Skip to main content

Heterogeneity of Social Marginalization in Early Adolescence: Longitudinal Associations with Behavioral and Social Adjustment

Journal of Youth and Adolescence volume 50, pages 2123–2135 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Integration into formal and informal peer groups is a key developmental task during early adolescence. As youth begin to place greater value on attaining acceptance and popularity among peers, social status among one’s peer group becomes an important marker of social functioning during this developmental period. Whereas much empirical research has been devoted to understanding heterogeneity among youth holding high status positions, similar distinctions have largely not been examined among socially marginalized youth. The present study sought to address this gap in the research by examining the extent to which two aspects of social marginalization, peer rejection and social network isolation, were differentially associated with trajectories of social and behavioral adjustment across two school years in early adolescence. Peer nominations were used to assess rejection, isolation, and the behavioral outcomes of interest (i.e., aggression, internalizing behaviors, and victimization), and participants self-reported the extent to which peers would come to their aid in bullying situations (i.e., peer protection from bullying). Using a longitudinal sample of early adolescents (n = 1075; 53.0% female; 47.2% White; 27.1% African American; 12.7% Hispanic) in grades 5 through 7, preliminary analyses revealed little overlap between rejection and isolation at each time point. Moreover, a series of multilevel models revealed that rejection and isolation were associated with somewhat distinct behavioral and social adjustment trajectories. Peer rejection was positively associated with peer-nominated aggression, both within and across time points, and negatively associated with prosocial behaviors. Conversely, isolation was positively associated with peer-nominated internalizing behaviors, both within and across time points. Rejection and isolation were each positively associated with peer nominations of victimization; however, only isolation was related to lower perceptions of peer protection from bullying. In general, support was found for assessing rejection and isolation as two distinct forms of social marginalization in early adolescence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. 00333123/87/0900 SS01 00333123/87/0900 SS01 00333123/87/0900 SS01 00333123/87/0900 SS01 $00.75/0.75/0.75/0.75/0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 74–103). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: an examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550 https://doi.org/10.1037//OO12-1649.37.4.550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J. L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823. O012-1649/88/SO0.75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. E., & Cairns, B. D. (1985). Social structure and social cognition in early adolescence: affiliative patterns. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431685053007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, R. B., Leung, M. C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence: fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Development, 66, 1330–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cillessen, A. H. N., Bukowski, W. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2000). Stability of sociometric categories. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2000, 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23220008807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cillessen, A. H. N. (2011). Toward a theory of popularity. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (p. 273–299). The Guilford Press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coie, J. D. (1990). Towards a theory of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 365–398). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, M., & Xie, H. (2017). The trajectory of popularity goal during the transition to middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37, 852–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615626301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H., & Wissink, I. B. (2010). Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609340517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. L., Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah, D. J. (2009). Students with exceptionalities and the peer group context of bullying and victimization in late elementary school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, J. L., O’Neal, K. K., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39, 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. W., Hall, C. M., Leung, M. C., Estell, D. B., & Brooks, D. (2011). Social prominence and the heterogeneity of rejected status in late elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Leung, M. C., Lambert, K., & Gravelle, M. (2011). Early adolescent peer ecologies in rural communities: Bullying in schools that do and do not have a transition during the middle grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1106–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9684-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1123–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gest, S. D., Davidson, A. J., Rulison, K. L., Moody, J., & Welsh, J. A. (2007). Features of groups and status hierarchies in girls’ and boys’ early adolescent peer networks. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gest, S. D., Farmer, T. W., Cairns, B. D., & Xie, H. (2003). Identifying children’s peer social networks in school classrooms: Links between peer reports and observed interactions. Social Development, 12, 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gest, S. D., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gommans, R., & Cillessen, A. H. (2015). Nominating under constraints: A systematic comparison of unlimited and limited peer nomination methodologies in elementary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414551761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, A. H., Schwartz, D., Nakamoto, J., & Mayeux, L. (2011). Unpopularity and disliking among peers: Partially distinct dimensions of adolescents’ social experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harter, S. (2012). Emerging self-processes during childhood and adolescence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 680–715). The Guilford Press.

  • Hoffman, L., & Stawski, R. S. (2009). Persons as contexts: evaluating between-person and within-person effects in longitudinal analysis. Research in Human Development, 6, 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600902911189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooijsma, M., Huitsing, G., Kisfalusi, D., Dijkstra, J. K., Flache, A., & Veenstra, R. (2020). Multidimensional similarity in multiplex networks: friendships between same-and cross gender bullies and same-and cross-gender victims. Network Science, 8, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X. L., & Cillessen, A. H. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: a meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: the implications for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 417 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulawiak, P. R., and Wilbert, J. (2019). Introduction of a new method for representing the sociometric status within the peer group: the example of sociometrically neglected children. International Journal of Research Methods in Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1621830

  • Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L., & Reiser, M. (2008). Does chronic classroom peer rejection predict the development of children’s classroom participation during the grade school years? Child Development, 79, 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01172.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2016). Research in educational psychology: Social exclusion in school. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31933033-4_6

  • LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679507.2008.00522.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansford, J. E., Killeya-Jones, L. A., Miller, S., & Costanzo, P. R. (2009). Early adolescents’ social standing in peer groups: behavioral correlates of stability and change. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1084–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9410-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lease, A. M., Musgrove, K. T., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: likability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development, 11, 508–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, M. C. (1996). Social networks and self-enhancement in Chinese children: a comparison of self reports and peer reports of group membership. Social Development, 6, 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. L., & Asher, S. R. (2018). Peer acceptance, peer rejection, and popularity: Social cognitive and behavioral perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (p. 429–446). The Guilford Press.

  • Mikami, A. Y., Lerner, M. D., & Lun, J. (2010). Social context influences on children’s rejection by their peers. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. G, Rubin, K. H, Erath, S. A, Wojslawowicz, J. C. & & & Buskirk, A. A. In: In D. Cicchetti D. J. Cohen, (eds.) 2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: a developmental psychopathology perspective. Developmental psychopathology. (10.1002/9780470939383.ch12. (pp. 419–493). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151–163. 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouwels, J. L., van Noorden, T. H., Lansu, T. A., & Cillessen, A. H. (2018). The participant roles of bullying in different grades: prevalence and social status profiles. Social Development, 27, 732–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2013). Why do bystanders of bullying help or not? A multidimensional model. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33, 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612440172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vink, G., Aleva, L., & van der Meulen, M. (2018). Differences between resource control types revisited: a short term longitudinal study. Social Development, 27, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037//OOI2-1649.36.1.14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes. 7th ed. (pp. 175–222). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annuls of Statistics, 6, 461–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, B., & Xie, H. (2012). Socialization of physical and social aggression in early adolescents’ peer groups: high‐status peers, individual status, and gender. Social Development, 21, 170–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00621.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, S. Y. (2005). Protective Peer Ecology Scale: Middle School. Unpublished measure, Yale Child Study Center.

  • van den Berg, Y. H., Burk, W. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2015). Identifying subtypes of peer status by combining popularity and preference: A cohort-sequential approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 1108–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenstra, R., & Steglich, C. (2012). Actor-based model for network and behavior dynamics: A tool to examine selection and influence processes. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 598–619). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witvliet, M., van Lier, P. A., Brendgen, M., Koot, H. M., & Vitaro, F. (2010). Longitudinal associations between clique membership status and internalizing and externalizing problems during late childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9426-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer‐Gembeck, M. J. (2016). Peer rejection, victimization, and relational self‐system processes in adolescence: toward a transactional model of stress, coping, and developing sensitivities. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported in part by grants from the Institute of Educational Sciences [Grant No. R305A04056] awarded to Thomas W. Farmer and Jill V. Hamm (PIs). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Kate E. Norwalk

  2. Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA

    Helen M. Milojevich & Jill V. Hamm

  3. Department of Educational Studies, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

    Molly Dawes

  4. School of Education, University of North Carolina, Columbia, USA

    Jill V. Hamm

  5. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

    Thomas W. Farmer

Authors
  1. Kate E. Norwalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen M. Milojevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Molly Dawes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jill V. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas W. Farmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KN conceived of the study, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript; HJ helped with data interpretation and drafting the manuscript; MD participated in the design and coordination of the study and helped with drafting the manuscript; JH participated in the design and coordination of the study; TW conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kate E. Norwalk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the current study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/ or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained for all participants in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Norwalk, K.E., Milojevich, H.M., Dawes, M. et al. Heterogeneity of Social Marginalization in Early Adolescence: Longitudinal Associations with Behavioral and Social Adjustment. J Youth Adolescence 50, 2123–2135 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01457-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01457-5

Keywords

  • Social marginalization
  • Peer rejection
  • Social network isolation
  • Early adolescence