Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Rose Reviewed work(s): Source: Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 102-105 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of Association for Psychological Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182997 . Accessed: 02/06/2012 23:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Directions in Psychological Science.
http://www.jstor.org
CURRENT DIRECTIONS
IN PSYCHOLOGICAL
SCIENCE
Understanding Peer
Antonius University H.N.
Popularity
in
the
System
Cillessen and Amanda and University J. Rose of Missouri-Columbia of Connecticut
focused
on
youth
who
are in
researchers
have
become
For example, consider the profiles of two eighth graders, Tim and Jason. Tim iswell liked by his peers. He is genuinely nice to others and helps out when needed. Tim is athletic but does not use his physical abilities to aggress against others. In fact, Tim
tends to avoid even verbal confrontations when possible, pre
interested
tween two
in high-status
groups of
youth. A distinction
high-status youth: those
is made
who
be
are
genuinely
dominantly
well
and
those
engage
who are
in pre
seen as
prosocial
to find prosocial ways of solving conflicts. ferring with Tim, Jason is better known by his classmates but Compared he is not necessarily well liked. Even peers who do not know instead
him personally know who he is. Many of Jason's classmates
by their peers but are not necessarily well liked. popular The latter group of youth is well known, socially central, as and emulated, but displays a mixed profile of prosocial
well now these as aggressive to and address and Of manipulative the their distinctive developmental interest are behaviors. Research of and and needs characteristics precursors high-status
imitate his style of dress and taste inmusic and would like to be better friends with him so they could be part of the in-crowd.
Jason when his can be very nice to other kids but can also intimidate situations them to provoked advantage. Developmental psychologists know a fair amount about youth or angry, or can manipulate social
two groups
consequences.
particular
aggressors impact powerful peers. The heterogeneity of high-status youth complicates the understanding of the peer of the social dynamics new and important insights into the group, but will lead to socially developmental
KEYWORDS?peer
and
their
on
their
like Tim. Youth who are well liked by others are categorized by
peer-relations researchers as sociometrically popular. Socio
significance
relations;
of peer
popularity;
relationships.
social status
metrically popular youth generally display high levels of pro social and cooperative behavior and low levels of aggression (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). But although develop
mentalists not the would type refer to Tim most think known, as youth of sociometrically would popular consider peers central, of person They well he is popular, one of their as and those who,
"popular" Developmental social and structure adolescence. psychologists and Peer dynamics status continue of is an to be interested in the like Jason,
peers. are
socially
emulated
group
1998).
more popular,
In recent
seriously rather that to
years,
youth than
developmentalists
like Jason, referring pop youth youth aspire
much and
of this adolescents
sociometrically
low
Although aggressive
evidence traits
suggests in addition
perceived-popular ones,
prosocial
rejected.
a result,
about
(Asher &
increas status. form a
to be popular like Jason more than they aspire to be like Tim it is important to consider (Adler & Adler, 1998). Accordingly,
seriously the meaning and function of these divergent forms
of popularity.
In this similar Specifically, article, to and we we consider from (a) how perceived-popular popular and youth are different discuss: sociometrically the conceptualization youth. meas
children
adolescents
do not
urement of sociometric
Address correspondence to Antonius H.N. CiUessen, of Department Rd., U-1020, behavior of sociometrically (c) the adjustment outlining important
and perceived
and for the
popularity,
We
outcomes directions
for future
research.
102 Copyright ?
Volume 14?Number 2
Antonius
H.N.
CiUessen
and Amanda
J. Rose
associate
a mixture
of prosocial
and
antisocial
traits
and
be
haviors with perceived popularity. Although there is overlap between sociometric and perceived
popularity, the constructs are not redundant (LaFontana &
CiUessen, 2002; Rose et al., 2004). Consider one study that employed a categorical approach to identify sociometrically youth (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, popular and perceived-popular 1998). Only 36% of sociometrically popular students were also students perceived popular, and only 29% of perceived-popular
were between differences popular and also sociometrically the two constructs the popular. There is enough similarities of distinction as well as to determine characteristics youth.
Dodge,
understanding Recently,
popularity as a unique but equally important dimension. Edu cational sociologists have long recognized the social power
(influence over others) of perceived-popular youth as evidenced
between
sociometrically
perceived-popular
by qualitative descriptions of them by their peers (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985). Only in the past 5 to 10 years have
researchers tative methods. popularity in which is usually participants assessed are with asked a peer-nom to name the begun to study perceived popularity with quanti
BEHAVIORAL PROFILES
Research and profiles of sociometrically has revealed similarities and differ youth perceived-popular ences. Both kinds of youth are found to be prosocial and co
operative. score very However, whereas sociometrically perceived (see Rubin popularity et al., 1998, popular youth low on aggression, with aggression is positively for a review
on the behavioral
peers
nations size
in their grade who they like most and like least. Nomi
for each question are are counted and adjusted grades (Coie, for grade so that the data comparable across Dodge,
associated
& Coppotelli,
represented ence) minus calculated
1982). Sociometric
with a score by using on
popular youth).
popularity measured corre overt refers to
a continuous
the number
the number
he or she
relational
aggression
separately.
aggression
Alternatively,
rather
researchers
a categorical approach and identify sociometrically popular youth as those with many liked-most and few liked-least employ
nominations. In early qualitative research, educational sociologists using
physical assaults and direct verbal abuse. Relational aggression is aimed at damaging relationships and includes behaviors such
as ignoring or excluding a person and spreading rumors (Crick
& Grotpeter, 1995). Both overt and relational aggression are related to perceived popularity. For example, Parkhurst and Hopmeyer
but not
ethnographic
simply
methods
which
identified perceived-popular
classmates were referred to as
youth by
popular
observing
sociometrically
by their peers
quantitative derived see from
1998; Eder,
perceived (i.e.,
1985).
name popular;
In recent
has who been they
popularity
participants as least
kin, Farmer, Pearl, (2000) empirically dis criminated a subgroup of "model" popular youth with high scores for affiliative (e.g., friendly) behaviors and low scores for
overt high aggression scores from a subgroup of "tough" and average and popular scores relational was youth with for overt Studies and aggression in which in which both for affiliative aggression measured of
as most
they
see
CiUessen
& Mayeux,
Hopmeyer, continuous from
behavior. were
overt
assessed
perceived demonstrated
popularity positive
the number
as a continuous
variable
associations
minus have
approach
& CiUessen,
Why
popularity
(LaFontana
be
popularity
few
aggressive
behaviors
popular
aggression or against
original did
partic they
ipants lied
achieve
Recently, and
adolescents
"popularity,"
competitors standing.
or other Consistent
2002).
with
adolescents
and McDougall
(2003) revealed
Volume 14?Number
2 103
Lnderstanding
Popularity
in the Peer
System
an
association
between
and use a
perceived strategic
Mayeux, through
2004), nine. As
but can
the be
pattern seen
was in Figure
similar
across
grades aggression
six
Moreover, of both
1, relational
behaviors
to manipulate
in ways that result in high status (Hawley, 2003). Recent longitudinal research supports the hypothesis
some ceived important youth deliberately This act aggressively also relational to enhance suggests an their popularity. association research between especially and
was positively associated with perceived popularity for both boys and girls but was a particularly strong predictor of high
status for girls.
that
per
aggression
per
OUTCOMES ADJUSTMENT
An ences important with reason peers much with may for studying be predictive has peer relations of personal how research is that experi
ceived popularity.
Mayeux, strongly 2004), related to
In a 5-year longitudinal
relational later aggression perceived was popularity
aggression.
that ceived Overt cause acts. relational
found
to per
research adjustment,
aggression. be
perceived through
popularity is predictive of positive both concurrently and in the future (Rubin et al., adjustment 1998). For example, sociometrically popular youth tend to be well adjusted emotionally and to have high-quality friendships. less is known about the adjustment of per Considerably
ceived-popular in the peer hand, because would are youth. group Previous to research on status expectations. with problems hand, because behavior and On behavior the one in leads opposing
indicates
that sociometric
may example,
be
especially by
effective ex
for managing
selectively
aggression similar On
therefore
one who
expect aggressive.
opportunity
appearance Research sion and
to strategically
of being further mean. indicates popularity we found
the peer group is associated with being well adjusted, one would expect that perceived popularity, even if achieved through ag
gressive limited means, evidence is associated available perceived without with time positive seems has negative adjustment. to favor immediate The at this the second rewards
perceived
In our
research,
positive
associations
and relational
15-year-old
aggression
and perceived
(grades 6?9), but
popularity
not in 9to
in 12- to
11-year
popularity concurrent
adolescents
consequences
(grades 3-5). This shift coincided with the transi tion from elementary school to middle school and may have been due to the fact that the social skills required to act aggres sively in ways that lead to high status are complex and develop
with We age also (LaFontana found that & the CiUessen, link 2002; Rose relational et al., 2004). and between aggression
old children
perceived popularity was stronger for girls than for boys (Cil lessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004). Figure 1 illustrates this finding for data collected in eighth grade (CiUessen &
long-term
advantages
disadvan
tages. Establishing
follow-up studies
whether
of such
model high-status subgroups (Rodkin et al., 2000), there may be two diverging developmental paths that popular youth follow
into young adulthood. In one path, perceived-popular youth may
roles in later
central that social contexts for
socially
structures
criteria
prominence. Which
may depend delicate balance
of girls and boys who exhibit low, average, 2004). (CiUessen & Mayeux, aggression
on whether
Antonius
H.N.
CiUessen
and Amanda
J. Rose
haviors, new
to
gain
both
social
as
influence be achieved
in
REFERENCES
Adler, P.A., & Adler, identity. Asher, New P. (1998). Peer power: Pr?adolescent University Press. New York: culture and
groups.
Discovering
developmentally
in later life is an
Brunswick, J.D.
NJ: Rutgers
University
rejection
in childhood.
CONCLUSIONS
Decades of research on sociometric popularity have produced
L. (2004). From censure & Mayeux, CiUessen, A.H.N., ment: in the association changes Developmental and social status. Child Development, 75, gression Coie, effects J.D., & CiUessen, on children's Science, A.H.N. (1993). Peer Current rejection: Directions
consistent
plication.
ap
Coie,
logical
development. 2, 89-92. H.
construct
of perceived
search. mental Given
popularity needs
all that is known
to be incorporated
about the negative researchers
into this re
develop to learn Crick, need
J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Coppotelli, status: A cross-age of social chology, N.R., and 18, 557-570. & Grotpeter, J.K.
(1982).
Dimensions Developmental
types Psy
perspective.
consequences
of aggression,
(1995).
Relational Child
gender, 66,
leads to high status in the form of popularity. Moreover, it will be important to learn sometimes
perceived-popular youth are on a positive or
adjustment.
aggressive
D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal female adolescents. 58, Sociology of Education,
among
trajectory. Although they seem to negative developmental benefit in the short term in the immediate social context of the
peer status group, and the behavior also longer-term are must not yet outcomes known. about the impact of perceived associated with their
of resource P.H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive Hawley, configurations A case for the well-adapted in early adolescence: Mach control 279-309. iavellian. Merrill-Palmer 49, Quarterly, J.B., & Dodge, Kupersmidt, tions: From development American LaFontana, Psychological & CiUessen, and unpopular A.G. K.A. peer (Eds.). (2004). Children's to intervention to policy. Washington, Association. A.H.N. peers: 38, (2002). Children's A multi-method rela DC:
Researchers
learn
K.M.,
stereotypes assessment.
Psychology,
therefore
easily
Furthermore, development of
their their
R., & Van Acker, Antisocial 36, E.M. and 14-24. (2004). Overt
R.
(2000).
Het
peers.
Because or risky
perceived-popular behaviors
emulated, through
of popular
prosocial
configura
Psychology,
the
peer
especially
larity in
quickly. Clearly,
the peer context
about these processes will be challenging, but will yield im portant new insights into the social dynamics of peer groups
across the life span.
and perceived Developmental popularity: aggression in concurrent relations. and prospective Developmental ogy, 40, 378-387. Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, and W.M.,
relationships,
(Vol. Ed.), senberg and personality emotional, New York: Wiley. Vaillancourt, (See References) (See References) (Eds.). (2004). (See References) Elias zation 176). T., Hymel, for Implications & J.E. Zins
& Parker, J.G. (1998). Peer interactions, In W. Damon groups. (Series Ed.) & N. Ei Vol. 3. Social, Handbook of child psychology: development (5th ed., pp. 619-700).
Reading P.A., & Adler, P. (1998). S.R., & Coie, J.D. (1990). K.A.
P. (2003). Bullying is power: S., & McDougall, In M.J. intervention school-based strategies. and victimi peer harassment, (Eds.), Bullying, The next generation Press. of prevention (pp. 157
Kupersmidt,
York: Haworth
Volume 14?Number
2 105