Advertisement

Prestigious Youth are Leaders but Central Youth are Powerful: What Social Network Position Tells us About Peer Relationships

  • Naomi C. Z. AndrewsEmail author
Empirical Research
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Social network position Prestige Centrality Social status Popularity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Funding

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.

Ethical Approval

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.

Informed Consent

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.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, N. C. Z., Hanish, L. D., DeLay, D., Martin, C. L., & Updegraff, K. A. (2018). Relations between close friendships and adolescent aggression: structural and behavioral friendship features. Social Development, 27, 293–307.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, N. C. Z., Hanish, L. D., & Santos, C. E. (2017). Does an aggressor’s target choice matter? assessing change in the social network prestige of aggressive youth. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 364–374.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bakk, Z., & Vermunt, J. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, C., & Rodkin, P. C. (2009). Male and female victims of male bullies: social status differences by gender and informant source. Sex Roles, 61, 72–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9605-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: a family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22, 1168–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butts, C. T. (2008). Social network analysis: a methodological introduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 13–41.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00241.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butts, C. T. (2013). sna: Tools for social network analysis. R package version 2.3-1. http://cran.r-project.org/package=sna.
  11. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cillessen, A. H. N. (2007). New perspectives on social networks in the study of peer relations. New Directions for Child Adolescent Development, 118, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csardi, R., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. Inter Journal Complex Systems, 1695, http://igraph.org.
  14. 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.
  15. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386–1399.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1129802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubow, E. F. (1988). Aggressive behavior and peer social status of elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Enders, C. K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in developmental research. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faris, R. (2012). Aggression, exclusivity, and status attainment in interpersonal networks. Social Forces, 90, 1207–1235.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: network centrality and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76, 48–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410396196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallupe, O., Bouchard, M., & Davies, G. (2015). Delinquent displays and social status among adolescents. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57, 439–474.  https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2013.E49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Golonka, M. M., Peairs, K. F., Malone, P. S., Grimes, C. L., & Costanzo, P. R. (2017). Natural peer leaders as substance use prevention agents: the teen’s life choice project. Prevention Science, 18, 555–566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0790-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haas, S. A., Schaefer, D. R., & Kornienko, O. (2010). Health and the structure of adolescent social networks. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 424–439.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510386791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: a case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Q uarterly, 49, 279–309.  https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1086/320298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Kreager, D. A., Rulison, K., & Moody, J. (2011). Delinquency and the structure of adolescent peer groups. Criminology, 49, 95–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00219.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  33. Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39, 1041–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social Development, 17, 908–921.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00473.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Reynolds, A. D., & Crea, T. M. (2015). Peer influence processes for youth delinquency and depression. Journal of Adolescent, 43, 83–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robins, G., & Morris, M. (2007). Advances in exponential random graph (p*) models. Soc Netw orks, 29, 169–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Rulison, K. L., Gest, S. D., & Osgood, D. W. (2014). Adolescent peer networks and the potential for the diffusion of intervention effects. Prevention Science, 16, 133–144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0465-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salancik, G. R. (1995). Wanted: a good network theory of organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 345–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Sentse, M., Kretschmer, T., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). The longitudinal interplay between bullying, victimization, and social status: age-related and gender differences. Social Development, 24, 659–677.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sijtsema, J. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2018). Peer influence in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior: advances from dynamic social network studies. Developmental Review, 50, 140–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: the moderating roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and application. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Zhao, Y., Yu, H., Zhang, W., Zhang, W., & Zhu, Z. (2015). A social network model with proximity prestige property. Journal of Applied Analysis Computation, 5, 177–188.  https://doi.org/10.11948/2015016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Child and Youth StudiesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations