This study examined the role of peer acceptance and perceived popularity in bullying and victimization in early adolescent peer groups. Peer acceptance is the degree to which adolescents are well liked by their peers; perceived popularity indicates visibility, dominance, and prestige. It was hypothesized that acceptance negatively predicts bullying, whereas popularity positively predicts bullying, and that both acceptance and popularity negatively predict victimization. Interactions between acceptance and popularity were tested as well. Participants were 1,207 13- to 14-year-old adolescents who completed sociometric assessments in their classrooms. Both bullying and victimization were predicted by the interaction between acceptance and perceived popularity. Bullying was positively associated with popularity, and this association was stronger for adolescents with lower levels of acceptance. Victimization was negatively associated with popularity, and this association was also stronger for adolescents with lower levels of acceptance. Linear and curvilinear main effects and interactions were found; some were further moderated by gender. The discussion focused on the role of individual status and group dynamic factors in the occurrence of aggression among early adolescents.
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. ( 1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145-162.
2.
Adler, P.A., Kless, S.J., & Adler, P. ( 1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169-187.
3.
Babad, E. ( 2001). On the conception and measurement of popularity: More facts and some straight conclusions. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 3-30.
4.
Bronfenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Bukowski, W.M., & Sippola, L.K. ( 2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In S. Graham & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 355-377). New York: Guilford.
6.
Cillessen, A.H.N. ( 2008). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82-99). New York: Guilford.
7.
Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. ( 2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.
8.
Cillessen, A.H.N., & Rose, A.J. ( 2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105.
9.
Daniels-Beirness, T. ( 1989). Measuring peer status in boys and girls: A problem of apples and oranges. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 107-120). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
10.
de Bruyn, E.H., & van den Boom, D.C. (2005). Interpersonal behavior, peer popularity, and self-esteem in early adolescence. Social Development, 14, 555-573.
11.
de Bruyn, E.H., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2006a). Heterogeneity of girls’ perceived popularity: Academic and interpersonal behavioral profiles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 435-445.
12.
de Bruyn, E.H., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2006b). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research , 6, 1-21.
13.
Duncan, N. ( 2004). It’s important to be nice, but it’s nicer to be important: Girls, popularity and sexual competition. Sex Education, 4, 137-152.
14.
Farmer, T.W., Estell, D.B., Bishop, J.L., O’Neal, K.K., & Cairns, B.D. ( 2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39, 992-1004.
15.
Gilbert, P. ( 1997). The evolution of social attractiveness and its role in shame, humiliation, guilt and therapy. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 113-147.
16.
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.
17.
Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., & Pasupathi, M. ( 2002). Winning friends and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 466-474.
18.
Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., & Rodkin, P.C. ( 2007). Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
Hodges, E.V.E., Malone, M.J., & Perry, D.G. ( 1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology , 33, 1032-1039.
20.
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford.
21.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. ( 2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196-214). New York: Guilford.
22.
Katz, S. ( 2003). Physical appearance: The importance of being beautiful . In J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Down to earth sociology: Introductory readings (12th ed., pp. 313-320). New York: Free Press.
23.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., Waugh, C.E., Valencia, A., & Webster, G.D. ( 2002). The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 756-767.
24.
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L., & Muller, K.E. ( 1988). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods . Boston: Kent.
25.
Merten, D.E. ( 1996). Visibility and vulnerability: Responses to rejection by nonaggressive junior high school boys. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 5-26.
26.
Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., & Pattee, L. ( 1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status . Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
27.
Parkhurst, J.T., & Hopmeyer, A. ( 1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence , 18, 125-144.
28.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Long, J.D. ( 2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through middle school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280.
29.
Price, J.M., & Dodge, K.A. ( 1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 455-471.
30.
Prinstein, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310-342.
31.
Rodkin, P.C., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. ( 2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.
32.
Rose, A.J., Swenson, L.P., & Carlson, W. ( 2004). Friendships of aggressive youth: Considering the influences of being disliked and of being perceived as popular. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 25-45.
33.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 17-24.
34.
Solberg, M.E., & Olweus, D. ( 2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.
35.
Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. ( 2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-408.
36.
Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. ( 2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 157-176.
