Trajectories of childhood bullying behaviors and conduct problems: Associations with cognitive functioning in a nationally representative cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bullying behaviors and conduct problems are two forms of antisocial behavior that frequently co-occur in childhood. However, it remains unclear whether their developmental trajectories are distinct and the extent to which different aspects of cognitive functioning account for their development. We aimed to disentangle the developmental trajectories of bullying behaviors and conduct problems, test their interrelations across childhood, and assess associations with children's early cognitive functioning (executive functions, intelligent quotient [IQ], and theory of mind). Participants included 2,232 children from the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study. We performed dual group-based trajectory modeling on combined parent and teacher reports of children's bullying behaviors and conduct problems at 5, 7, 10, and 12 years. We assessed associations with age 5 cognitive functioning using regression analyses. We identified five developmental trajectories for bullying behaviors and four for conduct problems. The developmental course of both behaviors was interrelated most strongly among those with high levels. A subgroup of children was likely to transition from conduct problems to bullying behaviors as they got older. Lower IQ was associated with both antisocial behavior trajectories, whereas lower theory of mind was only associated with conduct problems trajectories. The developmental course of bullying behaviors and conduct problems is distinct but linked across childhood. Interventions targeting bullying behaviors or conduct problems could benefit from more integration and should take into account children's cognitive functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".