Bullying in High School Youth: Relationships with Trait Emotional Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous research has found trait emotional intelligence (TEI) to be a moderate predictor of bullying behaviors in adolescents, this work has limited generalizability. The current study is the first to use a multidimensional approach to both TEI and bullying behaviors when looking at their relationship in high school students. The study employed two samples: 1,517 adolescents from three high schools in central Ontario, Canada and a subset of 35 bullies and 35 non-bullies from another school in the same region. Participants in both samples completed the Youth Version of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi:YV). In addition, the first sample completed the Bully-Victim Questionnaire, which measures four types of bullying behavior: social, physical, verbal, and electronic. TEI was found to be a significant negative predictor for all types of bullying behaviors. In addition, being a male adolescent and having low interpersonal and stress management scores were the strongest predictors of bullying behaviors. Overall, bullies were found to have significantly lower TEI scores across all dimensions. Based on the findings, TEI should be considered as an addition to current anti-bullying programing.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".