Relational aggression (RA) is a salient topic in popular media. However, due to its dominance as a research perspective (Murray-Close, Nelson, Ostrov, Casas, & Crick, Reference Murray‐Close, Nelson, Ostrov, Casas, Crick and Cicchetti2016) and media attention linked with ‘moral panic’ (McRobbie, Reference McRobbie2009, p. 57), RA literature has tended to pathologise girls’ aggression. This article integrates communication theory with the discipline of educational psychology to facilitate enhanced understandings of why RA behaviours vary across subtypes in the adolescent population. It builds on Platt, Raile, and Burnett's (Reference Platt, Raile, Burnett and Cohen2016) repositioning of RA within an alternative, more positive, and less judgemental paradigm. This paradigm proposes that, rather than essentialising girls’ identities in terms of their traits, researchers should consider RA as a set of behaviours. These behaviours form situation-specific communication strategies that girls use to pursue particular goals. Leveraging Platt et al.’s assertion that RA is based on strategic communication, the roles and positions of three subgroups (popular, regular, tough), described in RA research (e.g., Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker, & Rodkin, Reference Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker and Rodkin2003; Page & Smith, Reference Page and Smith2012; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, Reference Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl and Van Acker2006), are examined and critiqued.
The role that subgroups play has been widely reported (Estell et al., Reference Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker and Rodkin2008; Nelson, Robinson, & Hart, Reference Nelson, Robinson and Hart2005; Robertson et al., Reference Robertson, Farmer, Fraser, Day, Duncan, Crowther and Dadisman2009) and supports the notion that subgroups have diverse RA traits. However, research to date has tended to examine and compare each group against the dominant popular discourse that describes teenage girls as ‘mean bullies’ who are aggressive and adopt underhand strategies to engage in violent acts (Currie, Kelly, & Pomerantz, Reference Currie, Kelly and Pomerantz2007; Ringrose, Reference Ringrose2006; Simmons, Reference Simmons2002).
In the following, an argument is introduced to both problematise the notion of RA in terms of its political effects and extend the field by integrating communication theory with educational psychology. First, the field of RA is defined. There is an exploration of the dominant conceptualisations of RA that are drawn from the literature on peer status subgroups; in particular, sociometric peer status and peer-perceived popularity. Second, an account is given that uses planning theory and strategic and purposeful communication as a key motivational feature of RA. Third, a strategic communication theory of RA is detailed where the functions of RA are discussed for their importance in serving a range of purposes. This theoretical approach repositions RA as a feature of relational communication contexts. A ‘Girls’ Relational Aggression Communication Model’ is outlined here as a key contribution to the field. This model provides a framework that integrates the subtypes of girls that are currently identified in RA research. It both describes peer group behaviours and illustrates the role that strategic goal setting plays in girls’ RA. A discussion on the scholarly significance of this theoretical framework concludes.
Defining Relational Aggression
Relational aggression is a term that was first used by Crick and Grotpeter (Reference Crick and Grotpeter1995) to describe behaviours that are intended to harm someone by damaging or manipulating their relationships or feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion. These authors itemised RA into four domains that measure key attributes. These comprise: incitement to anger, which may involve exacting revenge through ensuring there is exclusion from a group; a capacity to discredit, which includes telling others to dismiss a person unless they are compliant; ignoring or ceasing communication; and enforced isolation in the form of precluding a target person from joining or participating in the group.
Over time, other forms of aggression have been added within various conceptual groupings (Archer & Coyne, Reference Archer and Coyne2005). These behaviours expand on the earlier work of indirect aggression by Björkqvist (Reference Björkqvist1994) and later, social exclusion (Owens, Slee, & Shute, Reference Owens, Slee and Shute2000), as well as other socially aggressive behaviours such as rolling of the eyes (Galen & Underwood, Reference Galen and Underwood1997), gossip and telling lies (Chesney-Lind & Irwin, Reference Chesney-Lind, Irwin and Harris2004), spreading rumours (Smith, Reference Smith2001), physically bumping to victimise (Dellasega, Reference Dellasega2005), and the deployment of verbal and non-verbal social ridicule or intimidation (Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, Reference Pronk and Zimmer-Gembeck2010). In more recent years, cyberbullying (the intentional use of social media for abuse), has been added to the methods of victimisation that are recognised as forms of RA (Johnson, Reference Johnson2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, Reference Raskauskas and Stoltz2007). With access to technology, ubiquitous in many cultures, cyberbullying provides immediate and effective means for widespread aggression (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell and Tippett2008). Therefore, continuing research in the field is highly relevant to the wellbeing of young people.
The different terms encompassed by RA, such as social aggression, indirect aggression, and covert aggression, highlight both overt and subtle emphases of behaviours within their definitions (Archer & Coyne, Reference Archer and Coyne2005). Forms of indirect aggression focus on covert attacks, where the perpetrator conceals their intent (Nelson, Springer, Nelson, & Bean, Reference Nelson, Springer, Nelson and Bean2008). Coyne, Archer, and Eslea (Reference Coyne, Archer and Eslea2006) state that indirect aggressive behaviours include gossiping, spreading rumours, writing malicious notes behind someone's back, social exclusion of group members, and physical actions such as covertly destroying another's property. Direct RA includes overt behaviours that are openly delivered to a target; for instance, threatening to break off relationships. Contributing to the concept of direct aggression, communication researchers Willer and Cupach (Reference Willer and Cupach2008) conceptualised RA as a face-threatening act, defining it as the positive social value experienced by a perpetrator as a result of their aggressive acts. ‘Face’ is one's public persona, and therefore face-threatening jeopardises social standing (Goffman, Reference Goffman1967) and potentially strengthens aggressor positioning. Face-threatening acts are co-communicated, and therefore verbal aggression is included in measurements of RA (Willer & Cupach, Reference Willer and Cupach2008).
Dominant Conceptualisations of Relational Aggression
Much has been learned about the nature of RA behaviours, both in terms of form and function (Owens, Shute, & Slee Reference Owens, Shute and Slee2000; Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, Reference Pronk and Zimmer-Gembeck2010; Waldron, Reference Waldron2010). Typologies of relationally aggressive girls have been developed in order to identify the characteristics of RA girls (Sandstrom & Cillessen, Reference Sandstrom and Cillessen2006; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, Reference Rose, Swenson and Waller2004). This has in part been achieved by sociometric research that provides categorisations and classifications of subgroups of aggressors. The identification of peer status groups within RA also allows comparisons of RA girls’ characteristics.
Peer Status Subgroups
Within a sociometric tradition based on peer liking and disliking, peer status groups are located on a continuum spanning popular to unpopular (Estell et al., Reference Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker and Rodkin2008). Peer-group types are also located on a scale of pro- and antisocial attributes. These attributes, originating from social learning theory, indicate both voluntary and helpful conduct, and behaviour that is harmful to others and the community.
Research on girls’ overt aggression and social status has identified different clusters and associated behaviours. ‘Pro-social-popular’ (model), ‘aggressive-unpopular’ (troubled), ‘aggressive-average-popular’ (tough), and ‘unaggressive-unpopular’ (introverted and internalising) configurations have been conceptualised (Estell et al., Reference Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker and Rodkin2008). Similarly, Robertson et al. (Reference Robertson, Farmer, Fraser, Day, Duncan, Crowther and Dadisman2009) found that ‘aggressive model’ girls share the same behaviour type as Estell et al.’s model clusters; however, there was a difference in the tough descriptors used (popular-aggressive). Additionally, there are configurations identified of ‘controversial’ girls, who are described as receiving both liked and disliked nominations from peers, as well as ‘rejected’ groups, who are apportioned more disliked peer nominations (Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Robinson and Hart2005). Overall, these various distinctive subgroups locate the different characteristics of aggressive adolescents within social contexts.
Sociometric Peer Status and Peer Perceived Popularity
Contributing to the field of RA and status groups, the early work by Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (Reference Parkhurst and Hopmeyer1998) explored students’ perceptions of popularity. Rather than popularity framed as a rating of being liked or disliked by peers, it is instead considered as a measurement of power and social status. Parkhurst and Hopmeyer's research provides evidence that sociometric popularity does not correlate with perceived popularity, and this tenet has been extended by other researchers (e.g., Sandstrom & Cillessen, Reference Sandstrom and Cillessen2006; Rose et al., Reference Rose, Swenson and Waller2004).
Social status and ‘popular versus unpopular’ typologies have emerged from this sociometric framework, where popularity is defined and measured by reputation and dominance (Mayeux, Reference Mayeux2014). Of note, this quantum of research, with its amalgamation of sociological perspectives of popularity, has built momentum (particularly in the American media) since 2002. These related representations of teenage girls, outlined below, have dominated the popular literature on RA and directed subsequent research (Simmons, Reference Simmons2002; Wiseman, Reference Wiseman2002).
‘Popular’ Girls
In RA adolescent research, high-status peers are described as ‘popular’. Highly relationally aggressive ‘popular’ girls express a desire for high social status across all peer groups and power (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Kelly and Pomerantz2007; Simmons, Reference Simmons2002). Additionally, it is typical that ‘popular’ and ‘cool’ are used synonymously in ways that are not linked with being liked (Paechter & Clark, Reference Paechter and Clark2015). Page and Smith (Reference Page and Smith2012, p. 16) describe how ‘popular’ girls are looked upon favourably by other girls and teachers: ‘They are perceived as feminine, flirtatious with boys, and/or sexually promiscuous. They seek to control their peer groups, and are more covert than overt in their relationally aggressive behaviors.’
‘Popular’ girls are also considered to possess a higher degree of social competence (Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, Reference Ojanen and Findley-Van Nostrand2014). Earlier research supports the assertion that a high degree of social intelligence and social competence with purposeful goal-oriented behaviour can be linked with high levels of RA. Therefore, forms of indirect aggression require more social intelligence than direct forms of aggression (Kaukiainen et al., Reference Kaukiainen, Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, Österman, Salmivalli, Rothberg and Ahlbom1999). Additionally, Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham's (Reference Sutton, Smith and Swettenham1999) work on roles in bullying suggest that the social cognition skills may be related to the type of bully. They suggest that ‘the bully may be a cold, manipulative expert in social situations, organising gangs and using subtle, indirect methods’ (p. 1). Reinforcing this earlier research, more recent studies have found that self-reported social intelligence and social competence are associated with higher self-reported RA (Loflin & Barry, Reference Loflin and Barry2016; McQuade, Achufusi, Shoulberg, & Murray-Close, Reference McQuade, Achufusi, Shoulberg and Murray‐Close2014).
Social marginalisation in school has also been linked to ‘popular’ girls’ behaviour. ‘Popular’ girls are socially competitive, and in an effort to become popular and powerful, they can inflict lifelong damage on their targets (Wiseman, Reference Wiseman2002). Furthermore, these ‘popular’ girls and their peers exist within various cliques that are governed by a desire to achieve the status of being popular. Within the ‘popular’ clique, girls are stereotypically described as ‘mean’, and tend to be portrayed by other girls as ‘pretty’, ‘perfect’, ‘sexually attractive’, and ‘blonde’ — ‘She [is like] Barbie’ (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Kelly and Pomerantz2007, p. 29). Other studies have supported the ‘Barbie’ ideal of popularity, where dominant influences of hyper femininity, such as a physically appealing and fashionable appearance, are important constructs (Owens & Duncan, Reference Owens and Duncan2009a).
The cycle of popularity is not consistent, however, as Eder (Reference Eder1985) discussed in very early peer relation research that examined the attitudes towards ‘popular’ adolescent middle school girls. Resentment towards ‘popular’ girls resulted from their behaviour of avoiding perceived lower status girls. Resultantly, they were positioned as the least liked students in school. More contemporary research reveals a similar outcome where perceived popularity and peer-reported social acceptance indices demonstrated low likeability for popular aggressive girls (Reijntjes et al., Reference Reijntjes, Marjolijn Vermande, Olthof, Goossens, van de Schoot, Aleva and van der Meulen2013).
Underwood (Reference Underwood2003) argues that RA has developed due to girls being taught to be ‘nice’ rather than ‘nasty’. Thus, ‘popular’ girls can be relationally aggressive in covert ways (Chase, Reference Chase2008; Duncan, Reference Duncan2004). The covert nature of this RA maintains the illusion of ‘the normal hegemonic feminine ideology’ (Waldron, Reference Waldron2010, p. 1). Attractiveness and sexuality are therefore recurring themes in RA literature and linked with popularity in the pursuit of prominence and social standing (Duncan & Owens, Reference Duncan and Owens2011; Miller, Reference Miller2016; Owens & Duncan, Reference Owens and Duncan2009b). ‘Popular’ girls behave in ways that attract boys’ attention and they are envied because of the power that they possess to manipulate social networks (Currie et al., Reference Currie, Kelly and Pomerantz2007).
The ‘Average’ or ‘Regular’ Girls
‘Regular’ girls are perceived by themselves and their teachers to be everyday girls who exist outside of significant high status cliques. There is the conception among researchers that RA is a normal developmental stage that the ‘regular’ girl is thought to encounter at some stage in their lives. These girls engage in RA as a part of their friendship dynamic, rather than in the pursuit of power and status associated with the more violent ‘meanness’ that the ‘popular’ clique is characterised by (Page & Smith, Reference Page and Smith2012; Underwood, Galen, & Paquette, Reference Underwood, Galen and Paquette2001; Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, Reference Xie, Cairns and Cairns2002). Further, ‘regular’ girls are considered to participate in aggressive acts less often than their ‘popular’ counterparts (Palacios & Berger, Reference Palacios and Berger2016). It is also suggested that the RA the group engages in is not only normalised, but is said to produce positive effects such as individualisation, competition, achievement, and supportive relationships (Chesney-Lind, Morash, & Irwin, Reference Chesney-Lind, Morash and Irwin2007).
It is a widely held view among developmental researchers that ‘girls will be girls’ (Underwood, Reference Underwood2003, p. 36), or, with a modern twist, ‘kids will be kids’ (boyd, Reference boyd2014, p. 16). RA among ‘regular’ girls is rarely talked about openly and the phenomenon can be dismissed as ‘something that happens to everyone’ (James et al., Reference James, Flynn, Lawlor, Courtney, Murphy and Henry2010, p. 10). During the period of adolescence in particular, ‘regular’ girl teen peer friendships are said to become increasingly important, with RA manifesting as a common behaviour within these relationships (Mishna, Wiener, & Pepler, Reference Mishna, Wiener and Pepler2008). Paechter and Clark (Reference Paechter and Clark2015) found that girls who describe themselves as ‘regular’ and who are not part of the popular group, can also be resistant to the discourse of ‘normal’ or ‘nice’. The ‘regular’ girls studied did not aspire to the ‘coolness’ of the ‘popular’ girl, and ‘they did not operate their friendships in the competitive and surveillant manner that is seemingly ubiquitous among more dominant groups’ (Paechter & Clark, Reference Paechter and Clark2015, p. 458). Being ‘popular’ was only an intermittent issue, only periodically becoming a dominant concern for the girls in their study (Paechter & Clark, Reference Paechter and Clark2015). These findings contrast with Underwood's (Reference Underwood2003) earlier work where ‘not nice’ implies ‘popular’ girls’ behaviour of being unkind to peers.
In terms of understanding ‘regular’ girls’ peer relationships, social networks begin to expand and become more important during adolescence when they increasingly seek independence from their parents. Social status and acceptance in peer groups become critical at this time and the developmental task to navigate through peer relationships and resolve conflicts becomes important. Therefore, peer relationships are crucial, with attempts to hurt a friendship or a social reputation, becoming increasingly significant. Relational aggression may be used in this ‘regular’ girl context as a way of fitting in (Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, Reference Pronk and Zimmer-Gembeck2010).
‘Tough’ Girls
A further subgroup of girls have been identified who view themselves as sitting outside of the constraints of their gender stereotypes and do not aspire to be like the girls they perceive to be in the ‘popular’ group (Pomerantz, Currie, & Kelly, Reference Pomerantz, Currie and Kelly2004; Ringrose, Reference Ringrose2006). This alternative RA category was conceptualised by Besag (Reference Besag2006) to describe the girls who are located outside of the feminine construct of the ‘mean’ girl. ‘Tough’ girls exhibit more overt behaviours, which include the use of verbal aggression as a weapon (Page & Smith, Reference Page and Smith2012). These girls tend to be anti-authoritarian and execute their aggression before an audience. ‘Tough’ girls are particularly interesting in terms of their contradiction to the covert, ‘popular’, feminine aggressor. They typically take on a more masculine appearance and their motives for RA concentrate on status within their peer group, and also the management of perceived threats to their sense of self (Mishna et al., Reference Mishna, Wiener and Pepler2008).
This subgroup of girls are positioned by researchers in masculine terms. They ‘act tough’, smoke, swear, and fight in what has been termed ‘ladette behaviour’ (Carrington, Reference Carrington2013, p. 5). Waldron (Reference Waldron2010) similarly describes ‘tough’ girls as young women who dress in masculine ways. ‘[These girls prefer to wear] baggy jeans, like for a guy. Like big Timberland boots, maybe like a lot of chains’ (p. 1319). Ringrose (Reference Ringrose2006) highlights that ‘tough’ girls are often associated with antisocial and more physically aggressive behaviours because these girls act in ways that are ‘other’ than feminine. Where the normative position is the ‘mean’ girl, ‘tough’ girls are positioned as ‘deviant’ girls. This ‘deviant’ discourse is associated with violence and positions this group on the periphery of RA ‘popular’ girl research. The perception of deviance effectively pushes this subgroup to one side and renders them invisible in RA literature.
A Paucity of Research on Conflated Groupings
While there is a strong corpus of research that analyses the nuances of the ‘popular’ girl versus other groups, few studies have investigated the subgroups of ‘popular’, ‘regular’ and ‘tough’ girls in terms of their diverse social experiences and contexts. One study, involving adolescent girls across different social contexts, has identified that there are similarities between ‘Barbie doll’ popularity and ‘druggie’ popularity, although this status is achieved in two different ways (Owens & Duncan, Reference Owens and Duncan2009a). The ‘Barbie doll’ popularity conflated ‘popular’ with the girls’ physically appealing and fashionable appearance, while the other linked the popularity of girls in low-income schools with antisocial activities. While girls can report ‘popular’ and ‘cool’ as synonymous (Paechter & Clark, Reference Paechter and Clark2015), Page and Smith (Reference Page and Smith2012) found that peers described antisocial ‘tough’ girls as highly relationally aggressive and unpopular, but at the same time ‘cool’. The differences in these findings may be because the determinants of ‘popular’, ‘cool’, and ‘antisocial’ behaviour remains largely unexplored. There may even be confusion and overlap between the two constructs of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity.
Labels such as ‘problem child’, often used to define disruptive and defiant behaviour, serve to pathologise students by locating the issue within the individual (Duncan, Reference Duncan2013). To date, the focus of RA research has examined clusters of features associated with ‘popular’, ‘regular’, and ‘tough’ girl subgroups, comparing them on scales from prosocial to antisocial. This approach to categorisation has perpetuated the belief that there are subgroups of girls who require ‘fixing’. Importantly, it has also ignored the social influences within school contexts on both individuals and their peer communities (Jackson, Simoncini, & Davidson, Reference Jackson, Simoncini and Davidson2013). While there are isolated research studies that suggest that girls’ social communication is strategic in their aggression (e.g., Miller-Ott & Kelly, Reference Miller-Ott and Kelly2013; Willer & Cupach, Reference Willer and Cupach2008; Willer & Soliz, Reference Willer and Soliz2011), the field has been dominated by the developmental psychopathology perspective described above (Cicchetti, Reference Cicchetti2016; Murray-Close et al., Reference Murray‐Close, Nelson, Ostrov, Casas, Crick and Cicchetti2016; Tackett, Kushner, Herzhoff, Smack, & Reardon, Reference Tackett, Kushner, Herzhoff, Smack and Reardon2014). It is timely to look beyond the prevailing developmental psychopathologisation literature, to centre the focus on functionality, thus positioning RA as a set of behaviours that are used as specific communication strategies.
Strategic and Purposeful Communication
Girls engage in RA for a range of different reasons that can be associated with strategic and purposeful social communication. RA is strategically used to influence social worlds in order to achieve dominance within group hierarchies (Simmons, Reference Simmons2002; Wiseman, Reference Wiseman2002). There is evidence to suggest, however, that different peer social status goals motivates and guides behaviour. Wright, Li, and Shi's (Reference Wright, Li and Shi2014) study of the attributes for RA among early adolescent girls, for example, showed that popularity goals were positively correlated with high levels of RA and, in contrast, social preference goals were negatively correlated with RA.
Specifically, a summary of motivators contributing to high levels of RA that have been articulated by girls include: social dynamics, such as power and dominance and wanting to fit in; the aggressors’ emotional state (jealousy, feeling bored or angry); and characteristics such as a lack of social appeal, where individuals become targets due to their emotionality (Owens et al., Reference Owens, Shute and Slee2000; Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, Reference Pronk and Zimmer-Gembeck2010; Shute, Owens, & Slee, Reference Shute, Owens and Slee2002). Purposeful forms of RA can be motivated by revenge (Jaggi & Kliewer, Reference Jaggi and Kliewer2016). An emphasis towards sexuality and sexualised behaviour in various subgroups suggest that attracting the attention of boys can be a determinant (Duncan, Reference Duncan2004).
If forms of RA vary across subgroups, it is likely that the functions of RA serve different purposes. Interviews with girls described as ‘tough’ or as ‘ghetto girls’ (Waldron, Reference Waldron2010, p. 1298), indicate that aggression can serve as a defense, an aid to problem solving, as well as a mechanism to gain power and respect among their cohort (Batchelor, Reference Batchelor2010; Dion, Reference Dion, Pepler and Ferguson2013). Rivera-Maestre (2015) also refers to the importance of understanding the motivations of young women's RA as a result of unique experiences that fall outside of the ‘popular’ construct. Of note, this research found that the goals for engaging in RA are rooted in the value of ‘being strong, having a tough demeanor, and demonstrating a willingness to fight in order to stay safe and survive in potentially dangerous urban communities’ (p. 19).
Such reports provide accounts of similarities and differences between the functions and purposes of RA and offer alternative conceptions of the ‘popular’ and ‘regular’ girl. The porousness of the category boundaries highlights the relevance of a strategic communication theory for RA.
Strategic Communication Theory of Relational Aggression
A strategic communication theory of RA proposes that girls’ RA can be examined from a perspective of goal-directed behaviours that operate within specific contexts and are aimed to achieve specific outcomes. This theory enables researchers to better understand how girls’ aggression is informed by strategic communication within and between peer groups. Thus, consideration should be given to what girls seek to accomplish in their social milieu and what is deemed important for them from their unique perspectives, in the achievement of goals. The recognition of girls’ strategic communication can illuminate variations in RA behaviours as different behavioural goals. To achieve this end, an alternative paradigm is discussed that describes girls’ relational communication within their specific social context.
Communication researchers, such as Miller-Ott and Kelly (Reference Miller-Ott and Kelly2013), associate RA with planned behaviours that are enacted within sets of relationship issues. This focuses attention on the participants involved, the social networks in use, and how events are managed. Measured RA behaviours include direct name-calling, face-to-face conflict, and the delivery of insulting messages through mediums such as texts and social media channels. The notion of communication can be classified across a continuum spanning deliberate withdrawal (silent treatment) to direct confrontation (screaming, accusations). Miller-Ott and Kelly (Reference Miller-Ott and Kelly2013) recommend that RA needs to be seen as a set of interactions that occurs between people who are equally responsible for communication and management of it, as often it becomes a group experience. Other communication researchers have stated that RA messages operate to communicate relational devaluation and threaten a person's attempts to develop peer approval and appreciation (Willer & Cupach, Reference Willer and Cupach2008; Willer & Soliz, Reference Willer and Soliz2011). Again, this research indicates behaviours that exist along a continuum of communicated responses to threats from ignoring to confrontation. Platt et al. (Reference Platt, Raile, Burnett and Cohen2016) encourage researchers to view RA though a communication lens. The nuances of each of the subgroups of ‘popular’, ‘regular’ and ‘tough’ girls can be explained as strategic communications that serve different goals. A communication approach to RA provides a means by which ‘tough’ girls can be made visible, alongside ‘popular’ and ‘regular’ girls. Furthermore, the principles that underpin a strategic communication approach repositions RA from a psychopathologisation orientation, and in doing so, forges connections that enable existing social discourse without reducing or collapsing the subgroups. Communication planning theory is proposed here as a possibility that has potential to guide this repositioning.
Planning theory proposes that goals motivate people to act in certain ways. Communication is used as the tool to achieve goals and is driven by broad intentions that are pursued through subgoals (Platt et al., Reference Platt, Raile, Burnett and Cohen2016). Planning theory postulates that individuals’ actions and discourse are activated by goals and guided by knowledge structures called plans. Plans are hierarchically organised mental representations of action sequences that eventuate in the achievement of a desired goal. Thus, goals serve an activation role, while plans guide actions toward those goals (Berger, Reference Berger2015).
Canary, Cody, and Manusov (Reference Canary, Cody and Manusov2008) illuminate variations of RA behaviour in accordance with the goals pursued. Goals can be self-representational, relational, or instrumental. Examples of self-representation include illicit ingratiation, self-promotion over others’ needs, projecting oneself in the pursuit of an instrumental goal, displays of power, and the promotion of an identity within a group that is self-destructive. Aggressive relational goals involve seeking compliance in interpersonal relationships. These behaviours involve investment in the pursuit and maintenance of relationships. There may be a de-escalation of participation through deliberately ignoring or excluding others from the group or dyad. Interpersonal communication also explains how instrumental goals are achieved. These goals reflect desires for self-advancement and typically involve a scarce resource or favour granted or denied.
Girls’ Relational Aggression Communication Model
Girls from ‘popular’, ‘regular’ and ‘tough’ subgroups may use different RA behaviours to make themselves look better, strengthen relationships through targeting a peer, or acquire something desirable. Strategic communication theory encompasses the range of RA behaviour that is inclusive of all subtypes. Thus it applies to forms of RA communication (see Figure 1).
Girls’ relational aggression communication model.
The outer circle shown in Figure 1 represents the RA communication goals that are common for all girls: self-presentation, relational, and instrumental. A continuum of low to high RA is indicated at the bottom and top of the outer circle. A continuum of RA behaviours, from covert to overt, is signified at each side of the outer circle. The three inner rings represent three subtypes of RA behaviours: ‘popular’, ‘regular’, and ‘tough’. The model proposes that ‘popular’ is not a construct that all others are measured against, but rather describes the behaviours of one set of girls.
Figure 1 depicts ‘popular’ and ‘tough’ girls as highly relationally aggressive and ‘regular’ girls less so. Further, strategic goals pursued by all girls can sometimes be the same, but are largely different, as discussed earlier in this article. Additionally, ‘tough’ girls are represented as exhibiting more overt behaviours compared to the ‘popular’ subgroup, with ‘regular’ girls positioned in the middle of that range. The model considers that the construct of RA must include overt behaviours within the framework, to make visible the RA of ‘tough’ girls. The model depicts RA as a continuum from overt to covert, rather than a discrete set of categories. This model addresses the ‘failure to include measures of RA [which in the past has led] researchers to overlook the vast majority of aggressive females’ (Murray-Close et al., Reference Murray‐Close, Nelson, Ostrov, Casas, Crick and Cicchetti2016, p. 49).
Thus, the model illustrates that subgroups of girls can be viewed as sharing many goals in their RA behaviours. This is illustrated through the intersection of the inner circles within the greater circle of RA communication. At the same time, the various peer group contexts lend themslves to differences in how the behaviours may be communicated. ‘Popular’ girls, for example, may use covert spreading of rumours to exclude another girl from a peer group in order to achieve a goal of maintaining her high social status. ‘Tough’ girls may instead use calling out to achieve the same outcome, but not with the end goal of belonging to a high status clique.
This new direction of RA, viewed through the lens of strategic communication, warrants investigation in future research. In particular, consideration could be given to a reorientation of RA research where, rather than demonising young women through predetermined subtypes, consideration could be given to the functions of the behaviours and what they produce. Strategic communication goals could be considered as a further conceptual framework for empirical research.
That RA is an unacceptable behaviour is not under dispute here; however, the demonisation of girls who relationally aggress requires challenge and deconstruction in order to create more productive pathways towards effective interpersonal communication. By differentiating girls according to their communication characteristics, a pattern of purpose may become clearer. As well, strategic communication enables the source of the problem to be located outside of each girl, rather than medicalising a pathology that exists within individuals.
The significance of a relational communication model illustrates the need to differentiate rather than universalise girls’ aggression according to a ‘popular’ and ‘unpopular’ binary. That said, subgroups can help to illustrate the various forms RA can take and the diverse social purposes it can serve. Girls bring agency to each social situation and they express their goals for reasons that are particular to their experiences. Their communicated messages are exhibited in different forms. In their various groups, ‘popular’ girls may have different goals to ‘regular’ and ‘tough’ girls. Each group's unique positioning has been well researched, but these differences have not been captured within a unifying framework. Disparate results do not allow for comparisons to be made, and some groups of girls have been rendered invisible through the normative comparisons that are inherent in dominant RA conceptualisations. A more robust account of the form, function, and characteristics of all subgroups of girls can support a comprehensive mapping of the RA field to inform future research.
Conclusion
This article has presented a new lens for viewing girls’ behaviour within a relational communication model. In the past, research has lent itself to an examination of the minutiae of girls’ aggressive behaviour as a trait-based construct. In doing so, ‘popular’ girls have been a yardstick by which the RA of other subgroups have been measured and compared. This article brokers a connection with form, function, and subtype characteristics to bring the ‘tough’ girl ‘in from the cold’. It is argued that ‘popular’, ‘regular’ and ‘tough’ girls bring particular meanings and identities to their worlds, which they seek to identify with. Through integrating the typologies, a richer description for all girls and RA can be realised that can better address the issues girls face individually and as communities.
Acknowledgements
None.
Financial Support
The information that has contributed to the writing of this article was not connected in any way to a specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Ethical standards
Not applicable.
