|
> the subtitle, though, which seems more factual and less interpretive Not true, if you read the linked paper: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/712972 > The reason for the typically low success rates, we believe, is that aggressive behavior accrues social rewards and does so to a degree that leads some to betray their closest friends. Even the most successful prevention programs are unable to alter the aggressive behavior of popular bullies, who use cruelty to gain and maintain status (Garandeau, Lee, and Salmivalli 2014). Most programs focus on remedying dynamics such as emotional dysregulation, poor conflict management, and empathy deficits, factors that may explain only a portion of aggressive behavior. These efforts may reduce “normative targeting” of those who violate one or more of myriad unwritten rules governing adolescent fashion, gender expression, physical appearance, sexuality, and so on—in short, the socially vulnerable. But unless they disrupt the popularity contests ubiquitous in secondary schools, they are unlikely to improve conditions for those trying to reach the next rung on the social ladder, not to mention those they step on—who are often their own friends. What made you think that the use of "Social Ladder" is interpretive when words like "social rewards" and "popularity contents" are used throughout the paper (with references to past papers talking about the same to boot)? The paper is clearly not talking about bullying happening merely among friends and friends-of-friends, but it does so in a social hierarchical context. The authors could not have come up with any recommendations while discounting the social status aspect (as HN did with the title rewrite here), for instance - > One such strategy entails coopting status contests for prosocial ends by identifying high-status youths and changing their behavior in the hopes that they in turn influence their peers. |