Adolescents' peer status profiles and differences in school engagement and loneliness trajectories: A person-centered approach

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101759Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Three peer status profiles emerged: popular-liked, normative and unpopular-disliked

  • Profiles differed in behavioral engagement and disaffection, and loneliness

  • Profiles were similar in trajectories of emotional engagement and disaffection.

  • Results suggest a possible trade-off between being social and engaged in school.

Abstract

This study used a person-centered approach to identify adolescents' peer status profiles and examined how these profiles differed regarding the development of school engagement and loneliness. A sample of 794 adolescents was followed from Grades 7 to 11 (MageWave1 = 13.81 years). Measures included peer nominations of peer status, and student reports of school engagement and peer-related loneliness. Latent class growth analysis identified three profiles: popular-liked, unpopular-disliked, and normative. The popular-liked class revealed the lowest levels of behavioral engagement and loneliness. The unpopular-disliked class had higher levels of behavioral engagement, less steep increases in behavioral disaffection, and showed more loneliness. The normative class revealed moderate trajectories of engagement and loneliness. Moreover, boys and girls differed in their academic and psychosocial development. Implications of the findings for school practitioners are discussed.

Introduction

For many adolescents it is important to obtain a high social status, and perhaps even more important than their achievement and engagement in school (Galván, Spatzier, & Juvonen, 2011). Although numerous studies have investigated the nature and behavioral correlates of peer status in childhood and adolescence, little is known about the developmental changes in peer status and developmental consequences regarding academic and psychosocial functioning (Cillessen, 2009; van den Berg, Burk, & Cillessen, 2015). In this study, we used a longitudinal person-centered approach to identify trajectories of peer status profiles and examined how these classes of peer status differ with respect to trajectories of adolescents' school engagement and peer-related loneliness. By doing so, this study provides insights in the developmental nature of adolescents' peer status and its associations with academic and psychosocial functioning.

Peer status is a multidimensional construct referring to the social position of an individual in his or her peer group (Cillessen, Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011). We focus on four interrelated, but distinct aspects of peer status, that is acceptance, rejection, popularity, and unpopularity. Peer acceptance refers to the degree to which students are liked by their peers, whereas peer rejection reflects the degree to which students are disliked by the peer group (Rubin, Bukowski, & Laursen, 2009). Both peer acceptance and rejection provide information about students' association with other students and reflect an interpersonal or affective form of status (Cillessen, 2009). Highly accepted students are often cooperative, friendly, helpful, and kind (Rubin et al., 2009). On the other hand, students who are rejected by their peers tend to show lower levels of prosocial behavior and higher levels of withdrawn, aggressive, and disruptive behavior (Rubin et al., 2009). Although acceptance and rejection can be examined separately, they can also be combined into a social preference score, which reflects the difference between acceptance and rejection (Rubin et al., 2009). In contrast to these affective peer status dimensions, popularity and unpopularity reflect reputational evaluations, because they refer to students' visibility, power, reputation, and prestige in the peer group (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Popularity and unpopularity are typically measured by asking children to nominate peers they believe to be most and least popular, respectively (Cillessen, 2009). The behavioral profile of popular students is diverse, as these students can be intelligent, friendly, and attractive, but aggressive, arrogant, and manipulative as well (Cillessen & Rose, 2005). Conversely, students scoring high on unpopularity generally show low social standing, influence, and prosocial behavior, and high levels of social withdrawal (Lease, Musgrove, & Axelrod, 2002). In addition, popularity and unpopularity scores can be treated as separate constructs, but can also be combined into a (perceived) popularity score, reflecting the difference between popularity and unpopularity (Rubin et al., 2009).

So far, researchers have predominantly focused on the differences between the peer status dimensions and their unique, differential associations with developmental outcomes (Asher & McDonald, 2009). However, it is possible that different dimensions of peer status co-occur within individuals. For example, given the heterogeneous behavioral profile of popular students, students could be both highly popular and highly liked at the same time (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), considering that they may achieve high status as well as high likeability through showing prosocial behavior. Also, students receiving negative affective reactions from their peers and many dislike nominations may be perceived as being low in prestige and social power too (Gorman, Schwartz, Nakamoto, & Mayeux, 2011). Research has indeed shown positive moderate to large correlations between acceptance and rejection, on the one hand, and popularity and unpopularity, on the other hand (Asher & McDonald, 2009).

Yet, person-centered approaches to investigate the co-occurrence of peer status dimensions within individuals have been adopted in only a few studies. Moreover, these studies inferred peer status profiles from both behavioral variables and peer status variables. For instance, prior research combined peer status dimensions with peer interpersonal behavior (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000), social dominance (Lease et al., 2002), and academic behavior (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006). As a result, the inclusion of these behavioral measures resulted in identifying up to seven peer status profiles, but this heterogeneity in profiles might be due to differences in these behaviors rather than distinct levels of likeability and popularity (van den Berg et al., 2015).

To the best to our knowledge, only two person-centered studies have examined peer status profiles based on measures of peer status solely. In the cohort-sequential longitudinal study by van den Berg et al. (2015), children and early adolescents in primary (i.e., Grades 3/4 and 5/6) and secondary education (i.e., Grades 7 and 8) were followed across two waves with a one-year interval. Three clusters emerged in the young age group (i.e., Grades 3/4 to Grade 7), that were referred to as: popular-liked, average, and unpopular-disliked. Interestingly, four clusters emerged in Grade 8. In this grade, the cluster of popular-liked was divided into two separate clusters of liked and popular students. Although results were based on measures of preference (i.e., liked most minus liked least nominations) and popularity (i.e., most popular minus least popular nominations) to categorize peer status groups, similar results were obtained when using acceptance, rejection, popularity, and unpopularity. These results suggested that from age 14 (i.e., Grade 8) onwards, a differentiation occurs between likeable and popular peers. However, this distinction between being liked and being popular might emerge at an earlier age (Pouwels et al., 2018). In a study by Pouwels et al. (2018), developmental trajectories of peer status during early and late childhood (Grade 3 to 7) were investigated. Using latent class growth mixture modeling, they identified three classes of peer status. First, a stable average/liked class consisted of children who had a stable average trajectory of popularity, but with above average levels on social preference in middle childhood, which did not significantly increase over time. Second, a stable popular class represented children with above average scores on popularity that did not increase significantly over time and moderate levels on social preference that did not decrease significantly over time. Third, an unpopular-disliked class included children who had below average on popularity and social preference in middle childhood, and their preference decreased over time. These findings call for additional research aimed at unravelling the unique developmental pathways of likeability and popularity during adolescence, and to build a developmental theory of peer status (Cillessen et al., 2011; van den Berg et al., 2015).

Peer status profiles can be useful in describing adolescents' peer relationships and benefit interventions addressing the specific needs of subgroups of adolescents (Bulotsky-Shearer, Bell, & Domínguez, 2012; Mindrila, 2016). Following bio-ecological models and developmental systems theory, the way adolescents develop is subject to their social environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner, 2006). In adolescents' immediate context, peer relationships are key proximal relationships that constitute an ‘engine’ of development. These interpersonal relationships teach adolescents about themselves and how to function effectively in school environments (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Through high-quality relationships, adolescents internalize and model the beliefs valued by others (Bandura, 1977; Wentzel, 2000). Specifically, being socially connected to peers facilitates the adoption of goals and interests valued by others, for instance, regarding academic and social goals (Wentzel, 2000). According to the self-determination theory, these relationships also provide adolescents with warmth and support, as well as opportunities to fulfil their basic psychological needs (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Peers can promote or hamper adolescents' need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which in turn provides the basis for their behavior, such as their engagement in school or feelings of loneliness. In line with these theories, a large body of research revealed that peer relationships are associated with students' academic and psychosocial development (Wentzel & Muenks, 2016). For instance, well-liked students are considered to be a relatively low-risk group for academic or psychosocial maladjustment compared to popular students (Cillessen & van den Berg, 2012; Ferguson & Ryan, 2019; North, Ryan, Cortina, & Brass, 2019; Pouwels et al., 2018; Prino, Pasta, Longobardi, Marengo, & Settanni, 2018; van den Berg et al., 2015).

In this study, we examine trajectories of adolescents' school engagement and loneliness, as important aspects of academic and psychosocial functioning, and their possible associations with changes in peer status. These aspects are particularly key in adolescence, as this period is characterized by an increasing importance of peer relationships (Rubin et al., 2009), a normative decline in school engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004), and an increase in loneliness (Mahon, Yarcheski, Yarcheski, Cannella, & Hanks, 2006).

Students' engagement in school is important for successful learning, achievement, and graduation (Fredricks et al., 2004; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2008). Yet, prior research has shown declining trajectories in students' school engagement (Archambault, Janosz, Morizot, & Pagani, 2009; Engels, 2018; Janosz, Archambault, Morizot, & Pagani, 2008; Wang, Chow, Hofkens, & Salmela-Aro, 2015; Wang & Eccles, 2012a; Wylie & Hodgen, 2012). Following a motivational conceptualization of engagement, we distinguish between students' behavioral and emotional engagement, as well as disaffection in learning activities (Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). Behavioral engagement is conceptualized in terms of students' action initiations, efforts, attention in class, and absorption of information, whereas emotional engagement refers to students' emotional states during learning activities, such as interest, enjoyment, and enthusiasm (Skinner, Kindermann, et al., 2008). On the other hand, disaffection refers to behaviors and emotions that reflect maladaptive motivational states (Skinner, Kindermann, et al., 2008). For example, behavioral disaffection includes behaviors such as withdrawal, distraction, unpreparedness, and passivity during learning activities, whereas emotional disaffection refers to emotions such as boredom, disinterest, anxiety, and frustration (Skinner, Kindermann, et al., 2008). Recent studies have revealed that these engagement dimensions show different developmental patterns with decreasing trajectories of behavioral and emotional engagement, increasing trajectories of cognitive engagement and behavioral disaffection, and rather stable levels of emotional disaffection (Engels, 2018; Engels et al., 2017; Wang & Eccles, 2012a). Furthermore, previous research has suggested that these engagement dimensions have differential educational outcomes, which stresses the importance of investigating both behavioral and emotional, as well as positive and negative dimensions of engagement (Wang et al., 2015).

Previous research denotes differences in school engagement between students with different types of peer status. Scholars investigating affective peer status dimensions suggest that positive and negative peer experiences, such as being accepted and rejected by peers, facilitate or hamper students' school engagement through increasing or reducing feelings of belongingness and emotional security (e.g., Buhs, 2005; Engels et al., 2016). Indeed, research is consistent with this line of reasoning and showed that highly accepted students in upper elementary and secondary school show, on average, slower declines in behavioral and emotional engagement (De Laet et al., 2015; Wang & Eccles, 2012b). Highly rejected students, on the other hand, tend to show decreased classroom participation and have more negative school attitudes (e.g., Buhs & Ladd, 2001). Of note, most of the studies on peer rejection have been conducted among kindergartners and early elementary school children, not among older students.

Furthermore, relations between school engagement and reputational peer status, such as popularity and unpopularity, have been relatively understudied. Yet, the maturity gap theory postulates that many students assert their autonomy through non-compliance to adult-like behaviors, such as being disengaged from school, which gives these students a certain power, reputation, and prestige, reinforcing their non-normative behavior (Moffitt, 1993). As a result, it could be that more popular adolescents express less engaged behavior as a strategy to obtain and maintain a high social status (Kindermann & Gest, 2009). In line with this theory, researchers have found that more popular adolescents show, on average, increased school disaffection and are more reluctant to present themselves as effortful and hardworking (Engels et al., 2016; Galván et al., 2011; Schwartz, Hopmeyer Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006). However, evidence remains inconclusive on the relation between unpopularity and school engagement. On the one hand, (early) adolescents who are unpopular in their peer group might dedicate relatively more time and resources to academic work compared to popular students who spend more time on (social) extracurricular activities, such as team sports (Bellmore, 2011; Lease et al., 2002). This could suggest that academic goals might be more important for unpopular students than social goals. On the other hand, highly unpopular (early) adolescents could show maladaptive academic functioning due to the lack of belongingness at school (Juvonen, Espinoza, & Knifsend, 2012), or the lack of affiliative behavior, such as sharing and helping (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006), and thus, miss important resources and information from peers that can help them accomplish academic tasks (Wentzel, 2009).

Nevertheless, evidence on the relation between peer status and school engagement stems primarily from cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal studies, or has been gathered in younger samples. Also, previous research has been limited in the inclusion of multiple school engagement dimensions, and has failed to provide differentiated insights in the relation between peer status profiles and school engagement. Yet, there are indications that affective and reputational dimensions of peer status are differentially related to school engagement dimensions. For instance, using a variable-centered approach to peer status, Engels et al. (2017) revealed that affective dimensions, such as students' likeability, were related to more behavioral and emotional engagement, whereas reputational dimensions, such as students' popularity, were associated with lower behavioral engagement and higher disaffection. However, person-centered studies on peer status profiles and the differential effects of the school engagement dimensions have been lacking.

In this study, we focus on loneliness as an important aspect of adolescents' psychosocial functioning. Loneliness is the negative feeling that arises when people perceive their social relations to be deficient, either quantitatively or qualitatively (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). Feelings of loneliness have been related to lower school liking, higher school drop-out, social anxiety, and lower self-esteem (Mahon et al., 2006). For adolescents, experienced deficiencies in the peer group are their main source of loneliness (Qualter et al., 2015). Specifically, research has shown increasing levels of loneliness during adolescence (Mahon et al., 2006). However, only a few researchers have examined adolescents' peer-related loneliness in relation to their peer status (e.g., Woodhouse, Dykas, & Cassidy, 2012), and it remains unclear whether different peer status profiles show different developmental trajectories of loneliness.

Prior studies provide several indications that adolescents' level of loneliness is related to their peer status. Researchers suggest that lower levels of loneliness are due to prosocial behavior, which results in an increasing level of positive peer contact (Woodhouse et al., 2012). Higher levels of loneliness, on the other hand, could be due to a lack of feelings of belongingness and emotional security (Wentzel & Muenks, 2016) resulting from fewer friendships and positive relationships in the peer group (Vanhalst, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2014). In line with this reasoning, highly accepted students tend to show lower levels of isolation (Prino et al., 2018), withdrawal (van den Berg et al., 2015), and loneliness (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). By contrast, rejected students reported, on average, more loneliness compared to other students (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). With regard to loneliness and reputational peer status, earlier studies revealed that highly popular students show, on average, less withdrawal (van den Berg et al., 2015) and feelings of loneliness (Gorman et al., 2011). Their high status has a large social impact on their peers, which enhances their feelings of belonging and relatedness (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993). In contrast, affiliating with unpopular students is a social liability, especially in adolescence, and therefore, youth tend to avoid these students in an attempt to maintain their own status in the peer group (Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994). As a result, unpopular adolescents have few friends that could serve as a buffer against negative peer experiences, which makes these students more vulnerable to feelings of loneliness (e.g., Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011) and withdrawal (van den Berg et al., 2015).

To date, an important limitation of earlier research is that researchers investigating peer status and psychosocial functioning have relied on cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal designs. As a result, they did not clarify how loneliness develops during adolescence for adolescents with different types of peer status.

In this longitudinal study, we address two questions. First, we examine how changes in peer acceptance, rejection, popularity, and unpopularity combine into classes of peer status over time. Although previous literature emphasizes the differences between dimensions of acceptance/rejection, on the one hand, and popularity/unpopularity, on the other, few researchers have examined how these dimensions combine to create distinct profiles of peer status. Based on findings of Pouwels et al. (2018) and van den Berg et al. (2015), we tentatively expect to find four classes of peer status: (a) a stable accepted class characterized by higher levels of acceptance, low to average levels of popularity, and lower levels of rejection and unpopularity, (b) a stable popular class with higher levels of popularity, low to average levels of acceptance, and lower levels of rejection and unpopularity, (c) an unpopular-disliked status class reflected by higher levels of rejection and unpopularity, and lower levels of acceptance and popularity that would further decrease over time (Brendgen, Vitaro, Bukowski, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2001), and (d) a normative status class characterized by moderate and stable levels of acceptance, rejection, popularity and unpopularity.

The second research question addresses how these classes of peer status differ with respect to trajectories of adolescents' academic and psychosocial functioning. We hypothesize a general decline in engagement and increase in disaffection and loneliness over time (Fredricks et al., 2004; Mahon et al., 2006), and explore whether peer status classes differ in their slope of engagement and loneliness. Given the positive association between peer acceptance and academic functioning, we hypothesize that over time, the class of accepted students shows higher levels of behavioral and emotional engagement, and lower levels of behavioral and emotional disaffection compared to students in the normative class (De Laet et al., 2015; Wang & Eccles, 2012b). For loneliness, we expect that the class of accepted students feels less lonely over time compared to the class of normative students. We hypothesize that students in the popular class show lower levels of behavioral engagement and higher levels of behavioral disaffection over time than the normative class (Schwartz et al., 2006). Our expectation regarding emotional engagement and disaffection of popular students is twofold. On the one hand, popular students may show higher emotional engagement and lower emotional disaffection trajectories, because these students enjoy going to school because of their high status in the classroom. On the other hand, in line with their low behavioral investment in school, they may show lower emotional involvement as well (Skinner, Furrer, et al., 2008). For loneliness, we expect that students in the popular class show lower levels of loneliness compared to the normative class (Gorman et al., 2011). For the unpopular-disliked status class, which comprises rejected and unpopular students, we based our hypotheses on research on peer rejection, because this construct is well investigated in comparison to unpopularity. We anticipate that the mechanisms involved in school engagement and loneliness are similar for both rejected and unpopular students, because both types of adolescents experience a lack of belongingness at school (Juvonen et al., 2012) and have fewer friends, which makes these students more vulnerable to feelings of loneliness (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). As a result, we expect that unpopular-disliked adolescents would show with lower levels of behavioral and emotional engagement over time and higher levels of disaffection and loneliness compared to the normative class. Finally, we expect that students in the normative status class show moderate levels of behavioral and emotional engagement, as well as disaffection, and also moderate levels of loneliness compared to the other classes. Moreover, to control for possible sex differences in school engagement and loneliness, we include sex as a covariate in subsequent analyses.

We extend prior research in four important ways. First, in contrast to prior variable-centered research (e.g., Engels et al., 2016; Engels et al., 2017), we use longitudinal person-centered analyses (i.e., latent class growth analyses), which enables us to examine the co-occurrence of acceptance, rejection, popularity, and unpopularity within individuals throughout adolescence. Variable-centered approaches describe associations among variables, whereas person-centered approaches describe differences among individuals in how variables are related to each other (Laursen & Hoff, 2006). Using person-centered approaches allows us to take the interrelated nature of these peer status dimensions into account (by presenting qualitatively and quantitatively distinct peer status profiles; Muthen, 2002) and provides insights in the joint developmental trajectories of peer status dimensions (accounting for longitudinal dependencies by separating baseline levels of peer status from developments over time; e.g., Morin, Maïano, Marsh, Nagengast, & Janosz, 2013). Second, with the long-term longitudinal design of our study, covering Grades 7 to 11, we address the need for more longitudinal research on adolescents' peer status and academic and psychosocial functioning. Third, building on existing work (e.g., Engels et al., 2017; Ladd & Ettekal, 2013), our study investigates both trajectories of academic and psychosocial functioning as key developmental processes in adolescents' life, which are not necessarily in line with each other. For instance, students could be engaged in learning, but experience loneliness at the same time. Finally, in line with contemporary multidimensional views on student engagement, our study examines indices of behavioral engagement and disaffection, as well as indices of emotional engagement and disaffection at school.

Section snippets

Participants

This study is part of a large-scale longitudinal STRATEGIES project (i.e., Studying Transactions in Adolescence: Testing Genes in Interaction with Environments) conducted in Belgium, in which an accelerated longitudinal design was used to investigate individual and contextual predictors of adolescents' development. Three cohorts of adolescents participated in the study. At the beginning of the study (spring of 2012), students from Cohort 1 were in Grade 7 of secondary school (36%), students

Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations, and variance of the study variables between Grades 7 and 11 are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations over time were medium to large (Cohen, 1988), depending on a one- or two-year time difference, between acceptance and rejection (rs = −0.30 to −0.56, p < .001), between acceptance and popularity (rs = 0.31 to 0.45, p < .001), and between acceptance and unpopularity (rs = −0.32 to −0.60, p < .001). Rejection was negatively correlated with popularity (rs = −0.11

Discussion

Researchers have stressed the need for additional longitudinal studies designed to unravel the developmental pathways of peer status (Cillessen et al., 2011; van den Berg et al., 2015). We addressed this call by (a) using longitudinal person-centered analyses (i.e., latent class growth analyses) to investigate the developmental trajectories of peer status dimensions throughout adolescence, (b) investigating how peer status profiles are related to adolescents' development, (c) focusing on both

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by FWO (Research Fund – Flanders, G.0728.14) and by the research council of KU Leuven (Grant GOA/12/009: ‘‘STRATEGIES project’’).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine at KU Leuven. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References (89)

  • I. Archambault et al.

    Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout

    Journal of School Health

    (2009)
  • S.R. Asher et al.

    The behavioral basis of acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity

  • R. Azevedo

    Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues

    Educational Psychologist

    (2015)
  • C.L. Bagwell et al.

    Friendships in childhood and adolescence

    (2011)
  • A. Bandura

    Social learning theory

    (1977)
  • A. Bellmore

    Peer rejection and unpopularity: Associations with GPAs across the transition to middle school

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2011)
  • J.C. Biesanz et al.

    The role of coding time in estimating and interpreting growth curve models

    Psychological Methods

    (2004)
  • M. Brendgen et al.

    Developmental profiles of peer social preference over the course of elementary school: Associations with trajectories of externalizing and internalizing behavior

    Developmental Psychology

    (2001)
  • U. Bronfenbrenner et al.

    The bioecological model of human development

  • B.B. Brown et al.

    Casting crowds in a relational perspective: Caricature, channel, and context

  • E.S. Buhs et al.

    Peer rejection as an antecedent of young children's school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes

    Developmental Psychology

    (2001)
  • W.M. Bukowski et al.

    Popularity, friendship, and emotional adjustment during early adolescence

  • R.F. Catalano et al.

    Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs

    Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

    (2004)
  • A.H.N. Cillessen

    Sociometric methods

  • A.H.N. Cillessen et al.

    Understanding popularity in the peer system

    Current Directions in Psychological Science

    (2005)
  • A.H.N. Cillessen et al.

    Popularity in the peer system

    (2011)
  • A.H.N. Cillessen et al.

    Popularity and school adjustment

  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1988)
  • Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group

    A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorder: The FAST Track Program

    (1992)
  • J.P. Connell et al.

    Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes

  • S. Danneel et al.

    Developmental change in loneliness and attitudes toward aloneness in adolescence

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2017)
  • E.H. de Bruyn et al.

    Heterogeneity of girls' consensual popularity: Academic and interpersonal behavioral profiles

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2006)
  • S. De Laet et al.

    Developmental trajectories of student behavioral engagement in late elementary school: Both teachers and peers matter

    Developmental Psychology

    (2015)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    (1985)
  • M.C. Engels

    How classroom social dynamics shape school engagement: The role of peers, teachers, and their interplay

    (2018)
  • M.C. Engels et al.

    Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher–student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2016)
  • S.M. Ferguson et al.

    It's lonely at the top: Adolescent students' peer-perceived popularity and self-perceived social contentment

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2019)
  • J.A. Fredricks et al.

    School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence

    Review of Educational Research

    (2004)
  • J.A. Fredricks et al.

    The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments

  • L. Goossens

    LEKA (Leuvense Eenzaamheidsschaal voor Kinderen en Adolescenten) [LACA: Loneliness and Aloness Scale for Children and Adolescents]

    (2016)
  • J.M. Gottman et al.

    The analysis of change: Issues, fallacies, and new ideas

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1993)
  • Guérin, C., Pieters, C., Roelants, M., Van Leeuwen, K., Desoete, A., Wiersema, J. R., & Hoppenbrouwers, K. (2012)....
  • J.D. Hawkins et al.

    Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development Intervention on school bonding trajectories

    Applied Developmental Science

    (2001)
  • Institute for Research and Reform in Education

    Research Assessment Package for Schools (RAPS) manual

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text