Victimization is a serious problem affecting youth and has been identified as a public health crisis in several countries (Gladden et al.,
2014). Efforts to understand the consequences of victimization are complicated by the fact that victimized youth are not a homogenous group (e.g., Scholte et al.,
2013). For example, a small but growing body of literature has found heterogeneity in social status among victimized youth, contrary to common stereotypes that victims are disempowered youth (e.g., see Dawes & Malamut,
2020, for a review). A recent paper (Malamut et al.,
2021) identified six groups of victims and non-victims differing in peer status, including a group of high-status victims that experienced internalizing symptoms. The goal of the current study was to further understand this complex group of high-status (i.e., popular) victims by examining their concurrent and prospective behaviors, given the dearth of research on how the confluence of victimization and popularity impacts adjustment (Dawes & Malamut,
2020). To create clear comparisons, the current study focused on victims and non-victims who were either low or high in popularity, resulting in four groups: high-status victims, lower-status victims, high-status non-victims, and lower-status non-victims. The current study focused on aggression and alcohol use, which are both positively associated with popularity (Mayeux et al.,
2008; Salmivalli et al.,
2021), but are also two common responses to peer victimization (for aggression, see, e.g., Malamut & Salmivalli,
2021; for alcohol use, see, e.g., Manglio et al.,
2017). Given that both victimization and popularity can be risk factors for these behaviors, the current study directly examined whether they jointly conferred risk for aggression and alcohol use compared to popularity or victimization alone.
Differences in Aggression Across Victim Types
Aggression can be motivated in different ways. A common distinction is between proactive aggression that serves clearly defined goals (e.g., gaining resources, establishment of dominance) and reactive aggression which is impulsive, retaliatory, and intense (e.g., Connor et al.,
2019). Aggression can also differ in form. Here a distinction is between direct aggression (e.g., inflicting physical harm or verbally intimidating a victim directly) and indirect aggression (e.g., strategically hurting someone’s relationships and social position by weakening their social ties through gossip or exclusion). In this study, both the functions (proactive vs. reactive) and forms (indirect vs. direct) of aggression were examined. In addition, bullying behavior was also examined, which is considered a goal-directed, more severe subtype of aggression (Volk et al.,
2014). Victimized youth can also engage in bullying themselves (“bully-victims”; Yang & Salmivalli,
2013) or become more likely to bully over time (Malamut & Salmivalli,
2021).
Both popular and victimized youth behave aggressively. For instance, popular youth may use aggression to demonstrate power and social dominance to classmates, or to proactively ward off potential social competitors (e.g., Pellegrini et al.,
2011). Indeed, recent studies have shown that aggression is a tool that youth use to maintain or gain status (e.g., van den Berg et al.,
2019). Victimized youth may be aggressive in order to retaliate or to attempt to save themselves from continued or future aggression. This explains why victimization is also positively associated with aggression (e.g., Yeung & Leadbeater,
2007).
Although both popularity and victimization independently predict aggression, few studies have examined how they jointly relate to aggression, and the different ways in which the aggression is enacted. High-status and lower-status victims may use aggression differently, stemming from different motivations as well as different skills and/or resources for distinct forms of aggression. It has been proposed that high-status youth have “more to lose” than low-status youth when they are victimized, given their high status and the investments they made for it (Faris & Felmlee,
2014). Indeed, high-status victims had worse adjustment scores than lower-status victims, such as significantly larger increases in anger (Faris & Felmlee,
2014). High-status victims may feel that their social standing has been threatened and therefore use aggression in strategic ways to reestablish their social dominance and protect their social position. In addition, their central position in the peer group may enable them to use the peer group to their advantage in harming others (i.e., indirect aggression; Hawley,
2003). Thus, high-status victims may be more likely to use proactive, goal-directed aggressive behaviors that are related to gaining, maintaining, or demonstrating their status (i.e., bullying, proactive aggression, indirect aggression) than lower-status victims. Preliminary support for this expectation comes from a recent study demonstrating that youth with high levels of victimization
and popularity had elevated levels of relational aggression (i.e., rumor spreading, excluding others) one year later (Malamut et al.,
2020a).
In contrast to goal-directed proactive aggression, reactive aggression is impulsive, “hot-headed” aggression in response to a perceived threat. It can indicate deficiencies in emotion regulation and social competence (e.g., Hubbard et al.,
2010) and is negatively correlated with popularity (Stoltz et al.,
2016; van den Berg et al.,
2019). Although some high-status youth may be reactively aggressive (Stoltz et al.,
2016), low-status youth seem to exhibit the highest levels of reactive aggression and increased reactive aggression is related to even lower status (Stoltz et al.,
2016; van den Berg et al.,
2019). Lower-status victims may not have the social resources to engage in goal-directed proactive aggression, but may instead react aggressively to perceived threats. Indeed, youth who are perpetrators and targets of bullying (“bully-victims”; Yang & Salmivalli,
2013), generally have low-status, poor social skills, and are rejected by peers (e.g., Guy et al.,
2017,
2019). Thus, whereas high-status victims may have the social skills and resources to be aggressive strategically, lower-status victims are more likely to “lash out” impulsively in response to provocations. Therefore, lower-status victims were expected to be more reactively aggressive than high-status victims.
Whereas there are clear expectations for how the aggressive behaviors discussed above would relate to victimization and popularity, it is not as clear for direct aggression. Direct aggression, whether physical or verbal (e.g., hitting, name calling), can be goal-directed and instrumental or impulsive and reactionary (e.g., Prinstein & Cillessen,
2003). High levels of popularity have been associated with direct aggression concurrently (e.g., Waasdorp et al.,
2013) and over time (e.g., Malamut et al.,
2020b), which suggests that it can be used by high-status youth in instrumental ways. Thus, high-status victims may use direct aggression to publicly reaffirm their dominance in the peer group if they feel their position is threatened. Alternatively, lower-status victims may react to provocations with direct forms of aggression (e.g., pushing or yelling; Prinstein & Cillessen,
2003). Therefore, a priori hypotheses were not made regarding whether high-status victims would use direct aggression more or less than lower-status victims.
To better understand how high status and victimization may jointly impact aggression, it is also important to compare high-status victims to high-status non-victims. As indicated, popularity in general is a risk factor for aggressive behavior as a means to maintain or demonstrate status (van den Berg et al.,
2019). Insofar as victimization can lead to aggression to defend one’s status, youth who are
both popular and victimized may be at heightened risk for aggression compared to high-status non-victims. That is, high-status victims may engage in even more aggressive behavior, as they feel like their social position is threatened (compared to high-status non-victims, who are not experiencing a threat to their status).
Differences in Alcohol Use Across Victim Types
As with aggression, alcohol use is a behavior that has been found to be positively associated with both popularity (e.g., Guyll et al.,
2014; Tucker et al.,
2013) and victimization (Maniglio,
2017). Specifically, drinking alcohol can be considered a “popularity-enhancing” behavior in early adolescence, meaning that drinking can signal to peers that they are cool (Gommans et al.,
2017). During this developmental period, the opinions of the peer group become more important to youth, as youth become more independent from adults (e.g., Laursen & Veenstra,
2021). High-status early adolescents display and increase behaviors that are seen as deviant by adults (Moffitt,
1993), including alcohol use (Allen et al.,
2005). That is, popular youth may drink more alcohol as it suggests to others that they are mature, autonomous, and willing to rebel (e.g., maturity gap hypothesis; Moffitt,
1993). In addition, popular youth likely have more opportunities to drink alcohol (e.g., invitations to parties; Schwartz & Gorman,
2011).
Peer victimization is also a risk factor for alcohol use, but for different reasons. Victimization may be associated with substance use as a maladaptive mechanism to cope with the painful experience (i.e., stress-coping model; Wills & Filer,
1996). Indeed, studies have found associations between victimization and alcohol use over time, mediated by internalizing problems (Earnshaw et al.,
2017; Rowe et al.,
2019). In a recent review, Maniglio (
2017) reported inconsistent associations between victimization in general (not just by peers) and alcohol use in the literature. Studies found positive, negative, and nonsignificant associations. However, there was a more consistent positive association with alcohol use for bullying victimization than for other types (e.g., violent victimization). Taking both the popularity and victimization elements together, high-status victims may drink more alcohol (both concurrently and longitudinally) than lower-status victims given their two possible motives (reaffirming their high status and/or coping with the victimization) and more opportunities to do so (e.g., access to parties).