Victimization has been primarily studied within the broader peer group, leaving other potentially important contexts, such as friendship cliques, unexplored. This study examined the role of popularity in identifying protective factors that buffer against victimization within early adolescents’ (N = 387) friendship cliques. Previously identified protective factors that buffer against victimization within the broader peer group were examined as moderators in the link between popularity and victimization within the friendship clique. Results showed that peer-group features operated as either vulnerability or protective factors, depending upon popularity, gender, and the form of victimization. At higher levels of popularity, receiving social support from clique members operated as a vulnerability factor for overt victimization, whereas preference served a protective function. Prosocial behavior directed toward clique members was protective against relational victimization for girls who were higher in popularity, but was a vulnerability factor for boys who were higher in popularity.
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
AsherS. R.SingletonL.TinsleyB. R.HymelS. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 443-444.
4.
BadalyD.KellyB. M.SchwartzD.Dabney-LierasK. (2013). Longitudinal associations of electronic aggression and victimization with social standing during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 891-904.
5.
BlackhartG. C.BaumeisterR. F.TwengeJ. M. (2006). Rejection’s impact on self-defeating, prosocial, antisocial, and self-regulatory behaviors. In VohsK. D.FinkelE. J. (Eds.), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 237-253). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BowkerJ. C.SpencerS. V.ThomasK. K.GyoerkoeE. A. (2012). Having and being an other-sex crush during early adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 629-643.
8.
BrechwaldW. A.PrinsteinM. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 166-179.
9.
BrendgenM.GirardA.VitaroF.GinetteD.BoivinM. (2015). The dark side of friends: A genetically informed study of victimization within early adolescents’ friendships. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44, 417-431.
10.
BrownB. B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In LernerR.SteinbergL. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363-394). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
11.
BukowskiW. M.GauzeC.HozaB.NewcombA. F. (1993). Differences and consistency in relations with same-sex and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 29, 255-263.
12.
CardN. A.HodgesE. V. E. (2010). It takes two to fight in school, too: A social relations model of the psychometric properties and relative variance of dyadic aggression and victimization in middle school. Social Development, 19, 447-469.
13.
CardN. A.IsaacsJ.HodgesE. V. E. (2008). Multiple contextual levels of risk for peer victimization: A review with implications for prevention and intervention efforts. In MillerT. (Ed.), School violence and primary prevention (pp. 125-154). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
14.
CardN. A.SchwartzD. (2009). Social networks and peer victimization: The contexts of children’s victimization by peers. In HarrisM. (Ed.), Bullying, rejection, and peer victimization: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective (pp. 319-344). New York, NY: Springer.
15.
CillessenA. H. N.JiangX. L.WestT. V.LaszkowskiD. K. (2005). Predictors of dyadic friendship quality in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 165-172.
16.
ClarkM. S.MillsJ. R. (1993). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In KruglanskiA. (Ed.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 232-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
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.
18.
ClossonL. M.HymelS. (2016). Status differences in target-specific prosocial behavior and aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1836-1848.
19.
CrickN. R.NelsonD. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599-607.
20.
CrothersL. M.FieldJ. E.KolbertJ. B. (2005). Navigating power, control, and being nice: Aggression in adolescent girls’ friendships. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 349-354.
21.
de BruynE. H.CillessenA. H. N.WissinkI. B. (2010). Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 543-566.
22.
EderD. (1993). “Go get ya a French!”: Romantic and sexual teasing among adolescent girls. In TannenD. (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 17-31). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
EnnettS. T.BaumanK. E.KochG. G. (1994). Variability in cigarette smoking within and between adolescent friendship cliques. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 295-305.
24.
GarandeauC. F.CillessenA. H. N. (2006). From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 612-625.
25.
GazelleH.LaddG. W. (2002). Interventions for children victimized by peers. In ScheweP. A. (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 55-78). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26.
GrieseE. R.BuhsE. S. (2014). Prosocial behavior as a protective factor for children’s peer victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1052-1065.
27.
HaynieD. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.
28.
HittiA.MulveyK. L.RutlandA.AbramsD.KillenM. (2014). When is it okay to exclude a member of the ingroup? Children’s and adolescents’ social reasoning. Social Development, 23, 451-469.
29.
HodgesE. V. E.BoivinM.VitaroF.BukowskiW. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94-101.
30.
HodgesE. V. E.PerryD. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677-685.
31.
HutaV. (2014). When to use hierarchical linear modeling. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10, 13-28.
32.
HymelS.ClossonL. M.CaravitaS. C. S.VaillancourtT. (2010). Social status among peers: From sociometric attraction to peer acceptance to perceived popularity. In SmithP. K.HartC. (Eds.), Handbook of childhood social development (2nd ed., pp. 375-392). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
33.
KwonK.LeaseA. M. (2007). Clique membership and social adjustment in children’s same-gender cliques: The contribution of the type of clique to children’s self-reported adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 216-242.
34.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130-147.
35.
LeaseA. M.KennedyC. A.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109.
36.
LiY.WrightM. F. (2014). Adolescents’ social status goals: Relationships to social status insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 146-160.
37.
LittleT. D.JonesS. M.HenrichC. C.HawleyP. H. (2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 122-133.
38.
LodderG. M. A.ScholteR. H. J.CillessenA. H. N.GilettaM. (2016). Bully victimization: Selection and influence within adolescent friendship networks and cliques. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 132-144.
39.
MeijsN.CillessenA. H. N.ScholteR. H. J.SegersE.SpijkermanR. (2010). Social intelligence and academic achievement as predictors of adolescent popularity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 62-72.
40.
MertenD. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175-191.
41.
MishnaF.WienerJ.PeplerD. (2008). Some of my best friends—Experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology International, 29, 549-573.
42.
MulveyK. L.HittiA.RutlandA.AbramsD.KillenM. (2014). When do children dislike ingroup members? Resource allocation from individual and group perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 29-46.
43.
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.
44.
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.
45.
PaxtonS. J.SchutzH. K.WertheimE. H.MuirS. L. (1999). Friendship clique and peer influences on body image concerns, dietary restraint, extreme weight-loss behaviors and binge eating in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 255-266.
46.
PellegriniA. D. (2001). A longitudinal study of heterosexual relationships, aggression, and sexual harassment during the transition from primary school through middle school. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 119-133.
47.
PellegriniA. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151-163.
48.
PrinsteinM. J.BoergersJ.VernbergE. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 30, 479-491.
49.
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.
50.
PronkR. E.Zimmer-GembeckM. J. (2010). It’s “mean,” but what does it mean to adolescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 175-204.
51.
RodkinP. C.BergerC. (2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by victim gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473-485.
52.
RoseA. J.RudolphK. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131.
53.
SandstromM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 305-314.
VaillancourtT.HymelS. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-408.
56.
WaasdorpT. E.BagdiA.BradshawC. P. (2010). Peer victimization among urban, predominantly African American youth: Coping with relational aggression between friends. Journal of School Violence, 9, 98-116.
57.
WoodW. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570.
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.
