This study examined subtypes of popular 4th-6th grade boys (N = 452). Popular-prosocial (model) and popular-antisocial (tough) configurations were identified by means of teacher ratings and compared with peer and self-assessments and social centrality measures. Peers perceived model boys as cool, athletic, leaders, cooperative, studious, not shy, and nonaggressive. Peers perceived tough boys as cool, athletic, and antisocial. Model boys saw themselves as nonaggressive and academically competent. Tough boys saw themselves as popular, aggressive, and physically competent. Tough boys were disproportionately African American, particularly when African Americans were a minority in their classrooms. Model and tough boys were overrepresented at nuclear social centrality levels. These findings suggest that highly aggressive boys can be among the most popular and socially connected children in elementary classrooms.

This study examined who among the 526 fourth to sixth graders are nominated as among the coolest kids in their class. There were two questions: (1) Are popularaggressive (tough) children nominated as cool by a broad spectrum of their peers, or only by a select few? (2) Does variability in children's cool nominations more closely follow their individual characteristics or group affiliations? Three-level hierarchical linear modeling (nominators in groups in classrooms) tested the study hypotheses. The main finding was that children in aggressive groups nominated tough peers as cool and children in nonaggressive groups nominated popular-nonaggressive (model) peers, regardless of nominators' individual characteristics or the prominence of their groups across diverse classroom contexts. Girls were proportionately more likely to nominate tough than model boys, but only a minority (less than 25 percent) of relatively aggressive girls nominated any boys as cool. Findings indicate that normative boy and girl peer cultures give broad reputational support to some aggressive children.[T]he word cool is not merely another way of saying 'good.' It comes with baggage-an alternative set of values which are often profoundly in conflict with official values. Pountain and Robins (2000, p. 32 ), Cool RulesResponsible adults advocate various kinds of 'official values' for children: prosocial qualities like cooperation, kindness, rule-following, and academic achievement are good; antisocial qualities like aggression, risky behavior, and disobedience are bad. Optimally, children give social status to peers who embody official values and withhold status from peers who defy these values. However, it is clear that within the cultures of childhood some aggressors are celebrated even as others are stigmatized (e.g.,

We point to a dilemma that is common, but by no means universal, in research using self-report measures of personality constructs to test and develop personality theory. This dilemma can occur when researchers overlook the item content of a personality scale and when equivalent content is found in other scales with which it is correlated. It can also occur when scale items are descriptive of nontest behavior that the scale is used to predict. If, in such cases, the overlapping item content does not contribute to the correlations of interest, researchers face evidence invalidating either the scale or the construct. Alternatively, if this content does contribute to correlations, researchers will find themselves unable to use the scales to test their hypotheses. Further, in some cases, their data are shown to be irrelevant to their hypotheses. The implications of these problems for personality research are noted.

This study examined who among the 526 fourth to sixth graders are nominated as among the coolest kids in their class. There were two questions: (1) Are popular‐aggressive (tough) children nominated as cool by a broad spectrum of their peers, or only by a select few? (2) Does variability in children’s cool nominations more closely follow their individual characteristics or group affiliations? Three‐level hierarchical linear modeling (nominators in groups in classrooms) tested the study hypotheses. The main finding was that children in aggressive groups nominated tough peers as cool and children in nonaggressive groups nominated popular‐nonaggressive (model) peers, regardless of nominators’ individual characteristics or the prominence of their groups across diverse classroom contexts. Girls were proportionately more likely to nominate tough than model boys, but only a minority (less than 25 percent) of relatively aggressive girls nominated any boys as cool. Findings indicate that normative boy and girl peer cultures give broad reputational support to some aggressive children.

This study examined peer affiliations of aggressive children in a sample of 948 students (496 girls, 452 boys) from 59 elementary classrooms (4th-6th grades). Groups were identified as zero aggressive, nonaggressive, aggressive, and mixed. The deviant peer group hypothesis was partially supported. Two thirds of aggressive boys and one half of aggressive girls were members of nonaggressive or mixed peer groups. Unpopular aggressive boys were most likely to be members of nonaggressive groups, whereas popular aggressive boys were most likely to be in aggressive and mixed groups. Aggressive and nonaggressive associates tended to be similar on key social characteristics (i.e., popularity, athleticism, leadership).