Sources of Popularity: Aggressive and Prosocial Strategists

Home , Social group

SOURCES OF POPULARITY: AGGRESSIVE AND PROSOCIAL STRATEGISTS

AND THE ADOLESCENTS WHO AFFILIATE WITH THEM.

Cody Hiatt

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express thanks to Rita Žukauskienė, Saulė Raižienė, and all of the data collection team at Mykolas Romeris University for their hard work on the

Posidev archival data that were used in the current study. Special thanks to Rita for always being available and eager to answer any questions.

The author is also grateful for the insight provided by dissertation committee

members Erika Hoff, Dave Perry, Mike Maniaci, and Bill Bukowski. All provided a

different perspective on the best way to tackle problems and expert guidance.

Finally, the author is exceedingly grateful to his graduate advisor Brett Laursen.

Academic father is a better description because Brett’s caring for his students is

inspirational. Brett was and is a rock in one of the most transformative times of the

author’s life.

ABSTRACT

Author: Cody Hiatt

Title: Sources of Popularity: Aggressive and Prosocial Strategists and the Adolescents Who Affiliate With Them.

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Brett Laursen

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2016

Popular children are visible and influential in an adolescent peer group

(LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Previous studies have demonstrated that there are two types of popular children: aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular (Cillessen & Rose,

2005). The current study was designed to determine that, while both types are well liked and accepted, they draw favor from different sources of affiliation. The Study uses a sample of 450 adolescents (36.2% boys and 63.1% girls) from one high school in

Lithuania. Hierarchical generalized logistic linear models (HGLLM) were conducted to determine if there was differential acceptance of aggressive-popular and prosocial- popular adolescents. Also, models determined if peers exhausted with school, attached to school, connected to peers and anxious/withdrawn would have differential association with aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular adolescents.

Results answered 3 questions. First, HGLLM models were used to replicate the previous finding that popular adolescents have more affiliations than other peers. Second,

results determined that popular, popular-aggressive, and popular-prosocial adolescents were all more likely to receive affiliation nominations from peers. Third, results determined that aggressive-popular adolescents were chosen as affiliates by peers

exhausted with school, and less likely to be chosen by peers attached to school, connected

to friends and withdrawn. Prosocial-popular adolescents were chose as affiliates by peers

attached to school and connected with friends. These findings indicate that aggressive-

popular adolescents draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward youth culture,

while prosocial-popular draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward adult

culture (Brown, 1990)

The findings first extend previous research by demonstrating that popular

adolescents, of all types, are likely to receive affiliation nominations. Furthermore,

prosocial-popular and aggressive-popular adolescents have more acceptance and

affiliations than others, but this attraction comes from different sources. Previous studies

have shown that popular children are well liked by some but not by others (Parkhurst &

Hopmeyer, 1998). Taken with findings demonstrating that popular children strategically

use cooperation or manipulation to influence others (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), the current

study extends knowledge about the peer groups where cooperation or manipulation

strategies may be most effective. Crowds that are school oriented and have positive peer

relations follow prosocial-popular peers while crowds that are fed up with school follow

aggressive-popular peers.

SOURCES OF POPULARITY: AGGRESSIVE AND PROSOCIAL STRATEGISTS

AND THE ADOLESCENTS WHO AFFILIATE WITH THEM.

TABLES ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Peer Groups and Their Orientation ...... 2

Defining Popularity ...... 3

Forms of Popularity ...... 6

Popular and aggressive ...... 6

Popular and prosocial ...... 7

Distinguishing Popularity from Acceptance...... 7

Differential Attraction and Affiliation ...... 9

Who affiliates with aggressive-popular adolescents ...... 10

Who affiliates with prosocial-popular adolescents ...... 13

Hypotheses ...... 15

METHOD ...... 18

Participants and Procedure ...... 18

Instruments ...... 19

Popularity ...... 19

Friendship Nominations ...... 19

Prosocial Behavior ...... 20

Aggressive Behavior ...... 20

vii

Connection to peers...... 20

Withdrawal/depressiveness ...... 20

School Attachment ...... 20

School Exhaustion ...... 21

PLAN OF ANALYSES ...... 22

RESULTS ...... 28

Preliminary Analysis ...... 28

Describing Aggressive-popular Adolescents and Those Who Like Them ...... 28

Unconditional Model ...... 28

Level 1 Model ...... 28

Level 2 Model ...... 29

Describing Prosocial-popular Adolescents and Those Who Like Them ...... 33

Unconditional Model ...... 33

Level 1 Model ...... 33

Level 2 Model ...... 34

DISSCUSSION ...... 37

Is the likelihood that a child will be nominated as an affiliate a product of his or her

popularity? ...... 38

Is the association between popularity and affiliation preference moderated by the

nominee’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors? ...... 38

Does the association between affiliation nominations and aggressive-popularity vary as

a function of characteristics of nominators? ...... 40

School orientation ...... 41

viii

Peer relationships ...... 42

Does the association between affiliation nominations and prosocial-popularity vary as

a function of characteristics of nominators? ...... 42

School orientation ...... 43

Peer relationships ...... 44

Future Research Directions ...... 44

Forms of aggression ...... 45

Bistrategic popular ...... 45

Does friendship lead to influence ...... 46

Implications for parents, teachers and practitioners ...... 47

Limitations ...... 49

Summary ...... 51

APPENDICIES ...... 52

REFERENCES ...... 64

TABLES

Table 1. Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations………….………………....55

Table 2. Aggressive-popular hierarchical generalized linear logistic model

predicting nominator friendship with nominee…….………....………………….56

Table 3. Prosocial-popular hierarchical generalized linear logistic model predicting

nominator friendship with nominee…………..………………...………………..57

INTRODUCTION

Popularity matters. Participants in peer groups are not equal. Some are better liked and have greater influence than others. Most studies of popularity focus on the characteristics of individuals with influence (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). These studies reveal two different types of socially dominant adolescents: those who are cooperative and those who are manipulative (Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van

Acker, 2000; De Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006). Both are considered popular. Little is known, however, about the sources from which the socially dominant draw their popularity. It is not clear if the same adolescents find both types of popular agemates equally attractive.

Different types of classmates may be drawn to different types of popular adolescents.

Most affiliations arise in the context of peer groups (Brown, 2004). These groups have different organizational themes with different types of leaders. Some peer groups embrace adult sanctioned activities. Success in adult sanctioned activities promotes integration into adult society. These groups are apt to be led by cooperative prosocial adolescents because cooperative strategies are promoted in adult sanctioned activities.

Some peer groups reject adult sanctioned activities and prefer to operate in arenas outside of adult supervision. These groups are apt to be led by manipulative aggressive adolescents because there are no adults around to inhibit such behaviors. Adolescents who prefer to affiliate with cooperative popular adolescents may have characteristics that promote success in adult supervised activities and cooperative peer relationships.

Adolescents who prefer to affiliate with manipulative popular adolescents may

have characteristics that promote success in oppositional activities with hierarchical structures. The proposed study is designed to determine whether different types of adolescents are attracted to different types of popular group leaders. In particular, I will examine whether those exhausted with school, attached to school, withdrawn from peers,

and connected to peers are differentially attracted to aggressive and prosocial popular

adolescents.

Peer Groups and Their Orientation

In adolescence, group membership is an important aspect of identity formation

(Brown & Larson, 2009). Social crowds (e.g. jocks, nerds, druggies) help an adolescent

determine where he or she fits in the social system (Brown, 2004). Membership in a

social crowd depends largely on an individual’s reputation and interest. Crowd

membership is a socially visible characteristic determined by public perception.

Adolescent peer crowds typically fall into two categories: Those oriented to the

youth culture and those oriented to the adult culture. Orientation to adult culture

represents a proclivity to engage in activities structured by or supervised by adults

(Brown, 1990). Adolescents oriented towards adult culture engage in activities that

facilitate membership in conventional adult society. For example, “nerds” are focused on

school, which is an activity supervised by adults. Success in school is a prerequisite to

entry into successful adulthood. “Nerds” may participate in clubs and extracurricular

activities like model United Nations or debate club that prepare adolescents for

integration into conventional adult society. In contrast, orientation to youth culture

represents a proclivity for interactions with agemates in settings without adult

supervision. Adolescents oriented to youth culture may feel alienation from and opposition to adults, resulting in increased tension and rigidity in interactions with adults

(Garner, Bootcheck, Loor & Rauch, 2006). Crowds with a youth orientation prefer unstructured activities that are resistant to adult oversight. For example, “druggies” take substances that are illegal or illegal for their age group; illegal activities are prohibited in adult sanctioned environments. A “druggie” crowd provides an adolescent with an environment free from adult supervision, where one can acquire drugs and befriend other users. Peer crowd affiliation is linked to substance use as adolescents oriented to youth culture are influenced by their crowd’s substance use (La Greca, Prinstein & Fetter,

2000).

Peer activities are based on whether the group is oriented to adult or youth culture

(Clasen & Brown, 1985). Socially dominant members of the group are leaders who reflect the group’s orientation toward structured or unstructured settings. The settings, in turn, dictate the strategies that socially dominant adolescents employ to maintain influence. Socially dominant and popular adolescents shape and influence others in the group, especially on activities. Socially dominant adolescent leaders share similar characteristics in crowds oriented to adult or youth culture (Garner, Bootcheck, Loor &

Rauch, 2006). Both orientations value coolness, social skills, material status and physical attributes. But, unique to an orientation to adult culture, successful leaders may be intellectual, sports-minded or display other characteristics valued by parents and teachers.

Unique to youth culture, successful leaders may display opposition to academics, prep/jock conformity, and conventionality.

Defining Popularity

The meaning and measure of popularity has changed over time (Asher &

McDonald, 2009). Psychologists initially operationalized popularity in terms of sociometric nominations (Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). This was typically accomplished by summing the number of positive acceptance nominations (who do you like?) or by subtracting the number of negative rejection nominations (who do you dislike?) from the number of positive acceptance nominations a child received.

Subsequent research found that there was only minimal overlap between the group of sociometrically “popular” children and those whom classmates nominated as popular (Asher & McDonald, 2009). During middle school and into high school the salient characteristics of popular adolescents changed from likeability to social dominance and visibility using this criterion. Popular adolescents are still liked, but not universally so. When children are asked “who is popular?” some of those nominated are sociometrically popular, but many others are controversial (i.e., high positive nominations and high negative nominations). It turns out that being liked is not the same thing as being popular. Some popular peers are described as stuck up, hostile, and not well liked (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). As a consequence, the operationalization of popularity changed. Researchers now assess popularity on the basis of reputation, derived from nominations in response to the question “who is popular?”. When popularity is measured by “popular” nominations, it is a reflection of social visibility, group centrality, and social status (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Affiliation and liking are no longer central to contemporary assessments of popularity.

Current assessments of popularity suggest that popular youth are socially dominant (Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002). Dominant youth demonstrate social

competence through positive behaviors, such as prosociality and agreeableness, as well as through negative behaviors, such as aggression (Hawley, 2002). From the perspective of resource control, socially competent individuals possess the social tools required to control resources (Hawley, 1999). Regardless of the dominance strategy employed, members of the social group flock to those who are socially competent and socially successful (Hawley 2002). The dominance of popular children ensures that they are visible and central in the group. The dominance displayed by popular children can have a positive effect on the group, decreasing disruptive behaviors like bullying (Perkins,

Craig, & Perkins, 2011). Dominance can also have a negative effect on the group, increasing problem behaviors like alcohol abuse (Teunissen, Spijkerman, Prinstein,

Cohen, Engels, & Scholte, 2012) and aggression (Peters, Cillessen, Riksen-Walraven, &

Haselager, 2010).

Socially competent youth practice different strategies to achieve and maintain dominance. Some achieve dominance through aggression. Indeed, successful aggression is the one of the strongest predictors of popularity and social dominance in young children (Pellegrini et al., 2007). The ability to manipulate others via physical or emotional threats can help one move up the group’s hierarchy and maintain one’s

position within it. In fact, children who prefer social hierarchies as opposed to inter-group equality are more likely to use aggression to maintain popularity (Mayeux, 2014). The variables are inextricably linked: higher levels of aggression predict increasing popularity

over time and higher levels of popularity predicts increases in aggression over time

(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Thus, children use aggression to gain popularity and

popular children use aggression to maintain popularity.

Other popular and socially dominant youth use prosocial behavior as a means to control resources. This may seem counterintuitive because prosociality, by definition, involves selfless behavior. Nevertheless, some prosocial children use cooperative behavior in order to obtain self-motivated outcomes (i.e. to control resources). How does this work? Prosocial behavior is an effective strategy for forming alliances and building trust and affection. Put simply, prosocial behavior can be a strategic means for dominating others (Hawley, 2003). By making friendly requests, promising reciprocation, cooperating with competitors, and forming alliances, popular children can secure social dominance and gain access to social resources.

Forms of Popularity

In this section I will review research on two distinct groups of popular children

(Cillessen & Rose, 2005): those who are coercive and those who are cooperative. These different forms of popularity are theorized to employ different strategies to secure and maintain social status. Coercive children use physical and relational aggression to maintain dominant status. Cooperative children use prosocial behavior to maintain dominant status.

Popular and aggressive. In some studies, popular children who use aggression to enforce social dominance are referred to as “tough” children (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, &

Van Acker, 2000). Tough popular children are often boys, who are described as cool, athletic and antisocial. Tough children may gain popularity by being antisocial and aggressive (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), but more frequently they use aggression to maintain social dominance. Associations between aggression and popularity grow over time as popular children increasingly rely on aggression to stay on top of the social order.

Both physical aggression and relational aggression can be used to maintain social

dominance. Younger children tend to rely on physical aggression, but by late adolescence

relational aggression is a better predicator of popularity (Rose, Swenson, & Waller,

2004). This is particularly true for girls, who use relatively little physical aggression to

maintain dominance.

Popular and prosocial. Prosocial-popular adolescents are sometimes described as “model” adolescents (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). These adolescents are labeled “model,” because they maintain social dominance by endorsing and enforcing academic and social behaviors that are sanctioned by adults. Peers describe prosocial- popular adolescents as cool, athletic, cooperative, studious, and outgoing. Prosocial- popular adolescents are not characterized by their use of aggression or antisocial behavior to assert dominance (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Instead, prosocial-popular adolescents exhibit traits that are endorsed by adults and valued in school.

Prosocial-popular adolescents have also been described as prosocial “controllers”

(Hawley, 2003). Examples of prosocial controlling behaviors include: influencing others by doing favors, explaining why something is a good idea, and being really nice when making requests. Prosocial controlling strategies help popular adolescents assert dominance and gain access to limited resources through socially acceptable means.

Furthermore, prosocial strategies may be more effective at maintaining control over limited resources than coercive strategies, particularly in settings where there is adult supervision (Charlesworth, 1996).

Distinguishing Popularity from Acceptance.

As noted above, popularity and acceptance are considered distinct constructs,

with different operational definitions. Acceptance is a measure of liking. It reflects the

sum of all incoming positive sociometric nominations that a child receives (Coie, Dodge

& Coppotelli, 1982). Acceptance is usually measured by “who do you like?” but

sometimes it is measured by “who are your friends?” or “who do you prefer to play

with?” (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989). Popularity and acceptance are empirically distinct,

with correlations that tend to range from 0.59 to 0.67 (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto &

McKay, 2006; de Bruyn, Cillessen & Wissink, 2009; Lease, Kennedy & Axelrod, 2002).

In general, the older the sample the lower the correlation between acceptance and

popularity.

The strategies popular adolescents use to attain and maintain social dominance are

not appreciated by everyone in the peer group (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006). Aggressive-

popular adolescents are well accepted because they exhibit desirable traits such as

attractiveness, humor, and athleticism (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006), which differentiate

them from aggressive rejected adolescents. Aggressive popular adolescents are also

rejected by many peers, presumably by those who are on the receiving end of the

aggressive behavior and by those who are not close enough to the popular child to receive

the benefits of affiliating with a high status member of the group (Farmer, Estell, Bishop,

O’Neal & Cairns, 2003).

Prosocial-popular adolescents are generally high on social acceptance (Hawley,

2003). But it is important to note that high acceptance and prosocial-popularity are not equivalent. High accepted adolescents use prosocial behavior to create positive interactions, whereas popular adolescents use prosocial behavior to elevate their own

status (Aikins & Litwack, 2011). The use of prosocial behavior in the service of social

status can diminish the child’s overall likability in the wider peer group. Studies indicate

that prosocial-popular adolescents have higher levels of acceptance than aggressive-

popular adolescents (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006). However, prosocial-popular

adolescents are not universally liked. As with their aggressive-popular counterparts, many prosocial-popular adolescents can be controversial, receiving many liked

nominations and disliked nominations (Estell, Farmer, Pearl, Van Acker, & Rodkin,

2008).

Differential Attraction and Affiliation

Differences in acceptance between different types of popular adolescents imply

that different members of the peer group are attracted to and affiliate with them. That is,

those who are attracted to and affiliate with prosocial-popular adolescents have different

characteristics than those who are attracted to and affiliate with aggressive-popular

adolescents. Socially dominant adolescents use varied strategies to gain favor from

individuals and groups of individuals (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2006). The

degree to which agemates find these strategies attractive should depend on the

characteristics of the children from whom the socially dominant draw favor.

Popular children undoubtedly receive many liking and affiliations nominations

from members of his or her own clique or group of friends. After all, adolescents spend

much of their leisure time with friends (Larson & Richards, 1991). It is also possible,

however, that popular children receive liking and affiliation nominations from agemates

who fall with the same broad social crowd. Social crowds describe individuals who share

the same label (e.g. jocks, nerds) but who are not necessarily members of the same

friendship group (Brown, 1990). One study described adolescents as falling into one of two social crowds: jocks or burnouts (Eckert, 1989). Within each category, there were socially visible and socially dominant adolescents that might be described as popular.

Popular jocks served as exemplars of studious behaviors and integration into adult society. Popular burnouts served as exemplars of defiant behaviors and opposition to conventional adult society.

In the same way a politician panders to constituents, popular adolescents may appeal to certain members of their social network, especially those in the same social group or social crowd. Consistent with this notion, one study found that aggressive- popular adolescents were more likely to be nominated as “cool” by aggressive peers, whereas non-aggressive-popular adolescents were more frequently nominated as “cool” by non-aggressive peers (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2006).

Who affiliates with aggressive-popular adolescents? Adolescents who are aggressive and popular attract the attention of agemates who avoid environments with adult supervision. Popular-aggressive adolescents tend to belong to crowds that are more oriented toward youth culture than toward adult culture (Brown, 1990). An orientation toward youth culture implies an oppositional mentality and a distance from adult supervision and expectations. Strategies of manipulation, aggression and rule-breaking adopted by aggressive-popular adolescents would not be successful in an adult- supervised environment. Research describes aggressive adolescents as “tough” individuals who maintain dominance using physical and relational aggression, so it seems reasonable to assume that aggressive-popular adolescents model these forms of aggressive behavior to classmates, and are held in high esteem by those who value this

type of behavior. Popular burnouts (Eckert, 1989), likely implement aggressive strategies

as a tool to maintain dominance in an environment that emphasizes noncompliance and

perhaps antisocial behavior.

School Orientation. Success, or the lack thereof, in school can be a sorting

mechanism for adolescent friendships (Crosnoe, 2002). Furthermore, adolescents change friendship groups as academic performance changes (Flashman, 2012). School is an adult-oriented environment. Popular aggressive adolescents are not oriented toward adult

sanctioned activities, which implies that that they are unlikely to embrace the culture of

school and the values emphasized in school. Those attracted to popular-aggressive

leaders are likely to be similarly alienated. In the present study I will use school

exhaustion and school detachment as measures of school alienation. School exhaustion, is

a feel of strain or fatigue resulting from taxing school work (Salmela-Aro, Kiuru,

Leskinen & Nurmi, 2009). School detachment, is a strong sense of disengagement from

school (Libbey, 2004). Low levels of school attachment imply low feelings of belonging

to school and ads liking for school itself.

Aggressive-popular adolescents do not like school and they are not good students

(Troop-Gordon, Visconti, & Kuntz, 2010). The same is true for those who follow them.

Research has shown that individuals in cliques lead by aggressive-popular leaders have elevated rates of dropping out of school (Farmer et al., 2003). Chronic school exhaustion

decreases enjoyment derived from school work and an increased disdain toward those

who enjoy school. One study found that adolescents who are high in school exhaustion

tend to dislike adolescents who do well in school (Laursen et al., 2010). It is reasonable

to assume that aggressive-popular adolescents shift focus away from academic efforts

and towards youth culture activities because they suffer from school burnout and school

exhaustion.

If disenchantment with school defines youth who are attracted to aggressive-

popular leaders, then school involvement may conversely indicate youth who are unlikely

to be attracted to aggressive-popular leaders. Social control theories (Gottfredson &

Hirschi, 1990) argue that the strong bonds with societal institutions, such as school, provide a buffer against unconventional behaviors. So, individuals with strong bonds to school are not likely to associate with aggressive-popular adolescents who may be high in

unconventional behaviors such as delinquency. According to theories of crowd

membership (Brown, 1990), those high in school attachment should have a strong

orientation to adult culture. Accordingly, those attached to school are likely to follow

leaders in groups of individuals who do well in school. Adolescents who are attached to

school are not likely to report that they like aggressive-popular adolescents, because there

would be too much discrepancy in their social values. Aggressive-popular adolescents are

unlikely to be academically competent (Troop-Gordon, Visconti, & Kuntz, 2010) and so

are unlikely to be well liked by those who are attached to school.

Peer relations. By definition, popular-aggressive adolescents bypass traditional

means of friend and affiliate formation and focus on manipulation and social dominance.

Strategies of social manipulation and dominance result in problems in peer relationships.

In the current study, I will assess connection to peers and social withdrawal as indicators

of peer relationships. Connection refers to positive social bonds with people and

institutions (Bowers et al., 2010), connection to peers refers to positive bonds with peers.

Withdrawal refers to a preference to be alone and away from peers (Rubin, Coplan &

Bowker, 2009).

Adolescents connected to peers have positive relationships with agemates that

provide social support and security. Aggressive individuals typically have low quality

friendships (Cillessen, Lu Jiang, West, Laszkowski, 2005), even when they are popular

(Rose, Swenson & Carlson, 2004). In contrast, adolescents high in connection to peers have high quality friendships. These adolescents do not affiliate with aggressive classmates because it would be a downgrade in peer relationship quality. Also, adolescents connected with peers have the positive social interactions and are unlikely to respond well to manipulation from aggressive-popular adolescents.

Some children with peer troubles should actively avoid aggressive popular youth, particularly those who are anxious and withdrawn. Exclusionary behavior is one of the tools that relationally aggressive-popular adolescents use to maintain social status.

Adolescents who are anxious and withdrawn are often excluded from the peer group

(Gazelle & Ladd, 2003). This exclusion is typically instigated by popular-aggressive leaders. As a consequence, those who feel excluded and bullied are unlikely to desire the company of aggressive-popular adolescents.

Who affiliates with prosocial-popular adolescents? Adolescents who are prosocial attract the attention of agemates who are inclined to participate in the conventional, adult oriented culture. Prosocial strategists may be popular because of their high levels of academic achievement, extracurricular achievement and/or social prowess.

As such, they serve as role models for achievement oriented peers (Rodkin, Farmer,

Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). Their strategies for leadership, alliance building, trust, and

affection are strategies that are endorsed by the adult oriented culture and appreciated by

peers who have similar approaches. Because prosocial-popular adolescents model

strategies acceptable in adult-oriented crowds and hold goals for success that epitomize

cooperation, it is likely that they attract others who share similar goals.

School orientation. School engagement, school attachment, and school success

are desired traits among those who embrace culture organized by adults. Involvement in

academics and school activities promotes integration into adult society. Adolescents who

are prosocial serve as models for adolescents who do well academically (Rodkin, Farmer,

Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). School attachment is an important attribute that defines

popular prosocial leaders. It is likely that other academically oriented school-attached

adolescents are attracted to prosocial-popular adolescents because they share similar goals.

Prosocial-popular adolescents are not exposed to members of certain crowds

because of their orientation towards adult culture and, by extension, school culture.

According to social control theories, a strong sense of connection to the school

community buffers against involvement with delinquent and alienated students, including

those exhausted with school (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Prosocial-popular

adolescents do not affiliate with adolescents who are exhausted with school and, as a

consequence, adolescents who disengage from school are likely to report affiliating with

prosocial-popular adolescents.

Peer relationships. Well-adjusted peers in positive relationships place a premium on affiliation with other well-adjusted peers who can offer supportive friendships (Hartl,

Laursen & Cillessen, 2015). A defining characteristic of the prosocial-popular adolescent

is the use of alliance formation and empathy to achieve personal goals (Bost, Vaughn,

Washington, Cielinski, & Bradbard, 1998). These strategies are effective for maintenance of high quality peer relationships. Because well-adjusted adolescents value prosociality in friendships (Cillessen, Lu Jiang, West & Laszkowski, 2010), prosocial-popular adolescents should be in high demand as relationship partners. It follows that prosocial adolescents and adolescents who are connected to peers, prefer to affiliate with prosocial- popular leaders.

Prosocial-popular adolescents use empathy to reach personal goals. As a result,

prosocial-popular leaders should be attractive to withdrawn adolescents, because the

former may come to the aid of the latter in social exclusion situations. The non-

threatening demeanor of prosocial-popular adolescents also may increase their

attractiveness to withdrawn adolescents. Withdrawn adolescents are likely to describe

friendships as a source of help (Schneider & Tessier, 2007). It follows that, withdrawn

adolescents should prefer to affiliate with prosocial-popular peers, as sources of social

support and as a defenders against exclusion by others.

Hypotheses

The present study was designed to address 3 research topics. The first topic

concerns the degree to which popularity is linked to friendship and affiliation. (1) Is the

likelihood that a child will be nominated as an affiliate a product of his or her

popularity? The second topic concerns whether links between popularity and friendship

vary for prosocial and aggressive youth. (2) Is the association between popularity and

affiliation preference moderated by the nominee’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors?

The third topic concerns the characteristics of those who are attracted to aggressive-

popular and prosocial-popular youth. (3a) Does the association between affiliation nominations and aggressive-popularity vary as a function of characteristics of nominators?(3b) Does the association between affiliation preference and prosocial- popularity vary as a function of the characteristics of nominators?

Is the likelihood that a child will be nominated as an affiliate a product of his or her popularity? As a first step in the analyses, I aim to replicate the well-established finding that popularity is modestly correlated with the receipt of friendship and affiliation nominations (Asher & McDonald, 2009). Specifically, I predicted that popularity increases the chances that an adolescent will be nominated as an affiliate by another adolescent.

Is the association between popularity and affiliation preference moderated by nominee’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors? Research has indicated that prosocial- popularity and aggressive-popularity are empirically distinct means of obtaining social dominance (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). As a second step in the analyses, I aim to replicate the established finding that there are two distinct types of popular adolescents: those whose popularity is derived from prosocial behaviors and those whose popularity is derived from aggressive behaviors. Specifically, I predicted that popularity increases the chances that an adolescent will be nominated as an affiliate by another adolescent, and that this association holds for popular-aggressive adolescents and for popular-prosocial adolescents.

Does the association between affiliation nominations and aggressive-popularity vary as a function of characteristics of nominators? Put another way, do different types of adolescents like different types of popular leaders? The chances that a child will

nominate a popular classmate as a friends should depend on the characteristics of the

nominator and the characteristics of the nominee. I hypothesize that aggressive-popular

adolescents should attract nominations from adolescents who value their youth-oriented characteristics. I predicted that adolescents high in school exhaustion will nominate

aggressive-popular adolescents as friends. Because aggressive-popular adolescents are

often controversial (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998), some adolescents should avoid them.

I also hypothesized that adolescents oriented to adult culture and those put off by the controversial aggressive-popular strategies should be less likely to nominate aggressive-

popular classmate as affiliates. Adolescents high in connection to peers, school

attachment, and withdrawal should be less likely to nominate aggressive-popular

adolescents as affiliates. (3b) Does the association between affiliation preference and

prosocial-popularity vary as a function of the characteristics of nominators? I

hypothesize that different types of adolescents will affiliate with prosocial-popular

adolescents than will affiliate with aggressive-popular adolescents. Prosocial-popular adolescents should attract nominations from classmates who value their adult-oriented characteristics. Accordingly, it is predicted that adolescents high in school attachment and connection to peers will nominate prosocial-popular adolescents as affiliates.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Participants were drawn from the ongoing Positive Youth Development study.

Students attended a single high school (grades 9-12) in the administrative region of Utena,

Lithuania. The schools served families with a broad range of income levels, most of whom were ethnic Lithuanians. The current study includes 450 (36.2% boys and 63.1% girls) students age 15-19 years (M=16.05, SD=.91) who completed peer nomination inventory items. Of those reporting on maternal education, 191 (42.4%) mothers had more than a college education, 136 (30.2%) had a college education, 35 (7.8%) had a professional or special secondary school education, 22 (4.9%) had a secondary school education, 4 (0.9%) had a professional education with secondary school, and 10 (2.2%) had basic education in grades 8-10.

Consistent with national and regional school policy, passive consent procedures were employed. Written consent was received from adolescents. During an introductory meeting, adolescents were informed about the purpose of the study and told that participation was voluntary. Parents were informed about the study by letter. Parents could contact the school or the investigators to withhold consent for participation.

Assessments took place February-April, 2014. Students in grades 10-12 from 5 high schools participated in the research. The present study concerns the only school in which peer nomination items were administered. In this school, 450 (36.2% boys and

63.1% girls) students from one school completed peer nomination inventory items at wave 2 of data collection. After initial contact with parents, 99.7% of students attending this school agreed to participate in the study. The data for this study were collected at wave 2, when the retention rate was 73.59%.

Before the assessments adolescents were reminded about the purpose of the study.

Confidentiality issues were discussed and students were reminded that participation was voluntary. Questionnaires were completed in school during regular class hours.

Questionnaires were administered by the researchers and several trained research assistants at the schools. Students absent on the day of written data collection were contacted by the research assistants and completed questionnaires next week individually.

Instruments

Popularity. Adolescents completed a peer nomination inventory (LaFontana &

Cillessen, 2002) that assessed popularity (“Thinking of everyone in your grade, who is most popular”). Participants could nominate one same-sex or other-sex peer, but self- nominations were not allowed. Popularity was calculated by summing all incoming popularity nominations and standardizing the score within each grade.

Friendship Nominations. Adolescents identified up to 8 important peers, defined as “someone you talk with, hang out with, and do things with” (Laursen, Hafen, Kerr, &

Stattin, 2012). Each was labeled friend, romantic partner, or sibling. Important peers could be older or younger, boys or girls. Friendships nominations included important peer nominations labeled by participants as friends. Because peer nomination inventory items were restricted to same-grade nominations, the current study limited friendship nominations to those made within the same grade.

Prosocial Behavior. Adolescents completed the Positive Youth Development

Inventory (Lerner et al., 2005), which included a 9 item caring behavior subscale (see

Appendix A). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (very true).

Item scores were averaged. Internal reliability was good (alpha = .85).

Aggressive Behavior. Adolescents completed an abbreviated version of the

Youth Self-Report (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), which included 17 items that

measured aggression. The current study concerns 5 items (see Appendix B) that assess

interpersonal aggression (Hoglund & Hosan, 2013). Items were rated on a scale ranging

from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true). Item scores were averaged. Internal reliability was

adequate (alpha = .65).

Connection to peers. Adolescents completed the Positive Youth Development

Inventory (Lerner et al., 2005), which consisted of subscales that address youth civic and

community engagement. Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 5

(very true). The present study included a 4 item subscale describing emotional connection

to peers (see Appendix C). Item scores were averaged. Internal reliability was good

(alpha = .87).

Withdrawal/depressiveness. Adolescents completed an abbreviated version of the Youth Self-Report (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) which included of an 8 item subscale of withdrawal/depression (see Appendix D). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true). Item scores were averaged. Internal reliability was adequate (alpha = .78).

School Attachment. Adolescents completed a measure of school attachment (Hill

& Werner, 2006). The measure included 5 items describing school attachment (see

Appendix E). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (NO!) to 5 (YES!). Item scores

were averaged. Internal reliability was adequate (alpha = .87)

School Exhaustion. Adolescents completed the School Burnout Inventory

(Slamela-Aro, 2009), which included a 4 item subscale describing exhaustion at schoolwork (see Appendix F). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). Item scores were averaged. Internal reliability was adequate (alpha = .70).

PLAN OF ANALYSES

An average of 0.007% (range=0.002% to 0.02%) of the data were missing on study variables. Little’s MCAR test indicated data were missing completely at random,

χ2(72, N=450)=82.82, p>.05. Multiple imputation techniques were applied to missing values.

Hierarchical generalized logistic linear models (HGLLM) with HLM 7

(Raudenbush, Byrk, & Congdon, 2008) described the extent to which popularity predicts the likelihood of receiving a friendship nomination. This model was chosen because it allows simultaneous investigation of popular adolescents and the adolescents who follow them. That is, the model determines the characteristics of adolescents that result in a friendship nomination while simultaneously determining how the characteristics of a nominator moderate this relationship. All individual were included in the analyses as both nominators and nominees. The “nominator” refers to the individual making a friend nomination. The “nominee” refers to the individual receiving a friend nomination. The analyses also described the degree to which a nominator’s school exhaustion, school attachment, connection to peers, and withdrawal are differentially linked to friendship with different types of popular adolescents.

The main analyses examined whether different adolescents are attracted to different types of popular classmates. These analyses test the hypothesis that nominator characteristics (connection to peers, anxiety/withdrawal, school attachment and school

exhaustion) predict the association between a nominee’s characteristics (prosocial-

popularity and aggressive-popularity) and the receipt of a friendship nomination.

Two forms of popularity were assessed: aggressive-popular, and prosocial-popular.

Residual scores were used to calculate prosocial-popularity and aggressive-popularity

interaction terms. Residual scores were used to remove excessive multicollinearity in

models. Creating a residualized interaction term to describe prosocial-popular and

aggressive-popular adolescents allowed investigation of what is unique about the two subtypes above and beyond their popularity. To calculate the residualized prosocial-

popularity score, popularity was regressed on prosocial behavior and prosocial behavior

was regressed on popularity; the resulting residuals were multiplied together to calculate

prosocial-popularity. To calculate the residualized aggressive-popularity score, popularity

was regressed on aggression and aggression was regressed on popularity; the resulting

residuals were multiplied together to calculate aggressive-popularity.

The Level 1 file included each nominator paired with each potential nominee

within the school, on a separate line of data that described the popularity characteristics

of the nominee (aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular) and whether the nominee received a friend nomination from the nominator. The Level 2 file described the characteristics of the nominators (connection to peers, school attachment, school exhaustion, and withdrawal) on a separate line of data for each individual. Demographic control variables (gender and grade) were included in the Level 2 file. All models were conducted using population-average Bernoulli outcomes with robust standard errors and

Laplace approximations See appendix A for model equations.

Is the likelihood that a child will be nominated as an affiliate a product of his or her popularity? A Level 1 random effects model determined the association between the

receipt of friend nominations and the Level 1 nominee popularity. The intercept

represented the log-odds of receiving a friendship nomination for a person with average

scores on popularity.

Is the association between popularity and affiliation preference moderated by the

nominee’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors? Separate Level 1 random effects models determined the association between the receipt of friend nominations and the Level 1 nominee popularity. One model included nominee prosocial behavior and nominee

prosocial-popularity. A separate model included nominee aggressive behavior and

nominee aggressive-popularity. Analyses determined if the association between

popularity and the receipt of friendship nominations were moderated by nominee

prosocial behavior and nominee aggressive behavior.

Does the association between affiliation preference and aggressive-popularity

vary as a function of the characteristics of nominators? Separate Level 2 models

explored whether the characteristics of the nominator (connection to peers, school

attachment, school exhaustion, and withdrawal) predict the Level 1 association between

nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee.

A follow-up chi-square analysis identified aggressive popular youth in order to

illustrate the characteristics of adolescents who nominated them as friends. To this end, nominees were divided into 3 groups on aggressive-popularity (high aggressive-popular,

0.5 SD above the mean; average aggressive-popular, between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD

below the mean; and low aggressive-popular, 0.5 SD below the mean). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on school attachment (high school attachment, 0.5 SD above the mean; average school attachment, between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the mean;

and low school attachment, 0.5 SD below the mean). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on school exhaustion (high school exhaustion, 0.5 SD above the mean; average school exhaustion, between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the mean; and low school

exhaustion, 0.5 SD below the mean). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on

withdrawal based on clinical cutoff scores (Achenbach, 1991) (clinically withdrawn, t- scores 70 or above; borderline withdrawal, t-scores between 67 and 70; not withdrawn, t- scores less than 67). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on connection to peers (high connection to peers, 0.5 SD above the mean; average connection to peers between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the mean; and low connection to peers, 0.5 SD below the mean).

Adjusted residuals identified friendship combinations that occurred at levels greater and less than chance. These analyses illustrate the proportion of friendship nominations directed at aggressive-popular. For example, those exhausted with school are predicted to be friends with aggressive-popular adolescents at greater than chance levels. Analyses

will determine if those who are exhausted with school are friends with those high

aggressive-popular more than expected.

A second set of chi-square analyses illustrated the proportion of dyads involving

aggressive-popular adolescent nonfriends, in order to illustrate the characteristics of

classmates who did not nominate them as friends. Adjusted residuals identified friendship

combinations that occurred at levels greater and less than chance. These analyses

illustrate the proportion of friendship nominations that were not directed at aggressive-

popular adolescents. For example, withdrawn adolescents were predicted to not nominate

aggressive-popular adolescents at levels greater than chance. Analyses will determine if

high withdrawal adolescents have a greater than chance likelihood of not nominating high

aggressive-popular adolescents.

Does the association between affiliation preference and prosocial-popularity vary

as a function of the characteristics of nominators? Separate Level 2 models explored

whether the characteristics of the nominator (connection to peers, school attachment,

school exhaustion, and withdrawal) predicted the Level 1 association between nominee

prosocial-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee.

A follow-up chi-squared analysis identified aggressive popular youth in order to

illustrate the characteristics of adolescents who nominated them as friends. To this end,

nominees were divided into 3 groups on prosocial-popularity (high prosocial-popular, 0.5

SD above the mean; average prosocial-popular, between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below

the mean; and low prosocial-popular, 0.5 SD below the mean). Nominators were divided

into 3 groups on school attachment (high school attachment, 0.5 SD above the mean;

average school attachment, between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the mean; and low

school attachment, 0.5 SD below the mean). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on school exhaustion (high school exhaustion, 0.5 SD above the mean; average school exhaustion, between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the mean; and low school exhaustion, 0.5 SD below the mean). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on withdrawal based on clinical cutoff scores (Achenbach, 1991) (clinically withdrawn, t- scores 70 or above; borderline withdrawal, t-scores between 67 and 70; not withdrawn, t- scores less than 67). Nominators were divided into 3 groups on connection to peers (high connection to peers, 0.5 SD above the mean; average connection to peers between 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the mean; and low connection to peers, 0.5 SD below the mean).

Adjusted residuals identified friendship combinations that occurred at levels greater and less than chance. These analyses illustrate the proportion of friendship nominations directed at prosocial-popular. For example, those attached to school are predicted to be friends with prosocial-popular adolescents at greater than chance levels. Analyses will determine if those who are attached to school are friends with those high prosocial- popular more than expected.

A second set of chi-square analyses illustrated the proportion of dyads involving prosocial-popular adolescent nonfriends, in order to illustrate the characteristics of classmates who did not nominate them as friends. Adjusted residuals identified friendship combinations that occurred at levels greater and less than chance. These analyses illustrate the proportion of friendship nominations that were not directed at prosocial- popular adolescents. For example, withdrawn adolescents were predicted to not nominate prosocial-popular adolescents at levels greater than chance. Analyses will determine if high withdrawal adolescents have a greater than chance likelihood of not nominating high prosocial-popular adolescents.

Follow-up analyses tested for gender and grade in school interactions in each

HGLLM model. Interaction terms were created using each Level 2 nominator characteristic. That is, for both prosocial-popular and aggressive-popular models interaction terms were created by multiplying each control variable (gender and grade in school) with each nominator characteristic (connection to peers, school attachment, school exhaustion, and withdrawal).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analysis

Intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. Popularity was negatively and statistically significantly associated with withdrawal. Aggression was positively and statistically significantly associated with withdrawal, and negatively and statistically significantly associated with prosocial behavior, connection with peers, and school attachment. Prosocial behavior was positively and statistically significantly associated with connection with peers and school attachment, and negatively and statistically significantly associated with withdrawal.

Describing Aggressive-popular Adolescents and Those Who Like Them

Unconditional Model. An unconditional model determined the expected log- odds of a friendship nomination for a person with values of zero on predictors. The intercept was statistically significant (coefficient effect = -2.0526, SE = 0.0295, t = -

69.451, p < .001) indicating that the lack of a friendship nomination was more likely than receiving a friend nomination for someone with a value of zero on a predictor. The unconditional model indicates that friendship nominations were not randomly distributed.

Level 1 Model. The Level 1 random effects model determined whether nominee characteristics predicted nominator friendship with the nominee. Statistically significant findings emerged for the interaction between popularity and the receipt of a friendship nomination (coefficient effect = 0.1185, SE = .0040, t = 29.526, p < .001), the interaction between aggressive behavior and the receipt of a friendship nomination (coefficient effect

= 0.1170, SE = .0202, t = 5.795, p < .001), and the interaction between aggressive-

popularity and the receipt of a friendship nomination (coefficient effect = 0.0984, SE =

.0264, t = 3.719, p < .001). Increases in nominee popularity, nominee aggression, and

nominee aggression-popularity were associated with increases in the probability of

receiving a friend nomination from the nominator.

Level 2 Model. The Level 2 model determined whether nominator characteristics

predicted the Level 1 association between nominee characteristics and nominator

friendship with the nominee. The model included nominator connection to peers,

nominator school attachment, nominator school exhaustion, and nominator withdrawal as

Level 2 predictor variables. The dependent variable was the Level 1 slope association

between nominee aggressive-popularity and friendship with the nominee.

Table 2 presents Level 2 associations between Level 2 predictors and the Level 1

association between nominee aggressive-popularity and friendship with the nominee.

Statistically significant associations emerged for all Level 2 predictors.

Connection with peers. Nominator connection with peers predicted the Level 1 association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = -0.1001, SE = .0342, t = -2.928, p = .004). As the nominator’s connection with peers increased, the strength of the association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee decreased

(i.e., the nominator was less likely to select the nominee as a friend).

Two follow-up chi square analyses were conducted to describe the friend and non-friend relationships of aggressive-popular youth. The first focused on the proportion of friendship nominations directed toward aggressive-popular youth as a function of

nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator connection with peers. The second focused

on the proportion of friendship nominations that were not toward directed aggressive-

popular youth as a function of nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator connection

with peers. The first chi-square was not statistically significant (χ2=4.22, p=0.376)

indicating friendship nominations did not occur at levels greater than chance for different

levels of connection to peers. The second chi-squared was statistically significant

(χ2=12.18, p=0.02), indicating that the distribution of non-friend dyads was not random.

Non-friend dyads with a nominator who is low in connection to peers and a nominee who

is high in aggressive-popularity occurred greater than chance (AR=2.6).

Anxiety/withdrawal. Nominator anxiety/withdrawal predicted the Level 1

association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = -0.2379, SE = .0699, t = -3.401, p < .001). As the nominator’s anxiety/withdrawal increased, the strength of the association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee decreased

(i.e., the nominator was less likely to select the nominee as a friend).

The first chi-square was not statistically significant (χ2=4.29, p=0.367), indicating that

friendship nominations did not occur at levels greater than chance for different levels of

anxiety/withdrawal. The second chi-square was statistically significant (χ2=53.27, p<0.01), indicating the distribution of non-friend dyads was not random. Non-friend dyads with a nominator in the clinical withdrawal group and a nominee who is high in aggressive-popularity occurred greater than chance (AR=3.6). Non-friend dyads with a nominator in the non-clinical group and a nominee high in aggressive-popularity occurred less than chance (AR=-2.7).

School attachment. Nominator school attachment predicted the Level 1 association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = -0.0843, SE = .0367, t = -2.294, p = .022). As the nominator’s school attachment increased, the strength of the association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee decreased

(i.e., the nominator was less likely to select the nominee as a friend).

Two follow-up chi squared analyses were conducted to describe the friend and non-friend relationships of aggressive-popular youth. The first focused on the proportion of friendship nominations directed toward aggressive-popular youth as a function of nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator school attachment. The second focused on the proportion of friendship nominations that were not toward directed aggressive- popular youth as a function of nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator school attachment. The first chi-square was not statistically significant (χ2=4.80, p=0.308), indicating that friendship nominations did not occur at levels greater than chance for different levels of attachment to school. The second chi-squared was statistically significant (χ2=102.79, p<0.01), indicating that the proportion of non-friend dyads was not random. Non-friend dyads with a nominator who is high in school attachment and a

nominee who is high in aggressive-popularity occurred greater than chance (AR=4.6).

Non-friend dyads with a nominator who is low in school attachment and a nominee who

is high in aggressive-popularity occurred less than chance (AR=-9.6). Non-friend dyads with a nominator who is high in school attachment and a nominee who is low in aggressive-popularity occurred less than chance (AR=-3.4).

School Exhaustion. Nominator school exhaustion predicted the Level 1 association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = 0.0704, SE = 0.0221, t = 3.174, p = .002). As the nominator’s school exhaustion increased, the strength of the association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee increased (i.e., the nominator was increasing likely to select the nominee as a friend).

indicating that friendship nominations did not occur at levels greater than chance for

different levels of school exhaustion. The second chi-squared was statistically significant

(χ2=14.15, p=0.01), indicating that the distribution of non-friend dyads was not random.

Non-friend dyads with a nominator who is high in school exhaustion and a nominee who is high in aggressive-popularity occurred less than chance (AR=-4.2). Non-friend dyads

with a nominator who is low in school exhaustion and a nominee who is high in

aggressive-popularity occurred greater than chance (AR=2.2). Non-friend dyads with a

nominator who is low in school exhaustion and a nominee who is low in aggressive- popularity occurred less than chance (AR=-2.1).

Gender and Grade in School Interactions. Additional models tested control variable interactions. Separate interaction terms with each control variable (gender and grade in school) multiplied with each nominator characteristic (connection to peers, school attachment, school exhaustion, and withdrawal) were added at Level 2. Nominator school exhaustion by gender predicted the Level 1 association between nominee aggressive-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = -

0.1157, SE = .0511, t = -2.266, p = .024). School exhaustion females were increasingly less likely to select the nominee as a friend on the basis of nominee aggressive- popularity. All other interaction terms were non-significant.

Describing Prosocial-popular Adolescents and Those Who Like Them

67.283, p < .001) indicating that the lack of a friendship nomination was more likely than receiving a friend nomination for someone with a value of zero on a predictor. The unconditional model indicates that friendship nominations were not randomly distributed.

nomination (coefficient effect = 0.1076, SE = 0.0039, t = 27.172, p < .001), the

interaction between prosocial behavior and the receipt of a friendship nomination

(coefficient effect = 0.0553, SE = 0.0139, t = 3.977, p < .001), and the interaction

between prosocial-popularity and the receipt of a friendship nomination (coefficient

effect = 0.0618, SE = 0.0109, t = 5.635, p < 0.001). Increases in nominee popularity,

nominee prosocial behavior, and nominee prosocial-popularity were associated with

increases in the probability of receiving a friend nomination from the nominator.

Level 2 Model. The Level 2 model determined whether nominator characteristics

predicted the Level 1 association between nominee characteristics and nominator

friendship with the nominee. The model included nominator connection to peers,

nominator school attachment, nominator school exhaustion, and nominator withdrawal as

Level 2 predictors. The dependent variable was the Level 1 slope association between

nominee prosocial-popularity and friendship with the nominee.

Table 3 presents Level 2 associations between Level 2 predictors and the Level 1

association between nominee prosocial-popularity and friendship with the nominee.

Statistically significant associations emerged for the Level 2 predictors.

Connection with peers. Nominator connection with peers predicted the Level 1 association between nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = 0.0337, SE = 0.0150, t = 2.242, p = .025). As the nominator’s connection with peers increased, the strength of the association between nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee increased (i.e., the nominator was increasing likely to select the nominee as a friend).

Two follow-up chi squared analyses were conducted to describe the friend and

non-friend relationships of prosocial-popular youth. The first focused on the proportion

of friendship nominations directed toward prosocial-popular youth as a function of nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator connection with peers. The second focused

on the proportion of friendship nominations that were not toward directed prosocial-

popular youth as a function of nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator connection

with peers. The first chi-square was statistically significant (χ2=10.19, p=0.037),

indicating that friendship nominations occurred at levels greater than chance for different

levels of connection to peers. Friend dyads with a nominator who is high in connection to

peers adolescents nominated a nominee who is high in prosocial-popularity 1.39 times greater than chance (AR=2.5). The second chi-squared was not statistically significant

(χ2=1.51, p=0.83), indicating that non-friend dyads did not occur at levels greater than

chance for different levels of connection to peers.

School attachment. Nominator school attachment predicted the Level 1

association between nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator friendship with the

nominee (coefficient effect = 0.0371, SE = 0.0152, t = 2.426, p = .016). As the

nominator’s school attachment increased, the strength of the association between

nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee increased (i.e.,

the nominator was increasing likely to select the nominee as a friend).

Two follow-up chi squared analyses were conducted to describe the friend and

non-friend relationships of prosocial-popular youth. The first focused on the proportion

of friendship nominations directed toward prosocial-popular youth as a function of nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator school attachment. The second focused on

the proportion of friendship nominations that were not toward directed prosocial-popular

youth as a function of nominee prosocial-popularity and nominator school attachment.

The first chi-square was statistically significant (χ2=10.15, p=0.038), indicating that

friendship nominations occurred at levels greater than chance for different levels of

school attachment. Friend dyads with a nominator who is low school attachment and a nominator who is high in prosocial-popularity occurred less than chance (AR=-2.5). The

second chi-squared was not statistically significant (χ2=8.34, p=0.08), indicating that non-

friend nomination did not occur at levels greater than chance for different levels of school

attachment.

Gender and Grade in School Interactions. Additional models tested control

variable interactions. Separate interaction terms with each control variable (gender and

grade in school) multiplied with each nominator characteristic (connection to peers,

school attachment, school exhaustion, and withdrawal) were added at Level 2. Nominator

withdrawal by gender predicted the Level 1 association between nominee prosocial-

popularity and nominator friendship with the nominee (coefficient effect = 0.2169, SE =

.0615, t = 3.525, p < .01). Withdrawn females were increasingly likely to select the

nominee as a friend on the basis of nominee prosocial-popularity. All other interaction terms were non-significant.

DISSCUSSION

The present study addressed 3 research questions: (1) Is the likelihood that a child

will be nominated as an affiliate a product of his or her popularity? (2) Is the association

between popularity and affiliation preference moderated by the nominee’s prosocial and

aggressive behaviors? (3a) Does the association between affiliation nominations and

aggressive-popularity vary as a function of characteristics of nominators? (3b) Does the association between affiliation preference and prosocial-popularity vary as a function of

the characteristics of nominators? Each will be discussed in turn. To address these questions I used hierarchical generalized logistic linear models (HGLLM) to overcome problems with nonindependent data. All students who could potentially nominate one another as a friend were included in the analyses. Unlike other similar strategies, the analytic strategy described herein allowed me to model the characteristics of the nominators and the nominees in the same model.

The findings replicate and extend knowledge of how popular children affiliate

with and lead adolescent crowds. Previous studies have shown that popular children are

well liked by some but not by others (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Taken with findings

demonstrating that popular children strategically use cooperation or manipulation to

influence others (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), the current study extends knowledge about the

types of peer groups in which cooperation or manipulation strategies may be most

effective. Previous research has demonstrated that adolescent crowds vary across a

continuum, from those that are oriented to adult culture to those that are oriented to

youth culture (Brown, 2004). The current study suggests that popular children

gain favor from affiliates with a similar orientation.

Is the likelihood that a child will be nominated as an affiliate a product of his or her

popularity?

Consistent with results from several different studies, I found that popular

children are preferred affiliates. Although they are well liked, popular children are also

controversial (Estell et al., 2008). That is, popular children are both visible and central in

the peer group, but they are disliked by many outside of the peer group (Parkhurst &

Hopmeyer, 1998). The present study goes beyond correlating acceptance and popularity,

linking popularity to the receipt of an affiliation nomination. The results indicated that the

chances of a child receiving an affiliate nomination increased as a function of his or her

popularity. The two approaches yield a complementary picture of the overlap between popularity and affiliation. But in many respects, the strategy I employed yields a clearer, easier to understand metric. Instead of describing associations between individual

characteristics (i.e. number of popularity nominations received and number of affiliation

nominations received). The strategy I adopted makes clear the degree to which an

affiliation nomination is tied to characteristics of the person receiving the nomination.

Is the association between popularity and affiliation preference moderated by the

nominee’s prosocial and aggressive behaviors?

The social dominance strategies adopted by leaders varies from one peer group to

the next. In peer groups high in an orientation to adults, prosocial strategies of dominance

are expected (Charlesworth, 1996). In peer groups oriented to youth culture, aggressive

strategies of dominance are acceptable (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). I sought to

build support for the notion that peer group leaders utilize different dominance strategies

by first differentiating between different forms of popularity. To this end, I examined

whether prosocial-popularity and aggressive-popularity are both associated with the receipt of an affiliation nomination. I assumed that popular children are leaders (Rodkin,

Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000) and that the different forms of popularity (i.e.,

aggressive or prosocial) represent different forms of leadership.

Both prosocial-popularity and aggressive-popularity were positively associated with receipt of a friendship nomination, which suggests that each form of popularity is effective for gaining and maintaining social ties. These affiliation nominations were assumed to come from the social group to which the nominee belonged, although social groups were not identified in the present study so this assumption could not be verified.

Note that aggressive-popularity and prosocial-popularity were uniquely associated with receipt of a nomination, above and beyond the main effect of popularity, which suggests that social dominance strategies help explain the attraction that children have for popular leaders.

Prosocial-popular children attract affiliation because they use prosocial behavior to gain friends (Aikins & Litwack, 2011). While prosocial behavior is a means of dominance, (Hawley, 2003) it still involves maintaining ties, establishing relationships and building affection. While prosocial behavior was associated with the receipt of an affiliation nomination, prosocial-popularity was uniquely associated with the receipt of an affiliation nomination. Thus, prosocial-popular do not receive affiliation nominations just because of their kindness. Prosocial-popular youth know how to use prosocial behavior and social centrality to gain affection.

Aggressive-popular adolescents attract affiliation because they are “tough”

socially visible members of an adolescent peer group (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van

Acker, 2000). Aggressive-popular adolescents are unique in that aggressive behaviors

are usually not well accepted and are often a symptom of rejection (Laird et al., 2001).

Aggression may be most effective in the maintenance of social status rather than the

acquisition of social status (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Aggressive-popular youth likely attract affiliation because of their “cool,” characteristics rather than the way they maintain popularity.

Does the association between affiliation nominations and aggressive-popularity vary as a function of characteristics of nominators?

Aggressive-popular children are liked by certain members of the peer group, but not others, because their strategies of social dominance have a particular attraction.

Consistent with my hypothesis I found that aggressive strategies of dominance appeal to individuals with oppositional attributes. To this end, I first considered whether the likelihood that an adolescent would nominate an aggressive-popular child as a friend differed as a function of the nominee’s school orientation and peer relationships. The predictor variables were the same for the aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular models, so that patters of attraction could be compared across different forms of popularity.

Adolescents with characteristics that included an orientation to youth culture reported high levels of affiliation with aggressive-popular adolescents. Thus, exhaustion with school was associated with affiliation with aggressive-popular adolescents. In contrast, adolescents with characteristics that included an orientation to adult culture

reported low levels of affiliation with aggressive-popular adolescents. Thus, attachment

to school, and connection to peers was associated with low levels of affiliation with

aggressive-popular adolescents. High levels of withdrawal were also associated with low

levels of affiliation with aggressive popular adolescents.

School orientation. The results support the assertion that aggressive-popular children appeal to those who feel alienated from school (Eckert, 1989). We know that

aggressive-popular children socialize their friends in ways that promote school burnout

(Kiuri et al., 2008). Thus, a child may join a group that shares on orientation to peer

values, and may later adopt an attitude of burnout under the influence of an aggressive-

popular leader. Leaders of these social groups encourage others to cut class, neglect

homework and focus on youth culture, emphasizing popular music, partying, and drug

use (Oetting & Beauvais, 1987). There is evidence that leaders of youth oriented crowds

use physical and relational aggression to enforce the social norms of their social groups

(Allen et al., 2005). Adolescents follow aggressive-popular leaders because of similar norms, and are then further socialized on those norms.

Popular aggressive adolescents tend to do poorly in school. This may be why other students steer clear of aggressive-popular adolescents. Children with high levels of school attachment have strong social connections to teachers and other adult figures and have enthusiasm towards the school culture (Hill & Werner, 2006). Adolescents attached

to school are involved in school activities and committed to performing well, adolescents

who value school and who do well in school form cohesive social groups. They affiliate

with one another and tend to avoid those who belittle school achievement (Dornbusch,

Erickson, Laird, & Wong, 2001). Adolescents attracted to school are unlikely to find a

popular-aggressive adolescents attractive, are unlikely to follow their lead, and unlikely to nominate them as affiliates.

Peer relationships. Aggressive youth have poorer quality friendships than non- aggressive youth (Cillessen, Jiang, West, & Laszkowski, 2005). Aggressive-popular adolescents overtly manipulate their friends and affiliates (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, &

Kaukiainen, 1992). Adolescents with strong connections to peers are adolescents who feel a sense of security and support from friends. I predicted that, friends of aggressive-

popular adolescents would be unlikely to describe their friendships affiliations in these

terms. The results were consistent with this hypothesis. Adolescents with strong connections to peers steer clear of groups dominated by aggressive popular adolescents, perhaps because members of these peer groups make poor friends.

Withdrawal was also inversely associated with affiliation with an aggressive-

popular adolescent. Aggressive-popular children use exclusionary behavior to assert

dominance (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003). Withdrawn children are easy targets for exclusion, due to social deficits, such as anxiety, reticence, or poor social skills. Maybe withdrawn children have a utilitarian approach to friendship, describing friends as sources of help

(Schneider & Tessier, 2007). Aggressive-popular adolescents may more inclined to bully

withdrawn children then assist them. As a consequence, it is unlikely that withdrawn children will put themselves in harm’s way by affiliating with potential tormentors.

Aggressive-popular adolescents are a cause rather than a solution to a withdrawn child’s social issues.

Does the association between affiliation nominations and prosocial-popularity vary

as a function of characteristics of nominators?

Prosocial strategies of social dominance appeal to individuals in adult oriented peer groups. Prosocial-popular children are liked by certain members of the peer group, particularly those who share similar values and behaviors. Thus, adolescents with characteristics that suggest that they embrace adult culture reported high levels of

affiliation with prosocial-popular adolescents. Thus, attachment to school and connection

to peers was associated with affiliation with prosocial-popular adolescents. In contrast, adolescents with characteristics that indicated an orientation to the peer culture reported low levels of affiliation with prosocial-popular adolescents. Thus, school exhaustion was inversely associated with affiliation with prosocial-popular adolescents.

School orientation. Prosocial-popular adolescents are well-liked by those who are attracted to school. Prosocial-popular adolescents serve as models of adult culture, and one way they do this is by serving as an exemplar of a successful, engaged student

(Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). Engagement can take the form of academic or extracurricular success. Thus, prosocial-popular leaders have higher levels of extracurricular participation than other children and better school grades (Farmer et al.,

2003). School success, in turn leads to social favor from peers when it is combined with other attributes that contribute to popularity. Prosocial-popular adolescents and adolescents attached to school are playing the same game, using the same rules, in the same adult-supervised environment.

I expected, but did not find, an inverse association between school exhaustion and affiliation nominations for prosocial-popular adolescents. The findings are somewhat surprising given the positive association between school exhaustion and affiliation with aggressive-popular adolescents. In particular, school exhaustion is a defining feature of

youth oriented peer groups, but the absence of school exhaustion does not define adult

oriented peer groups. It may be that influence occurs at high levels of school exhaustion,

whereby one child who is burned out influences another, but a similar pattern does not

occur at low levels of school exhaustion.

Peer relationships. The results support the assertion that prosocial-popular adolescent participate in positive, supportive relationships (Hartl, Laursen & Cillessen,

2015). Prosocial behavior is a behavior closely related to friendship quality for adolescents (Berndt, 2002). The goals may not be entirely altruistic. Prosocial-popular adolescents may well use supportive relationships as a form of social currency. In the hands of popular youth, prosocial behavior can become a means of controlling others and monopolizing resources (Hawley, 2003). Others may even be aware of this exchange.

Often as not, however, the manipulation probably goes undetected. Prosocial strategies deployed in a peer group wherein members feel connected to one another are apt to be interpreted beneficently.

I expected, but did not find, that withdrawn children would be inclined to affiliate with prosocial-popular children, but it may be that withdrawn children do not participate in social groups determined by popular children. Evidence suggests that withdrawn children have smaller friendship networks than other children (Ladd et al., 2011). Indeed, many withdrawn children do not participate in social groups at all, but instead prefer dyads or triads (Burgess et al., 2006). These settings are typically not dominated by a popular child, but are instead likely to involve other shy or withdrawn children

(Kupersmidt, DeRosier, & Patterson, 1995).

Future Research Directions

Forms of aggression. There may be subtypes of aggressive-popular adolescents

and these subtypes may be differentially attractive. Distinctions exist between children who are relationally and physically aggressive (Crick, Ostrove & Werner, 2006), between

children who use reactive and proactive aggression (Vitaro & Brendgen, 2005), and

between children who rely on indirect and direct aggression (Björkqvist, Lagerspetsz &

Kauklainen, 1992). I expect future scholars will identify a range of different peer groups

who can be described as oppositional in orientation. These groups may have somewhat

different leaders.

Take relational versus physical aggression as an example. Popular children who

are aggressive make use of both physical and relational aggression. In adolescence,

relational aggression is more associated with popularity than physical aggression

(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Relational aggression is a useful tool used to gain and keep

popularity. Understanding how physical aggression is useful to popular adolescents is

less clear, because relational aggression is often associated with social skills whereas

physical aggression is associated with the lack of social skills (Andreou, 2006). Physical

aggression seems to benefit social status only when used in specific contexts. For

example, provoked physical aggression is positively correlated with social status whereas

unprovoked is not (Lesser, 1959). For example, a popular adolescent who uses aggression

to defend him or herself from other forms of aggression will likely draw favor.

Bistrategic popular. Some scholars have argued for the existence of a group of

popular children who use both prosocial and aggressive social dominance strategies

(Hawley, 2003). Popular children who use both prosocial and aggressive strategies to

maintain social dominance are sometimes described as “Machiavellian” or “bistrategic”

(Hawley, 2003). Bi-strategic popular children are socially adept and socially accepted.

They switch between aggressive and prosocial strategies, favoring the one best suited to

the situation. Bistrategic popular children may acquire social dominance by challenging other popular children, rather than aggressing toward rejected peers like an aggressive popular child (Peets & Hodges, 2014). Bistrategic popular children also gain social dominance by directing prosocial behavior towards lower status peers. In this way, bistrategic popular children may gain social favor from both adult oriented and youth oriented groups. In this way, bistrategic children may serve as “liaisons,” between different peer groups, securing affection and influence from each (Ennet & Bauman,

1994).

Other bistrategic popular children may implement bistrategic strategies within the same social group. For example, adult oriented crowds often disapprove of aggressive behavior. Bistrategic popular children may successfully use aggression by making it appear reactive. Bistrategic children may also recognize when adult supervised aggression is acceptable. For example, an adolescent could be school oriented and use prosocial behavior in the classroom where it is acceptable, and aggression at football practice. Bistrategic youth may also apply prosocial influence strategies to members within their own social group and aggressive influence strategies to members in other social groups. Future studies could determine the characteristics in which bistrategic youth apply aggressive and prosocial behaviors.

Does friendship lead to influence? The modern definition of popularity implies social dominance, visibility and manipulation. The present study found that different types of popular adolescents have different types of friends. What is not clear is whether

these different types of popular children exert influence over friends in all domains or in

a normal range of domains. This could be done by using dyadic influence analyses to determine who influences whom. Do prosocial-popular adolescents only influence their peers on group normative behavior such as math performance and extra-curricular participation or does this influence also transfer to oppositional behaviors such as binge drinking?

Implications for parents, teachers and practitioners

The current study advances our understanding of the social dynamics of popular adolescents and their peer groups. Information about popular children and whom they draw favor from is useful for parents, teachers and practitioners because it sheds light on affiliation and influence. Research has shown that within friendships, friends who are the most socially visible are the most influential (Laursen, Hafen, Kerr, & Stattin, 2012). The present study indicates the specific types of peers popular children are most likely to influence.

Research has shown that adolescents seek out the friendship of popular children in order to gain social status for themselves (Dijkstra, Cillessen, & Borch, 2013). By understanding who a child finds popular, we can also understand what type of behaviors they find attractive. If a child thinks a prosocial-popular child is popular, the child wants a stronger connection with school. If a child thinks an aggressive-popular child is popular, the child wants more counter-culture credibility. We know that popularity reinforces participation in group activities (Allen et al., 2005). Children with high levels of popularity engage in felt-typical behaviors of the group. These behaviors can be inferred from the attributes of those who affiliate with the popular child. It is important

for parents to understand that popular children and the supporters of popular children are

most susceptible to the felt-normative behaviors of their respective groups.

The results are also valuable for teachers because they provide insight into classroom dynamics. Prosocial-popular students do well in school, but the current results tell us who looks up to prosocial-popular adolescents and who is apt to be influenced by them about school normative behaviors. If teachers can draw on participation from prosocial-popular students, a teacher can expect participation from adolescents attracted to that individual. Also, if teachers can find activities that are appealing to aggressive- popular adolescents, then teachers might be able to expect participation from adolescents attracted to that individual. Rousing enthusiasm from aggressive-popular adolescents may be difficult, but it holds the promise of reaching adolescents who are otherwise burned out on school.

The current study also contains valuable knowledge for practitioners about at-risk adolescents. Aggressive-popular adolescents actively influence their friends on truancy

(Farmer et al., 2003), drinking (Laursen, Hafen, Kerr, & Stattin, 2012), and smoking

(Alexander, Piazza, Mekos, & Valente, 2001). The current results demonstrate that those exhausted with school work are particularly susceptible to problem behaviors through their association with aggressive-popular friends. Additionally, intervention studies have shown that altering group norms can be and effective tool in changing the behavior of adolescents (Hansen & Grahm, 1991). The current study is informative for practitioners because it demonstrates both those who establish norms and those who adhere to them. If one wants to reach those attached to school this might be best done through prosocial-

popular adolescents. If one wants to reach those exhausted with school this might be best done through aggressive-popular adolescents.

Limitations

No study is without limitations, and the current study is no exception. One limitation concerns the way popularity was constructed. In the present study, participants were allowed to make one popular same-grade nomination. Although some of the earliest assessments of popularity were limited to one same-grade nomination (Holland &

Leinhardt, 1973), more recent assessments permit three nominations (Rose, Swenson, &

Waller, 2004), or even unlimited nominations (Gormmans & Cillessen, 2015). When limiting nominations to one per child, the measure of popularity is more skewed than it would be when additional are possible, there is also less variability. Unlimited nominations increase the number of adolescents with intermediate scores on popularity. It is possible that this would lead to stronger Level 1 associations because if more adolescents had non-zero scores on popularity, there would be more affiliate nominations for popular children. Stronger Level 1 associations would result in a stronger potential to explain Level 1 effects with Level 2 moderators. In sum, the current study may be a conservative estimate of moderated associations.

Second, with most regression type analyses, HGLLM analyses included, there are always concerns of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity occurs when multiple predictors are correlated and inclusion in the same model can reduce the predictive power of an individual predictor. The current study employed a model building strategy that involved inclusion of Level 2 effects and subsequent trimming of non-significant terms. Whenever this strategy is implemented, the chance of type 2 error (not finding a real result) is

inflated. It is possible that more Level 2 associations could be identified with a different

analytic strategy. For example, the current study did not find any Level 2 associations

where adolescents reported less liking for prosocial-popular adolescents. This may have

happened because of predictors high in multicollinearity.

Finally, the data come from a single high school in Lithuania. Generalization of

effects to different contexts may not be appropriate. The sample is quite homogeneous in terms of SES and ethnicity. Although this limits generalizability in some ways, it may also strengthen some results in other ways. When studying adolescent liking and affiliation, there are many potential confounds that are difficult to capture. For example,

adolescents are more likely to befriend members of the same sex (Maccoby, 1999) and

same ethnicity (Kao & Joyner, 2005). A homogeneous sample limits any confounding effects of perceived class, or cultural biases on adolescent liking for one another.

Additionally, because the results were from one school at one time point, information about the stability of the findings, cohort effects, or changes over time are unavailable. Because I could not test for cohort effects, the generalizability of results are diminished. Also, because the analyses were conducted on one time point, causality cannot be inferred. Concurrent data only allows determination of correlation. In this case,

I would need to assess data at multiple time points to determine the cause of associations.

That is, without information about how adolescents affiliated with one another in a previous time point, it is indeterminable if popularity truly predicts affiliation.

Furthermore, if analyses captured change over time, I would be able to causally determine if popular strategies predict increases in affiliation from different types of peers.

Summary

Previous studies have identified two forms of popular youth: prosocial-popular

and aggressive-popular youth (Cillessen and Rose, 2005; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van

Acker, 2000). The present study is the first to determine who are the comrades and

supporters of these two types of popular adolescents. Prosocial-popular and aggressive-

popular adolescents have more acceptance and affiliations than others, but this attraction

comes from different sources. Prosocial-popular leaders are followed by adolescents who

share their same connection to friends and school. Aggressive-popular leaders are followed by adolescents who share a distaste for school and adult supervised activities. In a way, this makes perfectly good sense. We know that opposites do not attract when it comes to friendship. Instead, birds of a feather flock together. This study makes clear that popular leaders are not universally popular, but rather popular with a specific group of like-minded individuals.

APPENDICIES

Appendix A

Caring

1. I don‘t feel sorry for other people when they are having problems 2. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want to help them 3. It bothers me when bad things happen to good people 4. It bothers me when bad things happen to any people 5. When I see someone being trated unfairly, I don‘t feel sorry for them 6. I feel sorry for other people who don‘t have what I have 7. When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for them 8. It makes me sad to see a person who doesn‘t have friends 9. When I see another person who is hurt or upset, I feel sorry for them

Response Format 1. Not true at all 2. Not true 3. Neither true, nor untrue 4. True 5. Very true

Appendix B

Interpersonal aggression

1. I get in many fights 2. I tease others a lot 3. I physically attack people 4. I threaten to hurt people 5. I am mean to others

Response Format 1. Not true 2. Somewhat or sometimes true 3. Very true or often true

Appendix C

Connection to peers

1. I trust my friends 2. I feel my friends are good friends 3. My friends care about me 4. My friends are there when I need them

Response Format 1. Never true 2. Seldom true 3. Sometimes true 4. Often true 5. Always true

Appendix D

Withdrawal/depression

1. There is very little that I enjoy 2. I would rather be alone than with others 3. I refuse to talk 4. I am secretive or keep things to myself 5. I am too shy or timid 6. I don‘t have much energy 7. I am unhappy, sad, or depressed 8. I keep from getting involved with others

Response Format 1. Not true 2. Somewhat or sometimes true 3. Very true or often true

Appendix E

School attachment

1. I am proud to be at this school 2. Most mornings I look forward to going to school 3. I feel safe in my school 4. I am happy to be at this school 5. I like my school

Response Format 1. NO! 2. No 3. Maybe 4. Yes 5. YES!

Appendix F

School exhaustion

1. I feel overwhelmed by schoolwork 2. I often sleep badly because of matters related to my schoolwork 3. I brood over matters related to my schoolwork a lot during my free time 4. The pressure of my schoolwork causes me problems in my close relationships with others

Response Format 1. Completely disagree 2. Disagree 3. Partly disagree 4. Partly agree 5. Agree 6. Completely agree

Appendix G

Prosocial-popular Model

Unconditional Model

Nominator Liking of Nominee = β0 (intercept) + r

Level 1 Model

Association between Nominee Characteristics and Nominator Liking for Nominee

= β0 (intercept) + β1 (Nominee Popularity) + β2 (Nominee Prosocial Behavior) +

β3 (Nominee Prosocial-popularity) + β4 (Nominee Gender) + r

Level 2 model

Level 1

Association between Nominee Characteristics and Nominator Liking for Nominee

= β0 (intercept) + β1 (Nominee Popularity) + β2 (Nominee Prosocial Behavior) +

β3 (Nominee Prosocial-popularity) + β4 (Nominee Gender) + r

Level 2

β0 = γ00 + μ0

β1 = γ10 (Popularity) + μ1

β2 = γ20 (Prosocial Behavior) + μ2

β3 = γ30 (Nominee Prosocial-popularity) + γ31 (Nominator Gender) + γ32

(Nominator Grade) + γ33 (Connection to Peers) + γ34

(Withdrawal/Depressiveness of Nominator) + γ35 (School Attachment of

Nominator) + γ36 (School Exhaustion) + μ3

β4 = γ40 (Nominee Gender) + μ4

Aggressive-popular Model

Unconditional Model

Nominator Liking of Nominee = β0 (intercept) + r

Level 1 Model

Association between Nominee Characteristics and Nominator Liking for Nominee

= β0 (intercept) + β1 (Nominee Popularity) + β2 (Nominee Aggression) + β3

(Nominee Aggressive-popularity) + β4 (Nominee Gender) + r

Level 2 model

Level 1

Association between Nominee Characteristics and Nominator Liking for Nominee

= β0 (intercept) + β1 (Nominee Popularity) + β2 (Nominee Aggression) + β3

(Nominee Aggressive-popularity) + β4 (Nominee Gender) + r

Level 2

β0 = γ00 + μ0

β1 = γ10 (Popularity) + μ1

β2 = γ20 (Aggression) + μ2

β3 = γ30 (Nominee Aggressive-popularity) + γ31 (Nominator Gender) + γ32

(Nominator Grade) + γ33 (Connection to Peers) + γ34

(Withdrawal/Depressiveness of Nominator) + γ35 (School Attachment of

Nominator) + γ36 (School Exhaustion) + μ3

β4 = γ40 (Nominee Gender) + μ4

Table 1. Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 M (SD)

0.30 (1.25) 1. Popularity -

0.25 (0.26) 2. Aggression -.05 -

3.61 (0.46) 3. Prosocial Behavior .09 -.32** -

3.91 (0.71) 4. Connection to Peers .01 -.19** .28** -

61 3.22 (0.75) 5. Withdrawal -.09* .18** -.18** .32** -

- 0.44 (0.38) 6. School Attachment .02 -.24** .34** .30** -.29**

-.18** 3.60 (1.11) 7. School Exhaustion .08 -.01 .06 -.03 -.24**

Note: N=450. *p<.05, **p<.01, two-tailed.

Table 2. Aggressive-popular hierarchical generalized linear logistic model predicting nominator friendship with nominee.

Variable Effect SE t test

Level 1

Intercept -2.05** .03 -69.45 Popularity .12** .01 29.53 Aggression .12** .02 5.79 Aggression-Popularity .09** .03 3.72 Gender -.59** .02 -28.69 Level 2

Gender -.01 .05 -.19 Grade in School .01 .03 .38 Connection to Peers -.10** .03 -2.92 Withdrawal/Depression -.24** .07 -3.40 School Attachment -.08* .04 -2.29 School Exhaustion .07** .02 3.17

N=450. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01

Table 3. Prosocial-popular hierarchical generalized linear logistic model predicting nominator friendship with nominee.

Variable Effect SE t test

Level 1

Intercept -2.06** .03 -67.28 Popularity .11** .01 27.17 Prosocial Behavior .06** .01 3.97 Prosocial-Popularity .06** .01 5.63 Gender -.61** .02 -28.14 Level 2

Gender -.06** .02 -2.63 Grade in School -.04** .01 -2.79 Connection to Peers .03* .02 2.24 Withdrawal/depression .04 .03 1.37 School Attachment .04* .01 2.42 School Exhaustion -.01 .01 -1.06

N=450. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M. & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms &

Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

Aikins, J. W., & Litwack, S. D. (2011). Prosocial skills, social competence, and

popularity. Popularity in the Peer System. The Guilford Press, New York, 140-

162.

Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools, and

adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(1), 22-30.

Allen, J.P., Porter, M.R., McFarland, F.C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K.B. (2005). The

two faces of adolescents' success with peers: Adolescent popularity, social

adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Development, 76(3), 747-760.

Andreou, E. (2006). Social preference, perceived popularity and social intelligence

relations to overt and relational aggression. School Psychology

International, 27(3), 339-351.

Asher, S. R., & McDonald, K. L. (2009). The behavioral basis of acceptance, rejection,

and perceived popularity. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.),

Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 232–248). New

York: Guilford Press.

Berndt, T.J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current directions in

psychological science, 11(1), 7-10.

Berndt, T.J. & Bridgett, P.T. (1986). Adolescent’s perceptions of friendships as

supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 640-648.

Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys

fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect

aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18(2), 117-127.

Bost, K. K., Vaughn, B. E., Washington, W. N., Cielinski, K. L., & Bradbard, M. R.

(1998). Social competence, social support, and attachment: Demarcation of

construct domains, measurement, and paths of influence for preschool adolescents

attending Head Start. Adolescent development, 69(1), 192-218.0

Bowers, E.P., Li, Y., Kiely, M.K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J.V., & Lerner, R.M. (2010). The

five Cs model of positive you development: A longitudinal analysis of

confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of youth and

adolescence, 39(7), 720-735.

Bukowski, W.M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory,

measurement, and outcome. In Berndt, T.J. & Hoza, B. (Eds.), Peer Relationships in

Child Development (pp. 15-45). Oxford: England.

Burgess, K.B., Wojslawowicz, J.C., Rubin, K.H., Rose‐Krasnor, L., & Booth‐LaForce, C.

(2006). Social information processing and coping strategies of shy/withdrawn and

aggressive children: Does friendship matter?. Child development, 77(2), 371-383.

Charlesworth, W. R. (1996). Co-operation and competition: Contributions to an

evolutionary and developmental model. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 19(1), 25-38.

Cillessen, A.H.N., Jiang, X.L., West, T., & Laszkowski, D. (2005). Predictors of dyadic

friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 29(2), 165-172.

Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental

changes in the association between aggression and social status. Adolescent

development, 75(1), 147-163.

Cillessen, A.H.N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer

system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 102-105.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social

status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental psychology, 18(4), 557-570.

Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Werner, N. E. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational

aggression, physical aggression, and children's social–psychological

adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(2), 127-138.

Crosnoe, R. (2002). High school curriculum track and adolescent association with

delinquent friends. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(2), 143-167. de Bruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial

and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(6), 607-627. de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A.H.N., & Wissink, I. B. (2009). Associations of peer

acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early

adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(4), 543-566.

Dijkstra, J.K., Cillessen, A.H., & Borch, C. (2013). Popularity and adolescent friendship

networks: Selection and influence dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 49(7),

1242.

Dornbusch, S.M., Erickson, K.G., Laird, J., & Wong, C.A. (2001). The relation of family

and school attachment to adolescent deviance in diverse groups and

communities. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(4), 396-422.

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Ennett, S.T., & Bauman, K.E. (1994). The contribution of influence and selection to

adolescent peer group homogeneity: the case of adolescent cigarette

smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 653.

Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C.

(2008). Peer groups, popularity, and social preference trajectories of social

functioning among students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 5-14.

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(6), 992-

1004.

Flashman, J. (2012). Academic achievement and its impact on friend

dynamics. Sociology of Education, 85(1), 61-80.

Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis–

stress model of internalizing trajectories in adolescenthood. Adolescent

development, 74(1), 257-278.

Gommans, R. & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2015). Nominating under constraints: A systematic

comparison of unlimited and limited peer nomination methodologies in

elementary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 77-

86.

Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University

Press.

Hansen, W.B., & Graham, J.W. (1991). Preventing alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use

among adolescents: Peer pressure resistance training versus establishing

conservative norms. Preventive Medicine, 20(3), 414-430.

Hartl, A. C., Laursen, B., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2015). A survival analysis of adolescent

friendships: The downside of dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 26, 1304-

1315.

Hawley, P.H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based

evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19(1), 97-132.

Hawley, P.H. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource

control in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2),

167-176.

Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early

adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 279-309.

Hill, L.G., & Werner, N.E. (2006). Affiliative motivation, school attachment, and

aggression in school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2), 231-246.

Holland, P.W., & Leinhardt, S. (1973). The structural implications of measurement error

in sociometry. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3(1), 85-111.

Hundley, R.J. & Cohen, R. (1999). Adolescents’ relationships with classmates: A

comprehensive analysis of friendship nominations and liking. Adolescent Study

Journal, 29(4), 233-246.

Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends?. The

Sociological Quarterly, 45(3), 557-573.

Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Nurmi, J.E., Leskinen, E., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2008). Peer group

influence and selection in adolescents' school burnout: A longitudinal

study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54(1), 23-55.

Kupersmidt, J.B., DeRosier, M.E., & Patterson, C.P. (1995). Similarity as the basis for

children's friendships: The roles of sociometric status, aggressive and withdrawn

behavior, academic achievement and demographic characteristics. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 439-452.

Ladd, G.W., Kochenderfer‐Ladd, B., Eggum, N.D., Kochel, K.P., & McConnell, E.M.

(2011). Characterizing and Comparing the Friendships of Anxious‐Solitary and

Unsociable Preadolescents. Child development, 82(5), 1434-1453.

Laird, R.D., Jordan, K.Y., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (2001). Peer rejection

in childhood, involvement with antisocial peers in early adolescence, and the

development of externalizing behavior problems. Development and

Psychopathology, 13(02), 337-354.

Larson, R., & Richards, M.H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early

adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child development, 62(2), 284-

300.

Laursen, B., Bukowski, W. M., Nurmi, J.E., Marion, D., Salmela-Aro, K., & Kiuru, N.

(2010). Opposites detract: Middle school peer group antipathies. Journal of

experimental adolescent psychology, 106(4), 240-256.

Laursen, B., Hafen, C. A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2012). Friend influence over

adolescent problem behaviors as a function of relative peer acceptance: to be liked

is to be emulated. Journal of abnormal psychology, 121(1), 88-94.

Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Adolescents’ social constructions

of popularity. Social development, 11(1), 87-109.

Lease, A.M., Musgrove, K.T., & Axelrod, J.L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in

preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived popularity, and social

dominance. Social Development, 11(4), 508-533.

Lerner, R.M., Lerner, J.V., Almerigi, J.B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S.,

Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L.M., Bobek, D.L., Richman-

Raphael, D., Christiansen, E.D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth

development, participation in community youth development programs and

community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: findings from the first wave

of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early

Adolescence, 34(4), 17-71.

Lesser, G.S. (1959). The relationships between various forms of aggression and

popularity among lower-class children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(1),

20.

Libbey, H.P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding,

connectedness, and engagement. The Journal of school health, 74(7), 274.

Logis, H. A., Rodkin, P. C., Gest, S. D., & Ahn, H. J. (2013). Popularity as an organizing

factor of preadolescent friendship networks: Beyond prosocial and aggressive

behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(3), 413-423.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Harvard

University Press.

Maxey, E. J., & Ormsby, V. J. (1971). The Accuracy of Self-Report Information

Collected on the ACT Test Battery: High School Grades and Items of

Nonacademic Achievement. Research and Development Division, The American

College Testing Program. Iowa City, Iowa.

Mayeux, L. (2014). Understanding popularity and relational aggression in adolescence:

The role of social dominance orientation. Social Development, 23(3), 502-517.

Melfsen, S., & Florin, I. (2002). Do socially anxious adolescents show deficits in

classifying facial expressions of emotions?. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,

26(2), 109-126.

Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., & Hart, C. H. (2005). Relational and physical aggression

of preschool-age adolescents: Peer status linkages across informants. Early

Education & Development, 16(2), 115-140.

Oetting, E.R., & Beauvais, F. (1987). Peer cluster theory, socialization characteristics,

and adolescent drug use: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 34(2), 205.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived

popularity two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early

Adolescence, 18(2), 125-144.

Peets, K., & Hodges, E. V. (2014). Is popularity associated with aggression toward

socially preferred or marginalized targets?. Journal of experimental adolescent

psychology, 124, 112-123.

Pellegrini, A. D., Roseth, C. J., Mliner, S., Bohn, C. M., Van Ryzin, M., Vance, N.,

Cheatham, C.L. & Tarullo, A. (2007). Social dominance in preschool

classrooms. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(1), 54-64

Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms to reduce

bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle

schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1-20

Peters, E., Cillessen, A. H., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & Haselager, G. J. (2010). Best

friends’ preference and popularity: Associations with aggression and prosocial

behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(5), 398-405.

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. T. (2008). HLM Version 6.06.

Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of

popular boys: antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental

psychology, 36(1), 14-24.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Acker, R. V. (2006). They’re cool: Social

status and peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social

Development, 15(2), 175-204.

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(1), 25-45.

Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and

perceived popularity: developmental differences in concurrent and prospective

relations. Developmental psychology, 40(3), 378-387.

Rubin, K.H., Coplan, R.J., & Bowker, J.C. (2009). Social withdrawal in

childhood. Annual review of psychology, 60, 141.

Rubin, K.H., Wojslawowicz, J.C., Rose-Krasnor, L., Booth-LaForce, C., & Burgess, K.B.

(2006). The best friendships of shy/withdrawn adolescents: Prevalence, stability,

and relationship quality. Journal of abnormal adolescent psychology, 34(2), 139-

153.

Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J. E. (2009). School burnout

inventory (SBI) reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 25(1), 48-57.

Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct

implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 30(4), 305-314.

Schneider, B.H. (2009). An observational study of the interactions of socially

withdrawn/anxious early adolescents and their friends. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(7), 799-806.

Schneider, B.H., & Tessier, N.G. (2007). Close friendship as understood by socially

withdrawn, anxious early adolescents. Adolescent psychiatry and human

development, 38(4), 339-351.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & McKay, T. (2006). Popularity, social

acceptance, and aggression in adolescent peer groups: links with academic

performance and school attendance. Developmental psychology, 42(6), 1116-

1127.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social

hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer

influence. Developmental psychology, 43(6), 1531-1543.

Teunissen, H. A., Spijkerman, R., Prinstein, M. J., Cohen, G. L., Engels, R. C., &

Scholte, R. H. (2012). Adolescents’ Conformity to Their Peers’ Pro‐Alcohol and

Anti‐Alcohol Norms: The Power of Popularity. Alcoholism: Clinical and

Experimental Research, 36(7), 1257-1267.

Troop-Gordon, W., Visconti, K. J., & Kuntz, K. J. (2010). Perceived popularity during

early adolescence: Links to declining school adjustment among aggressive

youth. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 125-151.

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles

of sex and peer‐valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 396-408.

Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2005). Proactive and Reactive Aggression: A Developmental

Perspective. In Tremblay, R.E., Hartup, W.W., & Archer, J.

(Eds.), Developmental Origins of Aggression (pp. 178-201). New York: United

States.