Understanding Popularity in the Peer System

Much research has focused on youth who are rejected by peers; who engage in negative behavior, including aggression; and who are at risk for adjustment problems. Recently, researchers have become increasingly interested in high-status youth. A distinction is made between two groups of high-status youth: those who are genuinely well liked by their peers and engage in predominantly prosocial behaviors and those who are seen as popular by their peers but are not necessarily well liked. The latter group of youth is well known, socially central, and emulated, but displays a mixed profile of prosocial as well as aggressive and manipulative behaviors. Research now needs to address the distinctive characteristics of these two groups and their developmental precursors and consequences. Of particular interest are high-status and socially powerful aggressors and their impact on their peers. The heterogeneity of high-status youth complicates the understanding of the social dynamics of the peer group, but will lead to new and important insights into the developmental significance of peer relationships. KEYWORDS—peer relations; popularity; social status Developmental psychologists continue to be interested in the social structure and dynamics of the peer group in childhood and adolescence. Peer status is an important construct in their research. In the past, much of this research has been driven by a concern for children and adolescents with low social status, who operate at the fringe of the peer system and may be categorized as rejected. As a result, much has been learned about the origins of peer rejection and its effects on development (Asher & Coie, 1990). More recently, researchers have become increasingly interested in peer-group members with high social status. Interestingly, high-status children and adolescents do not form a uniform group. For example, consider the profiles of two eighth graders, Tim and Jason. Tim is well liked by his peers. He is genuinely nice to others and helps out when needed. Tim is athletic but does not use his physical abilities to aggress against others. In fact, Tim tends to avoid even verbal confrontations when possible, preferring instead to find prosocial ways of solving conflicts. Compared with Tim, Jason is better known by his classmates but he is not necessarily well liked. Even peers who do not know him personally know who he is. Many of Jason’s classmates imitate his style of dress and taste in music and would like to be better friends with him so they could be part of the in-crowd. Jason can be very nice to other kids but can also intimidate them when provoked or angry, or can manipulate social situations to his advantage. Developmental psychologists know a fair amount about youth like Tim. Youth who are well liked by others are categorized by peer-relations researchers as sociometrically popular. Sociometrically popular youth generally display high levels of prosocial and cooperative behavior and low levels of aggression (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). But although developmentalists would refer to Tim as sociometrically popular, he is not the type of person most youth would consider one of their ‘‘popular’’ peers. They think of popular peers as those who, like Jason, are well known, socially central, and emulated (Adler & Adler, 1998). In recent years, developmentalists have begun to study more seriously youth like Jason, referring to them as perceived popular, rather than sociometrically popular. Although evidence suggests that perceived-popular youth have aggressive traits in addition to prosocial ones, youth aspire to be popular like Jason more than they aspire to be like Tim (Adler & Adler, 1998). Accordingly, it is important to consider seriously the meaning and function of these divergent forms of popularity. In this article, we consider how perceived-popular youth are similar to and different from sociometrically popular youth. Specifically, we discuss: (a) the conceptualization and measurement of sociometric and perceived popularity, (b) the social behavior of sociometrically and perceived-popular youth, and (c) the adjustment outcomes for the two groups. We conclude by outlining important directions for future research. Address correspondence to Antonius H.N. Cillessen, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Rd., U-1020, Storrs, CT 06269-1020; e-mail: [email protected]. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 102 Volume 14—Number 2 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society SOCIOMETRIC VERSUS PERCEIVED POPULARITY Traditionally, the study of peer relations has focused on sociometric status, how well liked (or rejected) youth are by their peers (Asher & Coie, 1990; Coie & Cillessen, 1993). Several decades of research have provided data on the behavioral and adjustment correlates of sociometric status (Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004). This research provides a crucial foundation for understanding peer relations. Recently, researchers have begun to examine perceived popularity as a unique but equally important dimension. Educational sociologists have long recognized the social power (influence over others) of perceived-popular youth as evidenced by qualitative descriptions of them by their peers (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985). Only in the past 5 to 10 years have researchers begun to study perceived popularity with quantitative methods. Sociometric popularity is usually assessed with a peer-nomination procedure, in which participants are asked to name the peers in their grade who they like most and like least. Nominations for each question are counted and adjusted for grade size so that the data are comparable across grades (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Sociometric popularity for each person is represented with a score on a continuous scale (social preference) calculated by using the number of liked-most nominations minus the number of liked-least nominations he or she received. Alternatively, rather than using such scores, researchers may employ a categorical approach and identify sociometrically popular youth as those with many liked-most and few liked-least nominations. In early qualitative research, educational sociologists using ethnographic methods identified perceived-popular youth by simply observing which classmates were referred to as popular by their peers (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985). In recent quantitative studies, however, perceived popularity has been derived from peer nominations (i.e., participants name who they see as most popular and who they see as least popular; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Scores on a continuous scale of perceived popularity have been derived from the number of most-popular nominations or the number of most-popular minus least-popular nominations. In other studies, researchers have taken a categorical approach and identified youth with high perceived popularity as those with many most-popular nominations and few least-popular nominations. Interestingly, in neither the original ethnographic research nor the recent quantitative studies did researchers provide participants with an a priori definition of popularity; rather, they relied on the participants’ intuitive understanding of the concept. Recently, researchers have begun to map the meanings children and adolescents ascribe to ‘‘popularity,’’ again without providing an a priori definition (e.g., LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Findings from these studies show that children and adolescents associate a mixture of prosocial and antisocial traits and behaviors with perceived popularity. Although there is overlap between sociometric and perceived popularity, the constructs are not redundant (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Rose et al., 2004). Consider one study that employed a categorical approach to identify sociometrically popular and perceived-popular youth (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Only 36% of sociometrically popular students were also perceived popular, and only 29% of perceived-popular students were also sociometrically popular. There is enough distinction between the two constructs to determine similarities as well as differences between the characteristics of sociometrically popular and perceived-popular youth.