Competition, Envy, or Snobbism? How Popularity and Friendships Shape Antipathy Networks of Adolescents

Abstract

This study examined how status (popularity) and friendship relations affected the development of adolescents’ dislike relations (i.e., antipathy networks) over time. Three competing hypotheses were formulated about the role of status: antipathy relations result from either similarity in status (competition hypothesis) or dissimilarity in status when lower status peers reject higher status peers (envy hypothesis) or vice versa (snobbism hypothesis). Hypotheses were tested in a longitudinal sample of adolescents from Chile (fifth to sixth grade; 52% boys; N = 273). Antipathy and friendship networks were examined simultaneously using longitudinal social network modeling (SIENA). Higher status adolescents were more likely to reject their lower status peers, in line with the snobbism hypothesis. Furthermore, best friends tended to agree upon which peers to reject over time.

Status Perceptions Matter: Understanding Disliking Among Adolescents

“…Disliking nominations depend on each other in various ways. They are often reciprocated (e.g., Berger & Dijkstra, 2013; Card, 2010) and balanced in triadic relations (Cartwright & Harary, 1956;Hummon & Doreian, 2003;Ludwig & Abell, 2007; Marvel, Kleinberg, Kleinberg, & Strogatz, 2011;Wang & Thorngate, 2003). Moreover, heterophobia exists as people dislike dissimilar others (Flache & Mäs, 2008).…”

“…Status competition and the resulting status perceptions in particular are important drivers of the formation of relational ties and peer influence (e.g., Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011;Faris & Ennett, 2010;Faris & Felmlee, 2011; Faris, 2012). Only few studies attempted thus far to explain how status is responsible for the emergence of disliking ties (e.g., Berger & Dijkstra, 2013;Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004).Status competition has been understood in several different ways in the literature, just as status itself has various conceptualizations. Sociometric popularity (Nangle, Erdley, & Gold, 1996) and an aggregated status attribution measure, which was constructed as the difference between "popular" and "not popular" nominations by peers, have previously been (Berger & Dijkstra, 2013).…”

“…Only few studies attempted thus far to explain how status is responsible for the emergence of disliking ties (e.g., Berger & Dijkstra, 2013;Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004).…”

Diseño y Validación de la Escala de Creencias Normativas Sobre la Prosocialidad en Adolescentes Chilenos

“…Se utilizó el procedimiento de nominación de pares para establecer el grado de agresividad individual percibido por los pares. La nominación de pares es un procedimiento que ha sido utilizado anteriormente en muestras similares (Berger & Dijkstra, 2013;Rodkin & Berger, 2008), en que se solicita a cada participante marcar en una lista de su curso a los compañeras/os que en su opinión mejor calzan con una serie de descriptores. La agresividad incluye los siguientes ítems o descriptores: "comienza peleas", "se ríe de los otros", "se mete en problemas" e "ignora a los otros".…”

“…Se utilizó también el mismo procedimiento de nominación de pares para establecer el grado de prosocialidad individual percibido entre pares. Los ítems o descriptores de esta escala han sido utilizados en estudios anteriores (Berger & Dijkstra, 2013;Rodkin & Berger, 2008) y dan cuenta de manera adecuada de las conductas prosociales incluidas dentro de la dimensión de popularidad sociométrica (Dijkstra, Cillessen & Borch, 2013;Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006), como son comprendidas en el contexto chileno. Los descriptores utilizados son: "es amable" y "coopera".…”