Physical and relational aggression as predictors of children's friendship experiences: Examining the moderating role of preference norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggressive behavior is generally detrimental to children's friendships, both in terms of having friends and in terms of keeping friends. Despite this general tendency, many aggressive children have friends and some of these friendships are stable. We examined the moderating role of preference norms in the classroom and child's sex in the association between children's physical and relational aggression and their friendship experiences. A total of 1135 children (M = 10.24 years, SD = 1.01) in Grades 4 to 6 completed a peer nomination inventory in the Fall (T1) and Spring (T2) of the same school year. Norms were operationalized as the class- and sex-specific correlation between physical or relational aggression and social preference. Norms moderated associations between each form of aggression and number of friends. At T1, physical and relational aggression were concurrently associated with having more friends when norms favored this behavior and with fewer friends when norms were unfavorable. The latter effect was especially pronounced in girls. Over time, youth lost friends when norms favored physical aggression and gained friends when norms favored relational aggression. T1 friends' physical and relational aggression were strong predictors of new friends' aggressive behavior, suggesting that friends provide a type of norm more significant to new friend selection than norms of the peer group and individual aggressive behavior. Overall, our results suggest that physical and relational aggression are not necessarily detrimental to children's friendship experiences and may even be beneficial in specific social contexts.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".