Advertisement

Kind en adolescent

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 31–47 | Cite as

Populariteit, maar niet geliefdheid, is gerelateerd aan risicogedrag van Nederlandse adolescenten

  • Nina van den BroekEmail author
  • Marike H. F. Deutz
  • Aart Franken
  • Antonius H. N. Cillessen
Article
  • 456 Downloads

Samenvatting

Ondanks dat theoretisch en empirisch bewijs aantoont dat Amerikaanse en Australische adolescenten risicogedrag vertonen om sociale status te verwerven, is er weinig bekend over de relatie tussen risicogedrag en sociale status bij Europese adolescenten. De huidige studie onderzocht deze relatie daarom bij 253 Nederlandse adolescenten (M leeftijd = 16,83 jaar, 52 % jongens). De deelnemers beantwoordden sociometrische vragen over populariteit en geliefdheid van hun klasgenoten, en rapporteerden over hun eigen risicogedrag (het gebruik van alcohol, tabak en marihuana, alsmede het aantal seksuele partners). Structurele vergelijkingsmodellen lieten zien dat risicogedrag sterk gerelateerd was aan populariteit, maar niet aan geliefdheid. Uit deze studie blijkt dat de relatie tussen risicogedrag en sociale status in Nederland in overeenstemming is met bevindingen buiten Europa.

Trefwoorden

risicogedrag sociale status adolescentie 

Popularity, but not likeability, is related to risk behavior of Dutch adolescents

Abstract

Even though both theoretical and empirical evidence show that American and Australian adolescents engage in risk behavior to gain social status, evidence is lacking on the link between risk behavior and social status in European adolescents. The current study therefore examined this association among 253 Dutch adolescents (M age = 16.83 years, 52% boys). Participants completed peer nominations of popularity and likeability and self-reports of risk behaviors (alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use, and number of sexual partners). Structural equation modeling showed that risk behavior was strongly associated with popularity, but not with likeability. This study indicates that the association between risk behavior and social status in the Netherlands is in line with findings from outside Europe.

Keywords

risk behavior social status adolescence 

Notes

Dankbetuiging

Dit onderzoek maakte deel uit van een groter project ondersteund door het EFPSA Junior Researcher Programme tijdens de European Summer School van Hongarije in 2011. We bedanken Leonor Agan, Andra Costin, Peter Edelsbrunner en Ladislav Záliš voor hun bijdrage aan dit project. Daarnaast willen we graag alle deelnemende scholen en leerlingen bedanken voor hun medewerking. Ten slotte willen wij de twee anonieme reviewers bedanken voor hun waardevolle opmerkingen voor het verbeteren van het manuscript.

Literatuur

  1. Agan, M.L., Costin, A.S., Deutz, M.H.F., Edelsbrunner, P.A., Záliš, L., & Franken, A. (2015). Associations between risk behaviour and social status in European adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 189–203.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P., De Bruijn, A., Angus, K., Gordon, R., & Hastings, G. (2009). Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 44, 229–243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Balsa, A.I., Homer, J.F., French, M.T., & Norton, E.C. (2011). Alcohol use and popularity: social payoffs from conforming to peers’ behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 559–568.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, J.C., & Beaver, K.M. (2010). An empirical examination of adolescence-limited offending: a direct test of Moffitt’s maturity gap thesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1176–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellmore, A., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2011). Peer popularity in the context of ethnicity. In A.H.N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz & L. Mayeux (red.), Popularity in the peer system (pag. 193–215). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Boyce, W., Torsheim, T., Currie, C., & Zambon, A. (2006). The family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Social Indicators Research, 78, 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brener, N.D., Kann, L., Kinchen, S.A., Grunbaum, J.A., Whalen, L., Eaton, D., & Ross, J.G. (2004). Methodology of the youth risk behavior surveillance system. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53, 1–13.Google Scholar
  8. Bruyn, E.H. de, & Cillessen, A.H. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: prosocial and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldwell, T.M., Rodgers, B., Jorm, A.F., Christensen, H., Jacomb, P.A., Korten, A.E., & Lynskey, M.T. (2002). Patterns of association between alcohol consumption and symptoms of depression and anxiety in young adults. Addiction, 97, 583–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, R., Starkey, F., Holliday, J., Audrey, S., Bloor, M., Parry-Langdon, N., & Moore, L. (2008). An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): a cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 371, 1595–1602.Google Scholar
  11. Cillessen, A.H.N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K.H. Rubin, W.M. Bukowski & B. Laursen (red.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pag. 82–99). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cillessen, A.H.N., & Rose, A.J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dijkstra, J.K., Lindenberg, S., Verhulst, F.C., Ormel, J., & Veenstra, R. (2009). The relation between popularity and aggressive, destructive, and norm-breaking behaviors: moderating effects of athletic abilities, physical attractiveness, and prosociality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 942–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dijkstra, J.K., Kretschmer, T., Pattiselanno, K., Franken, A., Harakeh, Z., Vollebergh, W., & Veenstra, R. (2015). Explaining adolescents’ delinquency and substance use: a test of the maturity gap: the SNARE study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franken, A., Harakeh, Z., Veenstra, R., Vollebergh, W., & Dijkstra, J.K. (2016). Social status of adolescents with an early onset of externalizing behavior: the SNARE study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 1, 1–17.Google Scholar
  18. Hanson, M.D., & Chen, E. (2007). Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: a review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 263–285.Google Scholar
  19. Harakeh, Z., De Looze, M.E., Schrijvers, C.T.M., Dorsselaer, S.A.F.M. van, & Vollebergh, W.A.M. (2012). Individual and environmental predictors of health risk behaviours among Dutch adolescents: the HBSC study. Public Health, 126, 566–573.Google Scholar
  20. Hawke, S., & Rieger, E. (2013). Popularity, likeability, and risk-taking in middle adolescence. Health, 5, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inchley, J., Currie, D., Young, T., Samdal, O., Torsheim, T., Augustson, L. et al. (2016). Growing up unequal: Gender and socioeconomic differences in young people’s health and well-being. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international report from the 2013/2014 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  23. Kelly, J.A. (2004). Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: resolving discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community programmes. AIDS Care, 16, 139–150.Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, J.A., St Lawrence, J.S., Diaz, Y.E., Stevenson, L.Y., Hauth, A.C., Brasfield, T.L., & Andrew, M.E. (1991). HIV risk behavior reduction following intervention with key opinion leaders of population: an experimental analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 168–171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Kendler, K.S., Gardner, C.O., Hickman, M., Heron, J., Macleod, J., Lewis, G., & Dick, D.M. (2014). Socioeconomic status and alcohol-related behaviors in mid-to-late adolescence in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75, 541–545.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: a developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meschke, L.L., Zweig, J.M., Barber, B.L., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Demographic, biological, psychological, and social predictors of the timing of first intercourse. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 355–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7e druk.). Los Angeles CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  32. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Prinstein, M.J., Choukas-Bradley, S.C., Helms, S.W., Brechwald, W.A., & Rancourt, D. (2011). High peer popularity longitudinally predicts adolescent health risk behavior, or does it? An examination of linear and quadratic associations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36, 980–990.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Saewyc, E.M., Magee, L.L., & Pettingell, S.E. (2004). Teenage pregnancy and associated risk behaviors among sexually abused adolescents. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 98–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandstrom, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sass, D.A., Schmitt, T.A., & Marsh, H.W. (2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: a comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmitt, N., Golubovich, J., & Leong, F.T.L. (2011). Impact of measurement invariance on construct correlations, mean differences, and relations with external correlates: an illustrative example using Big Five and RIASEC measures. Assessment, 18, 412–427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoot, R. van de, Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sentse, M., Kiuru, N., Veenstra, R., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). A social network approach to the interplay between adolescents’ bullying and likeability over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1409–1420.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Smit, C.R., Leeuw, R.N. de, Bevelander, K.E., Burk, W.J., & Buijzen, M. (2016). A social network-based intervention stimulating peer influence on children’s self-reported water consumption: a randomized control trial. Appetite, 103, 294–301.Google Scholar
  42. Stueve, A., & O’Donnell, L.N. (2005). Early alcohol initiation and subsequent sexual and alcohol risk behaviors among urban youths. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 887–893.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Trimbos Instituut (2014). Roken Jeugd Monitor 2013: factsheet januari 2014. Utrecht: Trimbos Instituut.Google Scholar
  44. Valente, T.W., Unger, J.B., & Johnson, C.A. (2005). Do popular students smoke? The association between popularity and smoking among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 323–329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Verdurmen, J., Abraham, M., Planije, M., Monshouwer, K., Dorsselaer, S. van, Schulten, I., Bevers, J., & Vollebergh, W. (2006). Alcoholgebruik en jongeren onder de 16 jaar. Utrecht: Trimbos Instituut.Google Scholar
  46. Warner, J., Weber, T.R., & Albanes, R. (1999). Girls are retarded when they’re stoned. Marijuana and the construction of gender roles among adolescent females. Sex Roles, 40, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Busseri, M.A. (2004). Where is the syndrome? Examining co-occurrence among multiple problem behaviors in adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1022–1037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina van den Broek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marike H. F. Deutz
    • 2
  • Aart Franken
    • 2
  • Antonius H. N. Cillessen
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud UniversiteitNijmegenNederland
  2. 2.Department of Child and Adolescent StudiesUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtNederland

Personalised recommendations