Journal of Research in Personality 36, 224251 (2002)

doi:10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Peer Relations in Early

Adolescence: Winning Friends and Deflecting Aggression
Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell
University of Texas at Arlington

and
Ryan Adams, David G. Perry, Katie A. Workman,
Janine Q. Furdella, and Susan K. Egan
Florida Atlantic University

This multimethod research linked the Big Five personality dimensions to peer
relations in early adolescence. Agreeableness was the personality dimension of focus
because this dimension is associated with motives to maintain positive interpersonal
relations. In two studies, middle school children were assessed on the Big Five
domains of personality. Study 1 showed that agreeableness and extraversion were
associated with both peer acceptance and friendship. Study 2 followed children
longitudinally and examined the hypothesis that agreeableness protects children
from victimization by peers. Agreeableness was associated with decreased victimization over the school year. In addition, agreeableness moderated the associations
between behavioral vulnerabilities and victimization. At low levels of agreeableness, as behavior vulnerabilities increased, victimization increased, and at high levels of agreeableness, there was no association between vulnerabilities and victimization. Results suggest that of the Big Five dimensions, Agreeableness is most closely
associated with processes and outcomes related to peer relations in children. 2002
Elsevier Science (USA)

We thank Shaun D. Campbell for his help with computer programming and William G.
Graziano for advice on aspects of this research. We also thank Sherrie Shavett, Sherri Rossell,
and Steven Bart, who provided help in completing the data collection. We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the faculty and students of A. D. Henderson University School, St.
Bernadettes School, and St. Ambrose School. A National Institute of Mental Health B/Start
Grant to L. A. Jensen-Campbell supported parts of this research.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to L. A. Jensen-Campbell, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19528, Arlington, Texas 760190528, or D.
G. Perry, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, P.O. Box
3091, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991. Fax: (817) 272-2364. E-mail: lcampbell@uta.edu.
224
0092-6566/02 $35.00
2002 Elsevier Science (USA)
All rights reserved.

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

225

Childhood peer relations have been found to have a long-term developmental impact on individuals. The link between poor peer relations in childhood and maladjustment in adolescence and adulthood has been documented
in numerous studies (e.g., Cowen, Pederson, & Babigian, Izzo, & Trost,
1973; Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987). Children
who have difficulties with peer relations are more likely to withdraw from
school and to become involved in delinquent activities than children without
such difficulties. Moreover, children who have poor peer relations often suffer from numerous mental health problems (Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge,
1990; Parker & Asher, 1987). In addition, low peer acceptance and lack of
friends predict overall life status adjustment problems, psychopathological
symptoms, and general low self-worth in early adulthood (Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998).
Victimization, a negative aspect of peer relations, is also associated with
serious concurrent and later adjustment problems. Victimization has been
associated with depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and rejection by peers
(Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1995, 1997; Khatri, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997; Olweus, 1992). Indeed, children in elementary
school who are victimized become increasingly depressed over time
(Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1995; Khatri, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994;
Kupersmidt and Khatri, 1995). Furthermore, victimized adolescents report
higher depression and lower self-esteem in adulthood than their nonvictimized peers (Olweus, 1978).
Most prior research on the determinants of childrens relations with their
peers has focused on influences of the family (e.g., attachment style and
parentchild interaction), childrens behavioral tendencies (e.g., aggression
and social withdrawal), and childrens social-information processing skills
and deficits (e.g., attributional biases and outcome expectancies). For example, insecure attachments predispose children to have less optimal friendships (e.g., Kerns, Klepec, & Cole, 1996); social withdrawal and other internalizing problems contribute to children being victimized by peers (e.g.,
Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges et al., 1997); and children with deviant outcome
expectancies tend not to be liked by peers (e.g., Crick & Ladd, 1993). This
large literature has been reviewed by Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker (1998).
The purpose of the present research was to explore the contribution to
childrens peer relations of a hitherto neglected factorchildrens personality. Personality may be defined as structured individual differences organized
to aid a person and his/her adaptation to the environment (Graziano, in
press). One widely accepted approach to conceptualizing and measuring personality traits is in terms of the Big Five. This approach has identified, primarily on the basis of factor analysis of peoples self-reports of personality
attributes, five major dimensions of personalityextraversion, agreeable-

226

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

ness, conscientiousness, emotional stability/neuroticism, and openness to experience (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1992). Although
work leading to the Big Five was originally conducted with adult populations, assessing childrens personality using the Big Five has begun (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch, 1997b;
Halverson, Kohnstamm, & Martin, 1994; Kohnstamm Halverson, Mervielde, & Havill 1998). Thus, it is now possible to study personality in childhood in a way that allows points of contact with conceptual and empirical
work on personality in adulthood.
It seems reasonable to expect that personality in childhood would be related to childrens relations with their peers. Although a case could be made
for expecting all five dimensions of personality to be associated with childrens peer relations, the personality dimension of agreeableness may be
especially important for successful adjustment in the peer group. Rothbart
and her colleagues have suggested that agreeableness may emerge developmentally from temperamental self-regulative systems, specifically effortful
control (e.g., Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). During the course
of normal development, effortful control develops into agreeableness, a personality system that, in part, serves the function of dealing with frustration
coming from other people. Agreeableness is thought specifically to be linked
to the development of anger regulation (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994).
Consistent with this view, agreeableness is related negatively to adolescent
antisocial behavior and delinquency (e.g., Robins, John, & Caspi, 1994).
More generally, as children develop, agreeableness may be linked to a willingness to suspend individual interests that, if expressed, would likely interfere with getting along with others in a group (Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981; Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997a; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Todd, & Finch, 1997c; Hogan, 1983). Indeed, recent
research has shown that agreeableness is closely related to controlling negative affect and to general self-control in interpersonal settings (Ahadi &
Rothbart, 1994; Graziano, 1994; Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & Hair, 1996).
Compared to their peers, agreeable individuals respond to interpersonal conflict more constructively (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; JensenCampbell et al., 1996), cooperate more productively during interdependent
group tasks (Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997a), and work harder to suppress
negative emotions during social interaction (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, &
Tassinary, 2000), in part because they are able to control frustration generated by other people.
Given the association of agreeableness with the ability to sacrifice selfinterest in favor of communal needs, agreeable children should be advantaged in their peer relations (Finch & Graziano, 2001; Jensen-Campbell &
Graziano, 2001). Peers of course should appreciate the willingness of agree-

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

227

able children to put aside their own needs and negative emotions in favor
of the groups needs, but there is also another way in which agreeableness
should promote positive peer relations. The motive systems that lead agreeable people to maintain positive social relations with other people may also
lead them to generate positive perceptions and attributions of others. Indeed,
agreeable people report liking other people more than their low-agreeable
peers do (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Graziano, Hair, &
Finch, 1997a; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). The importance of this
point for peer relations is that people who like others tend to communicate
their liking and thus are liked in return (Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Condon & Crano, 1988; Curtis & Miller, 1986; Secord & Backman, 1964). The
tendency of agreeable children to like others, then, should contribute to their
being liked by peers, to their ability to attract friends, and even to their
avoiding being victimized by bullies. That even aggressive children may
avoid attacking others whom they believe like them was suggested by Egan
and Perry (1998), who found that children who possessed prosocial skills
(e.g., friendliness, disposition to share and cooperate) were unlikely to serve
as victims of bullies attacks. Egan and Perry speculated that the personality
trait of agreeableness may be responsible for the effects of prosocial skills
on victimization, but they did not have a measure of agreeableness, and thus
the hypothesis that agreeableness may buffer children from victimization
was not directly tested.
It is probable that the other four dimensions in the Big Five may also be
related to peer relations. For example, Extraversion contains elements of
surgency, sociability, and social interest (Elphick, Halverson, & MarszalWisniewska, 1998). Given its relation to social impact, we would anticipate
that extraversion would be positively related to peer acceptance and friendship. In addition, conscientiousness is assumed to be linked to agreeableness
developmentally through the common, emotion-related substrate indexed by
effortful control (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994); that is, both agreeableness and
conscientiousness involve adaptive coping with frustration from constraint.
Thus, conscientiousness might also be conducive to positive peer relations.
Finally, neuroticism is related to a persons emotional stability or interpersonal adjustment. Neurotic individuals tend to have a negative view of others
and this negative view may be translated into feelings of dislike by others
(Watson & Clark, 1984). Neurotic individuals also tend to be hypersensitive
to negative events and this hypersensitivity may lead to poorer peer relations
and increased victimization (Suls, Martin, & David, 1998; Tellegen, 1985).
Little is known about the empirical correlates of openness, in either adults
or children (Caspi, 1998; for review, see McCrae & Costa, 1997). For the
sake of completeness, however, we measured openness to explore possible
relations.

228

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

The purpose of the present research was to examine the relations of the
Big Five personality dimensions to childrens peer relations during early
adolescence. The main hypothesis was that agreeableness would be especially linked to positive relations with peers. Two studies are reported. The
first examined personality in relation to peer acceptance and friendship; the
second examined personality in relation to victimization by peers. These
three indices of peer relationsgeneral acceptance by peers, reciprocated
dyadic friendships, and overt victimization by peersare substantially, but
not perfectly, correlated with one another. These different aspects of peer
relations have sometimes been found to bear differentiated relations to other
variables, such as indexes of psychosocial adjustment (e.g., Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997). However, the prediction of the present study was
simply that personality agreeableness, in particular, would relate to all three
indexes of peer relations in approximately the same way, that is, by encourage effective peer functioning. Thus, the three measures of peer relations
were included not to permit testing of differentiated linkages but simply to
permit a comprehensive test of the hypothesis that agreeableness is a key
factor contributing to peer relations.
In the first study, the measures of personality and peer relations (peer
acceptance and friendship) were collected concurrently. The second study
was longitudinal and permitted a test of the hypothesis that personality contributes over time to childrens victimization by peers. In both studies, additional measures were available that permitted a particularly stringent test of
the hypothesis that personality contributes to peer relations. Prior research
has shown that self-esteem contributes to positive peer relations; for example, Egan and Perry (1998) found that low self-regard predicts increased
victimization by peers over time. Personality, and especially agreeableness,
may be correlated with self-esteem, and thus any associations of personality
with peer relations may be due to the correlation of self-esteem with both
agreeableness and positive peer relations. In both of the present studies, two
measures of self-esteem were also available (global self-worth and self-perceived peer social competence). Thus, it was possible to examine the relations of personality to peer relations with self-esteem controlled. This allowed for an especially conservative test of the focal hypothesis.
STUDY 1
This study examined the relations of personality to peer acceptance and
friendship in elementary school students. We predicted that, for both general
peer acceptance and mutual friendships, high-agreeable participants would
have better peer relations than would low-agreeable participants. Our analyses included a control for the possibility that personality and peer relations
might be linked because of their common association with self-esteem (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch, 1997b).

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

229

Method
Participants
A total of 206 fifth- and sixth-grade children (98 boys, 108 girls) volunteered to participate
after receiving parental permission. The ethnic composition was 61% European American,
18% Hispanic American, 3% African American, 6% Asian American, 1% Other, and 11%
did not respond. Parents of children were asked to return permission letters and to indicate
whether they consented. The overall affirmative response rate was 77%. Participants were
from one public state university school and two private parochial schools. The admissions
procedures of the university school ensure that the demographic composition reflects the ethnicity and SES of the state of Florida. A total of 50.5% of the students were from the university
school. There was no evidence that results differed by school.

Measures
Personality measures. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) was utilized to measure the five dimensions of personality (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). For each item on the BFI, students
answered each question on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Students
were given a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to them. For each statement,
children were told to move the arrow key on the computer to the number that indicated the
extent to which they agreed or disagreed with that statement. Each statement was phrased as
I see myself as someone who is. . . . Sample items on the agreeableness scale included
tends to find fault with others; is helpful and unselfish with others; starts quarrels with
others; and has a forgiving nature. Internal consistencies for the five dimensions were
.56 (extraversion), .70 (agreeableness), .75 (conscientiousness), .71 (neuroticism), and .62
(openness to experience). Scale totals for agreeableness were computed and could range from
9 to 45.
Self-concept was measured by a Likert-type version of Harters Self-Perception Profile
(SPP), presented on the computer (Graziano & Ward, 1992). Students were presented with
phrases and were asked to rate each sentence from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
For example, the six items on the global self-esteem scale included descriptions like I like
the way I am leading my life and I am happy with myself as a person. Descriptions on
the self-perceived peer social competence six-item scale included I wish that more people
my age liked me and I find it hard to make friends. Internal consistencies were .63 for
self-perceived social competence and .65 for global self-worth.
Peer nomination. We asked students to list their five best same-sex friends in their grade
and school as part of a larger study that examined interpersonal conflict in late childhood and
early adolescence. Schools and classes were small, so the participants knew all of the children
in their grade. The total number of peer nominations was tabulated for each of the participants
to create a composite peer acceptance score. Peer acceptance scores ranged from 0 to 9 nominations (M 3.29, SD 2.15). We then computed a friendship score for each child. Friendship
was operationalized as a reciprocal nomination. A child was seen as having a friend if s/he
nominated the peer and the peer nominated him/her as well. Thus, friendship scores could
range from 0 to 5 friends (M 1.89, SD 1.17). These two indexes of peer relations are
substantially, but not perfectly, correlated with one another, r(201) .69, p .01.

Procedure
Each child was assessed individually in a self-paced computer format. First, data on personality and self-concept were collected with the Psychology Response Recording System (PRRS;
Campbell, Jensen-Campbell, & Graziano, 1994). PRRS allowed complete randomization of
the presentation order of items within a given scale. It also allowed help to be given to students

230

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

for unknown words and to record requests for help (see Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Steele, &
Hair, 1998a, for a more detailed description).1
Participants were taken from class in groups of five and were told that they would be using
laptop computers to describe themselves as accurately as possible. Students completed a practice section to familiarize themselves with the computer format. Following the format recommended by John et al. (1991), a participant was asked the extent to which he/she agreed with
each statement. After completing the BFI, participants were given the self-concept scales in
the same randomized format. When they finished the self-concept scales, paper-and-pencil
versions of friendship nominations were collected. Students were asked to write down their
five same-sex best friends in their grade. Students were asked to write down the name of their
best friend first, their next best friend second, and so forth.

Results
Overview
First, intercorrelations among the measures were examined. Subsequently,
analyses were conducted to examine the unique contribution of each of the
five dimensions of personality to childrens peer acceptance and friendship
status. It was anticipated that agreeableness would be uniquely and positively
related to peer relations. The hypothesis that agreeableness predicts peer acceptance and friendship was evaluated initially without employing the control for self-esteem; subsequently, the control for self-esteem was included
to see if it accounted for the associations.
Intercorrelations of Measures
Zero-order correlations among the measures are presented in Table 1.2
Several features of these correlations are noteworthy. First, as expected, the
relation between peer acceptance and friendship was substantiated, r(201)
.69, p .001. The sizable association between these two variables suggests
that our two variables may be measuring the same construct. Friendship researchers, however, agree that friendship involves a reciprocal relationship.
In fact, this reciprocity is what distinguishes friendship from other relationship constructs, such as nonreciprocal peer acceptance (see Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998, p. 625, for a review). In addition, the pattern of associations between friendship and acceptance and personality variables was
different, which led us to perform separate analyses for each. Thus, both
measures were included to examine the generality of the link between per-

1
The definitions for both scales (i.e., BFI and Goldbergs trait markers) were developed
using a fifth-grade dictionary. In addition, definitions were originally pretested with children
in this age group and changes were made based on the childrens observations. An elementary
reading consultant reviewed the definitions and offered advice.
2
Supplementary analyses were conducted that examined the possibility that agreeableness
had a curvilinear relationship with peer relations. There was no evidence that agreeableness
had a curvilinear association to peer relations.

231

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

TABLE 1
Study 1: Intercorrelations among Personality, Peer Acceptance, and Friendship Status
Measure
Measure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Extraversion
Agreeableness
.19**
Conscientiousness
.15*
.59*
Neuroticism
0.16* 0.25* 0.31**
Openness
.18
.26*
.30** 0.13
Peer acceptance
.23**
.22*
.16* 0.04
.01
Friendship status
.14*
.17*
.10
.04
0.10 .69**
Self-perceived peer acceptance
.21**
.16*
.15* 0.26**
.08 .27** .21**
Global self-esteem
.13
.21**
.20** 0.20**
.06 .08
.11
.69**

* p .05.
** p .01.

sonality and peer relations rather than making differentiated predictions related to the two indices.
Second, although most of the correlations among the personality dimensions were generally low, a few correlations should be noted. Agreeableness
was positively associated with conscientiousness and openness and negatively associated with neuroticism. In addition to the associations with agreeableness, conscientiousness was positively associated with openness and
negatively associated with neuroticism. Third, two personality dimensions
(agreeableness and extraversion) were consistently related to the indexes of
peer relations. However, interpretation of these associations should await
the results of regression analyses that employ appropriate controls. Finally,
measures of self-esteem bore relations with both personality and peer relations, raising the possibility that self-esteem might account for relations of
personality to peer adjustment.
The Relation of Personality to Peer Relations (with No Control
for Self-Esteem)
To examine the hypothesis that agreeableness is related to peer acceptance
in early adolescence, zero-order correlations were first examined. Agreeableness was significantly related to both peer acceptance and friendship, rs
.22, .17, p .02, respectively (see Table 1 for bivariate correlations). Extraversion was also positively related to peer acceptance and friendship, rs
.23, .14, p .05, respectively. Conscientiousness was positively correlated
with peer acceptance only, r .16, p .05.
The unique predictiveness of agreeableness was next assessed using regression analyses. Two analyses were performed, one with peer acceptance as
the criterion and one with the number of reciprocated friends as the dependent
variable. Sex of participant and grade were entered as control variables on

232

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

TABLE 2
Study 1: Relation () of Each Personality Dimension to Peer Acceptance and Friendship
(with No Control for Self-Esteem)
Criterion measures
Peer acceptance
Contribution of measures
Sex of participant
Grade of participant
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness to experience

Number of friends

t value

t value

0.05
0.04
0.22
0.20
0.06
0.06
0.08

0.77
0.59
3.18**
2.27**
0.63
0.83
1.25

0.00
0.02
0.17
0.18
0.07
0.12
0.18

0.04
0.30
2.33*
2.07*
0.75
1.55
2.39*

* p .05.
** p .01.

the first step, and the five dimensions of personality were entered on the second step.3 In the analysis on peer acceptance, both agreeableness and extraversion bore significant independent associations with peer acceptance (s
.20, .22, ts(197) 2.27, 3.18, p .03) (see Table 2). There was no evidence
that conscientiousness, emotional stability, or openness was related to peer
acceptance, ts 1.25, ns. Moreover, agreeableness and extraversion together
produced a sizeable increment in R 2 beyond the control variables and the
other three personality dimensions (F 8.50, p .01, R 2 7.7%).
High agreeableness and extraversion both made unique contributions to
friendship (s .18, .17, ts(192) 2.07, 2.33, ps .05) (see Table 2).
Openness was negatively related to friendship ( 0.18, t(192) 2.39,
ps .02). There was no evidence that conscientiousness or emotional stabil3
Preliminary analyses suggested that collinearity could potentially be an issue if the five
personality variables were entered onto the same step (Pedhazur, 1997). Specifically, the Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were all acceptable (10.0), but the condition index was greater
than 10 and two variance proportions greater than .5 (Pedhazur, 1997). Following procedures
outlined by Pedhazur (1997), five regressions were performed for each criterion. In each regression, sex of participant and grade were entered as control variables on the first step, and four
dimensions of personality were entered on the second step. On the third step, the fifth personality variable was entered and the change in R 2 from the second to the third step was examined
as an indicator of unique variance. In the analyses on peer acceptance, both agreeableness
and extraversion bore significant independent associations with peer acceptance (Fs 5.13,
10.08; p .05; R 2s 2.3 and 4.6%). There was no evidence that conscientiousness, emotional
stability, or openness was related to peer acceptance (Fs .40, .69, 1.56; ns; R 2s .2, .3,
and .79%). Agreeableness and extraversion both made unique contributions to friendship (Fs
4.27, 5.43; p .05; R 2s 2.0 and 2.6%). Openness was negatively related to friendship
(F 5.71, p .05, R 2 2.8%). There was no evidence that conscientiousness or emotional
stability predicted friendship (Fs .56, 2.41; ns; R 2s .3 and 1.1%).

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

233

ity predicted friendship, ts 1.57, ns. Moreover, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness produced a substantial increment in R 2 over the control
variables and the other two personality dimensions (F 4.69, p .01,
R 2 7%).
There was no evidence that sex of participant or grade had an effect on
peer acceptance or friendship, ts 1.00, ns. However, the absence of significant sex and grade main effects in these analyses does not rule out the
possibility that sex or grade might moderate the relations of a dimension of
personality to an index of peer relations. To examine whether sex moderates
the link of one or more personality variables to peer relations, we conducted
an additional series of analyses (for each index of peer relations) that evaluated the interaction of sex with each personality dimension (interactions were
evaluated with the main effects of grade, sex, and the personality dimension
in the equation). A parallel series of analyses was conducted to evaluate the
interaction of grade with each personality dimension. These analyses indicated that neither sex nor grade moderated the relation of any personality
dimension to either peer acceptance or friendship.
The Relation of Personality to Peer Relations (with Self-Esteem
Controlled)
To ensure that the significant associations of personality with the indexes
of peer relations summarized above are not attributable to the association of
self-esteem with both personality and peer relations, two additional regression analyses were conducted. In the first, the criterion was peer acceptance.4
In this analysis, sex and grade were entered on the first step, global selfesteem and self-perceived peer acceptance were entered on the second step,
and the dimensions of personality that were significant predictors of peer
relations in the preceding analyses were entered on the third step (these were
agreeableness and extraversion in the analysis on peer acceptance, and agreeableness, extraversion, and openness in the analysis on friendship).
In the analysis on peer acceptance, the second step results showed that
self-perceptions of social competence predicted peer acceptance ( .29,
t(200) 3.90, p .01). On the third step, however, agreeableness and extraversion were still linked to peer acceptance significantly ( .17, .17,
t(198) 2.51, 2.47 p .01) (see Table 3).
In the analysis of the friendship scores, the second step again revealed
that self-perceived peer social competence was positively related to friendship ( .20, t(195) 2.63, p .01). On the final step, agreeableness and
openness were still linked to friendship (s .17, 0.17, t(192) 2.29,
2.38, p .02). Extraversion was also marginally related to friendship (
.12, t(192) 1.67, p .10) (see Table 3).
4

In preliminary analyses, there was no indication of collinearity.

234

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

TABLE 3
Study 1: Relation () of Each Personality Dimension to Peer Acceptance and Friendship
(with Self-Esteem Controlled)
Criterion measures
Peer acceptance

Number of friends

Contribution of measures

t value

t value

Sex of participant
Grade of participant
Global self-esteem
Self-perceived peer acceptance
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Openness to experience

0.03
0.08
0.07
0.24
0.17
0.17

0.50
1.11
0.94
3.25**
2.47**
2.51**

0.02
0.04
0.01
0.17
0.12
0.17
0.17

0.35
0.52
0.12
2.24**
1.67*
2.29**
2.38**

* p .10.
** p .05.

These analyses indicate that agreeableness has a robust link to childrens

peer relations that cannot be accounted for by self-esteem. While extraversion appears to be robustly associated with peer acceptance, its links with
friendship are somewhat less reliable.
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to examine the link between personality and peer
difficulties, specifically victimization. This was a short-term longitudinal
study, and children were studied over the course of a school year. We hypothesized that agreeableness would be negatively related to victimization over
time. We specifically expected that lower levels of agreeableness will predict
gains in victimization over time. This is an important empirical question
given that previous research has found that chronic victimization over time
has a devastating impact on children and becomes increasingly diagnostic
for a large number of psychological maladjustments (e.g., depression and
poor self-esteem) (Egan & Perry, 1998).
Furthermore, we hypothesized that agreeableness would moderate the contributions of behavioral vulnerabilities to victimization by acting as a buffer
that would protect vulnerable children from victimization. We also examined
the contribution of agreeableness to victimization after self-concept was controlled in order to rule out the possibility that self-esteem accounts for the
results.
Method
Research Participants
A total of 47 students in sixth (n 26) and seventh grades (n 21) (23 boys, 24 girls)
participated in this study. The children had received parental permission for participation.

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

235

Proportions based on ethnic background were 85.1% European American, 8.5% Hispanic
American, and 6.4% African American. The admissions procedures of the school are designed
to ensure that the SES composition reflects the population of Florida. The 47 participants in
this study were children who had participated in two larger research projects at their school that
initially were conceived and conducted as independent studies. One investigation, conducted in
October of the school year, was an investigation of personality and self-concept. The other
study was an investigation of peer victimization, with children tested in November and May
of the school year. The 47 children who participated in the present study represent a subset
of children who participated in both of the foregoing studies (and for whom data on both
personality and victimization were therefore available). The overall average response rate for
the two studies was 73.5%.

Materials
Personality measures. Computer versions of standard scales were used to obtain measures
of each of the Big Five dimensions (for details on the computer assessment methodology,
see Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch, 1997b; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Steele, & Hair,
1998a). To measure the five dimensions of personality, we used Goldbergs (1992) bipolar
self-rating markers. Goldbergs markers were not used in Study 1 because it is a more language
intensive measure and tends to be problematic for fifth-grade children (i.e., it involves more
difficult words and 100 trait markers). For older individuals, however, the markers tend to
produce more reliable assessments of the five dimensions of personality than the BFI. Based
on the larger personality study sample (n 323), Cronbachs s for measures were .57 (extraversion), .78 (agreeableness), .80 (conscientiousness), .65 (emotional stability), and .83 (intellect).
For Goldbergs (1992) trait markers, several steps were followed to create composites for
each of the five dimensions of personality. First, we used a relatively simple summing procedure. Instead of presenting the markers in a bipolar format (e.g., warmcold), we separated
the poles and presented them in a unipolar format (Briggs, 1989, 1992). This allowed us to
produce difference scores for each of the five dimensions. For example, agreeableness was
the sum of the differences for the persons self-ratings of [warmcold], [kindunkind], [cooperativeuncooperative], [unselfishselfish], [politerude], [trustfuldistrustful], [generous
stingy], [flexiblestubborn], [considerateinconsiderate], and [agreeablequarrelsome].
Larger numbers indicated higher numbers on agreeableness, with a minimum of 40 and a
maximum of 40. We also used a quasi-Q scoring procedure recommended by Goldberg
(1992) to produce less dependence among the five-factor scores. To measure self-concept, we
again used Likert-type scale versions of Harters (1985) scales on the computer. Cronbachs
was .73 for both self-perceived social competence and global self-esteem.
Peer assessments. A modified version of the Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) was used
to assess victimization as well as selected behavior problems that place children at risk for
victimization (Wiggins & Winder, 1961). The modified PNI contained 25 items. Children
were asked to check off the names of classmates who exhibited the behavior identified in each
item. Five subscales were created: victimization, physical strength, externalizing behavior,
internalizing behavior, and prosocial skills. The scales were as follows: (a) victimization included three items (Kids make fun of him/her; She/he gets hit and pushed by other kids;
and She/he gets picked on by other kids); (b) physical strength included two items (She/
he is very strong and She/he would win an arm wrestling contest); (c) prosocial skills
included two items (In a group, he/she shares things and gives other people a turn and
She/he is always friendly); (d) externalizing problems included seven items (She/he is
just plain mean, She/he makes fun of people, She/he hits and pushes others around,
She/he makes noises and bothers others in class, She/he doesnt follow rules, She/
he tells lies, and She/he sometimes takes things that belong to someone else); and (e)

236

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

internalizing problems included five items (On the playground, she/he just stands around,
She/he doesnt talk much, She/he is afraid to do things, She/he seems unhappy and
looks sad often, When other kids are playing, she/he watches them but doesnt join in).
Scores on victimization and physical strength were determined by calculating the percentage
of classmates who checked the childs name on each item of the scale and then totaling these
percentages. Victimization scores could range from 0 to 300 and physical strength scores could
range from 0 to 200. The mean level victimization scores were 78.89 and 80.45 (for Time 1
and Time 2, respectively), with a range from 5.00 to 241.18. The victimization scale has been
used extensively in prior research and is highly reliable (Finnegan et al., 1996 ; Hodges et
al., 1995 ; Khatri et al., 1994 ; Perry et al., 1988 ). Using the larger victimization sample (n
189), a principal components analysis was conducted on the remaining 18 PNI items and
factor scores were computed (for more a detailed description of the creation and scoring of
the subscales, see Egan & Perry, 1998, and Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1998).

Procedure
Data collection took place in three distinct phases. In the first phase, each child was assessed
individually in a self-paced computer format in October of the school year. Participants were
taken from class and shown how to use the computer to describe themselves as accurately as
possible (see Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Steele, & Hair, 1998a, for a more detailed description). Following Goldbergs (1992) trait marker format, the computer instructed students to
describe themselves as they are now compared to other students the same age and sex. The
marker adjective words appeared on the screen one at a time. Using the arrow keys, the student
moved a cursor to rate each word as an accurate description, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). If the student did not know a word, he or she could press the [F1] key for
a definition.1 After completing the Goldbergs adjective ratings, participants were given the
self-concept scales in the same randomized computer format. They again rated each item from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). When they finished the scales, participants were
thanked and escorted back to class.
During the second phase, which also took place in the fall term (November), children were
asked to complete the PNI. Children were tested in groups of four to six children by an adult
who read the test instrument to the children while they followed along and marked their responses. During the third phase, which took place in the spring term (AprilMay), children
were again assessed on the PNI.

Results
Intercorrelations of Measures
Table 4 presents the zero-order correlations among the measures within
each time of testing (fall and spring).2 Table 5 presents the zero-order correlations of the fall measures with the spring assessments. Extraversion was negatively associated with internalizing problems (during fall and spring) and
positively associated with physical strength (during spring only). Agreeableness was negatively associated with externalizing problems (during fall and
spring) and with victimization (during spring only). Conscientiousness was
negatively associated with externalizing problems (during the fall and spring)
and positively associated with internalizing problems (during the fall only).
Emotional stability was negatively associated with internalizing problems
(during fall only) and positively associated with physical strength (during

* p .10.
** p .05.
*** p .01.

0.06

0.04
0.19

0.02
0.50***
0.38***
0.74***
0.46*** 0.18
0.24*

0.05
0.28*
0.10
0.06
0.34**
0.02
0.26*
0.11

Time 2 (spring)
1. Externalizing problems
2. Internalizing problems
3. Social skills
4. Physical strength
5. Victimization

0.13

0.46***
0.30**
0.32** 0.19
0.51*** 0.01
0.25
0.17
0.30**
0.19
0.39** 0.05
0.02
0.12
0.23
0.38**
0.20
0.03

0.11
0.36**
0.06
0.57***
0.16
0.49***
0.32**
0.26
0.27*
0.32**
0.03

Time 1 (fall)
1. Externalizing problems
2. Internalizing problems
3. Social skills
4. Physical strength
5. Victimization
6. Extroversion
7. Agreeableness
8. Conscientiousness
9. Emotional stability
10. Openness
11. Social competence
12. Global self-esteem

Measures

0.20
0.14
0.05
0.01
0.29*
0.44**
0.08

0.24

0.31**
0.52***
0.18
0.14
0.11
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.25
0.14

Measures

TABLE 4
Study 2: Intercorrelations between Measures at Time 1 and Time 2

10

11

12

0.05

0.15 0.17
0.07 0.11 0.03

0.30* 0.20 0.14 0.43**

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

237

238

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

TABLE 5
Study 2: Intercorrelations between measures at Time 1 and Time 2
Measures at Time 2
Measures at Time 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Externalizing problems
Internalizing problems
Social skills
Physical strength
Victimization
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Openness
Social competence
Global self-esteem

0.78***
0.12
0.30**
0.01
0.58***
0.11
0.54***
0.36**
0.27*
0.15
0.36**
0.11

0.10
0.77***
0.15
0.46***
0.24*
0.47***
0.12
0.16
0.28*
0.03
0.25
0.27*

0.05
0.29**
0.32**
0.25*
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.09
0.27*
0.07
0.28*
0.19

0.15
0.47***
0.18
0.70***
0.04
0.36**
0.19
0.17
0.40***
0.06
0.34**
0.02

0.62***
0.32**
0.36**
0.26*
0.73***
0.16
0.38**
0.22
0.11
0.27*
0.48***
0.01

* p .10.
** p .05.
*** p .01.

fall and spring). It may be seen that, as expected, fall personality (i.e., agreeableness and openness) predicted victimization, but interpretation of this result should await the results of the appropriate regression analysis. Unexpectedly, personality was not significantly associated with prosocial skills.
Of the two self-concept variables, only self-perceived social competence
was linked to the peer nominations. Self-perceived social competence was
negatively associated with externalizing problems (during fall and spring)
and victimization (during fall and spring) and positively associated with prosocial skills (during fall only) and physical strength (during spring only).
Neither self-concept variable was associated with the personality variables.
Is Agreeableness Associated with Changes in Victimization?
The correlations revealed that only victimization during the spring was
linked to any of the personality variables. Thus, regressions were only performed on changes in victimization and not on concurrent measures of victimization. We were especially interested in whether agreeableness forecasts
changes of victimization over time. To examine the hypothesis that agreeableness is negatively associated with change in victimization over time, a
preliminary regression analysis was run (with spring victimization as the
criterion), in which sex, grade, and fall victimization were entered as control
variables on the first step and the five dimensions of personality were entered
on the second step. Because we have controlled for fall victimization, s
should be interpreted as associations with change in victimization from fall

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

239

TABLE 6
Study 2: Relation () of Each Personality Dimension
to Spring Victimization
Spring victimization
Contribution of measures
Sex of participant
Grade of participant
Fall victimization
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
Openness to experience

t value

0.07
0.33
0.72
0.14
0.21
0.02
0.10
0.06

0.66
3.74**
7.70**
1.44
2.01*
0.22
1.04
0.65

to spring (Hodges et al., 1995; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993). Examining
changes in this manner does not permit strict cause-andeffect conclusions,
but they do offer more confidence in the predictive effects than examining
only spring victimization (see Appelbaum & McCall, 1983, for a review).
Agreeableness in the fall was associated with decreases in victimization over
the school year ( 0.21, t(33) 2.01, p .05). There was no evidence
that extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, or openness were
associated with changes in victimization (see Table 6).
Next, the contribution of agreeableness to decreased victimization was
evaluated after controlling for the four behavioral variables (physical
strength, externalizing behavior, internalizing behavior, and prosocial skills).
In this analysis, fall victimization and grade were entered on the first step,
the four behavioral risk factors (fall) were entered on the second step, and
agreeableness was entered on the third step. To minimize the number of
predictors because of the small N, we included only control variables that
were significant predictors of change in victimization. Thus, sex of participant was removed from further analyses. Agreeableness was still associated
with decreases in victimization over the school year ( 0.18, t(34)
1.90, p .05, one-tailed).
Finally, the contribution of agreeableness to decreased victimization was
evaluated after controlling for self-concept. In this analysis, control variables
were entered on the first step, global self-esteem and self-perceived social
acceptance were entered on the second step, and agreeableness was entered
on the third step. Agreeableness was still associated with decreases in victimization over the school year ( 0.19, t(36) 2.04, p .05).
Because of the relatively small N of this study, it was not feasible to run
regression analyses that included all five personality variables as predictors
when controlling for behavioral vulnerabilities or self-concept. Thus, the

240

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

contribution of each personality dimension to change in victimization over

time was examined in separate analyses. There was no evidence that any of
the other personality dimensions (besides agreeableness) were associated
with changes in victimization.
Does Agreeableness Moderate the Influence of Behavioral Vulnerabilities
on Victimization?
To examine whether agreeableness moderates the link between behavioral
vulnerabilities and victimization, two kinds of regression analyses were conducted. First, we examined whether fall agreeableness moderated the link
between fall behavioral vulnerabilities and change in victimization over time.
Second, we examined whether fall agreeableness moderated the link between
spring behavioral problems and spring victimization. These two kinds of
analyses provide somewhat different information. The first tells whether fall
agreeableness moderates the impact of fall behavioral vulnerabilities on subsequent changes in victimization. The second tells whether agreeableness
moderates the relation of a spring behavioral vulnerability measured concurrently with spring victimization.
Assessments of the five dimensions of personality in the spring were not
available. In order for the second set of analyses to be truly concurrent, agreeableness would also have been assessed in the spring. Previous research,
however, has found that agreeableness is highly stable over time. Graziano,
Jensen-Campbell, and Hair (1996) found that the testretest reliability of
Goldbergs markers for college students across a 2-month interval was .81
(p .01). Moreover, Hair and Graziano (1998) found that the structure of
agreeableness was highly stable over time (coefficient of congruence, .91,
across a 3-year interval). Thus, the fall agreeableness score should serve as
a relatively stable estimate of the childs spring level of agreeableness.
For each regression analysis, fall victimization, sex, and grade were entered into the equation as control variables. Next, fall agreeableness and one
of the behavioral vulnerability factors (assessed in the fall or spring) were
centered and entered. Finally, the product of fall agreeableness with the behavioral vulnerability factor was evaluated.
In the first set of analyses, there was a significant agreeableness fall
internalizing cross product, b 1.88, t(35) 2.44, p .02, sr 0.19.
Using procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991), we examined how
the relation of victimization to internalization changes across levels of agreeableness. As shown in Fig. 1, we examined the relation of internalization to
victimization at low (1 SD), medium (0 SD), and high (1 SD) levels of
agreeableness. At low levels of agreeableness as internalization increased,
victimization increased, t(35) 1.74, p .05, one-tailed. At medium or
high levels of agreeableness, internalization was not significantly related to
change in victimization, ts (35) 1.03, ns. There was no evidence that agree-

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

241

FIG. 1. Associations between victimization and internalizing problems at low, medium,

and high levels of Agreeableness.

ableness moderated the relation between fall externalizing behavior, prosocial skills, physical strength, and victimization.
In the second set of analyses, there was a significant agreeableness
spring prosocial skills cross product, b 2.08, t(41) 2.09, p .05, sr
.16. As shown in Fig. 2, at low levels of agreeableness as prosocial skills
decreased, victimization increased, t(35) 2.50, p .02. At medium or
high levels of agreeableness, there was no association between prosocial
skills and victimization, ts (35) 1.61, ns.
Moreover, there was a significant agreeableness physical strength cross
product, t(35) 2.88, p .01, sr .19. As shown in Fig. 3, at low and
medium levels of agreeableness as physical strength increased, victimization
decreased, t(35) 4.44, 3.94, p .001. At high levels of agreeableness,
there was no association between physical strength and victimization,
t(35) .59, ns. There was no evidence that agreeableness moderated the
relation between spring internalizing and externalizing problems and victimization, ts(35) 0.94, 1.93, ns.
In sum, high agreeableness assessed in the fall decreased the links between
victimization and behavioral risk factors, such as internalizing problems (assessed in the fall), physical weakness (assessed in the spring), and low prosocial skills (assessed in the spring). It is clear that these effects depend on
the specific behavior vulnerability being assessed as well as the time at which
the vulnerability is assessed, but the results are all consistent with the notion

242

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

FIG. 2. Associations between victimization and prosocial skills at low, medium, and
high levels of Agreeableness.

FIG. 3. Associations between victimization and physical strength at low, medium, and
high levels of Agreeableness.

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

243

that agreeableness may help protect behaviorally at-risk children from increased victimization by peers over time.
DISCUSSION
This research used a multimethod approach to link the personality dimension of agreeableness to peer relations in early adolescence. The research
focused on agreeableness because this dimension is associated with motives
to maintain positive interpersonal relations. In Study 1, we assessed the relation between agreeableness and peer relations using measures of peer acceptance and friendship. Following the logic that, given their concern for interpersonal relations, agreeable children may be motivated to maintain positive
relations with other people, we expected that high-agreeable participants
would have better peer relations than would low-agreeable participants. In
Study 2, we examined the relation between agreeableness and victimization
using a short-term longitudinal design. We anticipated that agreeableness
would be negatively related to increased victimization and would moderate
the relation between behavioral vulnerabilities and victimization by acting
to decrease links between risk factors and victimization.
The overall pattern of findings supports the notion that agreeableness is
linked to healthy peer relations. Results suggest that agreeableness contributes to peer relations in at least three ways. First, agreeable persons received
higher levels of peer acceptance and had more mutual friends than did lower
agreeable children. Prior research has suggested that agreeableness is translated into situated goals and strategies related to the motivation to maintain
positive relations with others (Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997a). The ability
to maintain positive relations with others may be critical in being able to
cooperate effectively with others. Given the key role that cooperation has
been suggested to play in the phylogeny of our species (Buss, 1991; Hogan,
1983; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), it is not surprising that children with personality attributes conducive to cooperation would be welcome members of
childrens social groups. Indeed, it has been suggested that individuals have
evolved cognitive mechanisms that allow them to detect cooperation within
the peer group (Buss, 1991; Hogan, 1983). Consistent with this possibility,
agreeable adolescents have reported liking others more and have been observed cooperating more productively during interdependent group tasks
than have lower agreeable adolescents (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair,
1996; Graziano, Hair, and Finch, 1997a; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2001). In
sum, it appears that agreeable adolescents communicate to others that they
like them and are willing to cooperate with them, and the other children in
the peer group reciprocate this liking. These results underscore the important
role that agreeableness plays in harmonious group relations during childhood.
Second, agreeableness was negatively related to increases in victimization

244

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

over time. Highly agreeable children may deflect aggression by communicating to other children that they are liked; even bullies may be reluctant to
attack children when they believe they like them (Egan & Perry, 1998). Children who are low in agreeableness clearly are at risk for increased victimization by peers over time. Taken together, the evidence is consistent with the
suggestion that even modest differences in agreeableness can accumulate
over time and have profound social consequences for the individual (e.g.,
Abelson, 1985; Caspi, 1998, pp. 314315). Not only are low-agreeable children likely to be increasingly victimized over time, but the victimization
experiences in turn are likely to cumulate over time with increasingly devastating consequences for the individual. Indeed, victimization is predictive of
increased depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem over time (Egan & Perry,
1998; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Khatri, Kupersmidt, &
Patterson, 1994; Kupersmidt & Khatri, 1995).
Finally, agreeableness moderated the link between behavioral vulnerabilities known to promote victimization and changes in victimization over time,
with the pattern suggesting that an agreeable personality may be an important
buffer that protects children. For example, agreeableness moderated the link
between fall internalizing problems and increased victimization over the
school year. Children who exhibited internalizing behaviors in the fall (such
as crying easily, being anxious, or lacking self-confidence) were unlikely to
be increasingly victimized over the school year if they reported having agreeable personalities. When the children, however, viewed themselves as low
in agreeableness, there was a direct predictive link between internalizing
behaviors in the fall and increased victimization over the year. There was
also evidence that physical weakness and poor prosocial skills were more
likely to be associated with ongoing victimization for children low in agreeableness than for more agreeable children.
With the link between the personality trait of agreeableness and positive
peer relations now established, it will be important in future research to study
the specific processes responsible for the link. One possibility was examined
and ruled out in the present study. This is the possibility that agreeableness
and peer adjustment are related because of their joint association with selfesteem. This interpretation was ruled out by demonstrating that the primary
link of agreeableness and peer adjustment remained robust when both measures of self-worth were controlled. It seems likely that the import of agreeableness for successful peer relations lies more in its association with specific
social-interactional and social-cognitive processes that warrant attention in
future research. Observations of the actual social exchanges of children varying in agreeableness in structured and unstructured settings might permit
identification of the specific social responses they exhibit (e.g., tendency to
avoid negative social exchanges, prosocial tendencies, positive moods) that
mediate their more successful peer relations. It would also be worthwhile to

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

245

see whether agreeable children have more positive attitudes toward their
peers (including bullies), whether their favorable attitudes are reciprocated
by the other children (including bullies), and whether these social-cognitive
processes account for the childrens ability to escape victimization.
Individual differences in peer relations as a function of agreeableness also
suggest that it would be worthwhile to devote additional research attention
to the root causes of agreeableness. Low agreeableness may be one developmental product of less normative socialization (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter,
1995; Egan & Perry, 1998; Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1998; Paulhus &
John, 1998; cf. Henington, Hughes, Cavell, & Thompson, 1998). One source
of nonnormative socialization may be characteristics of the child and the
ways in which these characteristics evoke reactions from others (Graziano,
Jensen-Campbell, & Sullivan-Logan, 1998b). For example, parents of congenitally low-agreeable children may foster the nonnormative belief that coercive tactics (i.e., poor prosocial skills) are effective means for resolving
conflict or foster the belief that coercive tactics elicit respect from peers.
This would be problematic, because coercive tactics lead to poor peer relations (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Henington et al., 1998; Jensen-Campbell &
Graziano, 2001; Perry et al., 1992).
There is also evidence in the present study that extraversion is linked with
positive peer relations, at least with peer acceptance and friendship promotion. Both extraversion and agreeableness deal with social interaction, yet
the social behavior associated with extraversion is different from that associated with agreeableness (Elphick, Halverson, & Marzal-Wisniewska, 1998;
Finch et al., 2001; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch, 1997b; Havill,
Besevegis, & Mouroussaki, 1998; Paulhus & John, 1998; Saucier & Goldberg, 1996; Watson & Clark, 1997; Wiggins, 1991). Extraversion contains
elements of sociability, social interest, and a preference for social interaction
(Elphick et al., 1998). McCrae and Costa (1990) described extraversion as
involving activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions related to leading an active and exciting life. Thus, extraversion appears to be more related
to the social impact of an individual, whereas agreeableness deals more with
an individuals motives for maintaining positive relations with others
(Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Given its relation to social impact, it
is not surprising that extraversion was related to peer acceptance or peer
popularity. In addition, there was no evidence in this study that extraversion
was related to victimization. When maintaining positive relations with others
is important (versus having social impact), extraversion had little predictive
validity in comparison with agreeableness.
Certain strengths and limitations of the present research warrant comment.
Strengths include (a) the assessment of personality and of peer relations using
independent sets of respondents, (b) controlling for self-esteem when examining the major hypothesis, (c) using multiple indices of peer relations, and

246

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

(d) replicating the agreeablenessadjustment link across two independent

studies. Considered together, these features lend confidence to the conclusion
that agreeableness is important in childrens peer relations. Limitations of
the research include (a) the relations of agreeableness to peer acceptance and
friendship were investigated only with a concurrent design (Study 1); (b)
our acceptance measure involved sociometric nomination techniques rather
than rating-scale measures. Although our nomination measures for peer acceptance and friendship are valid for our research question, an aim of future
research may be to better evaluate the effect of agreeableness on friendship
based on the status of the childs overall acceptance (Bukowski & Hoza,
1989; Parker & Asher, 1993); (c) the small sample size of the second study;
(d) the low reliabilities of our measures. Although the low reliabilities may
attenuate the magnitude of our effects, it does not, however, explain our
overall pattern of results; and (e) the use of global undifferentiated assessment of victimization in the second study. Children can be victimized in
different ways (e.g., physical victimization vs. social ostracism; Crick, Casas, & Ku, 1999), and the role of agreeableness in victimization by peers
may depend on the nature of the victimization under study. Even given these
limitations, the outcomes here suggest that an approach that includes Agreeableness may be informative for understanding not only personality structure, but also childrens peer relations and adjustment.
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 129133.
Ahadi, S. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Temperament, development, and the Big Five. In
C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure
of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 189207). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Appelbaum, M. I., & McCall, R. B. (1983). Design and analysis in developmental psychology.
In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & W. Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. History, theory, and methods (pp. 415476). New York: Wiley.
Aronson, E., & Worchel, P. (1966). Similarity versus liking as determinants of interpersonal
attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 5, 157158.
Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and
peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140153.
Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurement of personality constructs. In D. M.
Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions
(pp. 246260). New York: Springer.
Briggs, S. R. (1992). Assessing the five-factor model of personality description. Journal of
Personality, 60, 253294.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues, in theory, measure-

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

247

ment, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child
development (pp. 1545). New York: Wiley.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42,
459491.
Campbell, S. D., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (1994, August). Computers as
tools for personality research: Probing the five-factor model of personality. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) &
N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and
personality development (5th ed., pp. 311388). New York: Wiley.
Cassidy, J., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child
Development, 63, 350365.
Condon. J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude
similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
789797.
Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-term
follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 438446.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Ku, H. (1999). Relational and physical forms of peer victimization
in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 35, 376385.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological
adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722.
Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1993). Childrens perceptions of their peer experiences: Attributions, loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. Developmental Psychology, 29,
244254.
Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making
the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 284290.
Digman, J. H., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116123.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis and comparison of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
16, 149170.
Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in
aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34, 9961006.
Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental
Psychology, 34, 299309.
Elphick, E., Halverson, C. F., & Marzal-Wisniewska, M. (1998). Extraversion: Toward a unifying description from infancy to adulthood. In G. A. Kohnstamm, C. F. Halverson, Jr.,
I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child personality? Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? (pp. 2148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Finch, J. F., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Predicting depression from temperament, personality
and patterns of social relations. Journal of Personality, 69, 2755.
Finch, J. F., Okun, M.A., Pool, G. J., & Ruehlman, L. S. (1999). A comparison of the influence
of social undermining and social support on psychological distress. Journal of Personality, 67(4), 581622.
Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations
with childrens reports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 10761086.

248

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642.
Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of agreeableness as a dimension of personality. In
C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure
of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 339354). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Graziano, W. G. (in press). Some surprising cross-cultural similarities in parents descriptions
of their children. Contemporary Psychology.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In S.
Briggs, R. Hogan, & W. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795
824). San Diego: Academic Press.
Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997a). Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 13941408.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Finch, J. F. (1997b). The self as a mediator
between personality and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
392404.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal
conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 820835.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Steele, R. G., & Hair, E. C. (1998a). Unknown
words in self-reported personality: Lethargic and provincial in Texas. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin. 24, 893905.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Sullivan-Logan, G. M. (1998b). Temperament,
activity and expectations for later personality development. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 12661277.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Todd, M., & Finch, J. F. (1997c). Interpersonal
attraction from an evolutionary psychology perspective. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick
(Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in adolescence: Personality and
adjustment during a developmental transition Journal of Personality, 60, 425440.
Hair, E. C., & Graziano, W. G. (1998, August). Stability of personality in adolescence from
middle to high school. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Halverson, C. F., Kohnstamm, D. & Martin, R. (Eds.) (1994). Development of the structure
of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Denver: Univ. of Denver.
Havill, V. L., Besevegis, E., & Mouroussaki, S. (1998). Agreeableness as a diachronic human
trait. In G. A. Kohnstamm, C. F. Halverson, Jr., I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.),
(1998). Parental descriptions of child personality? Developmental antecedents of the Big
Five? (pp. 4964). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Henington, C., Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Thompson, B. (1998). The role of relational
aggression in identifying aggressive boys and girls. Journal of School Psychology, 36,
457477.
Hodges, E. V. E, Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship:
Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology,
35, 94101.

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

249

Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., Jr., & Perry, D. G. (1995, March). Behavioral and social
antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. In N. R. Crick, Recent trends in
the study of peer victimization: Who is at risk and what are the consequences? Symposium
conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Indianapolis, IN.
Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., Jr., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social risk
as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology,
33, 10321039.
Hogan, R. T. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: PersonalityCurrent theory and research (pp. 5889). Lincoln,
NE: Univ. of Nebraska Press.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323362.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Personality and relationships
as moderators of interpersonal conflict in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42,
148164.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. (1991). The Big-Five InventoryVersions 4a and
54. Technical Report, Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents perceptions
of security in the child-mother relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457466.
Khatri, P., Kupersmidt, J., & Patterson, C. J. (1994, April). Aggression and peer victimization
as predictors of self-report of behavioral and emotional adjustment. Poster presentation
presented at the biennial meeting of the Conferences on Human Development, Pittsburgh,
PA.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of
school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 13051317.
Kohnstamm, G. A., Halverson, C. F., Jr., Mervielde, I., & Havill, V. L. (Eds.). (1998). Parental
descriptions of child personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships
in the development of disorder. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie, Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 274305). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Khatri, P. (1995, March). Peer victimization and aggression as predictors
of self-reported behavioral and emotional problems in adolescence. In N. R. Crick (Chair),
Recent trends in the study of peer victimization. Symposium conducted at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance,
friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to childrens school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 11811197.
Mayer, J. D. (1995). A framework for the classification of personality components. Journal
of Personality, 63, 819878.
Mayer, J. D., (1995). The system-topics framework and the structural arrangement of systems
within and around personality. Journal of Personality, 63, 459493.
Mayer, J. D. (1998). The systems framework: Reception, improvement, and implementation.
Psychological Inquiry, 9, 169179.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience.

250

JENSEN-CAMPBELL ET AL.

In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825847).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1992). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H.
Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood
(pp. 315341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low
accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357389.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood:
Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 611621.
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perceptions: The
interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality,
66, 10251060.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2000). Risk and protective factors in peer
victimization: A review and a new theory (submitted for publication).
Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and the development of antisocial
behavior. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 301329). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Robins, W. R., John, O. P, & Caspi, A. (1994). Major dimensions of personality in early
adolescence: The big five and beyond. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, R. P.
Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to
adulthood (pp. 267291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Biological processes in temperament. In G. Kohnstamm, J. Bates, &
M. K. Rothbart (Eds.) Temperament in childhood (pp. 77110). Chichester: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105176). New York: Wiley.
Rubin, K. A., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 619700). New York: Wiley.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the
five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.). The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical
perspectives. (pp. 2150). New York: Guilford.
Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. (1964). Interpersonal congruency, perceived similarity, and
friendship. Sociometry, 27, 115127.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization
in boys play groups. Child Development, 64, 17551772.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness,
neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 8898.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and
the anxiety disorders (pp. 681706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional

AGREEABLENESS AND VICTIMIZATION

251

experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656669.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness
of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17
68.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive
emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465490.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,
J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.) Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767794). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for understanding
and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.) Thinking
clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (pp. 89113). Minneapolis:
Univ. of Minnesota Press.
Wiggins, J. S., & Winder, C. L. (1961). The Peer Nomination Inventory: An empirically
derived sociometric measure of adjustment in preadolescent boys. Psychological Reports,
9, 643677.