Understanding Popularity in the Peer System Author(s): Antonius H. N. Cillessen and Amanda J.

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

ABSTRACT?Much rejected cluding problems. by peers; aggression; Recently,

research who and

has engage who

focused

on

youth

who

are in

in negative are at risk for

behavior, adjustment increasingly

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

liked by their peers

behaviors and

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

the peer important research with

group

in childhood in their driven status, by who a

(Adler & Adler,

have begun as to study perceived to them ular. have

1998).
more popular,

In recent
seriously rather that to

years,
youth than

developmentalists
like Jason, referring pop youth youth aspire

construct has been social be

research. concern operate as

In the past, for children at the As fringe

much and

of this adolescents

sociometrically

low

Although aggressive

evidence traits

suggests in addition

perceived-popular ones,

of the peer much

system has been

and may learned

categorized the ori

prosocial

rejected.

a result,

about

gins of peer rejection and its effects on development

Coie, ingly 1990). interested More recently, in peer-group high-status researchers members and have with become high social

(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

Interestingly, uniform group.

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

(b) the social

youth, conclude and by

perceived-popular two groups.

University Psychology, CT 06269-1020; Storrs,

406 Babbidge of Connecticut, e-mail: antonius.ciUessen@uconn.edu.

outcomes directions

for future

research.

102 Copyright ?

2005 American Psychological Society

Volume 14?Number 2

Antonius

H.N.

CiUessen

and Amanda

J. Rose

SOCIOMETRIC VERSUS PERCEIVEDPOPULARITY

Traditionally, the study of peer relations has focused on socio metric status, how well liked (or rejected) youth are by their peers (Asher & Coie, 1990; Coie & CiUessen, 1993). Several
decades adjustment of research correlates have of provided sociometric data on status the behavioral (Kupersmidt and &

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,

2004). This research provides a crucial foundation for

peer relations. have begun to examine perceived researchers

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

Sociometric ination procedure,

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

popularity for each person is

scale (social prefer of liked-most nominations received. may

of the behavioral profiles of sociometrically

In quantitative lates and with behavior, studies on how perceived have typically Overt researchers

popular youth).
popularity measured corre overt refers to

a continuous

the number

the number

of liked-least than using

nominations such scores,

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

(1998) found that youth who were perceived popular

popular were overtly aggressive. Rod

observing

sociometrically

by their peers
quantitative derived see from

(Adler & Adler,

however, nominations and who

1998; Eder,
perceived (i.e.,

1985).
name popular;

In recent
has who been they

studies, peer popular

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

and Van Acker

as most

they

see

CiUessen

& Mayeux,
Hopmeyer, continuous from

2004; LaFontana & CiUessen,

1998; scale Rose, of Swenson, perceived & Waller, popularity nominations nominations. categorical

2002; Parkhurst &

2004). have Scores been on a derived of stud identi

behavior. were

overt

assessed

perceived demonstrated

popularity positive

the number

of most-popular least-popular taken a

or the number In other and

as a continuous

variable

associations

most-popular ies, researchers

minus have

approach

& CiUessen,
Why

both forms of aggression with perceived 2002; Rose et al., 2004).

would presumably aversive

popularity

(LaFontana
be

fied youth with high perceived

most-popular Interestingly, the recent with on nominations in neither quantitative an a priori the and

popularity
few

as those with many

nominations. research provide rather, nor

aggressive

behaviors

least-popular ethnographic researchers

associated with high status as indicated by perceived

ity? It may be that some children when or adolescents publicly for social use in certain re certain to situations people (e.g., (e.g., provoked) status)

popular
aggression or against

original did

studies definition intuitive have to begun

partic they

ipants lied

of popularity; understanding to map

competitors perceived may use

strategically For example, aggression who this in some idea, a

the participants' researchers ascribe

of the concept. children provid

achieve

or maintain youth and their deter social

popularity. overt or relational youth

Recently, and

the meanings again without

perceived-popular to intimidate way threaten

adolescents

"popularity,"

competitors standing.

or other Consistent

ing an a priori definition

Findings from these studies

(e.g., LaFontana & CiUessen,

show that children and

2002).

with

adolescents

study by Vaillancourt, Hymel,

and McDougall

(2003) revealed

Volume 14?Number

2 103

Lnderstanding

Popularity

in the Peer

System

an

association

between

bullying youth prosocial

and use a

perceived strategic

popularity. combination peers

Mayeux, through

2004), nine. As

but can

the be

pattern seen

was in Figure

similar

across

grades aggression

six

Moreover, of both

perceived-popular aggressive and

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

study (CiUessen &

found than to be was more overt

adjustment. sociometric consistently

aggression.
that ceived Overt cause acts. relational

Similarly, another study (Rose et al., 2004)

aggression 6 months may display relational social be was more later related dominance aggression power. For than to strongly was related overt

found
to per

Accordingly, status correlates

research adjustment,

addressed and the

popularity aggression youth However, can

aggression. be

perceived through

popularity overtly aggressive

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

cluding others, youth may influence who is in the popular crowd

and other rumors, keep out those who threaten their social status. such and Engaging as spreading the relationally affords one aggressive a degree behaviors, of anonymity

aggression similar On

is associated behavior the other

problems, youth status in

therefore

one who

expect aggressive.

for popular high

opportunity
appearance Research sion and

to strategically
of being further mean. indicates popularity we found

hurt other people while hiding the

that may the relation vary by between age and between aggres gender. overt

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

expectation?that (Hawley, 2003)

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

(Rodkin et al., 2000). Hawley's

mixture havior of prosocial makes youth behavior effective at

(2003) research indicates that a

and coercive what or they aggressive want be getting in social

contexts. And the tough popular youth identified by Rodkin and

his such may colleagues as be depression reconciled benefits peer group, beyond we hypothesize may be (2000) or did not demonstrate The elevated symptoms, expectations aggressive context of their of youth the ad anxiety. contradictory and social in terms

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 &

if perceived-popular in the but pay immediate a price

experience olescent adjustment Thus, term

long-term

adolescence. that for perceived-popular combined with long-term youth, short

advantages

disadvan

tages. Establishing
follow-up studies

whether
of such

this is true will require long-term

youth. Just as there are tough and

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

continue to be influential and serve in leadership

peer and Low Average Relational Aggression High have groups. successful different In the other, when reward they they may move no into and longer new different be social

roles in later
central that social contexts for

socially

structures

criteria

prominence. Which
may depend delicate balance

of these two pathways an individual follows

he or she prosocial is able and to strike the optimal, be between Machiavellian

Fig. 1. Perceived popularity and high levels of relational

of girls and boys who exhibit low, average, 2004). (CiUessen & Mayeux, aggression

on whether

104 Volume 14?Number

Antonius

H.N.

CiUessen

and Amanda

J. Rose

haviors, new

to

gain

both

social

preference how this

as well balance may

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

and how itmay affect what pathway is followed

exciting avenue for future research.

Brunswick, J.D.

NJ: Rutgers

S.R., & Coie, Cambridge

University

(1990). Peer Press.

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

to reinforce between 147-163. and Origins in Psycho and ag

consistent
plication.

and important findings with potential practical

Recent research suggests that the complex

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

aggression, Development, relations 154-165.

gender, 66,

why aggression perceived

whether

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

social-psychological 710-722. Eder,

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

popular aggressors on the development

peers. them. Of The particular negative when can the concern consequences aggressor engage are youth

and adjustment of their

who are victimized may and in the may be by ex

K.M.,

of popular Developmental Parkhurst,

stereotypes assessment.

of victimization is socially other central people youth behavior are among

Psychology,

635-647. and popularity of peer status.

acerbated and tion. the

powerful victimiza influence

J.T., & Hopmeyer, popularity:

therefore

easily

peer-perceived Journal Rodkin, P.C., of Early Farmer,

(1998). Sociometric Two distinct dimensions 18, 125-144.

Adolescence, T.W., Pearl, boys:

Furthermore, development of

perceived-popular antisocial youth may disperse

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

antisocial group Rose,

erogeneity tions. Developmental A.J., Swenson,

of popular

prosocial

configura

Psychology,

the

peer

L.P., & Waller,

and relational differences Psychol

especially
larity in

quickly. Clearly,
the peer context

the function and impact of popu

are complex; learning more

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).

Recommended Adler, Asher,

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,

J.B., & Dodge,

in the schools: New

York: Haworth

Volume 14?Number

2 105