The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empathy and conflict resolution in friendship relations among adolescents
Open accessAbstract
The present study addressed empathy's role in conflict resolution within the context of adolescent same‐sex friendship relations. Self‐report questionnaires were used to assess dispositional affective empathy and conflict resolution styles (problem solving, conflict engagement, withdrawal and compliance). The data of 307 adolescents (149 boys, 158 girls) were included in a multigroup path analysis with sex as a moderator variable. In agreement with the hypothesis that higher levels of dispositional empathy are associated with more successful conflict management, dispositional affective empathy was found to be positively linked to problem solving and negatively linked to conflict engagement among adolescent boys and girls. Dispositional affective empathy was not related to the two more passive strategies (withdrawal and compliance). Sex differences were demonstrated in empathic tendencies, with girls being more empathic than boys. Sex differences were also established in conflict resolution strategies, with girls using problem solving, withdrawal and compliance more frequently than boys. Both sexes scored equally low on conflict engagement, however, and were found to prefer problem solving to all other conflict resolution strategies. Findings are discussed in terms of previous research on empathy and conflict resolution. Aggr. Behav. 33:48–55, 2007. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss; Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Davis, M. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · Cited by 10,272
The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91 · Cited by 2,672
Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic review.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.306 · Cited by 869
A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution
Laursen, B., Finkelstein, B. D., & Betts, N. T. (2001) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1006/drev.2000.0531 · Cited by 263 · cited 4×
“Furthermore, meta-analytic studies [Laursen, 1993 cited in Laursen, 1996; Laursen et al., 2001] evidence developmental differences in peer conflict resolution strategies, with successively higher levels of constructive strategies and lower levels of coercive strategies across childhood, adolescence and young adulthood.”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Cited by
Martel, M. M. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0032247 · Cited by 326
Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view
Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861 · Cited by 314
Allemand, M., Steiger, A. E., & Fend, H. A. (2015) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12098 · Cited by 270
Boele, S., Van der Graaff, J., de Wied, M., Van der Valk, I. E., Crocetti, E., & Branje, S. (2019) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5 · Cited by 216
Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents
Stanley, M. L., Sinclair, A. H., & Seli, P. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12566 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- de Wied, M., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J.
- Venue
- Aggressive Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-55
- ISSN
- 0096-140X (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2337
- OpenAlex
- W2085505329
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
