You are here

Sources of Popularity: Aggressive and Prosocial Strategists and the Adolescents Who Affiliate With Them.

Download pdf | Full Screen View

Date Issued:
2016
Summary:
Popular children are visible and influential in an adolescent peer group (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Previous studies have demonstrated that there are two types of popular children: aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). The current study was designed to determine that, while both types are well liked and accepted, they draw favor from different sources of affiliation. The Study uses a sample of 450 adolescents (36.2% boys and 63.1% girls) from one high school in Lithuania. Hierarchical generalized logistic linear models (HGLLM) were conducted to determine if there was differential acceptance of aggressive-popular and prosocialpopular adolescents. Also, models determined if peers exhausted with school, attached to school, connected to peers and anxious/withdrawn would have differential association with aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular adolescents. Results answered 3 questions. First, HGLLM models were used to replicate the previous finding that popular adolescents have more affiliations than other peers. Second, results determined that popular, popular-aggressive, and popular-prosocial adolescents were all more likely to receive affiliation nominations from peers. Third, results determined that aggressive-popular adolescents were chosen as affiliates by peers exhausted with school, and less likely to be chosen by peers attached to school, connected to friends and withdrawn. Prosocial-popular adolescents were chose as affiliates by peers attached to school and connected with friends. These findings indicate that aggressivepopular adolescents draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward youth culture, while prosocial-popular draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward adult culture (Brown, 1990) The findings first extend previous research by demonstrating that popular adolescents, of all types, are likely to receive affiliation nominations. Furthermore, prosocial-popular and aggressive-popular adolescents have more acceptance and affiliations than others, but this attraction comes from different sources. Previous studies have shown that popular children are well liked by some but not by others (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Taken with findings demonstrating that popular children strategically use cooperation or manipulation to influence others (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), the current study extends knowledge about the peer groups where cooperation or manipulation strategies may be most effective. Crowds that are school oriented and have positive peer relations follow prosocial-popular peers while crowds that are fed up with school follow aggressive-popular peers.
Title: Sources of Popularity: Aggressive and Prosocial Strategists and the Adolescents Who Affiliate With Them.
0 views
0 downloads
Name(s): Hiatt, Cody, author
Laursen, Brett, Thesis advisor
Florida Atlantic University, Degree grantor
Charles E. Schmidt College of Science
Department of Psychology
Type of Resource: text
Genre: Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation
Date Created: 2016
Date Issued: 2016
Publisher: Florida Atlantic University
Place of Publication: Boca Raton, Fla.
Physical Form: application/pdf
Extent: 84 p.
Language(s): English
Summary: Popular children are visible and influential in an adolescent peer group (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Previous studies have demonstrated that there are two types of popular children: aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). The current study was designed to determine that, while both types are well liked and accepted, they draw favor from different sources of affiliation. The Study uses a sample of 450 adolescents (36.2% boys and 63.1% girls) from one high school in Lithuania. Hierarchical generalized logistic linear models (HGLLM) were conducted to determine if there was differential acceptance of aggressive-popular and prosocialpopular adolescents. Also, models determined if peers exhausted with school, attached to school, connected to peers and anxious/withdrawn would have differential association with aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular adolescents. Results answered 3 questions. First, HGLLM models were used to replicate the previous finding that popular adolescents have more affiliations than other peers. Second, results determined that popular, popular-aggressive, and popular-prosocial adolescents were all more likely to receive affiliation nominations from peers. Third, results determined that aggressive-popular adolescents were chosen as affiliates by peers exhausted with school, and less likely to be chosen by peers attached to school, connected to friends and withdrawn. Prosocial-popular adolescents were chose as affiliates by peers attached to school and connected with friends. These findings indicate that aggressivepopular adolescents draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward youth culture, while prosocial-popular draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward adult culture (Brown, 1990) The findings first extend previous research by demonstrating that popular adolescents, of all types, are likely to receive affiliation nominations. Furthermore, prosocial-popular and aggressive-popular adolescents have more acceptance and affiliations than others, but this attraction comes from different sources. Previous studies have shown that popular children are well liked by some but not by others (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Taken with findings demonstrating that popular children strategically use cooperation or manipulation to influence others (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), the current study extends knowledge about the peer groups where cooperation or manipulation strategies may be most effective. Crowds that are school oriented and have positive peer relations follow prosocial-popular peers while crowds that are fed up with school follow aggressive-popular peers.
Identifier: FA00004604 (IID)
Degree granted: Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2016.
Collection: FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection
Note(s): Includes bibliography.
Subject(s): Adolescent psychology.
Interpersonal relationships in adolescence.
Friendship in adolescence.
Peer pressure in adolescence.
Held by: Florida Atlantic University Libraries
Sublocation: Digital Library
Links: http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004604
Persistent Link to This Record: http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004604
Use and Reproduction: Copyright © is held by the author, with permission granted to Florida Atlantic University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Use and Reproduction: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Host Institution: FAU
Is Part of Series: Florida Atlantic University Digital Library Collections.