↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Risk-taking Behavior in Bullies, Victims, and Bully Victims Using Cognitive- and Emotion-Focused Approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Understanding Risk-taking Behavior in Bullies, Victims, and Bully Victims Using Cognitive- and Emotion-Focused Approaches
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01838
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kean Poon

Abstract

Bullying and risky behavior are two common problems among adolescents and can strongly affect a youth's overall functioning when both coexist. Some studies suggest that bullying in adolescence may promote risky behavior as a coping strategy to deal with victimization related stress. Other studies consider bullying as an outcome of high-risk behavior. Despite the association between the two is well-established, no study has examined the risk-taking patterns among bullying groups (i.e., bully, victim, and bully victim). This study attempted to elucidate the potential relationships between bullying and risk-taking by addressing the two models: a cognitive-focused model and an emotion-focused model of risk taking, and to clarify how adolescents' characteristics in risk taking associate with bullying outcomes. Method: 136 Chinese adolescents (Mean Age = 14.5, M = 65, F = 71) were recruited and grouped according to bullying identity: Bully (n = 27), Victim (n = 20), Bully victim (n = 37) and Control (n = 52). Cognitive Appraisal of Risky Events (CARE) questionnaire was used to measure participants' expectancies about the risks, benefits and involvement associated with risky activities. Cambridge Gambling Task (CGT) was administered to capture the emotion-laden process in risk taking. Results: Cognitively, Bully was associated with an overestimation of risk while Victim was associated with an underestimation of risk and overrated benefit. Bully victim exhibited a unique pattern with an overestimation of benefit and risk. All study groups projected higher involvement in risky behavior. Behaviorally, both Bully and Bully victim were associated with high risk modulation whereas Victim was associated with impulsive decision-making. Interestingly, compared with bully, bully victim had significantly higher bullying scores, suggesting a wider range and more frequent bullying activities. In conclusion, Bully maybe a group of adolescents that is vigilant in situational deliberation and risk modulation while Victims with high impulsivity, are more likely to place themselves in risky situations. Bully victims presented the combined pattern of the two pure groups and associated with the highest risk-taking propensity. Better picture of risk taking pattern associated with different groups was illustrated, allowing better matching for future prevention and intervention program for distinct bullying individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 125 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Unspecified 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 31 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 33%
Unspecified 20 16%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Computer Science 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 34 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 24 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,214,609
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,544
of 34,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,815
of 419,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#33
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 419,377 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.