The moderating effects of three specific conditions (status hierarchy, attractiveness hierarchy and sex ratio) on the link between status (popularity) and physical and relational aggression were examined in a large sample of adolescent boys (N = 1,665) and girls (N = 1,637) (M age = 13.60). In line with the hypotheses, derived from integrating a goal-framing perspective with an evolutionary perspective, it was found for boys that status was more strongly related to both physical and relational aggression in classrooms when differences in status (status hierarchy) and physical attractiveness between same-gender peers (attractiveness hierarchy) were smaller, and to relational aggression when cross-gender peers (potential mating partners) were relatively scarce. For girls, status hierarchy and attractiveness hierarchy only moderated the link between status and relational aggression. These results suggest that competition to a certain extent triggers aggression by high-status adolescents. The findings are discussed from a broader evolutionary perspective, and the utility of this approach for understanding adolescents’ behaviour in the peer context is considered.
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (1996). Preadolescent clique stratification and the hierarchy of identity. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 111–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1996.tb00213.x
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
AlexanderR. D. (1979). Darwin and human affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
4.
AllenJ. P.WeissbergR. P.HawkinsJ. A. (1989). The relation between values and social competence in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 458–464. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.458
5.
ArcherJ. (1992). Mating tactics are complex and involve females too. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 379–380.
6.
BernsteinI. S. (1980). Dominance: A theoretical perspective for ethologists. In OmarkD. R.StrayerF. F.FreedmanD. G. (Eds.), Dominance relations: An ethological view of human conflict and social interaction (pp. 71–84). New York, NY: Garland.
7.
BerryD. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness (Vol. 32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
BrewerM. B.CaporaelL. R. (1990). Selfish genes vs. selfish people. Sociobiology as origin myth. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 237–243. doi: 10.1007/BF00996182
9.
BukowskiW. M.SippolaL. K.NewcombA. F. (2000). Variations in patterns of attraction to same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36, 147–154. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.36.2.147
10.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex-differences in human mate preferences. Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
11.
BussD. M.BarnesM. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.50.3.559
12.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory. An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
13.
CardN. A.StuckyB. D.SawalaniG. M.LittleT. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x
14.
CialdiniR. B.RichardsonK. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406–415. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.39.3.406
15.
CillessenA. H. N.MayeuxL. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x
16.
CillessenA. H. N.RoseA. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102–105. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x
17.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A.KupersmidtJ. D. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In AsherS. R.CoieJ. D. (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
CollinsW. A.SroufeL. A. (1999). Capacity for intimate relationships. A developmental construction. In FurmanW.BrownB. B.FeiringC. (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 125–147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1987). From evolution to behavior: Evolutionary psychology as the missing link. In DupreJ. (Ed.), The latest on the best: Essays on evolution and optimality. (pp. 276–306). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
De WinterA. F.OldehinkelA. J.VeenstraR.BrunnekreefJ. A.VerhulstF. C.OrmelJ. (2005). Evaluation of non-response bias in mental health determinants and outcomes in a large sample of pre-adolescents. European Journal of Epidemiology, 20, 173–181. doi: 10.1007/s10654-004-4948-6
21.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2010a). Basking in reflected glory and its limits. Why adolescents hang out with popular peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 942–958. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00671.x
22.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2010b). Same-gender and cross-gender likeability: Associations with popularity and status enhancement. The TRAILS study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 773–802. doi: 10.1177/0272431609350926
23.
DijkstraJ. K.LindenbergS.VerhulstF. C.OrmelJ.VeenstraR. (2009). The relation between popularity and aggressive, destructive, and normbreaking behaviors: Moderating effects of athletic abilities, physical attractiveness, and prosociality. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 401–413. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00594.x
24.
EndersC.K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
25.
GarandeauC. F.AhnH. J.RodkinP. C. (2011). The social status of aggressive students across contexts: The role of classroom status hierarchy, academic achievement, and grade. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1699–1710. doi: 10.1037/a0025271
26.
GuttentagM.SecordP. F. (1983). Too many women: The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
27.
HandJ. L. (1986). Resolution of social conflicts. Dominance, egalitarianism, spheres of dominance, and game-theory. Quarterly Review of Biology, 61, 201–220. doi: 10.1086/414899
28.
HawleyP. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132. doi: 10.1006/drev.1998.0470
29.
HawleyP. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In HawleyP. H.LittleT. D.RodkinP. C. (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
HawleyP. H.LittleT. D.CardN. A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend: Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial skills. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 170–180. doi: 10.1177/0165025407074630
31.
HawleyP. H.LittleT. D.CardN. A. (2008). The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 76–88. doi: 10.1177/0165025407084054
32.
HawleyP. H.VaughnB. E. (2003). Aggression and adaptive functioning: The bright side to bad behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 239–242. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0012
33.
HindeR. A.Stevenson-HindeJ. (1976). Towards understanding relationships: Dynamic stability. In BatesonP. P. G.HindeR. A. (Eds.), Growing points in ethology (pp. 451–480). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
KipnisD. (1972). Does power corrupt?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41. doi: 10.1037/h0033390
36.
LaFontanaK. A.CillessenA. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635–647. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.38.5.635
37.
LeaseA. M.KennedyC. A.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87–109. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00188
38.
LeaseA. M.MusgroveK. T.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development, 11, 508–533. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00213
39.
LindenbergS. (2001). Social rationality versus rational egoism. In TurnerJ. (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 635–668). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
40.
LindenbergS. (2006). Prosocial behavior, solidarity, and framing processes. In FetchenhauerD.FlacheA.BuunkA. P.LindenbergS. (Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 23–44). New York, NY: Springer.
41.
LindenbergS. (2008). Social rationality, semi-modularity and goal-framing: What is it all about?Analyse & Kritik, 30, 669–687.
42.
LynnM.BogertP. (1996). The effect of scarcity on anticipated price appreciation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1978–1984. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01783.x
43.
MaccobyE. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
MayeuxL.SandstromM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition?Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00550.x
45.
McginnisR. (1958). Campus values in mate selection. A repeat study. Social Forces, 36, 368–373. doi: 10.2307/2573978
46.
MertenD. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175–191. doi: 10.2307/2673207
47.
MeschkeL. L.ZweigJ. M.BarberB. L.EcclesJ. S. (2000). Demographic, biological, psychological, and social predictors of the timing of first intercourse. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 315–338. doi: 10.1207/SJRA1003_5
48.
MithinS. (1996). The prehistory of the mind: A search for the origins of art, religion and science. London, UK: Thames & Hudson.
49.
MoffittT. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
50.
OrmelJ.LindenbergS.SteverinkN.VonkorffM. (1997). Quality of life and social production functions: A framework for understanding health effects. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1051–1063. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00032-4
51.
ParkhurstJ. T.HopmeyerA. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. doi: 10.1177/0272431698018002001
52.
PellegriniA. D.LongJ. D. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 257–278. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00060-2
53.
PellegriniA. D.BartiniM. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of Developmental Psychology, 47, 142–163. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2001.0004
54.
RasbashJ.BrowneW.GoldsteinH.YangM.PlewisI.HealyM…Lewis T. (2000). A user’s guide to MlwiN (2nd ed). London, UK: Institute of Education.
55.
RodkinP. C.FarmerT. W.PearlR.Van AckerR. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14–24. doi: 10.1037
56.
RowellT. E. (1974). Concept of social dominance. Behavioral Biology, 11, 131–154. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6773(74)90289-2
57.
SandstromM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305–314. doi: 10.1177/0165025406072789
58.
Savin-WilliamsR. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50, 923–935. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1979.tb02451.x
59.
SchäferM.KornS.BrodbeckF. C.WolkeD.SchulzH. (2005). Bullying roles in changing contexts: The stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 323–335. doi: 10.1080/01650250544000107
60.
SimenauerJ.CarollD. (1982). Singles: The new Americans. New York: NY: Simon & Schuster.
61.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analyses: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage Publications.
62.
SteinbergL. (1987). Impact of puberty on family-relations. Effects of pubertal status and pubertal timing. Developmental Psychology, 23, 451–460.
63.
SteinbergL.SilverbergS. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841–851. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.23.3.451
64.
TesserA.BrodieM. (1971). Note on evaluation of a computer date. Psychonomic Science, 23, 300.
65.
TriversR. L. (1971). Evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57. doi: 10.1086/406755
66.
UdryJ. R. (1988). Biological predispositions and social-control in adolescent sexual behavior. American Sociological Review, 53, 709–722. doi: 10.2307/2095817
67.
VaillancourtT.HymelS. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408. doi: 10.1002/ab.20138
