Children's social cognitions: Physically and relationally aggressive strategies and children's goals in peer conflict situations.

By Kendra Delveaux, T. Daniels. 2000

87 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f64f4b4c38e68424caa8a05d7f71ecdee13c2c0c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. T. Little
2. P. Hawley
3. L. Hill
4. Nicole E. Werner
5. Amy M. Young
6. Stephanie M. Jones
7. C. Boyd
8. J. Brauner

Citations in the corpus

• Affiliative motivation, school attachment, and aggression in school (2006, background): “Conversely, children who endorsed relationship goals in hypothetical situations were less likely to select aggressive strategies to obtain their goals than children who endorsed self-interested or vengeful goals (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000).”
• We're not friends anymore! unless... : The frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression (2006, result): “Relational aggression has also been found to occur more frequently in girls than boys [Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Crick et al., 1997], although some studies have found no sex difference [Deveaux and Daniels, 2000; Hart et al., 1998; Henington et al., 1998].”
• Explaining Girls’ Advantage in Kindergarten Literacy Learning: Do Classroom Behaviors Make a Difference? (2005, background): “In conflicts, fourth-grade boys reported greater self-interest and more interest in revenge than did girls (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000).”
• Relational Aggression at School: Associations with School Safety and Social Climate (2008, result): “Results have been mixed as to whether girls are more relationally aggressive than boys, with some studies reporting that girls are more relationally aggressive, some studies reporting that boys are more relationally aggressive, and still others finding no gender differences (e.g., Crick and Grotpete”
• The Relevance of the Social Information Processing Model for Understanding Relational Aggression in Girls (2005, background): “…of the model and overtly aggressive behavior, particularly in boys (Crick & Dodge, 1996), only a handful of studies have examined the SIP steps as they apply to relationally aggressive boys and girls (Crick, 1995; Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002; Crick & Werner, 1998; Delveaux & Daniels, 2000).”
• Effects of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children's goals, attributions, and behavior (2005, background): “Indeed, a preference for relationship maintenance goals is associated with a preference for prosocial strategies to resolve conflict, whereas self-interested, controlling, and retaliatory goals are linked to hostile or aggressive strategies (Chung & Asher, 1996; Delveaux & Daniels, 2000).”
• Psychological Capital (2014, background): “The results show that the more aggressive a child appears, the lower is the child’s social acceptability with peers (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000).”
• Is It Bad to Be Good? An Exploration of Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior Subtypes in Adolescence (2004, unknown): “, 2003; Pakaslahti and Keltikangaas-J ̈ arvinen, 2001) and endorse the use of prosocial responding more than boys (Delveaux and Daniels, 2000).”
• Normative Beliefs and Relational Aggression: An Investigation of the Cognitive Bases of Adolescent Aggressive Behavior (2005, background): “Delveaux and Daniels (2000) studied the relations among goals (step 3) and aggressive and prosocial responses to conflict situations (step 5) in a sample of 4th-through 6th- grade children.”
• Rethinking Aggression: A Typological Examination of the Functions of Aggression (2003, background): “…controlled), the high correlations between overt and relational aggression within each reporter are somewhat higher than reported in the literature but at a level one would expect given the typical levels of reliability in assessing aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Delveaux & Daniels, 2000).”