University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

(USC Thesis Other)

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION i

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence
Serenita Kumar
Master’s Thesis 2013
University of Southern California

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Popularity .............................................................................................................................1
Routes to popularity .............................................................................................................1
Sharing the same peer group ................................................................................................2
Behavioral attributes ............................................................................................................3
The role of gender ................................................................................................................4
The present study .................................................................................................................4
Methods............................................................................................................................................5
Participants ...........................................................................................................................5
Recruitment ..........................................................................................................................6
Attrition and retention ..........................................................................................................6
Procedure .............................................................................................................................6
Measures ..............................................................................................................................7
Calculation of friendship indices .........................................................................................8
Results ..............................................................................................................................................9
Overview ..............................................................................................................................9
Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics .................................................................10
Cross-sectional associations at Time 1 & Time 2 ..............................................................11
Predicting T2 friendship subtypes from T1 popularity ......................................................12
Cross-sectional associations at Time 1 & Time 2, adjusted analyses ................................13
Predicting T2 friendship subtypes from T1 popularity, adjusted analyses ........................14
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................15
Overview ............................................................................................................................15
Study findings ....................................................................................................................15
The role of gender ..............................................................................................................16
Significance........................................................................................................................17
Limitations and future directions .......................................................................................19
References ......................................................................................................................................20
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION iii
List of Tables

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for all variables ............................................................25
Table 2: Bivariate Correlations for Popularity, Social Acceptance, Gender, and Friendship
Subtypes ..........................................................................................................................26
Table 3: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 1 .....27
Table 4: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 2 .....29
Table 5: Predicting friendship subtype at Time 2 from popularity at Time 1 ...............................31
Table 6: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 1,
adjusting for adolescents’ attributes ................................................................................33
Table 7: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 2,
adjusting for adolescents’ attributes ................................................................................35
Table 8: Predicting friendship subtype at Time 2 from popularity at Time 1, adjusting for
adolescents’ attributes .....................................................................................................37

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION iv
Abstract
This short-term longitudinal investigation among adolescent peer groups examined associations
between popularity and behavioral attributes of friends, with a particular focus on friends’
aggression, extracurricular involvement, and academic functioning and engagement. Participants
were 415 ninth graders (193 male and 222 female students; M = 14.68 years, SD = 0.56) from a
high school in Southern California. Data was collected across two consecutive school years on
participant’s levels of popularity, social acceptance, aggression, academic functioning, academic
engagement, and extracurricular engagement. We used a peer nomination inventory, friendship
and self-report measure, and school records. We found popularity was predictive of having
friends who were aggressive and performed poorly in school. Our findings did not, however,
provide clear evidence for associations between popularity and academic or extracurricular
engagement of friends. Taken together, our results highlight the importance of examining
friends’ attributes, especially in the context of potential socializing influences within the popular
crowd.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 1
Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence
Popularity
Developmental perspectives on adolescent peer relationships have previously
conceptualized high social status as synonymous with acceptance or liking by peers (Koch, 1933;
Voigt, 1933; Watson, 1927; Polansky, Lippitt, & Redl, 1950; Coleman, 1961; Dunnington,
1957). However, in recent years, there has been growing evidence in support of a multi-
dimensional perspective with distinctions between popularity and social acceptance (Parkhurst &
Hopmeyer, 1998; LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998; Mayeux, Houser, Dyches, 2011). Popularity is
an indicator of high social standing among peers (Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992). It is a
reputational construct involving power that symbolizes prestige, visibility, or high social status.
Partially different from popularity is social acceptance, which is an indicator of positive regard
by peers (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1999). Distinguishing between the dimensions of social status
is essential because popularity, unlike other dimensions of high standing, appears to be
associated with risk (Schwartz, et al., 2006; Mayeux & Sandstorm, 2008).
Routes to popularity
There are multiple pathways to attain popularity. One route is through aggressive
behaviors, such as impressive displays of physical force, manipulation, and intimidation,
particularly against youths who may be a threat (Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006; LaFontana &
Cilessen, 2002). Similarly, disruptive behaviors such as not paying attention in class, not
listening to the teacher, goofing off, and breaking rules portray a “cool” attitude toward school
that may further advance an adolescent’s status (Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006). Another route to high
status is through social skills. Positive attributes such as being nice and prosocial may arouse
feelings of overall likability, admiration, and peer acceptance (Mayeux et al., 2011). Popularity
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 2
could then be a combination of social skills and negative behavioral strategies including
aggressive and disruptive behaviors. Because there are multiple ways to attain popularity, cliques
and crowds that are organized around high status youths may be heterogeneous in composition.
Sharing the same peer group
Regardless of how an individual achieves high status, once this status is attained, popular
youths who have primarily positive characteristics are now exposed to youths who have both
positive and negative characteristics through their interactions within the same high status peer
group. In essence, the popular crowd becomes a mixed group that is comprised of youths with
both positive and negatives attributes.
Inclusion into a heterogeneous high status network implies that popular adolescents may
be exposed to a variety of positive and negative influences through the varying attributes of their
peer group (Moffitt, 1993). This availability of different influences is critical because according
to socialization theories, behaviors may be acquired through exposure, interaction, and imitation
of others’ behaviors (Khron, Massey, Skinner, Lauer, 1983; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-kaduce,
Radosevich, 1979). Frequent contact, shared activities, and interpersonal connectedness may
further strengthen socialization influences in schools (Chen, Chang, & He, 2003). Consistent
with these expectations are findings that individuals who stay close friends for a long time may
become more similar to one another (Kandel, 1978). However, friends are not always randomly
chosen. Researchers have postulated that an active selection process occurs when youths choose
to associate with peers with whom they share some common interests (Kindermann, 1993).
Through these associations youth are provided the opportunity for exposure to other behaviors as
well as the possibility of acquiring these new behaviors (Vitario, Brendgen, & Wanner, 2005).

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 3
Behavioral attributes
The present study focuses on four behavioral attributes of adolescents’ friends that are
frequently present in the mixed popular crowd: aggression, low academic functioning, academic
disengagement, and extracurricular engagement. Researchers have found that some popular
youths are characterized by negative attitudes toward school as well as low achievement levels
(Troop-Gordon, Visconti, & Kuntz, 2011; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005;
Wentzel, 1991). Some popular youth also possess strong leadership skills and abilities
(Waasdorp et al., 2012). Aggression in particular is associated with popularity because even after
attaining popularity, some adolescents may continue to engage in aggressive behaviors as a
means of “status maintenance” or “status defense” (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2008). From a
categorical perspective, studies conducted with cluster analysis techniques have consistently
identified behavioral subgroups of popular-aggressive youths who are characterized by negative
attitudes and poor achievement, as well as popular-prosocial youths who are less likely to exhibit
problematic academic adjustment (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000; Farmer, Estell,
Bishop, O’Neal, Cairns, 2003; Schwartz & Gorman, 2011).
These four attributes represent some of the most frequently discussed characteristics in
the extant literature. Our focus on extracurricular engagement taps into attitudes toward school
and leadership skills; academic engagement targets attitudes toward academics; academic
functioning assesses achievement levels; and aggression focuses on overtly and relationally
aggressive behaviors. Studies that link behavioral attributes with specific positive or negative
psychosocial outcomes highlight the importance of examining friends’ attributes, especially in
the context of potential socializing influences within the popular crowd.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 4
The role of gender
Gender differences in both display and perception of popularity have been reported
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), suggesting gender as a possible moderator in the relation between
popularity and friends’ attributes. Within the popular crowd, some boys have been identified
with a behavioral profile of being tough, athletic, and antisocial, whereas other boys were
identified as cooperative, athletic and non-aggressive (Rodkin et al., 2000). Yet, despite
adolescent boys’ own attributes, evidence suggests that both groups of boys had friends of high
status (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). This may suggest that regardless of popular boys’ own
positive or negative characteristics, they may have primarily popular friends and thus may be
exposed to the influence of mixed attributes within their larger peer network.
Gender differences have been most notably cited for aggression. The literature on gender
differences for school engagement and achievement related behaviors has been relatively limited.
Although we do not have a clearer picture of the role of gender, such findings raise questions
about the possibility of gender as a moderator between popularity and friendship attributes.
The present study
In sum, the importance of examining affiliations with friends of popular youth may be
prompted by three consistently supported but somewhat distinct findings: first, the popular
crowd consists of youth with mixed attributes; second, the type of friends an adolescent has can
have a variety of influences; and third, affiliation with friends of certain attributes can be an
important contributor to adolescent outcome. Thus, it may be noteworthy to examine the types of
friends popular youth have at a given point in time as well as whether popularity predicts
increases in friendships with youths characterized by certain positive or negative behavioral
attributes.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 5
Based on characteristics consistently cited as associated with popularity, the present study
focused on affiliations with four subtypes of friends of which three examined negative outcomes
and one a positive outcome. In terms of academic achievement, we examined affiliations with
friends who were academically disengaged and friends who were performing poorly in school. In
terms of social behaviors, we examined affiliations with friends who were aggressive and friends
who were engaged in extracurricular activities. We predicted that popularity would be associated
as well as predictive of affiliations with friends who were academically disengaged, performing
poorly in school, aggressive, and engaged in extracurricular activities. We expected these
affiliations to be consistent for both years as well as across the two years.
It is possible that adolescents may befriend certain peers based on shared interests. In
order to account for these effects, we controlled for adolescents’ attributes (aggression,
extracurricular engagement, academic disengagement, and academic functioning) as an
exploratory objective.
Findings on gender differences in popularity exist although they are somewhat mixed
(Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992; Mayeux & Sandstorm, 2008; Schwartz et al., 2006). We
considered the role of gender in both sets of analyses.
Methods
Participants
Participants were from a high school located in an ethnically diverse city of Eastern Los
Angeles County. A final sample of 415 students participated in both the first year (Time 1) and
second year (Time 2) of the project. There were 193 male students and 222 female students
(M= 14.68 years, SD = 0.56 at Time 1). The final sample consisted of 70% Hispanic American
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 6
participants, 6% European American, 4% Asian American, 3% African American, 13% of other
ethnic-racial descent, and 4% who did not report their background.
Recruitment
All eligible 9
th
grade students were invited to participate in the short-term two-year
longitudinal investigation. Students were considered eligible if they spoke fluent English, had
unimpaired hearing, and at the time of data collection were enrolled in Computers, Health, or
Study Skills classes. These courses were chosen because all 9
th
grade students are required to
take at least one of those classes each semester.
Attrition and retention
A total of 34 classrooms were available for student recruitment, from which 78% of
eligible 9
th
grade students returned parental permission slips. Both parental and child assent were
then obtained for 73% of these students for the two-year data collection. Twenty-eight students
were either absent or withdrew their assent on the day of data collection at Time 1. This resulted
in a final sample of 443 adolescents. In the second year of the project, 5% of the sample at Time
1 did not participate either because they withdrew their assent or because they were no longer
enrolled at the school, resulting in a final sample of 415 students.
Procedure
Participants completed a group-administered peer-nomination inventory. A trained
research assistant read aloud standardized instructions and questionnaire items. At the same time,
additional research assistants were on-hand to provide one-on-one assistance to students that had
questions or were experiencing difficulty.
Adolescents were provided with a list of all participating grademates (alphabetized by
first name) and asked to identify students who fit a series of descriptors. For each peer-
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 7
nomination item, students could nominate up to nine grademates. Although unlimited
nominations are widely used in research with adolescent samples (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux,
2004), a limited choice approach was used in order to simplify task demands and reduce
administration time and participant fatigue. Only an average of 8 percent of adolescents made the
maximum number of nominations; diverse assessment techniques typically yield similar findings
across the peer relations literature (Cillessen, 2009).
Measures
Peer nomination inventory. Participants were asked to identify up to nine students who fit
descriptors assessing popularity, social acceptance, aggression, and extracurricular engagement.
Scores were generated for each participant based on the mean total number of nominations
received for each descriptor, standardized within the list. Descriptors for the items were as
follows: popularity: “students who are popular;” social acceptance: “students that you really
like;” aggression: overt: “students that hit or push others,” “students that start fights with others”
and relational: “students that gossip about others,” “students that are mean to others by ignoring
or excluding them;” extracurricular engagement: activities: “students who participate in
activities/clubs at school, such as academic clubs, athletic teams, artistic activities, etc” and
leadership skills: “students who participate in student leadership or volunteer activities at school,
such as student government, fund-raising, etc.”
Academic engagement. A self-report measure consisting of twelve items tapped into
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in school. Sample items include: “I like to
study even when I don’t have a test”, “Grades are very important to me”, and “I feel bored with
most of my classes or subjects at school.” Each participant was assigned an academic
engagement score based on the Fredricks scale of academic engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld,
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 8
Friedel, & Paris, 2002). Scores were calculated by combining item scores and standardizing
them within the grade.
Academic functioning. After parental consent and student assent were obtained, the
school was contacted for the academic records of participating students. Grades were requested
for the entire year in Math, History, Science, and English. For each student, letter grades were
assigned a numerical score (“F” = 0, to “A” = 4) and then averaged across all four subjects to
formulate a grade point average (GPA).
Friendship. Participants completed a friendship inventory that was used to calculate the
number of close friends each participating student had in their grade. Participants were given a
copy of the 9
th
grade roster of participating students and asked to nominate up to 10 peers that
they considered ‘close friends’ and one whom they considered their ‘best friend.’ Adolescents
who reciprocally nominated one another were considered friends. In order to generate friendship
indices, the total number of friends was calculated using reciprocated ‘close friends’ and ‘best
friend’ nominations.
Calculation of friendship indices
Friends who are aggressive. Adolescents who have a standardized aggression score that
was one standard deviation above the grade mean were categorized as aggressive. For each
participant, determining friends who were aggressive was calculated with a proportion score
based on the total number of friends who were aggressive divided by the total number of
reciprocated friendships.
Friends who are engaged in extracurricular activities. Adolescents who have a
standardized extracurricular activity score that was one standard deviation above the grade mean
were categorized as engaged in extracurricular activities. For each participant, determining
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 9
friends who were engaged in extracurricular activities was calculated with a proportion score
based on the total number of friends who were engaged in extracurricular activities divided by
the total number of reciprocated friendships.
Friends who are academically disengaged. Adolescents who have a standardized
academic engagement score that was one standard deviation below the grade mean were
categorized as academically disengaged. For each participant, determining friends who were
academically disengaged was calculated with a proportion score based on the total number of
friends who were academically disengaged divided by the total number of reciprocated
friendships.
Friends of low academic functioning. Adolescents who have a standardized academic
functioning score that was one standard deviation below the grade mean were categorized as
academically low functioning. For each participant, determining friends who were of low
academic functioning was calculated with a proportion score based on the total number of friends
who were at a low level of academic functioning divided by the total number of reciprocated
friendships.
Results
Overview
The main hypotheses of this study examined certain friendship affiliations associated
with popularity at Time 1, Time 2, and over the two years. We focused on affiliations with
friends who were aggressive, engaged in extracurricular activities, disengaged from academics,
and at a low level of academic functioning. As an exploratory objective, we adjusted for
adolescents’ own behavioral attributes. Additionally, we examined gender as a moderator in our
analyses.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 10
As previously discussed, popularity and social acceptance are conceptualized as partially
distinct from one another (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998); however, there remains a consistently
reported correlation between these two dimensional constructs (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003;
LaFontana & Cillessen, 1999). Indeed, in the present study popularity and acceptance were
significantly correlated at both time points (correlations ranging from .45-.60, p < .05). This
moderate overlap suggests our constructs may not be fully independent from one another,
possibly affecting the interpretations of significant findings. In order to address this issue, all of
our analyses examine the effect of popularity with social acceptance controlled.
Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics
We first examined the distributions and bivariate relations among the constructs of this
study. Means and standard deviations for all variables discussed are presented in Table 1.
Distributions for all variables examined were skewed; in order to reduce the influence of extreme
values, log transformations were applied to all variables. Bivariate correlations among the
variables are presented in Table 2.
Popularity was positively correlated with social acceptance and having friends who were
aggressive, engaged in extracurricular activities, and of low academic functioning. Additionally,
having aggressive friends was positively correlated with having friends who were engaged in
extracurricular activities, disengaged from academics, and of low academic functioning. Having
friends who were engaged in extracurricular activities was negatively correlated with having
friends who were academically disengaged and of low academic functioning. Having friends
who were academically disengaged was positively correlated with having friends of low
academic functioning. Adolescents’ attributes were all significantly correlated with that of their
friends.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 11

Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 1 & Time 2
In our main set of analyses, we used hierarchical linear regression to examine whether
popularity was associated with having friends who were aggressive, engaged in extracurricular
activities, disengaged from academics, and at a low level of academic functioning at Time 1 and
separately at Time 2.
The model was specified in the following manner: the proportion score equivalent to the
number of subtype of friends at Time 1 was predicted by the main effects of T1 popularity, T1
acceptance and gender (entered on Step 1); the two-way interactions of T1 popularity by T1
acceptance, T1 popularity by gender, and T1 acceptance by gender (entered on Step 2). We
conducted this analysis for each of the four friendship subtypes examined (friends who are
aggressive, engaged in extracurricular activities, disengaged from academics, or at a low level of
academic functioning). For each model, the variables were entered simultaneously at each step,
and the steps were entered sequentially. Interaction terms were calculated based on mean
centered values, in accordance with Aiken and West (1991).
The results of these analyses are depicted in Table 3. Popularity at Time 1 was
significantly associated with having friends who were aggressive and friends who were at a low
level of academic functioning at Time 1.
We also used hierarchical linear regression analyses to examine the hypothesis that T2
popularity was associated with T2 friendship subtype, adjusting for T2 social acceptance and
gender. Separate models were specified for each friendship term (friends who were aggressive,
engaged in extracurricular activities, disengaged from academics, or at a low level of academic
functioning) in the same manner previously described. For each model, the variables were
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 12
entered simultaneously at each step, and the steps were entered sequentially. Interaction terms
were calculated based on mean centered values, in accordance with Aiken and West (1991).
The results of these analyses are depicted in Table 4. Popularity at Time 2 was
significantly associated with having friends who were aggressive at Time 2. Significant gender
interactions (popularity x gender) were detected for friends’ engagement in extracurricular
activities and disengagement from academics. The decomposition of these interactions revealed
that popularity was a significant predictor for having friends who were engaged in
extracurricular activities for boys (  = 0.268, p < .01) but not for girls (  = -0.039, ns).
Decomposing the significant gender interaction for friends’ academic disengagement revealed
that popularity was not a significant predictor for friends’ academic disengagement for boys
(  = 0.111, ns) or girls (  = -0.157, ns).
Predicting T2 friendship subtypes from T1 popularity
We again used hierarchical regression analyses to examine the hypotheses that popularity
at Time 1 would be predictive of having friends who were aggressive, engaged in extracurricular
activities, disengaged from academics, and at a low level of academic functioning at Time 2.
The model was specified in the following manner: the proportion score equivalent to the
number of aggressive friends at Time 2 was predicted by the main effects of T1 popularity, T1
acceptance and gender (entered on Step 1); the two-way interactions of T1 popularity by T1
acceptance, T1 popularity by gender, and T1 acceptance by gender (entered on Step 2). We
replicated this analysis for each friendship subtype. For each model, the variables were entered
simultaneously at each step, and the steps were entered sequentially. Interaction terms were
calculated based on mean centered values, in accordance with Aiken and West (1991).
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 13
The results of these analyses are depicted in Table 5. Popularity at Time 1 was
significantly predictive of having friends who were aggressive at Time 2. A significant gender
interaction was detected for friends’ engagement in extracurricular activities; however,
decomposition of this interaction was non-significant (boys:  = 0.172, ns; girls:  = -0.106, ns).
Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 1 & 2, after
adjusting for adolescents’ attributes
In an exploratory set of analyses, we adjusted for the possible effects of adolescents’ own
attributes. We re-examined whether popularity was associated with having friends who were
aggressive, engaged in extracurricular activities, academically disengaged, and academically
performing poorly at Time 1 and separately at Time 2.
The model was specified in the following manner: the proportion score equivalent to the
number of subtype of friends at Time 1 was predicted by the main effects of T1 popularity,
adjusting for T1 acceptance, gender, and adolescents’ (aggression, extracurricular engagement,
academic disengagement, academic functioning) score (entered on Step 1); the two-way
interactions of T1 popularity by T1 acceptance, T1 popularity by gender, and T1 acceptance by
gender (entered on Step 2). We conducted this analysis for each of the four friendship subtypes
examined (friends who are aggressive, engaged in extracurricular activities, disengaged from
academics, or at a low level of academic functioning), adjusting for adolescents’ own attribute
score (aggression, extracurricular engagement, academic disengagement, low academic
functioning), respectively. Variables were entered simultaneously at each step, and the steps
were entered sequentially. Interaction terms were calculated based on mean centered values, in
accordance with Aiken and West (1991). For our Time 2 analyses, we constructed our models in
the same manner.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 14
The results of Time 1 analyses are depicted in Table 6. The results of Time 2 analyses are
depicted in Table 7. After adjusting for adolescents’ own attributes, popularity was associated
with having friends engaged in extracurricular activities at Time 1, as well as friends who were
aggressive at Time 1 and Time 2. A significant gender interaction was detected for friends’
engagement in extracurricular activities, after adjusting for adolescents’ own extracurricular
engagement. However, decomposition of this finding led to non-significant results for boys
(  = 0.127, ns) and girls (  = -0.119, ns).
Predicting T2 friendship subtypes from T1 popularity, after adjusting for adolescents’ attributes
We again used hierarchical regression analyses to re-examine the hypotheses that
popularity at Time 1 would be predictive of having friends who were aggressive, engaged in
extracurricular activities, disengaged from academics, and at a low level of academic functioning
at Time 2, while adjusting for the influence of adolescents’ own attributes at Time 1.
The model was specified in the following manner: the proportion score equivalent to the
number of aggressive friends at Time 2 was predicted by the main effects of T1 popularity, T1
acceptance, gender, and adolescents’ attribute score (entered on Step 1); the two-way interactions
of T1 popularity by T1 acceptance, T1 popularity by gender, and T1 acceptance by gender
(entered on Step 2). We replicated this analysis for each friendship subtype, adjusting for
adolescents’ attribute respectively. Variables were entered simultaneously at each step, and the
steps were entered sequentially. Interaction terms were calculated based on mean centered
values, in accordance with Aiken and West (1991).
The results of these analyses are depicted in Table 8. After adjusting for adolescents’ own
attributes, popularity at Time 1 was predictive of having friends who were aggressive at Time 2.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 15
Discussion
Overview
The purpose of this study was to examine the dynamics of popularity by focusing on
affiliations with friends of certain behavioral characteristics. We specifically looked at
aggression, academics, and involvement in school-oriented activities. This project was based on
the theory that frequent exposure and interaction with peers in a crowd characterized by positive
and negative attributes may present a prime opportunity for negative social influence (Kron et
al., 1983; Akers et al., 1979; Vitario & Brendgen, 2005). As far as we are aware, the present
study is the first to examine the types of friends associated with popularity.
Study findings
Consistent with our hypotheses, we found associations between popularity and
friendships with aggressive peers. These findings held even when we accounted for youths’ own
levels of aggression. In line with our proposed theory, popularity may provide opportunities for
affiliation with disruptive peers.
We found a similar pattern in our findings regarding friends’ academic achievement.
Consistent with our hypotheses, we found popularity was predictive of affiliations with friends
who performed poorly in school. These associations may again suggest that popularity may
provide opportunities for affiliation with maladjusted peers.
Inconsistent with our hypotheses on academic disengagement, we did not find popularity
to be associated with having academically disengaged friends. There are a few possible
explanations. First, as concern with status becomes more salient, it is possible that popular youth
could still like school, but may prioritize it lower than before (Troop-Gordan et al., 2011). This
may result in decreases in academic achievement but non-significant decreases in academic
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 16
engagement. Second, academic engagement was assessed through a self-report measure; perhaps
measuring academic engagement differently might result in different findings. Third, popularity
could still be associated with having friends characterized by low levels of academic
engagement, but may only be the case for popular youth with certain attributes. As previously
noted, researchers have found popular-aggressive youth to be characterized by negative attitudes
toward school, but popular non-aggressive youth as less likely (Troop-Gordan et al., 2011;
Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000; Farmer, Estell, Bishop, O’Neal, Cairns, 2003;
Schwartz & Gorman, 2011). Perhaps this suggests that having academically disengaged friends
may be associated with popularity only for youth with certain attributes (for e.g., aggression)
rather than indiscriminatingly for youth of high status.
Inconsistent with our hypotheses on friends’ involvement in extracurricular activities,
popularity was not predictive of having friends engaged in extracurricular activities, although we
did find a positive correlation between popularity and friends’ extracurricular engagement. One
explanation for this mixed finding could stem from the possibility that having friends engaged in
extracurricular activities may be measuring adolescents’ prosociability, a skill more
characteristic of being well-liked than of having high status. This possibility is further supported
in our findings as social acceptance, not popularity, was a significant predictor for having
extracurricular engaged friends. In conjunction with our correlational findings, perhaps we can
conclude that popularity may not be the most important predictor for having friends engaged in
extracurricular activities.
The role of gender
We found popularity was a significant predictor for having friends engaged in
extracurricular activities for boys but not for girls. As mentioned earlier, behavioral subgroups of
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 17
popular adolescent boys have been identified such that some boys may portray more of a tough
image whereas other boys a more cooperative persona (Rodkin et al., 2000). Those popular boys
who are cooperative and well-liked may also be socially accepted, which may afford them
opportunities to affiliate with and befriend peers involved in school-oriented activities.
Given the relatively limited hypotheses in the literature on gender differences for school
related activities, we should be cautious in our interpretations. If our measure of extracurricular
engagement was indeed a proxy for assessing social acceptance, it is possible our findings may
not be suggesting popularity is a predictor for having extracurricular engaged friends for boys.
Perhaps we should instead conclude that gender may have a role in the prediction of friends’
extracurricular engagement, but the extent to which that role is substantial may remain unclear.
Although the extant literature has cited gender differences regarding aggressive
behaviors, we did not find gender differences for affiliation with aggressive friends. We also did
not find gender differences for friendship affiliations among friends’ academic achievement or
engagement. One possible explanation for not finding differences if they do in fact exist, could
be the limited power of these exploratory analyses. Our sample size was large enough to have
sufficient power for our regression analyses; however, when running analyses stratified by
gender, our power was drastically reduced and perhaps insufficient. Overall, it does not appear
that gender played a meaningful role in associations between popularity and friends’ attributes.
Significance
Our findings regarding affiliations with certain friends’ behavioral attributes may give us
some clues about the mechanisms that underlie associations between popularity and risk. Social
behavioral theorists have suggested that exposure to others in the peer group may be the ideal
environment for youths to learn maladaptive behaviors (Kron et al., 1983; Akers et al., 1979;
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 18
Vitario & Brendgen, 2005). Having friends who are maladjusted, for example academically
disengaged or aggressive, may be a negative influence for other youths in the peer group. In
these peer groups where academic achievement is not highly valued, negative attitudes and
behaviors toward school, such as disrupting the class or violating school rules, may lead to group
approval and encouragement of maladaptive behaviors (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest,
Gariepy, 1988; Chen, et al., 2008). Youths in these groups may also endorse disruptive, deviant,
or antisocial behaviors that can undermine other children’s learning in the group (Chen et al.,
2008). These maladaptive activities may then hinder the development of intrinsic achievement
motivation for adolescents and their friends (Kindermann, 1993). Indeed, a growing body of
research is uncovering that youths with friends who are maladjusted are also associated with
academic difficulties, academic failure, and social problems including peer aggression and
rejection (Wentzel & Asher, 1995). Researchers studying adolescent delinquency have also
found that exposure to maladjusted friends may increase problematic behaviors in youths
previously adequately adjusted or may further exacerbate problems in youths who are already
maladjusted (Vitario & Brendgen, 2005).
Consistent with these findings, research also suggests that positive interactions among
close friends can positively affect students’ motivation levels in school (Berndt & Keefe, 1995).
Youths engaged in school often earn higher grades, perform better on standardized tests, and
demonstrate better personal adjustment to school (Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990).
Prosocial behaviors and cooperative peer interaction styles are also associated with academic
achievement (Mayeux et al., 2011). Groups based on these positive norms are more likely to
engage in socially valued activities, such as doing homework and working on school projects
together (Chen, Chang, Liu, & He, 2008). This cooperative environment may facilitate mutual
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 19
support among group members to solve academic problems. If the behaviors and attributes of
friends can be an influential contributor to adolescent adjustment, it seems noteworthy to
examine friendship affiliations associated with popularity.
Limitations and future directions
As the literature on popularity expands, there remains relatively less research exploring
friendship affiliations among popular youth. The present study attempts to take a small step
toward bridging this gap. However, it is important to be aware of important limitations of this
study.
First, the correlational design of this approach prevents us from drawing causal
inferences. Second, although our study incorporates a short-term longitudinal design, it remains
unclear the extent to which popularity predicts having certain types of friends; for example, it
may instead be the case that having certain types of friends predicts popularity. Future research
could examine this reciprocal relation between popularity and friends’ attributes in a long-term
longitudinal study. Third, it is also possible that our measures of academic and extracurricular
engagement were inadequate for the conclusions we hoped to draw.
Lastly, the potential for social influence within a crowd consisting of mixed attributes
coupled with research documenting risk associated with popularity highlights the importance of
prevention and intervention strategies. Future researchers could explore the efficacy of existing
approaches and how to tailor these strategies to target the remaining gaps in treatment for at-risk
youth.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 20
References
Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles : Popularity among
elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169-187.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-kaduce, L., Radosevich, M., Review, A. S., & Aug, N.
(1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory.
American Sociological Review, 44, 636-655.
Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents' adjustment to school. Child
Development, 66, 1312-1329.
Brown, B.B., Clasen, D.R., & Eicher, S.A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity
dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents. Developmental Psychology,
22, 521-530.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J.-louis. (1988). Social
networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental
Psychology, 24, 815-823.
Chen, X., Chang, L., & He, Y. (2003). The peer group as a context : Mediating and moderating
effects on relations between academic achievement and social functioning in chinese
children. Child Development, 74, 710-727.
Chen, X., Chang, L., Liu, H., & He. (2008). Effects of the peer group on the development of
social functioning and academic achievement: A longitudinal study in chinese children.
Child Development, 79, 235-251.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 21
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental
changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child development, 75,
147-63.
Coie, J. D., Terry, R., Lenox, K., Lochman, J. E., & Hyman, C. (1995). Childhood peer rejection
and aggression as predictors of stable patterns of adolescent disorder. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 697-713.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Mcclaskey, C. L., Brown, M. M., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Social
competence in children. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 51,
1-85.
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, J. L., O’Neal, K. K., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Rejected
bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural african
american early adolescents. Developmental psychology, 39, 992-1004.
de Bruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, a. H. N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and
antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 607-627.
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Leung, M.-C., Trott, H., Bishop, J., & Cairns, B. D. (2003).
Individual characteristics, early adolescent peer affiliations, and school dropout: An
examination of aggressive and popular group types. Journal of School Psychology, 41,
217-232.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. The
American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 22
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development : The case
of children’s motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.
Krohn, M. D., Massey, J. L., Skinner, W. F., & Lauer, R. M. (1983). Social bonding theory and
adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 337-49.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and
unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-647.
Lafontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s stereotypes of
popularity. Social Development, 7, 301-320.
Lafontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1999). Children’ s interpersonal perceptions as a
function of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 160, 225-242.
Mayeux, L., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). It’s not just being popular, it's knowing it, too: The
role of self-perceptions of status in the associations between peer status and aggression.
Social Development, 17, 871-888.
Mayeux, L., Houser, J.J., Dyches, K.D. (2011). Social acceptance and popularity: Two distinct
forms of peer status. Cillessen, A.H.N., Schwartz, D.A., & Mayeux, L (Eds.). Popularity
in the peer system (pp. 79-102). New York: Guilford Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior : A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent oral sex, peer popularity, and
perceptions of best friends’ sexual behavior. Journal of pediatric psychology, 28, 243-
249.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 23
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys:
Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.
Sandstorm, M.J. (2011). The power of popularity: Influence processes in childhood and
adolescence. Cillessen, A.H.N., Schwartz, D.A., & Mayeux, L (Eds.). Popularity in the
peer system (pp. 219-244). New York: Guilford Press.
Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of aggressors and victims in children's peer groups. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192.
Schwartz, D.A. & Gorman, A.H. (2011). The high price of high status: Popularity as a
mechanism of risk. Cillessen, A.H.N., Schwartz, D.A., & Mayeux, L (Eds.). Popularity
in the peer system (pp. 245-270). New York: Guilford Press.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Duong, M. T., & Nakamoto, J. (2008). Peer relationships and
academic achievement as interacting predictors of depressive symptoms during middle
childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 289–299.
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, 1116-1127.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & Toblin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer
group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425-
435.
Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. (2000). Community violence exposure and children's social adjustment
in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology/American Psychological Association, 68,
670-683.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 24
Skinner, E. a., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children's engagement and
achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32.
Troop-Gordon, W., Visconti, K. J., & Kuntz, K. J. (2011). Perceived popularity during early
adolescence: Links to declining school adjustment among aggressive youth. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 31, 125-151.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Wanner, B. (2005). Patterns of affiliation with delinquent friends
during late childhood and early adolescence : Correlates and consequences. Social
Development, 14, 82-108.
Waasdorp, T., Baker, C., Paskewich, B. & Leff, S. (2012). The association between forms of
aggression, leadership, and social status among urban youth. Journal of youth and
adolescence.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early
adolescence. Child development, 62, 1066-1078.
Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and
controversial children. Child development, 66, 754-763.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 25

Note. Values for friendship subtypes represent proportion scores.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for all variables
Time 1 Time 2
Variable M SD M SD
1. Popularity 1.21 0.88 1.11 0.92
2. Social Acceptance 1.85 0.58 1.85 0.62
3. Aggressive Friends 0.21 0.30 0.24 0.36
4. Extracurricular Engaged Friends 0.22 0.32 0.23 0.35
5. Academically Disengaged Friends 0.19 0.29 0.22 0.35
6. Low Academic Functioning Friends 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.28
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 26
Table 2. Bivariate Correlations for Popularity, Social Acceptance, Gender, and Friendship Subtypes
Variable (Stability) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
1. T1 Popularity (.73*) .60* .45* .05 .29* .19* .18* .11** .06* .02* .08* .12*
2. T2 Popularity .55* .57* -.01 .27* .22* .23* .22** .01* .01* .03* .07*
3. T1 Social Acceptance (.61*) .16* .24* .14* .31* .18** .15** .03 .07 .10
4. T2 Social Acceptance .12* .14* .05 .24* .25** .02* .00 -.02 .03*
5. Gender .09 .07 -.03 .00 .04 -.04* .05 .04
6. T1 Aggressive (.12*) .29* .09 .01 -.01 .21* .06
7. T2 Aggressive -.06 .03 .11* .29* .20* .44*
8. T1 Extracurricular Engaged (.36*) -.02 -.12* -.16* -.18*
9. T2 Extracurricular Engaged * -.10* -.12* -.21* -.23*
10. T1 Academically Disengaged (.12*) * .27* .18*
11. T2 Academically Disengaged .15* .37*
12. T1 Low Academic Functioning (.24*) --
13. T2 Low Academic Functioning --
Note. Variables 6-13 represent attributes of friends. *p < .05

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 27

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 1
Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

 sr
2
∆R
2

T1 Friends who are aggressive 1 T1 Popularity -.032*** .032 .093***
T1 Social Acceptance -.100 .006
Gender -.061 .003
2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance .095 .008 .104***
T1 Popularity x Gender -.049 .001
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.079 .004
T1 Friends Engaged in Extracurriculars

T1 Friends Disengaged from Academics
1

2

1
Popularity
T1 Social Acceptance
Gender
T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance
T1 Popularity x Gender
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender
Popularity
-.014
.333***
-.092*
.115*
-.099
.096
-.038
.000
.069
.008
.011
.003
.003
.001
.104***

.119***

.022*
T1 Social Acceptance -.167** .017
Gender -.012 .000
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 28

2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.041 .001 .030*
T1 Popularity x Gender -.069 .001
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.132 .006
T1 Friends of Low Academic Functioning 1 T1 Popularity -.068 .003 .009
T1 Social Acceptance -.018 .000
Gender -.048 .002
2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.103* .009 .025
T1 Popularity x Gender -.096 .006
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.084 .004
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 29

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 2
Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

 sr
2
∆R
2

T2 Friends who are aggressive 1 T2 Popularity -.285*** .056 .062***
T2 Social Acceptance -.120 .010
Gender -.096 .009
2 T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance .005 .000 .069***
T2 Popularity x Gender -.069 .003
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender -.019 .000
T2 Friends Engaged in Extracurriculars

T2 Friends Disengaged from Academics
1

2

1
T2 Popularity
T2 Social Acceptance
Gender
T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance
T2 Popularity x Gender
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender
T2 Popularity
-.113*
.198*
-.026
-.007
-.221*
.188*
-.028
.009
.027
.001
.000
.017
.014
.001
.076***

.095***

.004
T2 Social Acceptance -.060 .002
Gender -.049 .002
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 30

2 T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance -.082 .005 .023
T2 Popularity x Gender -.189* .012
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender -.135 .008
T2 Friends of Low Academic Functioning 1 T2 Popularity -.086 .005 .008
T2 Social Acceptance -.024 .000
Gender -.049 .002
2 T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance -.038 .001 .054***
T2 Popularity x Gender -.010 .000
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender -.073 .003
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 31

Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses: predicting friendship subtype at Time 2 from popularity at Time 1

Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

 sr
2
∆R
2

T2 Friends who are aggressive 1 T1 Popularity -.176* .020 .041*
T1 Social Acceptance -.025 .000
Gender -.060 .003
2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance .008 .000 .050*
T1 Popularity x Gender -.035 .000
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.083 .004
T2 Friends Engaged in Extracurriculars

T2 Friends Disengaged from Academics
1

2

1
Popularity
T1 Social Acceptance
Gender
T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance
T1 Popularity x Gender
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender
Popularity
-.015
.175**
-.032
.051
-.191*
.091
-.009
.000
.019
.001
.002
.012
.003
.000
.033*

.047*

.003
T1 Social Acceptance -.051 .002
Gender -.046 .002
FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 32

2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.070 .004 .010
T1 Popularity x Gender -.068 .001
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.088 .003
T2 Friends of Low Academic Functioning 1 T1 Popularity -.113 .008 .019*
T1 Social Acceptance -.026 .000
Gender -.033 .001
2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.114 .010 .033
T1 Popularity x Gender -.020 .000
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.054 .002
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 33

Table 6. Hierarchical regression analyses: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 1, adjusting for adolescents’ attributes
Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

 sr
2
∆R
2

T1 Friends who are aggressive 1 T1 Popularity -.247*** .034 .096***
T1 Social Acceptance -.111 .007
Gender -.057 .003

2
Adolescents’ Aggression
T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance
-.058
.095
.002
.007

.106***
T1 Popularity x Gender - .050 .002
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.077 .004
T1 Friends Engaged in Extracurriculars

1

2

Popularity
T1 Social Acceptance
Gender
Adolescents’ Extracurricular Engagement
T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance
T1 Popularity x Gender
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender

-.100*
.121*
-.008
.511***
.023
-.029
.045

.006
.008
.000
.186
.000
.000
.001

.290***

.292***

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 34

T1 Friends Disengaged from Academics 1 Popularity -.035 .001 .026*
T1 Social Acceptance -.167** .017
Gender
Adolescents’ Academic Engagement
-.014
-.060
.000
.004

2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.044 .002 .034*
T1 Popularity x Gender -.056 .001
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.122 .005
T1 Friends of Low Academic Functioning 1 T1 Popularity -.018 .000 .083***
T1 Social Acceptance -.072 .003
Gender
Adolescents’ Academic Functioning
-.064
-.277***
.004
073

2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.097 .008 .095***
T1 Popularity x Gender -.088 .005
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.069 .003
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 35

Table 7. Hierarchical regression analyses: Cross-sectional associations between popularity and friendship subtypes at Time 2, adjusting for adolescents’ attributes
Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

 sr
2
∆R
2

T2 Friends who are aggressive 1 T2 Popularity -.237*** .031 .069***
T2 Social Acceptance --.127 .011
Gender -.099 .009

2
Adolescents’ Aggression
T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance
.094
-.000
.006
.000

.076***
T2 Popularity x Gender -.081 .004
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender -.010 .000
T2 Friends Engaged in Extracurriculars

1

2

Popularity
T2 Social Acceptance
Gender
Adolescents’ Extracurricular Engagement
T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance
T2 Popularity x Gender
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender

-.002
.036
.003
.438***
-.069
-.174*
.183*

.000
.001
.000
.133
.003
.010
.013

.209***

.228***

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 36

T2 Friends Disengaged from Academics 1 Popularity -.036 .001 .044**
T2 Social Acceptance -.073 .004
Gender
Adolescents’ Academic Engagement
-.012
-.203***
.000
.039

2 T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance -.059 .003 .059**
T2 Popularity x Gender -.165 .001
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender -.129 .008
T2 Friends of Low Academic Functioning 1 T2 Popularity -.034 .001 .105***
T2 Social Acceptance -.050 .002
Gender
Adolescents’ Academic Functioning
-.053
-.319***
.003
098

2 T2 Popularity x T2 Social Acceptance -.045 .002 .109***
T2 Popularity x Gender -.040 .001
T2 Social Acceptance x Gender -.021 .000
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 37

Table 8. Hierarchical regression analyses: predicting friendship subtype at Time 2 from popularity at Time 1, adjusting for adolescents’ attributes

Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

 sr
2
∆R
2

T2 Friends who are aggressive 1 T1 Popularity -.135* .000 .050***
T1 Social Acceptance -.004 .000
Gender -.067 .004

2
Adolescents’ Aggression
T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance
.112
. 007
.009
.000

.055**
T1 Popularity x Gender .033 .000
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.088 .005
T2 Friends Engaged in Extracurriculars

1

2

Popularity
T1 Social Acceptance
Gender
Adolescents’ Extracurricular Engagement
T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance
T1 Popularity x Gender
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender

-.045
.026
.015
.349***
-.000
-.152
.048

.001
.000
.000
087
.000
.008
.001

.119***

.127***

FRIENDSHIP AFFILIATION 38

T2 Friends Disengaged from Academics

1

Popularity

-.014

.000

.012
T1 Social Acceptance -.038 .001
Gender
Adolescents’ Academic Engagement
-.040
-.100
.001
.010

2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.062 .003 .021
T1 Popularity x Gender -.094 .003
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.122 .006
T2 Friends of Low Academic Functioning 1 T1 Popularity -.068 .003 .072***
T1 Social Acceptance -.059 .002
Gender
Adolescents’ Academic Functioning
-.050
-.237***
.002
054

2 T1 Popularity x T1 Social Acceptance -.112* .010 .084***
T1 Popularity x Gender -.039 .001
T1 Social Acceptance x Gender -.019 .000
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This short-term longitudinal investigation among adolescent peer groups examined associations between popularity and behavioral attributes of friends, with a particular focus on friends’ aggression, extracurricular involvement, and academic functioning and engagement. Participants were 415 ninth graders (193 male and 222 female students

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Negative peer relationships and academic failures as predictors of depressive symptoms in early adolescence

PDF

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

PDF

Dynamics of victimization, aggression, and popularity in adolescence

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

Friendship as a protective factor in adolescence

PDF

Stigma-based peer aggression and social status in middle adolescence: the unique implications of weight-related aggression

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mechanism linking parents’ marital aggression to adolescent behavioral problems: a longitudinal analysis

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Depressive outcomes following peer victimization during adolescence: the moderating role of friends’ attributes

PDF

Social status, perceived social reputations, and perceived dyadic relationships in early adolescence

PDF

Family aggression exposure and community violence exposure associated with brain volume in late adolescence: a comparison of automated versus manual segmentation

PDF

Differential associations between same- and cross-ethnicity negative peer attitudes and adjustment outcomes among Vietnamese and Mexican American adolescents

PDF

Adolescents who have never dated: friendship attributes as predictors of prolonged romantic development among Asian American and Latine youths

PDF

How parental psychological control is related to adolescent anger and aggression

PDF

Risky behaviors, interpersonal conflict, and their relation to fluctuations in adolescents’ diurnal HPA rhythms

PDF

Not just talk: observed communication in adolescent friendship and its implications for health risk behavior

PDF

Adolescent life stress and the cortisol awakening response: the moderating roles of emotion regulation, attachment, and gender

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Perspective taking behavior and social outcomes in late adolescence

Asset Metadata

Creator Kumar, Serenita S. (author)

Core Title Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 08/01/2013

Defense Date 05/20/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic engagement,adolescence,aggression,extracurricular engagement,friendship,GPA,OAI-PMH Harvest,popularity

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Dawson, Michael Edward (committee member), Margolin, Gayla (committee member)

Creator Email kumar.serenita@gmail.com,serenitk@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-310435

Unique identifier UC11294681

Identifier etd-KumarSeren-1921.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-310435 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KumarSeren-1921.pdf

Dmrecord 310435

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kumar, Serenita S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA