1/12/2023 0 Comments Aggressive typist![]() The findings are aligned with contemporary research on personality development stressing greater stability after the period of adolescence. Older participants exhibit higher levels of general aggression as well as all four aggression types (also in a cohort design). The results show significant cross-sectional differences in the level of aggression. We used the LA aggression scale (general trait aggression and four factors: physical aggression, verbal aggression, internal aggression and aggression towards authority) as a measure of aggression in two age groups, 10-year-olds (n = 4,351) and 14-year-olds (n = 4,043), at two time points (in 2007 and in 2011). The authors focus on specific subtypes of aggression relevant for the Slovenian context and for the development period. ![]() Additionally the authors present the time trends from measurement of aggression and its subtypes at two time points. The present study investigated age differences in trait aggression in the period of late childhood and early adolescence that are important for assessment of the aggression levels that are not in line with expected developmental trends and are in need of intervention. Knowing these differences, we can direct our efforts at developingįocused intervention programs for all children involved in bullying behavior. We can conclude that there are majorĭifferences in individual characteristics as well as in multiple contexts between children with aĭifferent bullying status. Neighborhood as the most dangerous by the victims it was perceived as less dangerous, andįor noninvolved children as the least dangerous. Neighborhood, we found statistically significant differences. Negative, and for noninvolved children it was positive. School grades than victims and they also feel more safety in school than victims and bullies.įor bullies, the school climate was perceived as the most negative, for victims it was less In the schoolĬontext, all measured variables were statistically significant. The difference in the number of friends was not statistically significant. Most accepted by peers, bullies were a little less accepted and victims were the least acceptedīy peers. One statistically significant variable peer acceptance where noninvolved children were the The parents’ positiveĭiscipline and permissiveness were not statistically significant. Bullies also had parents who gave them less autonomyĪnd less supervision than parents of victims and noninvolved children. Psychological control in raising their children and showed less acceptance of their children Bullies and victims had parents who used more negative discipline and In family context, especially on parents’ behavior, we also found statistically However, there were no statistically significant differences in sex and age between these three Media, where bullies had more time spent on media than victims and noninvolved children. Had higher levels of impulsivity than victims and noninvolved children, and time spent on Had lower levels of empathy than victims and noninvolved children, impulsivity, where bullies On individualĬharacteristics there were statistically significant differences in empathy level, where bullies Suggested statistically significant differences between bullies, victims and noninvolvedĬhildren for individual characteristics and all aforementioned contexts. Used the one way ANOVA for independent samples. For testing the differences between groups we In the investigation during one school semester. ![]() A total of 880 primary school children (10 to 16 years old) participated The aim of this study was to investigate differences between individualĬharacteristics, family, peer, school and neighborhood contexts of victims, bullies and This study examined an ecological perspective on bullyingīehaviors. Inhibited as a result of the complex relationships between the individual, family, peer group, Takes account of reciprocal interplay between individuals involved in the bully/victimĬontinuum and his complex contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 Espelage & Swearer, 2004 One of the most investigated approaches is the social-ecological perspective which Years, studies on bullying have focused on different integrative approaches of this complex Or cyberbullying Espelage & Swearer, 2004 Olweus, 1993 Rigby, 2002). Subtle or indirect in nature (e.g., rumor-spreading, social exclusion, friendship manipulation, Bullyingīehaviors may be direct or overt (e.g., hitting, kicking, name-calling, or taunting) or more Of power or strength between the two parties (Nansel et al., 2001 Olweus, 1993). Bullying is commonly defined as repeated aggressive behavior in which there is an imbalance
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |