University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SOCIAL STATUS, PERCEIVED SOCIAL REPUTATIONS, AND PERCEIVED
DYADIC RELATIONSHIPS IN EARLY ADOLESCENCE

by

Daryaneh Badaly

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Daryaneh Badaly
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge my advisor, Dr. David Schwartz, for his careful guidance and
valuable contributions to this paper. In addition, I am grateful to Dr. Andrea Hopmeyer
Gorman for her important role in conducting this study, and to the members of my
guidance committee, Dr. Frank Manis and Dr. Gayla Margolin, for their helpful input.
The contributions of the participating students, teachers, and school administrative
personnel are also very much appreciated. Finally, I thank the University of Southern
California for its support through a Provost’s PhD Fellowship.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables iv
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Figure 1: Friendship Accuracy, Congruence, and Mutuality Triangle 6

Chapter 2: Methods 11
Participants 11
Measures 12

Chapter 3: Results 18
Overview 18
Perceptions of Social Status and Behavioral Reputations 19
Dyadic Perceptions of Friendships 28

Chapter 4: Discussion 32
References 39
Appendices 47
Appendix A 47
Appendix B 61
iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Correspondence Tables and Descriptive Statistics for Dyadic
Perceptions of Friendships 16

Table 2: Percentages and Frequencies for Perceptions of Social Status and
Behavioral Reputations 20

Table 3: Bivariate Correlations for Social Status, Perceptions of Social Status
and Behavioral Reputations, and Gender 21

Table 4: Multiple Regression Analyses for Social Acceptance, Popularity, and
Gender Predicting Perceptions of Social Status and Behavioral
Reputations 24

Table 5: Bivariate Correlations for Social Status, Dyadic Perceptions of
Friendships, and Gender 31

Table 6: Multiple Regression Analyses for Social Acceptance, Popularity, and
Gender Predicting Dyadic Perceptions of Friendships (Step 1) 31

Table 7: Logistic Regression Analyses for Social Acceptance, Popularity, and
Gender Predicting Perceptions of Social Status and Behavioral
Reputations 61

v

ABSTRACT
This study examined the unique contributions of social acceptance and popularity in
predicting perceived social reputations and perceived dyadic relationships in a cross-
sectional sample of 418 sixth and seventh grade students (approximate average age of 12
years). We assessed early adolescents’ social status using peer nominations and measured
their perceptions of their social status, their behavioral reputations, and their friendships
from a combination of self-ratings and peer nominations. Social acceptance was a
positive predictor of perceptions of social acceptance and friendships and a negative
predictor of perceptions of rejection and victimization. Popularity was a positive
predictor of perceptions of popularity, rejection, and aggression and a negative predictor
of perceptions of unpopularity and withdrawal. The results were consistent with the
suggestion that social acceptance is related to perceiving facets of reputations and
relationships relevant to forming and maintaining friendships, whereas popularity is
related to perceiving facets pertinent to gaining social power.
Keywords: peer relations, social acceptance, popularity, interpersonal perceptions
1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, investigators have distinguished two partially distinct
dimensions of social status: social acceptance and popularity (for a review, see Cillessen
& Rose, 2005). Social acceptance is a marker of likeability and positive peer regard, and
is generally associated with positive behavioral features and few negative behavioral
attributes. Early adolescents who are well-accepted tend to display prosocial behaviors,
such as cooperating and sharing with others (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Sandstrom &
Cillessen, 2006). They tend not to engage in overt or relational aggression (e.g., engaging
in physical fights or excluding peers from activities) or be the victims of bullying
(LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). On the other hand,
popularity is an index of social prestige and visibility, and is typically related to a mix of
positive and negative behavioral attributes. Popular early adolescents tend to engage in
both prosocial and aggressive acts (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). They also tend not to
be withdrawn in social situations (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Sandstrom & Cillessen,
2006).
On a theoretical level, the two dimensions of social status can be seen as closely
related constructs. In accordance with this suggestion, moderate correlations have been
noted between assessments of social acceptance and popularity (Cillessen & Mayeux,
2004; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Nevertheless, for early adolescents, being well-
accepted and being popular are not synonymous social outcomes (LaFontana & Cillessen,
2002). Indeed, early adolescents who are popular are not necessarily well-liked. In one
2

study, only a third of participants nominated as popular were also identified as well-liked
by their peers (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).
The current study examined the unique contributions of social acceptance and
popularity in predicting perceived social reputations and perceived dyadic relationships.
Notably, how youth perceive their reputations and relationships may shape their decisions
of how to act in social situations. Consistent with this suggestion, children and adults
engage in more socially competent behavior with others when they believe that those
people like them (Curtis & Miller, 1986; Rabiner & Coie, 1989). Moreover, popular
adolescent who are aware of their popularity not only act more aggressively than their
peers but also become more aggressive over time than other high school students
(Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008). Meanwhile, adolescents who consider themselves as
aggressive maintain conflictual friendships, whereas those who perceive themselves as
prosocial keep close and secure friendships (Cillessen, Lu Jiang, West, & Laszkowski,
2005).
Importantly, the two dimensions of social status may present different
implications for early adolescents’ perceived social reputations and perceived dyadic
relationships. For instance, social interactionists (e.g., Cooley, 1902) would argue that
social status shapes perceptions of reputations and relationships by providing specific
opportunities for interactions with peers. Social acceptance and popularity are thought to
offer distinct opportunities for social interaction, as the two dimensions of social status
are affordances for different realms of peer relations.
3

Past investigators have conceptualized social acceptance as an affordance for
friendships. Being well-liked by the peer group is thought to increase opportunities to
make a friend, since an individual must be well-liked by at least one other person to form
a friendship (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993; Bukowski, Pizzamiglio, Newcomb, &
Hoza, 1996). Indeed, being well-accepted is predictive of later having a friend and
correlated with concurrently having more friends and being desired as a friend by more
peers (Bukowski et al., 1996; George & Hartmann, 1996; Hawley, Little, & Card, 2007).
Researchers have also argued that forming and maintaining friendships requires a range
of sophisticated skills, including prosocial abilities (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003).
On the other hand, forming and maintaining friendships may be hampered by certain
behavioral attributes. In particular, victimized youth often experience difficulty gaining
new friends and aggressive youth often have difficulty keeping old friends (Ellis &
Zarbatany, 2007; Wojslawowicz Bowker, Rubin, Burgess, Booth-Laforce, & Rose-
Krasnor, 2006). If social acceptance is an affordance for friendships, then one might
expect it to be correlated with perceptions of reputations and relationships pertinent to
forming and maintaining friendships.
In contrast, previous researchers have described popularity as an affordance for
social power, providing opportunities for social prerogatives such as resource control,
peer admiration, and leadership positions (Hawley, 2003; Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod,
2002). Consistent with this suggestion, quantitative and qualitative studies have
concluded that popularity is associated with social power (Owens & Duncan, 2009;
Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006). Gaining social power may rely upon establishing visibility
4

and dominance, by publicizing accomplishments to obtain peer recognition and by using
coercion and aggression to influence peers (Hawley, 2007; Hawley, Little, & Card,
2008). Conversely, gaining social power may be hindered by some behaviors. For
instance, social withdrawal may be counterproductive to establishing visibility and
dominance (Lease et al., 2002). If popularity is an affordance for social power, then
perceptions of reputations and relationships relevant to gaining social power may be
associated with popularity.
To investigate early adolescents’ perceived social reputations, we can examine
their perceptions of their social status and their behavioral reputations. In other words, we
can consider their view of how the peer group judges their status and behaviors. In prior
work, children and adolescents have demonstrated some awareness of their social
acceptance and popularity. Findings indicate that well-liked youth tend to see themselves
as socially competent (e.g., Kistner, David-Ferdon, Repper, & Joiner, 2006; Kurdek &
Krile, 1982; Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990). They also tend to believe that their
peers like them and do not reject them (Bellmore & Cillessen, 2003; Kistner et al., 2006;
MacDonald & Cohen, 1995; Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008). Popular children and
adolescents tend to think that their peers view them as popular individuals (Malloy,
Albright, & Scarpati, 2007; Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008).
In past investigations, children and adolescents have also shown some awareness
of their behavioral attributes. Positive correlations have been reported between peer- and
self-perceptions of prosociality, aggression, and victimization (Cillessen et al., 2005;
Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Erath, Flanagan, & Bierman, 2008; Graham & Juvonen, 1998;
5

Greener, 2000; Henry, 2006; Wentzel, 1994). In addition, some work has addressed how
social status may relate to perceived behavioral attributes, finding that well-liked youth
tend to perceive themselves as prosocial but not as victimized (Graham & Juvonen, 1998;
Wentzel, 1994). Still, it is unclear how children and adolescents perceive their behavioral
reputations. Despite strong correlations between how individuals view themselves and
how they think others see them (Kenny, 1994), the two realms of perception may have
different implication for decision-making in social situations. For example, an adolescent
who views himself as aggressive yet believes that others see him as non-aggressive may
decrease his hostile acts over time so as not to tarnish his reputation.
To examine early adolescents’ perceived dyadic relationships, we can consider
their dyadic perceptions of their friendships. Tagiuri, Blake, and Bruner (1953) described
three aspects of dyadic perceptions: accuracy, congruence, and mutuality (Figure 1).
Friendship accuracy reflects the veridicality of friendship perceptions, in other words
whether individuals can correctly identify which peers choose them as a friend. For the
fictional pair of friends Andy and Brad, friendship accuracy addresses the question: If
Andy thinks that Brad identifies him as a friend, does Brad actually identify Andy as a
friend? Friendship congruence refers to the assumed reciprocity of friendships. It looks at
whether individuals interpret who identifies them as a friend in terms of their own
friendship choices. It addresses the question: If Andy identifies Brad as a friend, does
Brad then think Andy identifies him as a friend? Finally, friendship mutuality reflects the
reciprocity of friendships, or whether individuals’ choices of friends are reciprocated. So,
if Andy identifies Brad as a friend, does Brad also identify Andy as a friend?

Figure 1. Friendship accuracy, congruence, and mutuality triangle. Accuracy concerns the veridicality of perceptions: If A
thinks B nominated A as a friend, does B nominate A as a friend? Congruence refers to perceived reciprocity: If A nominates
B as a friend, does A think B nominated A as a friend? Mutuality reflects reciprocity: If A nominates B as a friend, does B
nominate A as a friend?
A nominates B as a friend
B nominates A as a friend A thinks B nominated A as a friend
Congruence:
perceived dyadic reciprocity
Mutuality:
dyadic reciprocity
Accuracy:
veridicality of perceptions

6
7

While little is known about dyadic perceptions of friendship, some past findings
are relevant to friendship accuracy (i.e., the veridicality of perceptions of friendships).
Research indicates that youth may be able to accurately identify their friends. In two
studies, children and adolescents were accurate at judging which of their peers would rate
them as an acceptable friend, and accuracy increased with social acceptance (Ausubel &
Schiff, 1955; Ausubel, Schiff, & Gasser, 1952). In two other studies, preschool age
children correctly identified their friends at a better than chance level (Marshall &
McCandless, 1957; Smith & Delfosse, 1980). Research also suggests that children may
be aware of their number of friends. When elementary school students were asked to rate
their number of friends, their judgments agreed with their peers’ reports in fourth through
sixth grades (Malloy, Yarlas, Montvilo, & Sugarman, 1996). When another group of
students estimated their peers’ ratings of their number of friends, their estimates were
accurate across first through sixth grades (Malloy et al., 2007). In addition, there are
some findings relevant to friendship mutuality (i.e., the reciprocity of friendships). Prior
investigations suggests that children and adolescents have a large portion of reciprocated
friendship choices, with average estimates from a third to a half, and that reciprocity
increases with social acceptance (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995; George &
Hartmann, 1996).
The primary objective of our study was to investigate the unique contributions of
social acceptance and popularity in predicting perceived social reputations and perceived
dyadic relationships. Notably, we considered early adolescents’ perceptions of their
social status and their behavioral reputations in the peer group and their dyadic
8

perceptions of their friendships, as theoretical arguments and empirical evidence suggest
that group and dyadic peer interactions represent distinct realms of experience (Bukowski
& Hoza, 1989; Hartup & Abecassis, 2002). First, we expected social acceptance to be
associated with perceiving aspects of reputations and relationships relevant to forming
and maintaining friendships. Specifically, we expected social acceptance to be a positive,
unique predictor of perceptions of social acceptance and prosociality (which are thought
to facilitate friendships) and a negative, unique predictor of perceptions of rejection,
aggression, and victimization (which are thought to hamper friendships). Notably, we did
not predict an association between social acceptance and perceptions of withdrawal
(which, despite common expectations, does not necessarily hamper friendships), as social
acceptance is not consistently linked to actual withdrawal, especially when popularity is
controlled for (Rubin, Burgess, & Coplan, 2002; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). We
furthermore anticipated that social acceptance would be related to more accurate,
congruent, and mutual perceptions of friendships. That is, we anticipated that more well-
liked early adolescents would have a greater likelihood of correctly identifying friends,
choosing friends based on perceptions of peers’ friendship choices, and having
reciprocated friendships.
Second, we hypothesized that popularity would be related to perceiving aspects of
reputations and relationships pertinent to gaining social power. In particular, we expected
popularity to be a positive unique predictor of perceptions of popularity and aggression
(which are thought to promote social power) and a negative, unique predictor of
perceptions of unpopularity and withdrawal (which are believed to hinder social power).
9

We did not anticipate any relation between popularity and either perceptions of
prosociality (which may promote social power, but not necessarily) or perceptions of
victimization (which may hinder social power, but not necessarily), given that
heterogeneity exists in the links between popularity and actual prosociality and
victimization (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006).
A secondary issue of interest was the influence of gender on associations between
social status and perceptions of reputations and relationships. We explored the potential
moderating role of gender, given that boys and girls differ in their reputations and
relationships. Compared to their male counterparts, girls tend to be more well-liked and
popular (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), are less likely to be seen as the perpetrators or
targets of overt aggression (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and care
more about having friends (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). We did not generate a priori
hypotheses regarding potential gender effects, as gender differences in perceptions of
reputations and relationships are generally small and inconsistent (Cillessen & Bellmore,
2002). In particular, research across childhood and adolescence presents contradictory or
null findings with regards to gender differences in perceptions of social status and their
relation to social acceptance and popularity (Bellmore & Cillessen, 2003; Cillessen &
Bellmore, 1999; MacDonald & Cohen, 1995; Malloy et al., 2007; Mayeux & Cillessen,
2008). Moreover, researchers have yet to consider gender differences in perceptions of
behavioral reputations. Investigators have, however, examined gender differences in
perceptions of behavioral attributes. Of note, boys tend to report higher use of overt
aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Finally, the literature on gender differences in
10

perceiving friendships suggests that high school girls may identify peers that deem them
an acceptable friend more accurately than boys (Ausubel & Schiff, 1955). Boys and girls
also do not appear to differ in their tendency to select peers that deem them as acceptable
friends based on their own friendship choices or in their proportion of reciprocated
friendship choices (Ausubel & Schiff, 1955; Cairns et al., 1995).
To address our research objectives, we focused on early adolescence, recruiting a
sample of sixth and seventh grade students. Early adolescence is a particularly important
period to study, as reputations in the peer group and relationships at the dyadic level
increase in importance (Bukowski et al., 1993; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2009). The
developmental period also ushers in more accurate perceptions of social status,
behavioral tendencies, and friendships (Ausubel et al., 1952; Malloy et al., 2007).
11

CHAPTER 2: METHODS
Participants
Participants were 418 sixth and seventh grade students (183 boys, 232 girls, 3
unknowns; M = 11.91 years, SD = 0.75) from a moderately sized middle school located
in a suburban section of Los Angeles County. Approximately 44% of the adolescents
attending the school took part in federally supported lunch programs (California
Department of Education, 2009), and the families living in the surrounding
neighborhoods were from middle class socioeconomic backgrounds (United Way of
Greater Los Angeles, 2007). Consistent with the ethnic/racial composition of the school
population and the surrounding neighborhoods (United Way of Greater Los Angeles,
2007), participants were predominately from Hispanic and European American
backgrounds. Assessed via adolescents’ self-report, the ethnic/racial composition of the
sample was as follows: 36% Hispanic, 15% European American, 8% Asian American,
7% African American, 6% Middle Eastern, and 28% other or unclassified (e.g., mixed
background).
Following the recommendations of school officials, students involved in a self-
contained magnet program and students who were enrolled in “English as a Second
Language” classes were not invited to participate. Written consent letters were sent home
with the remaining 586 sixth and seventh grade students. Parental permission was
obtained for all participants who also indicated in writing that they were willing to take
part in the project. One hundred and thirty students (22.18%) did not participate in the
project either because their parents denied permission or because they did not return their
12

permission slips. Thirty-eight students (6.48%) were absent during the data collection and
subsequent make-up sessions. The final sample of 418 adolescents represented 71.33% of
the eligible population of sixth- and seventh-graders.
Measures
In sessions lasting approximately 50 minutes, we group-administered
questionnaires containing peer-report nomination measures and self-report rating scales
(see Appendix A). A trained research assistant read aloud standardized instructions and
questionnaire items.
Social status. Questionnaires included a peer-nomination inventory with items
querying student’s social status. When peer-report nomination measures are used with
younger children, participants are typically asked to evaluate all consenting classmates
(e.g., Hymel, 1986; Ladd & Oden, 1979; Singleton & Asher, 1977). This approach is not
practical in a middle school setting, since students encounter a large number of peers in
different classes. Accordingly, an approach similar to that used by researchers with
adolescent samples was adopted (Parkhurst & Asher, 1992). Four alphabetized rosters
were generated for both grade levels. Each list contained alphabetized names of a random
sub-sample of all of the students that had parental permission to participate in the project.
Names were preceded by unique identification numbers. Each participant was given one
randomly selected list of his or her grademates for the peer-nomination inventory. The
lists were distributed such that each participant was evaluated by approximately 25% of
the consenting participants in his or her grade level. This approach was expected to lead
to highly reliable estimates, as there were a relatively large number of raters for each
13

child. Consistent with this suggestion, past studies with similar methodology have
produced indices with strong psychometric properties (e.g., Schwartz, Gorman,
Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006).
One of the peer-nomination items assessed social acceptance (“students that you
really like”) and one assessed popularity (“students that are popular”). Participants were
asked to list the identification numbers of up to nine students for each item. For each
participant, social status scores for social acceptance and popularity were calculated by
using the number of nominations received for the relevant item, standardized within
grade.
Perceptions of social status and behavioral reputations. Besides social
acceptance and popularity, the peer-nomination inventory assessed two other aspects of
social status, each with one item, and six aspects of behavioral reputations, each with two
items. Following each item on the peer-nomination inventory, participants were asked if
they thought a lot of other students nominated them for the social status or behavioral
reputation descriptor. Participants completed ratings on a 3-point scale of 0 (“no”), 1
(“maybe”), and 2 (“yes”).
The four queried aspects of students’ perceived social status were: perceptions of
social acceptance (“Did a lot of other students say that they like you?”), perceptions of
popularity (“students say that you are somebody who is popular”), perceptions of social
rejection (“students say that you are somebody they don't like that much”), and
perceptions of unpopularity (“students say that you are somebody who is NOT popular”).
The six queried aspects of students’ perceived behavioral reputations were: perceptions
14

of prosociality (“students say that you are somebody who likes to share,” “students say
that you are somebody that likes to help other students”), perceptions of overt aggression
(“students say that you are somebody that hits or pushes other students,” “students say
that you are somebody that starts fights”), perceptions of relational aggression (“students
say that you are somebody that tries to be mean by ignoring or excluding other students,”
“students say that you gossip about other students or say mean things about other students
behind their backs”), perceptions of overt victimization (“students say that you get hit,
pushed, or bullied,” “students say you are somebody who gets beat up”), perceptions of
relational victimization (“students say that you are somebody that other students gossip
about or say mean things about,” “students say that you are somebody that gets left out of
activities, excluded or ignored”), and perceptions of social withdrawal (“students say that
you are somebody that would rather hang out alone than be with other students,”
“students say you are somebody who likes to be alone”).
With the exception of perceptions of relational victimization, internal consistency
estimates for the self-report ratings of perceived behavioral reputations were acceptable
(i.e., over .50; Pedhauzer & Pedhauzer Schmelkin, 1991). Therefore, with the exception
of perceptions of relational victimization, summary variables were calculated using the
mean rating for the two items assessing each perceived behavioral reputation construct.
Rather than exclude perceptions of relational victimization from later analyses, the
variable was calculated from responses to the item “students say that you are somebody
that gets left out of activities, excluded or ignored.” The alternate calculation was used
because, when the pattern of correlates for each item was reviewed, it was evident that
15

the other item intended to tap perceptions of relational victimization did not distinguish
between perceptions of aggression and victimization.
Dyadic perceptions of friendships. Questionnaires also included peer-report
nomination measures assessing dyadic perceptions of friendships. Participants were given
two alphabetized lists of all consenting students in their grade. Using the first list,
students were asked to identify their really good friends. Using the second list,
participants were asked to identify students whom they thought nominated them as really
good friends. Participants were instructed to circle as few or as many names as they liked
on the alphabetized lists.
From the nominations given, received, and perceived by each adolescent, we
derived the three aspects of dyadic perceptions of friendships: accuracy, congruence, and
mutuality (Tagiuri et al., 1953; Figure 1). For each participant, we calculated the three
aspects of dyadic perceptions of friendships as standardized Cohen’s κs. More
specifically, to generate friendship accuracy, a 2 × 2 correspondence table was
constructed for each participant. The four cells of the table contained the hits, misses,
false alarms, and correct rejections for the comparison between participants’ perceived
and received friendship nominations within their grade level. Next, we computed κ across
the table using Cohen’s (1960) definition of the statistic and standardized κ following
Fleiss, Cohen, and Everitt’s (1969) description of the statistic’s sampling distribution.
The same procedure was followed for friendship congruence comparing participants’
perceived and given friendship nominations and for friendship mutuality comparing
participants’ given and received friendship nominations. The resulting standardized

Table 1
Correspondence Tables and Descriptive Statistics for Dyadic Perceptions of Friendships
Friendship Accuracy
Correspondence Table A thinks B nominated A A does not think B nominated A
B nominates A Hits (M = 2.9%) Misses (M = 5.8%)
B does not nominate A False Alarms (M = 3.4%) Correct Rejections (M = 87.9%)

Descriptive Statistics M SD n
Cohen’s κ 0.31 0.17 417
Standardized Cohen’s κ 1.46 0.81 396

Friendship Congruence
Correspondence Table A nominates B A does not nominate B
A thinks B nominated A Hits (M = 5.1%) Misses (M = 1.1%)
A does not think B nominated A False Alarms (M = 1.0%) Correct Rejections (M = 92.8%)

Descriptive Statistics M SD n
Cohen’s κ 0.80 0.25 416
Standardized Cohen’s κ 2.80 1.36 416

Friendship Mutuality
Correspondence Table A nominates B A does not nominate B
B nominates A Hits (M = 3.8%) Misses (M = 4.8%)
B does not nominate A False Alarms (M = 5.7%) Correct Rejections (M = 85.7%)

Descriptive Statistics M SD n
Cohen’s κ 0.34 0.15 417
Standardized Cohen’s κ 1.52 0.79 416
16
17

scores indexed whether perceptions of friendships were significantly accurate, congruent,
and mutual at a better-than-chance level, with higher values denoting greater accuracy,
congruence, and mutuality. For each of the three perception variables, correspondence
tables and descriptive statistics are detailed in Table 1.
Like prior investigations with dyadic perceptions of social acceptance and
rejection (Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999; Bellmore & Cillessen, 2003), we expressed
dyadic perceptions of friendships in terms of κs rather than in terms of simple agreement
proportions to control for chance agreement. In particular, we computed the perception
variables in terms of κs to account for any chance agreement resulting from the positive
associations between social status and given, received, and perceived friendship
nominations (rs ranging from .22 to .77, all ps < .005). By expressing each aspect in
terms of standardized instead of unstandardized κs, we also took into account individual
variance differences, facilitating comparisons across participants.
18

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
Overview
To examine the associations between social status, perceived social reputations,
and perceived dyadic relationships and to explore the potential moderating role of gender,
we used bivariate correlations and multiple regression analyses. Correlation and multiple
regression assume a number of data attributes (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For instance,
the methods assume that the relationship between the predictor or predictors and the
outcome is linear, and that the residuals are distributed with equal variance across the
range of the outcome variable. To check these assumptions, for each of our models, we
inspected plots of the residuals against the predicted values. Correlation and multiple
regression also assume that the residuals are normally distributed. To check this
assumption, we examined univariate statistics for the residuals and inspected their normal
probability plots and histograms. Our analyses revealed that the residuals were positively
skewed for our models predicting perceptions of overt aggression, relational aggression,
overt victimization, relational victimization, and social withdrawal. Accordingly, we
applied square root transformations to normalize the distributions (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). The transformations did not alter the overall pattern of results. Therefore, for ease
of discussion, analyses with untransformed scores are presented below. In addition,
because collinearity can cause numerical problems that produce invalid regression
estimates (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), we examined the relations among our predictor
variables. Substantial collinearity, indicated by tolerances less than 0.10 and variance
inflation factors greater than 10.00, was not found for any of our models.
19

Perceptions of Social Status and Behavioral Reputations
Preliminary analyses. Before beginning our inferential analyses, we examined
the distributions of each of the perceived social status and perceived behavioral
reputation variables. Table 2 summarizes the percentages and frequencies for each of
these variables. The majority of students believed that their peers might have nominated
them for the social acceptance and popularity items. Roughly one quarter of the
adolescents felt that their peers did not nominate them as being popular, while only a
small percentage felt that their peers did not nominate them as being well-liked. The vast
majority of students felt that their peers did not nominate them or felt it was possible that
their peers nominated them as being unpopular, and the majority felt that their peers
might have nominated them as being disliked. Moreover, the majority of adolescents felt
that their peers did nominate them or might have nominated them as being prosocial.
Perceptions of overt and relational aggression, overt and relational victimization, and
social withdrawal were all positively skewed with the majority of adolescents indicating
that they did not feel that others nominated them for the items.
Bivariate correlations. As summarized in Table 3, we conducted bivariate
correlations among the variables for social status, perceptions of social status and
behavioral reputations, and gender. We evaluated effects using a relatively conservative
Type I error rate of .005 to maintain experiment error rates. As shown, social acceptance
and popularity were both positively related to perceptions of being well-accepted and
popular and negatively associated with perceptions of being unpopular. In addition, social

Table 2
Percentages and Frequencies for Perceptions of Social Status and Behavioral Reputations
0 (no) 0.5 1 (maybe) 1.5 2 (yes)
Variable % n % n % n % n % n
Perceptions of Social Status
Perceptions of Social Acceptance 3.15 13 -- -- 53.03 219 -- -- 43.83 181
Perceptions of Popularity 26.60 108 -- -- 54.19 328 -- -- 19.21 406
Perceptions of Social Rejection 29.24 119 -- -- 62.16 253 -- -- 8.60 35
Perceptions of Unpopularity 44.06 178 -- -- 46.04 186 -- -- 9.90 40
Perceptions of Behavioral Reputations
Perceptions of Prosociality 1.45 6 4.82 20 35.90 149 23.37 97 34.46 143
Perceptions of Overt Aggression 67.71 281 15.90 66 11.57 48 2.89 12 1.93 8
Perceptions of Relational Aggression 55.90 232 21.93 91 16.87 70 2.65 11 2.65 11
Perceptions of Overt Victimization 70.22 290 17.19 71 9.69 40 1.69 7 1.21 5
Perceptions of Relational Victimization 76.59 314 -- -- 19.51 80 -- -- 3.90 16
Perceptions of Social Withdrawal 77.97 322 10.41 43 6.54 27 2.18 9 2.91 12
Note. The ns ranged from 404 to 415 for the variables.

20

Table 3
Bivariate Correlations for Social Status, Perceptions of Social Status and Behavioral Reputations, and Gender
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Social Status
1. Social Acceptance --
2. Popularity -0.64* --
Perceptions of Social Status
3. Perceptions of Social Acceptance -0.18* -0.15* --
4. Perceptions of Popularity -0.21* -0.33* -0.36* --
5. Perceptions of Social Rejection -0.04 -0.07 -0.21* -0.12 --
6. Perceptions of Unpopularity -0.17* -0.23* -0.23* -0.54* -0.21* --
Perceptions of Behavioral Reputations
7. Perceptions of Prosociality -0.06 -0.03 -0.18* -0.14 -0.18* -0.03 --
8. Perceptions of Overt Aggression -0.03 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.16* -0.05 -0.24* --
9. Perceptions of Relational Aggression -0.09 -0.18* -0.04 -0.17* -0.20* -0.03 -0.16* -0.34* --
10. Perceptions of Overt Victimization -0.16* -0.11 -0.28* -0.15* -0.23* -0.26* -0.06 -0.26* -0.17* --
11. Perceptions of Relational Victimization -0.17* -0.13 -0.21* -0.21* -0.23* -0.37* -0.01 -0.08 -0.16* -0.48* --
12. Perceptions of Social Withdrawal -0.11 -0.15* -0.21* -0.25* -0.26* -0.36* -0.07 -0.13 -0.02 -0.39* -0.40* --
Gender
13. Gender -0.25* -0.19* -0.07 -0.02 -0.06 -0.01 -0.05 -0.25* -0.06 -0.18* -0.11 -0.12
Note. The ns ranged from 396 to 415 for the correlations. Gender is coded as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female).
*p < .005.
21
22

acceptance was negatively related to perceived reputations as overtly and relationally
victimized. Popularity was positively associated with perceptions of relational aggression
and negatively associated with perceptions of social withdrawal. Moreover, the results
revealed that girls were more likely to be nominated as well-liked and popular. Boys
were more likely to feel that they were picked by peers for the items assessing overt
aggression and overt victimization. Effect sizes for these associations were small to
medium (Cohen, 1988).
Multiple regression analyses. After considering the pattern of first-order
correlations among the variables, multiple regression was used to examine the unique
contributions of social acceptance and popularity in predicting perceptions of social
status and behavioral reputations and to explore the potential moderating role of gender.
Separate models were specified for each of the four perceived social status variables and
each of the six perceived behavioral reputation variables. At the first step for all the
models, the perception variables were predicted from the main effects of social
acceptance, popularity, and gender. Notably, in each of our models, we included
simultaneous estimates for the effects of social acceptance and popularity. Although
social acceptance and popularity are conceptualized as distinct constructs (LaFontana &
Cillessen, 2002), investigators have consistently reported significant correlations between
the two dimensions of social status (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,
1998), similar to the current investigation (r = .64, p < .005). Thus, our analyses
estimated the effects of social acceptance with popularity controlled and popularity with
social acceptance controlled.
23

At the second step for all the models, the two-way interactions for social
acceptance × gender, popularity × gender, and social acceptance × popularity were
entered (i.e., all possible two-way interactions). The social acceptance × popularity
interaction was not of theoretical interest, but we ran the models fully specified in order
to be conservative. Interaction terms were calculated based on mean centered values
(Aiken & West, 1991). For all the models, variables were entered simultaneously at each
step, and steps were entered sequentially. To maintain study error rates, the significance
of individual regression parameters within steps was only considered if the ∆R
2

associated with the full step reached significance at the .05 level.
As illustrated in Table 4, the variables entered on the first step of the models
significantly incremented R
2
in each case, except for the model predicting perceptions of
prosociality. Social acceptance was a positive, unique predictor of perceptions of social
acceptance and a negative, unique predictor of perceptions of social rejection and
relational victimization. Popularity was a positive, unique predictor of perceptions of
popularity, social rejection, overt aggression, and relational aggression and a negative,
unique predictor of perceptions of unpopularity and social withdrawal. The overall
pattern of main effects for the two dimensions of social status supported the hypothesis
that social acceptance is linked to perceiving aspects of social reputations relevant to
forming and maintaining friendships, whereas popularity is related to perceiving aspects
of social reputations pertinent to gaining social power. Finally, gender uniquely predicted
perceptions of both overt aggression and overt victimization. Boys more than girls
believed that they were seen as overtly aggressive and overtly victimized.

Table 4
Multiple Regression Analyses for Social Acceptance, Popularity, and Gender Predicting Perceptions of Social Status and
Behavioral Reputations
Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

β
sr
2
Step ∆R
2

Perceptions of Social Acceptance 1 Social Acceptance -0.140* 0.011* 0.036**
F(6, 403) = 3.82, p < .001, R
2
= 0.054 Popularity -0.060 0.002
Gender -0.022 0.000
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.076 0.001 0.017
Popularity × Gender -0.070 0.001
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.181* 0.016*

Perceptions of Popularity 1 Social Acceptance -0.006 0.000 0.108***
F(6, 396) = 9.75, p < .0001, R
2
= 0.129 Popularity -0.331*** 0.065***
Gender -0.048 0.002
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.111 0.003 0.021*
Popularity × Gender -0.158 0.005
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.185* 0.018*

Perceptions of Social Rejection 1 Social Acceptance -0.129* 0.010* 0.019*
F(6, 397) = 2.68, p < 0.05, R
2
= 0.039 Popularity -0.158* 0.015*
Gender -0.057 0.003
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.105 0.003 0.019*
Popularity × Gender -0.093 0.002
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.183* 0.015*

Perceptions of Unpopularity 1 Social Acceptance -0.044 0.001 0.053***
F(6, 394) = 5.67, p < .0001, R
2
= 0.079 Popularity -0.206** 0.025**
Gender -0.057 0.003
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.103 0.002 0.079*
Popularity × Gender -0.077 0.001
Social Acceptance × Popularity 0.206** 0.020**
24

Table 4, Continued
Perceptions of Prosociality 1 Social Acceptance -0.123 0.009 0.013
F(6, 405) = 1.18, ns, R
2
= 0.017 Popularity -0.114 0.008
Gender -0.043 0.002
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.135 0.004 0.004
Popularity × Gender -0.070 0.001
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.040 0.001

Perceptions of Overt Aggression 1 Social Acceptance -0.059 0.002 0.075***
F(6, 405) = 6.00, p < .0001, R
2
= 0.082 Popularity -0.141* 0.012*
Gender -0.261*** 0.063***
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.066 0.001 0.007
Popularity × Gender -0.154 0.004
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.053 0.001

Perceptions of Relational Aggression 1 Social Acceptance -0.062 0.002 0.034**
F(6, 405) = 2.91, p < 0.01, R
2
= 0.041 Popularity -0.210** 0.026**
Gender -0.032 0.001
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.094 0.002 0.007
Popularity × Gender -0.009 0.000
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.115 0.006

Perceptions of Overt Victimization 1 Social Acceptance -0.114 0.008 0.046***
F(6, 403) = 3.87, p < 0.001, R
2
= 0.055 Popularity -0.016 0.000
Gender -0.147** 0.020**
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.092 0.001 0.008
Popularity × Gender -0.175 0.006
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.055 0.001

25

Table 4, Continued
Perceptions of Relational Victimization 1 Social Acceptance -0.147* 0.012* 0.038***
F(6, 400) = 2.99, p < 0.01, R
2
= 0.043 Popularity -0.021 0.000
Gender -0.074 0.005
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.082 0.001 0.005
Popularity × Gender -0.042 0.000
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.025 0.000

Perceptions of Social Withdrawal 1 Social Acceptance -0.015 0.000 0.032**
F(6, 403) = 2.73, p < 0.05, R
2
= 0.039 Popularity -0.125* 0.009*
Gender -0.091 0.008
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.105 0.002 0.007
Popularity × Gender -0.016 0.000
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.113 0.006
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance accounted for uniquely by the parameter.
Step ∆R
2
is the increment in variance accounted for when the combined variables are entered at each step. Gender is coded as a
dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female).
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.
26
27

The variables entered on the second step significantly incremented R
2
only in the
models predicting perceptions of popularity, social rejection, and unpopularity. For
perceptions of popularity, social rejection, and unpopularity, significant social acceptance
× popularity interactions emerged. To decompose these effects, we followed the
recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). We algebraically fixed the level of social
acceptance at high (one SD above the mean), medium (the mean), and low (one SD
below the mean) levels. We then examined the relations between popularity (with gender
controlled) and each outcome at each level of social acceptance. The positive association
between popularity and perceptions of popularity declined in magnitude as the level of
social acceptance moved from low, β = 0.55, p < .001, to medium, β = 0.51, p < .001, to
high, β = 0.35, p < .001. Similarly, the negative relation between popularity and
perceptions of unpopularity declined in magnitude as the level of social acceptance
moved from low, β = -0.48, p < .001, to medium, β = -0.35, p < .001, to high, β = -0.23, p
< .001. Still, these effects reached significance at all levels of social acceptance. Finally,
the association between popularity and perceptions of social rejection only reached
significance at the high level of social acceptance: low, β = -0.02, ns, medium, β = 0.06,
ns, high, β = 0.14, p < .05.
1

1
In our multiple regression analyses, the perceived social status and behavioral
reputation variables were treated as continuous outcomes. However, the perception
variables were assessed using ordered categories (no, maybe, and yes). Therefore, we also
used ordinal logistic regression to examine the unique contributions of social acceptance
and popularity in predicting perceptions of social status and behavioral reputations and to
explore the potential moderating role of gender. We specified separate models for each of
the perceptions variables. The overall pattern of results, depicted in Appendix B (Table
7), was similar to the multiple regression models, shown in Table 4.
28

Dyadic Perceptions of Friendship
Preliminary analyses. In our preliminary analyses, we first examined the
distributions of each of the three aspects of dyadic perceptions of friendships. Table 1
provides the means and standard deviations for the three variables, which were
approximately normally distributed. On average, adolescents were significantly
congruent in perceiving their friendships at a better-than-chance level for an alpha of .05
(t(415) = 12.58, p < .0001). That is, they generally nominated friends whom they
believed would identify them as a friend. However, adolescents were not, on average,
significantly accurate (t(395) = -12.21, ns) or mutual (t(415) = -11.32, ns) in perceiving
their friendships at a better-than-chance level for an alpha of .05. In other words, they
were not usually correct at identifying who would pick them as a friend and did not
typically nominate reciprocated friends. We next determined how many participants were
significantly accurate, congruent, and mutual in perceiving their friendships at a better-
than-chance level for an alpha of .05. The results revealed that 24.70% of students were
significantly accurate, 76.30% were significantly congruent, and 27.58% were
significantly mutual. The results also revealed that girls were more likely to be
significantly accurate (30.74% of girls, 16.94% of boys; χ
2
(1, N = 414) = 10.47, p < .005)
congruent (82.68% of girls, 63.13% of boys; χ
2
(1, N = 413) = 11.91, p < .001), and
mutual (33.33% of girls, 19.67% of boys; χ
2
(1, N = 414) = 9.60, p < .005).
Bivariate correlations. As depicted in Table 5, the degree of association between
social status, dyadic perceptions of friendships, and gender was examined using bivariate
correlations. We evaluated effects using a relatively conservative Type I error rate of .005
29

to maintain overall study error rates. Consistent with the hypotheses of our study, social
acceptance was positively associated with friendship accuracy, congruence, and
mutuality, with medium to large effect sizes. Popularity was also positively associated
with the three aspects of dyadic perceptions of friendship, with small to medium effect
sizes. Finally, the correlations revealed that girls were significantly more accurate,
congruent, and mutual in perceiving friendships than boys were. Effect sizes for the
gender associations were small, however.
Multiple regression analyses. After considering the pattern of first-order
correlations among the variables, multiple regression was used to examine the unique
contributions of social acceptance and popularity in predicting dyadic perceptions of
friendships and to explore the potential moderating role of gender. Separate models were
specified for friendship accuracy, congruence, and mutuality. At the first step for all the
models, the perception variables were predicted from the main effects of social
acceptance, popularity, and gender. At the second step, the two-way interactions for
social acceptance × gender, popularity × gender, and social acceptance × popularity were
entered. The social acceptance × popularity interaction was not of theoretical interest, but
we ran the models fully specified in order to be conservative. Interaction terms were
calculated based on mean centered values. For all the models, variables were entered
simultaneously at each step, and steps were entered sequentially. To maintain study error
rates, the significance of individual regression parameters within steps was only
considered if the ∆R
2
associated with the full step reached significance at the .05 level.
30

As shown in Table 6, the variables entered on the first step of all models
significantly incremented R
2
. In line with our hypotheses, social acceptance was a
positive, unique predictor of friendship accuracy (i.e., veridicality of perceptions),
congruence (i.e., assumed reciprocity), and mutuality (i.e., actual reciprocity). In contrast,
popularity did not uniquely predict any of the dyadic perception variables. Furthermore,
gender uniquely predicted two of the three aspects of dyadic perceptions of friendships.
Girls were significantly more accurate and congruent in perceiving friendships than boys
were. The variables entered on the second step did not significantly increment R
2
in any
of the models, and are therefore not presented in Table 6.
31

Table 5
Bivariate Correlations for Social Status, Dyadic Perceptions of Friendships, and Gender
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Social Status
1. Social Acceptance --
2. Popularity 0.64* --
Dyadic Perceptions of Friendships
3. Friendship Accuracy 0.48* 0.34* --
4. Friendship Congruence 0.30* 0.24* 0.45* --
5. Friendship Mutuality 0.55* 0.40* 0.87* 0.42* --
Gender
6. Gender 0.25* 0.19* 0.26* 0.24* 0.20*
Note. The ns ranged from 393 to 416 for the correlations. Gender is coded as a
dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female).
*p < .005.

Table 6
Multiple Regression Analyses for Social Acceptance, Popularity, and Gender Predicting
Dyadic Perceptions of Friendships (Step 1)
Outcome Variable Effects in the Model

β
sr
2
Friendship Accuracy Social Acceptance 0.423*** 0.103***
F(3, 386) = 45.71, p < .0001, R
2
= 0.262 Popularity 0.043 0.001
Gender 0.152*** 0.022***

Friendship Congruence Social Acceptance 0.216*** 0.027***
F(3, 406) = 18.45, p < .0001, R
2
= 0.120 Popularity 0.069 0.003
Gender 0.165*** 0.026***

Friendship Mutuality Social Acceptance 0.483*** 0.135***
F(3, 406) = 61.67, p < .0001, R
2
=0.313 Popularity 0.079 0.004
Gender 0.070 0.005
Note. sr
2
is the squared semipartial correlation coefficient, the percentage of variance
accounted for uniquely by the parameter. Gender is coded as a dichotomous variable (0 =
male, 1 = female).
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.

32

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION
Prior investigators have conceptualized social acceptance as an affordance for
friendships (Bukowski et al., 1996). They have argued that forming and maintaining
friendships may be facilitated by prosocial abilities and hampered by aggression and
victimization (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003; Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007). In contrast,
past researchers have described popularity as an affordance for social power (Lease et al.,
2002). They have proposed that gaining social power relies upon establishing visibility
and dominance, for example by influencing peers with aggressive tactics, and may be
hindered by withdrawal from the social spotlight (Hawley, 2007; Lease et al., 2002). As
the two dimensions of social status represent affordances for different realms of peer
interactions, the current study examined whether social acceptance and popularity may
have different implications for perceptions of reputations and relationships. We
considered early adolescents’ perceptions of their social status and their behavioral
reputations in the peer group and their dyadic perceptions of their friendships, as group
and dyadic peer interactions represent distinct areas of experience (Bukowski & Hoza,
1989; Hartup & Abecassis, 2002).
The results of the current study were consistent with the suggestion that social
acceptance is associated with perceiving facets of social reputations and dyadic
relationships pertinent to forming and maintaining friendships, whereas popularity is
related to perceiving facets relevant to gaining social power. In line with our hypotheses,
our analyses revealed that social acceptance was a positive predictor of perceptions of
social acceptance and a negative predictor of perceptions of rejection and relational
33

victimization. In contrast with our expectations, we did not find significant links between
social acceptance and perceptions of prosociality, aggression, and relational
victimization, although effects were in the predicted directions. Additionally, we found
that popularity was a positive predictor of perceptions of popularity, rejection (at least at
high levels of social acceptance), and overt and relational aggression and a negative
predictor of perceptions of unpopularity and withdrawal. Lastly, social acceptance, but
not popularity, was related to more accurate, congruent, and mutual perceptions of
friendships. That is, more well-liked early adolescents had a greater likelihood of
correctly identifying friends, choosing friends based on perceptions of peers’ friendship
choices, and having reciprocated friendships.
The current study also explored the potential moderating role of gender for
associations between social status and perceptions of reputations and relationships, since
boys and girls may engage in different types of social interactions that may impact their
perceptions of their social status, behavioral reputations, and friendships (Cillessen &
Bellmore, 2002). Our analyses revealed that gender did not moderate the associations
between social status and the perception variables. However, we found that boys were
more likely to believe that peers identified them as overtly aggressive and victimized,
mirroring previous data indicating that boys are more likely to be overtly aggressive and
victimized (Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). We also found that girls
were more likely to correctly identify their friends and choose friends based on
perceptions of peers’ friendship choices. Similarly, past research has found that
adolescent girls identify peers that deem them an acceptable friend more accurately than
34

boys (Ausubel & Schiff, 1955). In line with our findings, prior work on friendships also
indicates that girls are more likely than boys to form small dyads and tryads than larger
groups, to value intimate, dyadic activities compared to group activities, and to describe
friendships as positive and intimate (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). If girls are more
likely than boys to form, value, and nurture positive dyadic relationships, then it is likely
that they would also better understand their dyadic relationships. Still, group differences
in such perceptions tend to be small and inconsistent (Cillessen & Bellmore, 2002).
Therefore, future studies are needed to replicate our gender findings.
The results of our study may have implications for research on physical,
psychological, and academic adjustment outcomes. Prior work has underscored that
social acceptance and popularity present different implications for adjustment outcomes.
Social acceptance is mostly related to positive or neutral implications for development,
for example in terms of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Sandstrom &
Cillessen, 2006), substance use (Dishion, Capaldi, & Yoerger, 1999), and academic
achievement (Wentzel, 1991). On the other hand, popularity is often predictive of
negative outcomes. For instance, popularity is associated with sexual experimentation
(Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008; Prinstein, Meade, & Cohen, 2003), alcohol use
(Mayeux et al., 2008), and unexplained absences from school (Schwartz et al., 2006).
Following the social-information processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1994), the
relations between social status and adjustment outcomes are probably mediated by social
cognitions such as perceived social reputations and perceived dyadic relationships.
According to the model, social status is likely to shape perceptions of reputations and
35

relationships which, in turn, may be causal of specific social behaviors at the root of
adjustment outcomes. Indeed, complementing our work on the links between social status
and perceptions of reputations and relationships, several studies have documented the
associations between perceptions and adjustment outcomes. In particular, research
indicates that youth who perceive themselves as less socially competent or less accepted
by their peers experience more emotional difficulties, and perhaps also display more
hostile and inattentive behaviors, experiment more with cigarettes, and have more
academic problems (Chansky & Kendall, 1997; Cillessen & Bellmore, 1999; Cohen,
Reinherz, & Frost, 1993; Cole, Peeke, Dolezal, Murray, & Canzoniero, 1999; Pardini,
Barry, Barth, Lochman, & Wells, 2006; Wilkinson et al., 2009). Conversely, those who
see themselves as more socially competent fare well over time, for instance being less
likely to act withdrawn (McElhaney, Antonishak, & Allen, 2008) or make gains in
adiposity (Lemeshow et al., 2008). While viewing oneself as socially competent or
accepted may contribute to positive adjustment outcomes, the same does not appear true
for perceiving oneself as popular. Notably, popular adolescents who are aware of their
popularity are amongst the most aggressive students and show some of the greatest
increases in aggression over time (Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008).
With a few exceptions (e.g., Cillessen et al., 2005; Erath et al., 2008; Graham &
Juvonen, 1998), most studies have focused on the adjustment correlates of perceptions of
social status. Future research is needed to determine whether and how one’s perceptions
of behavioral reputations and friendships contributes to adjustment. Future studies may
also benefit from specifically looking at which facets of perceiving reputations and
36

relationships mediate previously documented links between social status and adjustment
outcomes. Although researchers have begun to address this topic, most have limited their
focus to perceptions of social status. For instance, studies have found that children and
adolescents who are more rejected by their peers report more depressive symptoms, and
the link between their rejection and their depressive symptoms is mediated by their
negative perceptions of their social acceptance or social competence (Panak & Garber,
1992; Zimmer-Gembeck, Hunter, & Pronk, 2007).
The findings of this project offer an important contribution to the existing body of
research on youths’ perceptions of their reputations and their relationships, but a number
of potential shortcomings should be acknowledged. First, despite our inclusion of
multiple domains of perception, we restricted our investigation to three areas in
particular: perceptions of social status, perceptions of behavioral reputations, and dyadic
perceptions of friendships. Yet, it may be important to investigate how youth understand
other aspects of their peer experiences, such as their clique memberships or their
enmities. In addition, we focused on only one aspect of how early adolescents perceive
their friendships. Our project addressed how youth understand who their friends are, but
did not look at how youth understand the quality of their friendships or the identity of
their friends (Hartup, 1996). Others, however, have begun to investigate these topics
(e.g., Barry & Wigfield, 2002; Cleary, Ray, LoBello, & Zachar, 2002).
Likewise, we did not consider the accuracy of perceptions of social status and
behavioral reputations, although research suggests that how correctly social reputations
are perceived contributes uniquely to adjustment outcomes (Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008).
37

Unfortunately, our measures of perceived social status and perceived behavioral
reputations, based on three-point self-rating scales, did not provide the variability needed
to adequately consider the accuracy of perceptions. However, previous work suggests
that suitable approaches might involve comparing peer-nominations to seven-point self-
rating scales (e.g., Mayeux & Cillessen, 2008), comparing peer- and self-rating scales
with equal numbers of points (e.g., Malloy et al., 2007), or comparing sets of peer-
nominations (e.g., as in our analyses of dyadic perceptions of friendships).
Additionally, we measured social status, perceived social reputations, and
perceived dyadic relationships concurrently and within a non-experimental design. It may
be worthwhile to replicate our findings in the context of a longitudinal design, which
would allow us to look at the temporal sequencing of relations. In particular, a
longitudinal design would permit us to examine both unidirectional associations and bi-
directional influences. Furthermore, as we limited our study to a single age group with a
cross-sectional design, we could not examine differences among age groups or changes
over time. Further research with a wider range of age groups might prove to be
informative. Future investigations may especially benefit from examining differences
around the transitions into middle school and high school, as school transitions may
change social networks and alter opportunities for social interactions (Brown, 1990).
Indeed, expectations of social functioning prior to school transitions are not necessarily in
line with perceptions of functioning afterwards. For instance, in fifth grade, popular
students, but not well-liked students, tend to think that their peers will be nice to them
and like them in middle school. In contrast, in sixth grade, well-liked students, but not
38

popular students, tend to believe that others are nice to them and will hang out with them
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2007). Similarly, perceptions of reputations and relationships prior
to and after school transitions may diverge.
In summary, the results from this study were consistent with the suggestion that
social acceptance is associated with perceiving facets of social reputations and dyadic
relationships pertinent to forming and maintaining friendships, while popularity is related
to perceiving facets relevant to gaining social power. An important agenda for future
research is to investigate within longitudinal studies how perceptions at the group and
dyadic levels may mediate the different links between the two dimensions of social status
and psychological, physical, and academic adjustment outcomes.
39

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ausubel, D. P., & Schiff, H. M. (1955). Some intrapersonal and interpersonal
determinants of individual differences in sociempathic ability among adolescents.
Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 39-56.

Ausubel, D. P., Schiff, H. M., & Gasser, E. B. (1952). A preliminary study of
developmental trends in socioempathy: Accuracy of perception of own and
others’ sociometric status. Child Development, 23, 111-128.

Barry, C. M., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Self-perceptions of friendship-making ability and
perceptions of friends’ deviant behavior: Childhood to adolescence. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 22, 143-172. doi:10.1177/0272431602022002002

Bellmore, A. D., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Children’s meta-perceptions and meta-
accuracy of acceptance and rejection by same-sex and other-sex peers. Personal
Relationships, 10, 217-233. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00047

Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer culture. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliott
(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory,
measurements, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer
relationships and child development (pp. 15-45). New York: Wiley.

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1993). Popularity, friendship, and emotional
adjustment during early adolescence. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & B. Laursen
(Vol. Ed.), New directions for child development: Vol. 60. Close friendships in
adolescence (pp. 23-37). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Bukowski, W. M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., Newcomb, A. F., & Hoza, B. (1996). Popularity
as an affordance for friendship: The link between group and dyadic experience.
Social Development, 5, 189-202. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1996.tb00080.x

Cairns, R. B., Leung, M., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friendships and social
networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations.
Child Development, 66, 1330-1345. doi:10.2307/1131650

California Department of Education (2009). School level free and reduced price meal
eligibility data file. Sacramento, CA: Author.
40

Chansky, T. E., & Kendall, P. C. (1997). Social expectancies and self-perceptions in
anxiety disordered children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 347-363.
doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(97)00015-7

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bellmore, A. D. (1999). Accuracy of social self-perceptions and
peer competence in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 650-676.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bellmore, A. D. (2002). Social skills and interpersonal perception
in early and middle childhood. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of childhood social development (pp. 355-374). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.

Cillessen, A. H. N., Lu Jiang, X., West, T. V., & Laskowski, D. K. (2005). Predictors of
dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29, 165‐172. doi:10.1080/01650250444000360

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement:
Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social
standing. Child Development, 75, 147-163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2004.00660.x

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2007). Expectations and perceptions at school
transitions: The role of peer status and aggression. Journal of School Psychology,
45, 567-586. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.004

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2005.00343.x

Cleary, D. J., Ray, G. E., LoBello, S. G., & Zachar, P. (2002). Children’s perceptions of
close peer relationships: Quality, congruence, and meta-perceptions. Child Study
Journal, 32, 179-192.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2
nd
ed. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.

Cohen, E., Reinherz, H., & Frost, A. (1993). Self-perceived unpopularity: Its relationship
to emotional and behavioral problems. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 10, 107-122. doi:10.1007/BF00778782

41

Cole, D. A., Peeke, L., Dolezal, S., Murray, N., & Canzoniero, A. (1999). A longitudinal
study of negative affect and self-perceived competence in young adolescents.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 851-862. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.77.4.851

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order (Rev. ed.). New York:
Scribner.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization:
A Multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,
337-347. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.337

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information
processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
74-101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722. doi:10.2307/1131945

Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors
making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
284-290. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.284.

Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D. M., & Yoerger, K. (1999). Middle childhood antecedents to
progressions in male adolescent substance use: An ecological analysis of risk and
protection. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 175-205.
doi:10.1177/0743558499142003

Ellis, W. E., & Zarbatany, L. (2007). Explaining friendship formation and friendship
stability: The role of children’s and friend’s aggression and victimization. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 53, 79‐104. doi:10.1353/mpq.2007.0001

Erath, S. A., Flanagan, K. S., & Bierman, K. L. (2008). Early adolescent school
adjustment: Associations with friendship and peer victimization. Social
Development, 17, 853-870. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00458.x

Fleiss, J. L., Cohen, J., Everitt, B. S. (1969). Large sample standard errors of kappa and
weighted kappa. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 323-327. doi:10.1037/h0028106

George, T. P., & Hartman, D. P. (1996). Friendship networks of unpopular, average, and
popular children. Child Development, 67, 2301‐2316. doi:10.2307/1131624

42

Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social
acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41,
235-284. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self‐blame and peer victimization in middle school:
An attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587‐599.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.587

Greener, S. H. (2000). Peer assessment of children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of
Moral Education, 29, 47-60. doi:10.1080/030572400102925

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental
significance. Child Development, 67, 1-13. doi:10.2307/1131681

Hartup, W. W. & Abecassis, M. (2002). Friends and enemies. In P. K. Smith & C. H.
Hart (Eds.), Blackwood handbook of childhood social development (pp. 286-306).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early
adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 279-309. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0013

Hawley, P. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social
competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, &
P. Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and Adaptation: The Bright Side to Bad Behavior
(pp. 1-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend:
Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial skills.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 170‐180.
doi:10.1177/0165025407074630

Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new
look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and
females. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 76-88.
doi:10.1177/0165025407084054

Henry, D. B. (2006). Associations between peer nominations, teacher ratings, self-
reports, and observations of malicious and disruptive behavior. Assessment, 13,
241-252. doi:10.1177/1073191106287668

Hymel, S. (1986). Interpretations of peer behavior: Affective bias in childhood and
adolescence. Child Development, 57, 431-445. doi:10.2307/1130599

43

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception. New York: Guilford Press.

Kistner, J. A, David-Ferdon, C. F., Repper, K. K., & Joiner, T. E. (2006). Bias and
accuracy of children’s perceptions of peer acceptance: Prospective associations
with depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 349-361.
doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9028-9

Kurdek, L. A., & Krile, D. (1982). A developmental analysis of the relation between peer
acceptance and both interpersonal understanding and perceived social self-
competence. Child Development, 53, 1485-1491. doi:10.2307/1130075

Ladd, G. W., & Oden, S. L. (1979). The relationship between peer acceptance and
children’s ideas about helpfulness. Child Development, 50, 402-408.
doi:10.2307/1129415

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and
unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-
647. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Developmental changes in the priority
of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130-
147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x

Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of
popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00188

Lemeshow, A. R., Fisher, L., Goodman, E., Kawachi, I., Berkey, C. S., & Colditz, G. A.
(2008). Subjective social status in the school and change in adiposity in female
adolescents: Findings of a prospective cohort study. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine, 162, 23-28.

MacDonald, C. D. & Cohen, R. (1995). Children’s awareness of which peers like them
and which peers dislike them. Social Development, 4, 182-193.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1995.tb00059.x

Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., & Scarpati, S. (2007). Awareness of peers’ judgments of
oneself: Accuracy and process of metaperception. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 31, 603‐610. doi:10.1177/0165025407080590

Malloy, T. E., Yarlas, A., Montvilo, R. K., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Accuracy in
children’s interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis. Interpersonal
Relations and Group Processes, 71, 692-702. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.692

44

Marshall, H. R., & McCandless, B. R. (1957). A study in prediction of social behavior of
preschool children. Child Development, 28, 149-159. doi:10.2307/1125877

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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2008.00474.x
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky
proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49-74. doi:10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2008.00550.x

McElhaney, K. B., Antonishak, J., & Allen, J. P. (2008). “They like me, they like me
not”: Popularity and adolescents’ perceptions of acceptance predicting social
functioning over time. Child Development, 79, 720-731. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2008.01153.x

Owens, L., & Duncan, N. (2009). “They might not like you but everyone knows you”:
Popularity among teenage girls. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 3, 14-39.

Panak, W. F., & Garber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection, and attributions in the
prediction of depression in children. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 145-
165. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005617

Pardini, D. A., Barry, T. D., Barth, J. M., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2006). Self-
perceived social acceptance and peer social standing in children with aggressive-
disruptive behaviors. Social Development, 15, 46-64. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2006.00329.x

Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup
differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 231-241. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.231

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer perceived
popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence,
18, 125-144. doi:10.1177/0272431698018002001

Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., Griesler, P. C. (1990). Children’s perceptions of self
and of relationships with others as a function of sociometric status. Child
Development, 61, 1335-1349. doi:10.2307/1130746

Pedhauzer, E. J., & Pedhauzer Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and
analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

45

Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer
aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
49, 310-342.

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. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsg012

Rabiner, D. L., & Coie, J. D. (1989). Effect of expectancy inductions on rejected
children’s acceptance by unfamiliar peers. Developmental Psychology, 25, 450-
457. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.450

Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship
processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of
girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.132.1.98

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Coplan, R. J. (2002). Social withdrawal and shyness. In
P. K. Smith & C. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social
Development (pp. 329-352). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct
implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 30, 305-314. doi:10.1177/0165025406072789

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & McKay, T. (2006). Popularity, liking, and
aggression in adolescent peer groups: Links with academic performance and
school attendance. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1116-1127. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.42.6.1116

Singleton, L. C., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Peer preferences and social interaction among
third-grade children in an integrated school district. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69, 330-336. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.69.4.330

Smith, P. K., & Delfosse, P. (1980). Accuracy of reporting own and other’s companions
in young children. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 337-
338.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5
th
ed. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Tagiuri, R., Blake, R. R., & Bruner, J. S. (1953). Some determinants of the perception of
positive and negative feelings in others. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 48, 585-592. doi:10.1037/h0056157
46

United Way of Greater Los Angeles (2007). Zip code databook for Los Angeles County
service planning area 2: San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles: Author.

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles
of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-408.
doi:10.1002/ab.20138

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom
behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
173-182. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.173

Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement
in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066-1078. doi:10.2307/1131152

Wilkinson, A. V., Shete, S., Vasudevan, V., Prokhorov, A. V., Bondy, M. L., & Spitz, M.
R. (2009). Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 342-348.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.003

Wojslawowicz Bowker, J. C., Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Booth-Laforce, C., & Rose-
Krasnor, L. (2006). Behavioral characteristics associated with stable and fluid
best friendship patterns in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 671-
693. doi:10.1353/mpq.2006.0000

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Hunter, T. A., & Pronk, R. (2007). A model of behaviors, peer
relations, and depression: Perceived social acceptance as a mediator and the
divergence of perceptions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 273-
302. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.3.273
47

APPENDIX A
Questionnaire querying demographic information and containing peer-report nomination
measures and self-report rating scales to assess actual and perceived social status,
behavioral reputations, and friendships.

Cover Sheet

My Name is: ___________________________ (BLOCK LETTERS)

My List Number is : __________________

Please DO NOT write your name on any
other sheet of paper.

Office Use Only

ID #:_____________

48

ID #__________
My Information
Gender: Male-0 Female-1
Grade: ______________
Ethnicity: Please circle the ethnicity that would best describe you.
1- Hispanic 2-White 3-Black Non-Hispanic
4- American Indian/Alaska Native 5- Filipino 6-Pacific Islander
7- Asian 8-Middle-Eastern 9-Armenian
10-Mixed
The main language my family speaks at home is not English:
True-1 False-0
The language we do speak is:
1- Spanish 2-Japanese 3-Cantonese 4-Tagalog 5-Armenian
6- Khmer 7-Mandarin 8-Farsi 9-Hebrew 10-Arabic
11-Laotian 12-Korean 13-Thai 14-Russian 15-Other: ______
My Age is: _________
My Birth date is:
_____/___/______
mm/ dd /yyyy
49

ID #__________
Others at School
PLEASE TAKE OUT THE SHORT LIST ATTACHED TO THIS SURVEY &
USE IT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
Please do not write your name, or the names of other students, anywhere on this sheet!

1 (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that you really like.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that they like you? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

2 (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that you don't like that much.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody they don't like that much? (Circle one
choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

50

ID #__________

3. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that hit or push other students.

1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that hits or pushes other students? (Circle
one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

4. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students who get hit, pushed, or bullied by
other students.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you get hit, pushed, or bullied? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

51

ID #__________

5. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that would rather hang out alone
than be with other students.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that would rather hang out alone than be
with other students? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

6. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students who other students gossip about or
say mean things about behind their backs.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that other students gossip about or say
mean things about? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

52

ID #__________

7. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that like to share with other
students.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody who likes to share? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

8. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that start fights with other students
by punching or pushing them.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that starts fights? (Circle one choice)
0   1 2
No Maybe Yes

53

ID #__________

9. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that try to be mean to other
students by ignoring them or excluding them.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that tries to be mean by ignoring or
excluding other students? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No   Maybe Yes

10. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that would rather be alone than be
with other students.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say you are somebody who likes to be alone? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

54

ID #__________

11. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students who get left out of activities,
excluded, or ignored when other students are trying to hurt their feelings.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that gets left out of activities, excluded or
ignored? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

12. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students who like to help other students.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody that likes to help other students? (Circle
one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

55

ID #__________

13. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that gossip about other students or
say mean things about other students behind their backs.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you gossip about other students or say mean things about
other students behind their backs? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

14. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that are popular.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody who is popular? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No   Maybe Yes

56

ID #__________

15. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students who get beat up by other students.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say you are somebody who gets beat up? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No Maybe Yes

16. (a). Write the ID codes of up to nine students that are unpopular. These are
students who are NOT popular.
1. ________________________ 2. ______________________ 3. ________________________
4. ________________________ 5. ______________________ 6. ________________________
7. ________________________ 8. ______________________ 9. ________________________

(b). Do you think other students wrote down your ID for this question? Did a lot of
other students say that you are somebody who is NOT popular? (Circle one choice)
0 1 2
No   Maybe Yes

NOW PLEASE PUT ASIDE THIS SHORT LIST.
YOU WILL NO LONGER BE USING IT.
57

ID #__________

PLEASE USE THE NEW ATTACHED LIST BEHIND THIS PAGE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW.
Please circle the students on the attached list who you consider GOOD
FRIENDS. These are students who are your REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS.
You can circle as few or as many students as you like.

58

ID #__________
Students in Your Grade
ID Code Name
1 John Smith
2 Jane Doe
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .

59

ID #__________

PLEASE USE THE NEW ATTACHED LIST BEHIND THIS PAGE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW.
Please circle the students on the attached list who you think chose you
as a GOOD FRIEND for the last question. These are students who you
think chose you as a REALLY CLOSE FRIEND. You can circle as few or as
many students as you like.



60

ID #__________
Students in Your Grade
ID Code Name
1 John Smith
2 Jane Doe
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .

APPENDIX B
Table 7
Logistic Regression Analyses for Social Acceptance, Popularity, and Gender Predicting Perceptions of Social Status and
Behavioral Reputations
Outcome Variable Step Effects in the Model

β
se
β
Wald’s χ
2

Perceptions of Social Acceptance 1 Social Acceptance -0.272* 0.134 4.131*
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.126 0.132 0.911
χ
2
= 20.83, df = 6, p < .005 Gender -0.051 0.206 0.061
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.246 0.279 0.779
Popularity × Gender -0.199 0.287 0.482
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.214* 0.087 5.973*

Perceptions of Popularity 1 Social Acceptance -0.002 0.131 0.000
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.724*** 0.145 24.822***
χ
2
= 55.25, df = 6, p < .0001 Gender -0.187 0.203 0.848
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.295 0.273 1.478
Popularity × Gender -0.373 0.307 6.682
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.227* 0.088 1.211*

Perceptions of Social Rejection 1 Social Acceptance -0.264* 0.133 3.910*
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.325* 0.133 5.938*
χ
2
= 15.33, df = 6, p < .05 Gender -0.211 0.211 1.001
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.272 0.279 0.956
Popularity × Gender -0.259 0.285 0.826
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.226* 0.087 6.763*

Perceptions of Unpopularity 1 Social Acceptance -0.068 0.131 0.266
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.461** 0.146 9.988**
χ
2
= 33.29, df = 6, p < .0001 Gender -0.296 0.205 2.088
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.273 0.278 0.961
61

Table 7, Continued
Popularity × Gender -0.141 0.313 0.204
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.238* 0.088 7.319*

Perceptions of Prosociality 1 Social Acceptance -0.228 0.121 3.583
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.202 0.118 2.916
χ
2
= 7.41, df = 6, ns Gender -0.113 0.188 0.362
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.373 0.252 2.196
Popularity × Gender -0.225 0.255 0.776
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.061 0.077 0.618

Perceptions of Overt Aggression 1 Social Acceptance -0.181 0.144 1.584
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.370** 0.132 7.860**
χ
2
= 38.80, df = 6, p < .0001 Gender -1.211*** 0.225 28.964***
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.014 0.295 0.002
Popularity × Gender -0.119 0.275 0.188
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.090 0.098 0.846

Perceptions of Relational Aggression 1 Social Acceptance -0.152 0.127 1.425
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.428*** 0.122 12.399***
χ
2
= 17.16, df = 6, p < .01 Gender -0.043 0.200 0.047
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.282 0.268 1.109
Popularity × Gender -0.086 0.262 0.108
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.105 0.081 1.709

Perceptions of Overt Victimization 1 Social Acceptance -0.213 0.152 1.977
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.055 0.156 0.125
χ
2
= 20.88, df = 6, p < .005 Gender -0.684** 0.223 9.441**
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.428 0.311 1.896
Popularity × Gender -0.499 0.327 2.325
62

Table 7, Continued
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.013 0.110 0.014

Perceptions of Relational Victimization 1 Social Acceptance -0.350* 0.172 4.139*
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.085 0.182 0.219
χ
2
= 14.66, df = 6, p < .05 Gender -0.305 0.244 1.561
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.152 0.352 .187
Popularity × Gender -0.271 0.406 .446
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.071 0.149 .228

Perceptions of Social Withdrawal 1 Social Acceptance -0.092 0.172 0.287
Likelihood Ratio Test: Popularity -0.370 0.211 3.064
χ
2
= 20.91, df = 6, p < .005 Gender -0.535* 0.249 4.625*
2 Social Acceptance × Gender -0.482 0.355 1.851
Popularity × Gender -0.151 0.419 0.129
Social Acceptance × Popularity -0.149 0.135 1.222
Note. Gender is coded as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female).
*p < .05. **p < .005. ***p < .001.

63

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the unique contributions of social acceptance and popularity in predicting perceived social reputations and perceived dyadic relationships in a cross-sectional sample of 418 sixth and seventh grade students (approximate average age of 12 years). We assessed early adolescents’ social status using peer nominations and measured their perceptions of their social status, their behavioral reputations, and their friendships from a combination of self-ratings and peer nominations. Social acceptance was a positive predictor of perceptions of social acceptance and friendships and a negative predictor of perceptions of rejection and victimization. Popularity was a positive predictor of perceptions of popularity, rejection, and aggression and a negative predictor of perceptions of unpopularity and withdrawal. The results were consistent with the suggestion that social acceptance is related to perceiving facets of reputations and relationships relevant to forming and maintaining friendships, whereas popularity is related to perceiving facets pertinent to gaining social power.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Interpersonal coping responses during adolescence: implications for adjustment

PDF

Friendship as a protective factor in adolescence

PDF

Dynamics of victimization, aggression, and popularity in adolescence

PDF

Academic achievement, same- and cross-ethnic positive peer regard among Asian American and Latinx adolescents

PDF

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

PDF

Social attributes of adolescents’ problem-talk partners predict changes in depression

PDF

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

PDF

A multiple systems approach to examining physiological stress and its association with internalizing disorders in adolescence

PDF

Social support, constraints, and protective buffering in prostate cancer patients and their partners

PDF

A network analysis of online and offline social influence processes in relation to adolescent smoking and alcohol use

PDF

Social support, self-efficacy, and gender in treatment adherence of heart failure patients

PDF

Pregnancy in the time of COVID-19: effects on perinatal mental health, birth, and infant development

PDF

Substance use disparities in adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: emerging trends in electronic cigarettes, alternative tobacco products, marijuana, and prescription drug use

Asset Metadata

Creator Badaly, Daryaneh (author)

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

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/20/2010

Defense Date 06/02/2010

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

Tag interpersonal perceptions,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer relations,popularity,social acceptance

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Manis, Franklin R. (committee member), Margolin, Gayla (committee member)

Creator Email badaly@usc.edu,d.badaly@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3201

Unique identifier UC1290101

Identifier etd-Badaly-3891 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-349440 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3201 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Badaly-3891.pdf

Dmrecord 349440

Document Type Thesis

Rights Badaly, Daryaneh

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu