![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The trajectory of early adolescents’ popularity goal during the transition to middle school was examined in a diverse sample of 401 students. Popularity goal was assessed at five time points from the spring semester of fifth grade through the spring semester of seventh grade with the transition to middle school occurring between the fifth and sixth grades. Results showed a significant increase in youth’s endorsement of popularity goal after the transition to middle school followed by a significant decrease in popularity goal over the course of the sixth and seventh grade years. The rate of change for popularity goal during the transition was significantly different depending on youth’s popularity and their perceptions of the popularity peer norm: youth with low popularity significantly increased their popularity goal during the transition, and youth who perceived high peer norms for popularity also significantly increased their popularity goal during the transition to middle school. No gender differences but significant ethnic differences were found in the popularity goal trajectories.
The transition to middle school marks a significant period in the lives of early adolescents (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Wentzel, 1998). A product of this major school transition is that youth tend to interact with a larger number of peers and spend more time with peers compared to time spent with peers during childhood, and these peers begin to hold a more prominent position in the lives of youth (e.g., Berndt, 1982; Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). The shifting importance of peers is outlined in Sullivan’s (1953) interpersonal theory of psychiatry which proposed that priorities for peer relations change and that youth are primarily concerned with peer acceptance during the time they are transitioning to middle school. Beyond acceptance, an extensive body of research has demonstrated that youth are also concerned with their popularity status among their peers (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985; Eder & Kinney, 1995; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). In fact, some youth are so concerned with popularity that they endorse it as a goal (Dawes & Xie, 2014; Kiefer & Ryan, 2008; Li & Wright, 2014). Recently, LaFontana and Cillessen (2010) tested youth’s shifting priority for popularity and found that priority for popularity over other social goals (e.g., pursuing a romantic relationship) increased from childhood into adolescence, peaking during the late middle and early high school grades. Yet their study had a cross-sectional design, and it is unclear how youth’s popularity goal trajectory changes as they develop. One study that did test popularity goal longitudinally was limited to two time points in the fifth and sixth grade (Kiefer, Matthews, Montesino, Arango, & Preece, 2013). The aim of this current study is to extend the research on popularity goal by examining the trajectory of popularity goal from the fifth through the seventh grade and investigate whether early adolescents’ popularity status and perceptions of the popularity peer norm are related to changes in the endorsement of popularity goal over time.
Popularity and Popularity Goal
Popularity is a measure of social status indicating social prominence, social dominance, and social power (traditionally termed perceived popularity; see Cillessen & Marks, 2011, for a discussion on terminology; Fiske, 1993; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). Being popular is associated with social benefits such as peer attention, peer support, and the ability to attract peers (Adler & Adler, 1998; Hawley, 1999; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). In addition, popular youth enjoy increased visibility and social impact in the peer network (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Rodkin et al., 2000). This type of social status is different from preference (traditionally termed sociometric popularity; Cillessen & Marks, 2011; Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Preference indicates that youth are well-liked by peers and is typically related to prosocial qualities (LaFontana & Cillessen,2002; Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). During middle childhood and early adolescence, the association between popularity and preference is moderate to high, but this association weakens during middle adolescence (e.g., Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; de Bruyn & van den Boom, 2005; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006; Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, & Salmivalli, 2009). The weakening association between popularity and preference reflects shifts in the behavioral correlates associated with popularity (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Whereas in middle childhood, a youth who is predominantly prosocial may be considered popular among peers, increasingly during adolescence, aggressive youth are typically considered popular (Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). That is not to say that prosocial youth may not be popular nor that aggressive popular youth may not use prosocial behaviors. Indeed, Hawley (2003) found that certain popular youth use both aggressive and prosocial strategies to help them maintain their status. However, in general, the behavioral profile of popular youth during early adolescence more often includes aggressive behaviors which are suggested to help them gain and maintain their popularity (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004).
The goal for popularity assesses individuals’ desire to be considered popular by their peers and reflects the desire for the benefits associated with popularity (Dawes & Xie, 2014). Our assessment of popularity goal in this study is in line with a goal content approach in which individuals are asked what they want to achieve (e.g., Wentzel, 2000). Popularity goal is different from the goal for preference which captures the desire to be liked by peers (Li & Wright, 2014; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). It is important to note the conceptual similarity between popularity goal and the broader umbrella of agentic goals given that both types of goals reflect the desire for power or influence in social relationships (Bakan, 1966; Caravita & Cillessen, 2011; Ojanen, Grönroos, & Salmivalli, 2005). However, this goal for popularity is more specific than an agentic goal which may reflect several motives such as wanting to appear confident or have others respects you (e.g., “The others respect and admire you”; Ojanen et al., 2005). Understanding how the desire for popularity changes as youth develop is crucial given the implications of pursuing popularity on some students’ social and academic adjustment such as increases in aggressive behavior or disruptive behavior in class, decreases in prosocial behavior, lower levels of academic effort, and lower grade point averages (e.g., Kiefer & Ryan, 2008; Li & Wright, 2014; Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley, 1997).
The Trajectory of Popularity Goal
Across the transition to middle school, students’ popularity goals likely change in ways that reflect the changing importance of popularity and the social status hierarchy. When students transition into middle school, there is a large influx of new peers which necessitates the formation of a new social system and social reshuffling (Farmer, Hamm, Leung, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2011; Pellegrini, 2002). With this reshuffling comes an increased salience of the social status hierarchy as evidenced by youth’s increasing preoccupation with social status and a concern with who is popular and who is not (Adler & Adler, 1998; Corsaro & Eder, 1990). Given this preoccupation with the status hierarchy, it follows that the desire for power and influence increases at this time (Ojanen et al., 2005). For example, youth were found to prioritize popularity over other social goals (e.g., pursuing a romantic relationships, maintaining a friendship) during the middle school years (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010) and a recent study that specifically tested the importance of popularity goal over time found that early adolescents’ popularity goal significantly increased from fifth grade (elementary school) to sixth grade (middle school; Kiefer et al., 2013). This current study will extend the finding by Kiefer and colleagues (2013) by examining popularity goal beyond the transition to middle school into the seventh grade. Based on LaFontana and Cillessen’s (2010) study, it is reasonable to expect the importance of popularity goal to remain high into seventh grade after the initial transition to middle school. They found that the priority of popularity increased into adolescence, peaking when youth were in the late middle school and early high school grades (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). This current study will fill a gap in the literature by examining popularity goal trajectories in a longitudinal sample followed across five time points from the spring semester of fifth grade, through the transition to middle school in the sixth grade, and into the seventh grade.
Factors Affecting Changes in Popularity Goal
What might influence changes in adolescents’ popularity goal over time? To address this question, we examined the impact of adolescents’ popularity status and their perceptions of the popularity peer norm on the mean levels and changes over time of their popularity goals. Youth with high popularity status tend to have a high popularity goal (Dawes & Xie, 2014). Because youth in this coveted social position have access to the social resources and rewards that accompany high popularity, it is understandable why such popular youth want to keep their high status in order to maintain their access to such social rewards, hence the high endorsement of a popularity goal (Adler & Adler, 1998; Hawley, 1999; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). The importance of maintaining status for these high popular youth may be heightened during the transition to middle school as new peers enter the peer network, spurring a reshuffling of the status hierarchy which may threaten those in popular social positions (Farmer et al., 2011). To combat such a threat, these high popular youth may endorse greater importance of their popularity goal as a means to maintain their high status.
To date and to our knowledge, no study has examined how perceptions of the popularity peer norm may affect adolescent’s own popularity goal. We examined the extent to which students thought peers valued popularity and engaged in behaviors such as dropping friends or buying certain clothes in order to be popular. Asking students whether they think peers value and desire popularity captures students’ perceptions of the popularity peer norm. Norms are codes of conduct that dictate how one should act which are communicated through social interactions with other group members (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Rimal & Real, 2003). Assessing perceptions of the peer norm is arguably more powerful in terms of behavioral prediction given that perceptions inform future thought and behavior (Bandura, 1991, 2001; Rimal & Real, 2003). The norm assessed in this study may be referred to as a descriptive norm because it informs individuals about how others act in similar scenarios (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990). If adolescents perceive that more of their peers engage in behaviors aimed at helping their popularity status, they may be more likely to believe that the attainment of popularity is a desirable goal. Thus, it is reasonable to expect an adolescent’s perceptions of the popularity peer norm to influence his or her own popularity goal. Although there is a lack of research examining how perceived peer norms relate to adolescents’ social goals, research evidence linking perceived norms to behaviors and the social values of behaviors provides support for our hypotheses (Galván, Spatzier, & Juvonen, 2011; Rimal & Real, 2003). For example, Galván and colleagues (2011) found that the more peers were perceived as engaging in certain behaviors, the more those behaviors were associated with being “cool.” Such research underscores the importance of investigating youth’s perceptions of peer norms. However, to date, little to no published research has examined the role of perceived peer norms on social goals. As such, this current study will fill a gap in the literature by testing links between perceived peer norms for popularity and a specific popularity goal.
Gender and Ethnic Differences
We also examined gender differences and explored ethnic differences in the trajectory of popularity goal. Both boys and girls show equal concern with popularity (Adler & Adler, 1998; Benenson & Benarroch, 1998) and have been found to similarly prioritize popularity (Cillessen, Mayeux, Ha, de Bruyn, & LaFontana, 2014). Thus, it is unsurprising that there are no gender differences in the endorsement of popularity goals (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996; Li & Wright, 2014; Sijtsema et al., 2009). We expected to replicate this finding in this study and predicted the trajectory of popularity goal to be similar for boys and girls.
We also explored ethnic differences in the trajectory of youth’s popularity goal. One study found that White students prioritized popularity over academic achievement more than African American and Latino youth, but it is unclear whether those results from a cross-sectional study comparing priority of popularity over other domains would translate to this current longitudinal investigation of the trajectory of popularity goal (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). As such, we had no specific hypotheses for ethnic differences, but we explored these differences in our analyses.
Current Study
Using a longitudinal design, we tested the trajectory of popularity goal and whether changes in early adolescents’ popularity and perceptions of the popularity peer norm were associated with changes in their popularity goal during the transition to middle school. We expected to replicate the finding by Kiefer and colleagues (2013) that popularity goal would significantly increase from fifth to the sixth grade following the transition to middle school and maintain a positive trajectory beyond the transition year into the seventh grade given research on the priority of popularity across the middle school years (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). We also examined gender differences and explored ethnic differences in the trajectory of popularity goal. Lastly, we examined how popularity status and perceptions of the popularity peer norm were associated with the trajectory patterns: intercepts (i.e., students’ initial levels of popularity goal in the fifth grade) and rates of change in popularity goal. We expected no significant gender differences in the trajectory of popularity goal. We expected positive associations between popularity and popularity goal under the assumption that youth with high popularity status will place higher importance on a popularity goal in order to maintain access to the benefits (e.g., peer support) associated with their high status (e.g., Hawley, 1999). We also expected positive associations between perceived peer norms for popularity and popularity goal given our understanding of how perceived norms influence individuals’ own cognitions (Galván et al., 2011). We tested these hypotheses in a longitudinal sample followed from the spring semester of fifth grade through the spring semester of seventh grade.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited in fifth grade from six elementary schools in an urban school district in the Northeastern United States. All students in the school were invited to participate in the study. Consent forms were sent home to parents, and only those students with completed parental consent forms were included in the study. A total of 318 students (51% female; Mage = 11.00, SD = 0.44) with signed parental consent were included in the study in fifth grade, yielding a participation rate of 61% (318 / 522). In sixth grade, 262 participants from the fifth grade sample were tracked as they transitioned into one of three middle schools in the same school district. Seventy-nine additional participants were recruited, yielding a total sample of 341 sixth grade students (54% female; Mage = 12.01, SD = 0.44) and a participation rate of 65% (341 / 524). In seventh grade, a total of 309 students from sixth grade were followed and nine additional participants were recruited. Three participants who originally participated in the fifth grade returned to the school district and the study. The total number of participants in seventh grade was 321 students (55% female; Mage = 13.01, SD = 0.45), yielding a participation rate of 59% (321 / 547).
The sample was ethnically diverse across all three grades with an average of 49% African Americans, 32% Caucasians, 17% Hispanics, and 2% Asian or other ethnicity. In four of the six elementary schools, African American students were the majority ethnic group (over 50% of the grade population). Caucasian students were the majority in one elementary school. In the last elementary school, ethnic majority status was split between Caucasian students (41%) and African American students (43%). For the three middle schools, African American students represented the ethnic majority in two schools (56% and 63%), and Caucasian students were the ethnic majority in the remaining middle school (56%). Across all three grades, approximately 60% of students were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch at school. Participants and non-participants within each grade did not differ in their free-lunch status, χ2s(2, Ns range from 522 to 547) < 1.589, ps > .452, or ethnic background, χ2s(3, Ns range from 522 to 547) < 7.850, ps > .097. The composition of the sample reflects the composition of the schools in terms of both ethnic and socioeconomic diversity.
Procedure
Each semester, participants who provided assent completed questionnaire measures in a group administered survey session monitored by a lead administrator and research assistants. Students were assured of confidentiality, were given a blank paper to cover their answers, and were told they could stop participating at any time. Before starting the surveys, the lead administrator read aloud all instructions and questions. Participants were asked not to discuss their answers with other students.
Measures
Popularity goal
Each semester, participants responded to a statement concerning their popularity goal which was adopted from a popularity measure created by Santor, Messervey, and Kusumakar (2000). Students were asked, “How true are the following statements for you?” on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true). Popularity goal was measured by the single item: “It’s important that people think I’m popular.” This item is conceptually, though not methodologically, similar to popularity goal measures used by Kiefer and Ryan (2008) and Li, Wright, and colleagues (Li & Wright, 2014; Wright, Li, & Shi, 2014).
Popularity status
To measure popularity, a peer nomination procedure was used each semester (see Farmer, Estell, Bishop, O’Neal, & Cairns, 2003; Farmer & Rodkin, 1996; Rodkin et al., 2000). Each participant was asked during the group survey session to nominate from free recall classmates who best fit descriptors of “popular” (“This person is popular at school, many classmates like to play with them or do things with them”). A previous study demonstrated that this item measures popularity (Shi & Xie, 2012), and analyses with behavioral correlates (e.g., aggressive and prosocial behavior) further validate this measurement of popularity (see Appendix). The participation rates in this current study (range = 59%-65%) suggest high reliability of the popularity peer nomination (Marks, Babcock, Cillessen, & Crick, 2013). The total number of nominations a student received was standardized by classroom (fifth grade) or school within their grade (sixth and seventh grade) then log transformed to adjust for the skewed distribution. In elementary school, three nominations were solicited, and in sixth and seventh grade, an unlimited number of nominations were gathered. Limited nominations are acceptable for younger children in elementary school whereas unlimited nominations are standard practice for older age groups and in larger grades (i.e., middle school; Cillessen & Marks, 2011).
Perceptions of the popularity peer norm
Each semester, students also responded to items about their perceptions of peers’ popularity behaviors and attitudes at school, using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always) with the following prompt: “Students at my school . . .” Five items were used: “think that it is important that people see them as popular,” “drop friends who become unpopular,” “buy certain clothes because they are the ‘in’ things to wear,” “ignore some people in order to be more popular with others,” and “do things they are not supposed to do just to be popular.” The items were adapted from a previous study on students’ own popularity behavior (Santor et al., 2000) to the current use of perceptions of peers’ popularity behaviors. Adequate levels of reliability were found for this measure (α = .78-.84).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all study variables. Popularity goal at each semester was significantly correlated across all other time points, rs > .30, ps < .001. The same was true for perceptions of the popularity peer norm, rs > .23, ps < .01, and for popularity, rs > .54, ps < .001. Popularity goal at each semester was also positively correlated to popularity at each semester, rs > .14, ps < .05. In three out of the five time points, popularity goal was positively correlated with perceptions of the popularity peer norm, rs > .13, ps < .05. There was no significant relationship between perceptions of the popularity peer norm and popularity status at any time point, rs < .09, ps > .112.
|
Table 1. Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables.
Popularity Goal Trajectory: Transition Change
To test our hypotheses, a series of trajectory analyses were conducted for popularity goal using a hierarchical linear model (HLM) procedure (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). We utilized data from five time points: fifth grade spring semester (5S), sixth grade fall semester (6F), sixth grade spring semester (6S), seventh grade fall semester (7F), and seventh grade spring semester (7S). The transition to middle school occurred between the spring semester of fifth grade and the fall semester of sixth grade. All participants with popularity goal survey data for at least one time point were included in the trajectory analyses (n = 401). Five students were completely missing data for popularity goal: one student recruited in the fifth grade provided parental consent but moved out of the school district before data collection, and the remaining four students did not complete the measure of popularity goal at any time. To handle missing data, we decided to employ piecewise deletion which analyzes all available data rather than listwise deletion in which all data for an individual is removed if that individual has one or more missing values. This decision allowed us to make use of the total amount of available data and avoid issues which may result when only analyzing participants with complete data. To examine the validity of this method, we compared participants with data for all five time points (n = 185) with participants that were missing data for at least one time point (n = 216). Participants with complete data did not differ from participants missing data in gender, χ2(1, N = 401) = 0.411, p = .521, race, χ2(3, N = 401) = 3.777, p = .287, or free-lunch status, χ2(2, N = 396) = 0.507, p = .776.
Before testing our hypotheses, we first confirmed the appropriateness of our proposed model by estimating an unconditional model. The unconditional model indicated there was significant variance in popularity goal between individuals, χ2(400) = 1,380.323, p < .001. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for popularity goal indicated that 39% of variance in popularity goal was between individuals and 61% of variance was within individuals across time. Our trajectory analysis included intercept, linear slope, and transition slope at Level 1. Linear time was entered as 0 (5S), 1 (6F), 2 (6S), 3 (7F), and 4 (7S). To test the transition effect, we used a “shift” parameter which allowed for a piecewise linear growth model to test popularity goal before and after the transition to middle school at the start of sixth grade (Willett, Singer, & Martin, 1998). This method allowed us to test our primary hypothesis of a significant increase in popularity goal from pre- to post-transition. Transition time was entered as 0 for fifth grade spring and 1 for every semester following. Adding both linear and transition time explained 22% of the variance in popularity goal which was significantly more than the linear time only model (16% variance explained), the transition time only model (9% variance explained), and the unconditional model, χ2s > 14.837, ps < .01. In Level 2 of the HLM model, we tested for gender and ethnic differences in the Level 1 parameters: intercept, linear, and transition time. Gender was dummy coded with females serving as the reference group. Two dummy coded variables were also created to test ethnic differences between African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian students with Caucasian students serving as the reference group. A total of six students who identified as Asian or other ethnicity were excluded from analyses testing for ethnic differences yielding a sample of n = 395 students. Next, we tested models including popularity status and perceptions of the popularity peer norm. Both were entered as time-varying variables at Level 1 with mean levels of each variable entered at Level 2 to control for individual differences so that the associations obtained at Level 1 would reflect within-individual associations. Finally, we created interactions between the individual variables (i.e., popularity status and perceptions of the popularity peer norm) and the time variables (i.e., linear and transition time) to test for differences in the rates of change.
The first set of HLM analyses performed to identify the trajectory of popularity goal across all five time points are presented in Model 1 (Table 2). There were significant individual variations in the intercept, linear change, and transition change as indicated by the significant estimations of variance components. The importance placed on popularity goal significantly increased following the transition to middle school as indicated by the significant transition coefficient, β = 0.263, SE = 0.096, p = .006. There was also a significant negative linear trend for popularity goal, β = −0.112, SE = 0.028, p < .001. Both the estimated trajectory based on the HLM analyses and the observed means trajectory are plotted in Figure 1. The plot of the estimated trajectory indicates a jump in popularity goal across the transition to middle school followed by a decline in popularity goal through the spring semester of seventh grade. There were no gender differences in the intercept, linear change, or transition change in popularity goal (see Model 2, Table 2). However, analyses revealed significant ethnic differences in students’ initial levels of popularity goal (see Model 3, Table 2). Compared with Caucasian students, African American students had significantly higher popularity goals in the spring semester of fifth grade, β = 0.409, SE = 0.182, p = .025, and Hispanic students had significantly lower popularity goals in the spring semester of fifth grade, β = −0.471, SE = 0.217, p = .031. The ethnic differences in linear change were trending and failed to reach the significance level. Compared with Caucasian students’ popularity goal trajectory, African American students’ endorsement of popularity seemed to display a steeper linear decline, β = −0.099, SE = 0.060, p = .100, whereas Hispanic students’ popularity showed a slight linear incline, β = 0.123, SE = 0.070, p = .078. There were no significant ethnic differences in transition change of popularity goal. Plots of the estimated trajectories for the three ethnic groups are presented in Figure 2.
|
Table 2. Estimated Coefficients and Standard Errors From the HLM Trajectory Analyses of Adolescents’ Popularity Goal: Testing Gender and Ethnic Differences.
Individual Differences
We next examined whether an early adolescent’s popularity status and perceptions of the popularity peer norm were associated with individual trajectories of popularity goal. In the first model, we tested whether mean levels of popularity status were associated with the intercept of popularity goal and whether time-varying changes in popularity status were associated with changes in popularity goal (see Table 3, Model 1). There was a significant between-individual effect of the mean level of popularity status on the intercept of popularity goal (β = 0.450, SE = 0.078, p < .001), meaning that those students who were more popular on average across all time points had higher popularity goals. There was no significant within-individual association between popularity status and popularity goal (β = −0.042, SE = 0.057, p = .463). In the second model, we tested whether the rate of change of popularity goal (i.e., linear and transition changes) differed based on youth’s popularity status (see Table 3, Model 2). Results indicate a significant difference in the slope of the transition change from fifth to sixth grade depending on youth’s popularity status (β = −0.250, SE = 0.099, p = .012) but no significant difference in the slope of the linear change across all time points depending on youth’s popularity status (β = 0.004, SE = 0.031, p = .906). To aid in the interpretation of this result, the trajectories for youth high and low in popularity status at each time point (±1 SD) were plotted (see Figure 3). Youth with low popularity status increased their endorsement of a popularity goal during the transition from fifth to sixth grade whereas youth with high popularity status did not show such an increase, though it should be noted that youth with high popularity status across all time points had significantly higher levels of popularity goal in fifth grade (pre-transition).
|
Table 3. Estimated Coefficients and Standard Errors From the HLM Trajectory Analyses of Adolescents’ Popularity Goal: Testing Popularity Status Differences.
The same steps were followed to test for differences depending on youth’s perceptions of the popularity peer norm (see Table 4). Results in Model 1 showed that the mean level of perceived peer norm was not associated with the intercept of popularity goal, β = 0.045, SE = 0.082, p = .583. However, there was a significant association between popularity goal and time-varying perceived peer norms, β = 0.143, SE = 0.042, p = .001. In other words, when students perceived that their peers placed more value on popularity from one time point to the next, their popularity goal also increased. Results in Model 2 showed that there were significant differences in the rate of change during the transition depending on youth’s perceptions of the peer norm (β = 0.216, SE = 0.101, p = .033) but no significant differences in the rate of linear change across all time points based on youth’s perceptions of the popularity peer norm (β = −0.049, SE = 0.032, p = .127). A plot of the trajectories for youth with high and low perceptions of the popularity peer norm at each time point (±1 SD) was created (see Figure 4). Youth who perceived higher peer norms for popularity increased their endorsement of popularity goal during the transition from fifth to sixth grade, whereas youth who perceived lower peer norms for popularity did not show such an increase in popularity goal. We should note that there was no significant three-way interaction between perceived peer norms, popularity status, and the rates of change over time.
|
Table 4. Estimated Coefficients and Standard Errors From the HLM Trajectory Analyses of Adolescents’ Popularity Goal: Testing Perceived Peer Norm Differences.
Discussion
This study fills a gap in the literature about the trajectories of early adolescents’ popularity goal and how they change across the transition to middle school and into the middle school years. Results indicate that as youth transitioned from elementary school to middle school, they increased their goal for popularity. After the transition, the importance of popularity goal declined. There were no significant gender differences in the trajectory of popularity goal but there were significant ethnic differences in students’ initial levels of popularity goal in the fifth grade. Furthermore, students’ popularity goal was related to their own popularity status and their perceptions of how much their peers value popularity, such that higher average popularity was associated with higher popularity goal in fifth grade and higher perceived peer norms at each time point was associated with increases in popularity goal. Finally, both popularity status and perceived peer norms moderated the transition change. Greater increases in popularity goal during the transition were found for those early adolescents with lower popularity status, though it is important to note that those students with high popularity had higher popularity goals pre-transition (i.e., in fifth grade). Finally, those students who perceived that peers valued popularity more during the transition showed greater increases in their popularity goal.
Increases in Popularity Goal After Transition to Middle School
The significant increase in the importance of popularity goal that occurred during the transition to middle school replicates a recent finding by Kiefer and colleagues (2013) on changes in popularity goal and suggests that youth’s goals are sensitive to changes in their environment. The transition to middle school has been described as a “land grab” for status as youth renegotiate peer affiliations, peer group membership, and social position in the status hierarchy (Farmer et al., 2011; Guerra, Williams, & Sadek, 2011; Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015). Those hoping to seize the opportunity to maintain or increase their popularity status during this time of upheaval may increase their popularity goal, as the results of this study indicate. Yet, results also reveal that youth’s popularity goal declined from the start of middle school through the spring semester of seventh grade, possibly due to the solidification of the popular status hierarchy post-transition. We observed high levels of stability in popularity from the fall semester of sixth grade through the spring semester of seventh grade (rs = .68-.83; see Table 1). In contrast, lower levels of stability in popularity were found between the spring of fifth grade and the sixth and seventh grade assessments (rs = .54-.62). To be sure, some youth will continue to endorse high importance of a popularity goal even if the odds of them achieving that goal are slim (i.e., for low popular youth). Yet, the data reveal that after the initial increase in importance following the transition, youth appear to place less importance on achieving popularity. This decrease in popularity goal during the early middle school grades contradicted our predictions based on the finding by LaFontana and Cillessen (2010) that priority for popularity remained high through the early high school years. It is likely that this current study’s longitudinal design and higher number of measurements per year in middle school made it possible to demonstrate these significant within-person changes over time. Alternatively, LaFontana and Cillessen’s cross-sectional study investigated adolescents’ popularity goal relative to other social goals, not changes in popularity goal itself. In addition to linear changes over time, this current study’s longitudinal data reveals the importance and significance of the middle school transition in youth’s desire to be popular.
Individual Differences in Popularity Goal: Perceived Peer Norms and Popularity Status
In order to improve our understanding of individual differences in youth’s endorsement of popularity goal, we examined two factors: youth’s perceptions of how much their peers value popularity and their own popularity status in the peer network. We found that changes in their perception of the popularity norm in the peer network were associated with changes in their popularity goal: increases in students’ perceptions that peers placed greater value on popularity were associated with increases in students’ popularity goal. In addition, the rate of change of popularity goal during the transition was associated with youth’s popularity norm perceptions. Those youth with high perceptions of the popularity peer norm following the transition had greater increases in popularity goal during the transition (i.e., between fifth and sixth grade). This finding is important for two reasons. One, it provides evidence for links between perceptions of peer norms of valuing popularity and further cognitive processes, that is, youth’s popularity goals. The links between popularity goals and related behaviors (i.e., goal pursuit) have been established in previous studies (e.g., Dawes & Xie, 2014; Li & Wright, 2014). This current study extends our understanding by providing evidence of processes involved in goal setting: linking changes in the context and how youth perceive those changes to changes in a specific social goal. Second, our finding suggests that a possible point of intervention for risky behaviors associated with popularity (i.e., sexual activity, alcohol use; Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008) may be to change adolescents’ perceptions of peer norms which may then influence their goal for popularity. Norms are assumed to be a source of powerful influence in individuals’ lives (Cialdini & Trost, 1998) and assessing the norms youth are exposed to and the norms they perceive has the potential to yield fruitful information about the context in which associated behaviors develop. It is important to note that the norms assessed in this study were each adolescent’s own perception. Unlike an objective measure of norms, a subjective measure assessing perceptions may be arguably more beneficial for our understanding of goal setting processes given the fact that perceptions are assumed to influence further thought and action (Bandura, 1991, 2001; Rimal & Real, 2003). This study provides support for the examination of youth’s perceptions of peer norms and their role in the development and pursuit of different social goals.
Youth’s popularity goal was also associated with their own popularity status. First, we found a positive between-person association between popularity status and popularity goal, indicating that youth with higher popularity status on average across all the time points tended to endorse higher importance of a popularity goal. This positive association between popularity goal and popularity status has been found previously (Dawes & Xie, 2014). Given the desirable benefits associated with high status (e.g., social power; Fiske, 1993), it is reasonable to expect popular youth to endorse a high popularity goal. However, we did not find any within-person association between popularity status and popularity goal, indicating that changes in popularity status from one time point to the next were not associated with changes in popularity goal for the same individual. This finding may be explained by the high levels of stability of status over time for individuals (see Table 1 for correlations): the majority of youth will not show tremendous changes across time points (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Interestingly, the rate of change for popularity goal during the transition was associated with popularity status, as indicated by the significant interaction between popularity status and transition time. Low popular youth showed greater increases in popularity goal from pre-transition (i.e., fifth grade) to post-transition (i.e., sixth and seventh grade) compared with high popular youth. It may be that these low popular youth catch up to the norm for popularity goal set by the high popular youth who displayed high endorsement of popularity goal pre-transition (in fifth grade). Such low popular youth may come to understand the desirability of popularity status and its related benefits and seek to capitalize on the social reshuffling to improve their own popularity status during the transition to middle school (Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994; Fiske, 1993; Hawley, 1999). For example, pursuing a popularity goal may encourage low popular youth to affiliate with more popular peers or even date more popular peers, allowing them to bask in reflected glory and elevate their own status (Brown, 1999; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Dijkstra, Cillessen, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2010; Houser, Mayeux, & Cross, 2015; Marks, Cillessen, & Crick, 2012). In contrast to low popular youth, those with high popularity status showed a decreasing trend over the transition. This may indicate a ceiling effect for these high popular youth: they started out with high endorsement of popularity goal and it is unlikely that they would significantly increase from their initial levels. Even if they did not show increases in popularity goal, research suggests it is these popular youth who are likely to engage in increasing levels of aggressive behavior as a means of maintaining their status (Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014).
Gender Similarity and Ethnic Differences in Popularity Goal Trajectories
Finally, we examined gender differences and explored ethnic differences in the intercept and rates of change of popularity goal over time. We found no significant gender differences in the trajectory of popularity goal which is line with other research (e.g., Cillessen et al., 2014; Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996; Li & Wright, 2014; Sijtsema et al., 2009). This body of evidence suggests that both boys and girls place similar levels of importance on the specific goal for popularity and have similar trajectories of popularity goal throughout the transition to middle school and beyond into the seventh grade.
Our test of ethnic differences in the intercept and rates of change of popularity goal revealed that African Americans had the highest initial levels of popularity goal, followed by Caucasian students and finally Hispanic students. Ethnic differences in linear change were only trending as they did not reach the significance level. The patterns suggested a declining linear trajectory of popularity goal for Caucasian and African American students but a slight ascending trajectory for Hispanic students. There were no significant ethnic differences in the rate of change during the transition to middle school. These exploratory findings are the first to directly test ethnic differences in within-person changes in the endorsement of popularity goal over time. LaFontana and Cillessen (2010) tested for ethnic differences in patterns of prioritizing popularity over other domains in a cross-sectional study. The authors found that White students prioritized popularity status over academic achievement more than African American and Latino students (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). However, in this current study, we found higher initial endorsement of popularity goal by African American students compared to Caucasian and Hispanic students. Initially, we speculated that the discrepant findings might be due to the effect of being part of the numerical ethnic majority. We noticed that White students were the numerical majority in LaFontana and Cillessen’s study, whereas African American students were the numerical majority in our sample. In order to clarify this issue, we tested whether being a part of the numerical majority in school was associated with youth’s endorsement of popularity goal. Given that the primary ethnic differences existed in the initial levels in fifth grade, we analyzed whether ethnic differences varied depending on African American students’ status as the numerical majority in school.1 We found no association between numerical majority status and popularity goal, and more importantly, being the numerical majority or not did not change the pattern of ethnic differences. Therefore, differences in which ethnic group represented the numerical majority between these two studies are unlikely to explain the discrepant findings. A more likely explanation may lie in the different measures used. In LaFontana and Cillessen’s study, the priority for popularity relative to other domains was assessed, whereas in our study, absolute ratings were used to measure popularity goal. Although White youth in LaFontana and Cillessen’s study prioritized popularity over other goals (e.g., academic), more than Black youth did, it is not clear if the actual values of popularity goal were comparable or different between the two ethnic groups. In contrast, in our study, we directly assessed early adolescents’ endorsement of popularity goal using a Likert-type scale. Ethnic differences were defined by their different degrees of endorsement for the same popularity goal, not in their rankings relative to other domains. Further research is needed using different samples to confirm the ethnic differences found in these studies.
Implications
What are the implications for the increase in youth’s popularity goal during the transition to middle school? It is plausible that the rising importance of popularity goal may give insight into why academic engagement suffers for some youth during middle school. For instance, popularity goal was found to be related to negative emotions about school such as feelings of anxiety or anger at school (L. H. Anderman, 1999) and with avoiding help-seeking in the classroom (Ryan et al., 1997). In addition, for youth who are pursuing popularity status, getting good grades and showing effort in the classroom are not seen as behaviors that will promote popularity status (Gorman, Kim, & Schimmelbusch, 2002; Juvonen & Murdock, 1995). Thus, youth who desire popularity status may sacrifice their engagement in the classroom in order to achieve status. All of these factors give cause for concern. However, if the behaviors associated with popularity are a reflection of the behaviors rewarded in the school and peer culture, it is reasonable to expect that changing the classroom context will likely influence the peer context and the peer culture surrounding popularity. Evidence from an intervention study demonstrates that teachers have the ability to create classroom contexts that are more supportive of academic achievement and effort (e.g., Farmer, Hall, Petrin, Hamm, & Dadisman, 2010; Farmer, Hamm, et al., 2010; Hamm, Farmer, Dadisman, Gravelle, & Murray, 2011). Other research demonstrates how classroom goal orientations (e.g., learning or performance goals) relate to adolescents’ own academic goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; E. M. Anderman & Maehr, 1994; E. M. Anderman & Young, 1994), but more work is needed to investigate how school and classroom context influence the peer culture of popularity status and adolescents’ popularity goal.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study represents an important step forward in adolescent social goal research. However, a few of the study’s limitations must be noted. First, using only a single item to assess popularity goal likely compromised the psychometric properties of the measure. Future work would benefit from using popularity goal measures with multiple items such as those used by Kiefer and Ryan (2008) and Li and Wright (2014). However, we believe that the item remains a valid measurement given its direct match with what it means to have popularity status. In addition, the assessment of popularity goal over five time points revealed high levels of stability, similar to that of other multi-item goal measures (e.g., E. M. Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Meece & Miller, 1999; Middleton, Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004). Second, it is possible that the descriptor used with our measure of popularity affected who students nominated as popular (“This person is popular at school, many classmates like to play with them or do things with them”). Current recommendations for peer nominations for popularity suggest assessing popularity without descriptors because they tend to be adult-imposed and have the potential for distracting students (Cillessen & Marks, 2011). However, a previous report using the same study sample indicated that the popularity measure used in this current study was distinct from the peer preference measure in fifth grade (Shi & Xie, 2012). To be sure, we ran additional correlational analyses between popularity, peer preference, aggressive behavior, and prosocial behavior for each time point. The patterns clearly show that our popularity measure assessed a type of social status different from peer preference. Popularity was consistently and positively associated with aggression (range = .22-.43, ps < .001), whereas peer preference was negatively associated with aggression (range = −.18 to −.33, ps < .001). In addition, popularity and prosocial behavior were unrelated (range = −.03-.06, ps > .27), except for the spring semester of fifth grade and the fall semester of sixth grade (rs = .19 and .17, respectively, ps < .01), whereas peer preference was positively associated with prosocial behavior across all five time points (range = .23-.34, ps < .001). Third, this study focused solely on the early adolescent time period between the fifth and seventh grades and it is not clear how the goal for popularity would change in later grades of middle school or across the transition to high school. Future work is needed to test whether the changes in youth’s social context which occur during the transition to high school would similarly influence their goal for popularity status.
Summary
Despite these limitations, this study fills a gap in the literature on the development of youth’s popularity goal during early adolescence. Our findings demonstrate that youth’s popularity goal can be affected by individual and contextual factors. Specifically, the transition to middle school is a period with significant shifts in the social context and early adolescents manifest increased endorsement of popularity goal during this time. The magnitude of youth’s increase in popularity goal is associated with youth’s own popularity status and their perceptions of peers’ valuing of popularity.
|
Appendix Correlations Among Popularity, Preference, Social Aggression, Physical Aggression, and Prosocial Behavior Within Each Time Point.
Authors’ Note
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agencies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF 0339070) and William T. Grant Foundation (Grant ID 6934) to Hongling Xie.
Notes
1.
To elucidate the significant ethnic differences in youth’s initial levels of popularity goal in the fifth grade, we conducted further analyses testing the interaction between ethnicity and numerical majority status in the schools. Of the six elementary schools, African Americans were the ethnic numerical majority (above 50%) in four schools, Caucasians were the numerical majority in one school, and in the remaining school, numerical majority was split between African American and Caucasian students (both approximately 40%). Because Hispanics were not the numerical majority in any school, the additional analyses were restricted to Caucasian and African American students in the fifth grade (n = 246). The distribution of four subgroups was as follows: Caucasian and numerical minority students (n = 31), Caucasian and numerical majority students (n = 70), African American and numerical minority students (n = 21), and African American and numerical majority students (n = 124). ANOVA indicated no significant numerical majority status effect on popularity goal, F(1, 245) = 0.268, p = .605, and no significant interaction effect between ethnicity and numerical majority, F(1, 245) = 0.012, p = .911. These results indicate that the significantly higher initial level of popularity goal endorsed by African American students in fifth grade was not due to the effect of being the numerical majority in school.
References
|
Adler, P. A., Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescents culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Ames, C., Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309. doi:10.3102/00346543064002287 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Anderman, E. M., Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0926 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Anderman, E. M., Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-831. doi:10.1002/tea.3660310805 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as predictors of students’ positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89-103. Google Scholar | |
|
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Google Scholar | |
|
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Benenson, J. F., Benarroch, D. (1998). Gender differences in responses to friends’ hypothetical greater success. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 192-208. doi:10.1177/0272431698018002004 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1447-1460. doi:10.2307/1130071 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Brown, B. B. (1999). “You’re going out with who?” Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In Furman, W., Brown, B. B., Feiring, C. (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291-329). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Brown, B. B., Mory, M. S., Kinney, D. (1994). Casting adolescent crowds in a relational perspective: Caricature, channel, and context. In Montemayer, R., Adams, G. R., Gulotta, T. P. (Eds.), Advances in adolescent development: Personal relationships during adolescence (Vol. 5, pp. 123-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models in social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Caravita, S. C. S., Cillessen, A. H. N. (2011). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21, 376-395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cialdini, R. B., Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-416. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.406 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar | |
|
Cillessen, A. H. N., Borch, C. (2006). Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: A growth curve modelling analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 935-959. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.05.005 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Cillessen, A. H. N., Marks, P. E. L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In Cillessen, A., Schwartz, D., Mayeux, L. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25-56). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Cillessen, A. H. N., Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Cillessen, A. H. N., Mayeux, L., Ha, T., de Bruyn, E. H., LaFontana, K. M. (2014). Aggressive effects of prioritizing popularity in early adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 204-213. doi:10.1002/ab.21518 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Cillessen, A. H. N., Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Corsaro, W., Eder, D. (1990). Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 197-220. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001213 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar | |
|
Dawes, M., Xie, H. (2014). The role of popularity goal in early adolescents’ behaviors and popularity status. Developmental Psychology, 50, 489-497. doi:10.1037/a0032999 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
de Bruyn, E. H., van den Boom, D. C. (2005). Interpersonal behavior, peer popularity, and self-esteem in early adolescence. Social Development, 14, 555-573. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00317.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Dijkstra, J. K., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lindenberg, S., Veenstra, R. (2010). Basking in reflected glory and its limits: Why adolescents hang out with popular peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 942-958. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00671.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In Ames, C., Ames, R. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154-165. doi:10.2307/2112416 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Eder, D., Kinney, D. A. (1995). The effect of middle school extracurricular activities on adolescents’ popularity and peer status. Youth & Society, 26, 298-324. doi:10.1177/0044118X95026003002 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, J. L., O’Neal, K. K., Cairns, B. D. (2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39, 992-1004. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.992 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Farmer, T. W., Hall, C. M., Petrin, R. A., Hamm, J. V., Dadisman, K. (2010). Promoting teachers’ awareness of social networks at the beginning of middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 94-106. doi:10.1037/a0020147 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Leung, M.-C., Lambert, K., Gravelle, M. (2011). Early adolescent peer ecologies in rural communities: Bullying in schools that do and do not have a transition during the middle grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1106-1117. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9684-0 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Petrin, R. A., Robertson, D. L., Murray, R. A., Meece, J. L., Brooks, D. S. (2010). Creating supportive classroom contexts for academically and behaviorally at-risk youth during the transition to middle school: A strength-based perspective. Exceptionality, 18, 94-106. doi:10.1080/09362831003673192 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Farmer, T. W., Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174-188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00079.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Galván, A., Spatzier, A., Juvonen, J. (2011). Perceived norms and social value to capture school culture in elementary and middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 346-353. doi:10.1016.j.appdev.2011.08.005 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 143-165. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00092-4 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82, 295-310. doi.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01556.x Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Dadisman, K., Gravelle, M., Murray, R. A. (2011). Teachers’ attunement to students’ peer group affiliations as a source of improved student experiences of the school social-affective context following the middle school transition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 267-277. doi:10.1016/j/appdev.2010.06.003 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97-132. doi:10.1006/drev.1998.0470 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279-309. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0013 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Houser, J. J., Mayeux, L., Cross, C. (2015). Peer status and aggression as predictors of dating popularity in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 683-695. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0174-z Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Jarvinen, D. W., Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. Developmental Psychology, 32, 435-441. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.435 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Juvonen, J., Murdock, T. B. (1995). Grade-level differences in the social value of effort: Implications for the self-presentation tactics of early adolescents. Child Development, 66, 1694-1705. doi:10.2307/1131904 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Kiefer, S. M., Matthews, Y. T., Montesino, M., Arango, L., Preece, K. K. (2013). The effects of contextual and personal factors on young adolescents’ social goals. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 44-67. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.630046 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Kiefer, S. M., Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: The implications for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 417-428. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.417 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
LaFontana, K. M., Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-647. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
LaFontana, K. M., Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130-147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Lease, A., Kennedy, C. A., Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00188 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Li, Y., Wright, M. F. (2014). Adolescents’ social status goals: Relationships to social status insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 146-160. doi:10/1007/s10964-013-9939-z Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Marks, P. E. L., Babcock, B., Cillessen, A. H. N., Crick, N. R. (2013). The effects of participation rate on the internal reliability of peer nomination measures. Social Development, 22, 609-622. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00661.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Marks, P. E. L., Cillessen, A. H. N., Crick, N. R. (2012). Popularity contagion among adolescents. Social Development, 21, 501-521. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00647.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49-74. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00550.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Meece, J. L., Miller, S. D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 207-229. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_2 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Middleton, M. J., Kaplan, A., Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students’ achievement goals in mathematics over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 289-311. doi:10.1023/B:SPOE.0000037484.86850.fa Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Ojanen, T., Findley-Van Nostrand, D. (2014). Social goals, aggression, peer preference, and popularity: Longitudinal links during middle school. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2134-2143. doi:10.1037/a0037137 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Ojanen, T., Grönroos, M., Salmivalli, C. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699-710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.699 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Parkhurst, J. T., Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144. doi:10.1177/0272431698018002001 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151-164. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pellegrini, A. D., Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. doi:10.1348/026151002166442 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Prinstein, M. J., Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310-342. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0015 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Rimal, R. N., Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13, 184-203. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00288.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378-387. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.378 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., Midgley, C. (1997). Social goals, academic goals, and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 152-171. doi:10.1177/0272431697017002003 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Sandstrom, M., Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305-314. doi:10.1177/0165025406072789 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., Kusumakar, V. (2000). Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 163-182. doi:10.1023/A:1005152515264 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Shi, B., Xie, H. (2012). Popular and nonpopular subtypes of physically aggressive preadolescents: Continuity of aggression during the transition to middle school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 530-553. doi:10.1353/mpq.2012.0025 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57-67. doi:10.1002/ab.20282 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Google Scholar | |
|
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202-209. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.202 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105-115. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1021 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Willett, J. B., Singer, J. D., Martin, N. C. (1998). The design and analysis of longitudinal studies of development and psychopathology in context: Statistical models and methodological recommendations. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 395-426. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Wright, M. F., Li, Y., Shi, J. (2014). Chinese adolescents’ social status goals: Associations with behaviors and attributions for relational aggression. Youth & Society, 46, 566-588. doi:10.1177/0044118X12448800 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., Espelage, D. L. (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36-51. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
Author Biographies
Molly Dawes received her PhD in developmental psychology from Temple University and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in the School of Education. Her research focuses on early adolescent social relationships, social goals, and the links between peer social dynamics and academic outcomes.
Hongling Xie earned her PhD from the University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill, and is currently an associate professor of psychology at Temple University. Her research focuses on the development of physical and social forms of aggression and victimization in peer social networks.