This study investigated the independent and interacting effects of classroom-level embeddedness (i.e., hierarchical vs. egalitarian) and classroom density on the perceived popularity and social preference of aggressive and victimized 3rd-4th grade students (N = 881). A cohesive blocking procedure was used to compute embeddedness. Multilevel analyses indicated that aggressive children achieved much higher perceived popularity in hierarchical classrooms with high density. While children with high victimization scores were unpopular across classrooms, they were least unpopular in egalitarian classrooms with high density. Furthermore, aggressive children were more disliked in low-density classrooms, and victimized children were more disliked in hierarchical classrooms. Implications for educational management of classroom social structures are discussed.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. ( 1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Asher, S.R., & McDonald, K.L. (2009). The behavioral basis of acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups (pp. 100-117). New York: Guilford.
Burk, W.J., Steglich, C.E.G., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors . International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 397-404.
5.
Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, B.D. ( 1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Chang, L. ( 2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 691-702.
7.
Choi, T.Y., & Kim, Y. ( 2008). Structural embeddedness and supplier management: A network perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 44, 5-13.
8.
Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. ( 2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.
9.
Coleman, J.S. ( 1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
de Bruyn, E.H., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research , 21, 607-627.
11.
Dijkstra, J.K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. ( 2008). Beyond the class norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1289-1299.
12.
Gest, S.D. ( 2006). Teacher reports of children’s friendships and social groups: Agreement with peer reports and implications for studying peer similarity . Social Development, 15, 248-259.
13.
Gest, S.D., Davidson, A.J., Rulison, K.L., Moody, J., & Welsh, J.A. ( 2007). Features of group and status hierarchies in girls’ and boys’ early adolescent peer networks. In P. C. Rodkin & L. D. Hanish (Eds.), Social network analysis and children’s peer relationships (pp. 43-60). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Graham, S., & Bellmore, A.D. (2007). Peer victimization and mental health during early adolescence. Theory Into Practice , 46, 138-146.
15.
Hallinan, M.T., & Smith, S.S. ( 1989). Classroom characteristics and student friendship cliques . Social Forces, 67, 898-919.
16.
Hanish, L.D., & Rodkin, P.C. ( 2007). Bridging children’s social development and social network analysis. In P. C. Rodkin & L. D. Hanish (Eds.), Social network analysis and children’s peer relationships (pp. 1-8). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
17.
Haynie, D.L. ( 2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter ? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.
18.
Haythorn, W. ( 1958). The effects of varying combinations of authoritarian and equalitarian leaders and followers. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 511-522). New York: Henry Holt.
19.
Kindermann, T., & Gest, S.D. ( 2009). Assessment of the peer group: Identifying naturally occurring social networks and capturing their effects. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski , & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups (pp. 100-117). New York: Guilford.
20.
LaFontana, K., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-647.
21.
Leavitt, H. ( 1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 46, 38-50.
22.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. ( 1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
23.
Lippitt, R. ( 1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Autocratic and democratic group atmospheres. American Journal of Sociology , 45, 26-49.
24.
Maccoby, E.E. ( 1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
McLeod, J.D., & Lively, K.J. ( 2003). Social structure and personality. In J. D. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 77-102). New York: Kluwer /Plenum.
26.
Moody, J., & White, D.R. ( 2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68, 103-127.
27.
Mulvey, E.P., & Cauffman, E. ( 2001). The inherent limits of predicting school violence . American Psychologist, 56, 797-802.
28.
Owen Blakemore, J.E., Berenbaum, S.A., & Liben, L.S. ( 2009). Gender development. New York : Psychology Press.
29.
Parkhurst, J.T., & Hopmeyer, A. ( 1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence , 18, 125-144.
30.
Pearl, R., Leung, M-C., Van Acker, R., Farmer, T.W., & Rodkin, P.C. ( 2007). Fourth-and fifth-grade teachers’ awareness of their classroom social networks. Elementary School Journal , 108, 25-39.
31.
Podolny, J.M., & Baron, J.N. ( 1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673-693.
32.
Rodkin, P.C. ( 2004). Peer ecologies of aggression and bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 87-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Rodkin, P.C., & Ahn, H-J. ( 2009). Social networks derived from affiliations and friendships, multi-informant and self-reports: Stability, concordance, placement of aggressive and unpopular children, and centrality. Social Development , 18, 556-576.
34.
Rodkin, P.C., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. ( 2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.
35.
Rose, A.J., & Swenson, L.P. ( 2009). Do perceived popular adolescents who aggress against others experience emotional adjustment problems themselves?Developmental Psychology, 45, 868-872.
36.
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W.M., & Parker, J.G. ( 2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon , . RM. Lerner (Editors-in-Chief), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571-645). New York: Wiley .
37.
Salmivalli, C. ( 2001). Group view on victimization-Empirical findings and their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398-419). New York: Guilford Press.
38.
Salmivalli, C., & Isaacs, J. ( 2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development, 76, 1161-1171.
39.
Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Brodbeck, F.C., Wolke, D., & Schulz, H. ( 2005). Bullying roles in changing contexts: The stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 323-335.
40.
Scott, J. ( 2000). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Seidman, E. ( 2004). Social settings: The proximal contexts of interest. Annual Report of the William. T. Grant Foundation, New York.
42.
Sentse, M., Scholte, R., Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. ( 2007). Person-group dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1009-1019.
43.
Shaw, M.E. ( 1954). Some effects of problem complexity upon problem solution efficiency in different communication nets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 211-217.
44.
Sherif, M. ( 1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54-58.
45.
Stormshak, E.A., Bierman, K.L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169-182.
46.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. ( 1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Weinstein, R.S. ( 2006). Reaching higher in community psychology: Social problems, social settings, and social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 9-20.
48.
Wright, J.C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H.W. ( 1986). Social status in small groups: Individual-group similarity and the social "misfit."Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523-536.
