The role of norm salience in aggression socialization among friends: Distinctions between physical and relational aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Socialization among aggressive friends is believed to play a critical role in the development of aggressive behavior. This study examined the moderating effect of norm salience in the classroom on the association between reciprocal friends’ and children’s own physical, relational, and general aggression. A total of 713 children ( M = 10.32 years, SD = 0.99) in grades 4 to 6 completed a peer nomination inventory in the fall and spring of the same academic year. Norm salience was operationalized as the class- and sex-specific correlation between each form of aggression and social preference. Norm salience moderated relational aggression socialization among friends only for highly relationally aggressive girls. Specifically, socialization was exacerbated when norm salience was favorable and attenuated when norm salience was unfavorable, suggesting that highly relationally aggressive girls may possess skills allowing them to adapt to the social context in which they and their friends interact. In contrast, boys’ general aggression socialization was exacerbated when norm salience was neutral or unfavorable, suggesting that boys who affiliate with aggressive friends may be more susceptible to aggressive friends’ influence in general and especially in the context of potential peer rejection. No moderating effect of norm salience was found in regards to physical aggression socialization. Results suggest that interventions aimed at changing acceptability of aggression in the classroom may only be effective in specific subgroups of aggressive youth.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".