Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Sociometric status, the regard that other group members confer to an individual, is one of the most ubiquitous and behaviourally relevant attributes assigned to the person by the social environment. Despite this, its contribution to personality development has received little attention. The present three–wave longitudinal study, spanning the age range 7–13 years (n = 1222), sought to fill this gap by examining the transactional pathways between peer sociometric status (measured by peer nominations) and Five–Factor personality traits (measured by self–ratings and parent and teacher ratings). Sociometric status prospectively predicted the development of extraversion. By contrast, agreeableness and neuroticism prospectively predicted the development of sociometric status. Furthermore, individual–level stability in extraversion was associated with individual–level stability in sociometric status. The results were robust across different sources of personality ratings. We argue that peer sociometric status in the school classroom is the type of environmental effect that has potential to explain personality development. Because of its stability, broadness, and possible impact across a variety of personality processes, sociometric status can both repetitiously and simultaneously influence the network of multiple inter–correlated micro–level personality processes, potentially leading to a new network equilibrium that manifests in changes at the level of the broad personality trait. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

development of personality peer environment sociometric status parallel continuities extraversion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdellaoui

, Chen

H. Y.

, Willemsen

, Ehli

E. A.

, Davies

G. E.

, Verweij

K. J. H.

, Nivard

M. G.

, … Cacioppo

J. T.

(2019). Associations between loneliness and personality are mostly driven by a genetic association with neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 87, 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12397.

Anderson

, Ames

D. R.

, & Gosling

S. D.

(2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one's status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207307489.

Anderson

, Hildreth

J. A. D.

, & Howland

(2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574–602. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038781.

Anderson

, John

O. P.

, Keltner

, & Kring

A. M.

(2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.81.1.116.

Anderson

, Srivastava

, Beer

J. S.

, Spataro

S. E.

, & Chatman

J. A.

(2006). Knowing your place: Self–perceptions of status in face–to–face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.91.6.1094.

Andrei

, Mancini

, Mazzoni

, Russo

P. M.

, & Baldaro

(2015). Social status and its link with personality dimensions, trait emotional intelligence, and scholastic achievement in children and early adolescents. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.014.

Asendorpf

J. B.

(1990). The measurement of individual consistency. Methodika, 4, 1–22.

Ashton

M. C.

, & Lee

(2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907.

Ashton

M. C.

, Lee

, & Paunonen

S. V.

(2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022–3514.83.1.245.

10.

Back

M. D.

, Schmukle

S. C.

, & Egloff

(2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.790.

11.

Barranti

, Carlson

E. N.

, & Côté

(2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617698204.

12.

Baumert

, Schmitt

, Perugini

, Johnson

, Blum

, Borkenau

, Costantini

, … Jayawickreme

(2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31, 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2115.

13.

Bleidorn

, Kandler

, & Caspi

(2014). The behavioural genetics of personality development in adulthood—Classic, contemporary, and future trends. European Journal of Personality, 28, 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1957.

14.

Bouchard

T. J.

, & Loehlin

J. C.

(2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012294324713.

15.

Branje

S. J. T.

, van Lieshout

C. F. M.

, & van Aken

M. A. G.

(2004). Relations between Big Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’ families. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.86.4.615.

16.

Briley

D. A.

, & Tucker–Drob

(2014). Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1303–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037091.

17.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.

18.

Ciarrochi

, & Heaven

P. C. L.

(2009). A longitudinal study into the link between adolescent personality and peer–rated likeability and adjustment: Evidence of gender differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 978–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.08.006.

19.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

, & Bukowski

W. M.

(2018). Sociometric perspectives. In Bukowski

W. M.

, Laursen

, & Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 64–83). New York: Guilford Publications.

20.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

, & Mayeux

(2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8624.2004.00660.x.

21.

Connelly

B. S.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta–analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212.

22.

R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R–project.org/

23.

Cramer

A. O. J.

, Sluis

, Noordhof

, Wichers

, Geschwind

, Aggen

S. H.

, Kendler

K. S.

, et al. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can't like parties if you don't like people. European Journal of Personality, 26, 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1866.

24.

Denissen

J. J. A.

, & Penke

(2008). Neuroticism predicts reactions to cues of social inclusion. European Journal of Personality, 22, 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.682.

25.

Denissen

J. J. A.

, Ulferts

, Lüdtke

, Muck

P. M.

, & Gerstorf

(2014). Longitudinal transactions between personality and occupational roles: A large and heterogeneous study of job beginners, stayers, and changers. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1931–1942. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036994.

26.

Deventer

, Wagner

, Lüdtke

, & Trautwein

(2019). Are personality traits and relationship characteristics reciprocally related? Longitudinal analyses of codevelopment in the transition out of high school and beyond. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000191.

27.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five–Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.

28.

DiPrete

T. A.

, & Eirich

G. M.

(2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127.

29.

Edwards

J. R.

(2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005.

30.

Edwards

J. R.

(2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In Drasgow

, & Schmitt

(Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

31.

Edwards

J. R.

, & Parry

M. E.

(1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.2307/256822.

32.

Eisinga

, te Grotenhuis

, & Pelzer

(2013). The reliability of a two–item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman–Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038–012–0416–3.

33.

Feiler

D. C.

, & Kleinbaum

A. M.

(2015). Popularity, similarity, and the network extraversion bias. Psychological Science, 26, 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569580.

34.

Fournier

M. A.

(2009). Adolescent hierarchy formation and the social competition theory of depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 1144–1172. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.9.1144.

35.

Funder

D. C.

, & Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202.

36.

Geukes

, van Zalk

, & Back

M. D.

(2018). Understanding personality development: An integrative state process model. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416677847.

37.

Gosling

S. D.

, Rentfrow

P. J.

, & Swann

W. B.

(2003). A very brief measure of the Big–Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092–6566(03)00046–1.

38.

Graziano

, Habashi

, Sheese

, & Tobin

(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.93.4.583.

39.

Hamaker

E. L.

, Kuiper

R. M.

, & Grasman

R. P.

(2015). A critique of the cross–lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889.

40.

Hawley

P. H.

, & Bower

A. R.

(2018). Evolution and peer relations: Considering the functional roles of aggression and prosociality. In Bukowski

W. M.

, Laursen

, & Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 106–122). New York: Guilford Publications.

41.

Henrich

, Heine

S. J.

, & Norenzayan

(2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.

42.

Hofstee

W. K. B.

(1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European Journal of Personality, 8, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080302.

43.

Hubers

M. D.

, Burk

W. J.

, Segers

, Kleinjan

, Scholte

R. H. J.

, & Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2016). Personality and problem behaviours as predictors of adolescents’ social status: Academic track and gender as moderators. Educational Psychology, 36, 1443–1461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1053841.

44.

Humberg

, Nestler

, & Back

M. D.

(2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600.

45.

Ilmarinen

V. J.

, Lönnqvist

J. E.

, & Paunonen

S. V.

(2016). Similarity–attraction effects in friendship formation: Honest platoon–mates prefer each other but dishonest do not. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.040.

46.

Ilmarinen

V. J.

, Vainikainen

M. P.

, Verkasalo

, & Lönnqvist

J. E.

(2015). Why are extraverts more popular? Oral fluency mediates the effect of extraversion on popularity in middle childhood. European Journal of Personality, 29, 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1982.

47.

Jensen–Campbell

L. A.

, Adams

, Perry

D. G.

, Workman

K. A.

, Furdella

J. Q.

, & Egan

S. K.

(2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348.

48.

Jensen–Campbell

L. A.

, & Graziano

W. G.

(2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–6494.00148.

49.

Jensen–Campbell

L. A.

, & Malcolm

K. T.

(2007). The importance of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296104.

50.

Jiang

X. L.

, & Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: A meta–analysis. Developmental Review, 25, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.008.

51.

Kadushin

(2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York, US: Oxford University Press.

52.

Kafashan

, Sparks

, Griskevicius

, & Barclay

(2014). Prosocial behavior and social status. In. The psychology of social status (pp. 139–158). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1–4939–0867–7_7

53.

Keltner

, Gruenfeld

D. H.

, & Anderson

(2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295X.110.2.265.

54.

Kraemer

H. C.

, Measelle

J. R.

, Ablow

J. C.

, Essex

M. J.

, Boyce

W. T.

, & Kupfer

D. J.

(2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1566–1577. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.9.1566.

55.

LaFontana

K. M.

, & Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9507.2008.00522.x.

56.

Lansford

J. E.

, Yu

, Pettit

G. S.

, Bates

J. E.

, & Dodge

K. A.

(2014). Pathways of peer relationships from childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.12.002.

57.

Lawless DesJardins

N. M.

, Srivastava

, Küfner

A. C. P.

, & Back

M. D.

(2015). Who attains status? Similarities and differences across social contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 692–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615580171.

58.

Leikas

, Ilmarinen

V. J.

, Verkasalo

, Vartiainen

H. L.

, & Lönnqvist

J. E.

(2018). Relationship satisfaction and similarity of personality traits, personal values, and attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.024.

59.

Little

T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

60.

Livi

, Kenny

D. A.

, Albright

, & Pierro

(2008). A social relations analysis of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.003.

61.

Lönnqvist

J. E.

, Vainikainen

M. P.

, & Verkasalo

(2012). Teacher and parent ratings of seven–year–old children's personality and psychometrically assessed cognitive ability. European Journal of Personality, 26, 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.849.

62.

Lorenzo–Seva

, & ten Berge

J. M. F.

(2006). Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614–2241.2.2.57.

63.

Lösch

, & Rentzsch

(2018). Linking personality with interpersonal perception in the classroom: Distinct associations with the social and academic sides of popularity. Journal of Research in Personality, 75, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.06.003.

64.

Luan

, Poorthuis

A. M.

, Hutteman

, Denissen

J. J.

, Asendorpf

J. B.

, & van Aken

M. A.

(in press). Unique predictive power of other–rated personality: An 18–year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 87, 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12413.

65.

Lubbers

M. J.

, van der Werf

M. P.

, Kuyper

, & Offringa

G. J.

(2006). Predicting peer acceptance in Dutch youth: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26, 4–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431605282747.

66.

Lucas

R. E.

, Diener

, Grob

, Suh

E. M.

, & Shao

(2000). Cross–cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.79.3.452.

67.

Lüdtke

, Roberts

B. W.

, Trautwein

, & Nagy

(2011). A random walk down university avenue: Life paths, life events, and personality trait change at the transition to university life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 620–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023743.

68.

Magnus

, Diener

, Fujita

, & Pavot

(1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.65.5.1046.

69.

Massey

A. R.

, Byrd–Craven

, Auer

B. J.

, & Swearingen

C. L.

(2015). Climbing the social ladder: Physiological response to social status in adolescents. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1, 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750–014–0009–x.

70.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.

71.

Mõttus

, & Allerhand

M. H.

(2018). Why do traits come together? The underlying trait and network approaches. In Zeigler–Hill

& Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences (pp. 130–151). London: SAGE, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451163.n6.

72.

Mõttus

, Soto

C. J.

, & Slobodskaya

H. R.

(2017). Are all kids alike? The magnitude of individual differences in personality characteristics tends to increase from early childhood to early adolescence: Personality trait variance in children. European Journal of Personality, 31, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2107.

73.

Mund

, & Neyer

F. J.

(2014). Treating personality–relationship transactions with respect: Narrow facets, advanced models, and extended time frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036719.

74.

Mund

, & Neyer

F. J.

(in press). Wild horses dressed like unicorns: Relationship effects on personality. In Rauthmann

J. F.

(Ed.), The handbook of personality dynamics and processes. San Diego: Elsevier.

75.

Neyer

F. J.

, & Lehnart

(2007). Relationships matter in personality development: Evidence from an 8–year longitudinal study across young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 75, 535–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2007.00448.x.

76.

Northway

M. L.

(1946). Personality and sociometric status a review of the Toronto studies. Sociometry, 9, 233. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785009.

77.

Parkhurst

J. T.

, & Hopmeyer

(1998). Sociometric popularity and peer–perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001.

78.

Paulhus

D. L.

, & Trapnell

P. D.

(1998). Typological measures of shyness: Additive, interactive, and categorical. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2215.

79.

Reitz

A. K.

, Zimmermann

, Hutteman

, Specht

, & Neyer

F. J.

(2014). How peers make a difference: The role of peer groups and peer relationships in personality development. European Journal of Personality, 28, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1965.

80.

Revelle

(2018). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R–project.org/package=psych

81.

Riemann

, Angleitner

, & Strelau

(1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self– and peer report NEO–FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65, 449–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1997.tb00324.x.

82.

Roberts

B. W.

, & DelVecchio

W. F.

(2000). The rank–order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033–2909.126.1.3.

83.

Robins

R. W.

, Tracy

J. L.

, Trzesniewski

, Potter

, & Gosling

S. D.

(2001). Personality correlates of self–esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324.

84.

Roccas

, Sagiv

, Schwartz

S. H.

, & Knafo

(2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008.

85.

Rodkin

P. C.

, Ryan

A. M.

, Jamison

, & Wilson

(2012). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029389.

86.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

87.

Rubin

K. H.

, Bukowski

W. M.

, & Bowker

J. C.

(2015). Children in peer groups. In Lerner

R. M.

, Bornstein

, & Leventhal

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 4, pp. 321–412). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405

88.

Scholte

R. H. J.

, van Aken

M. A. G.

, & Lieshout

C. F. M. V.

(1997). Adolescent personality factors in self–ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534–554. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_8.

89.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

, Humberg

, & Nestler

(2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32, 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2169.

90.

Scollon

C. N.

, & Diener

(2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1152–1165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.91.6.1152.

91.

Selfhout

M. H. W.

, Burk

W. J.

, Branje

S. J. T.

, Denissen

J. J. A.

, van Aken

M. A. G.

, & Meeus

W. H. J.

(2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2010.00625.x.

92.

Soto

C. J.

, John

O. P.

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self–reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.94.4.718.

93.

Soto

C. J.

, & Tackett

J. L.

(2015). Personality traits in childhood and adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415589345.

94.

Spark

, Stansmore

, & O'Connor

(2018). The failure of introverts to emerge as leaders: The role of forecasted affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.026.

95.

Sroufe

L. A.

, Egeland

, Carlson

E. A.

, & Collins

W. A.

(2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.

96.

Stopfer

J. M.

, Egloff

, Nestler

, & Back

M. D.

(2013). Being popular in online social networks: How agentic, communal, and creativity traits relate to judgments of status and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.005.

97.

Sturaro

, Denissen

J. J. A.

, van Aken

M. A. G.

, & Asendorpf

J. B.

(2008). Person–environment transactions during emerging adulthood. European Psychologist, 13, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016–9040.13.1.1.

98.

Suls

, & Martin

(2005). The daily life of the garden–variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73, 1485–1510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2005.00356.x.

99.

Tackett

J. L.

, Kushner

S. C.

, Herzhoff

, Smack

A. J.

, & Reardon

K. W.

(2014). Viewing relational aggression through multiple lenses: Temperament, personality, and personality pathology. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000443.

100.

van Aken

M. A. G.

, & Asendorpf

J. B.

(2018). Personality and peer relationships. In Bukowski

W. M.

, Laursen

, & Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 159–176). New York: Guilford Publications.

101.

van der Linden

, Scholte

R. H. J.

, Cillessen

A. H. N.

, Nijenhuis

J. T.

, & Segers

(2010). Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 669–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007.

102.

Vazire

, & Carlson

E. N.

(2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402478.

103.

Vazire

, & Mehl

M. R.

(2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self–ratings and other–ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202–1216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013314.

104.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta–analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.

105.

von Rueden

C. R.

(2014). The roots and fruits of social status in small–scale human societies (J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson, eds.). In (pp. 179–200). https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1–4939–0867–7_9

106.

Weidmann

, Schönbrodt

F. D.

, Ledermann

, & Grob

(2017). Concurrent and longitudinal dyadic polynomial regression analyses of Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: Does similarity matter? Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.04.003.

107.

Wolters

, Knoors

, Cillessen

A. H. N.

, & Verhoeven

(2014). Behavioral, personality, and communicative predictors of acceptance and popularity in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613510403.

108.

Wood

, & Denissen

J. J. A.

(2015). A functional perspective on personality trait development. In Reynolds

, & Branscombe

(Eds.), Psychology of change: Life contexts, experiences, and identities (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

109.

Wortman

, & Wood

(2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.006.

110.

Wrzus

, Wagner

G. G.

, & Riediger

(2016). Personality–situation transactions from adolescence to old age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000054.

111.

Xie

, Li

, Boucher

S. M.

, Hutchins

B. C.

, & Cairns

B. D.

(2006). What makes a girl (or a boy) popular (or unpopular)? African American children's perceptions and developmental differences. Developmental Psychology, 42, 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012–1649.42.4.599.

112.

Yang

, Chen

, & Wang

(2015). Shyness–sensitivity and social, school, and psychological adjustment in urban Chinese children: A four–wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 86, 1848–1864. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12414.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.45 MB

0.00 MB

1.32 MB

Peer Sociometric Status and Personality Development from Middle Childhood to Preadolescence

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material