↓ Skip to main content

Forms of aggression, peer relationships, and relational victimization among Chinese adolescent girls and boys: roles of prosocial behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Forms of aggression, peer relationships, and relational victimization among Chinese adolescent girls and boys: roles of prosocial behavior
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shujun Wang, Wei Zhang, Dongping Li, Chengfu Yu, Shuangju Zhen, Shihua Huang

Abstract

Through a sample of 686 Chinese adolescents (mean age = 13.73 years; 50% girls), we examined the compensatory and moderating effects of prosocial behavior on the direct and indirect associations between forms of aggression and relational victimization mediated by peer relationships among adolescent girls and boys. The results indicated that only adolescent girls' relationally aggressive behaviors could be directly linked with their experiences of relational victimization, and both relationally and overtly aggressive adolescent boys and girls might be more often rejected by their peers, which, in turn, could make them targets of relational aggression. Next, we found that prosocial behavior indirectly counteracts the effects of aggression on relational victimization through reducing adolescents' peer rejection and promoting adolescents' peer attachment. In addition, relationally aggressive girls with high levels of prosocial behavior might be less rejected by peers; however, they might also have lower levels of peer attachment and be more likely to experience relational victimization. Last, adolescent boys scored higher on risks, but lower on the protective factors of relational victimization than girls, which, to some degree, might explain the gender difference in relational victimization. Finally, we discussed the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Lecturer 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 43%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,423,683
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,155
of 29,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,960
of 266,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#457
of 554 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 554 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.