J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
DOI 10.1007/s10964-013-0051-1
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Unique and Interactive Effects of Empathy, Family, and School
Factors on Early Adolescents’ Aggression
Milena Batanova • Alexandra Loukas
Received: 14 June 2013 / Accepted: 22 October 2013 / Published online: 7 November 2013
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Although research indicates that empathy
inhibits youth aggression, little is known about the pro-
spective associations between different components of
empathy and aggression, as well as whether family and
school factors moderate the aforementioned associations in
early adolescents. Based on prior research, the current
study examined whether empathic concern and perspective
taking would contribute to subsequent overt and relational
aggression over a 1-year period in middle school. Guided
by the social development model, we also examined if
positive family relations and school connectedness would
differentially moderate the associations between both
components of empathy and aggression. Participants were
481 10- to 14-year old students (54 % female; 78 %
European American) who completed the first wave of a
survey in 6th and 7th grades. Hierarchical regression
analyses indicated that only for girls did lower levels of
empathic concern, not perspective taking, contribute to
increases in subsequent overt, not relational, aggression.
Although neither positive family relations nor school
connectedness played protective roles for girls, results
indicated that boys’ reports of positive family relations
buffered the negative impact of low empathic concern on
both forms of aggression 1 year later. Over and above the
two components of empathy, school connectedness also
contributed to a decline in boys’ subsequent overt aggres-
sion. Recommendations are made to foster family and
M. Batanova
A. Loukas (&)
Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D3700,
Austin, TX 78712, USA
e-mail: alexandra.loukas@austin.utexas.edu
M. Batanova
e-mail: mbatanova@austin.utexas.edu
123
school relationships among boys, as well as to more
heavily consider the role of emotion processes in the study
and prevention of early adolescents’ aggression.
Keywords Empathy
Aggression
Family
School

Moderation
Early adolescence
Introduction
Although a number of studies demonstrate that empathy
inhibits aggressive behaviors in children and adolescents
(Gini et al. 2007; Robinson et al. 2007; Strayer and Roberts
2004), researchers increasingly recognize that empathy
involves cognitive (e.g., perspective taking) and affective
(e.g., empathic concern) components that can carry different
implications for aggression (Caravita et al. 2009, 2010;
Jolliffe and Farrington 2006, 2011; Espelage et al. 2004).
While researchers also recognize that there are multiple
forms of aggression, such as overt and relational aggression,
limited extant research has assessed the prospective asso-
ciations between both components of empathy and both
forms of aggression during early adolescence (see Batanova
and Loukas 2011), let alone how both components might
interact to impact aggression (see Caravita et al. 2010).
Moreover, although belonging with peers and non-parent
adults is believed to become increasingly more important
than the family during this developmental period (Eccles
and Roeser 2011; Roeser et al. 1998, 2000), no studies to our
knowledge have examined students’ connections to their
family and school as they might differentially moderate the
associations between both components of empathy and
aggression. Thus, the current study examined the unique and
interactive effects of empathic concern, perspective taking,
positive family relations, and school connectedness on
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
subsequent overt and relational aggression 1 year later in a
sample of early adolescent girls and boys.
In contrast to overt aggression, which includes direct (e.g.,
hitting, yelling) acts meant to harm another person, relational
aggression involves more indirect, oftentimes covert strate-
gies (e.g., gossiping, rumor spreading) for harming another
individual by damaging or manipulating his or her friend-
ships and/or feelings (Bjorkqvist et al. 1992; Crick and
Grotpeter 1995; Underwood et al. 2001). While overt
aggression is generally more common in boys than girls at
any age (see Archer 2004 for a review), the evidence is mixed
as to whether girls engage in more relational aggression than
boys during early adolescence (Batanova and Loukas 2011;
Galen and Underwood 1997; Peets and Kikas 2006; Salm-
ivalli and Kaukiainen 2004). What is known, however, is
that, unlike overt aggression, the use of relational aggression
requires one to build and maintain social connections so as to
manipulate others (Puckett et al. 2008; Salmivalli et al. 2000;
Xie et al. 2002). Relational aggression also necessitates the
ability to read and decode social situations in order to execute
successful manipulation (see Archer and Coyne 2005; Sutton
et al. 1999a). Given the gender differences in overt aggres-
sion and the conflicting findings for relational aggression, it
is important to consider that the factors contributing to boys’
and girls’ use of overt and relational aggression may differ.
Empathy and Aggression
To date, evidence indicates that the emotional or affective
component of empathy plays an important role in the
inhibition of both overt and relational aggression in early
adolescence. For instance, several studies found that ado-
lescent reports of affective empathy inhibit indirect
aggression as well as frequent and violent aggression in
female and male adolescents (Endresen and Olweus 2001;
Jolliffe and Farrington 2006, 2011; Kaukiainen et al. 1999).
Similarly, De Kemp et al. (2007) reported that higher levels
of affective empathy were associated with less delinquent
and aggressive behavior 6 months later in both female and
male early adolescents. In a longitudinal sample of middle
school youth, Batanova and Loukas (2011) corroborated
and extended these previous findings by showing that ele-
vated levels of empathic concern were predictive of
decreases in both girls’ and boys’ self-reported overt as well
as relational aggression, over and above perspective taking
and social anxiety. Although one study found that affective
empathy was associated negatively with bullying in ado-
lescent boys only, the authors acknowledged that bullying
was measured with peer nominations of more overt rather
than relational forms of aggression and, therefore, affective
empathy could have been associated with other types of
bullying in females (Caravita et al. 2009).
1891
While the inhibitory role of affective empathy in ado-
lescent aggression is generally well supported by research
(see Lovett and Sheffield 2007 for a review), research on
the cognitive component of empathy has produced mixed
findings. For instance, Jolliffe and Farrington (2006, 2011)
found no evidence for cognitive empathy being related to
either form of aggression in girls or boys, while Espelage
et al. (2004) found perspective taking to be associated
negatively with bullying in middle school students. In
contrast, the study by Batanova and Loukas (2011) found
that elevated levels of perspective taking were associated
with increases in relational aggression across gender, even
after accounting for empathic concern and social anxiety.
Besides the possibility of a suppressor effect, the authors
argued that early adolescents who are capable of taking
others’ points of view might be socially intelligent (see
Sutton et al. 1999a) and, therefore, can use that capability
for adopting covert aggressive strategies that entail more
thought and lower likelihood of getting caught than phys-
ical aggression (Bjorkqvist et al. 2000).
Indeed, some researchers have found that adolescents
with competencies similar to perspective taking (e.g., moral
competence; attention to social cues) can still exhibit
aggressive behaviors (Gini et al. 2011; Hawley 2003). In the
literature on bullying, a few studies indicate that while
adolescent bullies lack moral compassion, they may never-
theless demonstrate moral competence, or a good under-
standing of others’ perspectives (Gini 2006; Gini et al. 2011;
Sutton et al. 1999b). Moreover, Caravita et al. (2010) argued
that emotional factors may be particularly relevant for
informing the relationships between socio-cognitive skills
like perspective taking and subsequent behavior like
aggression or bullying (see Arsenio and Lemerise 2001).
Thus, the authors hypothesized that cognitive empathy
would be associated with bullying in instances of low emo-
tional empathy. In other words, low levels of emotional
empathy were expected to exacerbate the effects of per-
spective taking on bullying, measured as a composite vari-
able encompassing general acts of aggression (e.g., ‘‘starts
bullying’’; ‘‘convinces other children to bully’’). Although
the hypothesis was not supported, the cross-sectional nature
of the study, as well as the limited measure of bullying,
warrant further investigation into the interaction between
empathic concern and perspective taking as it might impact
subsequent forms of aggression. As Caravita et al. hypoth-
esized, low levels of empathic concern may in fact exacer-
bate the effects of perspective taking on overt and relational
aggression 1 year later.
The Moderating Roles of Family and School Factors
According to the social development model (Catalano and
Hawkins 1996; Catalano et al. 2004), the development of
123
1892
aggression can be explained by students’ involvement
within a socializing unit, such as the family or school.
Specifically, the theory posits that involvement is integral
to the socialization process, whereby commitment or
bonding to a particular social unit carries power to affect
behavior. Thus, adolescents who report positive family
interactions and connectedness to their school are likely to
be less aggressive than those who do not because they
conform to the positive norms and values associated with
their family and school contexts. Indeed, evidence indi-
cates that students who report positive connections to their
school also report fewer behavioral problems, including
aggression and bullying (Brookmeyer et al. 2006; Loukas
and Murphy 2007; Ma 2002). Moreover, warm family
interactions and positive parent–child relationships play a
crucial role in the inhibition of aggressive and antisocial
behaviors (Arim et al. 2011; De Kemp et al. 2007; Shetgiri
et al. 2012).
Unlike the large body of literature linking familial fac-
tors to adolescent aggression, no known research has
examined the ways in which positive family relations can
modify or moderate the empathy-aggression relationships
during early adolescence. Rather, research shows that
positive parenting might be more influential for some
children over others due to children’s individual differ-
ences in responding to socialization practices (Edens et al.
2008; Oxford et al. 2003). For instance, Van der Graaff
et al. (2012) found that higher perceived parental support at
age 14 predicted lower levels of aggression 1 year later, but
only in instances of high affective empathy among the
adolescent participants. Nonetheless, research shows that
warm and supportive parenting can facilitate the develop-
ment of cognitive empathy (Soenens et al. 2007) and
emotional empathy in adolescents (Carlo et al. 2007;
Eisenberg et al. 2006). Thus, a positive family environment
likely sets a moral standard for early adolescents, whereby
positive interactions serve as cues for how to act and feel
towards others (see Carlo et al. 2010; Hoffman 2000).
Extending existing research, the current study examined
whether a positive family environment would protect youth
low in empathic concern and potentially high in perspec-
tive taking from subsequent aggression.
In addition to the family context, it is reasonable to
expect that students’ perceived school connectedness
would also moderate their empathy levels as they con-
tribute to subsequent aggression. Used interchangeably
with constructs such as school bonding, school engage-
ment, and school climate (see Anderman and Freeman
2004, for a review), school connectedness captures mostly
affective aspects of students’ school experiences and
includes students’ sense of safety, belonging to the school,
and perceptions of teachers’ fairness and support (Resnick
et al. 1997). To our knowledge, there are no studies that
123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
examine the ways in which school connectedness informs
the relationships between empathy and aggression among
middle school students. Yet, just as the family context
shapes early adolescents’ sense of morality, youth who feel
a sense of connection to the school would most likely
internalize and model the positive values and behaviors
promoted by that school (Barr and Higgins-D’Alessandro
2007, 2009; Batanova and Loukas 2012).
A recent study by Batanova and Loukas (2012) found
that school connectedness contributed to higher subsequent
levels of empathic concern and perspective taking in
middle school boys. Also, in the study by Caravita et al.
(2010), theory of mind skills, or the ability to attribute
mental states to others, was especially related to boys’
defending behaviors during bullying episodes when they
were well liked by other peers. Thus, boys who demon-
strate positive connections with peers might be better sui-
ted to use their cognitive skills in positive ways, thereby
refraining from exhibiting subsequent aggression. The
current study explored whether this hypothesis would be
true for girls as well, whereby girls reporting positive
connections to their school might be better equipped to use
their perspective taking skills to refrain from aggression.
Given limited evidence that positive relationships at school
are linked to adolescents’ emotional empathy (Barr and
Higgins-D’Alessandro 2007), the current study also
examined whether high levels of school connectedness
would protect early adolescents low in empathic concern
from exhibiting both overt and relational forms of
aggression 1 year later.
The Current Study
This study examined the unique and interactive effects of
affective and cognitive empathy on subsequent overt and
relational aggression 1 year later in a sample of middle
school students, and whether positive family and school
factors would moderate the empathy-aggression associa-
tions. We expected that empathic concern would be pre-
dictive of a residualized decrease in both forms of
aggression. Conversely, because perspective taking skills
could serve as a unique tool for social manipulation, we
hypothesized that perspective taking would contribute to a
residualized increase in subsequent relational aggression.
Also because research indicates that cognitive empathy is
associated with overt forms of bullying, we hypothesized
that perspective taking would be positively predictive of
overt aggression. Based on the social development model
(Catalano and Hawkins 1996; Catalano et al. 2004), we
further hypothesized that positive family relations and
students’ school connectedness would buffer the negative
impact of low affective empathy and potentially high
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
perspective taking on subsequent overt and relational
aggression.
Method
Participants
Participants were 260 girls (74 % White; 18 % Hispanic;
3 % Black) and 221 boys (78 % White; 14 % Hispanic;
4 % Black) between 10 and 14 years of age involved in
two study waves. At Wave 1 (fall of 2001), students were
in the 6th and 7th grades (M age = 11.68; SD = .75), and
Wave 2 occurred 1 year later when students were in the 7th
and 8th grades (M age = 12.75; SD = .72). Data from an
additional 19 students were eliminated from the final
sample due to substantial amounts of missing information
relevant to the present study.
Procedure
At Wave 1, active parental consent was obtained from
76 % (N = 884) of all 6th and 7th grade students attending
three schools. Of the students participating at Wave 1 and
who were eligible to participate at Wave 2, 71 % received
parental permission to participate at Wave 2. However,
eight students refused participation and 30 students were
absent on both the day of the survey and the one make-up
day; consequently, 66 % of the eligible students (n = 500)
participated at Wave 2. A questionnaire consisting of 161
items at Wave 1 and 160 items at Wave 2 was group-
administered to participating students in one 40-min
homeroom class. A member of the research team read each
question aloud to students to maintain compliance and to
control for varying levels of reading comprehension.
Measures
Empathic Concern
The 7-item empathic concern subscale from Davis’s (1980)
self-report Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) was asses-
sed at Wave 1 in the current study. Since the IRI was
initially tested on college students, all of the empathic
concern items were slightly modified so as to be relevant
for middle school students (e.g., ‘‘You often feel sorry for
people who don’t have the things you have’’). All items
were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (‘‘Not at all
like you’’) to 4 (‘‘Very much like you’’) and were averaged
so that higher scores reflect higher levels of empathic
concern. Davis (1980) has shown that test–retest and
internal consistency reliabilities for the empathic concern
subscale are substantial. For this study, the internal
1893
consistency reliabilities for Wave 1 empathic concern were
.82 and .85 for girls and boys, respectively.
Perspective Taking
The Wave 1 7-item perspective taking subscale was also
drawn from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis
1980). The perspective taking items were also slightly
modified for middle school students (e.g., ‘‘You sometimes
try to understand your friends better by imagining how they
think about things’’). All items were scored on a scale
ranging from 0 (‘‘Not at all like you’’) to 4 (‘‘Very much
like you’’) and were averaged so that higher scores reflect
higher perspective taking. Davis (1980) also showed that
the test–retest and internal consistency reliabilities for this
subscale are substantial. For the current study, the internal
consistency reliability for Wave 1 perspective taking was
.81 for both girls and boys.
Positive Family Relations
Quality of family relations was measured at Wave 1 with 6
items adapted by Metzler et al. (1998) from the Family
Environment Scale (Moos and Moos 1986). Items assessed
the degree of warmth (‘I really enjoyed being with my
parents’), trust (‘My parents trusted my judgment’),
togetherness (‘There was a feeling of togetherness in our
family’) and fun (‘The things we did together were fun and
interesting’) between the adolescent and his/her parents.
Responses ranged on a 5-point scale from 1 (‘Never True’)
to 5 (‘Always True’). Higher scores reflect more positive
family relations. Internal consistency reliabilities for the
6-item scale were .86 for girls and .84 for boys.
School Connectedness
Five items from the National Longitudinal Study of Ado-
lescent Health (see Anderman 2002; McNeely et al. 2002)
were used to assess school connectedness at Wave 1.
Students responded to items such as ‘‘I feel close to people
at this school,’’ and ‘‘I feel like I am part of this school.’’
The five items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from
1 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’). Items
were reverse coded and averaged so that higher scores
reflect higher levels of school connectedness. The internal
consistency reliabilities for the five items were .73 for girls
and .71 for boys.
Overt Aggression
Overt aggression was assessed at Waves 1 and 2 using an
adapted version of Crick’s (1996) 3-item peer nomination
measure of overt aggression. The three items assessing
123
1894
physical and direct, verbal aggression (hitting, calling names,
and starting fights) were adapted for self-report by asking
adolescents to identify how often they engaged in each of the
behaviors. Items were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (‘‘Not
at all’’) to 5 (‘‘All the time’’) and were averaged so that higher
scores reflect more overt aggression. Internal consistency of
the 3-item measure was .78 for girls’ and .69 for boys’ reports
of overt aggression at Wave 1. At Wave 2, the reliabilities
were .71 and .82 for girls and boys, respectively.
Relational Aggression
Relational aggression was assessed at Waves 1 and 2 using
a 6-item scale, with four adapted items from Crick and
Grotpeter’s (1995) peer-nominated measure of relational
aggression. The scale was adapted for the present study by
modifying the wording of the four items so that middle
school students could self-report how likely they were to
engage in each of the behaviors (e.g., ‘‘When you’re mad at
someone, how often do you ignore them or stop talking to
them’’). Two additional items assessing the frequency of
negative facial expressions (making mean faces and rolling
eyes at peers) were added, given existing evidence that
such expressions are important features of girls’ aggressive
behaviors (Galen and Underwood 1997). In fact, Paquette
and Underwood (1999) found that early adolescents
reported rolling eyes as the most frequently experienced
non-physically aggressive behavior. The six self-reported
items were scored on a scale ranging from 1 (‘‘Not at all’’)
to 5 (‘‘All the time’’) and were averaged so that higher
scores reflect more relational aggression. Internal consis-
tency reliabilities for the six items at Wave 1 were .71 and
.75 for girls and boys, respectively. Reports of relational
aggression at Wave 2 had internal consistency reliabilities
of .80 and .67 for girls and boys, respectively.
Results
Attrition Analyses
Attrition analyses were conducted to determine if students
who participated at both waves of the study differed from
their peers who participated only at Wave 1. Results
indicated that in comparison to students who participated at
both waves of the study, students who did not participate at
Wave 2 reported lower levels of Wave 1 empathic concern
[t(875) = -2.39, p \ .05], perspective taking [t(879) =
-2.63, p \ .01], school connectedness [t(880) = -3.88,
p \ .001], and positive family relations [t(878) = -2.29,
p \ .05], as well as higher levels of both Wave 1 overt
[t(880) = 2.16, p \ .05] and relational [t(879) = 2.96,
p \ .01] aggression.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
Multivariate Analyses
Because research indicates that girls and boys typically
experience their family and school contexts in different
ways (Grusec and Hastings 2007; McHale et al. 2003), and
that girls report higher empathic concern and perspective
taking than boys (Batanova and Loukas 2011; Espelage
et al. 2004; Gini et al. 2007; Mayberry and Espelage 2007),
the current study examined girls’ and boys’ data separately.
To verify that separate models should be conducted, Box’s
M test was used to determine the homogeneity of variance–
covariance matrices of all study variables across gender.
Results indicated that the variance–covariance matrices
significantly varied across gender (Box’s M = 110.42,
F(36) = 3.01, p \ .001), confirming that all subsequent
models should be run separately for female and male
students.
Zero-Order Correlations
Prior to examining the hypotheses, zero-order correlations
were examined between all study variables (see Table 1 for
girls’ and boys’ data, separately). Examination of Table 1
showed that both components of empathy were correlated
positively with the Wave 1 family and school factors for
girls and boys. Moreover, both components of empathy and
both forms of aggression at each wave were positively
correlated at each wave. Empathic concern was associated
negatively with both overt and relational aggression at both
waves, but only for girls. Girls’ perspective taking was
associated negatively with both forms of aggression at both
waves, whereas boys’ perspective taking was inversely
related to both forms of aggression at Wave 1, only. For both
girls and boys, positive family relations were correlated
negatively with Wave 1 overt and relational aggression.
Only girls’ reports of positive family relations were corre-
lated negatively with Wave 2 overt and relational aggres-
sion. Conversely, girls’ school connectedness was associated
negatively with both forms of aggression at Wave 1 only,
whereas only boys’ school connectedness was associated
negatively with overt and relational aggression at both
waves.
Regression Analyses
Study hypotheses were tested using 4-step hierarchical
regression analyses, with separate models conducted for
girls’ and boys’ Wave 2 overt and relational aggression
outcome variables. Step 1 included early adolescent age and
baseline levels of both forms of aggression. Age was
included to control for the possibility that students of
varying age levels had different cognitive processing or
understanding of the study items, and also because physical
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902 1895

Table 1 Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for all study variables among female (n = 260) and male (n = 221) middle school
students
Study variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Wave 1 empathic concern – .67** .29** .23** -.26** -.31** -.30** -.24**
2. Wave 1 perspective taking .63** – .30** .28** -.14* -.28** -.13* -.14*
3. Wave 1 positive family relations .18** .27** – .36** -.26** -.31** -.24** -.25**
4. Wave 1 school connectedness .14* .20** .39** – -.24** -.21** -.11 -.12
5. Wave 1 overt aggression -.13 -.26** -.21** -.19** – .52** .49** .37**
6. Wave 1 relational aggression -.05 -.21** -.39** -.38** .50** – .38** .53**
7. Wave 2 overt aggression -.13 -.12 -.08 -.22** .36** .27** – .57*
8. Wave 2 relational aggression -.11 -.10 -.13 -.22** .26** .37** .52** –
Girls’ M (SD) 3.19 (.64) 2.69 (.71) 3.89 (.84) 3.96 (.62) 1.66 (.66) 1.83 (.53) 1.60 (.62) 1.83 (.63)
Boys’ M (SD) 2.80 (.73) 2.29 (.80) 3.99 (.78) 3.77 (.66) 2.00 (.64) 1.82 (.62) 2.02 (.80) 1.68 (.55)
Values above the diagonal are for females and values below the diagonal are for males. Both empathy scales were measured on a 0–4 scale
(0 = not at all like you, 4 = very much like you). Positive family relations were measured on a 1–5 scale (1 = never true, 5 = always true).
School connectedness and both waves of overt aggression and relational aggression were measured on a 1–5 scale (1 = not at all, 5 = all the
time)
* p \ .05; ** p \ 0.01

maturation has been found to affect aggression (Celio et al.
2006). Baseline levels of both forms of aggression, which
are highly correlated and found to overlap (Rose et al. 2004;
Smith et al. 2009), were also included in step 1 so as to
partial out the impact of one on change in the other. Because
the variance associated with baseline levels of aggression
was partialled out of the Wave 2 outcomes, models were
interpreted as predicting the residualized difference in the
aggression outcomes over a 1-year period of time. Empathic
concern and perspective taking were entered simultaneously
in step 2. Thus, any impact of either component of empathy
on subsequent aggression could be interpreted as over and
above the other empathy subscale. In step 3, the moderator
variables of positive family relations and school connect-
edness were assessed simultaneously. Then, five two-way
interactions, one between both components of empathy
(empathic concern x perspective taking) and four between
each of the empathy components and moderator variables,
were entered separately in step 4 (empathic concern x family
relations; perspective taking x family relations, empathic
concern x school connectedness; perspective taking x school
connectedness).
The two-way interactions assessed if (1) empathic con-
cern moderated the associations between perspective tak-
ing and subsequent aggression, and (2) student reports of
their family environment or level of school connectedness
moderated the relations between either component of
empathy and either form of aggression 1 year later. Inter-
action terms were comprised of the product term between
empathic concern and perspective taking or the empathy
and moderator variables that were each grand-mean cen-
tered to avoid problems with multicollinearity. Following
the guidelines of Aiken and West (1991), two-way
interactions were assessed separately and in the presence of
all main effects.
Girls’ Results
As shown in Table 2, girls’ Wave 2 overt aggression was
predicted by baseline levels of overt aggression in all of the
main effects models (see steps 1 through 3), as well as by
Wave 1 relational aggression in the main effects models
including age and empathy (see steps 1 and 2). Similarly,
Table 3 indicates that girls’ Wave 2 relational aggression
was predicted by baseline levels of relational aggression in
all of the main effects models (see steps 1 through 3), and
by baseline overt aggression in step 1, only. Age, however,
was not significantly associated with change in either form
of aggression. Moreover, even after baseline levels of
aggression and age were partialled out, Wave 1 empathic
concern was negatively predictive of residualized change
in overt aggression, only (see Table 2). Neither positive
family relations nor school connectedness contributed
uniquely to either form of aggression. Overall, the main
effects models accounted for 31 % of the variance in Wave
2 overt aggression [F(7, 259) = 15.79, p \ .001] and 31 %
of the variance in Wave 2 relational aggression [F(7,
259) = 16.08, p \ .001]. None of the five two-way inter-
actions predicted the Wave 2 overt and relational aggres-
sion outcomes for girls.
Boys’ Results
Examination of the main effects models (see Tables 2 and
3, steps 1–3) showed that boys’ baseline levels of overt
aggression were significantly predictive of Wave 2 overt

123
1896 J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902

Table 2 Predicting Wave 2 overt aggression from Wave 1 empathic concern and perspective taking and Wave 1 positive family relations and
school connectedness in female (n = 260) and male (n = 221) middle school students
Girls’ results Boys’ results
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Predicting Wave 2 overt aggression from Wave 1 study variables

Covariates
Overt aggression .41*** .38*** .38*** .30*** .29*** .30***
Relational aggression .16* .14* .13 .12 .13 .10
Age (in years) .06 .06 .05 .06 .02 .01
Main effects
Empathic concern -.24*** -.24*** -.13 -.12
Perspective taking .13 .13 .06 .06
Positive family relations -.10 .09
School connectedness .06 -.15*
Two-way interactions
EC 9 PT -.08 .11
EC 9 familya -.09 .15*
PT 9 familya -.09 .11
EC 9 schoola -.09 .07
PT 9 schoola -.06 -.02
R2 (change) .27*** .30 (.03)** .31 (.01) .31 (.01) .14* .15 (.01) .17 (.02)? .20 (.04)*
?
p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
a
Two-way interactions examined individually in the presence of all main effects

Table 3 Predicting Wave 2 relational aggression from Wave 1 empathic concern and perspective taking and Wave 1 positive family relations
and school connectedness in female (n = 260) and male (n = 221) middle school students
Girls’ results Boys’ results
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Predicting Wave 2 relational aggression from Wave 1 study variables

Covariates
Relational aggression .46*** .45*** .44*** .32*** .32*** .30***
Overt aggression .13* .11 .11 .11 .11 .11
Age (in years) .04 .05 .04 -.06 -.05 -.06
Main effects
Empathic concern -.13 -.12 -.12 -.12
Perspective taking .11 .09 .07 .07
Positive family relations -.09 .06
School connectedness .04 -.11
Two-way interactions
EC 9 PT -.03 -.01
EC 9 familya -.02 .20**
PT 9 familya -.01 .03
a
EC 9 school .06 -.02
PT 9 schoola .07 -.10
R2 (change) .29*** .30 (.01) .31 (.01) .31 (.00) .15*** .15 (.01) .16 (.01) .20 (.04)**
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
a
Two-way interactions examined individually in the presence of all main effects

123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902 1897

aggression (see steps 1 through 3), and that baseline levels high levels of positive family low levels of positive family
relations relations
of relational aggression were significantly predictive of 2.2
Wave 2 relational aggression (see steps 1 through 3). Boys’
age was not significantly associated with change in either

Wave 2 Overt Aggression

form of aggression, and neither component of empathy 2
contributed to change in the aggression outcome variables.
Similarly, positive family relations was not uniquely pre-
dictive of change in either form of aggression. Even after 1.8
partialling out baseline levels of aggression, age, and both
components of empathy, elevated levels of school con-
1.6
nectedness predicted a residualized decrease in boys’ overt
aggression (see Table 2). However, this result should be
interpreted cautiously, as the amount of variance explained
1.4
by school connectedness was only marginally significant 1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean
(p = .09). Overall, the main effects models accounted for Wave 1 Empathic Concern
17 % of the variance in Wave 2 overt aggression [F(7,
220) = 6.09, p \ .001] and 16 % of the variance in Wave 2 Fig. 1 Examining the empathic concern 9 positive family relations
interaction for boys’ Wave 2 overt aggression
relational aggression [F(7, 220) = 5.96, p \ .001].
Examination of the two-way interactions indicated that
high levels of positive family low levels of positive family
only the interaction between empathic concern and positive relations relations
family relations was significant for boys’ overt and relational 2

aggression outcomes (see Tables 2 and 3). Similar to other

Wave 2 Relational Aggression

non-experimental studies (see Chaplin 1991), small but

significant portions of the variance in boys’ Wave 2 overt
aggression [R2 change = .02, F(8, 220) = 6.15, p \ .001]
and Wave 2 relational aggression [R2 change = .04, F(8,
220) = 6.71, p \ .001] were explained by these two-way
interactions. Using the methods outlined by Aiken and West
(1991), the two-way interactions were probed by examining
the associations between empathic concern and boys’ Wave
2 aggression outcomes at high (1 standard deviation above
the mean) and low (1 standard deviation below the mean)
levels of positive family relations.
As depicted in Fig. 1, probing the two-way interaction
for overt aggression showed that among boys reporting low
levels of positive family relations, empathic concern was
associated negatively with residualized change in overt
aggression (b = -.27, p \ .05). When boys reported high
levels of positive family relations, however, empathic
concern was not associated with residualized change in
overt aggression (b = .05, p [ .05). This finding indicates
that elevated levels of positive family relations buffered or
offset the influence of low empathic concern on boys’
subsequent overt aggression.
Probing the two-way interaction for relational aggres-
sion in Fig. 2 showed the same pattern of findings as for
overt aggression. Among boys reporting low levels of
positive family relations, empathic concern was linked
negatively to residualized change in relational aggression
(b = -.28, p \ .01). Conversely, when boys reported high
levels of positive family relations, empathic concern no
longer contributed to any residualized change in relational
aggression (b = .11, p [ .05). This finding also indicates
1.8
1.6
1.4
1 SD below mean 1 SD above mean
Wave 1 Empathic Concern
Fig. 2 Examining the empathic concern 9 positive family relations
interaction for boys’ Wave 2 relational aggression
that the family context served as a protective factor,
whereby elevated levels of positive family relations buf-
fered or offset the negative influence of low empathic
concern on boys’ subsequent relational aggression.
Discussion
Traditionally, empathy is known to inhibit aggressive
behaviors in children and adolescents (Gini et al. 2007;
Robinson et al. 2007; Strayer and Roberts. 2004). Given
the multidimensional nature of empathy and aggression,
however, much less is known about the prospective asso-
ciations between different components of empathy and
aggression, as well as the moderating functions of social
factors in the aforementioned associations. Thus, the

123
1898
current study examined the unique and interactive roles of
empathic concern, perspective taking, positive family
relations, and school connectedness in subsequent overt
and relational aggression 1 year later in a sample of early
adolescents. Study findings indicated that among girls only,
empathic concern was uniquely predictive of a residualized
decrease in overt aggression. Among boys, positive family
relations buffered the negative impact of low empathic
concern on both forms of aggression 1 year later. Over and
above both components of empathy, boys’ elevated levels
of school connectedness contributed to a residualized
decrease in subsequent overt aggression. Unexpectedly,
perspective taking was not associated with either form of
aggression across gender, and there were no significant
interactions between the two components of empathy or
between either component of empathy and school con-
nectedness in predicting boys’ or girls’ aggression. Taken
together, the current study highlights the importance of
affective empathy in girls’ aggression and the roles of
family and school in boys’ aggression.
In partial support of our first hypothesis and consistent
with existing research on affective empathy and aggression
(De Kemp et al. 2007; Jolliffe and Farrington 2006, 2011),
elevated levels of empathic concern contributed to lower
levels of overt aggression in early adolescent girls, over and
above levels of perspective taking. Contrary to previous
research, empathic concern was not uniquely predictive of
boys’ overt aggression (see Caravita et al. 2009; Espelage
et al. 2004). Although the lack of findings for boys was
unexpected, they are consistent with research by Jolliffe and
Farrington (2006, 2011) showing that boys’ affective
empathy was not significantly related to their bullying.
Rather, these researchers found that the frequency of bully-
ing mattered, such that males who bullied frequently showed
significantly low levels of affective empathy. Thus, it is
possible that for boys, affective empathy plays a role only in
cases of persistent or chronic forms of overt aggression.
Subsequent research is needed to consider the interaction
between affective empathy and frequency of aggression.
In contrast to results for overt aggression, empathic
concern was not associated with relational aggression for
either boys or girls. This finding came as a surprise, given
that a previous study found empathic concern to reduce
both forms of aggression in middle school students (see
Batanova and Loukas 2011). However, the study also
found that the main effect of empathic concern was qual-
ified by a two-way interaction with fear of negative eval-
uation, a form of social anxiety where one is prone to
misinterpreting others’ intentions as hostile. Perhaps, then,
empathy’s effect on relational aggression is only relevant
under certain conditions, such as when students experience
elevated levels of social anxiety, or, as Jolliffe and Far-
rington (2011) have also pointed out, when they are highly
123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
impulsive and fail to consider the consequences of their
actions. This hypothesis reiterates Arsenio and Lemerise’s
(2001) argument that emotion processes, including emotion
intensity and emotion regulation, also may underlie the
empathy-aggression associations.
Interestingly, positive family relations protected boys
low in empathic concern from exhibiting overt and rela-
tional aggression 1 year later. Supported by the social
development model (Catalano and Hawkins 1996; Cata-
lano et al. 2004), findings highlight the importance of a
positive socializing family environment for early adoles-
cent boys. That is, positive interactions and quality time
among family members may serve as models and instruc-
tions for appropriate behavior, even among boys with low
levels of empathic concern (see Eisenberg et al. 2006;
Hastings et al. 2007). Although other studies have also
tested two-way interactions between family context vari-
ables and empathy as they relate to aggression, they con-
sidered empathy the moderator variable and findings from
these studies are conflicting. For instance, De Kemp et al.
(2007) found no evidence that parental support and
empathy made any interacting contributions to adolescents’
subsequent aggression. In a recent study by Van der Graaff
et al. (2012), however, perceived parental support con-
tributed to lower levels of aggression only for adolescents
who reported high levels of affective empathy. Conversely,
when low empathic adolescents reported higher levels of
parental support, they showed even higher levels of
aggression and delinquency 1 year later. While the authors
suggested that adolescents with low levels of emotional
empathy might wrongfully interpret their parents’ support
as a permissive parenting style, our findings indicate that
adolescent boys with low empathic concern may in fact
benefit from positive relationships with family members,
including parents. However, more research is needed to
examine specific family system dynamics (e.g., inclusion
of siblings) and contextual factors (e.g., parental supervi-
sion) as they contribute to gender socialization relevant to
adolescent empathy and aggression (see Jolliffe and Far-
rington 2011; McHale et al. 2003). For instance, girls low
in empathic concern may also benefit from positive family
relations, but more specific measures might be needed to
identify factors that are salient to early adolescent girls’
outcomes, such as parent-daughter communication about
their sense of self-worth (see Bosacki 2003).
It is notable that boys’ perceived levels of school con-
nectedness uniquely contributed to a residualized decrease
in their overt aggression, over and above their empathy
levels and positive family relations. Consistent with limited
previous research indicating that boys’ school connected-
ness leads to fewer emotional symptoms and peer problems
(Shochet et al. 2006), the current study further highlights
that feelings of school belonging and closeness with teachers
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
and peers might be especially important for reducing boys’
overt aggression. Specifically, boys who feel accepted and
supported by people at their school might refrain from dis-
playing overtly harmful behaviors (Crosnoe et al. 2002). It
must also be noted, however, that although the main effect of
school connectedness was significant, the amount of vari-
ance it accounted for in the aggression outcome was only
marginally significant. Thus, results should be replicated
prior to drawing any firm conclusions regarding the role of
school connectedness as a unique predictor of change in
boys’ overt aggression. Moreover, because girls’ school
connectedness did not uniquely predict declines in overt
aggression, it is likely that the school context is not as rel-
evant to girls’ overt aggression once their levels of empathy
are taken into consideration. That is, given that girls are
generally socialized to be prosocial, caring, and ‘‘well-
behaving’’ (Hastings et al. 2007), factors that contribute to
these individual difference variables may be more important
and warrant further investigation in explaining their levels of
overt aggression than is school connectedness.
Interestingly, school connectedness did not contribute to
either girls’ or boys’ reports of relational aggression.
According to the social development model (Catalano and
Hawkins 1996; Catalano et al. 2004), adolescents who feel
connected to their school should be less likely than their
counterparts to deviate from the school’s norms and
expectations, and for this reason have a lower likelihood of
acting out or showing aggression. Because relational
aggression entails covert behaviors, like excluding or
ignoring a peer, it might be difficult for a school to con-
sistently identify and assist with such problems (Holt and
Keyes 2004; Young et al. 2006). Schools might inadver-
tently allow or ignore acts of relational aggression and
some might even tolerate these tactics given limited evi-
dence that up to 30 % of students get ignored and verbally
harassed by teachers (James et al. 2008; Twemlow et al.
2006). If school norms and expectations neglect to ade-
quately address relational aggression, it is unlikely that
school connectedness will contribute to decreases in either
boys’ or girls’ relational aggression.
While the current study adds some novel findings to the
literature, there are two additional non-significant associ-
ations that warrant some discussion. First, in contrast to
studies that found unique associations between the cogni-
tive component of empathy and adolescent aggressive
behaviors (Batanova and Loukas 2011; Caravita et al.
2009, 2010), the current study found no such evidence. The
lack of significant findings might be attributed to other
related factors that either confound the effects of perspec-
tive taking or better explain adolescent aggression, such as
impulsivity, perceptions of the self, and social goals (see
Bosacki 2003; Ojanen et al. 2012; Jolliffe and Farrington
2011). Second, because the current study did not find low
1899
levels of empathic concern to exacerbate the effects of
perspective taking on aggression (see Caravita et al. 2010),
it is likely that other factors related to adolescents’ sense of
moral values and emotions need to be investigated as well
(see Arsenio and Lemerise 2001; Hart and Carlo 2005). For
instance, Laible et al. (2008) demonstrated that both moral
affect (comprised of guilt, shame, sympathy, and empathic
anger) and moral cognition (comprised of prosocial rea-
soning and internalization of values) were linked nega-
tively to adolescent bullying. Thus, empathic concern is
likely one piece of the puzzle in which a variety of moral
factors impact the relationship between perspective taking
and subsequent aggression.
There are also some limitations that warrant discussion.
First, although there was a 1-year lag between the predictor
and outcome variables, all measures were self-reported by
the adolescents, increasing the possibility that the obtained
associations are inflated due to shared method variance.
Nevertheless, given the highly personal and internal nature
of empathy, adolescents are likely the best informants of
their own empathic concern and perspective taking. Simi-
larly, because relational aggression includes acts that are
often covert and hidden (see Kaukiainen et al. 1999) and
overt aggression may vary across contexts (see Achenbach
et al. 1987), self-reports likely reflect the full repertoire of
individual behaviors, whereas reports by others may be
limited to behaviors specific to particular contexts. Second,
the study is limited by two waves of data, which does not
allow for the examination of trajectories of relational and
overt aggression across time. A longitudinal study could
address how changes in empathy, as well as family and
school relationships, contribute to changes in aggression
across time. Third, the family and school moderator vari-
ables were relatively broad, and therefore, future studies
should replicate the current study with specific measures,
such as parental acceptance (e.g., Hare et al. 2011) and sense
of community connectedness in the school (e.g., Flanagan
et al. 2007). Finally, attrition analyses showed that students
who did not participate at Wave 2 were more likely than
students who did participate to report heightened levels of
both overt and relational aggression, as well as lower levels
of empathic concern, perspective taking, positive family
relations, and school connectedness. Retention of these
students may have produced even stronger associations
between variables, thereby strengthening the final models.
Conclusions
This study extends the literature by examining the pro-
spective associations between different components of
empathy and aggression, as well as the moderating roles of
positive family and school factors in the aforementioned
123
1900
associations. While empathic concern contributed to girls’
subsequent overt aggression, boys’ positive family relations
buffered the negative effects of low empathic concern on
both forms of aggression. Interestingly, school connected-
ness played an inhibitory role in boys’ overt aggression as
well. Thus, despite evidence indicating that adolescent girls
are more relationally oriented than boys (Rose and Rudolph
2006), current study findings underscore the need for
intervention and prevention programs to promote school
connectedness and positive family relationships for boys,
particularly those who demonstrate little concern or care for
others. Given that socio-cognitive processing, such as per-
spective taking, has long been emphasized in children’s
empathy development and social functioning (see Malti and
Latzko 2010), it is noteworthy that neither perspective
taking nor its interaction with empathic concern and the
other social factors produced any significant changes in
early adolescents’ aggression. The current study highlights
the role of empathic concern as it varies for girls’ and boys’
aggression, but calls for future research to disentangle the
many factors related to moral affect and cognition as they
contribute to adolescents’ aggression.
Author contributions Milena Batanova conceived of the study,
performed the statistical analyses, and coordinated the writing of the
manuscript; A.L. provided the data necessary for the study, partici-
pated in the interpretation of the data, and edited all drafts of the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
References
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987).
Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implica-
tions of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, PA: Sage.
Anderman, E. M. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes
during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
795–809.
Anderman, L. H., & Freeman, T. M. (2004). Students’ sense of
belonging in school. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 13, pp. 27–63).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings:
A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8,
291–322.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect,
relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 9(3), 212–230.
Arim, R. G., Dahinten, V. S., Marshall, S. K., & Shapka, J. D. (2011).
An examination of the reciprocal relationships between adoles-
cents’ aggressive behaviors and their perceptions of parental
nurturance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 207–220.
Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. A. (2001). Varieties of childhood
bullying: Values, emotion processes, and social competence.
Social Development, 10, 59–73.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
Barr, J., & D’Alessandro, A. (2009). How adolescent empathy and
prosocial behavior change in the context of school culture: A
two-year longitudinal study. Adolescence, 44(176), 751–752.
Barr, J. J., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2007). Adolescent empathy
and prosocial behavior in the multidimensional context of school
culture. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 231–250.
Batanova, M., & Loukas, A. (2011). Social anxiety and aggression in
early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(11),
1534–1543.
Batanova, M., & Loukas, A. (2012). What are the unique and
interacting contributions of school and family factors to early
adolescents’ empathic concern and perspective taking? Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1382–1391.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls
manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends regarding
direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18,
117–127.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social
intelligence – empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 5(2), 191–200.
Bosacki, S. L. (2003). Psychological pragmatics in preadolescents:
Sociomoral understanding, self-worth, and school behavior.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(2), 141–155.
Brookmeyer, K. A., Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. (2006). Schools,
parents, and youth violence: A multilevel, ecological analysis.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35,
504–514.
Caravita, S., Blasio, P. D., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and
interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement
in bullying. Social Development, 18(1), 141–163.
Caravita, S., Blasio, P. D., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). Early adolescents’
participation in bullying: Is ToM involved? The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 30, 138–170.
Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J.
(2007). Parenting styles or practices? Parenting, sympathy, and
prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 168(2), 147–176.
Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta, B. E.
(2010). The longitudinal relations among parenting styles,
sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2),
116–124.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., &
Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for
healthy development: Findings from the social development
research group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252–261.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development
model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.),
Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–196). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Celio, M., Karnik, N. S., & Steiner, H. (2006). Early maturation as a
risk factor for aggression and delinquency in adolescent girls: A
review. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 60(10),
1254–1262.
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in
personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational
aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s
future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 67,
2317–2327.
Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K. G., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2002). Protective
functions of family relationships and school factors on the
deviant behavior of adolescent boys and girls: Reducing the
impact of risky friendships. Youth & Society, 33(4), 515–544.
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual
differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology, 10, 85.
De Kemp, R., Overbeek, G., De Wied, M., Engels, R., & Scholte, R.
(2007). Early adolescent empathy, parental support, and antiso-
cial behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(1), 5–18.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental
contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 21(1), 225–241.
Edens, J. F., Skopp, N. A., & Cahill, M. A. (2008). Psychopathic
features moderate the relationship between harsh and inconsis-
tent parental discipline and adolescent antisocial behavior.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37,
472–476.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial
development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3:
Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,
pp. 646–718). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2001). Self-reported empathy in
Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and rela-
tionship to bullying. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.),
Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family,
school and society (pp. 147–166). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S. E., & Adams, R. S. (2004). Empathy,
caring and bullying: Toward an understanding of complex
associations. In D. L. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in
American schools (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School
and community climates and civic commitments: Patterns for
ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(2), 421–431.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental
investigation of social aggression among children. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 33, 589–600.
Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying:
What’s wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528–539.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. (2007). Does empathy
predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggres-
sive Behavior, 33, 467–476.
Gini, G., Pozzoloi, T., & Hauser, M. (2011). Bullies have enhanced
moral competence to judge relative to victims, but lack moral
compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,
603–608.
Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (2007). Handbook of socialization:
Theory and research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hare, A. L., Marston, E. G., & Allen, J. P. (2011). Maternal
acceptance and adolescents’ emotional communication: A lon-
gitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 744–751.
Hart, D., & Carlo, G. (2005). Moral development in adolescence.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 223–233.
Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2007). The
socialization of prosocial development. In J. E. Grusec & P.
D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and
research (pp. 638–664). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of
resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-
adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279–309.
Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and moral development. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward
bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in
American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention
and intervention (pp. 121–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
1901
James, D. J., Lawlor, M., Courtney, P., Flynn, A., Henry, B., &
Murphy, N. (2008). Bullying behavior in secondary schools:
What roles do teachers play? Child Abuse Review, 17, 160–173.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship
between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32,
540–550.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Is low empathy related to
bullying after controlling for individual and social background
variables? Journal of Adolescence, 34, 59–71.
Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K.,
Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S., et al. (1999). The relationships
between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81–89.
Laible, D., Eye, J., & Carlo, G. (2008). Dimensions of conscience in
mid-adolescence: Links with social behavior, parenting, and
temperament. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 875–887.
Loukas, A., & Murphy, J. L. (2007). Middle school student
perceptions of school climate: Examining protective functions
on subsequent adjustment problems. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 45, 293–309.
Lovett, B. J., & Sheffield, R. A. (2007). Affecive empathy deficits in
aggressive children and adolescents: A critical review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 27, 1–13.
Ma, X. (2002). Bullying in middle school: Individual and school
characteristics of victims and offenders. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 13(1), 63–89.
Malti, T., & Latzko, B. (2010). Children’s moral emotions and moral
cognition: Towards an integrative perspective. In B. Latzko & T.
Malti (Eds.), Children’s moral emotions and moral cognition:
Developmental and educational perspectives. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development (Vol. 129, pp. 1–10). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayberry, M. L., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Associations among
empathy, social competence, and reactive/proactive aggression
subtypes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 787–798.
McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family
contexts of gender development. Social Development, 12(1),
125–148.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002).
Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School
Health, 72, 138–146.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Ary, D. V., & Li, F. (1998). The stability
and validity of early adolescents’ reports of parenting constructs.
Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 600–619.
Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1986). The family environment scale manual
(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and relational
aggression in early adolescents: Associations with narcissism,
temperament, and social goals. Aggressive Behavior, 38,
99–107.
Oxford, M., Cavell, T. A., & Hughes, J. N. (2003). Callous/
unemotional traits moderate the relation between ineffective
parenting and child externalizing problems: A partial replication
and extension. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 32, 577–585.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. A. (1999). Young adolescents’
experiences of peer victimization: Gender differences in
accounts of social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 45, 233–258.
Peets, K., & Kikas, E. (2006). Aggressive strategies and victimization
during adolescence: Grade and gender differences, and cross-
informant agreement. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 68–79.
Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008).
Moderators of the associations between relational aggression and
perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 563–576.
123
1902
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K.
M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm.
Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832.
Robinson, R., Roberts, W. L., Strayer, J., & Koopman, R. (2007).
Empathy and emotional responsiveness in delinquent and non-
delinquent adolescents. Social Development, 16(3), 555–579.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. D., & Sameroff, A. J. (1998). Academic and
emotional functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal rela-
tions, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school.
Development and Psychopathology, 10, 321–352.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a
context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional
development: A summary of research findings. Elementary
School Journal, 100, 443–471.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in
peer relationship processes: Potential trade-off for the emotional
and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 98–131.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and
relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental
differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Develop-
mental Psychology, 40(3), 378–387.
Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). ‘‘Female aggression’’
revisited: Variable- and person-centered approaches to studying
gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 30(2), 158–163.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and
sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression
matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 17–24.
Shetgiri, R., Lin, H., Avila, R. M., & Flores, G. (2012). Parental
characteristics associated with bullying perpetration in U.S.
children aged 10 to 17 years. American Journal of Public
Health, 102(12), 2280–2286.
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School
connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent
mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 170–179.
Smith, R., Rose, A. J., & Schwartz-Mette, R. A. (2009). Relational
and overt aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying
mean-level gender differences and associations with peer
acceptance. Social Development, 19(2), 243–269.
Soenens, B., Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goosens, L. (2007).
The intergenerational transmission of empathy-related respond-
ing in adolescence: The role of maternal support. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 299–311.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43:1890–1902
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and
aggression in 5-year olds. Social Development, 13(1), 1–13.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999a). Bullying and
‘theory of mind’: A critique of the ‘social skills deficit’ approach
to anti-social behavior. Social Development, 8, 117–127.
Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999b). Social cognition
and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450.
Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F., & Brethour, J. R. (2006).
Teachers who bully students: A hidden trauma. International
Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52, 187–198.
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten
challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children:
Why can’t we all just get along? Social Development, 10,
248–266.
Van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2012). The
moderating role of empathy in the association between parental
support and adolescent aggressive and delinquent behavior.
Aggressive Behavior, 38, 368–377.
Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002).
Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental
adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during
early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205–224.
Young, E. L., Boye, A., & Nelson, D. (2006). Relational aggression:
Understanding, identifying, and responding in schools. Psychol-
ogy in the Schools, 43, 297–312.
Author Biographies
Milena Batanova is a doctoral candidate in Health Behavior and
Health Education and a Powers Fellow at the University of Texas at
Austin. She studies a variety of individual (e.g., cognitive and
affective empathy) and social factors (e.g., school climate and
connectedness) relevant to aggression, bullying involvement, and
moral development in general.
Alexandra Loukas is a Professor in Health Behavior and Health
Education at the University of Texas at Austin. She studies the
interaction between individual and contextual influences on the
development of adolescent problem behaviors, including aggression
and substance use.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.