Aggression and social status: the moderating roles of sex and peer‐valued characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research on peer rejection has long emphasized links between aggressive behavior and peer liking, with aggressive children and adolescents being more rejected by peers. However, recent research shows that at least some aggressive students enjoy considerable power and influence and are perceived as “popular” within the peer group. To understand the processes underlying links between aggression and social status, the present research considered three distinct indices of social status (social preference, perceived popularity, and power) and investigated the degree to which the possession of peer‐valued characteristics moderated the links between status and aggression and whether these links varied by sex. A sample of 585 adolescents (grades 6–10) completed peer evaluation measures assessing social status, aggression (overt/physical, indirect/relational), and the degree to which peers possessed eight different peer‐valued characteristics (e.g., attractiveness, athleticism, etc.). Although sociometric indices of status were significantly related to perceived popularity, especially for boys, perceptions of power were more strongly linked to perceived popularity than to sociometric likeability. Moreover, the three indices of social status were differentially related to peers' assessments of aggression and to peer‐valued characteristics, with notable sex differences. As predicted, regression analyses demonstrated that the observed relationships between social status and aggression were moderated by the possession of peer‐valued characteristics; aggressive students who possessed peer‐valued characteristics enjoyed higher levels of perceived popularity and power and less disliking than those who did not. This relationship varied as a function of sex, the type of aggression considered, and the status construct predicted. Aggr. Behav. 32:396–408, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".