Adolescents’ Reasoning about Unambiguous Peer Harm: Variations Across Relationship Contexts and Types of Harm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examined variations across relationship contexts and types of transgressions in adolescents’ reasoning about unambiguous peer harm at school. A total of 141 Canadian and American adolescents (73 girls, 67 boys, 1 other) ranging from ages 14 to 17 years (M = 15.74 SD = 1.06) responded to four online vignettes depicting psychological or material unambiguous harms committed by a good friend or a peer they did not know. Overall, when the perpetrator was a good friend, youths evaluated the harm as more bad and reported feeling more hurt and sad, but also made more benign attributions and endorsed more restorative responses, as well as more learning and relationship-oriented goals. These findings suggest that even in the face of unambiguous transgressions, youth still found ways to mitigate their friends’ culpability by interpreting their behavior through a more generous lens. Conversely, when the perpetrator was a neutral peer, youths interpreted their behavior as more hostile and endorsed more punitive strategies and justice goals. Regarding situational features of harm, youths judged material harms to have more serious consequences than psychological harms and reported stronger emotional responses to them; youth also interpreted material harms as more hostile and less benign and endorsed more punitive responses. Finally, youth also endorsed more revenge, justice, and learning goals in response to material harms, and more relationship-oriented goals following psychological harms. Overall, this study adds to the literature by examining how youths’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral judgments are informed by socio-contextual features of harm. Ultimately, the more forgiving pattern observed with good friends can inform processes to address peer harm in schools in more peaceful and restorative ways.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".