Being the target of social aggression can be a devastatingly hurtful experience. Support for this is provided by Sharp’s (1995) large scale study of secondary school students in the UK which found that of the 20% of students who reported having been bullied by others spreading rumours about them, those students described being the target of those malicious rumours as the most psychologically distressful form of bullying.
In the late 1990s, research was undertaken to understand the link between social aggression and psycho-social problems, particularly in the case of adolescents. One particular study found a link between deep internal distress coupled with social maladjustment issues amongst children and adolescents who experience social aggression. This distress manifested in depression, social anxiety and loneliness (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995). Later research confirmed this and highlighted the link between social aggression and internal distress in adolescents (James and Owens,
2005; Storch et al., 2005; Storch et al., 2004; Storch et al., 2003; Prinstein et al., 2001; Owens et al., 2000a; Paquette and Underwood, 1999). Such internal distress has manifested in the form of confusion, social anxiety, depression and a sudden loss of self-esteem.
Research has shown a correlation between the experience of social aggression and a poor sense of self-esteem or negative self-evaluation amongst adolescents, in particular where the individual, in a bid to rationalise such confusing behaviour, attributes self-blame for such behaviour (Storch et al., 2005; 2004; 2003); Prinstein et al., 2001; Owens et al., 2000a; Paquette and Underwood, 1999). Whilst earlier research (Paquette and Underwood, 1999; Prinstein et al., 2001), looked at individual emotional and psychological dimensions to social aggression such as low self-esteem, later successive studies by Storch et al., (2003/2004/2005) focused on the social and relational aspects of such aggression. In particular, this research identified a correlation between peer-peer social aggression and socially maladaptive behaviour, social anxiety/phobias, isolation and loneliness. Attempting to explain this finding, Storch et al. (2003) make the important point that peer-peer social relationships are highly important in the adolescent’s psychosocial development and probably more so than at any other stage of their development. Consequently, it is understandable that a relationship should exist between their critical need for peer acceptance and the associated social anxiety that relates to being the target of social aggression. A subsequent study by Storch et al. (2005) examined the link between aggression (both relational and overt) and social phobia outcomes over a one-year period with a sample of almost two hundred mixed-gender adolescents. The results revealed a link between social aggression and resultant social phobia one year later. Whilst the study did not find a noticeable difference between the levels of anxiety experienced by boys and girls, the sample was relatively small. Regardless of this fact, the findings emphasise that the experience of social aggression can have negative consequences that persist long after the experience has happened. A similar study by La Greca and Harrison (2005) of social aggression in adolescence used a sample of four hundred and twenty- one students of mixed race and gender. It found that adolescents reported greater social anxiety and depression as a result of the internal distress that accrued from being the target of social aggression, and that this was the case even when negative aspects of adolescents’ close friendships and romantic relationships were considered.
Evidence in support of the greater sensitivity of girls to social aggression, a sensitivity which can cause greater emotional and psychological impact, is provided by the work of Paquette and Underwood (1999), which examined seventy-six boys and girls (with the average age being fourteen). The authors found that despite boys and girls experiencing social aggression with equal frequency, the girls who had been victims of social aggression reported being more distressed by their experiences than was the case for boys. Equally worryingly, the results indicated that, in the case of girls, being the victim of social aggression was negatively related to self-concept both globally as well as in specific domains such as physical appearance. For example, the findings showed that self-perception amongst girls was compromised in relation to ‘athletic competence, physical appearance, romantic appeal, behavioural conduct, close friendships and, global self-worth’ whilst for boys the only perceivable negative impact of social aggression was low self-perceptions of close friendships. Girls had greater recollect and more recurring negative thoughts of social aggression than boys, suggesting a higher level of psychosocial stress when peer social relationships were damaged. This finding also adds credence to the hypothesis that girls have greater emotional need for social/relational bonding and acceptance amongst their peers than boys and a corresponding greater psychological stress when this social union is broken (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995). That psychological stress can have devastating consequences as observed, for example, in the highly publicised, tragic outcome of Phoebe Prince.
One final point relating to the consequences of social aggression is that although social cohesiveness and support may reduce the effects of socially aggressive behaviour to some degree (Prinstein et al., 2001), it has been shown that such support does not protect individuals from the full effects of socially aggressive behaviour. For example, studies by La Greca and Harrison (2005) and Prinstein et al., (2001) found that women continued to experience hurt and struggle with low self-esteem, suffer from depression and various forms of neurotic anxiety, such as social phobia and panic attacks, as a result of having been a target of social aggression in their adolescent years. These long-term negative outcomes manifested despite the protection and support of family and friends.
2.9 Moral Disengagement
Bearing in mind this discussion of possible factors that influence the choice to engage in socially aggressive behaviour, nonetheless, it remains difficult to understand why adolescents with adequate moral reasoning frequently continue to perpetrate socially aggressive behaviour despite awareness of the psychological distress they are causing to another. In an attempt to explain how this can happen, Underwood (2003) notes that even when people believe in moral ideals, these can become disengaged from their actual behaviour. She refers to Bandura’s (1999) description of moral disengagement as involving four primary mechanisms: cognitive restructuring to make behaviour morally justifiable, denying one’s own agency by diffusing or displacing responsibility, minimizing the harmful effects of one’s behaviours, and blaming or dehumanising victims. Bandura (1999) states: ‘The strength of moral self- censure depends partly on how the perpetrators view the people they mistreat’ (p.8). A key point from this statement is the perpetrators perception of the intended target of mistreatment. The perception contributes towards the behavioural outcome.
Bandura (1999) also alludes to the fact that ‘social practices that divide people into in groups and outgroup members produce human estrangement that fosters dehumanization. Strangers can be more easily depersonalized than can acquaintances’ (p.9). Therefore, a tribal or group mind-set also contributes to ostracization or alienation of the individual from the social group. In turn, the individual outcast may be perceived as being of lesser status or value than those accepted within the immediate social group. In the case of socially aggressive behaviour, any or all of these mechanisms can effect that disengagement from the target of the aggression. Underwood (2003) cites Hymel et al’s (2002) study of fourteen and sixteen year olds, which found that endorsement of attitudes that related to moral disengagement predicted 38% of the variance in self-reported bullying. Therefore it would appear that if others within the social network approve of socially aggressive behaviour (and themselves provide example by engaging in such behaviour), then moral disengagement from the victim of the aggression is not only facilitated, but also endorsed.
A further insight into the world of adolescent social reasoning is provided in the work of Goldstein (2004) who found that whilst adolescents perceived gossip as being
morally wrong and equally as bad as physical aggression, these same adolescents considered social exclusion more acceptable. Moreover, a common consensus existed amongst the adolescent sample that the targets of social aggression were in the main responsible for their own social demise through annoying behaviour or particular social vulnerabilities such as having few or no friends, being a newcomer to the school, lacking self-esteem and assertiveness or being perceived as different from the majority. This blaming of the victim is consistent with Bandura’s description of moral disengagement and provides further insight into the trigger factors that can attract attention from adolescents who engage in socially aggressive behaviour as well as the ways in which they can disassociate themselves from their target and self- justify their behaviour.
A more recent study undertaken by Wang et al. (2016) found that moral disengagement was significantly associated with cyberbullying behaviour. Their study also found that moral reasoning moderated the association between moral disengagement and cyberbullying. When adolescents reported a low level of moral reasoning, those with high moral disengagement reported higher scores in cyberbullying than those with low moral disengagement. However, the high and low moral disengagement group had a low level of cyberbullying when moral reasoning was high.
One key point in our understanding the complex nature of social aggression is the fact that it is not fixed within a single unitary dimension. Rather, it must be understood within its own specific context. As Buss and Shackleford (1997) state:
From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, aggression is not a singular or unitary phenomenon. Rather, it represents a collection of strategies that are manifest under highly specific contextual conditions. The mechanisms underlying aggression have emerged, on this account, as solutions, albeit a repugnant ones, to a host of distinct adaptive problems, such as resource procurement, intrasexual competition, hierarchy negotiation, and mate retention (p.617).
In summary, whilst the literature on social aggression is rich, it is quite complex and varied in terms of focus, with much attention being given to specific age groups and different methodologies being used to gather insights. Much of the work on relational aggression has focused on middle childhood samples (such as Crick et al., 1999) to the detriment of insights on adolescent aggressive behaviour. As Underwood (2003) notes, whereas for middle childhood there is a large body of research on social aggression using large samples and diverse methods, for adolescence only a handful of studies are available, some using peer ratings but most relying on semi-structured interviews. A large-scale study of the factors that influence social aggression would be particularly helpful in providing a rich portrait of social aggression in adolescence for both genders.
There is a lack of consistency in the extant research on social aggression as to how adolescent distress is experienced by each individual and why individual adolescents experience this distress differently and at differing levels. Our understanding of the consequences of cyberbullying as a distinct form of social aggression would therefore benefit from a more detailed understanding of the nature, duration and intensity of the internalised stress as well as the whether such consequences differ according to race, gender, age and the individual’s family structure.
Finally, empirical studies of adolescent social aggression in an Irish context are limited, and examinations of cyberbullying as a distinct form of social aggression are particularly so. As different people experience cyberbullying and its consequences in different ways, the personal perspectives of adolescents require individual expression. An examination of the causal factors, the consequences, and in particular the pathways for adolescent reporting or reasons for non-reporting of their experiences would substantially progress our understanding of this form of social aggression. The need for such an understanding is particularly urgent in light of past Irish adolescent fatalities of death by suicide due to cyberbullying behaviour.