Cooperative versus Coercive Social Power in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two fundamental forms of social power: cooperative (where individuals mutually benefit) and coercive (where the more powerful gains at the expense of the other). Each is composed of two separate aspects: power holding (e.g., being popular) and power-enhancing(e.g., using force). Research has generally studied these two forms of social power in a single measure and without consideration of their combined effect nor examined their combined influence or associations with peer reactions. We therefore used a measure that captured both aspects and forms of adolescent social power as well as to determine their associations with positive and aggressive peer responses. Based on a sample of 559 adolescents, our confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that adolescents viewed each form of social power as being distinct from each other and composed of both power-holding and power-enhancing aspects. We then ran structural equation models that showed cooperative social power was associated with numerous positive peer responses (e.g., friendship, respect) while coercive social power was associated with fewer positive peer responses (e.g., attractiveness, support in a conflict) as well as more aggressive peer responses (e.g., bullying and victimization). Our longitudinal data (collected 6 months later) showed even clearer separation of these associations of these two forms of social power. Overall, our results suggest that researchers should use measures that capture both aspects of social power and that each form of social power has a distinct pattern of associations with peer responses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".