Copyright Malvin Porter, Jr. 2010 - acumen - The University of ...

(Dodge, 1980a; Dodge & Frame, 1982). or relational aggression (Boxer & Tisak, 2005;
Goldstein et al., 2004)
Heightened Emotional Distress. Children are socialized by their parents and teachers to
know which actions are socially acceptable responses to being victimized, such as telling an
authority figure. Yet when children encounter the heightened emotional distress of being
victimized, they sometimes generate inconsistent and ineffective response solutions (Rogers &
Tisak, 1996; Tisak & Tisak, 1996; Tisak & Turiel, 1988).
Nature of Relationship. The nature of the relationship between children (e.g., friendships
versus acquaintance) influences how they perceive the behaviors of their peers (Dodge & Coie,
1987; Rogers & Tisak, 1996; Tisak, Maynard, & Tisak, 2002; Tisak & Jankowski, 1996; Tisak et
al., 2006). For example, nonaggressive children who are only an acquaintance with an aggressive
peer tend to favor aggressive retaliation as an appropriate response to having been bullied.
Alternatively, when the aggressive peer is perceived as a friend, nonaggressive children favor
talking about the transgression with the aggressive peer or walking away in order to avoid
conflict. This finding suggests that what children actually do in bully/victim situations may
inconsistent with what they reason to be the “right thing to do.” When these adolescents respond
to other types of deviant behavior committed by a friend, such as stealing, they say they are more
likely to confront the aggressive peer and demand restitution. In contrast, when the aggressive
peer is a distant acquaintance, children say they would be more likely to defer to an authority
figure such as a teacher for resolution of the conflict (M. S. Tisak & Tisak, 1996). Thus, a
number of individual and contextual factors influence children’s responses to social conflict
involving peers.
41