Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Love Me or Hate Me: Exploring Controversial Sociometric Status

  • Chapter
Leading Through Conflict

Part of the book series: Jepson Studies in Leadership ((JSL))

Abstract

Research on sociometric status among youth and adolescents offers a new framework within which to explore outcomes for individuals who are at the center of conflict in the groups and organizations to which they belong. In particular, individuals who are both well-liked and disliked—so-called controversials—may occupy a unique and previously unrecognized role in organizational life. In this chapter, we explore controversial sociometric status. Drawing mainly upon psychological and organizational research, we consider personality, behavioral, and structural antecedents that may contribute to the formation and maintenance of controversial sociometric status and advance propositions regarding socioemotional and performance-related outcomes for individuals with controversial sociometric status. Lastly, we report and reflect upon insights gained through a series of interviews we conducted among 15 executives.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  • Ahuja, M.K., Galletta, D.F., & Carley, K.M. (2003). Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study. Management Science, 49(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aloise-Young, P., & Kaeppner, C.J. (2005). Sociometric status as a predictor of onset and progression in adolescent cigarette smoking. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 7(2), 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, T.T., Bedell, M.D., & Johnson, J.L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1369–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borowski, S., Zeman, J., Thrash, T., Carboni, I., & Gilman, R. (in press). Adolescent controversial status brokers: A double-edged sword (working paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4) 518–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bukowski, W.M., & Newcomb, A.F. (1985). Variability in peer group perceptions: Support for the “controversial” sociometric classification group. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1032–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, R.B. (1983). Sociometry, psychometry, and social structure: A commentary on six recent studies of popular, rejected, and neglected children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M.S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, R., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 436–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cillessen, A.H.N., & Marks, P.E.L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In A.H.N. Cillessen, D.A. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). Sociometric status and peer group behavior: Previous findings and current directions. In J.B. Kupersmidt & K.A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention, Vol. 5 (pp. 3–20). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2) 310–357.

    Article  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 

  • Craik, K.H. (2008). Reputation: A network interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., & March, J.G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRosier, M.E., & Thomas, J.M. (2003). Strengthening sociometric prediction: Scientific advances in the assessment of children’s peer relations. Child Development, 75(5), 1379–1392.

    Article  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(2), 174–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford-Smith, M., & Brownell, C.A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, R., & Huebner, S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 311–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, V., Beggs, J., & Hurlbert, J. (2002). Exploring the structural contexts of the support process: Social networks, social statuses, social support, and psychological distress. Advances in Medical Sociology, 8, 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(5), 466–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, D.K., & Merrell, K.W. (2004). Characteristics of “controversial children: An exploration of teacher and parent social behavior rating scale datasets. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group gonflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, A. (2007). Sociometric status, depression, and locus of control among Turkish early adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(10), 1405–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K.J., Lim, B.C., Saltz, J. L, & Mayer, D.M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labianca, G., & Brass, D.J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labianca, G., Brass, D.J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansu, T., & Cillessen, H. (2012). Peer status in emerging adulthood: Association of popularity and preference with social roles and behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(1), 132–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R.S., & Cobb, A.T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917.

    Article  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, 17(4), 508–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, K.D. (2008). Personality, negative interactions, and mental health. Social Service Review, 82(2), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J.C., & Galinksy, A. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marineau, J., Kane, G., & Labianca, G. (2013). Direct and indirect negative ties and individual performance. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Johnson, S., Costanzo, P., Coie, J.D., Rose, M.R., Browne, D.C., & Johnson, C. (2003). Peer social structure and risk-taking behaviors among African American early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison. E. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.

    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  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, G.R. (1993). Orderly change in a stable world: The antisocial trait as a chimera. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 911–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peery, J.C. (1979). Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: A reconceptualization of sociometric status in preschool children. Child Development, 50, 1231–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, C.L., & Brewer, M.B. (2005). The role of exclusion in maintaining ingroup inclusion. In D. Abrams, M.A. Hogg, & J.M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 89–111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C.L., & Walker, H.A. (1995). Status structures. In K.S. Cook, G.A. Fine, & J.S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodkin, P.C., Famer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36,14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodkin, P.C., & Hodges, E.V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(2), 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Kraimer, M.L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staff, J., & Kreager, D. (2008). Too cool for school? Violence, peer status, and high school dropout. Social Forces, 87(1), 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S.E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J.W., and Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Totterdell, P., Wall, T., Holman, D., Diamond, H., & Epitropaki, O. (2004). Affect network: A structural analysis of the relationship between work ties and job-related affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 854–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R.S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 952–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G., & Grosser, T. (2013). Positive and negative workplace relationships: Social satisfaction and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6) 1028–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wentzel, K.R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wölfer, R., Cortina, K.S., & Baumert, J. (2012). Embeddedness and empathy: How the social network shapes adolescents’ social understanding. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1295–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, S.S., Dykas, M.J., & Cassidy, J. (2012). Loneliness and peer relations in adolescence. Social Development, 21(2), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L., Yuan, Y., & Gay, G. (2009). Exploring negative group dynamics adversarial network, personality, and performance in project groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 32–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y.C., Carboni, I., & Ehrlich, K. (2010). The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 700–714.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Inga Carboni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiziana Casciaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Dejun Tony Kong Donelson R. Forsyth

Copyright information

© 2016 Inga Carboni and Tiziana Casciaro

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carboni, I., Casciaro, T. (2016). Love Me or Hate Me: Exploring Controversial Sociometric Status. In: Kong, D.T., Forsyth, D.R. (eds) Leading Through Conflict. Jepson Studies in Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56677-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation