Top

Optie A:

Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
Optie B:

Deel de link per e-mail
Link delen

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

25-05-2021 | Original Article

Adolescent Popularity: Distinct Profiles and Associations with Excessive Internet Usage and Interpersonal Sensitivity

Tijdschrift:: Child Psychiatry & Human Development

Auteurs:: Vasileios Stavropoulos, Emily Barber, Gabriel de Sena Collier, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Rapson Gomez

» Toegang tot de volledige tekst krijgen

Belangrijke opmerkingen

Publisher’s Note

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

Abstract

Peer popularity constitutes a pivotal developmental task to adolescents’ current and future adaptation. This study identified distinct adolescent popularity profiles and explored their links with excessive Internet usage and interpersonal sensitivity. The sample included 2090 students attending Greek high schools (M_age = 16.16, SD = 0.91). Their popularity was measured via self-report and peer sociometric means. They also responded to the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) and the Interpersonal Sensitivity subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). A sequence of latent profile analysis, ANOVAs and linear regression models were performed. Three distinct popularity profiles were revealed: the “Average Confident” (68.4%), the “Socially Vulnerable” (26.8%), and the “Insecure Bi-Strategic” (4.8%). These profiles did not significantly vary regarding their Internet usage and interpersonal sensitivity behaviours. Interestingly, lower self-perceived popularity predicted higher interpersonal sensitivity, whereas higher actual popularity predicted excessive Internet use. Findings have important implications for student-tailored mental health prevention and intervention practices.

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Hier inloggen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.

Meer informatie

Engels MC, Colpin H, Wouters S, Van Leeuwen K, Bijttebier P, Van Den Noortgate W et al (2019) Adolescents’ peer status profiles and differences in school engagement and loneliness trajectories: a person-centered approach. Learn Individ Differ 75:101759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101759 CrossRef

Berger C, Batanova M, Cance JD (2015) Aggressive and prosocial? Examining latent profiles of behavior, social status, Machiavellianism, and empathy. J Youth Adolesc 44:2230–2244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0298-9 CrossRefPubMed

Markiewicz D, Doyle AB, Brendgen M (2001) The quality of adolescents’ friendships: associations with mothers’ interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors. J Adolesc 24(4):429–445. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0374 CrossRefPubMed

Meeus W, Oosterwegel A, Vollebergh W (2002) Parental and peer attachment and identity development in adolescence. J Adolesc 25(1):93–106. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0451 CrossRefPubMed

Anderson EL, Steen E, Stavropoulos V (2017) Internet use and problematic Internet use: a systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood. Int J Adolesc Youth 22:430–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2016.1227716 CrossRef

Sumter SR, Baumgartner SE (2017) Psychosomatic complaints in adolescence: untangling the relationship between offline and online peer victimization, psychosomatic complaints and social support. Eur J Dev Psychol 14:399–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1215980 CrossRef

Schwarz B, Mayer B, Trommsdorff G, Ben-Arieh A, Friedlmeier M, Lubiewska K et al (2012) Does the importance of parent and peer relationships for adolescents’ life satisfaction vary across cultures? J Early Adolesc 32(1):55–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431611419508 CrossRef

van de Schoot R, van der Velden F, Boom J, Brugman D (2010) Can at-risk young adolescents be popular and anti-social? Sociometric status groups, anti-social behaviour, gender and ethnic background. J Adolesc 33(5):583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.004 CrossRefPubMed

Motti-Stefanidi F, Pavlopoulos V, Mastrotheodoros S, Asendorpf JB (2020) Longitudinal interplay between peer likeability and youth’s adaptation and psychological well-being: a study of immigrant and nonimmigrant adolescents in the school context. Int J Behav Dev 44(5):393–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419894721 CrossRef

10.

Reitz AK, Asendorpf JB, Motti-Stefanidi F (2015) When do immigrant adolescents feel personally discriminated against? Longitudinal effects of peer preference. Int J Behav Dev 39(3):197–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414567008 CrossRef

11.

Australian Institute of Family Studies (2017) LSAC annual statistical report. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Victoria, pp 47–57

12.

Telzer EH, Fuligni AJ, Lieberman MD, Miernicki ME, Galván A (2015) The quality of adolescents’ peer relationships modulates neural sensitivity to risk taking. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 10(3):389–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu064 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Chein J, Albert D, O’Brien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L (2011) Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Dev Sci 14:F1–F10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Kaltiala-heino R, Rimpelä M, Rantanen P, Rimpelä A (2000) Bullying at school—an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. J Adolesc 23(6):661–674. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0351 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bukowski WM, Dirks M, Persram RJ, Wright L, Infantino E (2020) Peer relations and socioeconomic status and inequality. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 2020(173):27–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20381 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Ferguson SM, Ryan AM (2019) It’s lonely at the top: adolescent students’ peer-perceived popularity and self-perceived social contentment. J Youth Adolesc 48:341–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0970-y CrossRefPubMed

17.

Cillessen AHN, Borch C (2006) Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: a growth curve modelling analysis. J Adolesc 29(6):935–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.05.005 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Parkhurst JT, Hopmeyer A (1998) Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity. J Early Adolesc 18(2):125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001 CrossRef

19.

Sandstrom MJ, Cillessen AHN (2006) Likeable versus popular: distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. Int J Behav Dev 30(4):305–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406072789 CrossRef

20.

Stavropoulos V, Pontes HM, Gomez R, Schivinski B, Griffiths MD (2020) Proteus effect profiles: how do they relate with disordered gaming behaviours? Psychiatr Q 91:615–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-020-09727-4 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Stavropoulos V, Gomez R, Mueller A, Yucel M, Griffiths MD (2020) User-avatar bond profiles: how do they associate with disordered gaming? Addict Behav 103:106245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106245 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Anlı G (2019) Investigating the relationship between sense of classroom community and interpersonal sensitivity. Int J Progre Educ 15(5):371–379. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.24 CrossRef

23.

McElhaney KB, Antonishak J, Allen JP (2008) “They like me, they like me not”: popularity and adolescents’ perceptions of acceptance predicting social functioning over time. Child Dev 79(3):720–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01153.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

de Bruyn EH, Cillessen AHN (2006) Popularity in early adolescence: prosocial and antisocial subtypes. J Adolesc Res 21(6):607–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558406293966 CrossRef

25.

Gomez-Baya D, Reis M, Gaspar de Matos M (2019) Positive youth development, thriving and social engagement: an analysis of gender differences in Spanish youth. Scand J Psychol 60(6):559–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12577 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Pew Research Center (2018) Teens, Social Media and Technology. Retrieved 14 December 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/

27.

Statista (2020) Teenagers Infographics. Retrieved 14 December 2020, from https://www.statista.com/chartoftheday/Teenagers/

28.

Ball C, Francis J, Huang K-T, Kadylak T, Cotten SR, Rikard RV (2019) The physical–digital divide: exploring the social gap between digital natives and physical natives. J Appl Gerontol 38(8):1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817732518 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Nesi J, Prinstein MJ (2015) Using social media for social comparison and feedback-seeking: gender and popularity moderate associations with depressive symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol 43(8):1427–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0020-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Lee D-H, Im S, Taylor CR (2008) Voluntary self-disclosure of information on the Internet: a multimethod study of the motivations and consequences of disclosing information on blogs. Psychol Mark 25(7):692–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20232 CrossRef

31.

Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield P (2008) Online communication and adolescent relationships. Future Child 18(1):119–146. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kayany JM, Yelsma P (2000) Displacement effects of Online media in the socio-technical contexts of households. J Broadcast Electron Media 44(2):215–229. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_4 CrossRef

33.

Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, Helgeson V, Crawford A (2002) Internet paradox revisited. J Soc Issues 58(1):49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00248 CrossRef

34.

Snodgrass JG, Bagwell A, Patry JM, Francois Dengah IIHJ, Smarr-Foster C, Van Oostenburg M et al (2018) The partial truths of compensatory and poor-get-poorer internet use theories: more highly involved videogame players experience greater psychosocial benefits. Comput Human Behav 78:10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.020 CrossRef

35.

Cooper A, Delmonico DL, Burg R (2000) Cybersex users, abusers, and compulsives: new findings and implications. Sex Addict Compulsivity 7(1–2):5–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720160008400205 CrossRef

36.

Young KS, Griffin-shelley E, Cooper A, O’Mara J, Buchanan J (2000) Online infidelity: a new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sex Addict Compulsivity 7(1–2):59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720160008400207 CrossRef

37.

Kumar M, Mondal A (2018) A study on Internet addiction and its relation to psychopathology and self-esteem among college students. Ind Psychiatry J 27(1):61–66. https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_61_17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Carney DR, Harrigan JA (2003) It takes one to know one: interpersonal sensitivity is related to accurate assessments of others’ interpersonal sensitivity. Emotion 3(2):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.2.194 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Litwack SD, Aikins JW, Cillessen AHN (2010) The distinct roles of sociometric and perceived popularity in friendship. J Early Adolesc 32(2):226–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610387142 CrossRef

40.

Cain NM, De Panfilis C, Meehan KB, Clarkin JF (2017) A multisurface interpersonal circumplex assessment of rejection sensitivity. J Pers Assess 99(1):35–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1186032 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Meehan KB, Cain NM, Roche MJ, Clarkin JF, De Panfilis C (2019) Rejection sensitivity and self-regulation of daily interpersonal events. J Contemp Psychother 49:223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-019-09424-9 CrossRef

42.

Chavez RJ (2019) Being invisible and in-between: racial identity development and school belonging in multiracial adolescents (Doctoral dissertation)

43.

Lewallen J, Behm-Morawitz E (2016) Pinterest or thinterest?: Social comparison and body image on social media. Soc Media Soc 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116640559

44.

Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, Harney MB, Koehler LG, Danzi LE, Riddell MK, Bardone-Cone AM (2012) Explaining the relation between thin ideal internalization and body dissatisfaction among college women: the roles of social comparison and body surveillance. Body Image 9(1):43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.09.002 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Rosenberg JM, Beymer PN, Anderson DJ, van Lissa CJ, Schmidt A (2019) tidyLPA: an R package to easily carry out Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. J Open Source Softw 3:978. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00978 CrossRef

46.

Hill R (1998) What sample size is “enough” in internet survey research. Interpers Comput Technol 6(3–4):1–12

47.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRef

48.

Derogatis LR, Savitz KL (1999) The SCL-90-R, Brief Symptom Inventory, and Matching Clinical Rating Scales. In: The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 679–724

49.

Young KS (1998) Caught in the net: how to recognize the signs of Internet addiction and a winning strategy for recovery. John Wiley & Sons, New York

50.

Stavropoulos V, Alexandraki K, Motti-Stefanidi F (2013) Recognizing internet addiction: prevalence and relationship to academic achievement in adolescents enrolled in urban and rural Greek high schools. J Adolesc 36(3):565–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.008 CrossRefPubMed

51.

Alexandraki K, Stavropoulos V, Burleigh TL, King DL, Griffiths MD (2018) Internet pornography viewing preference as a risk factor for adolescent Internet addiction: the moderating role of classroom personality factors. J Behav Addict 7(2):423–432. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.34 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Coie JD, Dodge KA (1988) Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in the school: a cross-age comparison. Child Dev 59(3):815–829. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130578 CrossRefPubMed

53.

Aikins JW, Litwack SD (2011) Prosocial skills, social competence, and popularity. In: Popularity in the peer system. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 140–162

54.

Vanden Abeele M, Campbell SW, Eggermont S, Roe K (2014) Sexting, mobile porn use, and peer group dynamics: boys’ and girls’ self-perceived popularity, need for popularity, and perceived peer pressure. Media Psychol 17(1):6–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.801725 CrossRef

55.

Akogul S, Erisoglu M (2017) An approach for determining the number of clusters in a model-based cluster analysis. Entropy 19(9):452. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19090452 CrossRef

56.

Liew LWL, Stavropoulos V, Adams BLM, Burleigh TL, Griffiths MD (2018) Internet Gaming Disorder: the interplay between physical activity and user–avatar relationship. Behav Inf Technol 37(6):558–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1464599 CrossRef

57.

Larose C, Harel O, Kordas K, Dey DK (2016) Latent class analysis of incomplete data via an entropy-based criterion. Stat Methodol 32:107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stamet.2016.04.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Laninga-Wijnen L, Harakeh Z, Dijkstra JK, Veenstra R, Vollebergh W (2020) Who sets the aggressive popularity norm in classrooms? It’s the number and strength of aggressive, prosocial, and bi-Strategic adolescents. J Abnorm Child Psychol 48(1):13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00571-0 CrossRefPubMed

59.

Pouwels JL, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN (2018) A developmental perspective on popularity and the group process of bullying. Aggress Violent Behav 43:64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.10.003 CrossRef

60.

Newcomb AF, Bukowski WM, Pattee L (1993) Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychol Bull 113(1):99–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99 CrossRefPubMed

61.

Gommans R (2010) Sociometric status, peer-perceived popularity, bullying, and psychopathological outcomes: Associations and the moderating role of involvement in bullying. In: Unpublished manuscript. Radboud University, Nijmegen. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3901.2804 CrossRef

62.

Morariu IM (2019) The social thought of the Orthodox Church reflected in the documents of the Holy Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete (2016). HTS Theological Studies, 75(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i4.5471

63.

Anastassiadis A (2010) An intriguing true-false paradox: The entanglement of modernization and intolerance in the orthodox church of Greece. Orthodox Christianity in 21st century Greece: The role of religion in culture, ethnicity and politics, 39–60

64.

Green EG, Deschamps JC, Paez D (2005) Variation of individualism and collectivism within and between 20 countries: A typological analysis. J Cross-Cult Psychol 36(3):321–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104273654 CrossRef

65.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Total fixed and mobile broadband subscriptions by country (2020). https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics/. Retrieved 23/04/2021

Titel: Adolescent Popularity: Distinct Profiles and Associations with Excessive Internet Usage and Interpersonal Sensitivity
Auteurs:: Vasileios Stavropoulos
Emily Barber
Gabriel de Sena Collier
Jeffrey G. Snodgrass
Rapson Gomez
Publicatiedatum: 25-05-2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01194-7
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Tijdschrift: Child Psychiatry & Human Development
Print ISSN: 0009-398X
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3327

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)