Relational Aggression in Peer and Dating Relationships: Links to Psychological and Behavioral Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined the contribution of relational aggression in adolescents’ peer and dating relationships to their psychological and behavioral adjustment. In the Fall and again four months later, 1279 (646 female) grade 9 students reported on relational aggression perpetration and victimization in their romantic and peer relationships, depression/anxiety symptoms (psychological adjustment) and delinquency (behavioral adjustment). Using hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for Time 1 adjustment/behavior, peer relational aggression perpetration predicted depression/anxiety. Dating relational victimization also predicted depression/anxiety, but only for girls. Furthermore, girls who were perpetrators of relational aggression in both peer and dating contexts were most likely to show increases in delinquent behavior. We conclude that dating and peer relationships are not redundant, but make independent and additive contributions to adolescent adjustment. Girls, in particular, may be at greatest risk for poor outcomes when they have relationally aggressive relationships. Results also highlight the need for greater awareness of the complexity and significance of adolescent dating relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".