Interpersonal Behavior, Peer Popularity, and Self-esteem in Early Adolescence

Articles

Interpersonal Behavior, Peer Popularity, andSelf-esteem in Early AdolescenceEddy H. de Bruyn and Dymphna C. van den Boom, Department ofEducational Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

The present study compared the behavioral correlates of sociometric popularity statusand consensual popularity status among a large group of children ( N = 778) in theirfirst year of secondary school. By means of self-report and classmates’nomination pro-cedures, the relative contribution of the two types of popularity to peer role strain andself-esteem were investigated. Results indicated large differences in the behavioralcorrelates of both types of popularity: Sociometric popularity is largely related tocooperative behavior and being perceived as popular. Consensual popularity is highlyrelated to fashion style and being perceived as not boring. The two types of popu-larity were uniquely related to self-esteem levels. Consensual popularity was directlylinked to social self-esteem; sociometric popularity appeared to be linked to self-esteem through the reduction of peer role strain levels. The results are discussed inthe light of social psychological theories of dominance and prestige among children.

Keywords: peer popularity; consensual popularity; role strain; self-esteem

The popularity status of adolescents appears to be associated with many indicators ofhealthy interpersonal and individual functioning (Hartup, 1995). At the interpersonallevel, popular adolescents display effective social skills (Hartup, 1995) and generallyexhibit traits conducive to maintaining close friendships such as warmth and respon-siveness (e.g., La Freniere & Charlesworth, 1987). In contrast, rejected adolescentsappear more aggressive, mean, and vindictive toward peers (Hartup, 1995; HopmeyerGorman, Kim & Schimmelbusch, 2001; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). At the indi-vidual level, links have been revealed between adolescents’ popularity ratings andseveral measures of psychosocial functioning. For instance, popular adolescents regardtheir social selves in a more favorable light (Chambliss, Muller, Hulnick & Wood,1978; Harter, Stocker & Robinson, 1996; Simon, 1972) and appear to experience fewerhassles from classmates as manifested by reduced peer role strain levels (Fenzel, 1989,2000). In all aforementioned studies, however, adolescents’ popularity status resultedfrom an explicitly defined method of classification based on researchers’ a priori

Correspondence should be addressed to Eddy H. de Bruyn, Department of Educational Sciences,University of Amsterdam, Wibautstraat 4, 1091 GM Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email:[email protected]

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

mailto:[email protected]

556 Eddy H. de Bruyn and Dymphna C. van den Boom

criteria of popularity (e.g., Babad, 2001; Coie, Dodge & Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb& Bukowski, 1983).

More recently, an implicit method of popularity rating is being used increasingly(Babad, 2001; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Farmer, Estell, Bishop, O’Neal & Cairns,2003; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Lease, Kennedy & Axelrod, 2002; Lease, Musgrove & Axelrod, 2002; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). This method of assessingpopularity relies on adolescents’ nominations of popular and unpopular peers and islabeled as judgmental sociometry (Babad, 2001), perceived popularity (Parkhurst &Hopmeyer, 1998), or consensual popularity (this inquiry). Studies suggest that con-sensually popular children display a plethora of behaviors and characteristics asso-ciated with social dominance and prestige. For instance, Lease et al. (2002) showedthat consensually popular/dominant children were more attractive and more rela-tionally aggressive. Also, Farmer et al.’s (2003) study of young African-Americansrevealed that consensually popular youth scored high on social prominence, socialskills, manipulation, and leadership. Ethnographic studies indicate that upon entry intojunior high, adolescents’ concerns with popularity (consensual) soars (e.g., Eder,1985). Few studies, however, have investigated intrapersonal correlates of consensualpopularity. A notable exception is Hawley (2003), who found low to modest correla-tions between perceived popularity and rejection and self-concept.

The present study was designed in order to further our understanding of the asso-ciations among young adolescents’ interpersonal behavioral repertoires, social status,and intrapersonal functioning. Thus, we intend to answer the following research questions. To what extent do the behavioral constellations associated with the twoaforementioned types of popularity differ? In addition, how does the intrapersonalfunctioning vary as a function of popularity (consensual and sociometric)? In orderto do so, we investigated a large sample of young adolescents who have recently experienced a major ecological transition (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), namely, entry intosecondary school.

Peer Popularity

Traditional sociometric classification (e.g., Asher, 1990; Coie et al., 1982) identifies‘popular’ individuals by asking a group of children (e.g., classmates) to nominate peerswhom they like most and those whom they like least or to name their three best friendsand three children whom they would not want as friends. Based on this information,each child is awarded two scores: social preference (the z-score of best/most-liked-friend nominations minus the z-score of least/fewest-liked-friend nominations) andsocial impact (the z-score of best/most-liked-friend nominations plus the z-score of least/fewest-liked-friend nominations). Popular adolescents are those with highbest/most-liked-friend scores and low least/fewest-liked-friend scores. Other statuscategories are rejected (low best/most-liked/friend, high least/fewest-liked/friend),controversial (zero social preference, high social impact), neglected (zero social preference and zero social impact), and average (the remainder). However, severalresearchers have pointed out that popular adolescents classified by traditional socio-metric methods might not be popular as defined by group consensus on ‘popularity’(Babad, 2001; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). For instance, Parkhurst and Hopmeyer(1998) asked adolescents to name three peers whom they thought were most popular.In general, moderate correlations have been found between the two methods of clas-sification. In other words, sociometrically popular adolescents were not necessarily

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 4, 2005

Popularity in Early Adolescence 557

consensually popular (for a notable exception, see Prinstein & Cillessen [2003] whoreported a correlation of 0.80 for boys). Also, many consensually popular adolescentshave often been classified as sociometrically controversial. Babad (2001) demon-strated that only 9 per cent of children received high scores on both types of ratings,and more than 20 per cent of the children were classified as high on consensual popu-larity yet only moderately liked (and vice versa). In sum, there appears to be a trendamong developmental and social psychologists to investigate consensual popularity asa construct with more vivid psychological meaning to adolescents and thus increasedecological validity (Babad, 2001; Brown, 2004).

Correlates of Popularity

The behavioral correlates of sociometrically popular children are well established(Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 1998). In general, sociometrically popular children tendto be friendly, sociable, and cooperative (e.g., Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983;Newcomb, Bukowksi & Pattee, 1993; Rubin et al., 1998). In contrast, rejected chil-dren tend to be overly aggressive (e.g., Cillessen, Van IJzendoorn, Van Lieshout &Hartup, 1992; Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983), less prosocial, irresponsible, and relativelypoor academic achievers (e.g., Wentzel, 1995, 2003).

Only recently have studies begun to describe and theorize regarding links betweeninterpersonal behavioral variables and consensual popularity. Boyatzis, Baloff, andDurieux (1998) showed that hypothetical peers, who were described as attractive, werejudged as more popular than unattractive peers. LaFontana and Cillessen (1999)demonstrated that traits attributed to hypothetical peers differed between peersdescribed as popular versus unpopular. Unpopular hypothetical peers received unani-mously negative traits; popular peers received a mixture of positive and negative traits.These findings were replicated in studies on consensual popularity ratings of realpeers. For instance, Luthar and McMahon (1996) found that consensual popular ado-lescents were described by a mixture of prosocial and aggressive/disruptive behaviors.Other studies indicated that consensually popular adolescents displayed relatively highlevels of aggression and low levels of prosocial behavior (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,1998). More recently, developmental researchers have assimilated findings fromethnographic studies into theorizing on the phenomenology of consensual popularity.For instance, Hawley (2003) showed that children who tend to use prosocial or bi-strategic (i.e., prosocial and coercive) strategies in order to get what they wanted wererated high on consensual popularity. In other words, some consensual children seemedto charm their way; others coerced their way. Eder’s (1985) study on the cycle of popu-larity supports the notion that these children are quite aware of when to use whichstrategy. Ethologists have also described consensual popular individuals in a mixtureof prosocial and aggressive–coercive behavior, albeit from a social dominance per-spective (e.g., De Waal, 1986; Long & Pellegrini, 2003; Pellegrini, 2001; Pellegrini &Bartini, 2001). The social dominance theory states that aggression and affiliation are behavioral tools used to acquire certain resources such as toys or partners (e.g.,Hawley, 2003; Long & Pellegrini, 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2002, 2003). Althoughnot investigated in the current study, it must be noted that consensually popular children differ from rejected children in the type of aggression displayed. The formertend to use instrumental aggression; the latter are more prone to reactive and unre-stricted/unprovoked aggressive behaviors (Hawley, 2003; Little, Brauner, Jones, Nock& Hawley, 2003).



Apart from a typical behavioral repertoire, consensual popularity status also tendsto be equated with attractiveness and style of clothing. For instance, LaFontana andCillessen (2002) revealed that the better-looking adolescents with more spendingpower tended to be more popular. Weisfeld, Bloch, and Ivers (1984) also showed thatgirls and boys acquired high consensual popularity status mainly through fashionableappearance and attractiveness.

This paragraph elucidated some of the behavioral correlates of sociometric and con-sensual popularity. These correlates, appearance, antisocial, and prosocial behaviors,will be included in the present inquiry.

Social Self-esteem and Peer Role Strain

At the intrapersonal or individual level, children’s sociometric popularity status hasbeen related to several indices of psychosocial functioning, notably, self-esteem (e.g.,Chambliss et al., 1978) and peer role strain (e.g., Fenzel, 2000). Self-esteem is animportant psychological barometer of personal well-being in early adolescence (e.g.,Harter, Bresnick, Bouchey & Whitesell, 1997; Harter, Waters & Whitesell, 1998).Studies showed that early adolescents are extremely preoccupied with peer approval(Harter, 1990), acceptance, and popularity (Eder, 1985). In fact, Harter (1990) dis-cerned that self-esteem was affected more by approval and disapproval from class-mates in general rather than from close friends. Approval from classmates, however,can be expressed in several ways such as social preference (i.e., having many friends)and consensual popularity status (i.e., being considered popular). Social preference isa direct indicator of a child’s likability and thus an obvious sign of peer approval.Indeed, links have been found between social preference and self-esteem (Chamblisset al., 1978; Simon, 1972). Another indicator of peer approval is the level of role strainthat a child experiences within a peer group (Fenzel, 1989, 2000). Role strain may bedefined as the amount of stress that a person experiences from occupying a certainposition or role in a specific context (e.g., Goode, 1960). At school, early adolescentsfulfill the role of student, classmate, and friend. Each of these roles is accompaniedby a unique set of expectations and rules. After the transition into secondary school,the early adolescent is now faced with the particular harsh reality of a new building,new teachers, novel teaching and grading methods, and vastly increased amounts ofhomework. But more importantly, the children find themselves in a group of up to 30unfamiliar classmates. Considering that these children come from up to two dozendifferent primary ‘seed’ schools, it is very unlikely that previous friends or acquain-tances end up in the same classroom. Not surprisingly, a relationship has been foundbetween the experienced peer role strain and levels of self-worth (Fenzel, 2000). Inother words, children who experienced difficulties in coping with the newly found peerrole displayed decreased levels of self-esteem.

However, the question less frequently asked is: How do peer acceptance and self-esteem relate to each other? Is self-esteem perhaps mediated through peer role strain?Furthermore, what are the consequences of being consensually popular upon self-esteem? And is the link between consensual popularity and self-esteem mediated bypeer role strain?

The present study purports to answer these questions by investigating the concep-tual model displayed in Figure 1. With regard to the proposed model, two hypotheseswere generated.



First, it was expected that the two measures of social position, social preference andconsensual popularity, would be associated with a different constellation of behavioralcharacteristics. Considering the nature of social preference, i.e., maintaining friend-ships and being liked, we expected this measure to be predicted by prosocial beha-viors such as cooperation, keeping promises, and sharing. In addition, we expectedantisocial behaviors, such as fighting, lying, and being mean, to reduce children’slevels of likability. Because previous research has found that consensually popularchildren were at least moderately liked by peers, we also expected consensual popu-larity to predict social preference (Babad, 2001; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Con-sensual popularity predictors were expected to differ from likability predictors. Forinstance, Weisfeld et al. (1984) found that fashion played a prominent role in domi-nance hierarchies. In theory, dominance, consensual popularity, and prestige are allgoverned by similar status-organizing processes (Berger, Rosenholtz & Zelditch,1980). Succinctly put, these processes occur when characteristics of peers become thebasis of hierarchical status organization. Therefore, we expected style of clothing tobe as important to consensual popularity as it appears to be to dominance. In the lightof previous studies on consensual status and aggression (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux,2004), we expected these children to display antisocial behaviors such as fighting andmeanness. In addition, we expected children with many friends to be consensuallypopular.

Second, it was postulated that the two indices of social position (social preferenceand consensual popularity) would predict self-esteem by reducing peer role strain.Eder (1985) suggested that early adolescents are extremely concerned with issues ofacceptance and popularity, that is, actions and reactions of classmates toward the indi-vidual child by means of isolation, rejection, or ostracism. In fact, Eder found that,for adolescent females at least, the desire to be well liked exceeded their concern withacademic success. Harter (1990) also argued that self-concept is influenced by the atti-tudes of significant others (such as classmates) concerning acceptance. Thus, it washypothesized that consensually popular children with many friends would experiencelow levels of peer role strain, which, in turn, would be associated with high levels ofself-esteem.

In order to investigate these hypotheses, a large group of early adolescents in their first year of secondary school were studied. We expected these children, being in a relative state of ‘shock and awe’ as a consequence of having experienced an ecological transition, to be particularly vulnerable to the vicissitudes of classmatebehavior.


Behavioralcharacteristics Popularity

Self-esteem

Peer role strain

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Behavior, Popularity, and Self-esteem.


Method

Participants

The participants were 779 students from 33 classrooms of six different pre-universitytracked schools in the cities of Amsterdam, Delft, and Amersfoort. The Dutch educa-tional system tracks children from their first day in secondary school, based upon astandardized aptitude test and the primary school headteachers’ recommendation. Inorder to gain entrance to a pre-university tracked school, the students must performabove average. Approximately 39 per cent of Dutch children are enrolled in this track;all other children attend lower tracking levels. The students represented the completefirst-year cohort of each school. There were 382 boys (49 per cent) and 397 girls frompredominately middle-class families. The average age of the children was 13.05 years(SD = .44). The ethnic composition of the sample was 84 per cent Dutch, 6 per centSurinamese, 2 per cent Moroccan, 2 per cent Turkish, and 26 other nationalities com-prising the remainder. The parents were informed regarding the purpose of the studyand told that participation was not obligatory. One parent withdrew her child from thestudy. All remaining children participated in the study. Therefore, the final N for allanalyses was 778.

Procedure

Data were collected in early spring. Research assistants in Educational Sciences at theUniversity of Amsterdam administered questionnaires during study periods. The ado-lescents were told that their answers would be confidential, and participation was notcompulsory. No child refused to participate. If a child was ill or absent, the question-naire was administered at the next opportune moment.

Measures

Nomination Procedure. The children were presented with a list of classmates. Foreach characteristic (see below), the children were required to indicate three classmateswho displayed this characteristic ‘least’ and three classmates who displayed this characteristic ‘most’. Nominating children at each end of the spectrum allows for theidentification of children who may reside at the lower end of each characteristic, thusproviding a more complete picture of behavioral and status repertoire of individualchildren. All nominations were restricted to the child’s own classroom, and cross-gender nominations were allowed. Although children in the participating schools generally share break time and lunchtime in common areas, the vast majority of schooltime (six to seven hours daily) is spent with children from their own classroom. Mixedclassroom activities were extremely rare.

Social Preference. Social preference scores were determined by asking the childrento nominate three peers whom they consider their best friends and three peers withwhom they would never be friends. Cross-gender nominations were allowed. In thepresent study, boys received 56 per cent of ‘never my friend’ nominations versus 49per cent of ‘best friend’ nominations, indicating many cross-gender choices for theformer category. Therefore, all nominations were standardized within the full class-room, not for genders separately. Each child received a social preference score by subtracting the number of least-friend nominations received from the number of



best-friend nominations and standardizing within the classroom to a mean of 0 and astandard deviation of 1.

Consensual Popularity. Consensual popularity scores were obtained by a nominationprocedure. The children were then asked to provide three names in response to thequestion ‘Which children are the most popular in your class?’ and three names inresponse to ‘Which children are the least popular in your class?’ For each child, a con-sensual popularity score was determined by subtracting least popular from mostpopular nominations and standardizing within the classroom to a mean of 0 and a stan-dard deviation of 1.

Behavioral Correlates of Popularity. Measures were obtained from classmates onbehavioral correlates of popularity such as appearance, antisocial, and prosocialbehaviors. For appearance, the term ‘dresses hip’ was used. Sociological studies havepointed out the prominence of fashion in early adolescence and particularly so in thedomain of status acquisition and maintenance (e.g., Brown, Lohr & McLenahan, 1986;Kness & Densmore, 1976). Antisocial behaviors consisted of ‘lies’, ‘fights’, ‘is mean’,‘gossips’, and ‘is angry’. Prosocial behaviors were ‘shares’, ‘cooperates’, ‘makes upafter quarrel’, and ‘keeps promises’. These antisocial and prosocial behaviors repre-sent the spectrum of determinants of likability and consensual popularity from pre-vious studies (e.g., Babad, 2001; Luthar & McMahon, 1996). An additional behavioralcharacteristic was introduced, namely, ‘boring’. To our knowledge, ‘boring’ has neverbeen used as a descriptor in popularity studies. Through informal discussions withchildren of this age group, this descriptor was mentioned often as being characteris-tic of consensually unpopular children. Also, boring has been shown to relate to in-group and out-group differentiation (Tarrant, 2002; Tarrant, North & Hargreaves,2001). In addition, consensually popular children have been shown to be very activein extracurricular activities and of high social centrality (e.g., Farmer et al., 2003).Thus, it is expected that ‘being boring’ may be a distinguishing aspect of low con-sensual popularity. The adolescents were required to supply three names of classmateswho display each behavior ‘most’ and three names of classmates who display thesebehaviors ‘least’. For each child, the number of ‘least’ nominations was subtractedfrom ‘most’ nominations and standardized within a classroom to a mean of 0 and astandard deviation of 1.

Peer Role Strain. The students completed the Early Adolescent Role Strain Inventory(EASRI) (Fenzel, 1989, 2000). The EASRI is a 27-item scale used to assess the typeand magnitude of school-related role strains. It distinguishes four subscales, each per-taining to a potential source of strain: peer (eight items), school (seven items), teacherrelations (five items), and parent control (six items). For the current study, only thepeer role strain subscale was used. For each item, the students indicated how they per-ceived peer behavior on a scale of 1 to 5 (not at all and a lot, respectively). The eightitems comprising the peer role strain subscale were ‘classmates ignore me’, ‘class-mates are mean to me’, ‘classmates laugh at me’, ‘classmates hit me’, ‘classmates donot team with me’, ‘classmates do not work with me’, ‘classmates do not invite me’,and ‘classmates laugh at me when I do well’.

Social Self-esteem. Social self-esteem was obtained by the administration of theSocial Acceptance subscale of the Self-perception Profile for Adolescents (Harter,



1982). This scale contains five items, which assess an individual’s perception of theirlevel of acceptance and popularity among peers. The children had to choose betweentwo statements (e.g., some children are popular among classmates/some children arenot popular among classmates). The students then indicated whether they found thechosen item to be true a little or true a lot. Subsequently, the items were rescored ona scale of 1 to 4, a high score indicating a higher level of self-esteem. The five itemsof the social acceptance scale were ‘some children are liked by few/many’ or ‘somechildren have many/few friends’, ‘some children make friends easily/with difficulty’,‘some children are popular/unpopular’, and ‘some children are accepted byfew/many’.

Results

First, descriptive statistics will be presented of peer role strain and self-esteem. Then,regression analyses will be conducted in order to determine the relative contributionsof the behavioral correlates to the two types of popularity (sociometric and consen-sual) and the relative contribution of the two types of popularity on peer role strainand self-esteem levels.

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities of peer role strain and social self-esteem are displayed in Table 1.

Correlates of Sociometric and Consensual Popularity. Intercorrelations among allmeasures are shown in Table 2. A high positive correlation was found between con-sensual popularity and dressing hip and between consensual popularity and boring.Social preference scores were correlated positively with dressing hip, cooperating,sharing, making up after a quarrel, and keeping promises, all ranging from mediumto large in magnitude.

Also, social preferences correlated negatively with lying, meanness, being angry,and being boring, also in the moderate range. In addition, a moderate positive cor-relation was found between social preference and consensual popularity.

Correlates of Peer Role Strain and Self-esteem. Moderate negative correlations werefound between consensual popularity and peer role strain and social preference andpeer role strain. Moderate positive correlations were found between consensual popu-larity and self-esteem and social preference and peer role strain. Peer role strain wasmoderately correlated to levels of self-esteem.


Table 1. Range, Means, Standard Deviations, andScale Alpha Reliabilities of Peer Role Strain and Self-worth

Variable Range M SD Alpha

Peer role strain 1–5 1.62 .60 .80Self-worth 1–4 3.11 .61 .71



Tab

le 2

.In

terc

orre

lati

ons

betw

een

Var

iabl

es i

n th

e St

udy

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1.D

ress

es h

ip2.

Figh

ts.1

83.

Gos

sips

.38

.43

4.L

ies

.14

.67

.64

5.M

ean

.08

.70

.56

.73

6.A

ngry

.00

.73

.45

.64

.74

7.C

oope

rate

s.1

9-.

53-.

35-.

63-.

65-.

608.

Sha

res

.26

-.32

-.17

-.41

-.47

-.40

.57

9.M

akes

up

afte

r qu

arre

l.1

2-.

53-.

30-.

56-.

62-.

61.6

0.5

110

.B

orin

g-.

75-.

30-.

39-.

22-.

16-.

08-.

14-.

24-.

1011

.K

eeps

pro

mis

es.0

7-.

54-.

42-.

72-.

68-.

58.7

1.5

2.6

0.0

012

.C

onse

nsua

l po

pula

rity

.81

.36

.43

.26

.23

.14

.08

.18

.02

-.81

-.07

13.

Soc

iom

etri

c po

pula

rity

.52

-.23

-.11

-.34

-.40

-.42

.59

.53

.50

-.49

.48

.48

14.

Soc

ial

self

-est

eem

.38

.20

.24

.14

.11

.05

.05

.05

.03

-.42

-.02

.42

.21

15.

Peer

rol

e st

rain

-.36

.07

-.12

.04

.08

.12

-.26

-.19

-.15

.33

-.13

-.34

-.36

-.48

Not

e: A

ll r

≥.1

2 an

d r

£-.

12,

sign

ifica

nt a

t p

<.0

01.


In order to investigate the relative contribution of behavioral characteristics on thetwo types of popularity and, in turn, the two types of popularity and peer role strainon self-esteem, a series of statistical regression analyses were conducted (Tabachnick& Fidell, 2001).

Regression Analysis on Sociometric Popularity. A method called statistical regressionwas employed (also called stepwise regression). This method produces a regressionequation based solely on statistical criteria. Following Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2001)recommendation of cross-validation, the current sample was randomly split in 80 and20 per cent portions. The 80 per cent portion was used to produce a regression equa-tion by employing a statistical regression method. Predictor values from the 20 percent portion were entered into this equation resulting in a set of predicted outcomevalues. Subsequent correlation between the predicted and actual observed values indi-cated a high validity of the regression method employed (r = .79). Table 3 shows theregression coefficients, standard errors, standardized betas, change in adjusted R2, andstructure coefficients.

Sociometric popularity was predicted by cooperation (35 per cent of the adjustedvariance) and consensual popularity (19 per cent of the variance). Other predictorswere being mean (4 per cent), making up after a quarrel (2 per cent), and sharing,being angry, keeping promises, and being boring (all 1 per cent or less). The effectsizes of gossiping and dressing hip were insufficient to warrant significance.

The total adjusted variance explained of sociometric popularity was 64 per cent. Inother words, children with many friends exhibited a repertoire of positive behaviors,such as cooperation, conciliation, sharing, and few negative behaviors, such as angerand meanness. In addition, they were regarded as consensually popular and not boring.

Regression Analysis on Consensual Popularity. Cross-validation by split halving into80 and 20 per cent portions and subsequent correlation analysis between predicted andobserved values indicated a high validity of the regression method employed (r > .90).Regression coefficients, standard errors, standardized betas, change in adjusted R2, andstructure coefficients are presented in Table 4.

The analysis revealed that dressing hip, not being boring, fighting, and social preference were significant predictors of consensual popularity. By far the most im-portant of these was dress style, which alone predicted 66 per cent of the variance.


Table 3. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis on Consensual Popularity

Variable B SE B b DR2 rs

Dresses hip .43 .03 .43*** .66 .91Boring -.34 .03 -.34*** .09 -.91Fights .15 .03 .15*** .02 .41Social preference .19 .02 .19*** .01 .55Keeps promises -.07 .02 -.07** .00 -.07Mean .06 .03 .05* .00 .24

Note: rs = structure coefficient.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.


Being boring, fighting, and sociometric popularity accounted for 9, 2, and 1 per centadditional variance, respectively. Although keeping promises and meanness were statistically significant predictors, inspection of structure coefficients (Courville & Thompson, 2001) and effect sizes (Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999) indicated a nonsignificant contribution. The total adjusted varianceexplained of consensual popularity was 78 per cent. In sum, children who were judgedconsensually popular were hip dressers, not boring, aggressive, and highly popularsociometrically.

Regression on Peer Role Strain and Self-esteem. Tables 5 and 6 show the regressioncoefficients, standard errors, standardized betas, change in adjusted R2, and structurecoefficients. Sociometric and consensual popularity both contributed significantly tolevels of peer role strain (see Table 5). The total variance explained by peer role strainwas 17 per cent.

Self-esteem levels were predicted by peer role strain, sociometric, and consensualpopularity. Sociometric popularity explained only 1 per cent of the variance of self-esteem. In contrast, consensual popularity explained 7 per cent of the variance of self-esteem. The total variance explained of self-esteem was 31 per cent. In short, childrenwho felt good regarding their social selves tended to be consensually popular and


Table 4. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis on Sociometric Popularity


Cooperates .18 .04 .18*** .35 .74Consensual popular .32 .04 .32*** .19 .61Mean -.07 .04 -.08* .04 -.51Makes up after quarrel .10 .03 .10** .02 .64Shares .12 .03 .13*** .01 .66Angry -.10 .03 -.10*** .01 -.54Keeps promises .11 .04 .11** .01 .62Boring -.15 .04 -.15*** .01 -.62Gossips -.09 .03 -.09*** .00 -.14Dresses hip .10 .03 .10** .00 .65

Note: rs = structure coefficient.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis on Peer Role Strain


Social preference -.16 .02 -.25*** .13 -.88Consensual popularity -.14 .02 -.22*** .04 -.84

Note: rs = structure coefficient.***p < 0.001.


experienced low levels of peer role strain. In order to clarify the hypothesized model,standardized beta weights are depicted in Figure 2.

Only paths with beta weights significant at p < .05 and with an effect size exceed-ing 1 per cent explained variances are shown. The total explained variance of eachoutcome variable is shown in brackets.

Discussion

The present study was designed to investigate the behavioral correlates and individualconsequences of two types of popularity: sociometric and consensual. In addition,associations between the two types of popularity and self-esteem were investigated.Results indicated that sociometrically popular children were best described as con-sensually popular individuals equipped with the right friendship-maintenance tools,such as a cooperative and sharing attitude and lack of meanness. Consensually popularchildren were typified as sartorially eloquent individuals displaying elevated levels of


Table 6. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis on Social Self-esteem


Peer role strain -.41 .03 -.40*** .23 -.86Consensual popularity .20 .02 .32*** .07 .75Social preference -.06 .02 -.10** .01 .37

Note: rs = structure coefficient.**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Dresses hip

Gossips

Cooperates

Mean

Angry

Fights

Makes up after quarrel

Boring

Keeps promises

Shares

Sociometricpopularity

(63%)

Consensualpopularity

(79%)

Social self-esteem(31%)

Role strain(16%)

.18

–.08

–.10.10

–.15

.11 .13

.43

.15

–.34

.19

.32

–.10

.32

–.40

–.25

–.22

Figure 2. Results from Multiple Regression Analyses (b-values) of Consensual andSociometric Popularity, Role Strain, and Social Self-esteem.


aggression. Furthermore, the two types of popularity each contributed to self-esteemin idiosyncratic ways. Social preference seemed to be linked to self-esteem indirectlythrough reduction of peer role strain. Consensual popularity, however, possessed adirect positive association with self-esteem.

Characteristics of Popularity

The findings on the behavioral correlates of sociometric popularity confirmed pre-vious studies. Sociometrically popular children exhibited the qualities one would generally expect from likable children: cooperation, the ability to forgive and to keeppromises, and a sharing attitude. They also tended not to be mean or overly angry.Also, consensual popularity levels contributed substantially to sociometric popularity.In other words, children who were consensually popular tended to be more likable.This confirmed previous findings by, for example, Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1998).This finding should not be surprising given the fact that, in many parts of society,people tend to admire and befriend those considered popular.

The statistical picture painted for consensual popularity differed considerably fromsociometric popularity. Consensually popular children were the trendsetters and fit theadage that ‘clothes make the man’. Being recognized as such by the peer group, thesechildren tended to report high levels of self-esteem. Apparently, these children com-prehended the status mechanisms of early adolescence in the twenty-first century: theso-called MTV generation. Judging by the abundance of magazines and other mediacovering dress codes and sartorial dos and do nots, consensually popular children havesuccessfully integrated the reigning cultural dress norms. Sociologists and ethologistswould explain this phenomenon in terms of status, prestige, and dominance (e.g.,Adams & Roopnarine, 1994; Krantz, 1982, 1987; Savin-Williams, 1976, 1977, 1979,1980; Weisfeld, Bloch & Ivers, 1983). These three phenomena are firmly rooted in arich ecological research tradition (e.g., Benoit-Smullyan, 1944; Berger et al., 1980;Keislar, 1953; Weisfeld et al., 1983, 1984). Dominant individuals tend to be moreattractive, outgoing, and highly visible. Over half a century ago, Benoit-Smullyan(1944) provided us with a particularly astute definition of status as the position in ahierarchy ordered ‘with respect to the comparative degree to which (individuals)possess or embody some socially approved or generally desired attribute or charac-teristic’ (p. 151). He identified three types of status: economic, political, and prestige.The latter seems most pertinent to the phenomenon at hand, namely, sartorial in-fluence on popularity. A person with prestige, according to Benoit-Smullyan, is anobject of admiration, deference and imitation, a source of suggestion, and the centerof attraction. These characteristics were inextricably linked to consensually popularadolescents in the present study. It seems fair to assume that sartorial effort is aimedat acquiring admiration and imitation. In addition, consensually popular children tendto be the opposite of boring, thereby placing themselves at the center of attraction.Furthermore, through fighting, they enforce a certain degree of deference among theirpeers.

The importance of fashion is not new. Simmel (1957) eloquently described thevarious functions and origins of fashion. He pointed out that ‘fashion is merely aproduct of social demands. It is a product of class distinction and operates like a num-ber of other forms, honor especially, the double function of which consists in revol-ving within a given circle and at the same time emphasizing it separate from others’(p. 544). He also suggested that fashion raises even the unimportant individuals by



making them the representative of a class, in this case the dominant class. If so, thenDion’s (1973) statement on beauty should perhaps read ‘what is fashionable is good’(Dion, 1973; Dion & Berscheid, 1974) instead of ‘what is beautiful is good’. Simmel(1957) even provided an explanation avant la lettre for the observed moderate linkbetween popularity and likability: ‘the fashionable person is regarded with mixed feel-ings of approval and envy; we envy him as an individual, but approve of him as amember of a set or group’ (p. 548). In other words, fashionable children are imitatedby some, but scorned by others. But why would some children reject sartoriallyobsessed peers? Recall that the current research population consisted entirely of pre-university children of above-average intelligence and talents. They are expectedto invest in academia, and an exaggerated interest in dress codes may not be a top priority to some of the children. In addition, although not explicitly measured in thepresent study, it is quite likely that sartorially dominant children tend to form cliqueswith concomitant in-group and out-group mechanics. Oftentimes, these cliques ofdominant children tend to be regarded as ‘stuck up’ (Merten, 1997), indicating acertain level of dislike toward members of these cliques. Also, Eder’s (1985) accountof the cyclical nature of consensual popularity underscores the delicate balancebetween rejection and acceptance by the ‘elite’ clique. Being suddenly rejected by thisclique, after an initial period of acceptance, may well have led to extreme feelings of jealousy and envy, and thus may have elicited negative likability and friendship nominations.

Popularity and Self-esteem

It appeared that consensual popularity and likability are linked to self-esteem in idio-syncratic ways. Likability, that is, being judged a good friend and not rejected by peers,seemed to be linked to self-esteem mostly through the reduction of peer strain levels.Peer strain reflects peer behavior toward an individual. The items comprising the sub-scale of the EASRI revolve around peer displays of rejection and disaffection. Notsurprisingly, likable children received low levels of peer rejection and enjoyed highlevels of affection. In turn, being invited to classmates’ homes, being noticed, etc.appeared catalysts for feeling wanted, accepted, and liked. Likable children are alsoless likely to experience ‘hassles’, and reduced peer strain levels reflect this (e.g.,Bobo, Gilchrist, Elmer, Snow & Schinke, 1986).

The contribution of consensual status to self-esteem levels (both directly and indi-rectly through peer role strain) underscores the importance of being at the apex of thegroup to intra-individual functioning. Ethnographic studies (e.g., Adler & Adler, 1995;Eder, 1985) have revealed the extreme importance, at least to some youngsters, ofbelonging to the apex. Simply put, being on top makes one feel good. However, thismechanism is not without risks. For instance, the self-worth theory proclaims that thesearch for self-acceptance is the highest human priority (e.g., Covington, 1984, 1992).If so, some adolescents may become obsessed by consensual popularity ratings. If, asthe present study shows, clothing is highly associated with consensual popularity, theseyoungsters may end up being more concerned with their attire than with schoolwork,for instance. Future studies should therefore look at some of the potential negativeaspects of consensual popularity.

The question remains, however, why such a small link is encountered between likability and self-esteem (1 per cent of the variance). Part of the explanation may be found in the operationalization of likability. Likability is a substitute for social



preference. The latter is defined as the difference between best- and least-friend nomi-nations. It stands to reason that high positive scores, that is, having many friends, arelinked to high self-esteem and vice versa, extreme negative scores to low self-esteem.Children receiving zero-sum scores on social preference, however, can be membersof two vastly different social categories: neglected or controversial. The social impactof these two types of children differs considerably. Neglected children, as the termimplies, are simply not noticed enough by peers to warrant acceptance or rejection.Nevertheless, neglected children generally exhibit above-average social and academicbehavior (e.g., Wentzel, 1995, 2003). Thus, for neglected children, although they scoreneutral on social acceptance, low self-esteem levels are not self-evident. Their above-average performance levels might serve a compensatory purpose and may perhapshave boosted their self-esteem levels.

Controversial children, on the other hand, receive many nominations of both polari-ties. It is quite likely that controversial children’s self-esteem is rocked more by the dailyvicissitudes of being simultaneously liked and rejected than neglected children’s. Inaddition to social impact, another striking difference seems to exist between contro-versial and neglected children. Few, if any, neglected children tend to be consensuallypopular (Babad, 2001; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). In contrast, nearly half of thecontroversial children were popular. This vast difference in consensual popularityscores is not reflected in their respective likability scores. Therefore, an investigationof only one component of the two-dimensional sociometric system might obfuscatemeaningful relationships between component variables of likability (i.e., social preference) and individual outcomes (e.g., self-esteem). Future studies should perhapspresent categorical analyses (see, e.g., Cillessen et al., 1992; LaFontana & Cillessen,2002; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl & Van Acker, 2000).

Some limitations of the present study need to be addressed. First, although a stronglink was revealed between dressing hip and consensual popularity, one cannot auto-matically assume directionality of effect. It could be the case that children, upon notic-ing their prominence among their peers, will subsequently attempt to consolidate thisposition by increasingly fashionable outfits. If so, one important question arises: Whatcharacteristics favored this child in the first place? Weisfeld et al. (1983) addressedthe issue of directionality of effect with respect to dominance and concluded that ‘ifa certain personality trait is relatively permanent, such as physical appearance, and isconsistently related to dominance rank whenever a group forms, it is certainly morelikely that this trait is contributing to dominance than the reverse’ (p. 231). We specu-late that attractiveness and sartorial expression form an indistinguishable unity, whichemerges somewhere in middle childhood when children become aware of dominanceeffects upon peers such as praise, awe, and envy. Longitudinal studies are needed to delineate the relative weight, stability, and identity of predictors of consensual popularity.

The predictive model for self-esteem also suffers from the cause–effect dilemma.We cannot assume that occupying a high dominant rank within a peer group led tohigh self-esteem levels. It is equally likely that only children with high self-esteempossess sufficient self-confidence to dress extremely fashionably and dare to becometrendsetters. As Simmel (1957) noted, being this fashionable is at once an expressionof individuality yet a conformation to certain codes. Being at the vanguard of fashionis concomitant to risk taking: risk for scorn, laughter, and envy. Thus, self-confidenceis, arguably, a sine qua non for becoming a trendsetter. Longitudinal studies may elu-cidate the mechanisms of status acquisition and maintenance.



To summarize, we have demonstrated the importance of children’s sartorial expres-sion in gaining consensual popularity in this study. We also found that not being per-ceived as boring was significantly related to a high, consensually popular position.Furthermore, the study also showed the complexity of the relationships among con-sensual popularity, likability, and self-esteem. Both types of popularity appeareduniquely linked to self-esteem, underscoring the need for careful and thorough inves-tigation of early adolescents’ inter- and intrapsychological functioning. Future studiesshould perhaps investigate gender differences in precursors and consequences of consensual popularity status, and its relationship with dominance and aggression. Forinstance, Pellegrini and Bartini (2001) found that physical aggression plays a largerole in dominance acquisition among early adolescent boys. Other studies suggestgirls’ use of relational aggression at this age. Do both genders use their respectiveforms of aggression to accomplish the same goal, that is, dominance and consensualpopularity?

References

Adams, G. R. & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Physical attractiveness, social skills, and same-sexpeer popularity. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 47, 15–35.

Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent cliques.Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145–162.

Asher, S. R. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie(Eds.), Peer Rejection in Childhood (pp. 3–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Babad, E. (2001). On the conception and measurement of popularity: More facts and somestraight conclusions. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 3–30.

Benoit-Smullyan, E. (1944). Status, status types, and status interrelations. American Sociologi-cal Review, 9, 151–161.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J. & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Reviewof Sociology, 6, 479–508.

Bobo, J. K., Gilchrist, L. D., Elmer, J. F., Snow, W. H. & Schinke, S. P. (1986). Hassles, rolestrain, and peer relations in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 339–352.

Boyatzis, C. J., Baloff, P. & Durieux, C. (1998). Effects of perceived attractiveness and academic success on early adolescent popularity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159,337–344.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Brown, B. B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg(Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (pp. 363–394). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons, Inc.

Brown, B. B., Lohr, M. J. & McLenahan, E. L. (1986). Early adolescents’ perceptions of peerpressure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 139–154.

Chambliss, J., Muller, D., Hulnick, R. & Wood, M. (1978). Relationships between self-concept,self-esteem, popularity, and social judgment of junior high school students. The Journal ofPsychology, 98, 91–98.

Cillessen, A. H. N. & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmentalchanges in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75,147–163.

Cillessen, A. H. N., Van IJzendoorn, H. W., Van Lieshout, C. F. M. & Hartup, W. W. (1992).Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63,893–905.

Coie, J. D. & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boy’sgroups. Child Development, 54, 1400–1416.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: Across-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.



Courville, T. & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: b is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,229–248.

Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Researchon Motivation in Education (Vol. 1, pp. 77–113). New York: Academic Press.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and SchoolReform. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate, University of Cambridge.

De Waal, F. B. M. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. Journalof Theoretical Biology, 61, 459– 479.

Dion, K. K. (1973). Young children’s stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psy-chology, 9, 183–188.

Dion, K. K. & Berscheid, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness and peer perception among chil-dren. Sociometry, 37, 1–12.

Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents.Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165.

Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, J. L., O’Neal, K. K. & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Rejectedbullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39, 992–1004.

Fenzel, L. M. (1989). Role strain in early adolescence: A model for investigating school tran-sition stress. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 13–33.

Fenzel, L. M. (2000). Prospective study of changes in global self-worth and strain during thetransition to middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 93–116.

Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483– 49.Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53,

87–97.Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span

perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence Considered. (pp. 67–97).New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Harter, S., Stocker, C. & Robinson, N. S. (1996). The perceived directionality of the linkbetween approval and self-worth: The liabilities of a looking glass self-orientation amongyoung adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 285–308.

Harter, S., Waters, P. & Whitesell, N. R. (1998). Relational self-worth: Differences in perceivedworth as a person across interpersonal contexts among adolescents. Child Development, 69,756–766.

Harter, S., Bresnick, S., Bouchey, H. A. & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). The development of multiple role-related selves during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 9,835–853.

Hartup, W. W. (1995). The three faces of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 12, 569–574.

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.

Hopmeyer Gorman, A., Kim, J. & Schimmelbusch, A. (2001). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40,143–165.

Keislar, E. R. (1953). A distinction between social acceptance and prestige among adolescents.Child Development, 24, 275–283.

Kness, D. K. & Densmore, B. (1976). Dress and social-political beliefs of young male students.Adolescence, 43, 431– 442.

Krantz, M. (1982). Sociometric awareness, social participation, and perceived popularity inpreschool children. Child Development, 53, 376–379.

Krantz, M. (1987). Physical attractiveness and popularity: A predictive study. PsychologicalReports, 60, 723–726.

LaFontana, K. M. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1999). Children’s interpersonal perceptions as a func-tion of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160,225–242.

LaFontana, K. M. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopu-lar peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635–647.



La Freniere, P. J. & Charlesworth, W. R. (1987). Effects of friendship and dominance status onpreschooler’s resource utilization in a cooperative/competitive situation. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 10, 345–358.

Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A. & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87–109.

Lease, A. M., Musgrove, K. T. & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: likeability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. SocialDevelopment, 11, 508–533.

Little, T. D., Brauner, J., Jones, S. M., Nock, M. K. & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Rethinking aggres-sion: A typological examination of the functions of aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,49, 343–369.

Long, J. D. & Pellegrini, A. D. (2003). Studying change in dominance and bullying with linearmixed models. School Psychology Review, 32, 401– 417.

Luthar, S. S. & McMahon, T. J. (1996). Peer reputation among inner-city adolescents: Struc-ture and correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 581–603.

Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict amongjunior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175–191.

Newcomb, A. F. & Bukowski, W. M. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determi-nants of children’s peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856–867.

Newcomb, A. F., Bukowksi, W. M. & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.

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.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Affiliative and aggressive dimensions of dominance and possible func-tions during early adolescence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 21–31.

Pellegrini, A. D. & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative andaggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142–163.

Pellegrini, A. D. & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and vic-timization during the transition from primary school through middle school. British Journalof Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280.

Pellegrini, A. D. & Long, J. D. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexualsegregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,85, 257–278.

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.

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.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (5th edn, pp. 619–700). New York:Wiley.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1976). An ethological study of dominance formation and maintenancein a group of human adolescents. Child Development, 47, 972–979.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1977). Dominance in a human adolescent group. Animal Behaviour,25, 400– 406.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. ChildDevelopment, 50, 923–935.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1980). Dominance hierarchies in groups of middle to late adolescentmales. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 75–85.

Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion. The American Journal of Sociology, 62, 541–558.Simon, W. E. (1972). Some sociometric evidence for validity of Coopersmith’s self-esteem

inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 94–94.Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.Tarrant, M. (2002). Adolescent peer groups and social identity. Social Development, 11,

110–123.



Tarrant, M., North, A. C. & Hargreaves, D. J. (2001). Social categorization, self-esteem, andthe estimated musical preferences of male adolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, 141,565–581.

Weisfeld, G. E., Bloch, S. A. & Ivers, J. W. (1983). A factor analytic study of peer-perceiveddominance in adolescent boys. Adolescence, 70, 229–243.

Weisfeld, G. E., Bloch, S. A. & Ivers, J. W. (1984). Possible determinants of social dominanceamong adolescent girls. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 144, 115–129.

Wentzel, K. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and controversialchildren. Child Development, 66, 754–763.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinalstudy. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 5–28.

Wilkinson, L & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant 411-21-501 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. We are grateful for the kind participation of pupils from the Pieter Nieuwland College, S.G. Reigersbos, Stanislas College, S.G. Amersfoortse Berg, S.G. Gerrit V.D. Veen, and S.G. Damstede.


Interpersonal Behavior, Peer Popularity, and Self-esteem in Early Adolescence

Documents

Transcript of Interpersonal Behavior, Peer Popularity, and Self-esteem in Early Adolescence