The previous studies examined ways to improve the sociometric data collection. In Chapter 4, we examined a way to expand the use of sociometric data for analytic purposes. We specifically focused on the development of a new classification system to cluster children into distinct status groups. The new classification system combined children’s preference and popularity
scores into a single framework, to represent the two distinct forms of social status. We first tried to identify unique subtypes of peer status among large samples of children and adolescents in Grades 3 to 8. These subtypes were cross-validated using a variety of behavioral correlates. Moreover, we examined the stability of these status groups from one year to another. In all age groups, children could be categorized in distinct groups of peer status when pref- erence and popularity were incorporated into a single framework. Surprisingly, participants did not clearly distinguish peers whom they liked from peers who they thought were popular until Grade 8. Children who were disliked by most of their classmates were most often also named as unpopular, whereas highly liked children were often also seen as popular. As such, three unique status groups were found in elementary school (Grade 3 to 6) and the first year of secondary school (Grade 7), called ‘unpopular-disliked’, ‘average’, and ‘popular-liked’. Each of these subtypes were characterized by distinct behavioral profiles; the low status group was characterized by negative behaviors (e.g., high on victimization and bullying, low on friend- liness and prosocial behavior), whereas the high status group was characterized by positive (e.g., high on friendliness and prosocial behavior, low on victimization) as well as negative behaviors (e.g., high on bossy behavior). However, among adolescents in Grade 8 four unique status groups were found called ‘unpopular-disliked’, ‘average’, ‘liked’ and ‘popular’. Thus, highly liked peers were distinguished from highly popular peers. The highly liked subgroup was characterized by positive behaviors (e.g., high on friendliness and prosocial behavior, low on aggression and bullying), whereas popular adolescents showed a mixed behaviors profile (e.g., high on friendliness as well as aggression and bullying). Finally, cohort-sequential analyses showed that the status groups were quite stable over time and changes in status were unlikely to happen. In other words, adolescents in the unpopular-disliked and average clusters were very likely to remain in these categories one to two years later. Popular-liked adolescents were also likely to maintain their high status over time by transitioning into either popular or liked clusters in Grade 8.
These findings are, to a certain extent, in line with previous studies on the development of peer status and the distinction between preference and popularity. In general, children do not clearly distinguish between preference and popularity, whereas adolescents do perceive them as two distinct forms of social status (Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). In the current study, the correlation between preference and popularity showed a similar pattern; it was high in childhood but decreased to moderate in adolescence. Also the classification in unpopular-disliked, average, and popular-liked in childhood and early adolescence is in concor- dance with previous studies that classified children and adolescence on the basis of both peer status measures (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006a; Lease et al., 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000). However, we did not find separate groups of high status peers (e.g., liked versus popular) until participants were around 14 years of age. Instead, some studies already found two groups of high status children in Grade 4 to 6 (Lease et al., 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000).
One explanation for this discrepancy may lie in the key variables on which the categorization was based. The current study based group categorization solely on peer preference and pop-
ularity, whereas other studies included other behavioral variables to identify subtypes of peer status (e.g.,, academic performance, social dominance, interpersonal competence). It could be that children became more distinct in these additional behavioral measures, which allowed researchers to identify more groups and also distinct groups of high status peers among younger age groups (e.g. Lease et al., 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000). Thus, these separate high status groups at younger ages may be a reflection of children being different in certain behaviors they display rather than a reflection of them being distinct in their levels of preference and popularity. The other explanation may lie in the fact that the children in the current study made the transition to secondary education at a different age than the participants in previous (mostly American) studies. In The Netherlands, children go to secondary education when they are around 12 years. In other countries, they make this transition at a later age or they first go to middle school and then to high school when they are around 14 years of age. The division of one general form of high status (popular-liked status) into two separate forms of high status (popular vs. liked) could be a deferred effect of the school transition. Adolescents in their first year of secondary education may still have a frame of reference of peer status that is based on their experiences in primary education. After the transition, they gradually see how older adolescents distinguish peers they like and peers who are popular. It might take some time to adjust these initial frameworks to the new experiences and standards in secondary school. It could therefore be that the division of high status in Grade 8 is a delayed effect of the adjust- ments adolescents make and new experiences they have during their first year of secondary school. At the same time, it could also just be an effect of development rather than transition, as adolescents value popularity more around the age of 14 and thus distinguish between peers they like and peers whom they admire (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). By replicating the current study in a sample that makes the transition to secondary school at an earlier or later age one could then examine whether a similar delayed effect occurs or whether it has to do with the age of the participants.