Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empirical test of bullies' status goals: assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige

Open access
Sijtsema, Jelle J., Veenstra, René, Lindenberg, Siegwart, Salmivalli, Christina·2009·Aggressive Behavior
DOI 10.1002/ab.20282
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The literature suggests that status goals are one of the driving motivations behind bullying behavior, yet this conjecture has rarely if ever been examined empirically. This study assessed status goals in three ways, using dyadic network analysis to analyze the relations and goals among 10–11 and 14–15 year olds in 22 school classes (N boys=225; N girls=277). As a validation bullies were contrasted with victims. Bullies had direct status goals (measured with the Interpersonal Goal Inventory for Children) and showed dominance as measured with proactive aggression. Moreover, as predicted from a goal perspective, bullying behavior was related to prestige in terms of perceived popularity. In contrast, victims lacked status goals, were only reactively aggressive, and low on prestige. That being popular is not the same as being liked could be shown by the fact that bullies were just as rejected as victims by their classmates. Eighth‐grade bullies had more direct status goals than fourth‐grade bullies, possibly indicating that striving for the popularity component of status increases in early adolescence. Aggr. Behav. 35:57–67, 2009. © 2008 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ab.20282

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C.
Venue
Aggressive Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-10-16
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
57-67
ISSN
  • 0096-140X (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2337
DOI
10.1002/ab.20282
OpenAlex
W1978228135
Cited by
395
References
61
FWCI
17.37
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.