Moral Disengagement, Attitudes Towards Violence and Irrational Beliefs as Predictors of Bullying Cognition in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the causes of bullying behavior, the situations caused by it and its impact area, the formation of bullying in the cognitive dimension draws attention. In this context, examination of thoughts or cognition about bullying becomes an important element in explaining bullying. In this study, it is aimed to examine moral disengagement tendencies, attitudes towards violence and irrational beliefs as predictors of bullying cognition of adolescents between the ages of 15-18. Study group consisted of 369 individuals, 197 females and 172 males. Bullying Cognition Scale, Moral Disengagement Scale, Attitude Towards Violence Scale and Irrational Beliefs Scale for adolescents were applied to participants. The data obtained were tested by hierarchical regression analysis. Moral disengagement tendency, attitudes towards violence and irrational beliefs (demands for success and for comfort sub-dimensions) predicted cognition about bullying significantly. It was determined as a result of hierarchical regression analysis that these variables predicted bullying cognition both separately and together. At the end of the study, suggestions for the studies to be carried out for bullying, which would be handled within the scope of cognitive structure, were presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".