Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Status Differences in Target-Specific Prosocial Behavior and Aggression

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of Youth and Adolescence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies exploring the link between social status and behavior have predominantly utilized measures that do not provide information regarding toward whom aggression or prosocial behavior is directed. Using a contextualized target-specific approach, this study examined whether high- and low-status adolescents behave differently toward peers of varying levels of status. Participants, aged 11–15 (N = 426, 53 % females), completed measures assessing aggression and prosocial behavior toward each same-sex grademate. A distinct pattern of findings emerged regarding the likeability, popularity, and dominance status of adolescents and their peer targets. Popular adolescents reported more direct aggression, indirect aggression, and prosocial behavior toward popular peers than did unpopular adolescents. Well-accepted adolescents reported more prosocial behavior toward a wider variety of peers than did rejected adolescents. Finally, compared to subordinate adolescents, dominant adolescents reported greater direct and indirect aggression toward dominant than subordinate peers. The results highlight the importance of studying target-specific behavior to better understand the status-behavior link.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social intelligence—empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(2), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatchford, P., Edmonds, S., & Martin, C. (2003). Class size, pupil attentiveness, and peer relations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 15–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bukowski, W. M., & Abecassis, M. (2007). Self, other, and aggression: The never-ending search for the roots of adaptation. In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, & P. C. Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 185–207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bukowski, W. M., Gauze, C., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1993). Differences and consistency in relations with same-sex and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, 255–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2010). It takes two to fight in school, too: A social relations model of the psychometric properties and relative variance of dyadic aggression and victimization in middle school. Social Development, 19(3), 447–469.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies in adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Closson, L. M. (2009). Aggressive and prosocial behaviors within early adolescent friendship cliques: What’s status got to do with it? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55(4), 406–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, J. K., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2010). Basking in reflected glory and its limits: Why adolescents hang out with popular peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 942–958. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00671.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2009). In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowksi, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 45–62). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, R. L., Nangle, D. W., Serwik, A., & Zeff, K. R. (2007). Girl friend, boy friend, girlfriend, boyfriend: Broadening our understanding of heterosocial competence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 491–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 279–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P. H. (2014). The duality of human nature: Coercion and prosociality in youths’ hierarchy ascension and social success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 433–438. doi:10.1177/0963721414548417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships in child development. Developmental Review, 7, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64(3), 879–896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hymel, S., Closson, L. M., Caravita, S. C. S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2010). Social status among peers: From sociometric attraction to peer acceptance to perceived popularity. In P. K. Smith & C. Hart (Eds.), Handbook of childhood social development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Freniere, P., & Charlesworth, W. R. (1983). Dominance, attention, and affiliation in a preschool group: A nine-month longitudinal study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s stereotypes of popularity. Social Development, 7(3), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 635–647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19(1), 130–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002a). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11(1), 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lease, A. M., Musgrove, K. T., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002b). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development, 11(4), 508–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Wright, M. F. (2014). Adolescents’ social status goals: Relationships to social status insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 146–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45(4), 513–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merten, D. E. (2004). Securing her experience: Friendship versus popularity. Feminism and Psychology, 14(3), 361–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ojanen, T., & Findley-Van Nostrand, D. (2014). Social goals, aggression, peer preference, and popularity: Longitudinal links during middle school. Developmental Psychology, 50(8), 2134–2143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peets, K., & Hodges, E. V. (2014). Is popularity associated with aggression toward socially preferred or marginalized targets? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 124, 112–123. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peets, K., Hodges, E. V. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Affect-congruent social-cognitive evaluations and behaviors. Child Development, 79(1), 170–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Affiliative and aggressive dimensions of dominance and possible functions during early adolescence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Moderators of the association between relational aggression and perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2009). HLM for Windows. Version 6.08. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseth, C. J., Pellegrini, A. D., Dupuis, D. N., Bohn, C. M., Hickey, M. C., Hilk, C. L., & Peshkam, A. (2011). Preschoolers’ bistrategic resource control, reconciliation, and peer regard. Social Development, 20(1), 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmivalli, C., Karna, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2009). From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In S. Shimerson, S. Swearer, & D. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 441–454). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50(4), 923–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2007). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released 13 March 2007.

  • Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating role of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R., & Spencer-Rowe, J. (1991). Peer rejection is a stubborn thing: Increasing peer acceptance of rejected students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(2), 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J. H., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Development, 78(6), 1843–1854.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support provided for this research from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council awarded to author Closson. We thank Dr. Bruno Zumbo for his assistance with statistical analyses on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also wish to thank the students, administrators, and schools who participated in this project.

Authors’ Contributions

LC conceived of the study, collected the data, performed analyses and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript. SH was involved in the concept and design of the study, and helped draft the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Support was provided for this research from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council awarded to author Closson (Award No. 752-2008-1758).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Leanna M. Closson

  2. Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Shelley Hymel

Authors
  1. Leanna M. Closson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelley Hymel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leanna M. Closson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

Ethics approval for this research was issued by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia (Certificate Number: H09-02294).

Informed Consent

Informed parental consent and child assent were obtained prior to data collection.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Closson, L.M., Hymel, S. Status Differences in Target-Specific Prosocial Behavior and Aggression. J Youth Adolescence 45, 1836–1848 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0481-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0481-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation