Dwelling on it may make it worse: The links between relational victimization, relational aggression, rumination, and depressive symptoms in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is considerable evidence that relational victimization is associated with depressive symptoms in youth, our understanding about the mechanisms by which victimization and depressive symptoms are linked is limited. The current study explored ruminating about victimization experiences as a potential mechanism that might contribute to an understanding of the association between relational victimization and depressive symptoms. We also tested the specificity of the proposed models by controlling for and testing parallel models of a highly related behavior: relational aggression. A sample of 499 adolescents from sixth through eighth grades participated. Teacher reports were used to assess relational victimization and relational aggression. Self-reports were used to assess depressive symptoms and rumination. The results showed that rumination partially mediated the association between relational victimization and depressive symptoms. No moderation effect was found. In contrast, rumination moderated the association between relational aggression and depressive symptoms. Specifically, relational aggression was associated with depressive symptoms for those adolescents who were also ruminators. Thus, ruminating about victimization experiences appears to be an important mechanism that functions differently for relational aggression and relational victimization in conferring risk for depressive symptoms. The findings offer important practical implications for those working with adolescents and also lay the groundwork for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".