Prestigious Youth are Leaders but Central Youth are Powerful: What Social Network Position Tells us About Peer Relationships
- 10 Downloads
Measures of social network position provide unique social and relational information yet have not been used extensively by researchers who study peer relationships. This study explored two measures—social network prestige and social network centrality—to improve conceptualization of their similarities, differences, and meaning within a peer relationships context. Prestige and centrality were computed from friendship nominations (N = 396 6th graders; 48% girls; 49% White) and participants nominated peers on several social indicators (e.g., aggressive, popular). Two example classroom networks were examined to visually depict social network position. Associations between measures of social network position and social indicators were examined using correlations and latent profile analysis. Latent profile analysis identified three profiles based on the social indicators, which differentially related to prestige and centrality. Overall, prestigious youth were generally well-liked, prosocial, and leaders, whereas central youth were powerful and aggressive. The results strengthen the conceptualization of these network-based measures, allowing them to be more readily used by peer relationships researchers to understand youth’s interaction patterns and behaviors.
KeywordsSocial network position Prestige Centrality Social status Popularity
The author would like to thank Dr. Carol Lynn Martin for her contributions to this study, including her support in conceptualizing and framing this study, talking through issues and options, and overseeing the implementation and administration of the study from which data for this study were drawn.
The research was supported by funds from the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics.
Data sharing Declaration
This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.
Compliance With Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This study employed an opt-out consent procedure (with active student assent), meaning that parents had the opportunity to request that their child not participate in the study. Of the total 414 sixth grade students enrolled in participating schools at the time of data collection, 18 parents requested that their child not participate. All students gave active assent prior to survey administration (no students declined participation). The recruitment and consent procedure were approved by the participating schools and the university Institutional Review Board.
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- Andrews, N. C. Z., Hanish, L. D., Updegraff, K. A., Martin, C. L., & Santos, C. E. (2016). Targeted victimization: exploring linear and curvilinear associations between social network prestige and victimization. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 45, 1772–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0450-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Butts, C. T. (2013). sna: Tools for social network analysis. R package version 2.3-1. http://cran.r-project.org/package=sna.
- Csardi, R., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. Inter Journal Complex Systems, 1695, http://igraph.org.
- Dawes, M., & Malamut, S. (2018). No one is safe: victimization experiences of high-status youth. Adolescent Research Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0103-6.
- Kornienko, O., & Granger, D. A. (2018). Peer networks, psychobiology of stress response, and adolescent development. In R. Hopcroft (Ed.), The oxford handbook of evolution, biology, and society (pp. 327–348). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kornienko, O., Santos, C. E., & Updegraff, K. A. (2015). Friendship networks and ethnic-racial identity development: contributions of social network analysis. In: C. E. Santos, A. J. Umaña-Taylor (Eds.), Studying ethnic identity: methodological and conceptual approaches across disciplines. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Magnusson, D. (1998). The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach. In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman & J. Kagan (Eds), Methods and models for studying the individual (pp. 33–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- McDonald, K. L., & Asher, S. R. (2018). Peer acceptance, peer rejection, and popularity: social-cognitive and behavioral perspectives. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen & K. H. Rubin (Eds), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 429–446). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Musiał, K., Kazienko, P., & Bródka, P. (2009). User position measures in social networks. The 3rd SNA-KDD Workshop’09, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/1731011.1731017.
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Ray, G. E., Graham, J. A., & Cohen, R. (2003). The importance of relationship information for children’s evaluations of peers and social situations. In J. Z. Arlsdale (Ed.), Trends in social psychology (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
- Rodkin, P. C., & Ahn, H.-J. (2009). Social networks derived from affiliations and friendships, multi-informant and self-reports: stability, concordance, placement of aggressive and unpopular children, and centrality. Social Development, 18, 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00505.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
- van der Ploeg, R., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2019). The way bullying works: how new ties facilitate the mutual reinforcement of status and bullying in elementary schools. Social Networks, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.12.006.
- Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., & Kreager, D. A. (2018). Pathways, networks, and norms: a sociological perspective on peer research. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen & K. H. Rubin (Eds), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups. 2nd ed (pp. 45–63). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Zhang, F., You, Z., Fan, C., Gao, C., Cohen, R., Hsueh, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2014). Friendship quality, social preference, proximity prestige, and self-perceived social competence: interactive influences on children’s loneliness. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar