正在加载图片...
AGGRESSION TOWARD GENDER-NONCONEORMING PEERS 857 significa -the interaction of Felt Gender Typicality x Sex with oncon mity for either sex at p<in the fall (se mean to gender-nonconforming girls (Y om effect of child sex on the self-effic e.pros nonconforming other-sex peers ified but was cause it was alr see if the interactio ras als The HLM analyses included a Level 2 equation that predicted e quality was of the saverage aggression across all peer target three edc sienicericrnciodeinl raction of ed in any detail bu for boys th as a fu ion of s'inter ias atypical targets)and the aggression).Morec er.because tion of peers'interg (Y cognitive term on slopes was over and above any effect of the We the n reran HLM cognitive term on intercepts ing Dee ristics of Gender-Nonconforming in the level l couation In all thre nate pe Results thus far have focused on the cotive fearres of identity on children's in ctive shift the focus to the qualities of the g der. vict d s that girls and mity e high.or时 ha sex 81)and boys (r8).Gend ity appea to b hout any forprfornmity. no sex din enc res yea cumizatio ved by peer t (popul ported the ea that insecun nde tity motivate atta overall more than other girls.Gende the id nder n nted for by gender. ifie aspe s of sel and (b stronely correlated with victimization (social pr malizing problems. aggression)wa s on nent of peers with qualities correlated with gender as s to children's othe was little evide that genderi identity is mpli caed in on their gender nonconformity.which ende tud ive for what they do not show as fo we had on aggression toward same-sex peers.Only one effect was what they do show.Notably.as a group.gender-nonconformingdren’s aggression toward gender-nonconforming peers beyond any effect of the rival quality. We identified six variables that were correlated with gender nonconformity for either sex at p .10 in the fall (see Table 2); these qualities served as the alternate target qualities in the analyses just outlined. These variables were intergroup bias, dominance self-efficacy, social prominence, prosocial qualities, internalizing problems, and general aggression. (General victimization also qualified but was irrelevant because it was already controlled in the Level 1 equation.) For each alternate peer characteristic, we ran 10 HLM analyses— one for each significant gender identity interaction term reported above—to see if the interaction was also significant when the alternate quality was substituted for gender nonconformity as the focal target quality. Of these 60 analyses, only three yielded a significant interaction: The interaction of Intergroup Bias Self-Esteem predicted change in aggression as a function of peers’ prosocial qualities ( 3.19, p .024, t 2.29; tested for boys only), the interaction of Intergroup Bias the Quadratic Form of Popularity Self-Efficacy predicted change in aggression as a function of peers’ intergroup bias (2.58, p .016, t 2.43), and the interaction of Felt Pressure for Gender Differentiation Gender Contentedness predicted change in aggression as a function of peers’ intergroup bias ( 2.50, p .009, t 2.66). We then reran the original HLM analyses to see whether the interaction terms still predicted change in aggression toward gender-nonconforming peers when the alternate peer quality (prosocial behavior or intergroup bias) was included among the controls in the Level 1 equation. In all three cases, it did (ps .05). Thus, alternate peer qualities correlated with gender nonconformity do not account for the major findings of the study (i.e., influences of gender identity on children’s increased selective maltreatment of gender-nonconforming peers over time). Main effects of child sex. In no HLM analysis was the main effect of child sex significant. This indicates that girls and boys were fairly similar in the tendency to victimize gendernonconforming peers. To make sure this was not because the HLM models had included cognitive variables, some of which are sex differentiated (see Table 1), we ran an additional HLM analysis without any cognitive term in the Level 2 equation. Again, there was no sex difference. Summary. Ten of 20 two-way interactions that included at least one gender identity variable significantly predicted change over the school year in children’s selective victimization of gender-nonconforming same-sex peers. Most of these interactions supported the idea that insecure gender identity motivates attacks on gender-atypical peers; two interactions also supported the idea that overconfident gender identity does so as well. Supplementary analyses indicated that (a) the effects of problematic gender identity on victimization of gender-nonconforming peers are not accounted for by gender-nonspecific aspects of self-concept and (b) the influences of gender identity on harassment of gendernonconforming peers are not attributable to gender identity influences on harassment of peers with qualities correlated with gender nonconformity. Aggression toward gender-nonconforming other-sex peers. There was little evidence that gender identity is implicated in aggression toward gender-nonconforming peers of the other sex. We ran the same analyses on aggression toward other-sex peers as we had on aggression toward same-sex peers. Only one effect was significant—the interaction of Felt Gender Typicality Sex (0.68, p .044, t 2.03). Boys who felt gender atypical were somewhat more likely than boys who felt gender typical to be mean to gender-nonconforming girls (0.42, p .080, t 1.77); there was no effect for girls. There was also no main effect of child sex on the tendency to harass gendernonconforming other-sex peers. Does Gender Identity Predict Children’s General (Trait) Aggression? The HLM analyses included a Level 2 equation that predicted change in children’s average aggression across all peer targets (intercepts) from the cognitive variables. Because these results do not bear on the hypotheses, they are not presented in any detail but are available from the first author. In brief, there were several significant cognitive effects on the intercepts (in the analyses on aggression toward same-sex peers), but there was little overlap in the cognitive terms that predicted the slopes (preference for gender-atypical targets) and the cognitive terms that predicted the intercepts (general aggression). Moreover, because the equations were estimated simultaneously, any above-reported effect of a cognitive term on slopes was over and above any effect of the cognitive term on intercepts. Characteristics of Gender-Nonconforming Preadolescents Results thus far have focused on the cognitive features of children who selectively harass gender-nonconforming peers. Here we shift the focus to the qualities of the gender-nonconforming children whose victimization was under study. We summarize findings bearing on the stability, correlates, consequences, and antecedents of gender nonconformity. Stability of gender nonconformity. The stability of gender nonconformity from fall to spring was very high, for both girls (r .81) and boys (r .82). Gender nonconformity appears to be a distinct and stable personality trait for preadolescent children. Concurrent correlates of gender nonconformity. Tables 1 and 2 present the correlations between gender nonconformity and the other 16 variables (separately for boys and girls) in the fall and spring, respectively. Gender-nonconforming girls were consistently perceived by peers as socially prominent (popular, athletic) but also as low in prosocial qualities; they were not victimized overall more than other girls. Gender-nonconforming boys were consistently perceived as low in social prominence, as aggressive, and as victimized, but they exhibited less intergroup bias than other boys did. The associations between boys’ gender nonconformity and general victimization disappeared when a variable more strongly correlated with victimization (social prominence, internalizing problems, or general aggression) was controlled. These results suggest that gender nonconformity does not contribute as strongly or directly to children’s general victimization as certain other target qualities do, but they do not challenge the value of identifying cognitive factors that do lead some children to harm peers specifically contingent on their gender nonconformity, which was the purpose of our study. These results are as informative for what they do not show as for what they do show. Notably, as a group, gender-nonconforming This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. AGGRESSION TOWARD GENDER-NONCONFORMING PEERS 857