Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

12-07-2019 | Empirical Research

Prestigious Youth are Leaders but Central Youth are Powerful: What Social Network Position Tells us About Peer Relationships

Auteur: Naomi C. Z. Andrews

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence | Uitgave 3/2020

Abstract

Measures of social network position provide unique social and relational information yet have not been used extensively by researchers who study peer relationships. This study explored two measures—social network prestige and social network centrality—to improve conceptualization of their similarities, differences, and meaning within a peer relationships context. Prestige and centrality were computed from friendship nominations (N = 396 6th graders; 48% girls; 49% White) and participants nominated peers on several social indicators (e.g., aggressive, popular). Two example classroom networks were examined to visually depict social network position. Associations between measures of social network position and social indicators were examined using correlations and latent profile analysis. Latent profile analysis identified three profiles based on the social indicators, which differentially related to prestige and centrality. Overall, prestigious youth were generally well-liked, prosocial, and leaders, whereas central youth were powerful and aggressive. The results strengthen the conceptualization of these network-based measures, allowing them to be more readily used by peer relationships researchers to understand youth’s interaction patterns and behaviors.

vorige artikel Prosocial Peers as Risk, Protective, and Promotive Factors for the Prevention of Delinquency and Drug Use

volgende artikel The Role of Prosocial and Aggressive Popularity Norm Combinations in Prosocial and Aggressive Friendship Processes

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Popularity can be used from a network perspective, though this changes the meaning of popularity from a status characteristic (e.g., an individual is more popular than another) to a perspective-based index (e.g., an individual attributes status to another individual; see van der Ploeg et al. 2019).

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Andrews, N. C. Z., Hanish, L. D., DeLay, D., Martin, C. L., & Updegraff, K. A. (2018). Relations between close friendships and adolescent aggression: structural and behavioral friendship features. Social Development, 27, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12277. CrossRef

Andrews, N. C. Z., Hanish, L. D., & Santos, C. E. (2017). Does an aggressor’s target choice matter? assessing change in the social network prestige of aggressive youth. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21695. CrossRefPubMed

Andrews, N. C. Z., Hanish, L. D., Updegraff, K. A., Martin, C. L., & Santos, C. E. (2016). Targeted victimization: exploring linear and curvilinear associations between social network prestige and victimization. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 45, 1772–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0450-1. CrossRefPubMed

Bakk, Z., & Vermunt, J. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104. CrossRef

Berger, C., & Rodkin, P. C. (2009). Male and female victims of male bullies: social status differences by gender and informant source. Sex Roles, 61, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9605-9. CrossRef

Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: a family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170–1182. CrossRef

Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22, 1168–1181. CrossRef

Butts, C. T. (2008). Social network analysis: a methodological introduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00241.x. CrossRef

Butts, C. T. (2013). sna: Tools for social network analysis. R package version 2.3-1. http://cran.r-project.org/package=sna.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823. CrossRef

Cillessen, A. H. N. (2007). New perspectives on social networks in the study of peer relations. New Directions for Child Adolescent Development, 118, 91–100. CrossRef

Csardi, R., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. Inter Journal Complex Systems, 1695, http://igraph.org.

Dawes, M., & Malamut, S. (2018). No one is safe: victimization experiences of high-status youth. Adolescent Research Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0103-6. CrossRef

Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386–1399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129802. CrossRef

Dubow, E. F. (1988). Aggressive behavior and peer social status of elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 315–324. CrossRef

Enders, C. K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in developmental research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 27–31. CrossRef

Faris, R. (2012). Aggression, exclusivity, and status attainment in interpersonal networks. Social Forces, 90, 1207–1235. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos074. CrossRef

Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76, 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410396196. CrossRef

Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239. CrossRef

Gallupe, O., Bouchard, M., & Davies, G. (2015). Delinquent displays and social status among adolescents. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57, 439–474. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2013.E49. CrossRef

Golonka, M. M., Peairs, K. F., Malone, P. S., Grimes, C. L., & Costanzo, P. R. (2017). Natural peer leaders as substance use prevention agents: the teen’s life choice project. Prevention Science, 18, 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0790-4. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Haas, S. A., Schaefer, D. R., & Kornienko, O. (2010). Health and the structure of adolescent social networks. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510386791. CrossRefPubMed

Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: a case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Q uarterly, 49, 279–309. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0013. CrossRef

Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1057. https://doi.org/10.1086/320298. CrossRef

Kornienko, O., & Granger, D. A. (2018). Peer networks, psychobiology of stress response, and adolescent development. In R. Hopcroft (Ed.), The oxford handbook of evolution, biology, and society (pp. 327–348). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kornienko, O., Santos, C. E., & Updegraff, K. A. (2015). Friendship networks and ethnic-racial identity development: contributions of social network analysis. In: C. E. Santos, A. J. Umaña-Taylor (Eds.), Studying ethnic identity: methodological and conceptual approaches across disciplines. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kreager, D. A., Rulison, K., & Moody, J. (2011). Delinquency and the structure of adolescent peer groups. Criminology, 49, 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00219.x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Magnusson, D. (1998). The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach. In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman & J. Kagan (Eds), Methods and models for studying the individual (pp. 33–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

McDonald, K. L., & Asher, S. R. (2018). Peer acceptance, peer rejection, and popularity: social-cognitive and behavioral perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen & K. H. Rubin (Eds), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 429–446). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Musiał, K., Kazienko, P., & Bródka, P. (2009). User position measures in social networks. The 3rd SNA-KDD Workshop’09, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/1731011.1731017.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39, 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9. CrossRefPubMed

Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social Development, 17, 908–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00473.x. CrossRefPubMed

Ray, G. E., Graham, J. A., & Cohen, R. (2003). The importance of relationship information for children’s evaluations of peers and social situations. In J. Z. Arlsdale (Ed.), Trends in social psychology (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Reynolds, A. D., & Crea, T. M. (2015). Peer influence processes for youth delinquency and depression. Journal of Adolescent, 43, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.013. CrossRef

Robins, G., & Morris, M. (2007). Advances in exponential random graph (p*) models. Soc Netw orks, 29, 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.004. CrossRef

Rodkin, P. C., & Ahn, H.-J. (2009). Social networks derived from affiliations and friendships, multi-informant and self-reports: stability, concordance, placement of aggressive and unpopular children, and centrality. Social Development, 18, 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00505.x. CrossRef

Rulison, K. L., Gest, S. D., & Osgood, D. W. (2014). Adolescent peer networks and the potential for the diffusion of intervention effects. Prevention Science, 16, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0465-3. CrossRef

Salancik, G. R. (1995). Wanted: a good network theory of organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 345–349. CrossRef

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Sentse, M., Kretschmer, T., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). The longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status: age-related and gender differences. Social Development, 24, 659–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12115. CrossRef

Sijtsema, J. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2018). Peer influence in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior: advances from dynamic social network studies. Developmental Review, 50, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.08.002. CrossRef

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: the moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20138. CrossRef

van der Ploeg, R., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2019). The way bullying works: how new ties facilitate the mutual reinforcement of status and bullying in elementary schools. Social Networks, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.006. CrossRef

Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., & Kreager, D. A. (2018). Pathways, networks, and norms: a sociological perspective on peer research. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen & K. H. Rubin (Eds), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups. 2nd ed (pp. 45–63). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and application. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

Zhang, F., You, Z., Fan, C., Gao, C., Cohen, R., Hsueh, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2014). Friendship quality, social preference, proximity prestige, and self-perceived social competence: interactive influences on children’s loneliness. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.06.001. CrossRefPubMed

Zhao, Y., Yu, H., Zhang, W., Zhang, W., & Zhu, Z. (2015). A social network model with proximity prestige property. Journal of Applied Analysis Computation, 5, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.11948/2015016. CrossRef

Titel: Prestigious Youth are Leaders but Central Youth are Powerful: What Social Network Position Tells us About Peer Relationships
Auteur: Naomi C. Z. Andrews
Publicatiedatum: 12-07-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence / Uitgave 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0047-2891
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-6601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01080-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2020

Being Friends with or Rejected by Classmates: Aggression Toward Same- and Cross-Ethnic Peers

Individual Attitudes toward Deviant Behavior and Perceived Attitudes of Friends: Self-stereotyping and Social Projection in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

Evidence that Different Types of Peer Victimization have Equivalent Associations with Transdiagnostic Psychopathology in Adolescence

The Role of Prosocial and Aggressive Popularity Norm Combinations in Prosocial and Aggressive Friendship Processes

Poly-Strengths and Peer Violence Perpetration: What Strengths Can Add to Risk Factor Analyses

Relational Victimization and Internalizing Problems: Moderation of Popularity and Mediation of Popularity Status Insecurity