The present meta-analytic review aimed to clarify divergent findings concerning the relation between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Fifty-one studies with 17,965 participants were included in the analysis. A significant correlation between reactive and proactive aggression was found. The strength of this relation varied considerably between studies, from −.10 to .89. Observational assessment and tilt/noise tasks were associated with smaller correlations than questionnaires. Within the large group of questionnaire studies, studies disentangling the form and function of aggression found lower correlations than studies that did not disentangle form and function. Among questionnaire studies, higher reliability was associated with larger correlations. Effect size did not depend on other study characteristics such as sample type, age, and informant type. It is concluded that reactive and proactive aggression are most clearly distinguished with behavioral observations and questionnaires that unravel form and functions of aggression.Keywords Meta-analysis . Reactive aggression . Proactive aggression . Aggressive behavior . Subtypes of aggressive behavior Many recent studies of children's aggressive behavior distinguish between reactive and proactive aggression. Dodge (1991) defined reactive aggression as a reaction to a presumed threat which is associated with anger, and proactive aggression as planned, instrumental and "cold-blooded" be-

No abstract

Seven hundred seventy-two male and female adolescents (between the ages of 12 and 15) participated in a study concerning the identification and socioemotional situation of various subgroups of gifted students (N=94). In this article only the results concerning general, social, and academic selfconcepts of gifted adolescents are reported. A distinction is made between four groups: two groups of gifted achievers (one with high (N=22) and another with below average creativity questionnaire scores (N=45), a group of gifted underachievers (N =27), and a control group (N=74). The multiple and hierarchical model of self-concept by Shavelson et al.serves as a framework for our approach. The most striking differences are found between gifted achievers and gifted underachievers. The latter demonstrate very low academic self-concept and high test anxiety scores, an external locus of control, and low scores on school well-being and motivation. A positive self-concept in all areas seems to be the driving force for achievements, which are in accordance with high potential intellectual aptitudes. Similar results were reported by Feldhusen.

No abstract

No abstract