Hiatt, Cody

Popular children are visible and influential in an adolescent peer group
(LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Previous studies have demonstrated that there are two
types of popular children: aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular (Cillessen & Rose,
2005). The current study was designed to determine that, while both types are well liked
and accepted, they draw favor from different sources of affiliation. The Study uses a
sample of 450 adolescents (36.2% boys and 63.1% girls) from one high school in
Lithuania. Hierarchical generalized logistic linear models (HGLLM) were conducted to
determine if there was differential acceptance of aggressive-popular and prosocialpopular
adolescents. Also, models determined if peers exhausted with school, attached to
school, connected to peers and anxious/withdrawn would have differential association
with aggressive-popular and prosocial-popular adolescents.
Results answered 3 questions. First, HGLLM models were used to replicate the
previous finding that popular adolescents have more affiliations than other peers. Second, results determined that popular, popular-aggressive, and popular-prosocial adolescents
were all more likely to receive affiliation nominations from peers. Third, results
determined that aggressive-popular adolescents were chosen as affiliates by peers
exhausted with school, and less likely to be chosen by peers attached to school, connected
to friends and withdrawn. Prosocial-popular adolescents were chose as affiliates by peers
attached to school and connected with friends. These findings indicate that aggressivepopular
adolescents draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward youth culture,
while prosocial-popular draw favor from crowds that are more oriented toward adult
culture (Brown, 1990)
The findings first extend previous research by demonstrating that popular
adolescents, of all types, are likely to receive affiliation nominations. Furthermore,
prosocial-popular and aggressive-popular adolescents have more acceptance and
affiliations than others, but this attraction comes from different sources. Previous studies
have shown that popular children are well liked by some but not by others (Parkhurst &
Hopmeyer, 1998). Taken with findings demonstrating that popular children strategically
use cooperation or manipulation to influence others (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), the current
study extends knowledge about the peer groups where cooperation or manipulation
strategies may be most effective. Crowds that are school oriented and have positive peer
relations follow prosocial-popular peers while crowds that are fed up with school follow
aggressive-popular peers.

Close friends have been shown to influence adolescent problem behaviors,
especially alcohol abuse (Urberg, Degirmencioglu, and Pilgrim, 1997). The degree of
influence, however varies as a function of individual characteristics such as peer
acceptance (Laursen, Hafen, Kerr, and Stattin, 2012) and age (Popp et al., 2008). The
present study examines whether differences in influence extend to perceptions of
friendship quality. Using a sample of 764 Swedish adolescents involved in stable samesex reciprocal best friend relationships that lasted at least one year, analyses used
distinguishable dyad actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) analyses (Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006) to track influence over two years of the friendship. More
satisfied friends were more influential than less satisfied friends on intoxication
frequency and truancy. The findings of this study indicate that influence accompanies perceptions of quality. Those with higher perceptions of quality exhibit more influence
on friends who perceive relatively lower quality.