Personality and Social Psychology

Review http://psr.sagepub.com/

An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression

John Archer and Sarah M. Coyne
Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2005 9: 212
DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/9/3/212

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://psr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/9/3/212.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014

 Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright ( 2005 by
2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 212-230 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, lnc.

An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression

John Archer & Sarah M. Coyne
Department of Psychology
University of Central Lancashire, Great Britain

Over the last decade, researchers have found that girls may be just as aggressive as
boys when manipulative forms of aggression, such as gossiping and spreading ru-
mors, are included. These forms of aggression are known by 3 different names: indi-
rect aggression, relational aggression, and social aggression. This review examines
their commonalities and differences, and concludes that they are essentially the same
form of aggression. We show that analogous forms are not found in other species. We
offer a functional account: indirect aggression is an alternative strategy to direct ag-
gression, enacted when the costs of direct aggression are high, and whose aim is to so-
cially exclude, or harm the social status of, a victim. In this light, we consider sex dif-
ferences and developmental trends and the impact of this aggression on victims. We
conclude that indirect, relational, and social aggression are much more similar than
they are different, and we suggest ways in which future research can be facilitated by
integrating the three areas under an adaptive framework.

Definitions of human aggression generally involve
the intention to inflict harm on others. Direct acts of
verbal and physical aggression in situations of inter-
personal conflict readily fit such a definition, and they
are clearly homologous with those found in other ani-
mals. In humans, there exists another form of aggres-
sion, one that can be as harmful and as damaging to its
victims as some types of physical aggression (e.g.,
Eslea, 2005; Paquette & Underwood, 1999). It has
been given three different names, indirect (Lagerspetz,
Bjdrkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988), relational (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995), and social (Cairns, Cairns, Necker-
man, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989) aggression. These
forms of aggression are intended to cause harm by us-
ing others, spreading rumors, gossiping, and excluding
others from the group or ignoring them. Unlike direct
aggression, indirect, relational, and social aggression
is not so easily separated from the same sort of actions
carried out without the motive to harm another. There-
fore, a person may gossip without intending to harm
another, but nevertheless do so. Someone may exclude
another from access to resources, or from a valued ac-
tivity, and not intend to harm or distress them, but nev-
ertheless do so. It is therefore particularly important to
consider motives in defining these forms of aggression
We thank Peter Henzi (University of Central Lancashire) for his
helpful comments on this article, and for discussing the possibility of
indirect aggression in primates. We also thank Mike Eslea and Sarah
Forrest for access to their unpublished work.
Requests for reprints should be sent to John Archer, Department
of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR 2 HE,
United Kingdom. E-mail: jarcher@uclan.ac.uk
212
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
and in separating them from wider concepts, such as
gossip and social exclusion.
The terms indirect aggression, relational aggres-
sion, and social aggression are superficially similar,
particularly with respect to the types of manipulative
acts they involve. Many of the same acts are found in
all three categories, and they all show sex differences
in the female direction, in contrast to direct forms of
aggression (Archer, 2004). Nevertheless, they do differ
in their emphasis and how researchers using the three
terms have conceptualized them (Archer, 2001). Indi-
rect aggression is defined in relation to the covert, "be-
hind-the-back," form the aggression takes: this is viewed
as a low-cost way of harming others (Bjorkqvist, 1994).
Relational aggression is defined in terms of its end-
point, which is to manipulate or disrupt relationships
and friendships, and its form can be overt or covert, but
is usually covert. Similarly, social aggression is de-
fined in terms of intended endpoints, which are to ma-
nipulate group acceptance and damage others' social
standing (Galen & Underwood, 1997). It also includes
both overt and covert forms and some additional acts
not included in the other two categories, such as giving
a "dirty look."
Researchers using the three labels disagree over
which term is the most useful for describing these ma-
nipulative forms of behavior. The major conflict is be-
tween indirect and relational aggression researchers,
with indirect aggression researchers arguing that the
latter had renamed a concept that had been studied for
nearly a decade before (e.g., Bjorkqvist, 2001). Con-
versely, relational aggression researchers maintain that
the two terms are distinct and involve different forms
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL, AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
of behavior (e.g., Crick et al., 1999). The term social
aggression is used less often, but is regarded as encom-
passing the other two (Underwood, 2003).
Throughout the review, our discussion will be in-
formed by a strategic or functional approach to aggres-
sion (Archer, 2001). All forms of aggression can be
viewed as social strategies, in that they have evolved
and are currently used to pursue certain competitive
goals. Different forms of aggression either involve dif-
ferent competitive goals or they represent different
means to the same ends. We argue that all three forms
of aggression can be distinguished from direct aggres-
sion because they have different adaptive goals and
because these are largely achieved in different ways.
Instead of directly inflicting harm, their aim is to
manipulate the reputation of another or to exclude
them from the group. Instead of doing this by direct ac-
tion, more manipulative, usually covert, methods are
used.
Before elaborating this functional approach, we
outline first the ways in which the three forms of ag-
gression have been measured and then consider their
definitions and the types of behavior each one entails.
We conclude from this discussion that the three terms
essentially cover the same form of aggression with dif-
ferences of emphasis in the defining characteristics.
This argument provides a rationale for considering a
single category, rather than three, throughout the rest of
the review. We use the label indirect aggression be-
cause this was the original one to be used in what is es-
sentially the same area of research and because it fits a
strategic approach whose emphasis is on the form the
aggression takes. We provide further rationale for us-
ing this term when we argue that the few cases where
relational or social aggression does involve overt meth-
ods occur in dyads rather than groups and it has differ-
ent goals from the usual forms of indirect relational or
social aggression.
The main part of the review begins with an exami-
nation of the claim that there are analogous forms of in-
direct aggression in other species, but we conclude that
it is restricted to humans. We then propose an adaptive
framework, which views indirect aggression as being
defined by both its goals and its strategies. The goals
are typically different from those of direct aggression
in that they involve social exclusion and manipulation.
The means through which these ends are achieved are
also different and can be viewed as an alternative ag-
gressive strategy used for individual or situational rea-
sons when the costs of direct confrontation are high.
We then examine developmental trends, sex differ-
ences, and the consequences of indirect aggression
from this perspective. We show that the form the ag-
gression takes varies at different ages, with direct
forms occurring in dyadic relationships at young ages
and typical indirect forms being more prominent dur-
ing middle childhood and adolescence. Sex differ-
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
ences, when found, are in the female direction, which-
ever label is attached to the aggression. Likewise, the
consequences of being both a victim and a perpetrator
of these forms of aggression show common features
across the three labels. The negative consequences of
indirect aggression are clear from the existing research
evid&nce, and could in future be linked with experi-
mental studies showing the wide-ranging harmful con-
sequences of brief periods of social exclusion. Here we
again note the difference between the ends (social ex-
clusion) and means (indirect and direct forms of social
manipulation). We end with some suggestions for fu-
ture research, primarily to seek to integrate the re-
search using the different labels, but also to link indi-
rect aggression to other areas of research.
The Measurement
of Indirect Aggression
A variety of methods have been used to measure in-
direct aggression (Table 1). Observations have been
used from preschool to school ages, up to 10 to 11
years, and they typically involve recording the fre-
quency of various acts of aggression. The original
studies of indirect aggression by Feshbach (1969)
measured social exclusion and rejection when a new-
comer was introduced to an established playgroup.
More recent studies have used technological aids, such
as a wireless microphone and hidden camera, to ob-
serve children in school playgrounds and at other break
times (Tapper & Boulton, 2002).
The first systematic research on a range of catego-
ries of indirect aggression, carried out in Finland, used
peer estimations or ratings (Lagerspetz et al., 1988).
The Direct and Indirect Aggression Scale (DIAS;
Bjbrkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Osterman, 1992) asks par-
ticipants to rate on a Likert scale how much each per-
son in the focal group (in this case the class) uses spe-
cific items of aggressive behavior when angry.
Participants who are rated highly on certain aggressive
behaviors by their peers are considered to be ag-
gressive. According to Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and
Kaukiainen (1992), peers are the experts on who is ag-
gressive and who is not. Teachers and parents are often
not aware of who is indirectly aggressive as this behav-
ior, by definition, is often difficult to recognize. Self-
report measures were not viewed as valid for assessing
indirect aggression in children, as children seek to keep
this hidden from adults.
Studies of relational aggression typically involve
peer nominations, in which participants are required to
nominate three peers who behaved in certain aggres-
sive ways (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). This approach is
different from the Finnish method where peers rate in-
dividuals from the whole class. According to Bjork-
qvist (2001), the peer rating or estimation technique is
213
 ARCHER AND COYNE

Table 1. Methods of Measurement: A Selection of Studies

Method Studies Comments
Observations Feshbach, 1969 Social exclusion of newcomers to group
Feshbach and Sones, 1971 Social exclusion of newcomers to group
McNeilly-Choque, Hart, Robinson, Nelson, and Olsen, 1996 Scan-sampling in playground
Pepler and Craig, 1995 Audio-transmitter in playground
Tapper and Boulton, 2002 Audio-transmitter and camera in playground
Tapper and Boulton, 2004 Audio-transmitter and camera in breaks
Peer Ratings Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen, 1988 Child rates all others in class on specific acts
Bjorkqvist, Lagersptez, & Kaukiainen, 1992 Child rates all others in class on specific acts
Peer Nominations Crick, 1995 Child nominates up to 3 children on specific acts
Crick and Grotpeter, 1995 Child nominates up to 3 children on specific acts
Crick, 1996 Child nominates up to 3 children on specific acts
Crick, 1997 Child nominates up to 3 children on specific acts
Werner and Crick, 1999 College students nominate up to 5 peers on specific acts
Teacher Ratings Crick, 1996 Child rated on 5-point scale on specific acts
Crick, Casas, and Mosher, 1997 Child rated on 5-point scale on specific acts
Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, and McNeilly-Choque, 1998 Child rated on 3-point scale on specific acts
McNeilly-Choque, 1996 Child rated on 3-point scale on specific acts
Self Reports Ahmad and Smith, 1994 Victim's reports of acts of indirect bullying
Rivers and Smith, 1994 Victim's reports of acts of indirect bullying
Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiainen, 1994 Victim's reports of acts of indirect aggression
Crick and Grotpeter, 1996 Victim's reports of relational aggression
Kaukiainen et al., 2001 Victim's reports of acts of indirect aggression
Green, Richardson, and Lago, 1996 Acts of indirect aggression
Campbell, Sapochnik, and Muncer, 1997 Acts of indirect aggression
Ireland, 1998 Acts of indirect bullying among prisoners
Ireland, 2000 Acts of indirect bullying among prisoners
Linder, Crick, and Collins, 2002 Acts of relational aggression between partners
Loudin, Loukas, and Robinson, 2003 Acts of relational aggression in college students
Others Hines and Fry, 1994 Interviews
Owens, Shute, and Slee, 2000a Qualitative method
Xie, Cairns, and Cairns, 2002 Focus groups

much more sensitive and informative. Multiple ratings
of each child provide an accurate picture of who is ac-
tually aggressive. With peer nominations, only obvi-
ously aggressive children may come easily to mind.
Thus quieter, and maybe more manipulative, aggres-
sors are not rated as such. We should bear in mind such
methodological differences when assessing the find-
ings from the two sets of studies.
Teacher ratings, a method with a long history in de-
velopmental psychology, have only recently been
adapted to measure indirect aggression. Crick (1996)
asked teachers to rate children on seven items of rela-
tional aggression along a 5-point scale. A similar scale
has been used in other studies of relational aggression
(Table 1). We should note that this method is different
from the nomination method used by Crick for peer as-
sessments and is more similar to the ratings used by
Bjorkqvist and his colleagues.
The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and
Youth (NLSCY) involved 22,000 Canadian children
about whom information was collected biannually.
The large-scale nature of this study precluded any
time-consuming measures, and it was the person most
knowledgeable about the child (typically the mother)
and the teacher who rated the children at each data-col-
lection point. Direct aggression was measured from
214
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
mothers' ratings from 2 years onwards (e.g., Tremblay
et al., 1999). Indirect aggression was measured, using
five items from Lagerspetz et al. (1988) from ages 4 to
11 (Vaillancourt, Brendgen, Boivin, & Tremblay,
2003). This method may have limitations, as mothers
are less likely to know the details of their children's so-
cial relations at school and other places outside the
home.
Table 1 also shows studies that have used self-re-
ports. Some of these, such as the Social Experience
Questionnaire (SEQ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) concern
victims' experiences. This scale asks children how fre-
quently they had experienced overt and relational ag-
gression. Similarly, the extent of bullying among chil-
dren has been studied by self-reports of indirect forms of
victimization (Table 1). Most self-report measures of
perpetration involve adults. A typical example is that of
Green, Richardson, and Lago (1996), which used items
from the DIAS (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). They asked par-
ticipants to rate how often they had engaged in various
acts-including indirect aggression-when angry with
friends in the past year. Others involved relational ag-
gression in college students (Loudin, Loukas, & Robin-
son, 2003) or in romantic relationships (Linder, Crick,
& Collins, 2002). The acts measured in the last study all
involved direct forms, as the victim knew that it was the
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL. AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
partner who was aggressing. They involved threats to
break up the relationship unless the partner complied,
seeking to make them jealous, infidelity as revenge, and
ignoring them. Such acts of relational aggression, in a
dyadic situation, differ markedly from those used in a
group setting, which are typically covert. Their aim is to
coerce the other directly, rather than to manipulate a so-
cial position by indirect means.
McNeilly-Choque, Hart, Robinson, Nelson, and Ol-
sen (1996) explored several methods for studying rela-
tional aggression in preschool children and found that
peer nominations were more effective in identifying
relationally aggressive boys, whereas teacher ratings
and observations were more effective with girls. This
study only examined preschool children, who are often
not mature enough to effectively use all the forms of
social aggression or to report on who is using it. Thus,
different methodologies may be appropriate for differ-
ent age groups.
To summarize, there are several different ways of
examining indirect aggression. Most measures gener-
ally show good internal consistencies, ranging from o =
.78 to .96 (e.g., Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Crick et al.,
1999). When tested, they show good test-retest reliabil-
ity over short time periods, ranging from r = .81 to .86
(Crick, 1996; Crick et al., 1999). Over a year, values
were from r = .61 to .75 for girls, and from r = .49 to .72
for boys (Willoughby, Kupersmidt, & Bryant, 2001).
Validity of these measures is most often assessed using
factor analysis. Items of indirect aggression consis-
tently show up on a separate factor than items of physi-
cal and verbal aggression (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, &
Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz
et al., 1988; Vaillancourt et al., 2003). These measures
also show evidence of convergent validity, as this form
of aggression is related to other aggression-related vari-
ables, such as hostility (Archer & Webb, in press), hold-
ing anger in, emotionality, and difficulty with attention
control (Richardson & Green, 2003). Peer-nominated
relational aggression in adults is also related to tenden-
cies for antisocial behavior, borderline personality, and
eating disorders (Werner & Crick, 1999).
Crick et al. (1999) found that peer reports of aggres-
sion were highly related to other ways of measuring ag-
gression, including teacher reports and observational
methods, although other studies have found more agree-
ment for girls than boys (McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996;
McEvoy, Estrem, Rodriguez, & Olson, 1999). Self-re-
port measures, especially in childhood and adolescence,
do not correlate well with other methods of measuring
aggression or other aggression-related variables (Crick
et al., 1999). Therefore, this method may not be valid for
measuring indirect aggression at these age groups. It ap-
pears that observational studies or teacher ratings, or a
multimethod approach that combines these, are appro-
priate for measuring indirect aggression in preschool
(e.g., McNeilly-Choque et al., 1996; Monks, Smith, &
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
Swettenham, 2003). Peer ratings are more appropriate
for childhood and adolescence (e.g., Bjdrkqvist et al.,
1992) and self-reports during adulthood (e.g., Green et
al., 1996). Regardless of the method used, researchers
find that indirect aggression exists in every age group of
participants studied so far and in a number of different
contexts, such as schools, colleges, workplaces, and
prisons.
Terminology and Definitions
Indirect Aggression
Until the late 1980s, most research on aggression
focused on overt forms, ignoring almost entirely subtle
forms of hurtful behavior. A Finnish research team was
the first to systematically examine indirect aggression
and its harmful effects (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Indi-
rect aggression was defined as "a type of behavior in
which the perpetrator attempts to inflict pain in such a
manner that he or she makes it seem as though there is
no intention to hurt at all" (Bjoirkqvist et al., 1992,
p. 118). It consists of many forms (Table 2), including
backbiting, excluding others from the group, and spread-
ing nasty rumors. As indicated in the previous section,
these forms of aggression form a separate factor from
items of direct (physical and verbal) aggression.
The Finnish group's definition was based on earlier
research, particularly that of Buss (1961) and Feshbach
(1969). Buss was the first to use the term "indirect ag-
gression." He stated that it may be verbal (spreading
rumors) or physical (destroying someone's property).
Feshbach (1969; Feshbach & Sones, 1971) used an ob-
servational method to study in children what she also
termed "indirect aggression," expanding on Buss's def-
inition by stating that it occurred through the use of so-
cial exclusion, ignoring, and rejection, terms more
consistent with the present-day definition of indirect
aggression.
Although indirect aggression has been defined in
several ways, Bjorkqvist et al. (1992, p. 52) modeled
their definition on research that described the indi-
rect-direct dichotomy as distinguishing between "harm
delivered in a face-to-face situation and harm delivered
circuitously." They further explained that through the
use of indirect aggression, the aggressor may remain
unidentified and avoid any possible counterattack. The
defining feature of indirect aggression appears to be
"behind-the-back behavior," that is, the victim is un-
aware of the perpetrator's identity. However, a more re-
cent definition reveals that indirect aggression does not
always need to involve this feature. Bjorkqvist et al.
(2001, p. 113) defined indirect aggression as
attempts to cause psychological, in rare cases even
physical, harm to the target person by social manipu-
lation, often [but not always] attacking the target in
215
 ARCHER AND COYNE

Table 2. Forms /f Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression (Conceptual Groupings).

Type of Aggression
Indirect Aggression Relational Aggression Social Aggression
Early childhood Forms
Says "I'm not your friend" unless the person Threaten to end the friendship if don't do Threaten to end the friendship if don't do
does what they want what they want what they want
Not invite to party if don't do what they want Not invite to party if don't do what they want
Threaten to exclude if don't do what they want Threaten to exclude if don't do what they want
Refuse to listen to someone they are mad at; Refuse to listen to someone they are mad at;
cover their ears cover their ears
Middle Child/Pre-Adolescence Forms
Gossip Gossip Gossip
Spread rumors Spread rumors Spread rumors
Backbite Backbite Backbite
Break confidences Break confidences Break confidences
Criticize clothes and personality behind back Criticize clothes and personality behind back Criticize clothes and personality behind back
Ignore Ignore Ignore
Deliberately leave others out of the group Deliberately leave others out of the group Deliberately leave others out of the group
Social ostracism/exclusion Social ostracism/exclusion Social ostracism/exclusion
Turn others against Turn others against Turn others against
Become friends with another as revenge Become friends with another as revenge Become friends with another as revenge
Imitate behind back Imitate behind back Imitate behind back
Embarrass in public Embarrass in public4 Embarrass in publicb
Anonymous notes Anonymous notesa Anonymous notesb
Practical jokes Practical jokesa Practical jokesb
Abusive phone calls Abusive phone callsa Abusive phone callsb
Dirty looks Dirty looks
Huddle Huddle Huddle
Roll eyes Roll eyes
Indirect physical aggression? (e.g., vandalism)C Verbal insults? (that hurt their self esteem?)c
Adult Forms (Not Included in Above Section) Aggression in Groups and the Workplace
Say something hurtful that appears rational Say something hurtful that appears rational Say something hurtful that appears rational
when questioned when questioneda when questionedb
Put undue pressure on someone Put undue pressure on someonea Put undue pressure on someoneb
Judge others' work in an unjust manner Judge others' work in an unjust mannera Judge others' work in an unjust mannerb
Reduce the other's opportunity to express Reduce the other's opportunity to express Reduce the other's opportunity to express
opinions opinionsa opinionsb
Openly dismiss the opinions of other Openly dismiss the opinions of other Openly dismiss the opinions of other
employees employeesa employeesb
Reduce or increase an employee's duties to Reduce or increase an employee's duties to Reduce or increase an employee's duties to
hamper his or her work hamper his or her worka hamper his or her workb
Adult Forms Aggression in Dyadic Relationships
Influence others by making feel guilty Influence others by making feel guilty Influence others by making feel guilty
Pretend to be hurt to make feel bad Pretend to be hurt to make feel bad Pretend to be hurt to make feel bad
"Steal" boyfriend/girlfriend "Steal" boyfriend/girlfriend "Steal" boyfriend/girlfriend
Withdraw attention/love Withdraw attention/love Withdraw attention/love
Threaten to break up with partner if partner
does not comply
Use infidelity as revenge
Flirt with another person to make partner
jealous
Notes. aHurts relationship or social standing. bHurts social standing. cNot consistent with present day definition.

circuitous ways through a third person in order to con- make someone jealous, may involve awareness of the
ceal the aggressive intent, or otherwise pretending that perpetrator's identity. Furthermore, Bjdrkqvist et al.
the attack was not aggressive at all. (1992) did include the item 'Says: "I'm not your
friend"' on their indirect aggression scale in a study of
Thus, some forms of indirect aggression, such as ig- 8-year-olds' aggression. It would therefore appear that
noring someone or becoming friends with another to both in their choice of items and in their subsequent
216
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL, AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
characterization the category "indirect aggression"
may include some direct manipulation of relationships.
Relational Aggression
Crick and Grotpeter (1995) introduced the concept
of relational aggression in a study of children around
10 to 11 years of age. It was subsequently defined as
"behaviors that harm others through damage (or the
threat of damage) to relationships or feelings of accep-
tance, friendship, or group inclusion" (Crick et al.,
1999, p. 77). Table 2 shows relational aggression items.
Although most forms are equivalent to indirect aggres-
sion in that they are "behind-the-back," relational ag-
gression can be overt. The emphasis is not on the form
the aggression takes, but on the intention to harm a re-
lationship or group membership. Aggressors may give
the "silent treatment" directly to victims or tell them
that they will be excluded from the social group unless
they do what the aggressor desires. In these cases, the
victims know who the aggressors are and what they are
doing, but this is not a definitional issue with relational
aggression. As we noted above, measures of indirect
aggression do in practice sometimes contain such items,
particularly at younger ages.
Table 2 shows that there is considerable overlap be-
tween the items used to measure relational and indirect
aggression. Gossiping, spreading rumors, and break-
ing confidences both harm relationships (relational ag-
gression) and are carried out circuitously (indirect ag-
gression). It is therefore debatable whether in practical
terms the two concepts differ much, although the em-
phasis in their definitions is indeed different. Because
of the considerable overlap in practical terms, indirect
aggression researchers have argued that relational ag-
gression is in fact indirect aggression with a new name
(Bjbrkqvist, 2001). However, even if we restrict our ex-
amination to the content, there are still several acts that
are exclusively relational. When an aggressor acts by
manipulating a dyadic relationship, for example ignor-
ing a friend or threatening to end a friendship, this is
very direct form of relational aggression-as the vic-
tim knows exactly who the aggressor is. Collectively,
these acts have been termed relational manipulation
(Crick et al., 1999; French, Jansen, & Pidada, 2002).
Relational manipulation is rarely found in contempo-
rary definitions of indirect aggression; however, the
item 'Says: "I'm not your friend"' did feature on an in-
direct aggression measure (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992),
and it is clear that this item refers mainly to dyadic
relations.
We can conclude that the main difference between
the two concepts lies in their core defining features and
hence their emphasis. Relational aggression is based
on the importance of relationships and their manipula-
tions in the social life of children (Crick & Grotpeter,
1995), whereas indirect aggression retains Buss's orig-
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
inal emphasis on the aggressor not being known to the
victim (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). However, in terms of the
types of behavior they measure, they differ very little.
Social Aggression
The term social aggression was first used to de-
scribe "the manipulation of group acceptance through
alienation, ostracism, or character defamation" (Cairns
et al., 1989, p. 323). Galen and Underwood (1997, p.
589) expanded this definition by describing it as being
"...directed toward damaging another's self-esteem,
social status, or both, and may take such direct forms as
verbal rejection, negative facial expression or body
movement, or more indirect forms such as slanderous
rumors or social exclusion." They argued that social
aggression is a distinct form of aggression, as indirect
aggression focuses on covert aggression, whereas rela-
tional aggression focuses on only one element of social
aggression, the manipulation of friendship patterns.
Social aggression encompasses all the forms of behav-
ior described above for relational and indirect aggres-
sion and includes harmful nonverbal behavior, such as
rolling the eyes and giving dirty looks. This category is
actually very similar to nonverbal aggression, which is
a gestural form of indirect aggression that includes
huddling and giving dirty looks (Owens, Shute, &
Slee, 2000a).
Underwood, Galen, and Paquette (2001, p. 252)
suggested that researchers use the term "social aggres-
sion" to describe all types of manipulative and deceit-
ful behavior because it "so aptly describes what might
be at least one purpose of these behaviors." Social ag-
gression is also the only term that encompasses both
overt and covert forms of relational manipulation and
includes harmful nonverbal behaviors (Underwood,
2003). One problem with using this term is that most
direct verbal forms of aggression, such as insults,
could be termed "social." However, social aggression
researchers typically do not include direct verbal ag-
gression (Crick et al., 1999).
Xie, Swift, Cairns, and Cairns (2002, p. 206) sought
to distinguish social aggression from a category they
termed direct relational aggression. In the first cate-
gory, they included "actions that cause interpersonal
damage and are achieved by nonconfrontational and
largely concealed methods that employ the social com-
munity," that is, the territory covered by the indirect ag-
gression researchers. Direct relational aggression, on
the other hand, involved dyadic relationships and was
defined as "behaviors that damage another child's
friendship or feelings of inclusion by the peer group"
(p. 206). This definition would seem to be relational
manipulation by a different name. We are again dealing
with a distinction between nonconfrontational aggres-
sion in a group context and direct relational manipula-
tion in a dyad. According to Galen and Underwood's
217
 ARCHER AND COYNE
(1997) definition, social aggression encompasses both
of these. Nevertheless, the distinction between social
aggression enacted within a dyad and within a larger
social group is an important one. The first provides the
context for most cases of relational manipulation, that
is, direct attempts to control the other's behavior, which
we argue is different from indirect aggression in a
group context, aimed at manipulating another's social
position or socially excluding them.
Indirect and Relational Aggression
on Other Aggression Measures
Some forms of indirect aggression have been in-
cluded in self-report questionnaires designed to mea-
sure other forms of aggression. Following Buss's
(1961) characterization of indirect aggression, the
Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Dur-
kee, 1957) included a scale labeled "indirect hostility."
Although it involves "gossiping" and "playing prac-
tical jokes," which can be considered indirect ag-
gression, other acts, such as "slamming doors" and
"breaking things," belong in different groups, such as
displaced aggression (Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen,
Carlson, & Miller, 2000). The Aggression Question-
naire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992), an update of the BDHI
that did not include indirect hostility or aggression,
was revised by Buss and Warren (2000) to include an
"indirect aggression" scale. Instead of basing this on
studies of indirect aggression among adults (e.g.,
Campbell, Sapochnik, & Muncer, 1997; Richardson &
Green, 1999), the authors took items from two scales
of the original BDHI, "indirect hostility" and "negativ-
ism." Two items (spreading gossip and "giving the
silent treatment") are clearly indirect aggression, but
another (slamming doors) is better characterized as
displaced aggression. The other three involve practical
jokes, messing up someone's work, and deliberately
taking time to do something, none of which feature in
the research on indirect aggression.
A widely used measure of aggression between part-
ners, the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979),
concentrates on physical aggression but also contains a
scale originally labeled "verbal aggression," later re-
named "psychological aggression" (revised CTS;
Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).
This latter scale involves direct verbal aggression, acts
of spite (such as destroying property), sulking, and
stomping out of the place. Although sulking and
stomping out could be considered direct forms of rela-
tional aggression, the scale is a mixture of different
forms of aggression. These items do tend to be asso-
ciated with one another, as the Cronbach's alpha for
the scale is .79 (Straus et al., 1996). Likewise a scale
labeled "psychological aggression" (Hammock &
O'Hearn, 2002), which was used to study dating re-
lationships, included direct items ("yelling," "insult-
218
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
ing"), direct relational ones ("threatened to have an af-
fair"), and some that involved control tactics such as
monitoring the other's behavior. In these studies, direct
relational aggression items have been mixed in with
those that represent displaced aggression, such as
"slamming doors" (the BDHI) or direct verbal aggres-
sion, such as "shouted or yelled at my partner" (CTS).
Therefore, these scales do not represent pure measures
of relational aggression in a dyadic context but mix
some forms of this type of aggression with other con-
ceptually different forms of aggression.
Does Indirect Aggression Occur
in Nonhumans?
We have so far established that there exists a coher-
ent set of aggressive acts occurring widely in humans
that entails the goals of social exclusion or manipula-
tion, typically involving the use of indirect means to
achieve such goals. In this section, we explore the ori-
gins of different forms of aggression, including in-
direct forms, in nonhuman animals. Direct physical
aggression is found throughout the animal kingdom
(Archer, 1988), from species with very simple nervous
systems to the great apes and humans. In birds and
mammals, there are specialized brain mechanisms as-
sociated with the emotional states underlying aggres-
sive behavior (Panksepp, 1998). Humans have inher-
ited these mechanisms from their primate ancestors
and with them the capacity for direct physical aggres-
sion. Indeed, evidence of human violence is wide-
spread across the globe today, and there have been
countless examples of violent acts in historical records
and prehistorical times.
Aggressive motivation may be manifest in other
ways in animals, as postures, gestures, sounds, or
smells that are designed to intimidate an opponent.
They include exaggerating the apparent size of the ani-
mal, displaying bodily musculature and weapons, and
vocalizing loudly (Orwen & Rendall, 2001). Humans
also show such aggressive displays and have developed
these forms of aggression by combining their vocal as-
pects with speech to form the category known as direct
verbal aggression. In some cases, the origin in pre-
linguistic threat displays is apparent, for example when
a man stares at another man, shouts directly at him, and
raises his fist. Verbal threats that specify intended
physical actions, such as "I'll smash your face," are not
far removed from animal threat postures. Verbal threats
accompany physical aggression in toddlers aged 2 to 3
years (Fagot & Hagan, 1985).
Verbal aggression becomes elaborated throughout
development. Insults come to play a prominent part.
They involve hostile comments that denigrate impor-
tant aspects of a person's identity. For example, it is im-
portant for a boy's identity to be seen as courageous:
 INDIRECT. RELATIONAL AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
thus the names chicken or vellow that label him as cow-
ardly challenge this sought-after identity. Insults as-
sume particular importance between men where there
is no effective rule of law. Here they constitute chal-
lenges that have to be avenged physically if the person
is to avoid loss of face and status for both himself
and his family (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; Ruff, 2001). In
social environments where there are more restraints
on violent retribution, verbal aggression may include
making critical comments to someone's face or mak-
ing individuals the butt of remarks that are humorous to
others but not to them.
In contrast to physical and verbal aggression, the
precursors of indirect aggression in nonhumans are dif-
ficult to find. A precondition for being able to use indi-
rect aggression would seem to be the existence of lan-
guage and social skills that are uniquely found in
humans. Nevertheless, some researchers have argued
that nonhuman primates show nonverbally mediated
forms of indirect aggression, that is, analogous forms
of behavior that involve manipulation of their social
world. Holmstrom (1992) stated that the power strug-
gles of female primates may be indirect in form. How-
ever, the first example they cited was the abduction and
cannibalism of other animals' offspring in gorillas and
chimpanzees. Although this behavior is clearly an overt
way of harming the young who were the victims, it was
viewed as indirect because it occurred away from the
adult males who might intervene. This example is
hardly analogous to indirect forms of social manipula-
tion in humans. HolmstrOm's other examples are even
less persuasive, involving, for example, socialization
practices of the young and refusal of sexual access.
Campbell (1999) based her claim that there are
analogous indirect forms of aggression in primates on
Hrdy's (1981) account of competition between female
primates. For example, the mere presence of a domi-
nant female can lead to "delays in maturation, inhibi-
tion of ovulation, or, in extreme cases, spontaneous
abortion" (Hrdy, 1981, p. 99) in a subordinate who
has to occupy the same space as the dominant. Such
changes would obviously decrease fitness for the sub-
ordinate while increasing that of the dominant. Camp-
bell (1999, p. 210) stated that this is a form of indirect
aggression because "such tactics involve no direct
combat between the adult females." However, these ex-
amples indicate only that there are harmful conse-
quences for subordinate animals that have to coexist
with those who can (and probably have) physically
dominated them in the past. They are examples from
primates of one aspect of social stress, which is much
more widespread in animals and which has a range of
physiological and behavioral consequences in mam-
mals (e.g., Archer, 1970, 1979; Barnett, 1964).
Reproductive suppression among subordinates is
therefore a consequence of dominance relations and is
certainly not restricted to primates-indeed it is found
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
in invertebrates (Breed & Bell, 1983). Its existence
does not address the issue of whether the aggressive
acts that caused it were direct or involved subtle ma-
nipulation of social relations. In the example described
above, to infer indirect aggression we would have to
suppose that the dominant animal was occupying a
space close to the subordinate in the knowledge that
this would stress and discomfort the subordinate. There
are many other reasons why dominant and subordinate
animals might be found in close proximity, for exam-
ple common access to food or shelter. Until manipula-
tion with the intention of causing discomfort in a sub-
ordinate has been experimentally demonstrated in such
cases, it is more parsimonious to regard them as part of
the wider phenomenon of social stress in animals.
More generally, it has been claimed that just as hu-
mans can deceive and lie to one another, so some pri-
mates use deliberate deception in their social relations.
This kind of deception is known as "tactical deception"
(Bryne & Whiten, 1985) and is regarded as part of an
array of cognitive abilities known as "Machiavellian
intelligence" (Whiten & Byrne, 1988). The use of tac-
tical deception might open the way for some forms of
indirect aggression although these would necessarily
be limited without language. However, more recent re-
search and theory on primate cognition (e.g., Barrett,
Henzi, & Dunbar, 2003; Shettleworth, 2001) cautions
against accepting the claim that tactical deception
exists among nonhuman primates, at least in the mon-
key species, such as baboons, for which it has been
claimed. Instead, the ability to track third-party rela-
tions may be restricted to apes and humans, with apes
only showing limited abilities necessary for tracking
relationships in possible future time frames (Barrett et
al., 2003). Without such abilities, on the present evi-
dence it is seems unlikely that indirect aggression oc-
curs in nonhuman primates.
What Are the Functions
of Indirect Aggression?
Although we argue that indirect aggression is re-
stricted to the human species, it may nevertheless have
an adaptive origin. Whereas overt aggression involves
direct physical harm, or associated threats or chal-
lenges, indirect aggression contains no such physical
harm or related threat. Its main' consequence (an ex-
plicit aim in relational and social aggression) is social
exclusion, or reputational manipulation, of the other. It
therefore has a different major goal to that of direct ag-
gression. This consideration enables it to be placed in a
wider historical and evolutionary context. Whenever
animals live in complex social groups and rely on
group living for survival, the way is opened for com-
petitive rivals to be not only defeated in a physical fight
(and hence either to be killed or denied access to re-
219
 ARCHER AND COYNE
sources), but also to be excluded from the social group.
Both will fulfill the function of removing a rival from
the arena of competition.
There are many examples of animals being socially
excluded from a group or an area as a consequence of
losing an aggressive exchange. However, these arise
from direct forms of aggression, rather than social ma-
nipulation. In territorial rodents, the first response to
the fighting that occurs in conditions of crowding is for
defeated animals to leave the area (Archer, 1970).
Suomi (2005) showed that young male rhesus mon-
keys that were poor at controlling their impulsive ag-
gression were harassed and driven out of the social
group before puberty by adult females. There are many
examples throughout human history of people being
excluded from a social group by force or formally ban-
ished as a form of punishment (e.g., Ruff, 2001).
In addition to social exclusion, another major adap-
tive consequence of indirect aggression is to adversely
manipulate the reputation of another individual in the
social group, that is, to decrease his or her social stand-
ing in relation to that of the aggressor. After puberty,
many forms of indirect aggression-particularly those
involving hurtful gossip-concern the sexual reputa-
tion of the victim. Geary (1999) regarded "relational
aggression" as a part of women's strategies to restrict
men's extra-pair mating opportunities. They can also
be used to exclude competitors from a group. A woman
who readily provides men with sexual access is a threat
to the fitness of other women because she lowers the
"market value" of sexual access and hence women's
bargaining power with potential mates (Baumeister &
Twenge, 2002).
From this perspective, indirect aggression can be
viewed as a more subtle way of excluding someone
from a social group or of lowering their social standing
than is possible with direct forms of aggression. It has
the advantage of either hiding the identity of the ag-
gressor or enabling him or her to deny hostile intent.
This usage lowers the cost of aggression in terms of the
likelihood of direct retaliation. If social exclusion or
manipulation of reputation rather than causing physi-
cal harm is the aim of the aggression, indirect forms
can be as effective, or more so, as direct forms.
The discussion in this section applies to forms of in-
direct aggression enacted in groups and larger organi-
zational units. However, we should again note that
face-to-face forms of relational aggression that occur
in dyads are an exception in that they constitute direct
forms of coercion. For example, when someone tells
their romantic partner that they will break up the rela-
tionship unless they comply with a request or ignores
them until they do so (Linder et al., 2002), this is a di-
rect relational aggression. Sulking, which is used as a
tactic at most ages, can be seen in this light along with
the withdrawal of social interactions until the other
person complies. Whether or not this is considered
220
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
"aggression" does not affect its strategic aim, which is
similar to other forms of aggression and to various
forms of controlling behavior used by members of a
couple to seek to coerce the other (Graham-Kevan &
Archer, 2003a, 2003b), that is to control the other's be-
havior. It is for this reason that we view such hostile
and aggressive acts, occurring in a dyadic context, as
essentially different, both in form and goals, from the
typical forms of indirect aggression enacted in the con-
text of a group or wider social network.
Indirect Aggression as an Alternative
Aggressive Strategy
From an evolutionary perspective, aggressive acts
form part of various strategies that have been selected
because over past generations they have led to greater
fitness, for example by increasing access to resources,
raising status, and removing competitors. Direct ag-
gression, physical attack, and the use of verbal threats
backing this up form one type of strategy based on su-
perior size, strength, and fighting ability. This form of
aggression can be viewed as a basic strategy that oper-
ates in humans when there are few moral restraints and
the rule of law is weak (Courtwright, 1996; Ruff,
2001). Under such conditions, men gain social stand-
ing according to their credible threat of violent retalia-
tion (Archer, 1994; Daly & Wilson, 1988).
Indirect aggression forms an alternative aggressive
strategy that is likely to be more adaptive than direct
confrontation under certain social conditions. These
conditions would first require that there are costs at-
tached to direct-especially physical-aggression and
second that there are people who have the social and
other skills necessary to use social forms of aggression.
Another requirement is that there are the social net-
works in place that would enable a person to advance
their social standing at the expense of another person
or people by manipulating their social position and
reputation.
Campbell (1999) has argued that the costs of direct
aggression are greater for women than for men. Wom-
en are therefore more likely to avoid potentially dam-
aging escalated encounters in favor of indirect methods
of gaining a competitive advantage. Only under social
conditions where the benefits of direct aggression are
higher, for example when single young women com-
pete for a few resource-rich men (Campbell, 1995), do
women show high levels of direct aggression to other
women. Campbell's analysis also indicates why social
aggression occurs to a greater extent in girls than boys,
from middle childhood to adolescence. It is also likely
that social conditions facilitate indirect methods where
there are legal sanctions against, and disapproval of,
direct physical aggression. In the modern office and
university department, direct physical aggression to a
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL. AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
work colleague has a very high cost attached to it.
These are also places where gossip and social ostra-
cism flourish.
Indirect aggression is only possible when peo-
ple have the social skills necessary to understand
and manipulate relationships within a social group.
Kaukiainen et al. (1999) showed a positive association
between social intelligence and the use of indirect ag-
gression in children. As indicated, it is unlikely that
nonhuman animals have attained the ability to use even
rudimentary forms of indirect aggression.
Indirect aggression requires well-established social
networks that are important to the people concerned.
Thus in the single-sex groups that are characteristic of
girls' social development from preschool to late adoles-
cence (Archer, 1992; Maccoby, 1988, 1998), social rela-
tions are particularly important. A negative social stand-
ing within such a group, or exclusion from it, would have
far-reaching consequences for the victim of indirect ag-
gression. Although boys' groups provide a social setting
where direct confrontation can flourish to a greater ex-
tent, there is still scope for manipulating social reputa-
tion by verbal means, whether by face-to-face banter
(Benson & Archer, 2002) or by covert manipulation of
reputation. Green et al. (1996) found that, in a sample of
young adults, men with higher-density social networks
reported more indirect and less direct aggression than
those with low-density social networks. Social density
referred to the extent to which people they interacted
with also interacted with one another.
From the evidence reviewed in this section, we can
extend our analysis of the evolutionary functions of in-
direct aggression. We can view indirect aggression as an
alternative strategy to direct aggression that is sensitive
to the costs and benefits associated with the two forms of
aggression but that differs both across and within indi-
viduals in different social settings. It is also one that be-
comes possible with the possession of social skills and
in settings where the necessary social relations are in
place and the costs of direct aggression are high.
The Development
of Indirect Aggression
Very young children (with few verbal skills) are
likely to use physical and limited forms of direct verbal
aggression, as these are the only forms that their cogni-
tive maturity will support. When verbal skills develop,
children are able to enhance their repertoire of direct
verbal aggression to include more subtle forms. They
will also be able to use overt forms of relational aggres-
sion, such as direct threats to stop interacting with an-
other child or to end the friendship (Crick, Casas, &
Mosher, 1997). Physical aggression begins to decrease
in frequency from around 2 years of age as the individ-
ual develops alternative responses (Tremblay et al.,
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
1999). We would not expect much indirect aggression
at these very young ages, as the children lack the social
intelligence to express aggression in this way. Social
intelligence involves skills such as reading nonverbal
cues and inferring attributions from the behavior of
others (Kaukiainen et al., 1999).
Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) set out a developmental the-
ory of direct and indirect forms of aggression. Direct
aggression becomes partly replaced by indirect forms
as social intelligence develops. The extent to which
this occurs depends on the context and the individual.
According to their cross-sectional evidence, from 8 to
18 years of age, both sexes show a decline in physical
aggression, whereas verbal abuse increases from age 8
to 11 years, with a slight decline from 15 to 18 years.
From 8 to 11 years of age, indirect aggression in-
creases, and it declines a little thereafter, to 18 years.
These authors suggest that by young adulthood, men
and women show similar levels of indirect aggression,
a view that is consistent with findings of no sex differ-
ences in adult samples (see next section).
In the NLSCY, indirect aggression was measured by
mothers' ratings from ages 4 to 11 years. Factor analy-
sis of data from 4 cohorts involving over 3,000 children
showed that there were distinct groupings of physical
and indirect aggression, which were stable across time,
cohorts, and sex (Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Another
analysis of around 7,500 children, using 8 cohorts in an
accelerated longitudinal design (Vaillancourt et al.,
2005), showed that indirect aggression was clearly
present at the first age tested (4 years of age) and at lev-
els comparable to those found at later ages. Although
the researchers concluded that there was an increase in
indirect aggression at age 7 years, this was based on a
categorical analysis in terms of the trajectories. They
identified a group of children who showed low levels
of indirect aggression at 4 years, increasing to a sta-
ble level by the age of 7 years. However, the group
amounted to only 22% of the total sample, and mean
values (Vaillancourt et al., 2005) showed consistent
levels across ages. Another longitudinal study (Cilles-
sen & Mayeaux, 2004), involving children aged 10 to
14 years, found that relational aggression was more
stable over time among girls than boys.
Crick et al. (1999) argued that the style of relational
aggression changes with increasing age. In preschool
this type of aggression is more overt, with children tell-
ing their friends, for example, "We're not friends any
more unless you share your Barbie with me!" We have
already noted that this is characteristic of relational ag-
gression in dyads and that Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) in-
cluded a similar item in their study of 8-year-olds' indi-
rect aggression (the youngest age they studied). In
middle childhood, relational aggression becomes more
covert and is much more sophisticated and complex
(Crick et al., 1999). It is more likely to focus on an indi-
vidual's social group, with aggressors excluding and
221
 ARCHER AND COYNE
ignoring individuals or spreading vicious rumors about
them. Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) found that girls aged 11
and 15 years used more indirect aggression than
8-year-old girls, and they also noted that the social
groups were more developed at older ages and more
exclusive than at younger ages. These findings support
their developmental theory by revealing that indirect
aggression depends heavily on both maturation and the
development of a strong social network.
In young adulthood, forms of indirect aggression
are further refined so as to appear nonaggressive if the
aggressor is challenged. In a work context, Bjdrkqvist,
Osterman, and Lagerspetz (1994) identified "rational-
appearing aggression," that is, aggression disguised as
rational argument, which was also found across several
workplace contexts by Kaukiainen et al. (2001). Adult
women may also use indirect aggression when compet-
ing with one another over a man (Campbell, 1995;
Vaillancourt, 2005). There is little research on older
adults although Walker and Richardson (1998) argued
that elderly people would be less likely to use direct ag-
gression, instead either avoiding conflict or using indi-
rect aggression. Walker, Richardson, and Green (2000)
found that direct aggression was less common in a
sample ages 55 to 89 years than in samples of young
adults (e.g., Green et al., 1996). Indirect aggression oc-
curred to a much greater extent than direct aggression
although still not as much as in young adult samples
(Green et al., 1996). Within this age range, indirect ag-
gression declined with age.
The studies reviewed in this section show that both
face-to-face and indirect forms of relational aggression
occur at 4 years of age, and that the form taken by this
type of aggression becomes more indirect with age.
Therefore indirect aggression occurs at every age
range studied so far, from preschool to old age. Al-
though it has been suggested that there is a develop-
mental trend for these forms of aggression to increase
across childhood, from 4 to 11 years and older, the evi-
dence from the NLSCY only partially supports this.
However, we should be cautious given that the mea-
sures used in this study were mothers' reports and that
peers were likely to be in a better position to provide
information on children's indirect aggression.
Sex Differences
Indirect, relational, and social aggression research
all show that girls use more of these forms of aggres-
sion than boys. However, there is considerable varia-
tion in the occurrence and size of the sex difference as a
function of age, type of measurement, and sample.
One of the major purposes of the Finnish group's re-
search was to determine whether girls were equally ag-
gressive as boys when both direct and indirect aggres-
sion were considered. Their first study (Lagerspetz et
al., 1988) found that 1-year-old girls exhibited con-
222
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
siderably more indirect aggression than boys of this
age. Calculating the standardized mean difference
from their figures produced an effect size of d = -.791,
a large sex difference. Other studies using peer-reports
have confirmed these findings, again with substan-
tial effect sizes, particularly from ages 11 onwards
(e.g., Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Owens, 1996; Salmivalli,
Kaukiainen, & Lagerspetz, 2000). However, a meta-
analysis of 14 studies using peer ratings found a
weighted mean effect size of d = -. 1 9 (Archer, 2004),
which probably reflects sample and age differences,
values tending to be lower at younger ages.
Peer nominations (the typical method for relational
aggression) showed an overall effect size of near to
zero, indicating no overall sex difference (Archer,
2004). This finding reflects variability among the find-
ings for nominations and hence for relational aggres-
sion. The first studies using this term reported that girls
were more relationally aggressive than boys (Crick,
1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) although the effect
sizes were much smaller (d = -.26 and -.15) than in
studies of indirect aggression using peer ratings. Other
studies using peer nominations, which typically in-
volve younger ages, have either found no sex differ-
ence or one in the male direction (Crick et al., 1997;
David & Kistner, 2000; Henington, Hughes, Cavell, &
Thompson, 1998; McEvoy et al., 2003; McNeilly-
Choque et al., 1996; Rys & Bear, 1997; Tomada &
Schneider, 1997). Although these findings show that
girls are not always more relationally aggressive than
boys, girls always use relational more than physical ag-
gression, whereas the reverse is often found for boys.
Four observational studies of indirect aggression
in children together produced a large effect size in the
female direction (d = -.74; Archer, 2004). Eight stud-
ies using teacher reports showed an overall sex differ-
ence in the female direction although again this is rel-
atively small (d = -.13; Archer, 2004). The study of
preschool ages by Crick et al. (1997) found no sex
difference according to peer nominations but a large
difference according to teacher reports (d = -.74), al-
though this finding was not replicated by McEvoy et
al. (2003).
Studies involving children that used self-reports
have found mixed results. For example, Craig (1998)
found a very small difference in the female direction
for children ages 10 and 12 years; in other studies there
are small differences in the male direction (Delveaux
& Daniels, 2000: d = .21; Solis, 1999: d = .28). In con-
trast, the Carolina Longitudinal Study (CLS; Cairns &
Cairns, 1994) found large sex differences in the female
direction for self-reported social aggression at 8, 11,
and 15 years of age (d = -.63, -.96, and -.99, calculated
from proportions). Similarly, MacDonald and O'Laugh-
IAlI d values were calculated using DSTAT software (Johnson,
1989).
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL. AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
lin (1999, cited in Crick et al., 1999) found that mid-ad-
olescent girls reported using more relational aggres-
sion than boys did.
Vaillancourt et al. (2005) used mothers' reports to
assess the development of indirect aggression from
ages 4 to 11 years in four cohorts from the Canadian
NLSCY. They provided data for boys and girls of dif-
ferent ages, and our Table 3 shows the effect sizes for
sex differences calculated from these figures. These
were mainly in the female direction, but they were
practically nonexistent at the younger ages and small at
9 to 11 years of age.
Overall, the findings for sex differences in indirect
aggression among children and adolescents are mixed,
but it is apparent that they are smaller or nonexistent at
younger ages, becoming larger from around 8 to 11
years, and perhaps reaching their peak during adoles-
cence. The lack of a sex difference at young ages in
some studies may reflect the limitations of the peer-re-
port method for this age group because teacher reports
have in one case produced large differences for 5-
year-olds.
Based on focus group interviews, Owens, Shute,
and Slee (2000b) reported some of the reasons adoles-
cent girls say that they prefer indirect aggression.
Among these reasons were that girls who spread ru-
mors or exclude others are seen as holding higher
power in the social group. Holding social knowledge
equates to holding social power, and, by indirectly ag-
gressing against others, girls feel that their own stat-
us is secured. Girls have a desire to be in the "right" so-
cial group, and by excluding others, they can ensure
that they stay there. Indirect aggression often appears
as if the aggressor is not aggressing at all, so that the
risks of aggressing may be lowered. Although these
explanations are tentative, they correspond with the
cost-benefit framework we presented earlier. The ben-
efits involve manipulation of their own and others' sta-
tus, and the costs are minimized by the indirect means
used.
Studies of adults have found little or no evidence for
a sex difference in self-reports of indirect aggression.
Bjorkqvist et al. (1994) found that aggression dis-
guised as rational argument ("rational-appearing ag-
gression") was slightly more common among men
than women in a sample of university employees. A
Table 3. Effect Sizes (d).for Sex Differences in Indirect
Aggression for 4 Cohorts From the NLSCY
Age of Cohort Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 N (Time 1)
4, 6, 8 years -.13 -.14 -.28 429
5, 7, 9 years -.04 -.06 -.22 394
6, 8, 10 years -.06 -.19 -.16 363
7, 9, 1 I years -.06 -.19 -.26 363
Note. Effect sizes calculated from means and standard deviations
in Vaillancourt et al. (2005), using DSTAT (Johnson, 1989).
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
second category, involving backbiting and spreading
false rumors ("social manipulation"), was slightly
more common among women. However, Campbell et
al. (1997) found no sex difference in a similar measure
involving telling stories, making others dislike the per-
son, and seeking to exclude them in a sample of under-
graduates. In this study, women did reveal more indi-
rect aggression (d = -.54) in a secondary category
involving actions such as cursing when the person had
gone and complaining to others about them. Such
behavior seems to involve expressions of anger and an-
noyance when the person who had provoked these feel-
ings had left and may be related to displaced ag-
gression (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000). A further
study (Archer, Monks, & Connors, 1997) did not find
these two categories, or related sex differences, in a
similar sample. Other research involving adults has
usually found no sex differences in indirect aggression
(Forrest, Eatough, & Shevlin, 2005; Forrest & McGuc-
kin, 2002; Green et al., 1996; Loudin, Loukas, & Rob-
inson, 2003; Richardson & Green, 1999; Thanzami,
2004; Walker et al., 2000).
Overall, these findings are consistent with the origi-
nal suggestion by Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) that men's
indirect aggression increases in young adulthood, to
reach levels similar to those found in women. We
should qualify this conclusion by acknowledging that
existing studies have involved educated Western sam-
ples. In such social settings, the costs of direct forms of
aggression will be higher than in social environments
that are less demanding in terms of required standards
of public behavior.
The single study of relational aggression in ro-
mantic relationships among college students (using
self-reports) found similar levels for men and women
(Linder et al., 2002) although men reported being
victims of this type of aggression more often than
women did. We should again note the context of
dyadic relationships is different from that of larger
groups in which covert manipulative forms of aggres-
sion can readily operate.
Consequences of Indirect Aggression
Children's indirect aggression has attracted atten-
tion because it causes considerable psychological
harm to its victims in a way that is difficult to identify
and prevent. Studies of indirect forms of bullying have
also shown its psychologically damaging consequenc-
es, and in extreme cases, this can lead to a victim's sui-
cide, a finding that may reflect a more general link be-
tween social exclusion and suicide (Baumeister, 1990).
Craig (1998) found that children who were victims of
either physical or indirect bullying showed more anxi-
ety and depressive symptoms than other children. Girls
who are victims of indirect bullying may encounter
223
 ARCHER AND COYNE
serious problems, as they are prone to more "self-
destruction" strategies, such as smoking or considering
suicide when dealing with the abuse (Olafsen &
Viemeroe, 2000).
In middle childhood, being a victim of indirect ag-
gression is associated with higher levels of depression,
loneliness, peer rejection, and anxiety (Craig, 1998;
Crick, 1996; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Eslea, 2005; Lin-
der et al., 2002). Future social maladjustment is accu-
rately predicted by being a victim of relational aggres-
sion (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). This is
particularly so for girls, as this form of aggression can
hurt their standing in the social group, which is espe-
cially important in adolescence (e.g., Bjorkqvist et al.,
1992). Girls rate social aggression as more harmful
than boys (Galen & Underwood, 1997), and they rate it
as more harmful than physical aggression, whereas
boys rate physical aggression as more harmful than so-
cial aggression. These sex differences are found in all
school age groups.
Conversely, Paquette and Underwood (1999) found
that both boys and girls rated social aggression as mak-
ing them feel more "sad and bad" than physical aggres-
sion did. The most common type of social aggression
victimization for both boys and girls was being a target
of malicious gossip. Gossip is a much wider category
than malicious gossip, and it has a number of socially
cohesive functions (Baumeister, Zhang, & Vohs, 2004;
Campbell et al., 1997; Dunbar, 2004; Foster, 2004).
Only when it involves the exchange of negative infor-
mation about a third party, with the intention of harm-
ing their social standing, is it a form of aggression.
However, as malicious gossip was the primary act of
social victimization reported by Paquette and Under-
wood, it is clear that victims of gossip identified this
behavior as hurtful and unnecessary. Girls reported
that they felt sadder, more surprised, and worse about
themselves than boys did when they were victims of
malicious gossip. As discussed previously, girls may
be particularly hurt by indirect aggression since social
status and friends are very important to them during
adolescence. Paquette and Underwood (1999) found
such girls to have more negative self-perceptions of
their athletic competence, physical appearance, ro-
mantic appeal, behavioral conduct, close friendships,
and global self-worth than nonvictimized girls. Clear-
ly, these forms of aggression are perceived to be harm-
ful by victims and can affect a variety of aspects that in-
fluence overall self-perceptions.
Research showing the negative impact of indirect
aggression on its victims is consistent with another
area of social psychological research, that on the im-
pact of social ostracism. Related experimental studies
have found a variety of effects, including increased ag-
gression and lower self-esteem (e.g., Twenge, Bau-
meister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). The range of effects is
mainly behavioral, rather than involving changes in
224
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
emotional state (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister,
2002, 2003). This finding was explained in terms of so-
cial exclusion producing a state of cognitive decons-
truction, marked by flat affect, and similar to that found
in the presuicidal state (Baumeister, 1990). Twenge et
al. (2002) found evidence for this explanation in a se-
ries of laboratory experiments with undergraduates:
excluded and rejected participants were more impul-
sive and lethargic, they indicated that time passed more
slowly, that life was more meaningless, and they
showed an aversion to self-awareness. These effects
were produced by only a brief experience of being re-
jected by strangers. In these studies, there was no im-
plication that there was malicious intent in the social
exclusion, merely that others had consistently chosen
not to associate with them. Such findings suggest that
there may be both general effects of social exclusion
and specific effects related to knowing that such exclu-
sion is the result of malicious intent. Future research
could address this issue.
Relational aggression research has found that ag-
gressors may also encounter a variety of problems, pri-
marily being rejected by their peers (Crick, 1996;
Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Rys & Bear, 1997; Tomada &
Schneider, 1997). Relational aggressors are often at-
tempting to gain control over their social status and re-
lationships with others. This opens the way for them to
be rejected from the very peer group they are trying to
manipulate and control, so that their general social
standing may decrease as a result. However, there is
also evidence that relational aggression can be posi-
tively associated with popularity, which seems to stem
from the visibility and impact of the aggressor, rather
than their likeability (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004;
LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). The second of these
two reports describes a longitudinal study in which the
association between relational aggression and popular-
ity increased over the 4 years of the study (from 10 to
14 years), but its negative association with likeability
declined with age.
Research using the labels "indirect" and "social ag-
gression" has found more consistent evidence that per-
petrators may have positive characteristics. It may be
that aggressors who use hidden forms are more suc-
cessful, in that the victim is hurt, whereas the aggressor
remains unidentified and rewarded. Indirectly aggres-
sive girls are found to be less likely to be lonely and are
more likely to have a higher group rank than non-
aggressive girls (Bjorkqvist et al., 2001). In another
study, indirectly aggressive boys were more likely to
be accepted than nonaggressive boys (Salmivalli et al.,
2000). Xie, Cairns, and Cairns (2002) analyzed narra-
tive reports of aggression from interviews with 10- and
13-year-old children from the CLS. They found that
whereas physical aggression was related to risk factors
for later maladjustment, such as lower academic per-
formance and unpopularity, social aggression was not.
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL, AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
In fact, more social aggression was related to being
better at sports, more good looking, and with teacher
perceptions that individuals were more able to get their
own way. Social aggression in this study consisted of
behaviors more commonly labeled as indirect, such as
gossiping, spreading rumors, excluding others, writing
notes, and betraying confidences. It may be that the
more obvious aggressors, who use direct forms of rela-
tionship manipulation, end up being rejected, whereas
the subtle aggressors can remain unnoticed and may
even improve their social standing.
Vaillancourt (2005) suggested that indirect aggres-
sors may be accepted by most of their peers but
rejected by their victims. Studies examining social-
psychological adjustment among aggressive children
rarely inspect the ratings given by these separate
groups. However, the few that have indicate that ag-
gressive girls can appear popular and powerful but are
rejected by their victims and the larger peer network
(e.g., Merten, 1997; Vaillancourt & Hymel, in press).
Future research should take into account who the raters
are when examining overall social adjustment.
Adult relational aggressors may also encounter so-
cial and psychological difficulties. Werner and Crick
(1999) found that for women, using this form of ag-
gression was associated with peer rejection, antisocial
behavior, egocentricity, identity problems, self-harm
behavior, lower overall life satisfaction, depression,
and even bulimic symptoms. For men, being a rela-
tional aggressor was only associated with peer rejec-
tion and egocentricity.
It would seem, therefore, that although there may be
beneficial consequences in terms of manipulating the
social position and status of competitors, which is re-
flected in the impact of aggression on victims, engag-
ing in these forms of aggression may also entail costs.
The more the hostile nature of the actions can be dis-
guised, the more these costs are minimized, but when
they become overt they may rebound on the aggressor,
leading to losses in social reputation that were intended
to be inflicted on others.
Conclusions and Terminology
Revisited
This review has shown that although the emphasis is
different in the definitions of indirect, social, and rela-
tional aggression, respectively, they all measure com-
parable alternative strategies to physical aggression.
Each one is dependent on language skills and each ulti-
mately harms the social standing of the victim. Unlike
physical or verbal aggression, this type of aggression is
unique to humans. Nonhuman primates cannot mani-
fest even the simplest forms of indirect or relational ag-
gression, whereas human young use it freely.
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
The underlying activities described in research un-
der the three labels are very similar. The only real dif-
ference appears to be in a subset of relational aggres-
sion, namely relational manipulation, which generally
applies to dyadic relationships and does not conform to
definitions of indirect aggression. Nevertheless, items
involving relational manipulation are found on indirect
aggression scales. Therefore, relational aggression is a
slightly wider category in definitional terms than is in-
direct aggression; but if we exclude dyadic relation-
ships, where the aim of the aggression is different, the
two concepts are practically the same. Social aggres-
sion is slightly wider still, as it also includes nonverbal
hostile gestures.
Researchers using all three terms acknowledge that
this type of aggression goes through a developmental
process, and it peaks in late childhood or preadol-
escence. Both indirect and relational aggression re-
searchers recognize that, in the early childhood years,
aggression may take the form of an overt face-to-face
threat to a dyadic relationship. However, it is also clear
that these overt forms provide the precursors of the
more disguised aggression seen in later childhood. In-
direct aggression is also found in samples of adults and
therefore shows a developmental continuity from early
childhood to adulthood. Whichever label is used, re-
search has shown that girls prefer to use more indirect
than direct physical aggression. Girls are often found
to be more indirectly aggressive than are boys. The use
of this form of aggression is particularly harmful to its
victims, but the evidence of its consequences for per-
petrators is more complex.
Overall, therefore, there are very few differences
between indirect, relational, and social aggression in
terms of the actions involved, their development, sex
differences, and consequences. One repercussion of re-
searchers continuing to use three names for essentially
the same phenomenon is that research tends to occur in
parallel instead of building upon the work of others.
We have argued that the main differences involve the
extent to which researchers have emphasized subtly
different aspects according to the definitions they have
utilized. Indirect researchers have focused more on co-
vert means, whereas relational and social researchers
have focused on the goals.
We have indicated our preference for the term indi-
rect aggression, as this has precedence and covers the
ground of relational aggression except in dyads where
we argue that the goals of the aggression are differ-
ent-to coerce the other rather than to manipulate their
social standing. However, social aggression research-
ers have also made out a persuasive case for adopting
their term. Although it is used less frequently, social
aggression does encompass the behaviors found in all
three constructs. Underwood (2003) set out a concep-
tual framework that takes subtle differences among the
constructs into account. At the first level, any behavior
225
 ARCHER AND COYNE
classified as "aggression" must be intended to be
harmful by the aggressor and must hurt the victim in
some way. This enables us to exclude both uninten-
tional social exclusion and unintended harmful effects
of gossip. From here, Underwood classifies four differ-
ent forms of aggression. These are physical aggres-
sion, verbal aggression, property damage, and social
aggression. Social aggression is then broken down into
direct and indirect social aggression. All the items in
the indirect and relational aggression literature are now
subsumed in these categories. From here, she breaks
up indirect and direct social aggression into three com-
ponents, namely relationship manipulation, spreading
rumors, and social exclusion. Finally, Underwood rec-
ognizes that social exclusion can be either verbal or
nonverbal. This framework ensures that the items used
by indirect, relational, and social aggression research-
ers are integrated yet acknowledges the differences of
emphasis that do exist between the terms.
Regardless of the terms that are used and the way
the definitions are constructed, it is imperative that the
major researchers in this field put aside their differ-
ences and acknowledge that they are dealing with es-
sentially the same phenomenon but with minor differ-
ences of emphasis. Without this realization, research in
this important area of aggression will become further
confused, and researchers will go on duplicating find-
ings under different names.
A Framework for Research
and Future Directions
Current research suggests that girls, particularly ad-
olescent girls, are the principal exponents of indirect
aggression. We have suggested that the link between
sex and indirect aggression is but one example of a
general principle, namely, that when the costs of direct
aggression are relatively high and reputation can be
harmed by indirect verbal means, indirect aggression is
a strategy beneficial to the aggressor. This principle
could be used in future research to identify whether in-
direct aggression is related to the perceived costs and
benefits of different forms of aggression. For example,
the high cost of direct aggression in the modern organi-
zation would provide fertile ground for the emergence
of more indirect ways of harming others. Where direct
aggression is permitted, we should see a lower fre-
quency of such covert forms of harming others.
The field of indirect aggression is not well inte-
grated with other areas of research, either theoretical or
applied. We have sought throughout this review to
point out links to related research areas. There are
some signs that these links are being made through rec-
ognition of indirect aggression in studies that had pre-
viously only included direct aggression. We end our
review by outlining two examples, bullying among
226
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
children and prisoners and the impact of viewing ag-
gression on television.
Bullying occurs where there is an imbalance of
power between the perpetrator and victim and where
the aggressive behavior recurs over time (Rivers &
Smith, 1994). In the UK, a large-scale survey found
that 20% of adolescents reported being bullied by
someone spreading hurtful rumors about them (Sharp,
1995). Both boys and girls, regardless of age, reported
that this form of bullying was more stressful than any
other form. Girls in late childhood and early adoles-
cence are more likely than boys to be victims of indi-
rect forms of bullying, such as having rumors spread
about them and no one talking to them (Ahmad &
Smith, 1994; Rivers & Smith, 1994). Boys are much
more likely to use physical means to bully others (Bal-
dry & Farrington, 1999). Craig, Pepler, and Atlas
(2000) found that bullying may also reflect the con-
straints of the situation, with indirect bullying being
more common for both sexes in the classroom, where-
as physical bullying was more common in the play-
ground. This finding fits the view of indirect aggres-
sion as an alternative strategy that is more suited to
contexts where the costs of direct aggression are high.
Ireland (1998, 2000) developed a measure of bully-
ing behavior for prison samples that included indirect
forms of aggression such as spreading rumors and de-
liberately ignoring another. However, the category "in-
direct bullying" went beyond the range of items on
other indirect aggression scales to include playing
practical jokes (which is on the BDHI hostility scale)
and also deliberately insulting and making fun of
another prisoner (forms of direct verbal aggression).
Nevertheless, all the most commonly endorsed items
on the scale involved indirect aggression. In two sam-
ples totaling around 500 prisoners, just over 40% of
men and women said that they had been subjected to
these forms of bullying. Being gossiped about and de-
liberately ignored were the two most common forms,
followed by spreading rumors (Ireland, 2000). In the
same sample, the overall figures for perpetrating indi-
rect bullying were around 40%, with 25% of the sam-
ple admitting to deliberately ignoring someone and
slightly fewer to playing practical jokes and gossiping
(Ireland, 2000).
Although there have been a number of studies indi-
cating the harmful effects on victims of indirect ag-
gression, it would be profitable to link these findings
with the more precise identification of the underlying
psychological states. This step would provide a better
understanding of the psychological processes involved
in the experience of being a victim of indirect bullying
in schools and prisons. The fact that bullying, and indi-
rect aggression generally, have been identified as im-
portant precursors to suicide lends this research some
urgent practical importance. The effects of experimen-
tally induced social ostracism on aggressive and unin-
 INDIRECT, RELATIONAL AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
hibited behavior may provide a possible link to re-
search in schools and prisons that has revealed an
important subgroup of individuals who are both vic-
tims of bullying and bullies themselves (e.g., Ireland &
Archer, 2004). In researching this area, it is also impor-
tant to identify whether the consequences of social ag-
gression follow those found for social rejection and ex-
clusion or whether the knowledge that this rejection or
exclusion is intended has additional effects.
Research on media influences is another possible
area of future study. Until recently, all research on me-
dia influences has concerned direct physical aggres-
sion, which is understandable in view of the continued
concern about violent behavior (e.g., Bushman & An-
derson, 2001). However, if we view aggressive behav-
ior-and its ability to harm others-more widely, it is
clear that there are numerous media depictions of indi-
rect forms of aggression. An analysis of the content of
television programs popular with adolescents in the
UK showed that they contained not only high levels of
direct verbal and physical aggression, but also high lev-
els of indirect and related forms of aggression (Coyne &
Archer, 2005). A follow-up study showed that girls
who showed indirect aggression in real life viewed
more indirect aggression on television than those who
showed lower levels of indirect aggression (Coyne &
Archer, in press). Although the causal connection can-
not be ascertained from this study, a further study ex-
amined the influence of viewing this form of aggres-
sion, using an experimental procedure (Coyne, Archer,
& Eslea, 2004). Adolescents who viewed televised in-
direct or direct aggression were subsequently more
likely to behave in an indirectly aggressive manner that
those who viewed no aggression. These studies on me-
dia influences are only the beginning of what could be
an important area of research, in view of the harmful
consequences of indirect and relational aggression-
and the possibility that viewing indirect aggression
may have a general impact on aggressive tendencies.
In this review we have adopted an integrative frame-
work to research undertaken under three different la-
bels, emphasizing that they are essentially dealing with
the same phenomenon. Beyond this, we have intro-
duced an adaptive framework for viewing indirect ag-
gression as an alternative way of harming others fa-
vored by certain individuals and in certain contexts.
These proposals could serve to unify and advance this
important area of research and theory that has for too
long been fragmented under different and competing
labels.
References
Ahmad, Y., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bullying in schools and the issue
of sex differences. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp.
122-150). London: Routledge.
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
Archer, J. ( 1970). Effects of population density on behaviour in ro-
dents. In J. H. Crook (Ed.), Social behaviour in birds and mam-
mals (pp. 169-210). London: Academic Press.
Archer, J. (1979). Animals under stress. London: Arnold.
Archer, J. (1988). The behavioural biology of aggression. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: Social context and or-
ganisation. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Childhood social develop-
ment:- Contemporary perspectives (pp. 31-61). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Archer, J. (I1994). Violence between men. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male li-
olence (pp. 121-140). London: Routledge.
Archer, J. (2001). A strategic approach to aggression. Social Devel-
opment. 10, 267-271.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world set-
tings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology,
8, 291-322.
Archer, J., Monks, S., & Connors, L. (1997). Comments on SP0409:
A. Campbell, M. Sapochnik and S. Muncer's: Sex differences in
aggression: Does social representation mediate forms? BJSP, 36,
161-171. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 603-606.
Archer, J.. & Webb, I. (in press). The relation between scores on the
Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and aggressive acts, im-
pulsiveness, competitiveness, dominance, and sexual jealousy.
Aggressive Behavior.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Types of bullying among
Italian school children. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423-426.
Barnett, S. A. (1964). Social stress. In J. D. Carthy & C. L.
Dudington (Eds.), Viewpoints in biology 3 (pp. 170-218). Lon-
don: Butterworth.
Barrett, L., Henzi, P., & Dunbar, R. (2003). Primate cognition: From
'what now?' to 'what if?' Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7,
494-497.
Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from self. Psychological
Review, 97, 90-113.
Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of
female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166-203.
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cul-
tural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8, 111-121.
Benson, D. A., & Archer, J. (2002). An ethnographic study of
sources of conflict between young men in the context of the
night out. Psychology, Evolution and Gender; 4, 3-30.
Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal and indi-
rect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30,
177-188.
Bjdrkqvist, K. (2001). Different names, same issue. Social Develop-
ment, 10, 272-275.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K, & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls ma-
nipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct
and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., & Osterman, K. (1992). Direct and
indirect aggression scales (DIAS). In K. Bjdrkqvist & K.
Osterman (I1998) Pro Facultate (4) Scales for Research on In-
terpersonal Relations. Abo, Finland: Abo-Akademi University.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The devel-
opment of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and
females. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and
women. Aspects offemale aggression (pp. 51-64). San
Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1994). Sex differ-
ences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior,
20, 27-33.
Bjdrkqvist, K., Osterman, K., Lagerspetz, K., Landau, S. F., Caprara,
G., & Fraczek, A. (2001). Aggression, victimization and
sociometric status: Findings from Finland, Israel, Italy and Po-
land. In J. M. Rameriez & D. S. Richardson (Eds.), Cross-
cultural approaches to aggression and reconciliation (pp.
11-1 19). Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
227
 ARCHER AND COYNE
Breed, M. D., & Bell, W. J. (1983). Hormonal influence on inverte-
brate aggressive behavior. In B. B. Svare (Ed.), Hormones and
aggressive behavior (pp. 577-590). New York: Plenum
Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2001). Media violence and the Amer-
ican public. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology ofaggression. New York: Wiley.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing differ-
ent types of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21,
343-349.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Aggression questionnaire man-
ual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1985). Tactical deception of familiar in-
dividuals in baboons. Animal Behaviour, 33, 669-673.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of
youth in our time. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B., Neckerman, H., Ferguson, L., & Gariepy, J.
(1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adoles-
cence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320-330.
Campbell, A. (1995). A few good men: Evolutionary psychology
and female adolescent aggression. Ethology and Sociobiology,
16, 99-123.
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's
intrasexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22,
203-252.
Campbell, A., Sapochnik, M., & Muncer, S. (1997). Sex differences
in aggression: Does social representation mediate form of ag-
gression? British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 161-171.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to rein-
forcement: Developmental changes in the association between
aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.
Courtwright, D. T. (1996). Violent land: Single men and social disor-
derfrom the frontier to the inner city. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect, relational, and social ag-
gression in the media: A content analysis of British television
programs. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254-27 1.
Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2005). The relationship between indirect
aggression on television and in real life. Social Development,
14, 324-338
Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2004). Cruel intentions on
television and in real life: Can viewing indirect aggression in-
crease viewers' subsequent indirect aggression? Journal of Ex-
perimental Child Psychology, 88, 234-253.
Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization,
depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school chil-
dren. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130.
Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in
the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology Inter-
national, 21, 22-36.
Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attribu-
tion, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development
and Psychopathology, 7, 313-322.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggres-
sion, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's fu-
ture social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317-2327.
Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus
nonnormative forms of aggression: Links to social-psychologi-
cal adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 610-617.
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of
peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt ag-
gression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 579-588.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66,
710-722.
228
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. (1996). Children's treatment by peers:
Victims of relational and overt aggression. Developmental
Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.
Crick, N. R., Werner, N., Casas, J., O'Brien, K., Nelson, D.,
Grotpeter, J., et al. (1999). Childhood aggression and gender: A
new look at an old problem. Nebraska Symposium on Motiva-
tion, 45, 75-141.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions
have a "dark side"? Examination of the link between perceptual
bias and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
28, 327-337.
Delveaux, K., & Daniels, T. (2000). Children's social cognitions:
Physically and relationally aggressive strategies and children's
goals in peer conflict situations. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 46,
672-692.
Dunbar, R. 1. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review
of General Psychology, 8, 100-110.
Eslea, M. (2005). School bullying: Severity, distress and coping. Un-
published manuscript, University of Central Lancashire, Pres-
ton, UK.
Fagot, B. I., & Hagan, R. (1985). Aggression in toddlers: Re-
sponses to the assertive acts of boys and girls. Sex Roles, 12,
341-351.
Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Sex differences in children's modes of ag-
gressive responses toward outsiders. Merrill Palmer Quarterly,
15, 249-258.
Feshbach, N. D., & Sones, G. (1971). Sex differences in adolescent
reactions toward newcomers. Developmental Psychology, 4,
249-258.
Forrest, S., Eatough, V., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Measuring adult indi-
rect aggression: The development and psychometric assess-
ment of the Indirect Aggression Scales. Aggressive Behavior,
31, 84-97.
Forrest, S., & McGuckin, C. (2002, March). Adult indirect aggres-
sion: Do men 'catch up' with women in using indirect aggres-
sion? Poster session presented at the Annual Conference of the
British Psychological Society, Blackpool, UK.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and
future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8, 78-99.
French, D. C., Jansen, E. A., & Pidada, S. (2002). United States
and Indonesian children's and adolescents' reports of rela-
tional aggression by disliked peers. Child Development, 73,
1143-1150.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investi-
gation of social aggression among children. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 589-600.
Geary, D. C. (1999). Male, female: The evolution of human sex dif-
ferences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion Press.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003a). Intimate terrorism and
common couple violence: A test of Johnson's predictions in
four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,
1247-1270.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003b). Physical aggression and
control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling.
Violence and Victims, 18, 181 -196.
Green, L. R., Richardson, D. R., & Lago, T. (1996). How do friend-
ship, indirect, and direct aggression relate? Aggressive Behav-
ior, 22, 81-86.
Hammock, G., & O'Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in
dating relationships: Predictive models for males and females.
Violence and Victims, 17, 525-540.
Hart, C., Nelson, D., Robinson, C., Olsen, S., & McNeilly-Choque,
M. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nurs-
ery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 687-697.
 INDIRECT, REL ATIONAL, AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
Henington, C., Hughes, J., Cavell, T., & Thompson, B. (1998). The
role of relational aggression in identifying aggressive boys and
girls. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 457-477.
Hines, N. J., & Fry, D. P. (1994). Indirect modes of aggression
among women of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sex Roles, 30,
213-236.
Holmstrdm, R. (1992). Female aggression among the great apes: A
psychoanalytic perspective. In K. Bjdrkqvist & P. Niemela
(Eds.), Of mice and women. Aspects offemale aggression (pp.
295-306). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ireland, J. L. (1998). Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behavior Check-
list (DIPC). University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Ireland, J. L. (2000). Bullying amongst prisoners. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Central Lancashire, Preston,
UK.
Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (2004). The association between measures
of aggression and bullying among juvenile and young offend-
ers. Aggressive Behavior; 30, 29-42.
Johnson, B. T. (1989). Software for the meta-analytic review of re-
search literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Inc.
Kaukiainen, A., Bjdrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K.,
Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S., et al. (1999). The relationships be-
tween social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggres-
sion. Aggressive Behavior; 25, 81-89.
Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Bjbrkqvist, K., Osterman, K.,
Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., et al. (2001). Overt and covert ag-
gression in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being
of employees. Aggressive Behavior; 27, 360-371.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children's percep-
tions of popular and unpopular peers: A multi-method assess-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-647.
Lagerspetz, K., Bjdrkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect ag-
gression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressive-
ness in 11- to 12-year old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14,
403-414.
Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational
aggression and victimization in young adults' romantic re-
lationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer,
and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11,
69-86.
Loudin, J. L., Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2003). Relational aggres-
sion in college students: Examining the roles of social anxiety
and empathy. Aggressive Behavior 29, 430-439.
McEvoy, M. A., Estrem, T. L., Rodriguez, M. C., & Olson, M. L.
(2003). Assessing relational and physical aggression among
preschool children: Intermethod agreement. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 23, 53-63.
McNeilly-Choque, M., Hart, C., Robinson, C., Nelson, L., & Olsen,
S. (1996). Overt and relational aggression on the playground:
Correspondence among different informants. Journal of Re-
search in Childhood Education, 11, 47-67.
Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental
Psychology, 24, 755-765.
Maccoby E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming to-
gether Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard University Press.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N.
(2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
670-689.
Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, compe-
tition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of
Education, 70, 175- 191.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors,
victims, and defenders in preschool: Peer, self and teacher re-
ports. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 453-469.
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychol-
ogy of violence in the south. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Olafsen, R. N., & Viemeroe, V. (2000). Bully/victim problems and
coping with stress in school among 10- to 12-year-old pupils in
Aland, Finland. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 57-65.
Orwen, M. J., & Rendall, D. (2001). Sound on the rebound: Bringing
form and function back to the forefront in understanding non-
human primate vocal signaling. Evolutionary Anthropology,
10, 58-71.
Owens, L. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls' and
boys' aggression in schools. Australian Journal of Guidance
and Counselling, 6, 45-55.
Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000a). "Guess what I just heard!":
Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 26, 67-83.
Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000b). "I'm in and you're out..."
Explanations for teenage girls' indirect aggression. Psychology,
Evolution and Gender; 2, 19-46.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The foundations of hu-
man and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in
young adolescents' experiences ofpeer victimization: Social and
physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242-266.
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Natu-
ralistic observations of aggressive children with remote audio-
visual recording. Developmental Psychology, 31, 548-553.
Richardson, D. S., & Green, L. R. (2003). Defining direct and indi-
rect aggression: The Richardson Conflict Response Question-
naire. International Review of Social Psychology, 16, 11-30.
Richardson, R., & Green, L. (1999). Social sanction and threat ex-
planations of gender effects on direct and indirect aggression.
Aggressive Behavior; 25, 425-434.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior and
their correlates. Aggressive Behavior; 20, 359-368.
Ruff, J. R. (2001). Violence in early modern Europe 1500-1800.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rys, G., & Bear, G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations:
Gender and developmental issues. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
43, 87-106.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression
and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of ag-
gression matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41,
17-24.
Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bully-
ing on the personal well- being and educational progress of sec-
ondary aged students. Educational and Child Psychology, 12,
81-88.
Shettleworth, S. (2001). Animal cognition and animal behaviour.
Animal Behaviour; 61, 277- 286.
Solis, N. A. (1999). Disruptive behavior disorders: Development of a
DSM-IV-based self-report measure for adolescents. Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 59 (07), 3716B. (UMI No.
9840126).
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence:
The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Develop-
ment and preliminary psychometric data. Journal ofFamily Is-
sues, 17, 283-316.
Suomi, S. (2005). Genetic and environmental factors influencing the
expression of impulsive aggression and serotonergic function-
ing in rhesus monkeys. In R. Tremblay, W. Hartup, & J. Archer
(Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 63-82). New
York: Guilford.
Tapper, K., & Boulton, M. J. (2002). Studying aggression in school
children: The use of a wireless microphone and micro-video
camera. Aggressive Behavior; 28, 356-365.
229
 ARCHER AND COYNE
Tapper, K., & Boulton, M. J. (2004). Sex differences in levels of
physical, verbal, and indirect aggression amongst primary
school children and their associations with beliefs about ag-
gression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 123- 145.
Thanzami, V. L. (2004). Beliefs about aggression from a cross-cul-
tural perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. (1997). Relational aggression, gender,
and peer acceptance: Invariance across culture, stability over
time, and concordance among informants. Developmental Psy-
chology, 33, 601-609.
Tremblay, R., Japel, C., Perusse, D., McDuff, P., Doivin, M.,
Zoccolillo, M. et al. (1999). The search for the age of 'onset' of
physical aggression: Rousseau and Bandura revisited. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 9, 8-23.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001).
If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on
aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81, 1058-1069.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Beaumeister, R. F. (2002). Social
exclusion causes self-defeating behavior. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 83, 606-615.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Beaumeister, R. F. (2003). Social
exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, mean-
inglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409-423.
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New
York: Guilford Press.
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten
challenges for understanding gender and aggression in chil-
dren: Why can't we all just get along? Social Development, IO,
248-266.
Vaillancourt, T. (2005). Indirect aggression among human: Social
construct or evolutionary adaptation? In R. E. Tremblay, W. W.
Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental Origins ofAggres-
sion (pp. 158-177). New York: Guilford.
230
Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at LOUISIANA STATE UNIV on August 28, 2014
Vaillancourt, T., Brendgen, M., Boivin, M., & Tremblay, R. (2003).
Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis of indirect and physi-
cal aggression: Evidence of two factors over time? Child Devel-
opment, 74, 1628-1638.
Vaillancourt, T., Cote, S., Farhat, A., Leblanc, J. C., Boivin, M., &
Tremblay, R. E. (2005). The development of indirect aggression
during childhood. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (in press). Understanding sociometric
status: What does it mean to be popular? Social Development.
Walker, S., & Richardson, D. S. (1998). Aggression strategies
among older adults: Delivered but not seen. Aggression and Vi-
olent Behavior, 3, 287-294.
Walker, S., Richardson, D. S., & Green, L. R. (2000). Aggression
among older adults: The relationship of interaction networks
and gender role to direct and indirect responses. Aggressive Be-
havior, 26, 145-154.
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and so-
cial-psychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615-623.
Whiten, A., & Bryne, R. W. (1988). The manipulation of attention in
primate tactical deception. In R. Bryne & A. Whiten (Eds.),
Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution
of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans (pp. 211-223). Ox-
ford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Willoughby, J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Bryant, D. (2001). Overt and
covert dimensions of antisocial behaviour. Journal ofAbnormal
Child Psychology, 29, 177- 187.
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). The development of
social aggression and physical aggression: A narrative analy-
sis of interpersonal conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 28,
341-355.
Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggres-
sive behaviors in social interaction and developmental adapta-
tion: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during early
adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205-224.