Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims

Open access
Camodeca, Marina, Goossens, Frits A.·2005·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The present study aimed to investigate children's social information processing (SIP) and emotions in the bullying situation, taking into account reactive and proactive aggression. More specifically, we investigated the way in which children interpret social information, which goals they select, how they evaluate their responses and which emotions they express in hypothetical situations. Method: The participants comprised 242 Dutch children (120 girls and 122 boys; mean age: 117.2 months), who were assigned by means of peer nominations () to one of the following roles: bully ( n = 21), follower of the bully ( n = 38), victim ( n = 35), defender of the victim ( n = 48), outsider ( n = 52) and not involved ( n = 32). Sixteen children (including 3 bully/victims) were not given any role. The reactive and proactive aggression scale () was filled out by teachers in order to test the association between these types of aggression and involvement in bullying. Children were presented with ambiguous scenarios and responded to questions about attribution of intent, goal selection and emotions (anger and sadness). In addition, two questionnaires were administered to children: one assessed perceived self‐efficacy in performing aggression, inhibiting aggression and using verbal persuasion skills, and the other assessed expected outcomes from behaving aggressively or prosocially. Results: Results showed that while reactive aggression was common in bullies and victims, proactive aggression was only characteristic of bullies. Both bullies and victims, compared to the other children, scored higher on hostile interpretation, anger, retaliation and ease of aggression. Bullies and followers claimed that it was easy for them to use verbal persuasion, while victims turned out to be the saddest group. All children, irrespective of their role in the peer group, thought that aggressive as well as prosocial behavior was more likely to produce desired results from a friendly peer than from an aggressive one. Conclusions: Bullies and victims seem to be similar in reactive aggression, SIP, and in the expression of anger, but the motivations which lead to their behavior may be different, as well as the final outcomes of their acts.

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 · 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x

Cites

5 of 5 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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 412

Metadata

Authors
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A.
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09-07
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
186-197
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2143935783
Cited by
412
References
5
FWCI
9.47
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x
The paper
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x

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.