This study examined to what extent motives for behavior differentiated between popular, accepted, and rejected adolescents. Based on goal-framing theory, three types of motives were distinguished: hedonic (aimed at short-term gratification), instrumental (aimed at improvement of one’s situation), and normative (aimed at acting in accordance with what one thinks one is ought to do) motives, which were based on teachers’ assessments. These motives were related to peer-reported popularity, acceptance, and rejection in a sample of adolescent boys (n = 287) and girls (n = 303; = 13.51; SD = 0.54). Results showed that popular adolescents were mainly characterized by instrumental and normative motives. Accepted adolescents were high in hedonic and normative motives, but low in instrumental motivation, whereas rejected adolescents showed the exact opposite pattern. These results indicate that being successful among peers is not only a matter of behavior but also of motives underlying behaviors.
AchenbachT. M. (1991). Manual for the YSR and 1991 profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
2.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132-145. doi:10.1037/a0016338
3.
CaravitaS. C. S.CillessenA. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21, 376-395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x
4.
CialdiniR. B.RichardsonK. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of impression management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-416.
5.
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
6.
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
7.
CoieJ. D.CoppotelliH.DodgeK. A. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
8.
CrickN. R.DodgeK. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
9.
de BruynE. H.CillessenA. H. N. (2006). Heterogeneity of girls’ consensual popularity: Academic and interpersonal behavioral profiles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 435-445. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9023-4
10.
De BruynE. H.Van den BoomD. C. (2005). Interpersonal behavior, peer popularity, and self-esteem in early adolescence. Social Development, 14, 555-573. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00317.x
11.
De WinterA.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
12.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2010a). Basking in reflected glory and its limits: Why adolescents hang out with popular peers. The TRAILS study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 942-958. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00671.x
13.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2010b). Same-gender and cross-gender likeability: Associations with popularity and status enhancement. Journal of Early Adolescents, 30, 773-802. doi:10.1177/0272431609350926
14.
DijkstraJ. K.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation with bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1377-1389. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1377
15.
DijkstraJ. K.LindenbergS.VerhulstF. C.OrmelJ.VeenstraR. (2009). The relation between popularity and antisocial 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
16.
Gifford-SmithM. E.BrownellC. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235-284. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7
17.
GormanA. H.KimJ.SchimmelbuschH. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 143-165. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00092-4
18.
HawleyP. H. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(3), 213-235.
19.
HawleyP. H.GeldhofG. J. (2012). Preschoolers’ social dominance, moral cognition, and moral behavior: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 18-35. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.10.004
20.
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
21.
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
22.
HeidgerkenA. D.HughesJ. N.CavellT. A.WillsonV. L. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of parenting and children’s goals on child aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 684-693. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_4
23.
HuismanM.OldehinkelA. J.de WinterA.MinderaaR. B.De BildtA.HuizinkA. C.. . .OrmelJ. (2008). Cohort profile: The Dutch TRacking Adolescents Individual Lives Survey; TRAILS. International Journal of Epidemiology, 37, 1227-1235. doi:10.1093/ije/dym273
24.
KruglanskiA. W.KöpetzC. (2009). What is so special (and non-special) about goals? A view from the cognitive perspective. In MoskowitzG. B.GrantH. (Eds.), The psychology of goals (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
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
26.
LeaseA. M.KennedyC. A.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00188
27.
LeaseA. M.MusgroveK. T.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likeability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development, 11, 508-533. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00213
28.
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.
29.
LindenbergS. (2008). Social rationality, semi-modularity and goal-framing: What is it all about?Analyse & Kritik, 30, 669-687.
30.
LindenbergS. (2013). Social rationality, self-regulation and well-being: The regulatory significance of needs, goals, and the self. In WittekR.SnijdersT. A. B.NeeV. (Eds.), Handbook of rational choice social research (pp. 72-112). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
LindenbergS.StegL. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 117-137. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x
32.
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
33.
Moreno-MurciaJ. A.SiciliaA.CervelloE.HuéscarE.DumitruD. C. (2011). The relationship between goal orientations, motivational climate and self-reported discipline in physical education. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 10, 119-129.
34.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
35.
OjanenT.AunolaK.SalmivalliC. (2007). Situation-specificity of children’s social goals: Changing goals according to changing situations?International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 232-241. doi:10.1177/0165025407074636
36.
OjanenT.GrönroosM.SalmivalliC. (2005). An interpersonal circumplex model of children’s social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 41, 699-710. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.699
37.
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
38.
PoorthuisA. M. G.ThomaesS.DenissenJ. J. A.Van AkenM. A. G.De CastroB. O. (2012). Prosocial tendencies predict friendship quality, but not for popular children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 378-388. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.04.002
39.
RasinskiK. A.VisserP. S.ZagatskyM.RickettE. M. (2005). Using implicit goal priming to improve the quality of self-report data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 321-327. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.001
40.
RenshawP.AsherS. (1983). Children’s goals and strategies for social interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 353-374.
41.
SijtsemaJ. J.VeenstraR.LindenbergS. M.SalmivalliC. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57-67. doi:10.1002/ab.20282
42.
StegL.PerlaviciuteG.Van der WerffE.LurvinkJ. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally-relevant attitudes, preferences and actions. Environment & Behavior, 46, 163-192. doi:10.1177/0013916512454730
43.
TamirM.MitchellC.GrossJ. J. (2008). Hedonic and instrumental motives in anger regulation. Psychological Science, 19, 324-328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02088.x
44.
Troop-GordonW.ViscontiK. J.KuntzK. J. (2011). Perceived popularity during early adolescence: Links to declining school adjustment among aggressive youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 125-151. doi:10.1177/0272431610384488
45.
TuckerJ. S.GreenH. D.ZhouA. J.MilesJ. N. V.ShihR. A.D’AmicoE. J. (2011). Substance use among middle school students: Associations with self-rated and peer-nominated popularity. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 513-519. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.016
46.
VaillancourtT.HymelS. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-406. doi:10.1002/ab.20138
47.
VeenstraR.LindenbergS.OldehinkelA. J.De WinterA. F.VerhulstF. C.OrmelJ. (2008). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in preadolescence: Teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the behavior of girls and boys. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 243-251. doi:10.1177/0165025408089274
