Associations Between Self, Peer, and Teacher Reports of Victimization and Social Skills in School in Children With Language Disorders

Previous studies have shown that teachers and parents of children with language disorders report them to have higher victimization scores, a heightened risk of low-quality friendships and social difficulties, and may be more vulnerable to peer rejection than control peers. However, there are few studies of bullying in children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and reading difficulties (RD), and none has considered the mutual relationships between teacher reports, the perceptions of classmates, and children’s self-reports. We analyzed the experiences of bullying and peer relationships in primary school students with DLD and RD as compared to their age-matched peers using teacher reports, peer reports, and self-reports on victimization. Additionally, we explored how these three perspectives are associated. Results indicated lower levels of peer-rated prosocial skills in DLD and RD students compared to their peers, as well as higher levels of victimization as assessed by peers for students with DLD. In the same line, the teachers’ ratings showed that students with DLD presented poorer social skills, less adaptability, and more withdrawal in social interaction. Contrastingly, self-reports informed of similar rates of interpersonal relationships, social stress, and peer victimization between the three groups. Consequently, we found significant correlations between measures of peer reports and teacher reports that contrasted with the lack of correlations between self and other agents’ reports. These findings stress the importance of using self-reports, peer reports, and teacher reports at the same time to detect bullying situations that might go unnoticed.

A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and risks with the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements

The mainstream publishing establishment is under attack from multiple known and unknown forces. This is neither hyperbole nor fantasy. Many academics may believe that the main threat lies with “predatory” journals or publishers, but this is not necessarily the case because such entities are not always easy to distinguish clearly from veritable scholarly journals or publishers. Moreover, there is a gray zone that may involve both predatory and exploitative qualities. Current submission systems are not fail-safe because they allow unscholarly or fraudulent elements to register and abuse them, for example for submitting fake research or falsified peer reports, while author identification tools like ORCID are imperfect and provide a platform for similar-minded individuals to “validate” themselves. This toxic mix of tools aimed at fortifying integrity, while allowing fake authors to breed, currently without many, or any, ethical or legal repercussions will rapidly erode the entire publishing landscape if serious legal action is not taken. The creation of fake papers by fake authors will eventually trickle down into valid literature, by virtue of the fact that cited literature cannot be thoroughly vetted, even in peer review. The integrity of valid scholarly venues is thus at high risk unless suitable, strict and ethically and legally enforceable preventative measures are implemented.

I enjoy hurting my classmates: On the relation of boredom and sadism in schools

Schools can be a place of both love and of cruelty. We examine one particular type of cruelty that occurs in the school context: sadism, that is, harming others for pleasure. Primarily, we propose and test whether boredom plays a crucial role in the emergence of sadistic actions at school. In two well-powered studies (total N = 1,038) using both self- and peer-reports, we first document that sadistic behavior occurs at school, although at a low level. We further show that those students who are more often bored at school are more likely to engage in sadistic actions. Overall, the present work contributes to a better understanding of sadism in schools and points to boredom as one potential motivator. We discuss implications for research on sadism and boredom, in the school context and beyond.

When thinking you are better leads to feeling worse: Self-other asymmetries in prosocial behavior and increased anxiety during the Covid-19 pandemic

Thinking one is better than peers is generally associated with positive psychological outcomes like increased self-esteem and resilience. However, this tendency may be problematic in the context of collective action problems, wherein individuals are reliant on others' prosocial behaviors to achieve larger goals. We examined this question in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and recruited participants (n = 1022) from a university community in Spring 2020. We found evidence for a self-peer asymmetry, such that participants reported that they were doing more to stop the spread of the disease and were more prosocially motivated than peers. Actual peer reports indicated that these were overestimations. This self-enhancement tendency comes with a cost: the perceived self-peer asymmetry mediated the relationship between Covid-specific worry and general anxiety during the early lockdown period. This indicates that while believing one is doing more than others may be maladaptive in collective action problems.

Prospective Associations between Popularity, Victimization, and Aggression in Early Adolescence

Recent research has highlighted an understudied phenomenon in the peer victimization literature thus far: the overlap between high status (i.e., popularity) and victimization. However, the research on this phenomenon has primarily been cross-sectional. The current investigation uses a longitudinal design to address two questions related to high-status victims. First, the present study examined prospective associations between popularity and two forms of indirect victimization (reputational victimization and exclusion). Second, this study examined elevated aggression as a consequence of high-status youth’s victimization (using self- and peer- reports of victimization). Participants were 370 adolescents (Mage = 14.44, range = 14.00–16.00; 56.5% girls) who were followed for 1 year. Both high and low levels of popularity were prospectively associated with reputational victimization. Moreover, popularity moderated the association between self-reported indirect victimization (but not peer-reported indirect victimization) and aggression. The results help build toward a more comprehensive understanding of both victimization and aggression in adolescence. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for a cycle of aggression in youth and the lowered effectiveness of bullying interventions in adolescence.

Toward Training and Assessing Reproducible Data Analysis in Data Science Education

Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific research. Data science is not an exception. In recent years scientists were concerned about a large number of irreproducible studies. Such reproducibility crisis in science could severely undermine public trust in science and science-based public policy. Recent efforts to promote reproducible research mainly focused on matured scientists and much less on student training. In this study, we conducted action research on students in data science to evaluate to what extent students are ready for communicating reproducible data analysis. The results show that although two-thirds of the students claimed they were able to reproduce results in peer reports, only one-third of reports provided all necessary information for replication. The actual replication results also include conflicting claims; some lacked comparisons of original and replication results, indicating that some students did not share a consistent understanding of what reproducibility means and how to report replication results. The findings suggest that more training is needed to help data science students communicating reproducible data analysis.

Allocation of attention to scenes of peer harassment: Visual–cognitive moderators of the link between peer victimization and aggression

As approximately one-third of peer-victimized children evidence heightened aggression (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001), it is imperative to identify the circumstances under which victimization and aggression co-develop. The current study explored two potential moderators of victimization–aggression linkages: (a) attentional bias toward cues signaling threat and (b) attentional bais toward cues communicating interpersonal support. Seventy-two fifth- and sixth-grade children (34 boys; Mage = 11.67) were eye tracked while watching video clips of bullying. Each scene included a bully, a victim, a reinforcer, and a defender. Children's victimization was measured using peer, parent, and teacher reports. Aggression was measured using peer reports of overt and relational aggression and teacher reports of aggression. Victimization was associated with greater aggression at high levels of attention to the bully. Victimization was also associated with greater aggression at low attention to the defender for boys, but at high attention to the defender for girls. Attention to the victim was negatively correlated with aggression regardless of victimization history. Thus, attentional biases to social cues integral to the bullying context differentiate whether victimization is linked to aggression, necessitating future research on the development of these biases and concurrent trajectories of sociobehavioral development.

To Whom Do We Confide Our Secrets?

Although prior work has examined secret keeping, no prior work has examined who gets told secrets. Five studies find compassion and assertiveness predict having secrets confided in oneself (as determined by both self- and peer reports), whereas enthusiasm and politeness were associated with having fewer secrets confided. These results bolster suggestions that interpersonal aspects of personality (which can fit a circumplex structure) are driven by distinct causal forces. While both related to agreeableness, compassion (empathy and desire to help) predicts being confided in more, whereas politeness (concern with social norms and social rules) predicts being confided in less. Likewise, while both related to extraversion, assertiveness (having the agency and drive to help) predicts being confided in more, whereas enthusiasm (positive sociality) predicts being confided in less.

Genetic and environmental influences on sociopolitical attitudes

A new paradigm has emerged in which both genetic and environmental factors are cited as possible influences on sociopolitical attitudes. Despite the increasing acceptance of this paradigm, several aspects of the approach remain underdeveloped. Specifically, limitations arise from a reliance on a twins-only design, and all previous studies have used self-reports only. There are also questions about the extent to which existing findings generalize cross-culturally. To address those issues, this study examined individual differences in liberalism/conservatism in a German sample that included twins, their parents, and their spouses and incorporated both self- and peer reports. The self-report findings from this extended twin family design were largely consistent with previous research that used that rater perspective, but they provided higher estimates of heritability, shared parental environmental influences, assortative mating, and genotype-environment correlation than the results from peer reports. The implications of these findings for the measurement and understanding of sociopolitical attitudes are explored.