Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations.

Abstract

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.

Peer Standing and Substance Use in Early-Adolescent Grade-Level Networks: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study

“…According to social network theory (Knoke & Kulinski, 1982;Wasserman & Faust, 1994), individuals central to a bounded network (such as a classroom or grade) are both relatively visible and well-connected to others in the network, whereas less central or marginal (peripheral) members of the network are relatively less visible and less well-connected. Empirical findings indicate that when adolescents are central to their networks, they occupy roles from which they can exert leadership and influence their peers in both positive and negative ways (Cairns & Cairns, 1994;Rodkin et al, 2000). Accordingly, social network centrality uniquely predicts not only prosocial but also antisocial behaviors (Gest et al, 2001;Rodkin et al, 2000).…”

“…Empirical findings indicate that when adolescents are central to their networks, they occupy roles from which they can exert leadership and influence their peers in both positive and negative ways (Cairns & Cairns, 1994;Rodkin et al, 2000). Accordingly, social network centrality uniquely predicts not only prosocial but also antisocial behaviors (Gest et al, 2001;Rodkin et al, 2000). Adolescents central to their networks may be seen as similar to those socially dominant children identified in the sociological tradition, who exert control over the flow of resources within the peer group (Hawley, 1999).…”

“…For example, among children in grades 6 through 8, those who receive relatively high numbers of "friend" or "liking" nominations, including popular children (higher numbers of "friend" nominations; Valente et al, 2005) (2006) report that adolescents who are "liked but not too well-liked"-a classification perhaps most closely consistent with "average" sociometric status-are least likely to be smokers. The relative status of adolescent friends also impacts the extent to which adoption of drinking behavior occurs over time: young adolescents are more likely to adopt the drinking behavior of a unilateral friend with higher status (Bot et al, 2001), and are more susceptible to influence from well-liked others (Latane, 1981), affirming the power of elevated peer standing to influence substance use behaviors.Peer standing also has been addressed using indicators derived from social network analysis, with an increasing number of studies that assess both peer standing and substance use among adolescents using this framework (e.g., Alexander et al, 2001;Ennett & Baumann, 1993;Ennett et al, 2006;Pearson & West, 2003;Rodkin et al, 2000;Valente et al, 2005). According to social network theory (Knoke & Kulinski, 1982;Wasserman & Faust, 1994), individuals central to a bounded network (such as a classroom or grade) are both relatively visible and well-connected to others in the network, whereas less central or marginal (peripheral) members of the network are relatively less visible and less well-connected.…”

“…Peer standing also has been addressed using indicators derived from social network analysis, with an increasing number of studies that assess both peer standing and substance use among adolescents using this framework (e.g., Alexander et al, 2001;Ennett & Baumann, 1993;Ennett et al, 2006;Pearson & West, 2003;Rodkin et al, 2000;Valente et al, 2005). According to social network theory (Knoke & Kulinski, 1982;Wasserman & Faust, 1994), individuals central to a bounded network (such as a classroom or grade) are both relatively visible and well-connected to others in the network, whereas less central or marginal (peripheral) members of the network are relatively less visible and less well-connected.…”

Social Competence as a Mediating Factor in Reduction of Behavioral Problems

“…Even though aggression is strongly linked to problems with social competence (Coie, 1990;Coie & Dodge, 1998), increased attention is now being given to the fact that some children considered successful and popular can also appear aggressive (Hawley, 2003). In some studies (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993;Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & VanAcker, 2000), children who are socially competent have similar high scores on measures of aggression to those with social difficulties, i.e., with low social competence scores, implying that the negative association between social competence and aggression might not count for all subgroups of children. It will therefore be of special interest to explore how the intervention will affect those who score high on both social competence and problem behavior at the onset of the program.…”