Group Identification in Early Adolescence: Its Relation with Peer Adjustment and Its Moderator Effect on Peer Influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to test whether group identification (importance of the group to the individual) covaried with individual-group similarity on problem behavior; and whether group identification moderated peer group influence on the individual's development of delinquent behavior across a 1-year period. The level of reciprocated nominations within the individual's self-nominated group was controlled for in all analyses. Participants were 190 sixth and seventh graders (during the first year of the study) from the north of Italy. Level of reciprocated nominations within the group, but not identification, was found to covary with individual-group behavioral similarity (group behavior interacted with reciprocity of group nominations in predicting individual behavior). Group identification, but not reciprocated nominations, was found to moderate peer group influence on the individual's change in delinquent behavior, across 1 year. The individual's peer status within the classroom, level of reciprocated nominations, and gender all were related to the individual's level of group identification. Results are discussed in terms of understanding peer group influence on the individual.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".