4.5 Article

A Social Network Approach to the Interplay Between Adolescents' Bullying and Likeability over Time

期刊

JOURNAL OF YOUTH AND ADOLESCENCE
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 1409-1420

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10964-014-0129-4

关键词

Bullying; Social status; Social network analysis; Longitudinal; Peer relationships

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our knowledge on adolescents' bullying behavior has rapidly increased over the past decade and it is widely recognized that bullying is a group process and, consequently, context-dependent. Only since recently, though, researchers have had access to statistical programs to study these group processes appropriately. The current 1-year longitudinal study examined the interplay between adolescents' bullying and likeability from a social network perspective. Data came from the evaluation of the Finnish KiVa antibullying program, consisting of students in grades 7-9 (N = 9,183, M age at wave 1 = 13.96 years; 49.2 % boys; M classroom size = 19.47) from 37 intervention and 30 control schools. Perceived popularity, gender, and structural network effects were additionally controlled. Longitudinal social network analysis with SIENA revealed that, overall, the higher the students' level of bullying, the less they were liked by their peers. Second, students liked peers with similar levels of bullying and this selection-similarity effect was stronger at low levels of bullying. This selection effect held after controlling for selection-similarity in perceived popularity and gender. Third, students were likely to increase in bullying when they liked peers high on bullying and to decrease in bullying when they liked peers low on bullying. Again, this influence effect held after controlling for the effects of perceived popularity and gender on changes in bullying behavior. No significant differences between control and intervention schools appeared in the effects. The results are discussed in light of their theoretical and methodological implications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据