Reading Questions Articles PSDP
Bullying:
Cillessen - Understanding Popularity in the peer system
1. What do sociometrically popular youth and perceived-popular youth have in common?
Both kinds of youth are found to be prosocial and co-operative.
2. What is the main difference between them?
Whereas sociometrically popular youth score very low on aggression, perceived popularity is positively
associated with aggression.
3. How is sociometric popularity typically measured?
Sociometric popularity is usually assessed with a peer-nomination procedure, in which participants are asked to
name the peers in their grade who they like most and like least. Sociometric popularity for each person is
represented with a score on a continuous scale calculated by using the number of liked-most nominations
minus the number of liked-least nominations he or she received. In other studies, a categorical approach is
used (many liked-most and few liked-least).
4. How was perceived popularity initially investigated?
Perceived popularity was initially identified by simply observing which classmates referred to as popular by
their peers. Nowadays, quantitative methods are used; participants name who they see as most popular and
who they see as least popular.
5. According to the authors, what can explain that aggression is positively associated with high levels of
perceived popularity?
It may be that some children or adolescents use aggression in certain situations (when publicly provoked) or
against certain people (competitors for social status) strategically to achieve or maintain perceived popularity.
Overt aggression may be related to perceived popularity because youth can display dominance through overtly
aggressive acts. Relational aggression may be especially effective for managing social power.
6. What are the expectations of the authors regarding the long-term adjustment of perceived-popular
youth?
They hypothesized that for perceived popular youth, short-term advantages may be combined with long-term
disadvantages.
Garandeau, Lee & Salmivalli - Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and
adolescents' bullying
1. What is the functionalist perspective on status hierarchies?
Status hierarchies appear to decrease intra-group conflict and improve organization of group tasks by
enhancing the predictability and stability of social relationships. The existence of a strong status hierarchy
should deter everyone from engaging in aggressive actions as it should make aggression appear more costly
than rewarding. Those at the bottom of the ladder should recognize that any attempt at aggressively
challenging a higher-positioned peer is likely to fail, while individuals at the top of the hierarchy should find it
unnecessary to attack lower-positioned peers due to their already granted advantage in accessing resources.
2. What is the “balance-of-power” perspective on status hierarchies?
Status inequality within classrooms, and even societies, is associated with victimization, bullying and other
violent behaviours. According to this perspective, the power differential inherent in hierarchical contexts is
detrimental to peer relationships.
Bullying:
Cillessen - Understanding Popularity in the peer system
1. What do sociometrically popular youth and perceived-popular youth have in common?
Both kinds of youth are found to be prosocial and co-operative.
2. What is the main difference between them?
Whereas sociometrically popular youth score very low on aggression, perceived popularity is positively
associated with aggression.
3. How is sociometric popularity typically measured?
Sociometric popularity is usually assessed with a peer-nomination procedure, in which participants are asked to
name the peers in their grade who they like most and like least. Sociometric popularity for each person is
represented with a score on a continuous scale calculated by using the number of liked-most nominations
minus the number of liked-least nominations he or she received. In other studies, a categorical approach is
used (many liked-most and few liked-least).
4. How was perceived popularity initially investigated?
Perceived popularity was initially identified by simply observing which classmates referred to as popular by
their peers. Nowadays, quantitative methods are used; participants name who they see as most popular and
who they see as least popular.
5. According to the authors, what can explain that aggression is positively associated with high levels of
perceived popularity?
It may be that some children or adolescents use aggression in certain situations (when publicly provoked) or
against certain people (competitors for social status) strategically to achieve or maintain perceived popularity.
Overt aggression may be related to perceived popularity because youth can display dominance through overtly
aggressive acts. Relational aggression may be especially effective for managing social power.
6. What are the expectations of the authors regarding the long-term adjustment of perceived-popular
youth?
They hypothesized that for perceived popular youth, short-term advantages may be combined with long-term
disadvantages.
Garandeau, Lee & Salmivalli - Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and
adolescents' bullying
1. What is the functionalist perspective on status hierarchies?
Status hierarchies appear to decrease intra-group conflict and improve organization of group tasks by
enhancing the predictability and stability of social relationships. The existence of a strong status hierarchy
should deter everyone from engaging in aggressive actions as it should make aggression appear more costly
than rewarding. Those at the bottom of the ladder should recognize that any attempt at aggressively
challenging a higher-positioned peer is likely to fail, while individuals at the top of the hierarchy should find it
unnecessary to attack lower-positioned peers due to their already granted advantage in accessing resources.
2. What is the “balance-of-power” perspective on status hierarchies?
Status inequality within classrooms, and even societies, is associated with victimization, bullying and other
violent behaviours. According to this perspective, the power differential inherent in hierarchical contexts is
detrimental to peer relationships.
