Associations of Early Adolescents’ Best Friendships,Peer Groups,and Coolness With Overt and Relational Aggression

Abstract

This study examined associations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with students’ overt and relational aggression, and whether coolness moderated these associations across the fall and spring of the first year in middle school. Students (N = 174; 57% females) self-reported best friendship and peer group members, as well as peer-nominated coolness and aggression (overt, relational). Results indicated positive relations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with subsequent aggression, and that coolness moderated these associations. Specifically, non-cool youth had higher levels of subsequent overt and relational aggression with aggressive best friends, but lower levels of later relational aggression when in relationally aggressive peer groups. In contrast, cool youth had lower levels of subsequent relational aggression with relationally aggressive best friends, but higher levels of later relational aggression when in relationally aggressive peer groups. Implications for examining multiple peer contexts and coolness during early adolescence are discussed.

Keywords

best friendships peer groups coolness aggression early adolescence

Aggression and aggressive norms are salient during early adolescence (Galván, Spatzier, & Juvonen, 2011; Moffitt, 1993; Pellegrini & Long, 2002) and have implications for student adjustment (Hawley, Little, & Rodkin, 2007; Rubin, Bukowski, & Laursen, 2009). Peer relations including best friendships and peer groups have significant implications for early adolescents’ aggression (Bowker, Ostrov, & Raja, 2012; Rubin, Bukowski, & Bowker, 2015). However, our understanding is incomplete as these peer relations are rarely examined simultaneously (Crick, Murray-Close, Marks, & Mohajeri-Nelson, 2009), especially at the middle and high school level (Ryan, 2001; Stotsky & Bowker, 2018). In addition, peer status such as coolness is increasingly salient and related to aggression during adolescence (Bellmore, Villarreal, & Ho, 2011; Kiefer & Wang, 2016; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2006). However, it is unclear how coolness may moderate the association of peer aggressive characteristics with individual aggression, particularly when multiple peer relations are considered together. The current study had two main aims: to examine the associations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with subsequent individual aggression (overt and relational) simultaneously, and to examine coolness as a moderator of these associations across the fall and spring of the first year of middle school (i.e., sixth grade).

Peer Relations: Associations With Aggression

Research indicates peer relations including best friends and peer groups have significant implications for early adolescents’ aggression (Bowker et al., 2012; Rubin et al., 2015). The peer context is characterized as dynamic, interconnected, and complex during early adolescence (Brown, 1990; Ryan, 2001; Stotsky & Bowker, 2018). Although best friends are often in the same peer group, best friendship and peer group membership are perceived differently by youth and not all individuals within a peer group would nominate each other as a best friend (Molloy, Gest, & Rulison, 2011; Urberg, Degirmencioglu, Tolson, & Halliday-Scher, 1995). Thus, best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics should be examined simultaneously in order to better understand their implications for subsequent individual aggression (Stotsky & Bowker, 2018).

Best friendship and peer group membership differ in structural characteristics (Rodkin & Ahn, 2009). Best friends are characterized by a close emotional bond between two youth (Rubin et al., 2009). Peer groups are a small, relatively intimate group of peers who hang out and regularly interact with each other (Brown, 1990). Short-term longitudinal studies using peer nominations indicate best friends (Bowker et al., 2012; Malti, McDonald, Rubin, Rose-Kransnor, & Booth-LaForce, 2015) and peer groups (Rulison, Gest, & Loken, 2013; Shin, 2017) have significant implications for adolescents’ overt and relational aggression. However, few studies have examined the implications of these two peer relationships simultaneously in relation to adolescents’ aggression (Crick et al., 2009). Research examining best friends and peer groups simultaneously suggests the unique roles of each relationship in effecting changes in academic motivation and risk-taking behaviors during middle school (Molloy et al., 2011; Urberg, Degirmencioglu, & Pilgrim, 1997). This line of research suggests that implications of one type of peer relations for youth adjustment can be overestimated if examined separately. Molloy and colleagues (2011) reported significant implications of peer group characteristics for individual student’s academic effort when it was examined as the only type of peer relations. However, this became nonsignificant when the peer group was examined alongside two other peer relations: friends and interaction dyads. Thus, it is important to examine best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics simultaneously in relation to individual aggression in order to gain an accurate understanding.

Best Friendships

Friendships are a common and sought-after experience among youth. Almost all youth want to be involved in friendships and claim to have a friend, and friends are perceived as an important source of social support (Rubin et al., 2009). Positive features of best friendships include sharing and interpersonal communication (Berndt & Perry, 1986), with an increasing emphasis on disclosure, trust, loyalty, intimacy, and emotional support during early adolescence (Berndt, 2002). Researchers have asked youth to nominate one best friend (Urberg et al., 1997), two best friends (Malti et al., 2015), or up to three best friends (Veronneau & Dishion, 2011). Other researchers allow students to make unlimited friendship nominations (Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1998; Dijkstra, Cillessen, & Borch, 2013). Based on prior research we asked participants to nominate one best friend in their grade (Urberg et al., 1997).

Reciprocated nominations are considered important for identifying friendships (Rubin et al., 2009). However, some researchers suggest that peers who receive unilateral or nonreciprocal nominations still provide substantial influence, as they reflect an individual’s own perceptions of his or her relationships (Poulin & Chan, 2010; Vaillancourt, Paiva, Veronneau, & Dishion, 2019). For instance, Meter, Casper, and Card (2015) found that highly intimate, nonreciprocal best friendships (along with less intimate, reciprocal best friendships) influenced adolescents’ aggressive behavior. Unilateral best friendships also have significant implications for early adolescents’ academic achievement (Veronneau & Dishion, 2011) and risk-taking behaviors (Aloise-Young, Graham, & Hansen, 1994). Unilateral friendships indicate preferred or desired friendships and can be especially influential for adjustment, as youth may mimic unilateral friends’ behaviors in an attempt to become mutual friends (Scholte et al., 2009). Given the evidence suggesting the subjective importance of friendship on adolescent adjustment, the current study included both reciprocal and unilateral nominations for best friendships.

Best friendships have significant implications for youth aggression (Bowker et al., 2012; Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Sijtsema et al., 2010). High-quality friendships can withstand differences in peer levels of aggression based on loyalty and other positive features, including intimacy and trust (Berndt, 2002; Meter et al., 2015). However, high-quality friendships are associated with high levels of influence, and may increase youth’s vulnerability to undesirable actions, such as aggression (Berndt, 2002; Meter et al., 2015). Best friends tend to have similar levels of aggression over time, and youth who have aggressive best friends are more likely to be nominated by peers as displaying increased aggression throughout the school year (Meter et al., 2015; Warman & Cohen, 2000). This is likely due to selection, as well as youth mirroring best friends’ aggressive behaviors and behavioral reinforcement received from best friends (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011; Sijtsema et al., 2010). Thus, we expected that best friend aggressive characteristics in the fall would be positively associated with students’ aggression (overt, relational) in the spring of sixth grade.

Peer Groups

In addition to best friendships, adolescents often have a group of peers whom they hang out with, which may or may not include the best friend dyad (Molloy et al., 2011). The average size of a peer group is four to six members, with boys typically reporting larger peer groups (Hamm, Farmer, Dadisman, Gravelle, & Murray, 2011; Rodkin & Ahn, 2009; Ryan, 2001). There are two main ways peer groups have been operationalized. One approach is social network analysis, where participants report the peers whom they often interact with themselves (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Ryan, 2001). A second approach is social cognitive mapping, where participants directly report which students in their classroom, grade, or school interact with each other (Gest, Farmer, Cairns, & Xie, 2003; Kindermann, 2007). These two approaches, while having their differences, produce comparable findings regarding adolescent peer group membership (Wölfer, Faber, & Hewstone, 2015). In this study, we used social network analysis and asked participants to report up to eight peers with whom they hang out and interact the most within their grade (Espelage et al., 2003; Ryan, 2001).

Peer groups have significant implications for youth’s aggression, despite aggression being characterized as a relatively stable construct (Espelage et al., 2003; Rubin et al., 2015). Individuals affiliated with aggressive peer groups become more aggressive over time (Espelage et al., 2003; Low, Polanin, & Espelage, 2013; Rulison, Gest, Loken, & Welsh, 2010). This is likely due to the modeling and reinforcement of aggression youth receive in peer groups (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011) and youth’s desire to behave similar to peers to garner approval (Werner & Hill, 2010). Although adolescents may reject individual peer feedback regarding their behavior, feedback from a peer group is rarely questioned (Eder & Enke, 1991). The peer group has a stronger influence on relational than overt aggression during early adolescence (Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007; Espelage et al., 2003). Relational aggression receives increased peer approval (Werner & Hill, 2010) and helps youth gain and maintain peer status covertly (Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007). In contrast, overt aggression becomes increasingly sanctioned by peers during this developmental stage (Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1992); youth may intentionally constrain themselves from such behaviors to prevent potential negative peer feedback. Thus, we expected that peer group aggressive characteristics in the fall would be positively associated with students’ aggression, especially relational aggression, in the spring of sixth grade.

Coolness as a Moderator

We examined adolescents’ perceptions of who is cool as an index of status. Coolness embodies a combination of attributes that garner peer approval or attention (Jamison, Wilson, & Ryan, 2015), such as being streetwise, demonstrating an effortless presence or style, and having an authentic inner core (Bloustien, 2003; Pountain & Robins, 2000). Although youth place great importance on being cool, there is not a consensus as to what coolness is or who it best characterizes (Adler & Adler, 1998; Rodkin et al., 2006). Ethnographic research suggests coolness is socially constructed among youth through their peer interactions and is actively negotiated among youth in terms of what is valued in their groups (Adler & Adler, 1998). The notion that coolness is in constant flux (Pountain & Robins, 2000) may explain the behavioral heterogeneity among cool youth and why coolness may vary across peer contexts. For instance, Rodkin and colleagues (2006) reported children in aggressive groups tend to nominate tough peers as cool, whereas children in nonaggressive groups tend to nominate model, prosocial peers as cool. Furthermore, cool youth are often considered mean and manipulative among peers (Rodkin et al., 2006), as well as pseudomature or precocious in that they strive to present themselves as mature through adopting adultlike behaviors (Allen, Schad, Oudekerk, & Chango, 2014).

Coolness is conceptually related to other aspects of peer status, including social preference and popularity. Social preference, which refers to acceptance and likability (Cillessen, Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011), is related to yet distinct from coolness as cool youth are not always widely liked (Merten, 1997; Rodkin et al., 2006). For instance, Graham and Juvonen (2002) reported a correlation of .46 between coolness and acceptance among sixth- and seventh-grade students. Coolness is similar to popularity as both reflect high visibility, prestige, and power (Cillessen et al., 2011). In a recent study of elementary school students (Grades 3-5), the correlation between coolness and popularity was .82 (Rodkin, Ryan, Jamison, & Wilson, 2013). However, popularity involves social centrality and prominence within the peer group (Cillessen et al., 2011) and may not fully capture idiosyncratic attributes of cool youth (Adler & Adler, 1998; Bloustien, 2003; Pountain & Robins, 2000; Rodkin et al., 2006). The current study measured peer nominations of coolness (rather than popularity) as it is considered to be a more ecologically valid measure (Wilson & Jamison, 2019). Coolness is a developmentally appropriate index of status that is “geared toward and created by youth” (Rodkin et al., 2006, p. 197) and considered as high status within the adolescent culture (Adler & Adler, 1998; Pountain & Robins, 2000).

Despite being relatively understudied, research indicates coolness has implications for youth’s aggression (Kiefer & Wang, 2016; Rodkin et al., 2006). Bellmore and colleagues (2011) reported among 1,985 youth that a cool reputation in sixth grade was associated with a higher aggressive reputation. Utilizing a person-centered approach, Berger, Batanova, and Cance (2015) reported highly aggressive youth were more likely to have a cool peer reputation. Juvonen, Wang, and Espinoza (2013) reported middle school students gain and maintain cool peer status via aggression. Recent research indicates both overt and relational aggression are positively related to being nominated as cool, and have implications for social centrality among sixth-grade students (Hoff, Reese-Weber, Schneider, & Stagg, 2009).

To our knowledge, no studies have investigated the moderation effect of coolness on the relation of peer aggressive characteristics with individual aggression, and only a few studies have examined other aspects of peer status as possible moderators. Rulison and colleagues (2013) reported no moderation effect of peer status (i.e., peer acceptance and rejection) on the relation between individuals’ and their friends’ aggressive reputation (i.e., peer-nominated aggression) during the sixth and seventh grade. Sijtsema (2016) reported a significant moderation effect of peer status (i.e., popularity), as preadolescents with low popularity had similar levels of aggression as their friends, but not those with high popularity. A recent meta-analysis examined peer status as a theoretically relevant moderator of peer influence on youth aggression (Sijtsema & Lindenberg, 2018). Examining the moderation effect of coolness may provide additional insight into the various ways that peer status shapes how youth experience peer influence on aggression.

Cool youth may interact with best friends and peer groups differently than non-cool youth and encounter different social pressures to “fit in” with peer norms (Bellmore et al., 2011; Galván et al., 2011) to maintain peer approval and status. High-status youth are often well connected to peers beyond the best friendship dyad (Stotsky & Bowker, 2018). Research suggests that high-status youth may be constrained by peer group characteristics and have more to lose in terms of status by not adopting peer norms and behaviors compared to lower status youth (Eder, 1985). Thus, we expected stronger associations of peer group (vs. best friend) aggressive characteristics with later individual aggression among cool youth based on prior research examining high-status youth (Stotsky & Bowker, 2018; Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 2002). There may be particularly high associations between peer group relational aggressive characteristics and individual relational aggression among cool youth. Relational aggression is used to establish and maintain status (Bellmore et al., 2011; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Hoff et al., 2009), whereas overt aggression becomes increasingly disapproved by peers during this stage (Björkqvist et al., 1992). For non-cool youth, we expected stronger associations between best friend (vs. peer group) aggressive characteristics and later individual aggression. Best friends provide a safe, intimate context for low-status youth to engage in activities that may incur negative feedback from other peers (Breslend, Shoulberg, McQuade, & Murray-Close, 2018). Research indicates associations of best friend aggressive characteristics with aggression are stronger among adolescents with lower peer status (Sijtsema, 2016).

The Present Study

The present study advances prior research by addressing two main aims: (a) simultaneously examining the associations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with subsequent aggression (overt and relational) and (b) examining coolness as a moderator of these associations. Examining these aims across the first year of middle school may have implications for understanding early adolescent aggression. Consistent with prior research, we expected best friend aggressive characteristics would be positively associated with individuals’ later overt and relational aggression (Meter et al., 2015; Warman & Cohen, 2000). We also expected peer group aggressive characteristics would be positively related to students’ later aggression, especially relational aggression (Espelage et al., 2003). Regarding the moderation effect of coolness, we expected stronger associations between peer group (vs. best friend) aggressive characteristics and individual aggression among cool youth, especially relational aggression based on research examining high-status youth (Stotsky & Bowker, 2018; Xie et al., 2002). We expected stronger associations between best friend (vs. peer group) aggressive characteristics and aggression for non-cool youth based on research examining low-status youth (Breslend et al., 2018; Sijtsema, 2016).

Method

Procedure

Data were collected during the fall and spring of the first year in middle school (sixth grade) from three schools that served a large, ethnically diverse, urban community as part of a larger longitudinal study that investigated motivation and peer relationships across the middle school transition in the Southeastern United States. The average rate of eligibility for free or reduced-fee lunch (an indicator of socioeconomic status; Harwell & LeBeau, 2010) was 31% across schools. The average mobility rate (average percentage of students who transfer in or out of a school within an academic year) was 20% across schools. Active parental consent and participant assent were obtained prior to data collection. On average, 57% of the participants returned consent and provided assent to participate; participation rates were similar across the three schools. Participants were representative of demographics within each school and overall district demographics. Surveys were administered during school hours in the fall and spring, approximately 6 months apart. Instructions and items were read aloud by one researcher while students responded individually on paper with a folder separating each other. Another researcher walked around to answer questions and ensured surveys were completed properly. Students were told the purpose of the survey was to learn about their motivation and peer relations, participation was voluntary, and information would be kept confidential. Nonparticipating students completed a class assignment during survey administration. We visited schools one additional day in the fall and spring to administer make-ups for students who were absent.

Participants

There were 421 participants in the fall and 406 in the spring, with some participants withdrawing from and new participants joining the study. Computation of peer nomination scores (i.e., coolness, overt and relational aggression) was based on all participants at each time point (i.e., N = 421 in fall; N = 406 in spring; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). There were 347 students who participated both in the fall and spring. Students who only completed the survey in the fall (17%) were dropped, and they did not differ significantly in study variables compared to students who participated both in the fall and spring. Among the longitudinal sample (N = 347), 204 participants had data on best friend aggression (i.e., nominated a best friend who was also a study participant, either reciprocal or unilateral), and 254 belonged to a peer group. Among them, 174 had both best friendship and peer group membership (the final sample), 31 had only best friendship, 80 had only peer group membership, and 62 had neither best friendship nor peer group membership (i.e., isolates). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences across these four groups for study variables, except that isolates had lower levels of coolness and fall relational aggression than the final sample, and participants who had only best friendship had lower levels of coolness than the final sample. The final sample (N = 174) was 57% female and ethnically diverse (53% White, 24% Latino, 10% Multiracial, 8% Asian, and 5% African American).

Measures

Peer-nominated coolness, overt and relational aggression

Grade-based peer nominations were utilized to measure coolness as well as overt and relational aggression. Participants were asked “Which students in your grade are really cool?” for coolness during the fall semester (Graham, Taylor, & Hudley, 1998). Participants were asked “Which students in your grade get into physical fights, threaten to beat up or bully other students?” for overt aggression and “Which students in your grade spread rumors, gossip, or exclude friends when mad at them?” for relational aggression in the fall and spring (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Students nominated up to three same- or cross-gender peers in their grade for each question, by writing down the first and last names of peers. Consistent with prior research on early adolescents, no lists or rosters were provided (e.g., Bowker, Adams, Bowker, Fisher, & Spencer, 2015; Markovic & Bowker, 2017; Stotsky & Bowker, 2018). Nominations for nonparticipants and self-nominations were disregarded. Nominations were summed for each participant and standardized through dividing the total number of nominations each participant received for each question by the number of nominators in the sixth grade within each school.

Best friend aggressive characteristics

Best friend aggressive characteristics refer to the peer-nominated aggression scores (overt and relational) received by the best friend. Best friendships were measured by asking students to list one best friend (same- or cross-gender) in their grade during the fall semester (Urberg et al., 1997). Consistent with prior research, both reciprocated and unilateral best friendship nominations were included in analyses (Aloise-Young et al., 1994; Vaillancourt et al., 2019; Veronneau & Dishion, 2011).

Peer group aggressive characteristics

Peer group aggressive characteristics refer to the average aggression score of all peer group members, including the target student (Ryan, 2001; Thomas, Bierman, & Powers, 2011). Consistent with the social network analysis approach to peer groups (Espelage et al., 2003; Low et al., 2013; Ryan, 2001), students were asked to list their friends during the fall semester, which was described to them as “the friends you hang around with and talk to the most in your grade.” Eight spaces were provided, and participants could list as many or as few friends as they wanted. Reciprocated nominations were utilized in determining peer group membership. Criteria used to determine peer groups included the following (Ryan, 2001): (a) at least 50% of an individual’s direct links were within the group, (b) a path (direct/indirect) existed between each member of the peer group, and (c) there were no more than five indirect paths from any member. There were five possible social network positions: clique member (three or more members with direct links between all members), loose group member (less interconnected than cliques), dyad (two members), isolate (no reciprocated friendships), and liaison (individuals with equal numbers of reciprocated friends in multiple groups). In this study, students could be members of only one group; isolates and liaisons were excluded from analyses.

Analytic Strategy

Peer group membership during the fall was determined through a social network analysis computer program, igraph (built on the platform R; Csárdi & Nepusz, 2006; Parker et al., 2015). The igraph generated lists of peer groups that met criteria (Ryan, 2001) and drew a sociogram for each school. All individuals within each peer group were independently checked against the list of peer groups and sociogram to ensure that all criteria were met. Separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine associations of fall best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with spring individual aggression (overt and relational) and whether coolness moderated these associations (see Table 3). Variables were simultaneously entered as a block at each step. Gender was entered at Step 1 as a dichotomous variable (1 = female, 0 = male). Fall aggression (i.e., prior aggression in Table 3) and coolness were entered as control variables at Step 1. Best friend aggressive characteristics (overt and relational) in the fall were entered at Step 2. Peer group aggressive characteristics (overt and relational) in the fall were entered at Step 3. Interactions of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with coolness were entered at Step 4.

We used procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991) to test and interpret interactions. Main effect terms were standardized to z scores (i.e., mean of 0, standard deviation of 1) before computing interaction terms to avoid multicollinearity and aid interpretation of beta coefficients (Aiken and West, 1991). Significance of interactions was determined if the R² increased by a significant amount and if the beta coefficient for the interaction term was significant. All main effects and only significant interaction terms were retained in the final models (thus, final models varied for overt and relational aggression; see Table 3). We calculated predicted values with unstandardized regression coefficients and conducted simple slope tests to interpret significant interactions (see Figures 1 -3). Graphs were created for aggression (overt and relational) using coolness scores one standard deviation above (i.e., cool) and below (i.e., non-cool) the mean.

Figure 1.

BFOA and coolness (fall) interaction for overt aggression (spring).

Figure 2.

BFRA and coolness (fall) interaction for relational aggression (spring).

Figure 3.

PGRA and coolness (fall) interaction for relational aggression (spring).

Results

Overlap Between Best Friendship and Peer Group Membership

Among the students who participated both in the fall and spring (N = 347), 50% of best friend dyads were embedded in the same peer groups. Peer group size ranged from 2 to 15, with an average of 4 students, which aligns with the average peer group size reported in the literature (Hamm et al., 2011; Rodkin & Ahn, 2009; Ryan, 2001). Sixty-six percent of peer group members were also in best friend dyads. Results indicated overlap between best friendship and peer group membership, yet they were distinct peer contexts. Considering not all best friend dyads were in the same peer group and not all peer group members were in a best friend dyad, we used hierarchical regression analyses instead of multilevel modeling to analyze the data (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1. The overall pattern of correlations supported hypotheses that best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics would be positively associated with later individual aggression. Best friend overt aggression in the fall was positively correlated with students’ overt aggression in the spring (r = .23, p < .01). Peer group overt and relational aggression in the fall were significantly correlated with students’ overt (r = .50, p < .01) and relational (r = .38, p < .01) aggression in the spring. Coolness in the fall was positively correlated with students’ overt (r = .33, p < .01) and relational (r = .38, p < .01) aggression in the spring. Mean-level gender differences and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) in the fall are reported in Table 2, given that there are gender differences in aggression (Bellmore et al., 2011). Boys and their peer groups had higher peer-nominated overt aggression scores. Girls, as well as their best friends and peer groups, had higher peer-nominated relational aggression scores. Coolness did not differ significantly by gender in the fall.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for All Study Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. T1 individual overt aggression	—
2. T1 BF overt aggression	.33**	—
3. T1 PG overt aggression	.69**	.70**	—
4. T1 individual relational aggression	.17*	.14	.10	—
5. T1 BF relational aggression	.07	.19*	.10	.26**
6. T1 PG relational aggression	.15*	.18*	.18**	.56**	.40**	—
7. T1 coolness	.47**	.22**	.37**	.31**	.05	.21**	—
8. T2 individual overt aggression	.64**	.23**	.50**	.15*	.00	.12	.33**	—
9. T2 individual relational aggression	.04	.03	.02	.66**	.10	.38**	.38**	.14*	—
$\bar{X}$	0.03	0.27	0.03	0.15	0.37	0.14	0.17	0.05	0.10
SD	1.10	2.17	0.76	1.12	1.57	0.58	1.02	0.89	1.10

Note. N = 174. T1 = Time 1 (fall); T2 = Time 2 (spring); BF = best friend; PG = peer group.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Mean-Level Gender Differences in the Fall.

	Individual overt aggression	Best friend overt aggression	Peer group overt aggression	Individual relational aggression	Best friend relational aggression	Peer group relational aggression	Coolness
Fall, M (SD)
Boys	0.24 (1.56)	0.51 (2.57)	0.24 (1.08)	−0.10 (0.66)	−0.07 (0.55)	0.03 (0.52)	0.21 (1.23)
Girls	−0.13 (0.41)	0.09 (1.80)	−0.15 (0.16)	0.35 (1.36)	0.70 (1.96)	0.23 (0.61)	0.13 (0.82)
t	2.58*	1.25	4.07***	−3.17**	−3.28**	−2.82**	0.58
d	.32	.19	.51	.43	.53	.37	.07

Note. N = 174. d = cohen’s d. M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Regression Analyses

Overt aggression

The final regression model for overt aggression in the spring was significant, F(6, 174) = 28.15, p < .001 (see Table 3). Coolness in the fall moderated associations of fall best friend overt aggressive characteristics with spring individual overt aggression (β = −.35, t = −3.49, p < .01). Simple slope analysis revealed there was a tendency for individuals’ and best friends’ overt aggression to be positively associated for non-cool youth, although it did not reach statistical significance (β = .12, t = 1.76, p = .08). Relations were nonsignificant for cool youth (β = −.04, t = −1.26, p = .21). Thus, non-cool youth who affiliated with overtly aggressive best friends had the highest levels of peer-nominated overt aggression in the spring, whereas non-cool youth who affiliated with non-overtly aggressive best friends had the lowest levels of overt aggression in the spring (see Figure 1).

Table 3.

Best Friend Adjustment, Peer Group Adjustment, and Coolness in the Fall as Predictors of Peer-Reported Overt and Relational Aggression in the Spring of Sixth Grade.

Fall variable	Overt aggression	Relational aggression
Fall variable	β	β
Step 1
Gender	−.07	.08
Prior aggression	.80***	.41***
Coolness	.04	.11*
R²	.46***	.53***
Step 2
Best friend aggression	.11	.03
R²/ΔR²	.46/.00	.54/.01
Step 3
Peer group aggression	.08	−.02
R²/ΔR²	.47/.01	.54/.00
Step 4
Coolness × BF Aggression	−.35**	−.13*
Coolness × PG Aggression	—	.42***
R²/ΔR²	.50/.04**	.65/.11***
F	28.15***	43.76***

Note. N = 174. BF = best friend; PG = peer group.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Relational aggression

The final regression model for relational aggression in the spring was significant, F(7, 174) = 43.76, p < .001 (see Table 3). First, coolness in the fall moderated associations of fall best friend relational aggression with students’ spring relational aggression (β = −.13, t = −2.46, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed there was a significant positive relation between individuals’ and their best friends’ relational aggression for non-cool youth (β = .21, t = 2.05, p < .05) and a significant negative relation for cool youth (β = −.15, t = −2.27, p < .05). Non-cool youth with non-relationally aggressive best friends had the lowest levels of relational aggression in the spring, whereas cool youth with non-relationally aggressive best friends had the highest levels of relational aggression in the spring (see Figure 2). Second, coolness in the fall moderated associations of fall peer group relational aggression with spring individual relational aggression (β = .42, t = 7.02, p < .001). Simple slope analysis revealed there was a significant positive relation between individuals’ and peer group’s relational aggression for cool youth (β = .60, t = 3.99, p < .001) and a significant negative relation for non-cool youth (β = −.64, t = −4.03, p < .001). Cool youth who affiliated with relationally aggressive peer groups had the highest levels of relational aggression in the spring, whereas non-cool youth with relationally aggressive peer groups had the lowest levels of relational aggression in the spring (see Figure 3).

Discussion

The present study aligns with and extends prior research by indicating the unique relations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with later individual overt and relational aggression, and that coolness moderated these relations across the first year of middle school. Implications for research on peer relations and aggression as well as relevant school-based interventions during early adolescence are discussed.

Associations of Peer Relationships and Coolness With Aggression

Associations of best friendships and coolness with aggression

As expected, best friend relational aggressive characteristics in the fall were positively associated with students’ relational aggression in the spring, but only for non-cool youth. This same trend was found for overt aggression, although it did not reach significance. Non-cool youth who had an aggressive best friend (overt and relational) had higher levels of later aggression, whereas non-cool youth who had a nonaggressive best friend had the lowest levels of later aggression. In contrast, best friend relational aggression in the fall was negatively associated with students’ relational aggression in the spring for cool youth. These findings suggest that associations of best friend aggressive characteristics with students’ later aggression differ for cool and non-cool youth. The findings align with and extend research indicating low-status (i.e., non-popular) youth are more susceptible to the influence of best friend aggressive characteristics (Sijtsema, 2016). Best friends share a close emotional bond (Rubin et al., 2009), which provides a safe and intimate context for low-status youth to engage in aggressive behaviors (Adler & Adler, 1998; Breslend et al., 2018). It is plausible that low-status youth may feel compelled to imitate best friend aggression as a way to demonstrate loyalty and reinforce the relationship more so than high-status youth (Berndt, 2002; Dishion & Tipsord, 2011; Scholte et al., 2009). High-status youth may not feel compelled to imitate their best friends, as they are better connected with peers and have more social resources (Hawley et al., 2007; Stotsky & Bowker, 2018). Furthermore, high-status youth may feel confident in maintaining best friendships (Hawley et al., 2007) and be more oriented toward the larger peer group than the best friend dyad (Stotsky & Bowker, 2018).

Associations of peer groups and coolness with aggression

Consistent with our expectations, peer group relational aggressive characteristics in the fall were positively related to individual relational aggression in the spring, but only for cool youth. Cool youth who affiliated with relationally aggressive peer groups in the fall had the highest levels of relational aggression in the spring, whereas cool youth who affiliated with non-relationally aggressive groups had lower levels of later relational aggression. In contrast, non-cool youth who affiliated with relationally aggressive peer groups had the lowest levels of later relational aggression. These findings align with the notion that high-status youth may experience considerable pressure to conform to peer group norms in order to maintain status (e.g., Cillessen et al., 2011), albeit high-status youth are also likely to set peer group norms (Shi & Xie, 2012). Furthermore, cool youth may strategically align with peer group relational aggressive characteristics in order to maintain status during the first year of middle school (Bellmore et al., 2011). This may allow cool youth to respond to changes in the peer context (Crick & Dodge, 1996) and adapt to the renegotiation of status during early adolescence (Bellmore et al., 2011; Pountain & Robins, 2000). Non-cool youth may feel less pressure to conform to peer group norms regarding aggression (Bellmore et al., 2011). This aligns with research indicating lower status youth are susceptible to best friend aggressive characteristics and committed to maintain best friendships (Berndt, 2002; Sijtsema, 2016).

There was a nonsignificant association of peer group overt aggressive characteristics with later student overt aggression in the regression model, although a significant positive correlation was detected. It is possible that peer group overt aggression is not associated with later individual overt aggression as it becomes increasingly sanctioned during early adolescence (Björkqvist et al., 1992). This may hinder students from demonstrating overt aggression to prevent negative peer interactions and potential damages to their peer reputation (Espelage et al., 2003). In addition, the correlation between overt and relational aggression was smaller than reported by prior research (Card et al., 2008; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), which may reflect varied definitions of overt and relational aggression used in the literature.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

The findings support and advance research examining peer status as moderating associations between peer aggressive characteristics and individual aggression (Rulison et al., 2013; Sijtsema, 2016). Specifically, the current study examined best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics simultaneously, as well as examined coolness as a moderator of these associations. The findings emphasize potential risks associated with best friend aggression for non-cool youth in relation to later aggression (overt and relational), as well as potential risks associated with peer group aggression for cool youth regarding later relational aggression. Examining best friend and peer group characteristics simultaneously can provide a more accurate understanding of the implications of these two types of peer relations, as the influence of either peer relation may be overestimated when examined separately (Molloy et al., 2011). This study extends our understanding of behavioral theory (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011) and person-group similarity theory (Sentse, Scholte, Salmivalli, & Voeten, 2007; Wright, Giammarino, & Parad, 1986) as individual factors such as coolness need to be taken into consideration to understand how individuals are similar to their peers. Findings from the current study indicate that youth’s susceptibility to peer aggressive characteristics depends on youth’s coolness and the type of peer relationship, as non-cool youth’s aggressive reputation (overt and relational) tended to align with that of their best friend, whereas cool youth’s relational aggressive reputation tended to match that of their peer group.

The findings have theoretical implications regarding coolness, an understudied aspect of peer status. Coolness encompasses a combination of attributes that garner peer approval or attention (Jamison et al., 2015) and is socially constructed among youth (Adler & Adler, 1998; Rodkin et al., 2006). The current study indicates that associations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with individuals’ aggression differ for cool and non-cool youth. The findings suggest that cool youth may demonstrate social savviness (Bloustien, 2003; Pountain & Robins, 2000) by being attuned to the relational aggressive characteristics of the peer group (rather than best friend), which may help them maintain status as peer relations and coolness are in flux during the first year of middle school (Bellmore et al., 2011; Laninga-Wijnen, Harakeh, Steglich, Dijkstra, & Veenstra, 2017). The findings from the current study reinforce the notion that high-status youth have more social resources and may be more oriented toward peers than lower status youth (Hawley et al., 2007; Stotsky & Bowker, 2018), as youth with both best friendship and peer group membership had higher levels of coolness. In contrast, the findings suggest that non-cool youth may be more attuned to best friend overt and relational aggressive characteristics, extending research indicating that low-status youth are more susceptible to best friend aggressive characteristics (Sijtsema, 2016). Further research is needed to examine how cool and non-cool youth experience best friend and peer group characteristics, and how coolness is socially constructed among youth in terms of what is valued in various peer relations (Adler & Adler, 1998; Hoff et al., 2009; Rodkin et al., 2006). In addition, future research is needed to further examine the distinction between coolness and perceived popularity, as well as any potential theoretical and practical implications regarding the overlap between these two constructs. Although coolness is understudied compared to perceived popularity, coolness is “geared toward and created by youth” (Rodkin et al., 2006, p. 197) and considered to be a more ecologically valid measure (Wilson & Jamison, 2019).

The study has practical implications in that the findings may inform school-based interventions to reduce and prevent adolescent aggression. Specifically, findings highlight the potential to consider contextual factors (i.e., best friend and peer group characteristics) to prevent and reduce aggression. This is promising, as research suggests that peer group characteristics are malleable and susceptible to teacher influence (Hamm, Farmer, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2014). Furthermore, the findings indicate that differentiated prevention and intervention strategies may be needed for cool and non-cool youth. Monitoring best friend aggressive characteristics may help to identify non-cool youth at risk of increasing aggression, whereas monitoring and potentially altering peer group aggressive characteristics may be effective for reducing relational aggression among cool youth, aligning with and extending prior research on high-status youth (Stotsky & Bowker, 2018; Xie et al., 2002). In addition, educators may purposefully guide the process through which youth select best friends and peer groups by altering the aggression norms of high-status peers during the first year of middle school, as research suggests peer relations are in flux during this time (Bellmore et al., 2011; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2017).

The findings of this study should be understood within the context of limitations and future directions. This study examined best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics at one time point (i.e., fall of sixth grade), as research indicates descriptive peer norms (i.e., best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics in this study) are relatively stable during early adolescence (Laninga-Wijnen, Harakeh, Dijkstra, Veenstra, & Vollebergh, 2018). The design of the study did not allow us to determine whether the findings were due to selection, socialization, or both. Longitudinal research with two or more time points is needed to track changes in peer relations and disentangle selection and socialization processes (e.g., Shin, 2017). In addition, ethnographic studies may provide a deeper understanding of these peer influence processes and their implications from youth’s perspectives. Thus, understanding the influence of interdependent processes such as selection and socialization can provide a more nuanced understanding of the implications of peer relations for early adolescents’ aggression.

This study examined the moderation effect of coolness on the associations of existing best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with individual aggression. However, coolness itself might impact friendship and peer group selection, as cool and non-cool youth may have different social resources and peer preferences. These reciprocal relations should be investigated in future research. Given that coolness is socially constructed among youth and may vary in terms of what is valued in across peer contexts (Hoff et al., 2009; Rodkin et al., 2006), future research can examine the coolness levels of best friend and peer group, and the values associated with coolness across these peer relations. This study’s sample size was adequate for conducting regression analyses to determine the relations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with later aggression and coolness as a moderator. Although this is consistent with research examining the influence of best friend characteristics on aggression (Bowker et al., 2012), larger sample sizes are needed in future research.

A contribution of this study is that it examined the implications of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics for later individual aggression simultaneously. However, the peer context is complex and includes multiple peer relationships and norms during early adolescence (Brown, 1990). For instance, classroom-level peer characteristics (i.e., norms) may moderate the implications of best friend aggressive characteristics for individual aggression (Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2017). Even within a peer group, there is more to consider than the average aggression level of a group, including peer group structural characteristics (Pattiselanno, Dijkstra, Steglich, & Vollebergh, 2015) and variability of aggression among group members (Andrews, Hanish, DeLay, Martin, & Updegraff, 2018). Although peer group members typically have similar levels of aggression (Espelage et al., 2003), it may be beneficial to examine within peer group variability and its implications for adolescent adjustment. For example, prior research has controlled for the range of variation within a peer group (Andrews et al., 2018) and calculated the average aggression score of high-status members and the average aggression score for low-status members (rather than an average of all group members; Shi & Xie, 2012). Future research may enrich our understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of peer relations during adolescence by further examining more nuanced features of the peer ecology.

The findings warrant further investigation, including examining the implications of the overlap and interactive processes between best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics for social adjustment (Cillessen et al., 2011; Crick & Dodge, 1996; Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007; Stotsky & Bowker, 2018). It would be informative to use latent profile analysis (i.e., a person-centered approach; Berger et al., 2015) to examine whether cool (or non-cool) youth are more likely to have an aggressive friend and/or belong to an aggressive group. This may provide insight into whether cool and non-cool youth have unique profiles regarding the characteristics of multiple peer relationships, and implications for adjustment.

Conclusion

This study contributes to early adolescent peer relations and peer status research by documenting the unique associations of best friend and peer group aggressive characteristics with later individual aggression, and that coolness moderated these associations. The findings highlight the need to consider multiple peer relationships and coolness in relation to aggression during the first year of middle school. Specifically, the findings call attention to best friend aggressive characteristics (overt and relational) as potential risk factors for increasing aggression among non-cool youth, and peer group relational aggressive characteristics as potential risk factors for increasing relational aggression among cool youth across the sixth grade.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kwanghee Jung, PhD, from the Texas Tech University for the consultation he provided during data analysis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Joy Huanhuan Wang

Hannah L. Gilfix

Author Biographies

Joy Huanhuan Wang, PhD, is an assistant professor of school psychology in the College of Education at Texas Tech University. Her research interests focus on supporting youth mental health, as well as behavioral and academic well-being from a social network perspective.

Sarah M. Kiefer, PhD, is an associate professor of educational psychology in the College of Education at the University of South Florida. She conducts school-based research to support motivation and peer relationships during adolescence as well as to promote developmentally responsive teaching practices.

Nicholas David W. Smith, MA, is a school psychology doctoral candidate at the University of South Florida. His research focuses on the holistic connection between mental and physical well-being, and the impact of positive mental health on interpersonal relationships.

Liang Huang, MS, is a Programmer Analyst III in the Department of Application Development and Support at the Texas Tech University. His research interests include developing applications and programs to support children and youth well-being.

Hannah L. Gilfix, MA, is a graduate student in the school psychology program at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include school-based mental health services, positive psychology, and the social-emotional well-being of children and adolescents.

Erin M. Brennan, MA, is a school psychology graduate student at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include adolescent well-being and mental health.

References

Adler

(1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Allen

J. P.

Schad

M. M.

Oudekerk

Chango

(2014). What ever happened to the “cool” kids? Long-term sequelae of early adolescent pseudomature behavior. Child Development, 85, 1866-1880. doi:10.1111/cdev.12250

Aloise-Young

P. A.

Graham

J. W.

Hansen

W. B.

(1994). Peer influence on smoking initiation during early adolescence: A comparison of group members and group outsiders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 281-287. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.281

Andrews

N. C.

Hanish

L. D.

DeLay

Martin

C. L.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2018). Relations between close friendships and adolescent aggression: Structural and behavioral friendship features. Social Development, 27, 293-307. doi:10.1111/sode.12277

Bellmore

A. D.

Villarreal

V. M.

A. Y.

(2011). Staying cool across the first year of middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 776-785. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9590-x

Berger

Batanova

Cance

J. D.

(2015). Aggressive and prosocial? Examining latent profiles of behavior, social status, Machiavellianism, and empathy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2230-2244. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0298-9

Berndt

T. J.

(2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 7-10. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00157

Berndt

T. J.

Perry

T. B.

(1986). Children’s perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22, 640-648.

10.

Björkqvist

Österman

Kaukiainen

(1992). Social intelligence—Empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191-200. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00029-9

11.

Bloustien

(2003). Girl making: A cross-cultural ethnography on the processes of growing up female. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.

12.

Bowker

J. C.

Adams

R. E.

Bowker

M. H.

Fisher

Spencer

S. V.

(2015). Same- and other-sex popularity and preference during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 704-722. doi:10.1177/0272431615581417

13.

Bowker

J. C.

Ostrov

J. M.

Raja

(2012). Relational and overt aggression in urban India: Associations with peer relations and best friends’ aggression. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 107-116. doi:10.1177/0165025411426019

14.

Breslend

N. L.

Shoulberg

E. K.

McQuade

J. D.

Murray-Close

(2018). Social costs for wannabes: Moderating effects of popularity and gender on the links between popularity goals and negative peer experiences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1894-1906. doi:10.1007/s10964-018-0810-0

15.

Brown

B. B.

(1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In Elliott

G. R.

(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Bukowski

W. M.

Newcomb

A. F.

Hartup

W. W.

(Eds.). (1998). The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Card

N. A.

Stucky

B. D.

Sawalani

G. M.

Little

T. D.

(2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185-1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x

18.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Mayeux

(2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x

19.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Schwartz

Mayeux

(2011). Popularity in the peer system. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20.

Crick

Grotpeter

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722. doi:10.2307/1131945

21.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993-1002. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01778.x

22.

Crick

N. R.

Murray-Close

Marks

P. E. L.

Mohajeri-Nelson

(2009). Aggression and peer relationships in school-age children: Relational and physical aggression in group and dyadic contexts. In Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 287-302). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Csárdi

Nepusz

(2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695(5), 1-9. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d27/44b83519657f5f2610698a8ddd177ced4f5c.pdf

24.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Borch

(2013). Popularity and adolescent friendship networks: Selection and influence dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1242-1252. doi:10.1037/a0030098

25.

Dishion

T. J.

Tipsord

J. M.

(2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189-214. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412

26.

Eder

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

27.

Eder

Enke

J. L.

(1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities and constraints on collective expression among adolescents. American Sociological Review, 56, 494-508.

28.

Ellis

W. E.

Zarbatany

(2007). Peer group status as a moderator of group influence on children’s deviant, aggressive, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 78, 1240-1254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01063.x

29.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

Henkel

R. R.

(2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531

30.

Galván

Spatzier

Juvonen

(2011). Perceived norms and social values to capture school culture in elementary and middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 346-353. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.08.005

31.

Gest

S. D.

Farmer

T. W.

Cairns

B. D.

Xie

(2003). Identifying children’s peer social networks in school classrooms: Links between peer reports and observed interactions. Social Development, 12, 513-529.

32.

Graham

Juvonen

(2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 173-199.

33.

Graham

Taylor

A. Z.

Hudley

(1998). Exploring achievement values among ethnic minority early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 606-620. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.606

34.

Hamm

J. V.

Farmer

T. W.

Dadisman

Gravelle

Murray

A. R.

(2011). Teachers’ attunement to students’ peer group affiliations as a source of improved student experiences of the school social-affective context following the middle school transition. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 267-277. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.003

35.

Hamm

J. V.

Farmer

T. W.

Lambert

Gravelle

(2014). Enhancing peer cultures of academic effort and achievement in early adolescence: Promotive effects of the SEALS intervention. Developmental Psychology, 50, 216-228. doi:10.1037/a0032979

36.

Harwell

LeBeau

(2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39, 120-131. doi:10.3102/0013189X10362578

37.

Hawley

P. H.

Little

T. D.

Rodkin

P. C.

(2007). Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Hoff

K. E.

Reese-Weber

Schneider

W. J.

Stagg

J. W.

(2009). The association between high status positions and aggressive behavior in early adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 395-426. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.003

39.

Jamison

R. S.

Wilson

Ryan

(2015). Too cool for school? The relationship between coolness and academic reputation in early adolescence. Social Development, 24, 384-403. doi:10.1111/sode.12097

40.

Juvonen

Wang

Espinoza

(2013). Physical aggression, spreading of rumors, and social prominence in early adolescence: Reciprocal effects supporting gender similarities? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1801-1810. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9894-0

41.

Kiefer

S. M.

Wang

J. H.

(2016). Associations of coolness and social goals with aggression and engagement during adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 52-62. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.007

42.

Kindermann

T. A.

(2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78, 1186-1203. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01060.x

43.

Laninga-Wijnen

Harakeh

Dijkstra

J. K.

Veenstra

Vollebergh

(2018). Aggressive and prosocial peer norms: Change, stability, and associations with adolescent aggressive and prosocial behavior development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 38, 178-203. doi:10.1177/0272431616665211

44.

Laninga-Wijnen

Harakeh

Steglich

Dijkstra

J. K.

Veenstra

(2017). The norms of popular peers moderate friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression. Child Development, 88, 1265-1283. doi:10.1111/cdev.12650

45.

Low

Polanin

J. R.

Espelage

D. L.

(2013). The role of social networks in physical and relational aggression among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1078-1089. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9933-5

46.

Malti

McDonald

Rubin

K. H.

Rose-Kransnor

Booth-LaForce

(2015). Developmental trajectories of peer-reported aggressive behavior: The role of friendship understanding, friendship quality, and friends’ aggressive behavior. Psychology of Violence, 5, 402-410. doi:10.1037/a0039685

47.

Markovic

Bowker

J. C.

(2017). Friends also matter: Examining friendship adjustment indices as moderators of anxious-withdrawal and trajectories of change in psychological maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 53, 1462-1473. doi:10.1037/dev0000343

48.

Merten

D. E.

(1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175-191.

49.

Meter

D. J.

Casper

D. M.

Card

N. A.

(2015). Perceptions of intimacy and friendship reciprocity moderate peer influence on aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 432-442. doi:10.1002/ab.21577

50.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674

51.

Molloy

L. E.

Gest

S. D.

Rulison

K. L.

(2011). Peer influences on academic motivation: Exploring multiple methods of assessing youths’ most “influential” peer relationships. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 13-40. doi:10.1177/0272431610384487

52.

Parker

Ciarrochi

Heaven

Marshall

Sahdra

Kiuru

(2015). Hope, friends, and subjective well-being: A social network approach to peer group contextual effects. Child Development, 86, 642-650. doi:10.1111/cdev.12308

53.

Pattiselanno

Dijkstra

J. K.

Steglich

Vollebergh

(2015). Structure matters: The role of clique hierarchy in the relationship between adolescent social status and aggression and prosociality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2257-2274. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0310-4

54.

Pellegrini

Long

(2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. doi:10.1348/026151002166442

55.

Poulin

Chan

(2010). Friendship stability and change in childhood and adolescence. Developmental Review, 30, 257-272. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.01.001

56.

Pountain

Robins

(2000). Cool rules: Anatomy of an attitude. London, England: Reaktion Books.

57.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

58.

Rodkin

P. C.

Ahn

H. J.

(2009). Social networks derived from affiliations and friendships, multi-informant and self-reports: Stability, concordance, placement of aggressive and unpopular children, and centrality. Social Development, 18, 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00505.x

59.

Rodkin

P. C.

Farmer

T. W.

Pearl

Van Acker

(2006). They’re cool: Social status and peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15, 175-204.

60.

Rodkin

P. C.

Ryan

A. M.

Jamison

Wilson

(2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1139-1150. doi:10.1037/a0029389

61.

Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Bowker

J. C.

(2015). Children in peer groups. In Lerner

R. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 1-48). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

62.

Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

(2009). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

63.

Rulison

K. L.

Gest

S. D.

Loken

(2013). Dynamic social networks and physical aggression: The moderating role of gender and social status among peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 437-449. doi:10.1111/jora.12044

64.

Rulison

K. L.

Gest

S. D.

Loken

Welsh

J. A.

(2010). Rejection, feeling bad, and being hurt: Using multilevel modeling to clarify the link between peer group aggression and adjustment. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 787-800. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.07.005

65.

Ryan

A. M.

(2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00338

66.

Scholte

R. H.

Overbeek

ten Brink

Els Rommes

de Kemp

A. T.

Goossens

Engels

R. C.

(2009). The significance of reciprocal and unilateral friendships for peer victimization in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 89-100. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9287-6

67.

Sentse

Scholte

R. H. J.

Salmivalli

Voeten

(2007). Person–group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009-1019. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9150-3

68.

Shi

Xie

(2012). Socialization of physical and social aggression in early adolescents’ peer groups: High-status peers, individual status, and gender. Social Development, 21, 170-194. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00621.x

69.

Shin

(2017). Friendship dynamics of adolescent aggression, prosocial behavior, and social status: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 2305-2320. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0702-8

70.

Sijtsema

J. J.

(2016). Preadolescents and their friends: Similarity in aggression and depressive problems as a function of social status and friendship reciprocity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 565-576. doi:10.1177/0165025415607380

71.

Sijtsema

J. J.

Lindenberg

S. M.

(2018). Peer influence in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior: Advances from dynamic social network studies. Developmental Review, 50, 140-154. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2018.08.002

72.

Sijtsema

J. J.

Ojanen

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Hawley

P. H.

Little

T. D.

(2010). Forms and functions of aggression in adolescent friendship selection and influence: A longitudinal social network analysis. Social Development, 19, 515-534. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00566.x

73.

Stotsky

M. T.

Bowker

J. C.

(2018). An examination of reciprocal associations between social preference, popularity, and friendship during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1830-1841. doi:10.1007/s10964-018-0846-1

74.

Thomas

D. E.

Bierman

K. L.

Powers

C. J.

(2011). The influence of classroom aggression and classroom climate on aggressive-disruptive behavior. Child Development, 82, 751-757. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01586.x

75.

Urberg

K. A.

Degirmencioglu

S. M.

Pilgrim

(1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33, 834-844. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.5.834

76.

Urberg

K. A.

Degirmencioglu

S. M.

Tolson

J. W.

Halliday-Scher

(1995). The structure of adolescent peer networks. Developmental Psychology, 31, 540-547. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.31.4.540

77.

Vaillancourt

M. C.

Paiva

A. O.

Veronneau

Dishion

T. J.

(2019). How do individual predispositions and family dynamics contribute to academic adjustment through the middle school years? The mediating role of friends’ characteristics. Journal of Early Adolescence, 39, 576-602. doi:10.1177/0272431618776124

78.

Veronneau

Dishion

T. J.

(2011). Middle school friendships and academic achievement in early adolescence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 99-124. doi:10.1177/0272431610384485

79.

Warman

D. M.

Cohen

(2000). Stability of aggressive behaviors and children’s peer relationships. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 277-290. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(2000)26:4<277::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-C

80.

Werner

N. E.

Hill

L. G.

(2010). Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression. Child Development, 81, 826-836. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01436.x

81.

Wilson

T. M.

Jamison

(2019). Perceptions of same-sex and cross-sex peers: Behavioral correlates of perceived coolness during middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 65, 1-27. doi:10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.65.1.0001

82.

Wölfer

Faber

N. S.

Hewstone

(2015). Social network analysis in the science of groups: Cross-sectional and longitudinal applications for studying intra- and intergroup behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 45-61. doi:10.1037/gdn0000021

83.

Wright

J. C.

Giammarino

Parad

H. W.

(1986). Social status in small groups: Individual-group similarity and the social “misfit.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523-536. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.523

84.

Xie

Cairns

R. B.

Cairns

B. D.

(2002). The development of social aggression and physical aggression: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 341-355. doi:10.1002/ab.80008