Development of Indirect Aggression Before School Entry

Université du Québec à Montréal, Department of Psychology, Canada
, Rev. ed.

PDF version


Attempts to understand and prevent childhood aggression have been predominantly guided by a male-oriented model with a focus on physical aggression. However, children can also hurt their peers in more subtle ways, however, for example through social exclusion or rumor spreading.1,2 These forms of aggression are as harmful and elicit the same physiological and neural pain responses as physical aggression.3 They also have a range of negative and potentially long-lasting effects on the victims, including reduced school performance,4 somatic complaints,5 anxiety, depression,6 and even suicide attempts.


Different labels have been used to describe these more subtle forms of aggression. Indirect aggression,8 consists of a set of circuitous strategies that implicate peers as a means to sabotage the victim’s social relationships and self-esteem, for example, through slanderous rumors or by becoming friends with another as revenge. The indirect nature of the aggressive act often enables the aggressor to remain unidentified, thereby avoiding a counterattack from the victim and disapproval from other peers or adults. Social aggression9 and relational aggression10 also encompass directly expressed rejection of the victim and non-verbal behaviours such as facial expressions of disdain. Despite the slight differences, all these terms describe highly related constructs.11


It has been argued that indirect aggression is more typical of girls.8,12 However, a meta-analysis of 148 studies shows that, while boys are consistently more physically aggressive than girls, gender differences with regard to indirect aggression are minimal regardless of children’s age and ethnicity.13 It thus seems that – while girls may prefer the use of indirect over physical aggression14 – both girls and boys employ circuitous strategies as a means to attack others. Indeed, many aggressive children use both forms of aggression, and this seems to be especially the case for those who those who are chronically aggressive.13,15 Nevertheless, studies have consistently revealed that physical and indirect aggression constitute two forms of aggression that are clearly distinguishable already in pre-school-aged children.16-21

Research Context 

The recognition that aggression can be expressed through different means is strengthened further by the fact that physical aggression diminishes for most children from early childhood onwards, whereas indirect aggression increases.15,22,23,24 Moreover, many physically aggressive children increase their use of indirect aggression over time, whereas the reverse does not seem to be the case.25,26 These diverging developmental trajectories concord with the theoretical model of aggression proposed by Björkqvist and colleagues.8 According to this model, very young children aggress against others primarily through physical means due to a lack of other expressive tools. As verbal and social cognitive skills evolve, children begin to use verbal aggression and, at around four years of age, add indirect aggression to their repertoire. Because indirect aggression can be as damaging as physical aggression with much less risk of retribution, indirect aggression eventually becomes the primary strategy. 

Key Research Questions

The different developmental trajectories have highlighted the need for a better understanding of the risk factors and potential developmental outcomes associated with indirect aggression and how they compare to those of physical aggression. 

Recent Research Results

Genetically informed studies support the proposition of Björkqvist and colleagues8 that, despite their diverging developmental trends, physical and indirect aggression have common roots. Thus, indirect and physical aggression are not only to a large extent influenced by the same underlying genetic factors, but they also share certain familial risk.25,27,28 Indeed, both indirect aggression and physical aggression have been linked with harsh and overly controlling parenting and a lack of parental warmth and positive encouragement during the preschool years.29 There is also evidence, however, that overly permissive or neglectful parenting may foster either form of aggressive behaviour in children.29 In addition to family-related factors, indirectly and physically aggressive children share certain cognitive patterns such as the attribution of hostile intent to others and a lack of empathy.30,31 Associations with other aspects of social cognitive functioning seem to differ, however. Contrary to predominantly physically aggressive children, indirectly aggressive children often show advanced language abilities, know how to persuade others to do their bidding, and are highly capable of predicting another person’s thoughts and actions already prior to entering elementary school.32-36 The most pronounced differences between indirect and physical aggression lie in their social environmental correlates and outcomes, however. In contrast to physical aggression, the frequent use of indirect aggression is generally not related to social difficulties with the peer group. Despite - or perhaps because of - their manipulation of others, many indirectly aggressive children have a rather large network of close friendships.37,38 Moreover, although they may not be liked by many of their peers, they often hold a prominent and influential place in the group and indirect aggression is often successfully used to achieve or maintain a high social status.39-43 These social benefits seem to be especially pronounced for children who avoid engaging in physical aggression and exclusively employ indirect aggression.37,44 However, physically aggressive children also sometimes achieve high social standing in their peer groups and recent studies show that whether the peer group values—or rejects—aggressive behaviour plays a critical role for aggressive and non-aggressive children’s further developmental adjustment.45 Indeed, already 6-year old children with a disposition for physical or indirect aggression are much more likely to engage in such behaviour if peer group norms are favorable.46 Their peers are also more likely to affiliate with and adopt aggressive children’s behaviour under these circumstances.47-50 Research also indicates that especially physical aggression can procure protection against teasing or other provocations by peers when social norms are favorable, which may be a further incentive to maintain or increase such behaviour.51 Nevertheless, the ostensible advantages of aggressive behaviour may be relatively short-lived, as especially children who engage in high levels of both behaviours seem to fare worse than others in the long run and tend to show elevated delinquency and internalizing problems when they become adults.52

Research Gaps 

While the past decades have seen a sharp increase of research on indirect aggression, most of this work focuses on school-age children and adolescents. Comparatively few studies have examined the risk factors and psychosocial outcomes of different forms of aggression before age 6.53 In particular, further research is needed to understand how childcare providers or peer group characteristics in daycare may facilitate–or prevent–the early development of indirect aggression. Another concern is that the reported links rest predominantly on studies with participants from Western countries, although children from a wide variety of ethno-cultural backgrounds engage in both physical and indirect.54 Thus, there is still little knowledge about the developmental course, as well as the predictors and consequences of different forms of aggression in children from diverse cultural backgrounds. Addressing this question is important, as cultural norms may impact children’s use of aggressive behaviour, including indirect aggression.53 


Despite the current research gaps, it is safe to say that indirect aggression first appears in children's behavioural repertoire at about four years of age and is observed in both genders. Indirect aggression and physical aggression seem to have some common etiological roots and especially younger children often use both behaviours to hurt others. However, whereas physical aggression decreases in most children over the course of development, indirect aggression tends to increase. This increase may in large part be due to the fact that indirect aggression often enables the perpetrator to do considerable damage with a relatively low risk of detection and punishment. Indirect aggression is therefore also employed by children with advanced cognitive and language skills. The use of both indirect and physical aggression is further facilitated when social norms in the peer group favor such behaviour, and indirect in particular aggression may often help achieve influence and power among peers.  

Implications for Parents, Services and Policy

While especially indirect aggression may not always entail negative consequences for the perpetrator, any form of aggressive behaviour clearly presents a serious risk for the mental and physical health of the victims. However, evidence suggests that adults feel less negative toward – and are less likely to intervene against – children’s use of indirect aggression compared to physical aggression.55-58 A first step to prevention is thus to dispel the myth that indirect aggression is an exclusively female or relatively benign behaviour. It is also important to acknowledge that not all aggressive behaviours result from deficient socio-cognitive skills, but that it is sometimes highly socially intelligent children who use their abilities to attack others. Efforts to reduce aggression therefore should not be focused exclusively on physical aggression. Indeed, there is evidence that maternal coaching about about peer conflicts involving indirect aggression can help reduce such behaviour in preschool children.59 Still, multi-component programs that also include the extra-familial environment are likely to be most effective.60 Especially in elementary-school aged children, having a warm and supportive teacher may help decrease aggressive behaviour and develop alternative social interactive strategies.61 Most of the recent prevention programs employ school-based approaches and incorporate several sessions that focus specifically on how to recognize and deal with indirect aggression and they also teach prosocial strategies to build relationships and resolve interpersonal conflicts with.62,63 About half of these programs show a statistically significant reduction in physical or indirect aggression or both, but effects are generally small. While the inclusion of parental components could offer additional support, another possible explanation may be that existing prevention and intervention efforts commence too late to have a large impact.64 Unfortunately, with one exception,65 prevention programs that target multiple indirect aggression have so far focused on children older than 5 years of age. However, given that indirect aggression emerges at around four years of age, prevention efforts may already need to start in the early preschool period. There is indeed some evidence that an early day-care-based program with 3- to 5-year old children can successfully reduce not only physical aggression but also indirect aggression.65 Nevertheless, even the most comprehensive programs are likely to fail unless they are sustained over an extended period of time60 and more research is needed to evaluate the sustainability of such effects.  

Finally, concerted efforts to reduce indirect as well as physical aggression may need to extend beyond the school or family context. Indeed, even films that are considered nonviolent often contain a large extent of indirect aggression, something that is already apparent in animated movies popular among pre-schoolers.66 Importantly, viewing indirect aggression in the media has been causally linked to increased hostile intent attributions as well as increased use of indirect aggression in children.67-69 For almost two decades already, researchers have therefore called for a modification of the current rating system of media content for parental guidance.70,71 Such a change would be especially useful because parental mediation of their preschoolers’ media consumption (e.g., by monitoring the time spent with media and content restrictions) seems to buffer against the deleterious effects of indirectly aggressive media content on children’s behaviour.72 Only with a greater awareness of the potential dangers of aggression in all its forms and in a variety of contexts can we hope to prevent the negative repercussions for its victims.


  1. Bjorklund DF, Hawley PH. Aggression grows up: Looking through an evolutionary developmental lens to understand the causes and consequences of human aggression. In: Shackelford TK, Hansen RD,  eds. The Evolution of Violence. New York: Springer; 2014: 159-186. 

  2. Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Barker ED. Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2006;30(1):12-19. 

  3. Ke T, De Simoni S, Barker E, Smith P. The association between peer-victimisation and structural and functional brain outcomes: A systematic review. JCPP Advances 2022;2(2):e12081. 

  4. Torres CE, D’Alessio SJ, Stolzenberg L. The effect of social, verbal, physical, and cyberbullying victimization on academic performance. Victims & Offenders 2020;15(1):1-21. 

  5. Hager AD, Leadbeater BJ. The longitudinal effects of peer victimization on physical health from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health 2016;58(3):330-336.

  6. Casper DM, Card NA. Overt and relational victimization: a meta-analytic review of their overlap and associations with social–psychological adjustment. Child Development 2017;88(2):466-483. 

  7. Brunstein Klomek A, Barzilay S, Apter A, Carli V, Hoven CW, Sarchiapone M, Hadlaczky G, Balazs J, Kereszteny A, Brunner R, Kaess M, Bobes J, Saiz PA, Cosman D, Haring C, Banzer R, McMahon E, Keeley H, Kahn J-P, Wasserman D. Bi-directional longitudinal associations between different types of bullying victimization, suicide ideation/attempts, and depression among a large sample of European adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2019;60(2):209-215.

  8. Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiainen A. Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive behavior 1992;18(2):117-127.<117::AID-AB2480180205>3.0.C…

  9. Galen BR, Underwood MK. A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology 1997;33(4):589-600.;

  10. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development 1995;66:710-722.;

  11. Archer J, Coyne SM. An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2005;9(3):212-230.;

  12. Crick NR. Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression: Links to social–psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology 1997;33(4):610-617.

  13. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD. Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development 2008;79(5):1185-1229.;

  14. Björkqvist K. Gender differences in aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology 2018;19:39.;

  15. Girard L-C, Tremblay RE, Nagin D, Côté SM. Development of aggression subtypes from childhood to adolescence: a group-based multi-trajectory modelling perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2019;47(5):825-838.;

  16. Coyne SM, Archer J, Eslea M. We're not friends anymore! Unless: The frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Aggressive Behavior 2006;32(4):294-307.

  17. Evans SC, Frazer AL, Blossom JB, Fite PJ. Forms and functions of aggression in early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2019;48(5):790-798.;

  18. Grotpeter JK, Crick NR. Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development 1996;67(5):2328-2338.;

  19. Hart CH, Nelson DA, Robinson CC, Olsen S, McNeilly-Choque MK. Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology 1998;34:687-697.;

  20. Little TD, Jones SM, Henrich CC, Hawley PH. Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2003;27:122-133.

  21. Vaillancourt T, Brendgen M, Boivin M, Tremblay RE. A longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis of indirect and physical aggression: Evidence of two factors over time? Child Development 2003;74:1628-1638.;

  22. Côté S, Vaillancourt T, LeBlanc J, Nagin D, Tremblay R. The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre-adolescence: a nation wide longitudinal study of Canadian children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2006;34(1):68-82.;

  23. Côté SM, Vaillancourt T, Barker ED, Nagin DS. The joint development of physical and indirect aggression: Predictors of continuity and change during childhood. Development and Psychopathology 2007;19, 37-55.

  24. Vaillancourt T, Miller JL, Fagbemi J, Côté S, Tremblay RE. Trajectories and predictors of indirect aggression: results from a nationally representative longitudinal study of Canadian children aged 2–10. Aggressive Behavior 2007;33(4):314-326.

  25. Brendgen M, Dionne G, Girard A, Boivin M, Vitaro F, Pérusse D. examining genetic and environmental effects on social aggression: a study of 6-year-old twins. Child Development 2005;76(4):930-946.;

  26. Miller JL, Vaillancourt T, Boyle MH. Examining the heterotypic continuity of aggression using teacher reports: Results from a national canadian study. Social Development 2009;18(1):164-180.;

  27. Ligthart L, Bartels M, Hoekstra RA, Hudziak JJ, Boomsma DI. Genetic contributions to subtypes of aggression. Twin Research and Human Genetics 2005;8(5):483-491.;

  28. Tackett JL, Waldman ID, Lahey BB. Etiology and measurement of relational aggression: a multi-informant behavior genetic investigation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2009;118(4):722-733.;

  29. Kawabata Y, Alink LRA, Tseng WL, van Ijzendoorn MH, Crick NR. Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental Review 2011;31(4):240-278.

  30. Batanova MD, Loukas A. Social anxiety and aggression in early adolescents: examining the moderating roles of empathic concern and perspective taking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2011;40(11):1534-1543.;

  31. Martinelli A, Ackermann K, Bernhard A, Freitag CM, Schwenck C. Hostile attribution bias and aggression in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review on the influence of aggression subtype and gender. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2018;39:25-32.

  32. Andreou E. Social preference, perceived popularity and social intelligence: Relations to overt and relational aggression. School Psychology International 2006;27(3):339-351.

  33. Gomez-Garibello C, Talwar V. Can you read my mind? Age as a moderator in the relationship between theory of mind and relational aggression. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2015;39(6):552-559.

  34. Razmjoee M, Harnett PH, Shahaeian A. Language development mediates the relationship between gender and relational aggression: A study of Iranian preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology 2016;68(4):312-318.;

  35. Renouf A, Brendgen M, Parent S, Vitaro F, David Zelazo P, Boivin M, Dionne G, Tremblay RE, Pérusse D, Séguin JR. Relations between theory of mind and indirect and physical aggression in kindergarten: Evidence of the moderating role of prosocial behaviors. Social Development 2010;19(3):535-555.

  36. Shahaeian A, Razmjoee M, Wang C, Elliott SN, Hughes C. Understanding relational aggression during early childhood: An examination of the association with language and other social and cognitive skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2017;40:204-214.;

  37. Ettekal I, Ladd GW. Costs and benefits of childrens physical and relational aggression trajectories on peer rejection, acceptance, and friendships: Variations by aggression subtypes, gender, and age. Developmental Psychology 2015;51(12):1756-1770.;

  38. Yamasaki K, Nishida N. The relationship between three types of aggression and peer relations in elementary school children. International Journal of Psychology 2009;44(3):179-186.;

  39. Casper DM. Relational aggression and victimization during adolescence: A meta-analytic review of unique associations with popularity, peer acceptance, rejection, and friendship characteristics. Journal of Adolescence 2020;80, 41-52.

  40. Dumas TM, Davis JP, Ellis WE. Is it good to be bad? A longitudinal analysis of adolescent popularity motivations as a predictor of engagement in relational aggression and risk behaviors. Youth & Society 2017;51(5):659-679.

  41. Gangel MJ, Keane SP, Calkins SD, Shanahan L, O’Brien M. The association between relational aggression and perceived popularity in early adolescence: a test of competing hypotheses. Journal of Early Adolescence 2016;37(8):1078-1092.;

  42. Heilbron N, Prinstein M. A Review and reconceptualization of social aggression: adaptive and maladaptive correlates. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2008;11(4):176-217.

  43. Neal JW. Social aggression and social position in middle childhood and early adolescence: Burning bridges or building them? Journal of Early Adolescence 2010;30(1):122-137.;

  44. Gower AL, Lingras KA, Mathieson LC, Kawabata Y, Crick NR. The role of preschool relational and physical aggression in the transition to kindergarten: Links with social-psychological adjustment. Early Education and Development 2014;25(5):619-640.

  45. Veenstra R, Dijkstra JK, Kreager DA. Pathways, networks, and norms: A sociological perspective on peer research. In: Bukowski WM, Laursen B, Rubin KH, eds. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2018:45-63

  46. Brendgen M, Girard A, Vitaro F, Dionne G, Boivin M. Do peer group norms moderate the expression of genetic risk for aggression? Journal of Criminal Justice 2013;41(5):324-330.;

  47. Berger C, Rodkin PC. Group influences on individual aggression and prosociality: Early adolescents who change peer affiliations. Social Development 2012;21(2):396-413.

  48. Correia S, Brendgen M, Turgeon L, Vitaro F. Physical and relational aggression as predictors of children's friendship experiences: Examining the moderating role of preference norms. Aggressive Behavior 2021;47(4):453-463.;

  49. Correia S, Brendgen M, Vitaro F. The role of norm salience in aggression socialization among friends: Distinctions between physical and relational aggression. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2019;46(5):390-400.

  50. Laninga-Wijnen L, Harakeh Z, Steglich C, Dijkstra JK, Veenstra R, Vollebergh W. The norms of popular peers moderate friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression. Child Development 2017;88(4):1265-1283.

  51. Brendgen M, Girard A, Vitaro F, Dionne G, Boivin M. Gene-environment correlation linking aggression and peer victimization: do classroom behavioral norms matter? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2015;43(1):19-31.;

  52. Cleverley K, Szatmari P, Vaillancourt T, Boyle M, Lipman E. Developmental Trajectories of Physical and Indirect Aggression From Late Childhood to Adolescence: Sex Differences and Outcomes in Emerging Adulthood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2012;51(10):1037-1051.

  53. Swit CS, Slater NM. Relational aggression during early childhood: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2021;58:101556.;

  54. Lansford JE, Skinner AT, Sorbring E, Giunta LD, Deater-Deckard K, Dodge KA, Malone PS, Oburu P, Pastorelli C, Tapanya S, Uribe Tirado LM, Zelli A, Al-Hassan SM, Peña Alampay L, Bacchini D, Bombi AS, Bornstein MH, Chang L. Boys’ and Girls’ Relational and Physical Aggression in Nine Countries. Aggressive Behavior 2012;38(4):298-308.;

  55. Colwell MJ, Mize J, Pettit GS, Laird RD. Contextual determinants of mothers' interventions in young children's peer interactions. Developmental Psychology 2002;38:492-502.

  56. Goldstein S, Boxer P. Parenting practices and the early socialisation of relational aggression among preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care 2013;183(11):1559-1575.

  57. Valles NL, Knutson JF. Contingent responses of mothers and peers to indirect and direct aggression in preschool and school-aged children. Aggressive Behavior 2008;34(5):497-510.

  58. Werner NE, Senich S, Przepyszny KA. Mothers' responses to preschoolers' relational and physical aggression. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2006;27(3):193-208.

  59. Werner NE, Eaton AD, Lyle K, Tseng H, Holst B. Maternal social coaching quality interrupts the development of relational aggression during early childhood. Social Development 2014;23(3):470-486.;

  60. Leadbeater B. Can we see it? Can we stop it? Lessons learned from community–university research collaborations about relational aggression [Opinion]. School Psychology Review 2010;39(4):588-593.

  61. Krause A. Peer aggression and teacher-student relationship quality: A meta-analytic investigation. [PhD Thesis]. Ottawa: Université d'Ottawa; 2020.

  62. Kennedy RS. A meta-analysis of the outcomes of bullying prevention programs on subtypes of traditional bullying victimization: Verbal, relational, and physical. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2020;55:101485.;

  63. Waasdorp TE, Paskewich BS, Waanders C, Fu R, Leff SS. The preventing relational aggression in schools everyday (PRAISE) program: Adaptations to overcome subgroup differences in program benefits. Prevention Science 2022;23(4):552-562.;

  64. Dailey AL, Frey AJ, Walker HM. Relational aggression in school settings: Definition, development, strategies, and implications. Children & Schools 2015;37(2):79-88.

  65. Ostrov JM, Massetti GM, Stauffacher K, Godleski SA, Hart KC, Karch KM, Mullins AD, Ries EE. An intervention for relational and physical aggression in early childhood: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2009;24(1):15-28.

  66. Coyne SM, Whitehead E. Indirect aggression in animated disney films. Journal of Communication 2008;58(2):382-395.

  67. Coyne SM, Archer J, Eslea M. Cruel intentions on television and in real life: Can viewing indirect aggression increase viewers' subsequent indirect aggression? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2004;88(3):234-253.

  68. Coyne SM. Indirect aggression on screen: A hidden problem? Psychologist 2004;17(12) :688-690. 

  69. Martins N. Televised relational and physical aggression and children’s hostile intent attributions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2013;116(4):945-952.;

  70. Martins N, Wilson BJ. Social aggression on television and its relationship to children's aggression in the classroom. Human Communication Research 2012;38(1):48-71.

  71. Linder JR, Gentile DA. Is the television rating system valid? Indirect, verbal, and physical aggression in programs viewed by fifth grade girls and associations with behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2009;30(3):286-297. 

  72. Ruh Linder J, Werner NE. Relationally aggressive media exposure and children's normative beliefs: does parental mediation matter? Family Relations 2012;61(3):488-500.

How to cite this article:

Brendgen M. Development of Indirect Aggression Before School Entry. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds. Tremblay RE, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Updated: September 2022. Accessed March 20, 2023.

Text copied to the clipboard ✓