Beyond the Class Norm: Bullying Behavior of Popular Adolescents and its Relation to Peer Acceptance and Rejection

Abstract

This study examined to what extent bullying behavior of popular adolescents is responsible for whether bullying is more or less likely to be accepted or rejected by peers (popularity-norm effect) rather than the behavior of all peers (class norm). Specifically, the mean level of bullying by the whole class (class norm) was split into behavior of popular adolescents (popularity-norm) and behavior of non-popular adolescents (non-popularitynorm), and examined in its interaction with individual bullying on peer acceptance and peer rejection. The data stem from a peer-nominations subsample of TRAILS, a large population-based sample of adolescent boys and girls (N=3312). The findings of multilevel regression analyses demonstrated that the negative impact of individual bullying on peer acceptance and the positive impact on peer rejection were particularly weakened by bullying by popular adolescents. These results place the class-norm effects found in previous person-group dissimilarity studies in a different light, suggesting that particularly bullying by popular adolescents is related to the social status attached to bullying.Keywords Bullying . Popularity . Behavioral group norms . Acceptance . RejectionResearch on peer relations has demonstrated that acceptance or rejection of behaviors varies in accordance with the behavioral norm in the peer group or classroom (e.g., Boivin et al. 1995;Chang 2004;DeRosier et al. 1994;Jackson et al. 2006;Sentse et al. 2007;Stormshak et al. 1999). In most of these studies, researchers drew on the person-group dissimilarity model of Wright et al. (1986). This model postulates that negative social behaviors like aggression are more likely to lead to negative peer evaluations when these behaviors are not normative (infrequent) in the peer context. That is, children will be rejected when their behavior is dissimilar to that in their peer group context (they deviate from the group norm), but not if they display behavior similar to that of their peers.These studies have, however, neglected differences in influence reflected by adolescents' reputation-based status in the peer group. Adolescents with a high-status position among peers have more power and the ability to exert influence upon their peers directly or indirectly Adler 1995, 1998; DeBruyn and Cillessen 2006;LaFontana and Cillessen 2002;Lease et al. 2002;Parkhurst and Hopmeyer 1998). In view of their influential position among peers, it seems reasonable to suggest that involvement of popular adolescents in certain behaviors might affect the class norm and, consequently, the acceptance and rejection of behavior.In the present study, we examined the interplay between the class norm and status. The role of status was incorporated in the original person-group dissimilarity model to explain the diffuse relation of negative behavior (here: bullying) with peer acceptance and peer rejection. We would like to investigate whether it is not the class norm as expressed by the mean level of behavior of all peers but rather the mean ...

Adolescent Substance Use, Aggressive Behaviors, and Peer Context Behavioral Norms

“…These and other (compositional) characteristics of the peer context may affect the processes by which behavioral similarity comes about. For example, it may be that instead of classmates in general, the strongest influence on individual health-risk behavior comes from classmates with whom the adolescent shares a dyadic relationship or classmates with a high social reputation in the classroom (e.g., Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2008).…”

Teenagers’ Explanations of Bullying

“…By almost exclusively attributing the causes of bullying to the bully or the victim, teenagers risk overlooking other factors that might cause or influence the process of peer harassment. Bullying prevention efforts and interventions have to help children and adolescents to discover, understand and consider the complexity of bullying and factors such as social participation roles in bullying and the power and responsibility of bystanders (O'Connell et al 1999;Salmivalli 2010;Salmivalli et al 1996), the everyday process of making and maintaining friendships by defining and excluding nonfriends (Besag 2006;Mishna et al 2008;Owens et al 2000;Thornberg in press), instability in peer networks (Besag 2006;Neal 2007), the power of group norm settings by popular classmates (Dijkstra et al 2008), social hierarchy (Frisén et al 2008;Kless 1992;Neal 2007;Thornberg in press), probullying norms (Duffy and Nesdale 2009;Salmivalli and Voeten 2004), group processes and group pressure (Bukowski and Sippola 2001;Burns et al 2008;Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008), social representations or peer discourses about victims and bullying (Teräsahjo and Salmivalli 2003;Thornberg 2010b), gender (Kless 1992;Neal 2007;Phoenix et al 2003;Stoudt 2006), heterosexual hegemony (Phoenix et al 2003;Ringrose 2008), and intolerance of diversity (MacDonald and Swart 2004;Merton 1994;Thornberg in press) in peer culture. Hence, it appears to be urgent to deepen children's and young people's insights into peer attributing, school attributing, and human nature/society attributing, since these are atypical bullying explanations among the young people in our current findings.…”

What is popular? Distinguishing bullying and aggression as status correlates within specific peer normative contexts

“…In other words, if adolescents perceive that their peers value aggressive behavior, they may intentionally use it to gain social status, constituting a mechanism for social adaptation. Whereas, in the realm of bullying, several studies have shown that bullying may serve as a way of positioning individuals in the peer social hierarchy (Dijkstra et al 2008;Olthof & Goosens, 2007;Rodkin & Berger, 2008). Bullies can be popular and socially central in their social groups (Rodkin et al, 2006).…”

“…Another study found that the negative association between bullying and peer acceptance faded when bullies where high in machiavellianism (Wei & Chen, 2012). Seemingly, Dijkstra et al (2008) found that the associations between bullying and peer rejection (positive) and peer acceptance (negative) were weakened when the perpetrator of bullying behavior was highly popular. These differences may be due to attributional biases and also to peer beliefs regarding these behaviors (Lansu et al 2013;van Goethem et al, 2010).…”