Children live complex social lives that has various aspects, including intimate friendships, peer-acceptance and bullying dynamics which is usually studied separately in research. This study aims to investigate the interplays of these three important fields by analyzing the moderating effects of number of friendships on the relation between sociometric categories and behavioral correlates via moderated logistic regression models. Participants were 291 elementary school students from schools located in Budapest, Hungary. Computerized peer-nominations were used to assess number of mutual friendships, behavioral variables, peer acceptance and bullying-roles. Results suggest that in a few cases, number of mutual friendships may have an effect on the relationship analyzed. Questions of limited and unlimited nomination based friendship questions are discussed. The results may facilitate further studies in the direction of more refined logistic regressions and has implications on bullying diagnostics and offers an electronic assessment tool for practitioners.
AndrewsN. C. Z.HanishL. D.DeLayD.MartinC. L.UpdegraffK. A. (2017). Relations between close friendships and adolescent aggression: Structural and behavioral friendship features. Social Development, 27, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12277
2.
AndrewsN. C. Z.McDowellH.SpadaforaN.DaneA. V. (2022). Using social network position to understand early adolescents’ power and dominance within a school context. School Psychology, 37(6), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000445
3.
BeckerB. E.LutharS. S. (2007). Peer-perceived admiration and social preference: Contextual correlates of positive peer regard among suburban and urban adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(1), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00514.x
4.
BroidyL. M.NaginD. S.TremblayR. E.BatesJ. E.BrameB.DodgeK. A.FergussonD.HorwoodJ. L.LoeberR.LairdR.LynamD. R.MoffittT. E.PettitG. S.VitaroF. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 222–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.222
5.
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). John Wiley & Sons.
6.
CillessenA. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.LaursenB. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). The Guilford Press.
7.
CillessenA. H. N.BukowskiW. M. (2018). Sociometric perspectives. In BukowskiW. M.LaursenB.RubinK. H. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 64–83). The Guilford Press.
8.
CillessenA. H. N.MarksP. E. L. (2017). Methodological choices in peer nomination research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2017(157), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20206
9.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A.CoppotelliH. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
10.
CoieJ. D.DodgeK. A.KupersmidtJ. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In AsherS. R.CoieJ. D. (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). Cambridge University Press.
DavilaM.KornienkoO. (2022). Making, keeping, and influencing friends: The role of fear of negative evaluation and gender in adolescent networks. School Psychology, 37(6), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000481
13.
DishionT.J.McCordJ.PoulinF. (1999). When interventions harm. Peer groups and problem behavior. Am Psychol. 1999 Sep;54(9):755–64. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.54.9.755. PMID: 10510665.
14.
GestS. D.Graham-BermannS. A.HartupW. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00146
15.
Gifford-SmithM. E.BrownellC. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7
16.
GommansR.CillessenA. H. N. (2015). Nominating under constraints: A systematic comparison of unlimited and limited peer nomination methodologies in elementary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414551761
17.
HallJ. A.ValenteT. W. (2007). Adolescent smoking networks: The effects of influence and selection on future smoking. Addictive Behaviors, 32(12), 3054–3059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.04.008
18.
HastieT.TibshiraniR.FriedmanJ. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction (2nd ed.). Springer Series in Statistics. Springer.
19.
HodgesE. V. E.BoivinM.VitaroF.BukowskiW. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.94
20.
HodgesE. V. E.PerryD. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.4.677
HozaB.BukowskiW. M.BeeryS. (2000). Assessing peer network and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_12
23.
HuitsingG.SnijdersT. A.Van DuijnM. A.VeenstraR. (2014). Victims, bullies, and their defenders: A longitudinal study of the coevolution of positive and negative networks. Development and Psychopathology, 26(3), 645–659. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000297
24.
HussongA. M.EnnettS. T.McNeishD. M.ColeV. T.GottfredsonN. C.RothenbergW. A.FarisR. W. (2020). Social network isolation mediates associations between risky symptoms and substance use in the high school transition. Developmental Psychopathology, 32(2), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941900049X
25.
KulawiakP.WilbertJ. (2019). Introduction of a new method for representing the sociometric status within the peer group: The example of sociometrically neglected children. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1621830
26.
KulawiakP. R.WilbertJ. (2019). Introduction of a new method for representing the sociometric status within the peer group: The example of sociometrically neglected children. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1621830
27.
LaddG. W. (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: An examination of four predictive models. Child Development, 77(4), 822–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00905.x
28.
LaddG. W.Herald-BrownS. L.ReiserM. (2008). Does chronic classroom peer rejection predict the development of children’s classroom participation during the grade school years?Child Development, 79(4), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01172.x
29.
LaddG. W.KochenderferB. J.ColemanC. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment?Child Development, 68(6), 1181–1197. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132300
30.
LaddG. W.Troop-GordonW. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties in the development of children’s psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74(5), 1344–1367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00611
31.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635
32.
LakonC. M.ValenteT. W. (2012). Social integration in friendship networks: The synergy of network structure and peer influence in relation to cigarette smoking among high risk adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 74(9), 1407–1417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.011
33.
LightJ. M.DishionT. J. (2007). Early adolescent antisocial behavior and peer rejection: A dynamic test of a developmental process. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (118), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.202
34.
MaisonneuveJ. (1954). A contribution to the sociometry of mutual choices. Sociometry, 17(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785697
35.
MarksP. E. L.CillessenA. H. N.BabcockB. (2016). Relations between alphabetized name order and nomination counts in peer nomination measures. Social Development, 25, 866–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12163
36.
McDonaldK. L.AsherS. R. (2018). Peer acceptance, peer rejection, and popularity: Social-cognitive and behavioral perspectives. In BukowskiW. M.LaursenB.RubinK. H. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 429–446). The Guilford Press.
37.
McMullenJ. A.VeermansK.LaineK. (2014). Tools for the classroom? An examination of existing sociometric methods for teacher use. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(5), 624–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.838694
MeuweseR.CillessenA. H. N.GüroğluB. (2017). Friends in high places: A dyadic perspective on peer status as predictor of friendship quality and the mediating role of empathy and prosocial behavior. Social Development, 26, 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12213
NewcombA. F.BukowskiW. M. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19(6), 856–867. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.19.6.856
42.
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(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99
43.
ParkerJ. G.AsherS. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611
44.
ParkhurstJ. T.HopmeyerA. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001
45.
PetitG. S.DodgeK. A. (2003). Violent children: Bridging development, intervention, and public policy [Editorial]. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 187–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.187
46.
PrinsteinM. J.RancourtD.AdelmanC. B.AhlichE.SmithJ.GuerryJ. D. (2018). Peer status and psychopathology. In BukowskiW. M.LaursenB.RubinK. H. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 617–636). The Guilford Press.
47.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.ParkerJ. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In EisenbergN.DamonW.LernerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 571–645). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
48.
RubinK. H.BukowskiW. M.ParkerJ. G. (2007). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner and N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0310
49.
RubinK. H.DwyerK. M.KimA. H.BurgessK. B.Booth-LaforceC.Rose-KrasnorL. (2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(4), 326–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604268530
50.
SalmivalliC.IsaacsJ. (2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development, 76(6), 1161–1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00841.x-i1
51.
SnijdersT.SteglichC.SchweinbergerM. (2007). Modeling the coevolution of networks and behavior. In van MontfortK.OudJ.SatorraA. (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
52.
VeenstraR.HuitsingG. (2021). Social network approaches to bullying and victimization. In SmithP. K.NormanJ. O. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention (pp. 196–214). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482650.ch11
53.
VeenstraR.LindenbergS.ZijlstraB.WinterA.VerhulstF.OrmelJ. (2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Development, 78, 1843–1854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x
54.
SalmivalliC.PeetsK. (2018). Bullying and victimization. In BukowskiW. M.LaursenB.RubinK. H. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 302–321). The Guilford Press.
55.
SentseM.VeenstraR.KiuruN.SalmivalliC. (2015). A longitudinal multilevel study of individual characteristics and classroom norms in explaining bullying behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(5), 943–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9949-7
