Love Me or Hate Me: Exploring Controversial Sociometric Status

  • Inga Carboni
  • Tiziana Casciaro
Part of the Jepson Studies in Leadership book series (JSL)


Research on sociometric status among youth and adolescents offers a new framework within which to explore outcomes for individuals who are at the center of conflict in the groups and organizations to which they belong. In particular, individuals who are both well-liked and disliked—so-called controversials—may occupy a unique and previously unrecognized role in organizational life. In this chapter, we explore controversial sociometric status. Drawing mainly upon psychological and organizational research, we consider personality, behavioral, and structural antecedents that may contribute to the formation and maintenance of controversial sociometric status and advance propositions regarding socioemotional and performance-related outcomes for individuals with controversial sociometric status. Lastly, we report and reflect upon insights gained through a series of interviews we conducted among 15 executives.


Management Journal Social Preference Organizational Life High Performer Sociometric Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahuja, M.K., Galletta, D.F., & Carley, K.M. (2003). Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study. Management Science, 49(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aloise-Young, P., & Kaeppner, C.J. (2005). Sociometric status as a predictor of onset and progression in adolescent cigarette smoking. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 7(2), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin, T.T., Bedell, M.D., & Johnson, J.L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1369–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borowski, S., Zeman, J., Thrash, T., Carboni, I., & Gilman, R. (in press). Adolescent controversial status brokers: A double-edged sword (working paper).Google Scholar
  7. Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4) 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bukowski, W.M., & Newcomb, A.F. (1985). Variability in peer group perceptions: Support for the “controversial” sociometric classification group. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1032–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cairns, R.B. (1983). Sociometry, psychometry, and social structure: A commentary on six recent studies of popular, rejected, and neglected children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 429–438.Google Scholar
  10. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M.S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chua, R., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 436–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cillessen, A.H.N., & Marks, P.E.L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In A.H.N. Cillessen, D.A. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). Sociometric status and peer group behavior: Previous findings and current directions. In J.B. Kupersmidt & K.A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention, Vol. 5 (pp. 3–20). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2) 310–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craik, K.H. (2008). Reputation: A network interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denrell, J., & March, J.G. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12(5), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeRosier, M.E., & Thomas, J.M. (2003). Strengthening sociometric prediction: Scientific advances in the assessment of children’s peer relations. Child Development, 75(5), 1379–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farmer, T.W., & Rodkin, P.C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5(2), 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gifford-Smith, M., & Brownell, C.A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilman, R., & Huebner, S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haines, V., Beggs, J., & Hurlbert, J. (2002). Exploring the structural contexts of the support process: Social networks, social statuses, social support, and psychological distress. Advances in Medical Sociology, 8, 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(5), 466–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, D.K., & Merrell, K.W. (2004). Characteristics of “controversial children: An exploration of teacher and parent social behavior rating scale datasets. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Homans, G. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  27. Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group gonflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaya, A. (2007). Sociometric status, depression, and locus of control among Turkish early adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(10), 1405–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein, K.J., Lim, B.C., Saltz, J. L, & Mayer, D.M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Labianca, G., & Brass, D.J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Labianca, G., Brass, D.J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lansu, T., & Cillessen, H. (2012). Peer status in emerging adulthood: Association of popularity and preference with social roles and behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(1), 132–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lau, R.S., & Cobb, A.T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lease, A.M., Musgrove, K.T., & Axelrod, J.L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development, 17(4), 508–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lincoln, K.D. (2008). Personality, negative interactions, and mental health. Social Service Review, 82(2), 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magee, J.C., & Galinksy, A. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marineau, J., Kane, G., & Labianca, G. (2013). Direct and indirect negative ties and individual performance. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  39. Miller-Johnson, S., Costanzo, P., Coie, J.D., Rose, M.R., Browne, D.C., & Johnson, C. (2003). Peer social structure and risk-taking behaviors among African American early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrison. E. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patterson, G.R. (1993). Orderly change in a stable world: The antisocial trait as a chimera. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 911–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peery, J.C. (1979). Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: A reconceptualization of sociometric status in preschool children. Child Development, 50, 1231–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pickett, C.L., & Brewer, M.B. (2005). The role of exclusion in maintaining ingroup inclusion. In D. Abrams, M.A. Hogg, & J.M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 89–111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  46. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ridgeway, C.L., & Walker, H.A. (1995). Status structures. In K.S. Cook, G.A. Fine, & J.S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  48. Rodkin, P.C., Famer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36,14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodkin, P.C., & Hodges, E.V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384–400.Google Scholar
  50. Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(2), 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Kraimer, M.L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Staff, J., & Kreager, D. (2008). Too cool for school? Violence, peer status, and high school dropout. Social Forces, 87(1), 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor, S.E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thibaut, J.W., and Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Totterdell, P., Wall, T., Holman, D., Diamond, H., & Epitropaki, O. (2004). Affect network: A structural analysis of the relationship between work ties and job-related affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 854–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating role of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R.S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 952–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G., & Grosser, T. (2013). Positive and negative workplace relationships: Social satisfaction and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6) 1028–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wentzel, K.R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wölfer, R., Cortina, K.S., & Baumert, J. (2012). Embeddedness and empathy: How the social network shapes adolescents’ social understanding. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1295–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woodhouse, S.S., Dykas, M.J., & Cassidy, J. (2012). Loneliness and peer relations in adolescence. Social Development, 21(2), 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xia, L., Yuan, Y., & Gay, G. (2009). Exploring negative group dynamics adversarial network, personality, and performance in project groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 32–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yuan, Y.C., Carboni, I., & Ehrlich, K. (2010). The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 700–714.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Inga Carboni and Tiziana Casciaro 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inga Carboni
  • Tiziana Casciaro

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations