Social-Psychological Profiles of Early Adolescents Involved in Bullying Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the differences existing between sub-groups of early adolescents involved in bullying activities at school. Specifically, the study aimed at comparing three identified groups (bullies, passive victims and aggressive victims or bully-victims) as well as uninvolved students in terms of a number of indicators of psycho-social adjustment; namely, empathy, impulsivity, hyperactivity, emotional and behavioral problems and pro-social skills. A representative sample of 454 Greek Cypriot students (mean age of 13.4) was selected from seven different public high schools. The participants completed a revised version of the Bullying and Victimization Questionnaire and based on their scores they were classified into one of four, mutually exclusive categories, those of bullies, victims, aggressive victims, and uninvolved. These groups were then compared regarding their mean scores on the Basic Empathy Scale, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the Urgency Subscale. Multiple post-hoc comparisons revealed that the aggressive victims group had the most problematic psycho-social profile. Specifically, aggressive victims were significantly more impulsive, less affectively empathic, and had lower prosocial skills, more behavioural problems and more hyperactivity. The results of the present study show that children and adolescents diagnosed as aggressive victims are at higher risk in a number of psychopathological characteristics that endanger typical development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".