Relations between close friendships and adolescent aggression: Structural and behavioral friendship features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Friendships have the potential to perpetuate or mitigate youth's aggressive behavior. We investigated concurrent and longitudinal effects of friendships on aggression by examining both structural (size and interconnectedness of the local friendship network) and behavioral (friends' aggression) friendship features. Participants were 868 sixth to eighth grade middle‐school students (M = 12.10 years; 49.9% girls; 44% Latina/o) who completed questionnaires at two time points. Participants nominated their friends; reciprocal friendship nominations were used to calculate structural friendship group features (size and interconnectedness). Peer nominations were also used to measure youth's and their friends' aggression. Having more reciprocal friends was associated with more aggression concurrently (particularly for youth whose friends were highly aggressive), and having an interconnected friendship group was associated with decreased aggression over time. Given that findings were different for group size and interconnectedness, we discuss the unique importance of each of these structural friendship features. Practical implications regarding the potential to decrease aggressive behavior based on specific friendship features are also discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".