Although peer status has been studied extensively in childhood and adolescence, little is known about social status in peer groups of emerging adults. The current study filled this gap by testing whether preference and popularity are distinct dimensions of peer status and uniquely associated with social behavior in emerging adulthood. Participants were 235 18- to 25-year-old emerging adults in a professional college who completed a sociometric instrument. Popularity and preference were moderately correlated. Both types of status were positively related to prosocial leadership and negatively to social exclusion. Popularity was positively related to dominant leadership and relational aggression, whereas preference was negatively related to relational aggression. The results were compared with findings in adolescence and their generalizability to emerging adults in other social contexts was discussed.
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
3.
ArnettJ. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
4.
CillessenA. H. N.BorchC. (2006). Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: A growth curve modelling analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 935-959.
5.
CillessenA. H. N.MarksP. E. L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In CillessenA. H. N.SchwartzD.MayeuxL. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25-56). New York, NY: Guilford.
6.
CillessenA. H. N.MayeuxL. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.
7.
CillessenA. H. N.MayeuxL. (2007). Expectations and perceptions at school transitions: The role of peer status and aggression. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 567-586.
8.
CillessenA. H. N.RoseA. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105.
9.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A.CoppotelliH. (1982). Dimensions and types of status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
10.
CrickN. R.GrotpeterJ. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
11.
EderD. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154-165.
12.
HayvrenM.HymelS. (1984). Ethical issues in sociometric testing: Impact of sociometric measures on interaction behavior. Developmental Psychology, 20, 844-849.
13.
KawachiI.BerkmanL. F. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 78, 458-467.
14.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635-647.
15.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19, 130-147.
16.
LearyM. R.TamborE. S.TerdalS. K.DownsD. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.
17.
LeaseA. M.KennedyC. A.AxelrodJ. L. (2002). Children’s social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109.
18.
MacDonaldG.LearyM. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223.
19.
MayeuxL.UnderwoodM. K.RisserS. D. (2007). Perspectives on the ethics of sociometric research with children: How children, peers, and teachers help to inform the debate. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 53-78.
20.
MertenD. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175-191.
21.
NewcombA. F.BukowskiW. M.PatteeL. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
22.
OstrovJ. M.WoodsK. E.JansenE. A.CasasJ. F.CrickN. R. (2004). An observational study of delivered and received aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment in preschool: This white crayon doesn’t work. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 355-371.
23.
ParkhurstJ. T.HopmeyerA. G. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144.
24.
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.
25.
RoismanG. I.MastenA. S.CoatsworthJ. D.TellegenA. (2004). Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75, 123-133.
26.
RoseA. J.SwensonL. P.WallerE. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378-387.
27.
SandstromM. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2010). Life after high school: Adjustment of popular teens in emerging adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 474-499.
28.
UnderwoodM. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford.
29.
VaillancourtT.HymelS. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating role of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-408.
30.
ZettergrenP.BergmanL. R.WangbyM. (2006). Girls’ stable peer status and their adulthood adjustment: A longitudinal study from age 10 to age 43. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 315-325.
