| Title |
Clueless or Powerful? Identifying Subtypes of Bullies in Adolescence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margot Peeters, Antonius H. N. Cillessen, Ron H. J. Scholte |
| Abstract |
This study examined the heterogeneity of bullying among adolescents. It was hypothesized that bullying behavior serves different social functions and, depending on these functions, bullies will differ in their skills, status and social behavior. In a total sample of 806 8th graders, 120 adolescents (52 boys, 68 girls) were identified as bullies based on peer nominations. An additional group of 50 adolescents (25 boys, 25 girls) served as the non-bully comparison group. Cluster analysis revealed three corresponding bully subtypes for boys and girls: a popular-socially intelligent group, a popular moderate group, and an unpopular-less socially intelligent group. Follow-up analyses showed that the clusters differed significantly from each other in physical and verbal aggression, leadership, network centrality, peer rejection, and self-perceptions of bullying. The results confirm the heterogeneous nature of bullies and the complex nature of bullying in the adolescent peer group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 57 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 25 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,675,324
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#339
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,338
of 184,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Youth and Adolescence
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 184,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.