Top

Gepubliceerd in:

15-07-2023 | Empirical Research

Clique Hierarchy Moderates the Association between Social Preference and Defending Behaviors in Early Adolescence: The Role of Gender Differences

Auteurs: Wenyu Liang, Yang Yang, Yunyun Zhang, Libin Zhang, Chenxu Wang, Jiayi Chen

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence | Uitgave 11/2023

Abstract

Although social preference promotes adolescents’ defending behaviors, its potential mechanisms across gender cliques remain unclear from the group dynamic perspective. This study investigated 2470 Chinese early adolescents (49% girls, M_age = 14.40, SD = 0.58) to explore how social preference and clique hierarchy are associated with defending behaviors and whether these associations differ across gender-specific cliques. The results revealed that social preference was positively related to defending behaviors in boys’ cliques, but negatively in girls’ cliques. Furthermore, the association was strengthened by hierarchization in boys’ cliques but was weakened in girls’ cliques, while the status structure strengthened the association in boys’ but not girls’ cliques. These findings hold crucial implications for understanding and promoting defending behaviors among adolescents.

vorige artikel A Person-Centered Analysis of Adolescent Multicultural Socialization Niches and Academic Functioning

volgende artikel Profiles, Transitions, and Resilience Factors of Suicide Risk in Early Chinese Adolescents

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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

Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002.CrossRef

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2017). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–17. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.CrossRefPubMed

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(2), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.255.CrossRef

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(6), 815–823. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.815.CrossRef

Caravita, S., Blasio, P. D., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18(1), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x.CrossRef

Caravita, S., & Cillessen, A. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21(2), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x.CrossRef

Caravita, S. C., Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2012). Main and moderated effects of moral cognition and status on bullying and defending. Aggressive Behavior, 38(6), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21447.CrossRefPubMed

Cillessen, A., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (2011). Popularity in the peer system. New York: Guilford Press.

Closson, L. M., & Hymel, S. (2016). Status differences in target-specific prosocial behavior and aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(9), 1836–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0481-7.CrossRefPubMed

Closson, L. M., & Watanabe, L. (2018). Popularity in the peer group and victimization within friendship cliques during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(3), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616670753.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: a five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(3), 261–282.

Do, K. T., Guassi Moreira, J. F., & Telzer, E. H. (2017). But is helping you worth the risk? Defining prosocial risk taking in adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

Doumas, D. M., Midgett, A., & Peck, M. (2022). Gender differences in defending behavior among elementary school students trained in a bullying bystander program: is self-esteem a moderator. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 39(3), 244–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2022.2152917.CrossRef

Evans, C. B. R., & Smokowski, P. R. (2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2289–2307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0338-5.CrossRefPubMed

Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality matters: classroom status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(7), 1123–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4.CrossRefPubMed

Garandeau, C. F., Vermande, M. M., Reijntjes, A. H., & Aarts, E. (2022). Classroom bullying norms and peer status: effects on victim-oriented and bully-oriented defending. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(5), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419894722.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Goossens, F. A., Olthof, T., & Dekker, P. H. (2006). New participant role scales: comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20133.CrossRef

Halevy, N., Chou, Y. E., & Galinsky, A. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610380991.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0013.CrossRef

Huitsing, G., Snijders, T. A. B., Van Duijn, M. A. J., & Veenstra, R. (2014). Victims, bullies, and their defenders: a longitudinal study of the coevolution of positive and negative networks. Development and Psychopathology, 26(3), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000297.CrossRefPubMed

Kleiser, M., & Mayeux, L. (2020). Popularity and gender prototypicality: an experimental approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(1), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01344-5.CrossRefPubMed

Lambe, L. J., & Craig, W. M. (2020). Peer defending as a multidimensional behavior: development and validation of the defending behaviors scale. Journal of School Psychology, 78, 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.12.001.CrossRefPubMed

Lambe, L. J., Della Cioppa, V., Hong, I. K., & Craig, W. M. (2019). Standing up to bullying: a social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.007.CrossRef

Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Garandeau, C., Dijkstra, J., Veenstra, R., & Vollebergh, W. (2019). Classroom popularity hierarchy predicts prosocial and aggressive popularity norms across the school year. Child Development, 90(5), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13228.CrossRef

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642.CrossRef

Li, C., Zhao, Q., Zhang, L. & Zhang, Y. (2023). Tell me what you think about: does parental solicitation weaken the links between pubertal timing and depressive symptoms? Research and Reviews. Current Psychology, 42(6), 4326–4335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01737-0.

Lodge, J., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). The role of peer bystanders in school bullying: positive steps toward promoting peaceful schools. Theory Into Practice, 44(4), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4404_6.CrossRef

Ma, T. L., Meter, D. J., Chen, W. T., & Lee, Y. (2019). Defending behavior of peer victimization in school and cyber context during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of individual and peer-relational characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 145(9), 891–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000205.CrossRefPubMed

Massey-Abernathy, A. R., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2016). Functional leadership: Bi-strategic controllers high on effortful control show gains in status and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.039.CrossRef

McDougall, P., & Hymel, S. (2007). Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions: similar or different. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 53(3), 347–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2007.0018.CrossRef

Meter, D. J., & Card, N. A. (2015a). Defenders of victims of peer aggression: interdependence theory and an exploration of individual, interpersonal, and contextual effects on the defender participant role. Developmental Review, 38, 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.08.001.CrossRef

Meter, D. J., & Card, N. A. (2015b). Effects of defending: the longitudinal relations among peer-perceived defending of victimized peers, victimization, and liking. Social Development, 24, 734–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12129.CrossRef

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 751–780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516.CrossRefPubMed

Pattiselanno, K., Dijkstra, J., Steglich, K., Vollebergh, C., & Veenstra, W. (2015). Structure matters: the role of clique hierarchy in the relationship between adolescent social status and aggression and prosociality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2257–2274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0310-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002166442.CrossRef

Porter, J. R., & Smith-Adcock, S. (2017). Children’s tendency to defend victims of school bullying. Professional School Counseling, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.1.CrossRef

Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2010). What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56(2), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0046.CrossRef

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(4), 732–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12294.CrossRef

Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Vieno, A. (2012). The role of individual correlates and class norms in defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying: a multilevel analysis. Child Development, 83(6), 1917–1931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01831.x.CrossRefPubMed

Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2020). Longitudinal relations between students’ social status and their roles in bullying: the mediating role of self-perceived social status. Journal of School Violence, 20(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1850462.CrossRef

Pronk, J., Olthof, T., Aleva, E. A., van der Meulen, M., Vermande, M. M., & Goossens, F. A. (2020). Longitudinal associations between adolescents’ bullying-related indirect defending, outsider behavior, and peer-group status. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12450.CrossRefPubMed

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Aleva, L., & van der Meulen, M. (2016). Defending victimized peers: opposing the bully, supporting the victim, or both? Aggressive Behavior, 42(6), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21653.CrossRefPubMed

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.CrossRef

Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597090.CrossRefPubMed

Song, J., & Oh, I. (2017). Investigation of the bystander effect in school bullying: comparison of experiential, psychological and situational factors. School Psychology International, 38(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034317699997.CrossRef

Ttofi, M. M. (2015). Adolescent bullying linked to depression in early adulthood: evidence supports early intervention. British Medical Journal, 350, h2694. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2694.CrossRefPubMed

Thöni, C., & Volk, S. (2021). Converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences. PNAS, 118(23), e2026112118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026112118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tseng, W. L., Banny, A. M., Kawabata, Y., Crick, N. R., & Gau, S. S. F. (2013). A cross-lagged structural equation model of relational aggression, physical aggression, and peer status in a Chinese culture. Aggressive Behavior, 39(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21480.CrossRefPubMed

van den Berg, Y. H. M., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2020). Preference and popularity as distinct forms of status: a meta-analytic review of 20 years of research. Journal of Adolescence, 84, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.010.CrossRefPubMed

Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., & Kreager, D. A. (2018). Pathways, networks, and norms: a sociological perspective on peer research. In: Bukowski W.M., Laursen B, Rubin K.H., editors. Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 2018. p. 45–63.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J., 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x.CrossRefPubMed

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.357.CrossRef

Yun, H.-Y., & Graham, S. (2018). Defending victims of bullying in early adolescence: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1926–1937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0869-7.CrossRefPubMed

Zarbatany, L., Ellis, W. E., Chen, X., Kinal, M., & Boyko, L. (2019). The moderating role of clique hierarchical organization on resource control by central clique members. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0972-9.CrossRefPubMed

Zhao, Q., & Li, C. (2022a). Victimized adolescents’ aggression in cliques with different victimization norms: the healthy context paradox or the peer contagion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 92, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.03.001.CrossRefPubMed

Zhao, Q., & Li, C. (2022b). The roles of clique status hierarchy and aggression norms in victimized adolescents’ aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(12), 2328–2339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01677-3.CrossRefPubMed

Zwaan, M., Dijkstra, J., & Veenstra, R. (2013). Status hierarchy, attractiveness hierarchy and sex ratio: three contextual factors explaining the status–aggression link among adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(3), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412471018.CrossRef

Titel: Clique Hierarchy Moderates the Association between Social Preference and Defending Behaviors in Early Adolescence: The Role of Gender Differences
Auteurs: Wenyu Liang
Yang Yang
Yunyun Zhang
Libin Zhang
Chenxu Wang
Jiayi Chen
Publicatiedatum: 15-07-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence / Uitgave 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0047-2891
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-6601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01825-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2023

Hukou-based Discrimination and Migrant Adolescents’ Adaptation: Migrant Pattern Differences among the Buffering Role of School Engagement

The Role of Ethnic-Racial Identity and Self-Esteem in Intergroup Contact Attitudes

Are Parents the Key? How Parental Suicide Stigma and Suicide Literacy Affect Help-Seeking Attitudes and Intentions for their Child

Acculturation Timing among Newcomer and more Experienced Immigrant Youth: The Role of Language Use in Ethnic Friendship Homophily

Profiles, Transitions, and Resilience Factors of Suicide Risk in Early Chinese Adolescents

The Perils of Not Being Attractive or Athletic: Pathways to Adolescent Adjustment Difficulties Through Escalating Unpopularity