This study addresses the interacting effects of classroom cohesion and hierarchy on the relationships between victimization and aggression with peer acceptance and rejection. Classroom cohesion and hierarchy were constructed from friendship nominations. Multilevel analysis conducted in a sample of seventh- and eighth-grade students from the Sociescuela program in Spain (N = 6,600) showed that in cohesive and hierarchical classrooms, a higher level of victimization was found; peer rejection was more strongly associated with victimization. In contrast to previous research, for males, aggression was more strongly associated with peer acceptance in less hierarchized classrooms.
AhnH. J.GarandeauC. F.RodkinP. C. (2010). Effects of classroom embeddedness and density on the social status of aggressive and victimized children. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 76-101.
2.
AhnH. J.RodkinP. C. (2014). Classroom-level predictors of the social status of aggression: Friendship centralization, friendship density, teacher-student attunement, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1144-1155.
3.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
AsherS. R.McDonaldK. L. (2009). The behavioral basis of acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity. In RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.LaursenB. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 232-248). New York, NY: Guilford.
5.
BlieseP. D.HangesP. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400-417.
6.
BrassD. J.ButterfieldK. D.SkaggsB. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 14-31.
7.
BukowskiW. M.HozaB. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In BerndtT. J.LaddG. W. (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15-45). New York, NY: John Wiley.
8.
ChangL. (2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 691-702.
9.
CillessenA. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.LaursenB. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82-99). New York, NY: Guilford.
10.
CillessenA. H. N.MayeuxL. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.
11.
CillessenA. H. N.RoseA. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105.
12.
ClossonL. M. (2009). Aggressive and prosocial behaviors within early adolescent friendship cliques: What’s status got to do with it?Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55, 406-435.
13.
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.
14.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
DeRosierM. E.CillessenA. H.CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A. (1994). Group social context and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 65, 1068-1079.
16.
DijkstraJ. K.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1377-1389.
17.
DijkstraJ. K.LindenbergS.VeenstraR. (2008). Beyond the class norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1289-1299.
18.
EspelageD.HoltM.HenkelR. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220.
19.
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.
20.
GrossN.MartinW. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 546-554.
21.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111.
22.
HaynieD. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.
23.
HenryD.GuerraN.HuesmannR.TolanP.Van AckerR.EronL. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59-81.
24.
HodgesE. V. E.BoivinM.VitaroF.BukowskiW. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101.
25.
KhatriP.KupersmidtJ. B. (2003). Aggression, peer victimisation, and social relationships among Indian youth. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 87-95.
26.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2002). Children’s stereotypes of popular and unpopular peers: A multi-method assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-647.
27.
LewinK.LippittR.WhiteR. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.”Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
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.
LottA. J.LottB. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
31.
MaccobyE. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Martín-BabarroJ. (2014). Assessment and detection of peer-bullying through analysis of the group context. Psicothema, 26, 357-363.
33.
MercerS. H.McMillenJ. S.DeRosierM. E. (2009). Predicting change in children’s aggression and victimization using classroom-level descriptive norms of aggression and pro-social behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 267-289.
34.
MoodyJ.WhiteD. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68, 103-127.
35.
MorenoJ.JenningsH. (1937). Statistics of social configurations. Sociometry, 1, 342-374.
36.
ParkhurstJ.HopmeyerA. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144.
37.
PattiselannoK.DijkstraJ. K.SteglichC.VolleberghW.VeenstraR. (2015). Structure matters: The role of clique hierarchy in the relationship between adolescent social status and aggression and prosociality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2257-2274.
38.
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.
39.
PodolnyJ. M.BaronJ. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673-693.
40.
PrinsteinM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310-342.
41.
PutallazM.GrimesC. L.FosterK. J.KupersmidtJ. B.CoieJ. D.DearingK. (2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523-547.
42.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CongdonR. (2010). HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
43.
RodkinP.FarmerT.PearlR.Van AckerR. (2006). They’re cool: Social status and peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15, 175-204.
44.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW.LaursenB. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. New York, NY: Guilford.
45.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW.ParkerJ. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In EisenbergN. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571-645). New York, NY: John Wiley.
46.
RyanA. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35, 101-111.
47.
Savin-WilliamsR. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50, 923-935.
48.
SijtsemaJ. J.LindenbergS. M.VeenstraR. (2010). Do they get what they want or are they stick with what they can get? Testing homophily against default selection for friendships of highly aggressive boys. The TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 803-813.
49.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
SherifM. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54-58.
51.
SnijdersT. (1981). The degree variance: An index of graph heterogeneity. Social Networks, 3, 163-174.
52.
StormshakE. A.BiermanK. L.BruschiC.DodgeK. A.CoieJ. D., The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169-182.
53.
Van der OordE. J.Van RossemR. (2002). Differences in first graders’ school adjustment: The role of classroom characteristics and social structure of the group. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 371-394.
54.
VeenstraR.LindenbergS.MunniksmaA.DijkstraJ. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81, 480-486.
55.
WellmanB.BerkowitzS. D. (1988). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
56.
WrightJ. C.GiammarinoM.ParadH. W. (1986). Social status in small groups: Individual-group similarity and the social “misfit.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523-536.
57.
ZwaanM.DijkstraJ. K.VeenstraR. (2013). Status hierarchy, attractiveness hierarchy and sex ratio: Three contextual factors explaining the status–aggression link among adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 211-221.
