Effects of Popularity and Gender on Peers’ Perceptions of Prosocial, Antisocial, and ...

Me r r i l l - Pa l M e r Qu a r t e r ly , Vo l . 57, No. 4

Effects of Popularity and Gender on Peers’ Perceptions of Prosocial, Antisocial, and Jealousy-Eliciting BehaviorsLara Mayeux University of Oklahoma

Perceived popularity is associated with both positive and negative characteris-tics, and adolescents’ stereotypes associated with popularity reflect this paradox. The current study investigated adolescents’ stereotypes associated with popular-ity and gender, as well as their liking for popular peers who engage in proso-cial, antisocial, and jealousy-eliciting behaviors. Of particular interest was how adolescents perceive the behaviors of same-sex versus other-sex peers of varying levels of popularity. A total of 190 seventh and ninth graders were randomly assigned to evaluate, via a series of vignettes, a hypothetical same-sex and other-sex peer who was either popular, unpopular, or of neutral status. Results suggest that adolescents view popular peers as less prosocial, more antisocial, and as eliciting more romantic jealousy than other peers. Adolescents’ expecta-tions regarding prosocial and antisocial behavior generally reflected widely held gender stereotypes. They were more accepting of antisocial behaviors enacted by other-sex peers compared to same-sex peers.

Perceived popular adolescents are, in a word, complicated. Paradoxically, they are seen as having both positive qualities, such as leadership skill and kindness (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Puckett, Aikins, & Cillessen, 2008), and negative ones, including physical, verbal, and relational ag-gression (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Popular teens are also more

349

Lara Mayeux, Department of Psychology.The author thanks the parents and adolescents who made this research possible. Special

thanks go to Karmon Dyches and John Houser for their assistance with this project. This project was supported by a University of Oklahoma Summer Research Fellowship. Portions of this re-search were presented at the 2007 biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, in Boston.

Address correspondence to Lara Mayeux, Department of Psychology, University of Okla-homa, Room 705, 455 West Lindsey Street, Norman, OK 73019. Phone: (405) 325-3497. Fax: (405) 325-4737. E-mail: [email protected].

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, October 2011, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 349–374. Copyright © 2011 by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201.

350 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

likely than their well-accepted peers to engage in risk-taking behaviors such as alcohol use and early sexual behavior (Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cil-lessen, 2008). Popular youths may be popular because their combination of prosocial and antisocial behaviors enables them to garner social power effectively (e.g., Hawley, 2003) or their negative characteristics may be overlooked in the face of their more desirable attributes, such as humor, style, and attractiveness (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006).

Popular youths are socially prominent and well connected, enjoying high levels of social connectedness and network centrality (e.g., Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). They are well known by their peers and typically enjoy a great deal of social power in the peer group (Adler & Adler, 1995; Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002). However, another paradox of popularity is that popular children and adolescents are not always very well liked, particularly as they move into midadolescence. Although popu-larity is moderately correlated with social acceptance in middle childhood (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998), the results of longitudinal studies indicate that the association between popularity and acceptance decreases over time. This is particularly true for girls (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Furthermore, in a longitudinal study of high school stu-dents, popularity in Grade 10 actually predicted decreases in social accep-tance by Grade 12 for girls but not for boys (Mayeux et al., 2008).

One construct that has not yet been investigated in relation to popular-ity is that of romantic jealousy. Romantic jealousy may be a salient element of popularity for adolescents because they are increasingly concerned with dating and romantic attractiveness to others (e.g., Simon, Eder, & Evans, 1992). The very visible nature of popular youths makes them potentially sought-after romantic companions for adolescents who wish to improve their own social standing among peers (Brown, 1999). Furthermore, ado-lescents of controversial sociometric status (i.e., those who receive many peer nominations of both liked most and liked least; controversial status overlaps significantly with perceived popularity) report the most frequent dating activity (Franzoi, Davis, & Vasquez-Suson, 1994). Thus, adoles-cents may view popular peers as particularly threatening romantic rivals.

The goal of the current study was to investigate adolescents’ percep-tions of positive and negative behaviors enacted by peers of varying levels of popularity and of different genders. The study addressed three research questions that were investigated by using an experimental design. For all research questions, gender and grade differences were also examined. First, the study investigated whether adolescents’ perceptions of a peer’s aggres-sive behavior, substance use, and prosociality, as well as their feelings of romantic jealousy toward that peer, differed as a function of a hypothetical

Effects of Popularity and Gender 351

peer’s popularity or gender. Second, this study assessed whether adoles-cents’ liking of aggressive, substance-using, or prosocial peers differed as a function of the peer’s popularity or gender. Third, same-sex and cross-sex perceptions of the same behaviors were compared.

Popularity: Youths’ Stereotypes and Attributions

While most of what we know about popularity comes from field studies of popular youths themselves (e.g., sociometric or social network approaches), a small number of studies have investigated children’s and adolescents’ per-ceptions of popular peers by using other methods. In an experimental study, LaFontana and Cillessen (1998) asked fourth- and fifth-grade children ques-tions about several different encounters they might have with a hypothetical popular, unpopular, or neutral-status peer. The children’s responses showed that their stereotypes of popular peers were a combination of positive and negative attributes and expectations, including things like getting along well with others but also having hostile intent toward peers. Furthermore, children did not like popular peers any more than they liked neutral-status peers.

Studies using open-ended prompts about what makes a peer popular have yielded important information about children’s and adolescents’ stereo-types about popularity. Several such published studies exist (Closson, 2008; deBruyn & Cillessen, 2006; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Xie, Li, Boucher, Hutchins, & Cairns, 2006). In a study of fourth- to eighth-grade students, perceptions of popularity were primarily focused on attractiveness and social connectedness (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Xie and colleagues (2006) found similar results with first-, fourth-, and seventh-grade inner-city African American children. First graders associated popularity with prosocial behav-ior, companionship, and liking. Fourth graders were more likely to describe popular peers as attractive, good at self-presentation, and as good students. Seventh graders also noted popular peers’ attractiveness, self-presentation skills, and involvement in sports. Consistent with LaFontana and Cillessen (2002), aggressive or deviant behaviors were not often mentioned, although they were most common among seventh graders in the study by Xie et al. and were said to be more relevant to boys’ popularity than girls’.

In a study of middle schoolers, descriptions of popular peers were ex-amined separately by participants’ gender (Closson, 2008). Boys described popularity in terms of athleticism, being funny, and engaging in risk behav-iors. Girls were more likely to focus on attractiveness, meanness, and being snobby and rude. Another study with the same age group found that middle schoolers perceive two distinct types of popular peer: one that is both popular and well accepted (prosocial-popular) and another that is popular but disliked


(populistic; deBruyn & Cillessen, 2006). Prosocial-popular peers were viewed as sociable, kind, and academically engaged. Populistic peers were viewed as antisocial (aggressive, antiauthority), arrogant, and highly influential.

In the current study, a hypothetical peer’s popularity was manipulated experimentally, and participants indicated their perceptions of that peer after a number of positive and negative encounters. In line with previous research linking aggression with popularity, adolescents were expected to attribute more hostile aggressive intent in ambiguous situations to popular peers than to neutral-status or unpopular peers. Adolescents were also expected to per-ceive popular peers as more aggressive in general, as more likely than other peers to engage in substance use, and to feel more romantic jealousy about a popular peer than other peers. Girls were expected to feel more romantic jeal-ousy toward a popular peer than were boys. Because popular peers are often both aggressive and prosocial (e.g., Hawley, 2003; Puckett et al., 2008), sig-nificant differences were not anticipated between popular and neutral- status peers in regard to expectations of prosocial behavior. However, it was ex-pected that adolescents would rate popular and neutral-status peers as more likely than unpopular peers to engage in prosocial behaviors.

This study also assessed whether adolescents’ liking of aggressive, substance-using, or prosocial peers differed as a function of the peer’s popularity. Previous studies have shown that popularity may come at the price of social acceptance (e.g., Mayeux et al., 2008). It was hypothesized that aggression and substance use enacted by popular and unpopular peers would be more likely to result in disliking than those same behaviors en-acted by neutral-status peers. Aggression enacted by a popular peer was expected to be particularly aversive to adolescents, in part because of the possible perception that the popular peer is using their social power to get away with being mean to people. On the other hand, it was expected that popular youths who engaged in prosocial acts would be liked more than neutral-status or unpopular youths who engaged in those same behaviors. Prosocial popular peers might be viewed especially positively because of their combination of social power and concern for others.

This focus on adolescents’ perceptions of their peers is significant for two reasons. First, it is important to establish whether the behavioral pro-file of popularity is reflected in peers’ stereotypes and attributions about popularity. Do children and adolescents see popular peers as they really are? Studies that tap into youths’ perceptions of popular peers generally corroborate the findings from studies using peer-nomination items. Actual popular peers are nominated for both prosocial and antisocial behaviors, in-cluding kindness (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998), good leadership (Puckett et al., 2008), and aggression (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). In studies using


both experimental and open-ended interview methods, popular youths are viewed as having a combination of prosocial and antisocial qualities, par-ticularly in the adolescent years.

A second reason why the focus on the perceiver is important has to do with the dynamics of status in the peer group. Youths’ stereotypes about popularity will influence how they interact with peers of that status—or even influence whether they interact with that peer in the first place (e.g., Hymel, Wagner, & Butler, 1989). This can be an adaptive way of using status-related information in some cases, given what we know about the association between popularity and aggression. For example, if a teen’s ste-reotype of popularity includes hostile attributions or aggressive tendencies, she may avoid popular peers out of concern that she will be treated meanly. Investigating the role of both the target peer’s behavior and the perceiver’s assumptions or interpretations of that behavior is important in understand-ing these interactions (Kenny, 1994).

Does Gender Play a Role in How Peers Are Perceived?

A major focus of this investigation was the role of gender in adolescents’ perception of their peers’ aggressive, prosocial, and jealousy-eliciting be-havior. The role of gender in adolescents’ perceptions of their peers has been relatively unexplored, particularly in the context of popularity. When asked to make attributions about a hypothetical same-sex peer’s behavior in an ambiguous situation, preadolescent boys were more hostile in their attributions than were girls (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998). In an open-ended interview study, boys focused more on athletic ability in relation to popularity than girls did (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Closson’s (2008) study also identified gender-specific stereotypes of popularity, with boys focusing on athleticism, having a sense of humor, and engaging in anti-social behaviors; girls’ stereotypes of popularity were more focused on attractiveness, being mean, being sociable, and having a snobby attitude.

These studies of youths’ perceptions of popular peers have focused on within-gender perceptions; as a result, we know very little about how girls and boys view popular peers of the opposite sex. However, several previous studies have investigated same-sex versus other-sex peer perceptions in the context of aggression, and they are informative. For example, Smith, Rose, and Schwartz-Mette (2010) examined the gender patterns in peer nomina-tions for liking among third, fifth, seventh, and ninth graders in relation to the nominations for overt and relational aggression. Whereas girls’ rela-tional aggression was generally not significantly related to liking by other girls, it was positively associated with liking by boys in the seventh and


ninth grades. In addition, girls’ overt aggression predicted less liking by other girls. Bukowski, Sippola, and Newcomb (2000) found similar results in a study of friendship nominations at the transition to middle school. Both girls and boys nominated more aggressive opposite-sex peers as friends as they transitioned into middle school, compared to the opposite-sex friends they nominated in elementary school (see also Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001). Girls, but not boys, were also more attracted to aggressive same-sex peers as they made the middle school transition.

Given the strong gender difference favoring boys in overt/physical forms of aggression (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006), it was anticipated that adolescents would attribute more hostile intent in an ambiguous overt ag-gression scenario to boys than to girls. Similarly, it was hypothesized that boys would be seen as more likely to engage in substance use (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2009). Girls were expected to be viewed as more prosocial, as gender differences favoring girls have been well documented, both in terms of actual prosocial behavior and peer per-ceptions of prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Warden, Cheyne, Christie, Fitzpatrick, & Reid, 2003). It was less clear whether adolescents would attribute significantly more relational aggression to boys or to girls. The evidence of gender differences in relational aggression during adoles-cence is mixed, with a recent meta-analysis suggesting that girls are rated as only slightly more relationally aggressive than boys (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). However, it was expected that the lay stereotype of females as more relationally aggressive than males might be elicited by the use of hypothetical peers in this study design; thus, it was anticipated that girls would be rated as more relationally aggressive than boys.

In terms of liking, tentative predictions were made based on research suggesting that children who engage in gender-nonnormative forms of aggression are more likely to be rejected by peers (Crick, 1997). It was expected that overtly aggressive boys would be liked more than overtly aggressive girls, but that relationally aggressive girls would be liked more than relationally aggressive boys. The question of whether adolescents would like prosocial and substance-using girls or boys more was explor-atory, and no specific predictions were made.

Summary and Contributions

In summary, popularity is associated with both positive and negative behav-iors, including kindness, overt and relational aggression, and risk-taking. Further, children and early adolescents have stereotypes of popular peers as being both prosocial and aversive. Adolescents’ liking of aggressive peers


depends in part on the gender makeup of the dyad in question (the perceiver and the target), with aggressive peers becoming particularly attractive to the opposite sex in early adolescence (e.g., Smith et al., 2010). Thus, previ-ous research suggests that the popularity and gender of a peer both play a role in how an adolescent will perceive his or her behaviors.

In addition to shedding light on adolescents’ gender stereotypes con-cerning prosocial and antisocial behaviors, this study expands our under-standing of adolescent popularity in four specific ways. First, it tapped into four dimensions of adolescents’ perceptions of popularity: the extent to which they expected aggression, substance use, or prosocial behavior from their popular (or neutral-status or unpopular) peers, and the extent to which they felt romantic jealousy for those peers. Second, it also assessed their own personal feelings about peers of varying levels of popularity. Third, the inclusion of two age groups—early adolescence and midadolescence— enabled an investigation of developmental differences in adolescents’ per-ceptions of popularity. Status concerns increase sharply in middle school and continue to increase across adolescence (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), which may have implications for how adolescents evaluate the actions of peers of differing levels of popularity. High school students are also more likely to be dealing with issues surrounding dating and romantic relation-ships, and concerns about the value of romantic partners of different status levels may also influence their perceptions of popularity (Brown, 1999).

Finally, the study included a within-subjects component in order to compare same-sex with other-sex peer perceptions. This research question was somewhat exploratory, but based on previous research on cross-sex perceptions of aggression (Bukowski et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2010) one trend in particular was hypothesized. For the ratings of liking, adolescent boys and girls were expected to rate opposite-sex peers as more likeable regardless of the behavior enacted by the peer in the vignette, but in par-ticular, for the vignettes describing aggression and substance use. In other words, it was expected that adolescents would feel more positively about hypothetical opposite-sex peers than same-sex peers overall, and especially when the opposite-sex peer was depicted as engaging in a behavior that demonstrated a striving to bridge the maturity gap (Moffitt, 1993).

Method

Participants

Participants were 190 seventh and ninth graders attending public school in a small midwestern city. The seventh graders attended two of three local


middle schools; all ninth graders attended one of two local high schools. Participants were recruited via letters mailed directly to the parents of all seventh graders at two middle schools and to the parents of all ninth graders attending one high school. Parents who wished to enroll their child in the study were asked to return an interest form to the investigator’s lab via mail or to call the lab to schedule a visit. Approximately 2 weeks after the initial letters were mailed, follow-up phone calls were made to the families who did not return an interest form.

Of 486 seventh graders, 90 (53 girls, 37 boys) received parental permis-sion to participate. Of 434 ninth graders, 100 (57 girls, 43 boys) received parental permission to participate. While socioeconomic and ethnicity data were not collected, the sample was drawn from schools serving primar-ily middle-class and working-class neighborhoods that are predominantly European American.

Procedures and Measures

Participants and their parents completed all consent procedures and mea-sures in the laboratory. After written parental consent was obtained by a researcher, the participating adolescent was taken to a separate room of the lab. The experimental procedures were explained, and the researcher emphasized the privacy and confidentiality of all participants’ responses. If the adolescent granted written assent (100% did so), they were given the study materials.

Participants were presented two series of vignettes. The first was a se-ries of nine vignettes about a hypothetical same-sex peer. The second was a series of seven vignettes about a hypothetical other-sex peer. Before the vignettes were presented, each participant was shown a photo of an age-matched adolescent (not a student at any local school, to ensure that no par-ticipant actually knew the teen in the photo) and asked to pretend that it was someone they went to school with. All seventh-grade participants saw the same photographs of the hypothetical male and female peers, and all ninth graders saw the same photographs. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three status conditions: popular, neutral, or unpopular. Participants in the popular condition were told to imagine that the person in the photo-graph was “a popular boy/girl in your grade at school” and that all of the stories they were about to read were about that peer. Participants in the un-popular condition were told to imagine that the person was “an unpopular boy/girl in your grade at school.” Participants in the neutral condition were told to pretend that the person was “a boy/girl in your grade at school.” Participants were instructed to read each vignette and to answer the printed


questions following each one. For seventh-grade participants, a research assistant read the vignettes and questions aloud, and the participant was encouraged to follow along. Ninth-grade participants were asked whether they wished to read the vignettes on their own or whether they preferred to have a researcher read them aloud as they followed along.

The vignettes about a same-sex peer depicted the target peer engaging in three prosocial acts toward the participant or another peer (standing up for a peer who is being bullied, helping the participant pick up books that have been dropped, and offering to loan the participant lunch money upon hearing that she or he has forgotten it), one ambiguous act involving pos-sible overt aggression (tripping the participant in the hallway), two acts of relational aggression (rolling eyes at the participant and spreading a hurt-ful rumor about another peer), and one act of substance use (drinking alco-hol during a school-sponsored activity). Two vignettes described situations that might engender romantic jealousy (seeing the target peer talking to the participant’s romantic partner at a party and hearing that the target peer has asked the participant’s object of romantic interest to a school dance). The vignettes about an opposite-sex peer were identical in content except that the romantic jealousy vignettes were omitted.

Following each vignette, participants responded to a series of ques-tions about their perceptions of the peer depicted in the story. Participants indicated their response to each question by circling a number between 1 (Not at all; Never) to 7 (Very much; All the time). Following the prosocial vignettes, the participant responded to two questions. The first question assessed the participant’s perception of the likelihood that the target peer would engage in that behavior (How likely is it that this boy/girl would do that?). The second question assessed how much the participant would like the target peer (How much do you think you would like this boy/girl?). Following the vignette depicting overt aggression, participants indicated their perception of hostile intent (How much do you think s/he did this on purpose?) and their liking of the peer. Following the vignettes depicting relational aggression, participants indicated their perception of hostile in-tent (for the vignette with ambiguous intent; How much do you think s/he was rolling his/her eyes at you?) or their perception of the frequency with which the target peer engaged in the behavior (for the vignette with clear intent; How often do you think this boy/girl says things like this?) and their liking of the target peer. Following the vignette depicting substance use, participants indicated their perception of how often the target peer engaged in substance use behavior (How often do you think this boy/girl does things like this?) and their liking of the peer. Following the vignettes depicting situations that might provoke romantic jealousy and concern, participants


responded to two questions about their level of jealousy and concern (How jealous would you be of this boy/girl? for both vignettes; How much would you worry about your relationship with your boy/girlfriend if this hap-pened? for the vignette depicting a peer talking to the participant’s roman-tic partner at a party; and How worried would you be that the person you like said “yes” to this boy/girl? for the vignette depicting the target peer asking the participant’s romantic interest to a school dance) and their level of liking for the target peer.

Participants were each paid $10 upon their completion of the study.

Data Reduction

For the vignettes depicting a same-sex peer, nine perception scores were de-rived from the participants’ responses to questions about the target peers’ behavior. Five perception scores were computed based on the vignettes that depicted a same-sex target peer: same-sex prosocial likelihood (the mean of the likelihood ratings from the three prosocial vignettes), same-sex overt aggression (the response to the hostile intent item following the overt ag-gression vignette), same-sex relational aggression (the mean of the hostile intent and frequency items from the relational aggression vignettes), same-sex substance use (the response to the frequency item from the substance use vignette), and romantic jealousy (the mean of the four romantic jealousy and concern items from the two corresponding vignettes). Four perception scores were computed based on the vignettes that depicted an opposite-sex target peer: other-sex prosocial likelihood, other-sex overt aggression, other-sex re-lational aggression, and other-sex substance use. In each case, a higher score indicated a perception of greater likelihood of engaging in that behavior or a perception of more hostile intent (for the aggression vignettes).

Nine corresponding likeability scores were derived from the partici-pants’ responses to the likeability item following each vignette. Thus, the likeability scores were comprised of the ratings from one vignette (same-sex and other-sex likeability for overt aggression and same-sex and other-sex likeability for substance use), two vignettes (same-sex and other-sex likeabil-ity for relational aggression and same-sex likeability for romantic jealousy), or three vignettes (same-sex and other-sex likeability for prosocial behavior). Higher scores indicated greater liking of the peer depicted in the vignette.

Results

Means and standard deviations for all perception scores by grade, gen-der, and peer status condition are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Means and


Table

1.

Perc

eptio

ns o

f Sam

e-Se

x Pe

ers’

Pro

soci

al, A

ntiso

cial

, and

Jeal

ousy

-Elic

iting

Beh

avio

r by

Gen

der,

Gra

de,

and

Stat

us C

ondi

tion:

Mea

ns (a

nd S

tand

ard

Erro

rs)

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 9

Boys

(rat

ing

boys

)G

irls

(ratin

g gi

rls)

Boys

(rat

ing

boys

)G

irls

(ratin

g gi

rls)

Beha

vior

PN

UP

NU

PN

UP

NU

Pros

ocia

l3.

593.

943.

834.

194.

583.

613.

423.

593.

814.

164.

743.

74(.3

2)(.3

5)(.3

3)(.2

7)(.2

6)(.2

7)(.2

9)(.3

2)(.3

1)(.2

6)(.2

6)(.2

6)O

vert

aggr

essio

n5.

314.

914.

084.

174.

373.

824.

534.

853.

434.

263.

632.

79(.4

7)(.5

1)(.4

9)(.3

8)(.3

7)(.3

9)(.4

4)(.4

7)(.4

5)(.3

7)(.3

7)(.3

7)Re

latio

nal a

ggre

ssio

n5.

235.

185.

255.

285.

055.

124.

805.

005.

255.

005.

325.

00(.4

2)(.4

6)(.4

4)(.3

3)(.3

2)(.3

4)(.4

0)(.4

2)(.4

4)(.3

2)(.3

2)(.3

2)Su

bsta

nce

use

4.85

4.18

3.92

4.06

5.26

4.53

4.75

5.46

4.50

5.11

4.74

4.05

(.46)

(.50)

(.47)

(.39)

(.38)

(.40)

(.42)

(.46)

(.44)

(.38)

(.38)

(.38)

Rom

antic

jeal

ousy

4.44

5.09

3.40

4.72

4.57

4.27

4.45

4.33

3.68

4.70

4.18

3.66

(.34)

(.37)

(.36)

(.29)

(.28)

(.30)

(.31)

(.34)

(.33)

(.28)

(.28)

(.28)

Not

e. M

eans

are

bas

ed o

n a

7-po

int s

cale

. P =

pop

ular

; N =

neu

tral

sta

tus;

U =

unp

opul

ar.


Table

2.

Perc

eptio

ns o

f Oth

er-S

ex P

eers

’ Pro

soci

al a

nd A

ntiso

cial

Beh

avio

r by

Gen

der,

Gra

de, a

nd S

tatu

s C

ondi

tion:

M

eans

(and

Sta

ndar

d Er

rors

)

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 9

Boys

(rat

ing

girls

)G

irls

(ratin

g bo

ys)

Boys

(rat

ing

girls

)G

irls

(ratin

g bo

ys)

Beha

vior

PN

UP

NU

PN

UP

NU

Pros

ocia

l4.

215.

334.

393.

283.

612.

984.

524.

674.

393.

844.

473.

52(.3

1)(.3

4)(.3

2)(.2

7)(.2

6)(.2

8)(.2

8)(.3

1)(.3

2)(.2

6)(.2

6)(.2

6)O

vert

aggr

essio

n3.

693.

273.

674.

394.

794.

412.

934.

002.

794.

534.

163.

26(.4

5)(.4

9)(.4

7)(.4

0)(.3

9)(.4

1)(.4

2)(.4

5)(.4

3)(.3

9)(.3

9)(.3

9)Re

latio

nal a

ggre

ssio

n4.

394.

914.

754.

834.

844.

645.

205.

154.

004.

905.

004.

68(.3

9)(.4

2)(.4

0)(.3

6)(.3

5)(.3

7)(.3

6)(.3

9)(.3

7)(.3

5)(.3

5)(.3

5)Su

bsta

nce

use

4.23

3.09

3.92

4.83

3.95

3.65

5.06

3.77

3.71

4.47

4.05

3.68

(.4

5)(.4

9)(.4

7)(.3

9)(.3

8)(.4

0)(.4

1)(.4

5)(.4

4)(.3

8)(.3

8)(.3

8)

Not

e. M

eans

are

bas

ed o

n a

7-po

int s

cale

. P =

pop

ular

; N =

neu

tral

sta

tus;

U =

unp

opul

ar.


standard deviations for all likeability scores are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Due to the large number of statistical comparisons made within the data set, alpha for evaluating the reliability of main effects and interactions was set to p < .01 to better control for Type I error. Significant main effects were probed using Tukey’s test.

Perceptions of Peer Behavior

Prosocial likelihood. To investigate adolescents’ perceptions of the likelihood of prosocial behavior among peers of different levels of popu-larity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gen-der of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) analysis of vari-ance (ANOVA) was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex prosocial likelihood scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures fac-tor. There was a significant main effect of status condition, F(2, 178) = 5.54, p < .01. Neutral-status peers were seen as more likely to engage in prosocial behavior than were popular or unpopular peers. Popular peers were also seen as more likely to engage in prosocial behavior than were unpopular peers. A main effect of target gender was also found, Wilks’s lambda (λ) = .72, F(1, 178) = 69.11, p < .001. Girls were rated as more likely than boys to engage in prosocial behavior (M = 4.40 vs. 3.66).

Overt aggression. To investigate adolescents’ perceptions of hostile intent for overt aggression among peers of different levels of popularity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex overt aggression scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. There was a main effect of status condition, F(2, 177) = 5.00, p < .01, with both popular and neutral-status peers receiving higher ratings of hostile intent than unpopular peers.

A main effect of target gender was found, Wilks’s λ = .83, F(1, 177) = 37.26, p < .001. Adolescents made more hostile attributions for male peers’ behavior in the overt aggression vignette than they did for female peers’ behavior (M = 4.39 vs. 3.62). This effect was qualified by a significant Target Gender × Gender interaction, Wilks’s λ = .96, F(1, 177) = 7.91, p < .01. This interaction was explained by the fact that, while both boys and girls rated male peers as having more hostile intent than did female peers, this distinction was especially strong for boys, t(77) = 5.03 for boys; t(110) = 3.00 for girls; ps < .01.


Table

3.

Likin

g of

Sam

e-Se

x Pe

ers

Enga

ging

in P

roso

cial

, Ant

isoci

al, a

nd Je

alou

sy-E

liciti

ng B

ehav

ior b

y G

ende

r, G

rade

, an

d St

atus

Con

ditio

n: M

eans

(and

Sta

ndar

d Er

rors

)

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 9

Boys

(rat

ing

boys

)G

irls

(ratin

g gi

rls)

Boys

(rat

ing

boys

)G

irls

(ratin

g gi

rls)

Beha

vior

PN

UP

NU

PN

UP

NU

Pros

ocia

l5.

395.

615.

585.

466.

165.

334.

985.

335.

335.

255.

705.

32(.3

0)(.3

3)(.3

1)(.2

4)(.2

4)(.2

5)(.2

7)(.3

0)(.2

9)(.2

4)(.2

4)(.2

4)O

vert

aggr

essio

n2.

772.

732.

503.

062.

742.

712.

252.

542.

642.

583.

052.

79(.3

6)(.4

0)(.3

8)(.2

9)(.2

8)(.3

0)(.3

3)(.3

6)(.3

5)(.2

8)(.2

8)(.2

8)Re

latio

nal a

ggre

ssio

n3.

152.

272.

082.

332.

582.

412.

562.

852.

072.

532.

322.

11(.3

0)(.3

3)(.3

1)(.3

4)(.2

4)(.2

5)(.2

7)(.3

0)(.2

9)(.2

4)(.2

4)(.2

4)Su

bsta

nce

use

1.39

1.50

1.67

1.29

1.22

1.59

3.19

2.54

2.14

2.58

2.22

2.16

(.42)

(.48)

(.43)

(.34)

(.33)

(.34)

(.38)

(.42)

(.40)

(.32)

(.33)

(.32)

Rom

antic

jeal

ousy

3.31

3.36

3.33

3.08

2.90

2.77

3.22

3.15

3.04

2.79

3.00

3.26

(.3

0)(.3

1)(.3

0)(.2

4)(.2

4)(.2

5)(.2

6)(.2

8)(.2

7)(.2

4)(.2

4)(.2

4)

Not

e. M

eans

are

bas

ed o

n a

7-po

int s

cale

. P =

pop

ular

; N =

neu

tral

sta

tus;

U =

unp

opul

ar.


Table

4.

Likin

g of

Oth

er-S

ex P

eers

Eng

agin

g in

Pro

soci

al a

nd A

ntiso

cial

Beh

avio

r by

Gen

der,

Gra

de, a

nd S

tatu

s C

ondi

tion:

M

eans

(and

Sta

ndar

d Er

rors

)

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 9

Boys

(rat

ing

girls

)G

irls

(ratin

g bo

ys)

Boys

(rat

ing

girls

)G

irls

(ratin

g bo

ys)

Beha

vior

PN

UP

NU

PN

UP

NU

Pros

ocia

l5.

695.

555.

334.

985.

074.

925.

465.

335.

105.

446.

055.

25(.2

9)(.3

1)(.2

5)(.2

6)(.2

5)(.2

6)(.2

6)(.2

9)(.2

8)(.2

5)(.2

5)(.2

5)O

vert

aggr

essio

n3.

233.

092.

922.

392.

212.

473.

443.

002.

793.

672.

842.

74(.3

4)(.3

7)(.3

6)(.3

1)(.3

0)(.3

2)(.3

1)(.3

4)(.3

3)(.3

0)(.3

0)(.3

0)Re

latio

nal a

ggre

ssio

n3.

122.

412.

792.

362.

182.

213.

283.

152.

892.

582.

792.

26(.2

8)(.3

1)(.3

0)(.2

6)(.2

5)(.2

6)(.2

6)(.2

8)(.2

7)(.2

5)(.2

5)(.2

5)Su

bsta

nce

use

3.62

3.10

2.92

4.00

3.89

4.29

4.19

3.62

3.71

4.95

4.11

4.37

(.3

9)(.4

4)(.4

1)(.3

7)(.3

6)(.3

7)(.3

5)(.3

9)(.3

8)(.3

5)(.3

6)(.3

5)

Not

e. M

eans

are

bas

ed o

n a

7-po

int s

cale

. P =

pop

ular

; N =

neu

tral

sta

tus;

U =

unp

opul

ar.


Relational aggression. To investigate adolescents’ perceptions of hos-tile intent for, and frequency of, relational aggression among peers of differ-ent levels of popularity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex relational aggression scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. The only significant effect was an interaction of Gender × Target Gender, Wilks’s λ = .95, F(1, 177) = 8.92, p < .01. This interaction was explained by girls, but not boys, rating female peers higher than male peers on relational aggression, t(110) = 2.38, p < .02. In addition, girls gave female peers higher ratings for rela-tional aggression than boys did, F(1, 187) = 3.75, p < .05.

Substance use. To investigate adolescents’ perceptions of the fre-quency of substance use among peers of different levels of popularity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex substance use scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. There was a significant main effect of status con-dition, F(2, 178) = 4.75, p < .01, with hypothetical popular peers receiving stronger substance use ratings than unpopular peers (M = 4.67 vs. 4.00).

A significant Gender × Target Gender interaction was found, Wilks’s λ = .93, F(1, 178) = 12.68, p < .001. Both boys and girls rated male peers as engaging in more substance use, t(78) = –2.45, p < .01 for boys; t(110) = 2.42, p < .02 for girls. However, girls gave higher ratings of substance use to female peers than boys did, F(1, 188) = 6.00, p < .02.

Romantic jealousy and concern. To address whether adolescents felt more romantic jealousy and concern toward popular peers compared to neutral-status or unpopular peers, a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex romantic jealousy and concern rating. There was a significant main effect of status condition, F(2, 178) = 8.70, p < .001, with adolescents reporting more romantic jealousy and concern regarding popular and neutral-status peers (Ms = 4.58 and 4.54, respectively) than toward unpopular peers (M = 3.75). No other main effects or interactions were significant.

Likeability Ratings

Likeability for prosocial behavior. To investigate differences in ado-lescents’ levels of liking of prosocial peers of differing levels of popularity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the


target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex likeability for prosocial behavior scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. There was a significant main ef-fect of target gender, Wilks’s λ = .96, F(1, 178) = 6.80, p < .01. Hypotheti-cal prosocial female peers were rated as more likeable than prosocial male peers (M = 5.50 vs. 5.33).

This effect was qualified by a significant Target Gender × Grade in-teraction, Wilks’s λ = .95, F(1, 178) = 10.24, p < .01. This interaction was explained by the fact that among seventh graders, but not ninth graders, female prosocial peers were rated as more likeable than male prosocial peers, t(89) = 4.34, p < .001.

This effect was further qualified by a significant Gender × Target Gen-der × Grade interaction, Wilks’s λ = .95, F(1, 178) = 9.26, p < .01. This in-teraction was explained by the fact that, among seventh graders, girls rated prosocial female peers as more likeable than prosocial male peers, t(89) = 4.60, p < .001. In addition, seventh-grade boys rated prosocial male peers as more likeable than girls did, F(1, 178) = 5.10, p < .03. Finally, ninth-grade girls gave higher liking ratings to prosocial boys than seventh-grade girls did, F(1,109) = 6.80, p < .01.

Likeability for overt aggression. To investigate differences in adoles-cents’ levels of liking of overtly aggressive peers of differing levels of pop-ularity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Con-dition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex likeability for overt aggression scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. A significant main ef-fect of target gender was found, Wilks’s λ = .90, F(1,178) = 19.60, p < .001. Female overtly aggressive peers (M = 2.95) were rated as more like-able than male overtly aggressive peers (M = 2.54). No other significant main effects or interactions were found.

Likeability for relational aggression. To investigate differences in adolescents’ levels of liking of relationally aggressive peers of differing levels of popularity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex likeability for relational aggression scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. A signifi-cant main effect of gender was found, F(1,178) = 6.68, p < .01, with boys reporting greater liking of relationally aggressive peers than girls (M = 2.72 vs. 2.39 for boys and girls, respectively).


There was also a significant Gender × Target Gender interaction, Wilks’s λ = .96, F(1,178) = 6.75, p < .01. This interaction was explained by the fact that while boys rated relationally aggressive female peers as more likeable than relationally aggressive male peers, girls did not differ in their liking of male and female relationally aggressive peers. In addition, boys rated relationally aggressive female peers as more likeable than girls did, F(1,188) = 15.45, p < .001.

Likeability for substance use. To investigate differences in adoles-cents’ levels of liking of substance-using peers of differing levels of popu-larity while taking into account participant gender, grade, and the gender of the target peer (same sex or other sex), a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) × 2 (Gender of Target Peer) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex and other-sex likeability for substance use scores, with gender of target peer as a repeated-measures factor. There was a significant main effect of grade, F(1,174) = 23.05, p < .001. Ninth graders reported liking hypothetical substance-using peers more than seventh graders did (M = 3.31 vs. 2.54 for ninth and seventh graders, respectively).

There was also a significant main effect of target gender, Wilks’s λ = .94, F(1,174) = 11.05, p < .001. Adolescents reported liking substance- using male peers more than substance-using female peers (M = 3.17 vs. 2.68 for male and female peers, respectively). This was qualified by a significant Gender × Target Gender interaction, Wilks’s λ = .50, F(1,174) = 176.93, p < .001. This interaction was explained by the fact that while boys rated female substance-using peers as more likeable than male sub-stance-using peers, t(77) = 6.12, p < .001, girls rated male substance-using peers as more likeable than male substance-using peers, t(107) = –13.80, p < .001. In addition, girls rated male substance-using peers as more like-able than boys did, F(1,186) = 86.39, p < .001, whereas boys rated female substance-using peers as more likeable than girls did, F(1,186) = 63.99, p < .001.

Likeability for romantic jealousy. To investigate differences in ado-lescents’ levels of liking of peers of differing levels of popularity engaging in behaviors that might induce feelings of romantic jealousy, a 2 (Gender) × 3 (Status Condition) × 2 (Grade) ANOVA was conducted on the same-sex likeability for romantic jealousy score. No significant main effects or interactions were found.

Discussion

This study had three specific goals. First, it investigated how adoles-cents’ perceptions of a peer’s prosocial, antisocial, and jealousy-eliciting


behaviors differ as a function of that peer’s level of popularity and gender. Second, it investigated differences in adolescents’ levels of liking for popu-lar, unpopular, or neutral-status peers, and for boys versus girls, engaging in these types of behaviors. Finally, it addressed differences in adolescents’ perceptions of these behaviors, and liking of the peer engaging in the be-haviors, based on whether the peer was of the same or other sex. Participant gender and grade differences were also explored.

The Role of Popularity in Adolescents’ Perceptions of Their Peers

The role of popularity in adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ behaviors was relatively complex, although generally in the expected direction. Pop-ular hypothetical peers were viewed as less likely to engage in prosocial behavior than neutral-status peers (those about whom the participants had no direct information regarding popularity) but as more likely to engage in prosocial behavior than unpopular peers. This is in contrast to previ-ous studies that have found positive associations between popularity and prosocial behaviors such as kindness and helpfulness (e.g., Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Xie et al., 2006). However, the finding is consistent with the idea that popular peers can be callous toward the feelings of other peers (e.g., deBruyn & Cillessen, 2006), particularly in light of the specific be-haviors described in the vignettes (standing up for a bullied peer and help-ing a peer who is in physical distress).

Popular peers were seen as more likely to engage in antisocial be-haviors, but only in comparison with unpopular peers. The lack of strong attributions of aggression is consistent with some previous studies of ad-olescents’ perceptions of popularity (e.g., LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Xie et al., 2006), and it reflects an interesting discrepancy between peers’ perceptions of popularity and the behaviors that have been documented in popular youths. Why might adolescents not reliably distinguish between popular and nonpopular peers on a behavioral dimension that is so consis-tently linked to popularity? Behaviors like overt or relational aggression or substance use may simply not be the most salient behaviors that teens use to distinguish status. Indeed, some of the behaviors that deBruyn and Cillessen (2006) found to be most closely associated with popularity were those that garnered them social visibility or attention, like disrupting class or being insolent. Future research on popularity should delve more deeply into some of these more specific dominance-related behaviors that teens themselves see as so important to being popular.

It was hypothesized that popular peers would elicit more romantic jeal-ousy than peers of lower status, particularly for girls. Partial support was


found for this hypothesis. Popular peers elicited more romantic jealousy than did unpopular peers, but there was no significant interaction of gender and status in the prediction of romantic jealousy. An examination of the means, however, illustrates that the pattern of the data was in the expected direction, with girls reporting more romantic jealousy and concern about popular peers than boys did (M = 4.71 and 4.45 for girls and boys, respec-tively). Popular girls may be seen as stiff dating competition for a variety of reasons, including their level of social power but also their heightened attractiveness and other peer-valued characteristics that popularity is as-sociated with (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006).

Surprisingly, the target peer’s popularity was a significant factor in adolescents’ perceptions of their behaviors but not in their liking for peers. Adolescents appear to make judgments about a peer’s potential prosocial or hostile intent based at least in part on what they know about that peer’s popularity. However, status was not a significant predictor of adolescents’ liking of hypothetical peers in any of the current analyses, suggesting that adolescents base their liking of peers more strongly on how those peers treat others rather than on any assumptions or stereotypes about popularity (or the lack of it).

There were very few significant grade differences in either perceptions of behavior or liking. Ninth graders did report greater liking for substance-using peers than seventh graders did, which likely reflects greater levels of substance use (and more relaxed attitudes toward it) among high school students. But overall, the role of popularity in youths’ perceptions of and liking for their peers does not appear to change substantially from middle school to high school. This is a particularly interesting finding when placed in the context of other studies that have investigated status-related stereo-types. Existing studies of such stereotypes have focused on children up to eighth grade, but not beyond that age, and have found developmental changes in youths’ perceptions of popularity. For example, although Xie and colleagues (2006) did not find strong links between popularity and antisocial behavior at any age, antisocial behavior was most commonly cited as a descriptor of popular adolescents by seventh graders (compared to first and fourth graders). Furthermore, whereas first graders cited pro-social behaviors as typical attributes of popular peers, this pattern was not as evident at older ages. The findings of the current study suggest that, by seventh grade, adolescents expect less prosocial behavior and more antiso-cial behavior from popular peers than from other peers and that these ste-reotypes remain stable at least across the transition to high school. Future research should investigate the nature of older adolescents’ status-related stereotypes.


The Role of Gender in Adolescents’ Perceptions of Their Peers

A number of significant findings emerged with regard to perceptions of male versus female peers, and these findings were generally consistent with behavioral stereotypes of males and females. The hypothesis that girls would be rated as more prosocial than boys was supported; furthermore, prosocial girls were liked more than prosocial boys. Boys were rated as more likely than girls to engage in substance use, which reflects empirical findings of substance use rates (Johnston et al., 2009). Also consistent with expectations, more hostile attributions were made of boys’ behavior in the ambiguous scenario involving overt aggression. However, overtly aggres-sive girls were seen as more likeable than overtly aggressive boys. This runs counter to findings with younger participants that overtly aggressive girls are especially peer rejected (Crick, 1997).

The hypothetical female peer was rated as more relationally aggressive than the male peer—but only by girls. Boys rated male and female hypo-thetical peers as equally likely to engage in relational aggression. Thus, the stereotype that boys are physically aggressive while girls are relationally aggressive does not seem to be held by this sample of adolescents, at least not by boys. This finding, which corroborates Card and colleagues’ (2008) meta-analysis that found negligible gender differences in relational aggres-sion, has a number of implications for our understanding of this form of aggression, perhaps in terms of how it is used by the two genders. Previous research has shown that aggression is typically enacted within gender: boys target boys, and girls target girls (e.g., Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Girls may view relational aggression as female aggression simply because their own experience suggests that other girls are the primary perpetrators. Boys, on the other hand, have likely been the target of male-enacted relational ag-gression and recognize that both genders engage in it. Boys may also be adept at keeping their relationally aggressive acts hidden from girls as a means of protecting their masculine image in the face of media stereotypes of relational aggression as a female practice.

Hypotheses regarding the liking of other-sex peers more than same-sex peers received mixed support. Boys liked relationally aggressive female peers more than they liked their relationally aggressive male peers, but the same trend did not hold for girls. Perhaps most interestingly, boys es-pecially liked their substance-using female peers, whereas girls especially liked their substance-using male peers. The findings related to substance use in particular suggest that opposite-sex peers who engage in behaviors that bridge the maturity gap may be particularly desirable romantic partners and thus are afforded more consideration by the other sex (Moffitt, 1993).


Another notable gender trend was that girls were particularly hard on members of their own gender (and much harder on girls than boys were). For example, girls, but not boys, rated female peers as more likely than males to engage in relational aggression, and girls rated hypothetical female peers much more harshly than boys did on this kind of behavior. Furthermore, girls reported liking relationally aggressive female peers significantly less than boys did. As noted earlier, girls’ perceptions of other girls’ aggres-sive behaviors and intentions may well reflect reality. However, it is also possible that adolescent girls have strong stereotypes about relational ag-gression as female aggression and that their ratings of frequency and intent reflect these stereotypes. Girls also rated female peers as more likely to engage in substance use than boys did, and they liked female substance-using peers considerably less than they liked male substance-using peers. The fact that girls were more likely than boys to attribute substance use to female peers suggests a couple of possibilities. First, girls may engage in substance use in ways that limit how much access the larger peer group has to knowledge of their behavior. For example, girls may be more likely to restrict their drinking to small gatherings where most of the other peers present are close friends of the same sex. Second, and more relevant to the current investigation, girls may be less likely to give members of their same sex the benefit of the doubt when it comes to antisocial behavior. Girls do not appear to be less charitable toward other girls when it comes to rating prosocial behaviors; boys as well as girls rated female peers as more likely to engage in prosocial behavior, and prosocial female peers were seen as more likeable than prosocial male peers by both boys and girls, as well. Yet when asked to evaluate antisocial behaviors enacted by hypothetical peers, girls were much harsher on their own gender. The finding that girls rated substance-using male peers as more likeable than substance-using female peers further emphasizes this trend.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

Taken together and in the context of previous studies of popularity and gender, these findings suggest that adolescents’ perceptions of their peers’ behaviors reflect a complex interplay of status and same-sex and other-sex peer dynamics. They also suggest that adolescents have rela-tively well-formed stereotypes and expectations regarding both status and gender. Further, these findings have implications for our understand-ing of the dynamics of status in the peer ecology. Take, as an example, the finding that popular girls are much less well liked than popular boys (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Popular girls, on average, exhibit certain


behaviors (relational aggression, substance use) that are met with relative acceptance by their male peers, especially in comparison to the level of acceptance expressed by their female peers. This might promote feel-ings of jealousy among other girls, who may be frustrated at what they perceive to be their popular female peers’ “getting away with” hurtful and undesirable behaviors. It may be particularly galling to adolescent girls to see popular girls’ antisocial behaviors being accepted and even encouraged by boys that they view as potential romantic partners. At the same time, adolescent girls report feeling significant romantic jealousy toward popular girls. This multifaceted jealousy on the part of female peers may result in significantly higher numbers of “liked least” nomina-tions in sociometric studies of peer status—and, thus, explain some of the documented differences in popular boys’ and girls’ likeability.

The relatively negative stereotypes that some adolescents hold about popularity may influence their behavior toward popular peers in important ways (Hymel et al., 1989). For example, if a teen believes that interacting with a popular peer might mean dealing with hostility or callousness, her behavior may be shaped by that expectation. She may avoid interacting with popular peers at all; she may believe malicious rumors spread about popular peers and discount any positive information she hears about them. She herself may behave in hostile ways toward popular peers because she feels anger or contempt toward them, thus eliciting the kinds of negative behavior that she expected in the first place (the so-called confirmation bias at work; e.g., Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). This is especially troubling given how many popular peers do not engage in high levels of aggressive, callous, and other antisocial behavior. Field or laboratory stud-ies of the peer group’s behavior toward actual popular peers is needed to understand this dynamic.

Although this study had a number of strengths, including an experi-mental design, the assessments of both same-sex and other-sex perceptions and liking, and the inclusion of multiple grades, the findings should be interpreted in light of certain limitations. A relatively small sample size limited the power of the investigation to detect small effects in the data, and a low response rate to recruitment efforts (approximately 20%) raises the issue of possible selection bias. Concerns about fatigue led to the decision to limit the number of vignettes presented to the participants, resulting in only one vignette to assess perceptions of overt aggression and substance use. Finally, the relative lack of grade effects suggests that extending this research to younger children and older adolescents might provide a bet-ter picture of the emergence and development of these status- and gender- related attributions. Clearly, the study findings bear replication with a larger


sample size, with participants of a broader age range, and with a more extensive set of hypothetical vignettes.

To summarize, this study investigated the role of popularity and gender in adolescents’ perceptions and liking of their peers’ prosocial, antisocial, and jealousy-eliciting behaviors, with a particular focus on how adolescents responded to identical behaviors enacted by same-sex or other-sex peers. Findings indicate that adolescents perceive popular peers as being less prosocial and more antisocial than others and that popular peers elicit more romantic jealousy and concern than unpopular peers. Adolescents were much more accepting of other-sex peers who engaged in antisocial behaviors than they were of same-sex peers engag-ing in those same behaviors. In addition to shedding light on the role of popularity and gender on adolescents’ reactions to their peers’ behaviors, the current findings shed light on the ways that status and gender interact in the peer group. Future studies should investigate these processes more fully so that a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of adolescent popularity may be achieved.

References

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

Brown, B. B. (1999). You’re going out with who? Peer group influences on adoles-cent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291–329). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L. K., & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Variations in patterns of attraction of same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Develop-mental Psychology, 36, 147–154.

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and in-direct aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229.

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

Closson, L. M. (2008). Status and gender differences in adolescents’ descriptions of popularity. Social Development, 18, 412–426.

Crick, N. R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of aggression: Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psy-chology, 33, 610–617.


deBruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Pro-social and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 607–627.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 719–788). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emo-tional, and personality development (5th ed, pp. 701–778). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., & Vasquez-Suson, K. A. (1994). Two social worlds: Social correlates and stability of adolescent status groups. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 67, 462–473.

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. Special issue: Aggression and adaptive functioning: The bright side to bad behavior.

Hymel, S., Wagner, E., & Butler, L. (1989). Reputational bias: View from the peer group. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 156–186). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009). Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2008. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s stereo-types of popularity. Social Development, 7, 301–320.

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

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Develop-ment, 19, 130-147.

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

Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49–74.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial be-havior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer- perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 18, 125–144.


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

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, domi-nance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–279.

Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Moderators of the as-sociation between perceived popularity and relational aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 563–576.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psy-chology, 36, 14–24.

Simon, R. W., Eder, D., & Evans, C. (1992). The development of feeling norms un-derlying romantic love among adolescent females. Social Psychology Quar-terly, 55, 29–46.

Smith, R. L., Rose, A. J., & Schwartz-Mette, R. A. (2010). Relational and overt ag-gression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender differ-ences and associations with peer acceptance. Social Development, 9, 243–269.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moder-ating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408.

Warden, D., Cheyne, B., Christie, D., Fitzpatrick, H., & Reid, K. (2003). Assess-ing children’s perceptions of prosocial and antisocial behavior. Educational Psychology, 23, 547–567.

Xie, H., Li, Y., Boucher, S. M., Hutchins, B. C., & Cairns, B. D. (2006). What makes a girl (or a boy) popular (or unpopular)? African American children’s perceptions and developmental differences. Developmental Psychology, 42, 599–612.

Copyright of Merrill-Palmer Quarterly is the property of Wayne State University Press and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Effects of Popularity and Gender on Peers’ Perceptions of Prosocial, Antisocial, and ...

Documents

Transcript of Effects of Popularity and Gender on Peers’ Perceptions of Prosocial, Antisocial, and ...