See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6708708

Popularity, Social Acceptance, and Aggression in Adolescent Peer Groups:

Links With Academic Performance and School Attendance

Article in Developmental Psychology · November 2006

DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1116 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
248 3,847

4 authors, including:

Andrea Hopmeyer Tara Mckay

Occidental College University of California, Berkeley
29 PUBLICATIONS 2,665 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 785 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tara Mckay on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Developmental Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 42, No. 6, 1116 –1127 0012-1649/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1116

Popularity, Social Acceptance, and Aggression in Adolescent Peer Groups:

Links With Academic Performance and School Attendance

David Schwartz Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman

University of Southern California Occidental College

Jonathan Nakamoto Tara McKay

University of Southern California Occidental College

This article reports a short-term longitudinal study focusing on popularity and social acceptance as
predictors of academic engagement for a sample of 342 adolescents (approximate average age of 14).
These youths were followed for 4 consecutive semesters. Popularity, social acceptance, and aggression
were assessed with a peer nomination inventory, and data on academic engagement were obtained from
school records. For adolescents who were highly aggressive, increases in popularity were associated with
increases in unexplained absences and decreases in grade point average. Conversely, changes in social
acceptance were not predictive of changes in grade point average or unexplained absences. These results
highlight the importance of multidimensional conceptualizations of social standing for research on school
adjustment during adolescence and emphasize the potential risks associated with popularity.

Keywords: popularity, aggression, social acceptance, academic achievement

In this article, we describe a short-term longitudinal study of the at school (Guay et al., 1999; Wentzel, 2003). In these studies,
association between social standing in the peer group and aca- social acceptance is generally operationalized as an indicator of
demic functioning during middle adolescence. A number of re- likability or positive regard from peers (Coie & Dodge, 1983;
searchers have documented relations between students’ acceptance Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Typically, the participating
by peers and their academic functioning at school (DeRosier, youths are asked to identify peers who are well liked or who are
Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994; O’Neil, Welsh, Parke, Wang, & preferred as social partners. The resulting indices are associated
Strand, 1997). Although there may be variability across sociocul- primarily with positive behavioral features. For example, well-
tural contexts, students who are well liked by their peers tend to be accepted youths have been described as friendly, responsible, and
characterized by relatively high achievement (Guay, Boivin, & socially skilled (Wentzel & Erdley, 1993). Behavioral styles of this
Hodges, 1999). There is also evidence that social acceptance nature are predictive of positive academic outcomes (Wentzel,
enhances an adolescent’s motivation and interest in the school 1991b).
environment (Wentzel, 1991a). Moreover, a sense of connection to From a somewhat different tradition, sociological theories on
peers can facilitate cognitive engagement in the classroom (Furrer the organization of peer groups during childhood and adolescence
& Skinner, 2003). have focused on popularity as an indicator of social standing
Research in this domain has often relied on assessments of (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985; Merten, 1997). These perspec-
acceptance or liking by peers to index adolescents’ social standing tives portray popularity as a shared recognition among peers that a
particular youth has achieved prestige, visibility, or high social
status (Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992). Popularity is not viewed as
David Schwartz and Jonathan Nakamoto, Department of Psychology, an indicator of liking by peers but rather is seen as a reputational
University of Southern California; Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman and Tara
construct involving power and status in the group (Lease,
McKay, Department of Psychology, Occidental College.
David Schwartz and Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman made equal contribu-
Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002; Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 1999). Con-
tions to this article, and the order of authorship was determined randomly. ceptualized in this manner, popularity has only recently become
This research was supported by a faculty fellowship from the John and the subject of significant empirical attention in the developmental
Dora Haynes Foundation. psychology literature. Investigators have concluded that popularity
We thank Antonius Cillessen (University of Connecticut) for his statis- is linked to a more mixed pattern of attributes than is social
tical recommendations and his comments on a version of this article and acceptance (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998). Research conducted
John McArdle (University of Southern California) for his guidance on across age groups has shown that popularity is associated with
multilevel modeling. We thank Philip Gorman for assistance with our
prosocial behaviors, on the one hand, and aggressive or dominat-
analyses of the friendship variables, and the children, teachers, principal,
and administrative staff in the participating school. ing behaviors, on the other hand (Butcher, 1986; Luthar & Mc-
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David Mahon, 1996; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). On a theoretical
Schwartz, Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, level, popularity and social acceptance might be viewed as closely
501 Seely G. Mudd, Los Angeles, CA 90089. related constructs. Consistent with this suggestion, past researchers
1116
 POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1117

have reported moderately high correlations between assessments as important indicators of academic engagement. We examined
of social acceptance and popularity (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). relations between each of the social standing indices and these
Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that by middle childhood, aspects of school adjustment.
being well accepted and being perceived as popular by peers are Our investigation of the link between popularity and academic
not synonymous (Gorman, Kim, & Schimmelbusch, 2002). In- engagement also incorporated a focus on potential moderator
deed, children and adolescents who are identified by their peers as constructs. In this regard, we were particularly interested in the
being popular are not always especially well liked (Parkhurst & role of aggression. Aggression and popularity become progres-
Hopmeyer, 1998; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). sively more intertwined over the course of adolescence, although
There may also be important differences in the implications of the associations appear to be strongest for relational subtypes of
popularity and social acceptance for an adolescent’s adjustment at aggression (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). A subgroup of adoles-
school. Acceptance by peers is predictive of adaptive outcomes in cents uses aggression (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003) and other
both social (Parker, Rubin, Price, & DeRosier, 1995) and academic manipulative behaviors (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004) to reach
domains (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). In contrast, popularity can and maintain high status. Research conducted with elementary
incorporate notable risks for development. For example, popular school samples has produced cross-sectional evidence that
youths tend to experience increases in relational and overt aggres- popular–aggressive youths are unlikely to experience high
sion over time (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Popularity has also achievement (Rodkin et al., 2000). In contrast, popular children
been linked to involvement in risky behaviors during adolescence, with a prosocial orientation tend to be characterized by favorable
including sexual experimentation (Prinstein, Meade, & Cohen, attitudes toward school (Lease et al., 2002).
2003) and alcohol use (Mayeux & Sandstrom, 2005). Moreover, The hypothesis that youths who are both aggressive and popular
research conducted at earlier stages of development suggests con- are at risk for academic difficulties is supported by research on
current links between popularity and academic difficulties (e.g., adolescent peer cultures (Brown, 1990). This work highlights the
Farmer, Estell, Bishop, O’Neal, & Cairns, 2003; Rodkin, Farmer, social pressures that popular youths can encounter. Popularity in
Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). school peer groups is partially dependent on compatibility with the
A central objective of this project was to extend the existing values and behavioral orientations of the larger crowd structure
findings on peer relationships and academic outcomes by incor- (Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986). Adolescents who exhibit behav-
porating multidimensional assessments of social standing. We iors that are inconsistent with these established norms may en-
include assessments of both social acceptance (i.e., desirability as counter social sanctions from the peer group (Clasen & Brown,
a social partner) and popularity (i.e., reputation of high social 1985). Social processes of this nature could be particularly relevant
status). We sought to investigate independent associations between for popular youths who also affiliate with aggressive or antisocial
each dimension of social standing and academic adjustment. As we crowds (i.e., “popular toughs”; see Youniss, McLellan, & Strouse,
have described, research on peer relationships and academic out- 1994). Academic pursuits tend to be negatively evaluated in social
comes has traditionally emphasized social acceptance, and rela- networks that are characterized by antisocial attributes (Clasen &
tively little is known about the role of popularity. There is a Brown, 1985). Accordingly, high status in such social contexts
particular need for longitudinal research because the investigations may demand active disengagement from school.
in this area have relied primarily on cross-sectional designs (Gor- Similar theoretical perspectives have emerged from research on
man et al., 2002). Moreover, the relevant body of literature has academic functioning among adolescents from minority ethnic–
been concerned primarily with middle childhood rather than ado- racial backgrounds (e.g., Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). Steinberg,
lescence (e.g., Rodkin et al., 2000). Indeed, we are unaware of any Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) discussed the social pressures that
published study that examined longitudinal relations between pop- some popular minority youths may encounter. These investigators
ularity and academic outcomes during adolescence. Accordingly, described “conflict between academic achievement and peer pop-
we investigated associations between changes in social standing ularity” (p. 728) in settings in which dominant peer group attitudes
and changes in academic engagement over four consecutive high toward achievement are negative. Popularity in these peer groups
school semesters. requires conformity with values and behaviors that are predictive
This research was guided by a multidimensional perspective on of deficient school performance. Although Steinberg et al. focused
academic engagement. Researchers have recently conceptualized their discussion on the experience of minority adolescents, their
engagement as a construct that involves a number of interrelated hypotheses might have wider implications regarding the potential
behavioral, cognitive, and motivational components (Fredricks, risks associated with popularity. Popularity could have negative
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). In terms of behavioral styles, aca- implications for the school adjustment of any adolescent who
demic engagement is reflected in activities that enhance learning seeks high status with academically disengaged peers (e.g., peers
and participation in school (Finn, Folger, & Cox, 1991). Some who are members of aggressive cliques or crowds).
examples might include regular attendance, classroom participa- For the current project, we specified longitudinal models that
tion, and active involvement in educational programs. Academic included interactions between aggression and the two indices of
engagement is also manifested in cognitive and motivational pro- social standing. On the basis of the available findings, we expected
cesses that are directly predictive of achievement in the classroom that aggression would moderate the relation between popularity
(Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Accordingly, an adolescent who is and students’ academic functioning at school. In particular, we
invested in positive academic outcomes should be characterized by predicted that popularity would be linked to deficient academic
adequate achievement as well as behavioral styles that support functioning for highly aggressive adolescents. We presumed that
classroom performance. For the present study, we conceptualized aggressive youths who seek popular status would encounter social
attendance at school and classroom grade point averages (GPAs) pressures toward disengagement from the school environment. We
1118 SCHWARTZ, GORMAN, NAKAMOTO, AND MCKAY

did not expect to find a similar pattern of associations at low levels assent forms reminded participants that the project was voluntary and that
of aggression because nonaggressive popular youths generally are permanent records of names would not be kept. Nineteen parents (5.06%)
not characterized by attitudes that are incompatible with high denied their children permission to participate in the project. The student
achievement (Lease et al., 2002). Furthermore, in light of our population was relatively stable over the course of the project, reflecting
moderate turnover rates in the school district as a whole. Accordingly,
theoretical conceptualization of liking by peers as a unidimen-
sample attrition from Time 1 (T1) to T4 was minimal, with 26 students
sional correlate of positive adjustment at school, we did not an-
moving from the school before the completion of data collection. In
ticipate similar interactions between aggression and social addition, 7 participants opted to withdraw during the project. Retained
acceptance. students and attrited students did not differ on any of the T1 measures.
In addition to examining the implications of the adolescents’ Data were collected when the adolescents were in the 9th (approximate
own aggressive tendencies, we also considered the potential mod- average age of 14 years old) and 10th grades (approximate average age of
erating function of affiliations with aggressive friends. During 15 years old). Four waves of data were obtained, with assessments con-
adolescence, friends can play an important role in facilitating ducted in the fall and spring of each year. Consecutive time points were
adjustment at school (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Wentzel, Barry, & separated by 24-week intervals. At all four time points, questionnaires were
Caldwell, 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). However, friends group-administered in English classes, in a session lasting approximately
50 min. The participants were read standardized instructions, and ques-
who are aggressive, disruptive in the classroom, or antisocial are
tionnaire items were read aloud. The participants completed inventories
unlikely to model adaptive behaviors that encourage cognitive or
assessing loneliness and school belonging and a peer nomination inventory.
behavioral engagement at school (Vitaro, Brendgen, & Wanner, The peer nomination inventory assessed popularity, acceptance, friendship,
2005). Because popularity requires a degree of compatibility with aggression, and several other dimensions of behavioral reputation (see
the behavioral norms of peers (Brown et al., 1986), we expect Gorman et al., 2002).
popular adolescents to be particularly vulnerable to these negative
socializing influences. Therefore, we predicted that popularity
would be associated with academic disengagement for youths who Measures
establish dyadic affiliations with highly aggressive peers. How-
The same measures were collected at all time points. Popularity and
ever, we did not hypothesize that friends’ aggression would exert
acceptance were assessed with peer ratings, whereas friendship and ag-
a similar moderating influence on the academic outcomes associ- gression were assessed with peer nominations. When comparable measures
ated with social acceptance. Social acceptance appears to be more are used with younger children, the participants are typically asked to
closely related to prosocial dispositions and personal attractiveness evaluate all consenting classmates (e.g., Hymel, 1986; Ladd & Oden,
than to compatibility with the values of the peer network (e.g., 1979). This methodology is not optimal for the high school setting because
Wentzel & Erdley, 1993). students interact with peers in different classes. Accordingly, we adopted
In summary, in the present study, we sought to extend the an approach similar to that used by Parkhurst and Asher (1992) with an
current understanding of the link between peer relationships during adolescent sample (also see Rose, Swenson, & Carlson, 2004). We gen-
adolescence and academic functioning by incorporating multidi- erated random lists of 50 peers for each participant to evaluate, with the
mensional assessments of social standing. We were particularly constraint that the participant’s own name could not appear on his or her
list. In addition, we required that each participant’s name appear on 50
interested in examining aggression and aggression levels among
separate lists. The same list of peers was on every page of the
friends as potential moderators of the association between popu- questionnaire.
larity and academic functioning. To address these research goals, The school used a cluster system, with the same students taking core
we used a short-term longitudinal design, with four waves of data classes together. Students across clusters could interact in elective classes,
collected over 2 high school years. We focused on middle adoles- activities outside of class, and lunch. Given the large size of the school and
cence because, by this developmental stage, youths are apt to have the cluster system, we did not expect the participants to be familiar with all
well-established beliefs about the role of popularity (Juvonen & of the peers in their grade. Accordingly, participants were asked to identify
Murdock, 1995). peers they did not know well enough to evaluate by circling 0 on the
popularity scales. With these procedures, each participant evaluated ap-
proximately 14% of the sample. The mean number of participants who
Method evaluated each student was 28.6 (SD ⫽ 6.7). The participants rated the
same peers at T1 and T2, but new lists were generated at T3, excluding
Participants participants who left the school after the 1st year of the study.
We selected items that have been validated in past research (Parkhurst &
Participants were 342 adolescents (174 boys, 168 girls) from a moder- Asher, 1992) and have been shown to correlate well with other relevant
ately sized public high school (approximately 1,200 total students) in a peer nomination indicators (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Because time
semiurban area of Los Angeles County. The surrounding neighborhoods limitations precluded collection of data on specific behavioral subtypes, we
were characterized by low to moderate crime rates and a high percentage emphasized global assessments of each construct. For example, we did not
of single-family homes. The families living in these neighborhoods were assess relational or overt subtypes of aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)
predominately from lower middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds but instead attempted to tap hostility and anger toward peers as a larger
(United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 1999). The composition of the behavioral disposition.
sample (ascertained from school records) was as follows: 50% European Popularity and social acceptance. The participants were asked to
American, 35% Latino, 7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 5% Armenian, 2% indicate how popular each of the peers on their list was on a scale ranging
African American, and 1% Native American. from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very popular). In a similar manner, participants
English and Spanish language versions of a parental consent letter were were asked to indicate how much they liked to “hang out” with each of the
sent home with each of the eligible students attending the school. Students peers on their list, using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).
who returned positive parental permission were also asked to indicate in Popularity and social acceptance scores were generated on the basis of the
writing that they were willing to take part in the project. The consent and mean rating received by each participant. This approach follows proce-
 POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1119

dures used by Asher and Hymel (1986; Oden & Asher, 1977) in which explanation was defined by the school as a documented illness, injury, or
participants were asked to indicate how much they liked to play with, work family emergency.
with, or be in activities with specific peers. We substituted the wording
“hang out with” for “play with” to optimize the suitability of the item for
adolescents (as per Graham & Juvonen, 1998, 2002). Results
We opted to assess social standing with ratings (instead of nominations)
on the basis of the recommendations of Asher and colleagues (e.g., Asher
Overview
& Hymel, 1986). These researchers concluded that ratings optimize the
We examined our primary hypotheses using multilevel models
reliability and validity of social standing indices. Pragmatically, however,
that included both random and fixed effects (Singer, 2002), esti-
ratings and nominations are likely to provide similar forms of information
(Asher & Dodge, 1986). Likewise, the available data (Cillessen &
mated with full maximum likelihood. Our analyses focused on the
Bukowski, 2000; Jiang & Cillessen, 2005) suggest that acceptance items influence of between-subjects factors (i.e., aggression, popularity,
that tap liking by peers (e.g., kids you like the most) have similar psycho- and social acceptance) on linear within-subject changes in aca-
metric properties to items that tap desirability as a social partner (e.g., kids demic engagement. Guided by the recommendations of Singer and
you like to play with) and assess closely related aspects of standing (Asher Willett (2003), we implemented our analyses using PROC MIXED
& Dodge, 1986). in the SAS statistical package, Version 9.0 (Littell, Milliken,
Aggression. As part of the peer nomination procedure, participants Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996).
were asked to identify peers “who get mad easily” and “who are mean.” An unstructured error covariance matrix was specified for each
Each descriptor appeared on a separate page, with a list of the peers to be of the models (for a relevant discussion, see Long & Pellegrini,
evaluated below. Participants were asked to circle the names of peers who 2003). With this structure, all parameters are allowed to vary so
fit each item and were told that they could select as many or as few names
that model fit (in terms of deviance statistics) can be optimized.
as they wanted. A participant’s score on each item was based on the
More parsimonious structures are often preferable because fewer
number of nominations he or she received on a particular item divided by
the number of students who indicated that they knew the participant. unknown parameters are estimated (Singer & Willett, 2003). Ac-
Although unlimited nomination approaches of this nature are resource cordingly, we conducted exploratory analyses specifying our mod-
intensive, the resulting estimates can offer improvements in validity and els with alternative error covariance matrix structures. Model fit
reliability over indices generated via limited nominations (Terry, 2000). was strongest with an unstructured covariance matrix, but the
For later analysis, we generated the mean of the two aggression items for differences in fit indices were not large.
each wave of data collection (rs ⬎ .70, ps ⬍ .001, between the two items Although social acceptance and popularity are conceptualized as
at each time point). distinct dimensions of social standing (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,
The items that we used for this project were derived from a four-item 1998), investigators have consistently reported moderate to high
aggression scale that has been validated in a number of past studies (e.g., correlations between these two indices (LaFontana & Cillessen,
Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997) and was initially developed primarily to tap 1999; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). In the current investigation,
overt subtypes of aggression. The full scale included the two items used in
popularity and acceptance were significantly correlated at each
the current investigation as well as two additional items: “hits, pushes, and
kicks” and “starts fights.” The internal consistency for the full scale was
time point (correlations ranged from .61 to .67, all ps ⬍ .001).
high (␣ ⫽ .96). The items that we selected were strongly correlated with Empirical associations between social acceptance and popularity
the scale total (rs ⬎ .85, ps ⬍ .005) and appeared to detect aggressive could complicate interpretation of any findings because the con-
behavior among both boys and girls (i.e., with nonsignificant gender structs are not fully independent. For example, the effect of pop-
differences). Other researchers have found that similar items correlate well ularity on academic engagement may partially reflect the tendency
with aggression assessments obtained from teachers, peers, and indepen- for popular youths to be well liked. To address this issue, in each
dent observers (e.g., Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994) and exhibit strong of our models we included simultaneous estimates for the linear
construct validity (e.g., Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997). effects of acceptance and popularity. Therefore, our analyses es-
Friendship. The participants were given an alphabetized list of all timate the effects of popularity with acceptance controlled and
consenting students in their grade. They were asked to circle the names of acceptance with popularity controlled.
their “closest friends” and were instructed that they could circle as many or
as few names as they liked. In keeping with past research (Bukowski &
Hoza, 1989; Price & Ladd, 1986), participants were classified as friends Preliminary Analyses and Descriptive Statistics
only if they reciprocally nominated each other. The mean number of
friends each participant had was 9.32 (SD ⫽ 7.56) at T1, 10.13 (SD ⫽ 7.83) Gender differences in the correlates of popularity were not a
at T2, 12.24 (SD ⫽ 9.83) at T3, and 12.34 (SD ⫽ 10.22) at T4. primary focus in this investigation but were examined for descrip-
A relatively large number of friendship dyads were identified, probably tive purposes. As Table 1 depicts, girls received higher GPAs than
because we relied on an unlimited nomination approach. We used this did boys in three of the four waves. We did not find gender effects
procedure given concerns that restricting adolescents’ friendship choices to for aggression (consistent with Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), a
a fixed number of nominations might lead to an incomplete picture of their pattern that might reflect our use of items that assess hostility and
friendship networks (cf. Furman, 1996). To enhance the ecological validity
anger as a dispositional behavioral style. Such items may tap both
of the assessment, we also allowed participants to choose friends from the
relational and overt forms of aggression (Little, Jones, Henrich, &
full grade (instead of restricting potential friendship choices to one specific
classroom).
Hawley, 2003). In addition, before specifying our final growth
GPA and unexplained absence data. School records were reviewed at curve models, we conducted exploratory analyses that included
each time point. GPA was calculated as the mean of the students’ five Gender ⫻ Predictor interactions (e.g., Gender ⫻ Social Standing).
academic course grades for each semester, with a possible range of 0.0 to None of the specified gender interactions approached significance.
4.0. Unexplained absences were a tally of the number of days students were Accordingly, we did not include gender as a term in any of our
absent from school without a valid explanation (range of 0 to 70). A valid final models.
1120 SCHWARTZ, GORMAN, NAKAMOTO, AND MCKAY

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and t tests for Boys and Girls for All Variables

Boys Girls

Variable M SD M SD t(340)

Time 1
Popularitya 2.28 0.69 2.40 0.63 ⫺1.66
Social acceptancea 2.42 0.46 2.46 0.41 ⫺0.66
Aggressionb 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.09 1.10
GPAc 2.57 0.85 2.82 0.83 ⫺2.71**
Unexplained absencesd 3.53 6.12 3.70 6.13 ⫺0.25
Time 2
Popularitya 2.28 0.65 2.42 0.65 ⫺2.00*
Social acceptancea 2.27 0.45 2.30 0.43 ⫺0.61
Aggressionb 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.20
GPAc 2.34 1.01 2.58 0.97 ⫺2.20*
Unexplained absencesd 5.36 8.47 7.73 15.42 ⫺1.76
Time 3
Popularitya 2.33 0.66 2.46 0.68 ⫺1.67
Social acceptancea 2.18 0.42 2.19 0.36 ⫺0.17
Aggressionb 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.84
GPAc 2.55 0.94 2.76 0.94 ⫺2.02*
Unexplained absencesd 5.43 10.20 4.73 7.34 0.71
Time 4
Popularitya 2.36 0.67 2.47 0.69 ⫺1.45
Social acceptancea 2.20 0.42 2.15 0.34 1.25
Aggressionb 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 ⫺0.69
GPAc 2.51 0.89 2.69 0.88 ⫺1.83
Unexplained absencesd 6.61 9.36 6.71 9.55 ⫺0.09
a
The popularity and social acceptance scores are the average ratings on a 5-point scale. b The aggression
scores represent the average of individual students’ proportion scores on the two aggression items. We calculated
proportion scores by dividing the number of nominations each student received on a particular item by the
number of students who indicated that they knew the participant. c The grade point average (GPA) score was
calculated on a 4.0 scale. d The unexplained absences score is the average number of days missed during the
semester.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

Means, standard deviations, and stability estimates (i.e., T1–T4 meaningful even when between-individuals differences remain
correlations) for all variables are depicted in Table 2. As shown, relatively stable over time (Wohlwill, 1973).
the stability of each of the constructs was high. However, it is Correlations among all variables are presented in Table 3. There
important to emphasize that within-individual change can still be were significant first-order correlations between popularity and

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and the Correlation Between Time 1 and Time 4 for All Variables
for the Entire Sample at the Four Time Points

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD Time 1–Time 4 r

Popularitya 2.34 0.66 2.35 0.65 2.40 0.68 2.41 0.68 .83***
Social acceptancea 2.44 0.44 2.29 0.44 2.19 0.39 2.18 0.38 .56***
Aggressionb 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 .66***
GPAc 2.70 0.85 2.46 1.00 2.66 0.95 2.60 0.87 .73***
Unexplained absencesd 3.62 6.12 6.53 12.43 5.08 8.89 6.66 9.44 .42***
a
The popularity and social acceptance scores are the average ratings on a 5-point scale. b The aggression
scores represent the average of individual students’ proportion scores on the two aggression items. We calculated
proportion scores by dividing the number of nominations each student received on a particular item by the
number of students who indicated that they knew the participant. c The grade point average (GPA) score was
calculated on a 4.0 scale. d The unexplained absences score is the average number of days missed during the
semester.
*** p ⬍ .001.
 POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1121

Table 3
Correlations Between Popularity and Social Acceptance, and Aggression and the Academic
Functioning Indices

Unexplained
Variable Aggressiona GPAb absencesc

Time 1
Popularityd .21*** ⫺.04 .05
Popularity with social acceptance partialledd .40*** ⫺.09 .10
Social acceptanced ⫺.14* .05 ⫺.04
Social acceptance with popularity partialledd ⫺.37*** .09 ⫺.10
Time 2
Popularityd .13* ⫺.02 .03
Popularity with social acceptance partialledd .37*** ⫺.13* .12*
Social acceptanced ⫺.21*** .12* ⫺.09
Social acceptance with popularity partialledd ⫺.40*** .17** ⫺.15**
Time 3
Popularityd .08 ⫺.08 .12*
Popularity with social acceptance partialledd .34*** ⫺.20** .23***
Social acceptanced ⫺.32*** .11* ⫺.09
Social acceptance with popularity partialledd ⫺.46*** .21*** ⫺.22***
Time 4
Popularityd .08 .00 .15**
Popularity with social acceptance partialledd .33*** ⫺.09 .26***
Social acceptanced ⫺.28*** .11 ⫺.08
Social acceptance with popularity partialledd ⫺.43*** .14* ⫺.23***
a
The aggression scores represent the average of individual students’ proportion scores on the two aggression
items. We calculated proportion scores by dividing the number of nominations each student received on a
particular item by the number of students who indicated that they knew the participant. b The grade point
average (GPA) score was calculated on a 4.0 scale. c The unexplained absences score is the average number
of days missed during the semester. d The popularity and social acceptance scores are the average ratings on
a 5-point scale.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

aggression at two of the time points and significant semipartial tional growth model included time as the only predictor variable
correlations between popularity and aggression (with acceptance (implying change in GPA that is not accounted for by substantive
controlled) at all four time points. In contrast, social acceptance predictors). We then specified our full model (Model 3) predicting
was negatively correlated with aggression across waves. The effect changes in GPA from time, changes in popularity, changes in
sizes for these associations ranged from small to medium (Cohen, aggression, and changes in social acceptance. This model also
1988). included interaction effects for Changes in Popularity ⫻ Changes
We did not find a strong pattern of first-order correlations in Aggression and for Changes in Acceptance ⫻ Changes in
between the social standing indices and the academic functioning Aggression.
variables. However, with the variance from social acceptance Fit statistics and parameter estimates for the models are sum-
controlled, popularity was positively correlated with unexplained marized in Table 4. Comparison of the deviance statistics for the
absences at each of the final three time points and negatively three models revealed a significant difference in the fit of the
correlated with GPA at T2 and T3. In turn, with the variance from unconditional growth model and unconditional means model. Fur-
popularity controlled, social acceptance was negatively correlated ther comparisons also revealed differences in the fit of the full
with unexplained absences and positively correlated with GPA at
model and the fit of the unconditional growth and unconditional
each of the final three data collection points. The effect size for
means models. Taken together, these findings indicate that the
each of these correlations was small.
social standing and aggression variables made significant contri-
butions to model fit.
Aggression as a Moderator of the Relation Between In the full model, there were significant negative effects for time
Social Standing and GPA and changes in aggression. Thus, there were modest within-subject
As a first step in our inferential analyses, we examined the declines in GPA over the waves of data collection. Moreover,
moderating role of aggression in the prediction of GPA from increases in aggression were associated with decreases in GPA.
popularity and social acceptance (see Table 4). To provide a In addition to the described main effects, there was a significant
baseline for evaluation of our theory-driven model (as per Singer interaction between changes in popularity and changes in aggres-
& Willett, 2003), we began by specifying an unconditional means sion. To decompose this later effect, we used procedures recom-
model (Model 1) and an unconditional growth model (Model 2). mended by Aiken and West (1991). We specified models predict-
The unconditional means model did not include any predictor ing changes in GPA from changes in popularity with changes in
variables (implying a flat trajectory for GPA), and the uncondi- aggression fixed at low (1 standard deviation below the mean),
1122 SCHWARTZ, GORMAN, NAKAMOTO, AND MCKAY

Table 4
Estimates of Fixed Effects, Variance Components, and Fit Indices From the Individual Growth Models in Which Several Variables
Predict the Changes in Adolescents’ Grades

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Fixed effects

Main effects
Time ⫺0.0035 (0.0010)*** ⫺0.0036 (0.0010)*** ⫺0.0030 (0.0010)**
Popularitya ⫺0.0015 (0.0043) 0.0010 (0.0043)
Social acceptancea 0.0075 (0.0047) 0.0055 (0.0046)
Aggressionb ⫺0.0628 (0.0204)**
Friends’ aggressionc ⫺0.1970 (0.0348)***
Interaction terms
Popularitya ⫻ Aggressionb ⫺0.0891 (0.0302)**
Social Acceptancea ⫻ Aggressionb 0.0649 (0.0443)
Popularitya ⫻ Friend’s Aggressionc ⫺0.0571 (0.0619)
Social Acceptancea ⫻ Friends’ Aggressionc 0.0088 (0.0897)

Variance components

Level 1
Within-person 0.0012 (0.0001)*** 0.0009 (0.0001)*** 0.0009 (0.0001)*** 0.0008 (0.0000)***
Level 2
In initial status 0.0046 (0.0004)*** 0.0046 (0.0004)*** 0.0043 (0.0004)*** 0.0044 (0.0004)***
In rate of change 0.0002 (0.0000)*** 0.0002 (0.0000)*** 0.0002 (0.0000)***
Covariance ⫺0.0001 (0.0001) ⫺0.0001 (0.0001) ⫺0.0002 (0.0001)

Fit indexes

Goodness of fit
Deviance ⫺4155.1 ⫺4209.1 ⫺4234.5 ⫺4131.6
AIC ⫺4149.1 ⫺4197.1 ⫺4212.5 ⫺4109.6
BIC ⫺4137.6 ⫺4174.1 ⫺4170.3 ⫺4067.4
Model comparison
⌬ deviance Model 1 54.0*** 79.4*** ⫺23.5***
⌬ deviance Model 2 25.4*** ⫺77.5***

Note. Model 1 is the unconditional means model. Model 2 is the unconditional growth model. Model 3 includes the main effects of popularity, social
acceptance, and aggression as well as the Popularity ⫻ Aggression and Social Acceptance ⫻ Aggression interaction terms. Model 4 includes the main
effects of popularity, social acceptance, and friends’ aggression as well as the Popularity ⫻ Friends’ Aggression and Social Acceptance ⫻ Friends’
Aggression interaction terms. Values in parentheses are the standard errors. Deviance ⫽ ⫺2 log likelihood; AIC ⫽ Akaike’s information criterion; BIC ⫽
Bayesian information criterion; ⌬ deviance Model 1 ⫽ deviance of Model 1 ⫺ deviance of current model; ⌬ deviance Model 2 ⫽ deviance of Model 2
⫺ deviance of current model.
a
The popularity and social acceptance scores are changes in the average ratings on a 5-point scale. b The aggression scores represent changes in the
average of individual students’ proportion scores on the two aggression items. We calculated proportion scores by dividing the number of nominations each
student received on a particular item by the number of students who indicated that they knew the participant. c The friends’ aggression scores represent
changes in the mean level of aggression across each participant’s friends.
** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

medium (mean), and high (1 standard deviation above the mean) level of aggression across each participant’s friends at each data
levels. Changes in social acceptance were entered as a covariate in collection point (for similar analytic approaches, see Criss, Pettit,
each of these models. For high changes in aggression, there was a Bates, Dodge, & Lapp, 2002; Vitaro et al., 2005). We then spec-
negative association between changes in popularity and changes in ified a model predicting changes in GPA from changes in friends’
GPA (B ⫽ ⫺0.02, p ⬍ .05). The effects were nonsignificant for aggression, changes in popularity, changes in social acceptance,
medium changes in aggression (B ⫽ 0.00) and for low changes in Changes in Popularity ⫻ Changes in Friends’ Aggression, and
aggression (B ⫽ 0.01). Consistent with our hypotheses, increases Changes in Social Acceptance ⫻ Changes in Friends’ Aggression
in popularity were associated with declines in GPA for students
(Model 4). As Table 4 depicts, the fit of this model was poor.
who were also experiencing increases in aggression.
Comparison of the deviance statistics indicated that fit was better
for the unconditional means and unconditional growth models than
Friends’ Aggression as a Moderator of the Relation for the full model. Moreover, the specified interaction terms failed
Between Social Standing and GPA to reach significance. Overall, the findings do not provide any
Next, we examined the moderating role of friends’ aggression in support for the hypothesized moderating role of aggression levels
the prediction of GPA. For these analyses, we calculated the mean among friends.
 POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1123

Aggression as a Moderator of the Relation Between cantly better fit than the unconditional means and unconditional
Social Standing and Unexplained Absences growth models.
In the full model, there were significant positive effects for time,
We used a similar analytic strategy to investigate the moderating changes in aggression, and changes in popularity. That is, there were
role of aggression in the prediction of unexplained absences (see
within-subject increases in the total number of unexplained absences
Table 5). First, we specified an unconditional means model (Model 1)
from T1 to T4, and increases in aggression and popularity were
and an unconditional growth model (Model 2). We then specified a
associated with increases in unexplained absences. The significant
model predicting changes in unexplained absences from time,
main effect findings were accompanied by an interaction between
changes in social acceptance, changes in popularity, and changes in
aggression (Model 3). This model also included interaction terms for changes in popularity and changes in aggression. To decompose this
Changes in Social Acceptance ⫻ Changes in Aggression and for effect, we specified models predicting changes in unexplained ab-
Changes in Popularity ⫻ Changes in Aggression. sences from changes in popularity with changes in aggression fixed at
Fit indices and parameter estimates for the models are summa- low, medium, and high. The association between changes in popu-
rized in Table 5. As depicted, the difference in deviance statistics larity and changes in unexplained absences increased in magnitude as
for the unconditional growth model and the unconditional means changes in aggression moved from low (B ⫽ 0.02, ns) to medium
model was significant. In addition, the full model had a signifi- (B ⫽ 0.06, p ⬍ .01) to high (B ⫽ 0.10, p ⬍ 0.001).

Table 5
Estimates of Fixed Effects, Variance Components, and Fit Indices From the Individual Growth Models in Which Several Variables
Predict the Changes in Adolescents’ Unexplained Absences

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Fixed effects

Main effects
Time 0.0571 (0.0069)*** 0.0577 (0.0069)*** 0.0543 (0.0067)***
Popularitya 0.0561 (0.0247)* 0.0555 (0.0244)*
Social acceptancea ⫺0.0514 (0.0315) ⫺0.0658 (0.0300)*
Aggressionb 0.4491 (0.1287)***
Friends’ aggressionc 0.6756 (0.2276)**
Interaction terms
Popularitya ⫻ Aggressionb 0.5113 (0.1900)**
Social Acceptancea ⫻ Aggressionb ⫺0.2346 (0.2922)
Popularitya ⫻ Friends’ Aggressionc 0.3267 (0.4081)
Social Acceptancea ⫻ Friends’ Aggressionc ⫺0.2024 (0.5950)

Variance components

Level 1
Within-person 0.0644 (0.0029)*** 0.0500 (0.0028)*** 0.0509 (0.0029)*** 0.0456 (0.0027)***
Level 2
In initial status 0.0843 (0.0079)*** 0.0750 (0.0088)*** 0.0666 (0.0082)*** 0.0674 (0.0082)***
In rate of change 0.0053 (0.0014)*** 0.0051 (0.0014)*** 0.0047 (0.0013)***
Covariance 0.0026 (0.0027) 0.0003 (0.0027) ⫺0.0006 (0.0026)

Fit indexes

Goodness of fit
Deviance 737.3 624.3 590.8 467.6
AIC 743.3 636.3 612.8 489.6
BIC 754.8 659.4 655.0 531.7
Model comparison
⌬ deviance Model 1 113.0*** 146.5*** 269.7***
⌬ deviance Model 2 33.5*** 156.7***

Note. Model 1 is the unconditional means model. Model 2 is the unconditional growth model. Model 3 includes the main effects of popularity, social
acceptance, and aggression as well as the Popularity ⫻ Aggression and Social Acceptance ⫻ Aggression interaction terms. Model 4 includes the main
effects of popularity, social acceptance, and friends’ aggression as well as the Popularity ⫻ Friends’ Aggression and Social Acceptance ⫻ Friends’
Aggression interaction terms. Values in parentheses are the standard errors. Deviance ⫽ ⫺2 log likelihood; AIC ⫽ Akaike’s information criterion; BIC ⫽
Bayesian information criterion; ⌬ deviance Model 1 ⫽ deviance of Model 1 ⫺ deviance of current model; ⌬ deviance Model 2 ⫽ deviance of Model 2
⫺ deviance of current model.
a
The popularity and social acceptance scores are changes in the average ratings on a 5-point scale. b The aggression scores represent changes in the
average of individual students’ proportion scores on the two aggression items. We calculated proportion scores by dividing the number of nominations each
student received on a particular item by the number of students who indicated that they knew the participant. c The friends’ aggression scores represent
changes in the mean level of aggression across each participant’s friends.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
1124 SCHWARTZ, GORMAN, NAKAMOTO, AND MCKAY

The overall pattern of findings indicates that youths who expe- linked to increased academic maladjustment, but only for adoles-
rienced concurrent increases in popularity and aggression were cents who were also experiencing increases in aggressive behavior.
also characterized by increases in unexplained absences over time. Our findings also replicate and extend results from cross-
Consistent with our earlier analyses examining GPA as an out- sectional research conducted with younger samples. For example,
come variable, youths who were both aggressive and popular Rodkin et al. (2000) examined subgroups of popular students in
seemed to experience declines in academic engagement over time. preadolescent peer groups. These investigators reported that
“tough” popular students were low in academic competence
whereas “model” popular students experienced more positive ac-
Friends’ Aggression as a Moderator of the Relation ademic adjustment. Other researchers have also reached similar
Between Social Standing and Unexplained Absences conclusions on the basis of research conducted in elementary
school settings (e.g., Farmer et al., 2003; Lease et al., 2002). Peer
Our final series of analyses examined the prediction of unex-
relationships undergo significant reorganizations as youths nego-
plained absences from social standing and friends’ aggressiveness.
tiate the transition from childhood to early adolescence and then to
We specified a multilevel model predicting changes in unex-
middle adolescence (Brown, 1990). Nonetheless, aggression and
plained absences from changes in popularity, changes in social
popularity may have implications for academic adjustment across
acceptance, changes in friends’ aggression, Changes in Popular-
a wide period of development.
ity ⫻ Changes in Friends’ Aggression, and Changes in Social
What underlies the risks that seem to be associated with popu-
Acceptance ⫻ Changes in Friends’ Aggression (Model 4). As
larity for aggressive youths? Although much remains to be learned,
depicted in Table 5, the fit for this model was significantly better
the social and academic goals of these students might be important
than the fit of the unconditional means and unconditional growth
to consider. Adolescents who develop a social reputation as pop-
models. There were also significant positive effects for time,
ular by behaving aggressively and performing poorly in school
changes in aggression among friends, and changes in popularity as
may feel that they cannot easily improve their behavior without
well as a negative effect for changes in social acceptance. Again,
changing their standing in the high-status crowd (Juvonen, 1996;
however, we did not find interactions between the friends’ aggres-
Juvonen & Murdock, 1995). Some aggressive students may dis-
sion scores and the social standing indices. Contrary to our hy-
engage from school as a strategy for achieving or maintaining their
potheses, aggression levels among friends did not moderate the
popular status with peers. Popular adolescents who are aggressive
relation between popularity and unexplained absences.
could seek to impress other aggressive or antisocial peers by
adopting behaviors that are consistent with the values of the larger
Discussion peer group. Processes of this nature may be particularly relevant in
settings in which academic excellence is not likely to be positively
Past investigators have conceptualized social standing with evaluated by the peer group as a whole. To the extent that social
peers as an important correlate of positive academic outcomes standing is a more central goal for adolescents than academic
(Guay et al., 1999; Wentzel, 2003; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). achievement, popularity could be predictive of longer term risk for
However, research in this area has relied primarily on assessments academic problems. Unfortunately, adolescents in these situations
of acceptance by peers to index high status in the peer group. We likely pose a serious challenge to interventions. It may be very
sought to build on the existing work by also including an assess- difficult to convince popular adolescents that their current prestige
ment of popularity, operationalized as a reputational construct comes at an eventual cost.
involving peer perceptions of high status and social power Although attempts to achieve status in larger peer structures
(Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). We were particularly focused on may be linked to academic difficulties, we did not find any
aggression and aggression levels among friends as potential mod- evidence that affiliation with aggressive peers on a more dyadic
erators of the link between popularity and school functioning. High level was associated with similar risks. Aggression levels among
status among aggressive peers can require conformity with behav- friends did not moderate the association between popularity and
iors and attitudes that are not compatible with achievement and academic functioning. That is, we did not find significant interac-
behavioral engagement at school (Clasen & Brown, 1985). Ac- tions between popularity and friends’ aggression in the prediction
cordingly, we predicted that popularity would be linked to negative of academic outcomes. Nonsignificant effects do not provide a
school outcomes for youths who were also experiencing increases strong foundation for conclusions, and caution seems particularly
in aggressive behavior. The results of our analyses are supportive warranted given the conservative nature of interaction effects in
of this hypothesis and highlight the potential risks associated with quasi-experimental designs (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Nonethe-
popularity during middle adolescence. less, the full pattern of findings might suggest that the mechanisms
Consistent with our predictions, multilevel models produced underlying the risk associated with popularity and aggression
evidence that the implications of popularity for academic adjust- involve processes that occur outside the immediate context of
ment during adolescence are dependent on the adolescent’s own dyadic relationships.
level of aggression. In particular, our analyses yielded significant Our models also failed to yield any evidence that social accep-
interactions between aggression and popularity in the prediction of tance by peers is predictive of academic maladjustment. Changes
trajectories for GPA and absenteeism. At high levels of aggression, in social acceptance were not significantly associated with changes
increases in popularity were associated with declines in GPA and in academic functioning at any level of aggression. Once again, we
increases in unexplained absences from school. In contrast, at low must caution against strong interpretation of null effects. Still, the
levels of aggression, popularity was not linked to increased absen- full pattern of findings is consistent with conceptualizations of
teeism or declines in classroom performance. Thus, popularity was social acceptance as a dimension of standing with peers that is
 POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1125

dependent on prosociability rather than conformity. Adolescents determinants of popularity for boys and girls (Cillessen & Mayeux,
do not necessarily need to adopt attitudes and behaviors that 2004), research on the outcomes associated with popularity has not
coincide with the norms of the peer group (e.g., negative attitudes produced any evidence that gender serves a moderating role (May-
toward school in social networks of aggressive youths) to be well eux & Sandstrom, 2005; Prinstein et al., 2003). Likewise, our
liked. Although popularity may require conformity, acceptance by exploratory analyses did not provide any indication that the link
peers could be more dependent on an adolescent’s social skills. between popularity and academic disengagement differs for boys
A caveat to these findings is that our models were specified with and girls. Despite these results, we hesitate to draw conclusions
popularity and social acceptance entered as simultaneous predic- because the detection of three-way interactions (i.e., Aggression ⫻
tors. One of our goals was to investigate the independent predic- Popularity ⫻ Gender) would be difficult in the context of a
tion associated with each dimension of social standing. Accord- naturalistic design (McClelland & Judd, 1993). A clearer pattern of
ingly, we examined the relations between popularity and academic findings also might have emerged if we had assessed relational
engagement with social acceptance statistically controlled. Essen- aggression or other gender-specific behaviors (Crick & Grotpeter,
tially, our models assessed academic outcomes for popular youths 1995).
who were not also well accepted. The overall pattern of findings is In summary, our results demonstrate that popularity is associ-
consistent with past analyses that included popularity as the sole ated with risk for adolescents who are highly aggressive. We found
predictor variable (i.e., without control for social acceptance; Na- that increases in popularity were associated with increases in
kamoto, Gorman, Schwartz, & McKay, 2004), but interpretation of unexplained absences and decreases in GPA. Our models also
models with multiple covariates requires caution.1 emphasize the need to consider multiple subtypes of social stand-
Before we move on to our concluding comments, some potential ing during adolescence. Although popularity was predictive of
strengths and limitations of this project should be identified. The disengagement from the school environment, changes in social
longitudinal aspect of our findings represents an important contri- acceptance were not associated with changes in GPA or unex-
bution of this investigation, but the conclusions that can be drawn plained absences. Further research, conducted with multidimen-
are necessarily limited by our short-term design. Meaningful sional assessments of aggression and social standing, seems
changes in school adjustment may be easier to detect with longer warranted.
term designs (for relevant comments, see Schwartz, Gorman, Na-
kamoto, & Toblin, 2005). By the middle years of adolescence,
between-subjects differences in academic functioning are already 1
We conducted a series of multilevel models predicting changes in GPA
well established, and marked fluctuations over short periods are
and unexplained absences from changes in popularity, changes in aggres-
relatively unlikely. In the present data set, we found high stability sion, and Changes in Popularity ⫻ Changes in Aggression. These models
in GPA and attendance over 2 school years. Perhaps as a result, our did not include social acceptance as a predictor variable. The overall
findings were generally characterized by small effect sizes. pattern of findings was identical to the fully specified models presented in
A related issue is that our findings should not be generalized to the text.
developmental stages other than middle adolescence. The available
findings indicate that there are shifts in the correlates of popularity
across development (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). There may also References
be developmental differences in how academic motivation affects Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and
individuals’ social adjustment (Juvonen & Murdock, 1995). It is identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
not yet clear whether the academic outcomes associated with Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles:
aggression, social acceptance, and popularity remain constant Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Edu-
across age groups. These issues are important to consider as cation, 65, 169 –187.
educators seek to identify subgroups of students who are likely to Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
experience absenteeism and other forms of disengagement from interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
the school environment. Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected
by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444 – 449.
Other analytic complexities relate to our assessment of aggres-
Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1986). Coaching in social skills for children
sion. We selected items from a larger scale designed to assess overt who lack friends in school. Social Work in Education, 8, 205–218.
aggression. Longitudinal research has demonstrated predictive Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’
links between overt aggression and popularity (Prinstein & Cil- adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.
lessen, 2003). In addition, research on the risk associated with Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman &
exposure to aggressive peers has also tended to emphasize overtly G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.
aggressive behaviors (Criss et al., 2002). However, relational 171–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
aggression plays an increasingly important role in determining Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer
social status over the course of development (Cillessen & Mayeux, pressure, peer conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior
2004). Accordingly, it may be necessary to replicate our findings among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 22, 521–530.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in
with more multifaceted assessments (i.e., including assessments of
theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),
relational and other social forms of aggression; Galen & Under- Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15– 45). Oxford, England:
wood, 1997). Wiley.
Likewise, there is a need for further investigation focusing on Butcher, J. (1986). Longitudinal analysis of adolescent girls’ aspirations at
the role of gender in the relevant developmental pathways. Al- school and perceptions of popularity. Adolescence, 21, 133–143.
though previous investigators have reported differences in the Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2000). Conceptualizing and
1126 SCHWARTZ, GORMAN, NAKAMOTO, AND MCKAY

measuring peer acceptance and rejection. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjust-
Bukowski (Eds.), New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development: ment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adoles-
Vol. 88. Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejec- cence, 22, 173–199.
tion in the peer system (pp. 3–10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guay, F., Boivin, M., & Hodges, E. V. E. (1999). Predicting change in
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: academic achievement: A model of peer experiences and self-system
Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 105–115.
status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. Hopmeyer, A., & Asher, S. R. (1997). Children’s responses to peer
Clasen, D. R., & Brown, B. B. (1985). The multidimensionality of peer conflicts involving a rights infraction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43,
pressure in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 451– 235–254.
468. Hymel, S. (1986). Interpretations of peer behavior: Affective bias in
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 57, 431– 445.
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Jiang, X. L., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2005). Stability of continuous measures
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s of sociometric status: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25, 1–25.
social status: A five-year study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282. Juvonen, J. (1996). Self-presentation tactics promoting teacher and peer
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types approval: The function of excuses and other clever explanations. In J.
of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding
557–570. children’s school adjustment (pp. 43– 65). New York: Cambridge Uni-
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and versity Press.
relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1995). Grade-level differences in the social
Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychol- value of effort: Implications for self-presentation tactics in early adoles-
ogy: Vol. 23. Self processes and development (pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: cence. Child Development, 66, 1694 –1705.
Erlbaum. Ladd, G. W., & Oden, S. (1979). The relationship between peer acceptance
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and and children’s ideas about helpfulness. Child Development, 50, 402–
social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710 –722. 408.
Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Lapp, A. L. (2002). LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s
Family adversity, positive peer relationships, and children’s externaliz- stereotypes of popularity. Social Development, 7, 301–320.
ing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. (1999). Children’s interpersonal per-
Development, 73, 1220 –1237. ceptions as a function of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity.
DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children’s Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 225–242.
academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social
proximity of peer rejection. Child Development, 65, 1799 –1813. constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87–109.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996).
of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct prob- SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
lems. Child Development, 65, 649 – 665. Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003).
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior.
female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154 –165. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 122–133.
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, J. L., O’Neal, K. K., & Cairns, B. D. Long, J. D., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2003). Studying change in dominance and
(2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of bullying with linear mixed models. School Psychology Review, 32,
aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. De- 401– 417.
velopmental Psychology, 39, 992–1004. Luthar, S. S., & McMahon, T. J. (1996). Peer reputation among inner-city
Finn, J. D., Folger, J., & Cox, D. (1991). Measuring participation among adolescents: Structure and correlates. Journal of Research on Adoles-
elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measure- cence, 6, 581– 603.
ment, 51, 393– 402. Mayeux, L., & Sandstrom, M. J. (2005, April). Are perceived popular
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping adolescents really antisocial? A look at risk-taking behaviors in well-
with the burden of “acting White.” Urban Review, 18, 176 –206. liked vs. dominant adolescents. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engage- Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
ment: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educa- McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detect-
tional Research, 74, 59 –109. ing interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Concep- 376 –390.
tual and methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition
W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70,
and adolescence (pp. 41– 65). New York: Cambridge University Press. 175–191.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in Nakamoto, J., Gorman, A. H., Schwartz, D., & McKay, T. (2004, March).
children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educa- Peer perceived popularity and adolescents’ academic engagement. Pa-
tional Psychology, 95, 148 –161. per presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence,
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation Baltimore.
of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, Oden, S., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching children in social skills for
589 – 600. friendship making. Child Development, 48, 495–506.
Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes O’Neil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Wang, S., & Strand, C. (1997). A
adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Jour- longitudinal assessment of the academic correlates of early peer accep-
nal of School Psychology, 40, 143–165. tance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 290 –303.
Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J. M., & DeRosier, M. E. (1995). Peer
middle school: An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psy-
587–599. chopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Devel-
 POPULARITY AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1127

opmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. Terry, R. A. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use
96 –161). New York: Wiley. of sociometric techniques. In A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski
Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: (Eds.), New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development: Vol. 88.
Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal con- Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the
cerns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 231–241. peer system (pp. 27–53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and United Way of Greater Los Angeles. (1999). 1998 –99 state of the county
peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Jour- report. Los Angeles: Author.
nal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Wanner, B. (2005). Patterns of affiliation with
Price, J. M., & Ladd, G. W. (1986). Assessment of children’s friendships: delinquent friends during late childhood and early adolescence: Corre-
Implications for social competence and social adjustment. Advances in lates and consequences. Social Development, 14, 82–108.
Behavioral Assessment of Children & Families, 2, 121–149. Wentzel, K. R. (1991a). Relations between social competence and aca-
Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of demic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066 –
adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. 1078.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310 –342. Wentzel, K. R. (1991b). Social competence at school: Relations between
Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent oral sex, social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational
peer popularity, and perceptions of best friends’ sexual behavior. Jour- Research, 61, 1–24.
nal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 243–249. Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and academic adjustment in
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heter- middle school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23,
ogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. De-
5–28.
velopmental Psychology, 36, 14 –24.
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Carlson, W. (2004). Friendships of aggres-
middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal
sive youth: Considering the influences of being disliked and of being
of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.
perceived as popular. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88,
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and
25– 45.
group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational
school. Child Development, 68, 1198 –1209.
aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in con-
Wentzel, K. R., & Erdley, C. A. (1993). Strategies for making friends:
current and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378 –
Relations to social behavior and peer acceptance in early adolescence.
387.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early Developmental Psychology, 29, 819 – 826.
socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, Wohlwill, J. F. (1973). The study of behavioral development. New York:
665– 675. Academic Press.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1999). Social networks and
Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning. configurations in inner city schools: Aggression, popularity, and impli-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425– 435. cations for students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Singer, J. D. (2002). Fitting individual growth models using SAS PROC Disorders, 7, 147–156.
MIXED. In D. S. Moskowitz & S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), Modeling Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Strouse, D. (1994). “We’re popular, but
intraindividual variability with repeated measures data: Methods and we’re not snobs”: Adolescents describe their crowds. In R. Montemayor,
applications (pp. 135–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: adolescence (pp. 101–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences Received January 12, 2005
in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psy- Revision received January 30, 2006
chologist, 47, 723–729. Accepted January 31, 2006 䡲

View publication stats