Abstract
This study examines the effects of physical attractiveness and aggression on popularity among high school students. Previous work has found positive relationships between aggression and popularity and physical attractiveness and popularity. The current study goes beyond this work by examining the interactive effects of physical attractiveness and aggression on popularity. Controlling for race and gender, the results indicate that attractive students are seen as more physically and relationally aggressive than those who are less attractive. We also found that those who are both physically attractive and aggressive are perceived to be more popular than those without such characteristics. However, the same interaction showed the opposite effect when predicting sociometric popularity instead of perceived popularity. These results contribute to the understanding of the differences between those who are well-liked (sociometric popularity) and those who are socially visible (perceived popularity), and the unique predictors of these two dimensions of status in the peer group.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adler P.A., Adler P. (1998) Peer power: preadolescent culture and identity. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ
Aiken L.S., West S.G. (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Newbury Park, CA
Asch S.E. (1946) Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41: 258–290
Becker B.E., Luthar S.S. (2007) Peer-perceived admiration and social preference: Contextual correlates of positive peer regard among suburban and urban adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence 17: 117–144
Berger J., Fisek M.H. (2006) Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value: A formal theory. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1038–1079
Buss D.M. (1987) Mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In: Crawford C., Krebs D.L. (eds) Sociobiology and psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence, Erlbaum, pp 335–351
Cillessen A.H.N., Mayeux L. (2004) From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development 75: 147–163
Cillessen A.H.N., Rose A.J. (2005) Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14: 102–105
Cillessen A.H.N., Borch C. (2006) Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: A growth curve modeling analysis. Journal of Adolescence 29: 935–959
Cillessen A.H.N., Borch C. (2008) Analyzing social networks in adolescence. In: Card N., Selig J., Little T. (eds) Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences. Routledge, New York, pp 61–86
Crick J.D., Grotpeter J.K. (1995) Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development 66: 710–722
De Bruyn E.H., van den Boom D.C. (2005) Interpersonal behavior, peer popularity, and self-esteem in early adolescence. Social Development 14: 555–573
Eagly A.H., Ashmore R.D., Makhijani M.G., Longo L.C. (1991) What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin 110: 109–128
Feingold A. (1992) Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin 111: 304–341
Hawley P.H., Johnson S.E., Mize J.A., McNamara K.A. (2007) Physical attractiveness in preschoolers: Relationships with power, status, aggression, and social skills. Journal of School Psychology 45: 499–521
Jackson L.A., Hunter J.E., Hodge C.N. (1995) Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly 58: 108–122
Jussim L., Harber K.D. (2005) Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review 9: 131–155
Kanazawa S., Kovar J.L. (2004) Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence 32: 227–243
LaFontana K.M., Cillessen A.H.N. (2002) Children’s stereotypes of popular and unpopular peers: A multi-method assessment. Developmental Psychology 38: 635–647
Lease A.M., Kennedy C.A., Axelrod J.L. (2002a) Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likeability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development 11: 508–533
Lease A.M., Kennedy C.A., Axelrod J.L. (2002b) Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development 11: 87–109
Mazur A. (1985) A biosocial model of status in primate groups. Social Forces 64: 377–402
Merton R.K. (1949) Social theory and social structure. Ill. Free Press, Glencoe
Mulford M., Orbell J., Shatto C., Stockard J. (1998) Physical attractiveness, opportunity, and success in everyday exchange. American Journal of Sociology 103: 1565–1592
Rose A.J., Swenson L.P., Waller E.M. (2004) Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology 40: 378–387
Rosenthal R., Jacobson L. (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Rosenthal R. (1976) Experimenter effects on behavioral research (2nd ed.). Irvington, New York
Shelley R.K. (2001) How performance expectations rise from sentiments. Social Psychology Quarterly 64: 72–87
Smith M. (1980) Meta-analysis of research on teacher expectation. Evaluation in Education 4: 53–55
Symons D. (1979) The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press, New York
Webster M. Jr., Driskell J.E. Jr. (1983) Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology 89: 140–165
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borch, C., Hyde, A. & Cillessen, A.H.N. The role of attractiveness and aggression in high school popularity. Soc Psychol Educ 14, 23–39 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9131-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9131-1