.51*	0.51*	0.53
Living with both parents = 1	(0.26, 0.98)	(0.26, 0.98)	(0.26, 0.98)	(0.27, 1.03)
Socioeconomic status^a	0.94	0.92	0.94	0.90
Socioeconomic status^a	(0.67, 1.31)	(0.66, 1.28)	(0.67, 1.31)	(0.64, 1.27)
Stressful life events^a	1.51*	1.52*	1.51*	1.49*
Stressful life events^a	(1.07, 2.11)	(1.09, 2.12)	(1.07, 2.11)	(1.06, 2.09)
Prior problem substance use^b	3.88***	4.20***	3.88***	4.45***
Prior problem substance use^b	(1.89, 7.97)	(2.06, 8.55)	(1.88, 7.97)	(2.11, 9.36)
Proactive aggression^a	1.52**	—	1.51*	2.05**
Proactive aggression^a	(1.11, 2.07)		(1.06, 2.14)	(1.30, 3.24)
Reactive aggression^a	—	1.24	1.02	0.95
Reactive aggression^a		(0.89, 1.72)	(0.70, 1.48)	(0.64, 1.40)
Proactive aggression × Reactive aggression	—	—	—	0.68*
Proactive aggression × Reactive aggression				(0.46, 0.99)
Constant	0.06	0.08	0.06	0.08
Pseudo R²	.22	.21	.22	.23
χ² likelihood ratio	76.05	70.71	76.06	80.06

Note. Presented odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) based on logistic regression analyses predicting problem substance use.

Standardized scores (z scores).

Assessed 1 year prior.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Table 5.

Effects of Sibling Aggression Functions on Delinquent Behavior (N = 356).

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Female = 1	1.19 (0.70, 2.01)	0.94 (0.56, 1.58)	1.08 (0.63, 1.84)	1.06 (0.61, 1.82)
Grade 12 = 1	1.04 (0.61, 1.76)	0.97 (0.58, 1.64)	1.07 (0.63, 1.83)	1.10 (0.64, 1.89)
Sibling is female = 1	0.66 (0.39, 1.11)	0.60 (0.35, 1.00)	0.64 (0.38, 1.09)	0.61 (0.36, 1.03)
Sibling is older = 1	1.31 (0.78, 2.19)	1.33 (0.79, 2.23)	1.38 (0.82, 2.32)	1.36 (0.81, 2.31)
Non-Hispanic White = 1	0.17* (0.04, 0.67)	0.16* (0.04, 0.67)	0.17* (0.04, 0.69)	0.17* (0.04, 0.69)
Living with both parents = 1	1.23 (0.70, 2.16)	1.20 (0.68, 2.11)	1.25 (0.70, 2.20)	1.30 (0.73, 2.31)
Socioeconomic status^a	0.89 (0.67, 1.17)	0.92 (0.69, 2.11)	0.91 (0.69, 1.21)	0.90 (0.67, 1.19)
Stressful life events^a	2.28*** (1.70, 3.06)	2.23*** (1.67, 3.00)	2.24*** (1.67, 3.01)	2.24*** (1.66, 3.02)
Prior delinquent behavior^b	4.10*** (2.44, 6.87)	3.91*** (2.33, 6.56)	3.83*** (2.27, 6.45)	4.06*** (2.38, 6.90)
Proactive aggression^a	1.83*** (1.13, 2.54)	—	1.55* (1.08, 2.21)	1.95** (1.27, 2.98)
Reactive aggression^a	—	1.64*** (1.25, 2.15)	1.39* (1.02, 1.87)	1.24 (0.90, 1.71)
Proactive aggression × Reactive aggression	—	—	—	0.67* (0.47, 0.96)
Constant	2.20	2.85	2.33	2.68
Pseudo R²	.25	.25	.26	.27
χ² likelihood ratio	124.08	122.70	128.76	133.24

Note. Presented are odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) based on logistic regression analyses predicting delinquent behavior.

Standardized scores (z scores).

Assessed 1 year prior.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Internalizing Behavior

Model 1 shows that, with statistical adjustments for sociodemographic and family variables, stressful life events, and prior depressed mood, proactive sibling aggression was related to increased levels of depressed mood (p < .01). Similarly, as Model 2 shows, reactive sibling aggression also was associated with increases in depressed mood (p < .001). Model 3, however, shows that when both proactive and reactive sibling aggression types were included in the same model, only the effect of reactive sibling aggression was significant (p < .01); that is, when adjusting for reactive sibling aggression, proactive sibling aggression was not associated with increased depressed mood. Separate analyses that tested for the conditional effects on depressed mood of grade (not shown) or sex by proactive or reactive sibling aggression found a significant effect for the Proactive × Female interaction term (see Model 4, p < .05), which resulted in a significant change in the R-square (p < .05); this showed that proactive sibling aggression was related to depressed mood for female adolescents only. In addition, a significant effect for a Proactive × Reactive interaction term was observed (p < .01) and the change in R-square (p < .05) was significant (Model 5). As Figure 1 shows, the effect of reactive sibling aggression on depressed mood was more strongly positive for adolescents with low proactive sibling aggression levels. In sum, proactive sibling aggression was related to depression for females only, and when proactive aggression was low, reactive aggression was more strongly related to depression.

Figure 1.

Effects on depressed mood of reactive sibling aggression by low (below the mean) and high (above the mean) proactive sibling aggression (N = 356).

Externalizing Behavior

Table 4 shows that, with statistical adjustments for sociodemographic and family variables, stressful life events, and prior problem substance use, proactive sibling aggression was related to the increased odds of problem substance use (p < .01). Model 2 shows no significant effect of reactive sibling aggression on problem substance use. Model 3 shows that, when proactive and reactive sibling aggression were considered together, proactive sibling aggression remained significantly associated with problem substance use (p < .05). Separate analyses (not shown) failed to detect grade- or sex-linked conditional effects on problem substance by proactive or reactive sibling aggression; yet, analyses did yield a significant effect for the Proactive × Reactive interaction term (p < .05) (see Model 4). As Figure 2 shows, the effect of reactive sibling aggression on problem substance use was more strongly positive among adolescents with low levels of proactive sibling aggression.

Figure 2.

Effects on problem substance use of reactive sibling aggression by low (below the mean) and high (above the mean) proactive sibling aggression (N = 356).

In Table 5, Models 1 and 2 show that, with statistical adjustments for sociodemographic and family variables, stressful life events, and prior delinquent behavior, proactive and reactive sibling aggression were related to the increased odds of delinquent behavior (both at p < .001). When considered together in Model 3, both proactive and sibling reactive aggression remained significantly associated with delinquent behavior (both at p < .05). As with problem substance use, separate analyses (not shown) failed to yield significant grade- or sex-linked conditional effects on delinquent behavior by proactive or reactive sibling aggression. However, yet again, the analyses identified a significant effect for the Proactive × Reactive interaction term (p < .05) (see Model 4). As Figure 3 shows, the effect of reactive sibling aggression on delinquent behavior was more strongly positive among adolescents with low levels of proactive sibling aggression, a pattern similar to that found for depressed mood and problem substance use. In sum, proactive sibling aggression was related to externalizing behavior (i.e., substance use and delinquency), but reactive sibling aggression was associated only with delinquency. The links between proactive and reactive sibling aggression and externalizing behavior did not vary by grade or sex. In addition, the relationship between reactive sibling aggression and externalizing behavior was stronger when proactive sibling aggression was low.

Figure 3.

Effects on delinquent behavior of reactive sibling aggression by low (below the mean) and high (above the mean) proactive sibling aggression (N = 356).

Discussion

We extended prior work on proactive and reactive aggression to the developmentally significant sibling relationship (Dunn, 2007). In particular, we examined how proactive and reactive sibling aggressions are related to internalizing and externalizing behavior in middle and late adolescence. Our work is a noteworthy contribution to the small literature on sibling aggression, which tends to focus on its forms (i.e., physical vs. social or relational aggression) and not its functions (i.e., the motivations behind the aggressive act and categorized as proactive vs. reactive aggression; Vitaro et al., 2006). Our findings highlight the important links between the motivations behind an aggressive act and adjustment. Sibling aggression is generally viewed as harmless and normative by the general public (Caspi, 2012). Although we cannot determine the exact direction of the relationship, our analyses demonstrated that engaging in proactive and reactive aggression toward a sibling is related to higher rates of internalizing and externalizing behaviors, net of prior adjustment and sociodemographic and family variables. Our findings also showed that the effect of reactive sibling aggression on adjustment was conditioned by proactive sibling aggression for all three indicators of adolescent adjustment. Evidence showing variation by grade and sex between the connections of proactive and reactive sibling aggression and adjustment was minimal.

As predicted, main effects of proactive and reactive sibling aggression were associated with adolescents’ externalizing behaviors, a finding that is consistent with past findings showing that proactive and reactive peer aggression are linked to delinquency (e.g., Brendgen et al., 2001). Proactive sibling aggression was linked to problem substance use, but reactive sibling aggression was not. Two previous studies conducted on a sample of fifth through ninth graders did find a connection between reactive peer aggression and substance use (Fite et al., 2007, 2008). In the face of such limited work, we are cautious about drawing a conclusion, but our results may be indicative of the unique qualities of the sibling relationship. Our hypothesis that reactive sibling aggression would be associated with internalizing behavior was supported and showed that those adolescents who reported reactively aggressing toward their sibling reported higher rates of depressed mood compared with adolescents who did not engage in reactive sibling aggression. This finding also is consistent with and extends previous work on adjustment and peer reactive aggression (e.g., Card & Little, 2006) and sibling dynamics (e.g., Stocker et al., 2002).

The only significant interaction effect with sex suggested a positive relationship between proactive sibling aggression and depression only for females. Given that aggression is more socially acceptable for boys (Archer & Coté, 2005; Maccoby, 1990), girls who do display such behaviors toward a sibling also may be more likely to have lower adjustment. Additional research is needed to replicate and understand differences in this connection by sex for this and other internalizing behaviors. The lack of significant grade interaction terms does characterize some findings from the inconsistent literature examining whether engagement in proactive and reactive aggression differs with age (Card & Little, 2006). The lack of significant interaction effects for grade also could reflect the relatively close age of our two cohorts of adolescents. Future work could examine age effects in the expression of proactive and reactive sibling aggression across wider developmental periods such as childhood versus adolescence.

This study was the first to examine the interactive effects of each function of aggression for adolescent adjustment. In contrast to our predicted pattern that higher levels of sibling proactive and reactive aggression would be linked to lower adjustment, notably, for all three indicators of interest (i.e., depression, substance use, delinquency), the effect of reactive sibling aggression was stronger in the presence of low levels of proactive sibling aggression. In this case, lower adjustment may be a reflection of adolescents primarily defending themselves from a sibling and feeling victimized. Such a lack of balance in sibling relationship experiences during a developmental period characterized by greater sibling equality (Buhrmester, 1992) may be especially devastating for individual functioning. In addition, children and adolescents who report sibling victimization report greater mental health distress (Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2013). Future work could consider whether reactive aggression is dependent on the presence of proactive aggression, but not vice versa.

This study has several limitations to be considered when interpreting the findings. The analyses for this study solely relied on adolescents’ self-reports of their engagement in proactive and reactive aggression and their adjustment. This approach has the potential to inflate the connections we found due to shared method variance. However, adolescents’ self-reports may provide the most accurate reports of sibling interactions and adjustment because parents are not aware of every sibling interaction and adolescent feeling and are likely to underreport sibling aggressive behaviors (Straus et al., 1980/2006). Research also has shown that parents often do not acknowledge sibling aggression due to its normative nature (Caffaro & Conn-Caffaro, 2005), and adolescents report higher rates of sibling aggression than do parents (Straus et al., 1980/2006). Our work also was limited by our between-family approach because we were only able to assess the functions of sibling aggression for one member of the sibling dyad. By using a within-family approach, questions about sibling reciprocity and child-specific versus dyad-specific associations of proactive and reactive aggression could be explored in future work. Our work, here, also did not include a consideration of other qualities of the sibling relationship such as warmth. Future work, for example, could explore whether sibling warmth moderates the relationship between experiencing either function of sibling aggression and adjustment. Finally, we were restricted by an ethnically homogeneous sample, and thus we were not able to explore ethnic differences in the connections between proactive and reactive sibling aggression and adjustment. Other work suggests ethnic differences in sibling relationship experiences (McGuire & Shanahan, 2010).

Despite these limitations, we believe our work adds to the understanding of the relational contexts in which proactive and reactive aggression are displayed and expands the literature on sibling aggression. The insights gained from the present study about the expression of proactive and reactive sibling aggression underscore its potentially important and harmful links to adolescent adjustment. Additional work is needed to further elucidate how sibling aggression may affect child and adolescent adjustment. For example, are depressed adolescents more likely to be proactively aggressive toward a sibling or does engaging in proactive sibling aggression cause adolescent depression? Gaining an understanding of sibling aggression and its links to adjustment is key to developing better prevention and intervention programs for parents and children aimed at changing the public’s perception of sibling aggression as benign and reducing its incidence in families by emphasizing acceptable alternative expressions of anger between siblings.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the youth, school personnel, and communities who participated in this project. We thank our team members Eleanor Jaffee, Meghan Mills, and a group of graduate and undergraduate students.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (#155797), the Neil and Louise Tillotson Fund of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, and the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

Author Biographies

Corinna Jenkins Tucker is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and a Carsey Institute faculty fellow. Her work focuses on parent–child and sibling relationship and family contextual influences on child, adolescent, and emerging adults’ adjustment.

Karen T. Van Gundy is an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Her work applies stress and life-course perspectives to examine variations in health, emotional, and behavioral outcomes across the life course. Her current work, funded by the National Science Foundation, considers the effects of rural/urban residency on youth and young adult well-being.

Desireé Wiesen-Martin is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Her research interests include violence against women, victimization, gender and crime/delinquency, and adolescents’ relationships with siblings.

Erin Hiley Sharp is a Carsey Institute faculty fellow and an assistant professor of Human Development and Family Studies. Her research interests include activity involvement as a context for adolescent development; parental, family, and broader contextual influences on adolescent development; and prevention research and theory from a positive youth development perspective.

Cesar J. Rebellon is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. His research focuses on the family and peer contexts of juvenile crime. Currently, he is working with an interdisciplinary team of researchers, funded by the National Science Foundation, to examine the social psychological correlates of delinquency among middle school and high school students in New Hampshire.

Nena F. Stracuzzi is a Carsey Institute faculty fellow and a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Her research interests are in the areas of family, gender, and medical sociology, in particular parenting issues and mental health and parents’ decision-making processes around seeking psychotropic medication for their children. She is especially interested in the medicalization of society, in particular, psychotropic medication and the social construction of the conditions for which they are prescribed as well as the gendered nature of these conditions.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Archer

Coté

(2005). Sex differences in aggressive behavior. In Tremblay

Hartup

Archer

(Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 425-443). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bandura

(1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Oxford, UK: Prentice-Hall.

Bank

Burraston

(2001). Abusive home environments as predictors of poor adjustment during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 195-217.

Berkowitz

(1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Berkowitz

(1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Branje

S. J. T.

van Lieshout

C. F. M.

van Aken

M. A. G.

Haselager

G. J. T.

(2004). Perceived support in sibling relationships and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1385-1396.

Brendgen

Vitaro

Tremblay

R. E.

Lavoie

(2001). Reactive and proactive, aggression: Predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 293-304.

Buhrmester

(1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In Boer

Dunn

(Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Button

D. M.

Gealt

(2010). High risk behaviors among victims of sibling violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 131-140.

11.

Caffaro

Conn-Caffaro

(2005). Treating sibling abuse families. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 604-623.

12.

Card

N. A.

Little

T. D.

(2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466-480.

13.

Caspi

(2012). Sibling aggression: Assessment and treatment. New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

(1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In Damon

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 779-862). New York, NY: Wiley.

15.

Conger

Elder

G. H.

(1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

16.

Connor

D. F.

Steingard

R. J.

Anderson

J. J.

Melloni

R. H.

(2003). Gender differences in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 33, 279-294.

17.

Cornell

D. G.

Warren

Hawk

Stafford

Oram

Pine

(1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 783-790.

18.

Dodge

K. A.

Coie

J. D.

(1987). Social information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146-1158.

19.

Dodge

K. A.

Coie

J. D.

Petit

G. S.

Price

J. M.

(1990). Peer status and aggression in boys’ groups: Development and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309.

20.

Dodge

K. A.

Lochman

J. E.

Harnish

J. D.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(1997). Reaction and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37-51.

21.

Dollard

Doob

L. W.

Miller

N. E.

Mowrer

O. H.

Sears

R. R.

(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Freer.

22.

Dunn

(2007). Siblings and socialization. In Grusec

Hastings

(Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 309-327). New York, NY: Guilford.

23.

Elliott

D. S.

Huizinga

Ageton

S. S.

(1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Fite

P. S.

Colder

C. R.

Lochman

J. E.

Wells

K. C.

(2007). Pathways from proactive and reactive aggression to substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 21, 355-364.

25.

Fite

P. S.

Colder

C. R.

Lochman

J. E.

Wells

K. C.

(2008). The relation between childhood proactive and reactive aggression and substance use initiation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 261-271.

26.

Hamilton

L. C.

(1992). Regression with graphics: A second course in applied statistics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

27.

Hubbard

J. A.

McAuliffe

M. D.

Morrow

M. T.

Romano

L. J.

(2010). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Precursors, outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement. Journal of Personality, 78, 95-118.

28.

Kiselica

M. S.

Morrill-Richards

(2007). Sibling maltreatment: The forgotten abuse. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 148-161.

29.

Maccoby

E. E.

(1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.

30.

Mathieson

L. C.

Crick

N. R.

(2010). Reactive and proactive subtypes of relational and physical aggression in middle childhood: Links to concurrent and longitudinal adjustment. School Psychology Review, 39, 601-611.

31.

McGuire

Shanahan

(2010). Sibling experiences in diverse family contexts. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 72-79.

32.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(1996). The family contexts of children’s sibling relationships. In Brody

G. H.

(Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and their consequences: Advances in applied developmental psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

33.

McHale

S. M.

Updegraff

K. A.

Whiteman

S. D.

(2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 913-930.

34.

Mirowsky

(1999). Analyzing associations between mental health and social circumstances. In Aneshensel

C. S.

Phelan

J. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 105-123). New York, NY: Kluwer.

35.

Nakao

Treas

(1992). The 1989 socioeconomic index of occupations: Construction from the 1989 occupational prestige scores. GSS Methodical Report No. 74. Chicago: NORC.

36.

Poulin

Boivin

(2000). Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 12, 115-122.

37.

Radloff

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

38.

Raine

A. K.

Loeber

D. R.

Gatzke-Kopp

Lynam

Reynolds

Stouthamer-Loeber

Liu

(2006). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 159-171.

39.

Speiker

S. J.

Campbell

S. B.

Vandergrift

Pierce

K. M.

Cauffman

Susman

E. J.

Roisman

G. I.

(2012). Relational aggression in middle childhood: Predictors and adolescent outcomes. Social Development, 21, 354-375.

40.

Stocker

C. M.

Burwell

R. A.

Briggs

M. L.

(2002). Sibling conflict in middle childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 50-57.

41.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(2006). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing. (Original work published 1980)

42.

Tucker

C. J.

Cox

Sharp

E. H.

Van Gundy

Rebellon

Stracuzzi

(2013). Sibling proactive and reactive aggression in adolescence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 299-310.

43.

Tucker

C. J.

Finkelhor

Turner

Shattuck

(2013). Association of sibling aggression with child and adolescent mental health. Pediatrics,132, 79-84.

44.

Tucker

C. J.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2001). Conditions of sibling support in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 254-271.

45.

Tucker

C. J.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2008). Links between older and younger adolescent siblings’ adjustment: The moderating role of shared activities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 152-160.

46.

Tucker

C. J.

Updegraff

K. U.

(2009). The relative contributions of parents and siblings to child and adolescent development. In Kramer

Conger

(Eds.), Siblings as agents of socialization: New directions for child and adolescent development (No. 126, pp. 13-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

47.

Updegraff

K. A.

Thayer

S. M.

Whiteman

S. D.

Denning

D. J.

McHale

S. M.

(2005). Relational aggression in adolescents’ sibling relationships: Links to sibling and parent-adolescent relationship quality. Family Relations, 54, 373-385.

48.

Van Gundy

(2002). Gender, the assertion of autonomy, and the stress process in young adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 346-363.

49.

Van Gundy

K. T.

Stracuzzi

N. F.

Rebellon

C. J.

Tucker

C. J.

Cohn

E. S.

(2011). Perceived community cohesion and the stress process in youth. Rural Sociology, 76, 293-318.

50.

Vitaro

Brendgen

Barker

E. D.

(2006). Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 12-19.

51.

Vitaro

Gendreau

P. L.

Tremblay

R. E.

Olingy

(1998). Reactive and proactive aggression differentially predict later conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 377-385.

52.

J. J.

Gamble

W. C.

(2007). Familial correlates of overt and relational aggression between young adolescent siblings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 655-673.