Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Res Adolesc. 2023 Nov 27;34(1):114–126. doi: 10.1111/jora.12904

High and low levels of adolescent peer status are associated longitudinally with socioevaluative concern

Nathan H Field 1, Elizabeth A Nick 1, Maya Massing-Schaffer 2, Kara A Fox 1, Jacqueline Nesi 2, Mitchell J Prinstein 1
PMCID: PMC10922244  NIHMSID: NIHMS1943549  PMID: 38012779

Abstract

This study examined linear and curvilinear longitudinal associations between peer status (i.e., likeability and popularity) and socioevaluative concern, a socio-cognitive feature characterized by attunement to judgment from peers. A sample of 716 adolescents (Mage = 16.01, SD = 1.25; 54% female; 46.5% White; 69.5% reduced-price lunch) was assessed twice annually. Likeability and popularity were assessed with peer nominations at Time 1. Measures of general (rejection sensitivity, peer importance) and online (digital status seeking, online status importance) socioevaluative concern were obtained at Times 1 and 2. High and low levels of likeability were longitudinally associated with increased peer importance, while high and low levels of popularity were associated with increased digital status seeking, and decreased online status importance for girls.

Keywords: likeability, popularity, adolescence, socioevaluative concern

Introduction

For at least five decades, researchers have been earnestly examining the association between youths’ actual status among peers (e.g., acceptance/rejection, popularity) and numerous developmental outcomes (see Cillessen, Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011; Parker & Asher, 1987; Prinstein & Giletta, 2016). Relatively recently, research has begun to address how youth may perceive, value, and feel about their status among their peers (e.g., Breslend et al., 2018; Kosir et al., 2021; Li & Wright, 2014), and how this may also be related to social, academic, or psychological outcomes. The current study aims to examine whether youth of high- and low- peer status may have comparable levels of concern regarding judgment from peers (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019; Lansu et al., 2021).

Feelings about status may be particularly salient during adolescence, a developmental period marked by an increased awareness of one’s reputation among peers (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), a heightened sensitivity to peer feedback (Guyer et al., 2009; Somerville, 2013), and greater freedom to interact with peers outside of adult supervision (Larson et al., 1996), as well as a heightened sophistication of peer interaction relative to childhood. Today, adolescence also is a period during which teens begin spending a remarkable amount of time engaged in social interactions mediated by technological devices or digital media platforms (Anderson & Jiang, 2018), many of which make one’s standing among peers salient through numerical indices (Nesi, Choukas-Bradley, & Prinstein, 2018a).

Numerous related literatures have begun to address adolescents’ perceptions and feelings about their peer status. For instance, the study of adolescents’ perceptions that their status is not high enough is referred to as social status insecurity (Li & Wright, 2014; Long & Li; 2018; Zhang et al., 2022), which appears to be related to youths’ overt and relational aggression (Li et al., 2010; Li & Wright, 2014). Studies on adolescents’ desire to increase their own status has been referred to as peer importance (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004), popularity goals (Breslend et al., 2018), or agentic goals (Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014); research suggests that higher levels of adolescents’ desire to become more popular may increase the magnitude of the association between actual peer rejection and negative outcomes, such as depression (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004) and victimization (Breslend et al., 2018). Related research, initially originating outside of the peer relations literature, also has examined adolescents’ propensity to perceive ambiguous feedback from peers as rejecting, and exhibit heightened negative emotional states in response to these perceptions. This propensity, referred to as rejection sensitivity, has been associated with a variety of internalizing symptoms (e.g., depression, loneliness and anxiety; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Gao et al., 2017). In the digital context, similar constructs capturing adolescents’ desire for increased status have been referred to as “digital status seeking” or evidenced by measures that capture adolescents’ own reports of a desire to gain more followers or “clout” (e.g., online status importance; Nesi & Prinstein, 2018).

In this paper, we collectively refer to these constructs as markers of “socioevaluative concern,” a broad feature of social-cognitive development marked by a general concern about judgment from peers (Rudolph & Conley, 2005; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Socioevaluative concern captures socio-cognitive preoccupations with one’s perception, valuation, or feelings about one’s status both generally and online. This conceptualization affords opportunities to examine how several related features of social cognition may manifest both in-person and online, and to examine why adolescents may vary in their levels of each of these features.

Prior research examining social-cognitive competencies often has cited the important role of actual social experiences in shaping perceptions and feelings about future social experiences (e.g., Crick & Dodge 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Similarly, in this study we examined how adolescents’ actual peer status may be associated with the development of socioevaluative concern. Perhaps the most frequently studied dimension of peer status is youths’ own levels of peer acceptance/rejection (e.g., likeability, social preference, and previously sociometric popularity; see Cillessen & Marks, 2011). Substantial work suggests that low levels of peer acceptance are robustly linked with traditionally negative outcomes (e.g., aggressive and delinquent behavior; Evans et al., 2016; Lansford, Dodge, Fontain, Bates, & Pettit, 2014), whereas high levels of peer acceptance are associated with traditionally positive outcomes (e.g., better problem-solving skills (Rubin, Bowker, McDonald, & Menzer, 2013), and fewer symptoms of psychopathology (Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). However, important work has begun to examine the similarities between youth at both ends of the continuum (i.e. highly rejected and highly accepted), and has surprisingly revealed that these youth share similar levels of social satisfaction, friendship quality, and self-concept (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019). It may be, that rejected and accepted youth may be more similar in their sensitivity to judgment from peers (e.g., socioevaluative concern) than would be intuitively assumed. Rejected youth may strive for more acceptance among peers, or may feel the need to be vigilant towards negative social feedback and its consequences (e.g., peer victimization), while highly accepted youths’ sensitivity to social feedback may aid them in maintaining positive relationships among their peers.

A second type of peer status that may predict socioevaluative concern is youth’s perceived popularity – a reputation-based peer status marker based on visibility, dominance, and prestige (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). While adjustment outcomes of unpopular youth largely mirror those associated with rejection (Cillessen, Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011), outcomes associated with high levels of popularity are a mix of positive (e.g., academic adjustment, social competence; Prinstein & Giletta, 2016) and negative outcomes (e.g., aggression; Rose et al., 2004; antisocial and health risk behaviors; van den Broek et al., 2016). Similar to work on peer acceptance, a burgeoning body of work has revealed a number of similarities between adolescents at both ends of the continuum. For example, both popular and unpopular adolescents exhibit bullying, prosocial, and attention-attracting behavior (Lansu et al., 2021), utilize more proactive and reactive aggression (Stoltz et al., 2016; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), and are victimized (Dawes & Malamut, 2018; Malamut, Luo, & Schwartz, 2020) at a higher rate than peers of average popularity. Given the social salience of popularity, it may be that highly popular youth are high in socioevaluative concern as they attend to cues that may threaten their status position, while those low in popularity similarly may be high in socioevaulative concern as they are motivated to increase their positions on the status hierarchy.

General and Online Markers of Socioevaluative Concern and Peer Status

As noted above, socioevaluative concern may include adolescents’ beliefs, values, or feelings about peer status (e.g., popularity goals, agentic goals, peer importance). In this study, general markers of socioevaluative concern included peer importance and rejection sensitivity. Peer importance has been examined in prior research as a construct assessing adolescents’ desire to increase their status and their belief that status among peers is important to them. Prior work has demonstrated that adolescents’ peer importance is associated with greater investment in online interactions, digital stress, greater susceptibility to peer influence, and greater health risk behavior (Duell et al., 2022; Nick et al., 2022). No prior studies have examined longitudinal determinants of peer importance. Related research, however, has suggested mixed findings between desires for status and actual status. For instance, some studies suggest that popularity and popularity goals are unrelated (Lansu et al., 2023; Breslend et al., 2018), whereas other research suggests a modest association (Li & Hu, 2018; Nesi & Prinstein, 2018). Longitudinal research suggests that unpopular youth have greater increases in popularity goals than popular youth (Dawes & Xie, 2017), and likeability appears to be unrelated to peer importance (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004).

Socioevaluative concern also was captured by assessing adolescents’ rejection sensitivity (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Many studies have reported that rejection sensitivity is linked to decreases in peer-reported social competence, peer rejection in adolescence, and interpersonal difficulties in children (Downey et al., 1998; Marston, 2011), perhaps due to self-fulfilling expectations for rejection (Downey et al., 1998). However, the relation between rejection sensitivity and peer status may require further investigation; prior work has reported that likeability and popularity do not appear to relate to rejection sensitivity (e.g., Tobia et al., 2017), or reported that likeability is related to later rejection sensitivity at some time lags but not others (Marston, 2011). These inconsistencies may exist because of a curvilinear association; both low- and high-status youth may have similar propensities for perceiving rejection, perhaps because of their comparably elevated risk of victimization (Dawes & Malamut, 2018), or social status insecurity (Zhang et al., 2022), but no studies have examined this.

Thoughts and concerns surrounding status may further manifest within adolescents’ digital social lives. The internet and social media are perhaps the predominant context for peer interactions today (Anderson & Jiang, 2018a), suggesting the importance of understanding how online socioevaluative concern and peer status may relate to each other. Social media sites make online peer status uniquely quantifiable via visible numbers of “likes,” “views,” and “followers” (Nesi, Choukas-Bradley & Prinstein, 2018a; Rudolph & Conley, 2005). Thus, the same motivations and concerns which fuel pursuits for high status in-person, may be present within an online context as well (Steele et al., 2020; Weinstein et al., 2016; Nick et al., 2021), While rarely studied, online socioevaluative concern may manifest through desires for online status, and has been conceptualized in the literature through self-report (online status importance) and peer-reported measures (digital status-seeking; Nesi & Prinstein, 2018). Connections between online socioevaluative concern and peer status have yet to be fully explored, however. High- and low-status youth may have comparable increases in online socioevaluative concern, but linear cross-sectional examinations cannot evaluate this.

The Current Study

This study examined how peer status may be related to the development of four markers of socioevaluative concern - peer importance, rejection sensitivity, online status importance, and digital status seeking - one year later. However, unlike prior work examining peer status in a linear, cross-sectional fashion, we examined whether youth high and low in peer status would demonstrate comparable increases in socioevaluative concern over time. Unfortunately, social preference has rarely been investigated as a predictor of increases of any of these markers of socioevaluative concern, but when it has been examined linearly, results have often been mixed. Thus, we aim to examine linear and curvilinear associations, but these examinations will be exploratory. For popularity, we hypothesize that both high and low levels of popularity will be associated with increased rejection sensitivity, peer importance, self-reported online status importance, and peer-reported digital status seeking. This pattern of effects was expected because high-status individuals may acknowledge and value their social position (higher peer importance; Nesi & Prinstein, 2018) and thus may go to great lengths to maintain their peer status either in-person or online. Low-status individuals, however, may be aware of their poor social standing, and thus may seek to improve upon their reputations among their peers (Breslend et al., 2018). While there is little research examining popularity and online indicators of socioevaluative concern, we hypothesize that motivations for seeking in-person status are present for those seeking online status as well, and thus, we held identical hypotheses for peer importance, digital status seeking, and online status importance.

In addition to testing both linear and curvilinear relations, we also anticipate there may be important gender differences in the proposed associations between peer status and socioevaluative concern. On average, girls report higher socioevaluative concern than boys, as well as greater interpersonal competence (Rudolph & Conley, 2005). Girls may also be more focused on social approval and relationship maintenance and repair (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Thus, at low or high levels of peer group status, girls may feel more concerned about others’ judgments and/or ascribe more importance to their perceived acceptance and reputation.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were 716 adolescents recruited from three rural, lower income high schools in the southeastern United States. Students were between the ages of 15 and 18 (M = 16.01, SD = 1.25), and 54% reported biological sex as female. The sample was racially and ethnically diverse (46.5% White, 20.4% African American/Black, 24.9% Hispanic/Latinx, 8.2% other race/ethnicity). According to the school district database, approximately 69.5% of students in the district were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Recruitment and Procedures

At study onset, all seventh and eighth grade students in the school district (n = 1,463) were recruited to participate in a study of adolescent peer relationships and health risk behaviors. Monetary and raffle-based incentives for teachers and students were used to encourage return of consent forms, regardless of decision to participate. Of the 1,463 families who were approached, 1,205 families (82.4%) returned consent forms. Of those who returned consent forms, 74.7% (n = 900) agreed to participate at baseline based on parental consent and adolescent assent. Follow-up data were collected once per year for five years after baseline. In the present study, data come from the fourth (Time 1 in this study; 2015) and fifth (Time 2; 2016) waves of data collection due to measure availability. Of the 900 who initially consented to participate in the study, 79.6% (n = 716) participated at Time 1. Of these, 88.0% (n = 630) were retained at Time 2. Attrition at Time 2 was due to participants moving away from the area or to a different school (n = 37), withdrawing from the school (n = 14), withdrawing from the study (n = 8), absenteeism (n = 9), and unknown reasons (n = 18). Missingness ranged from 11.9% – 14.3% across time 2 variables and was handled via Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML); Little’s test indicated that these data were missing at random (χ2 (195) = 188.65, p = .615).

At both time points, all self-report and sociometric data were obtained using computer-assisted self-interviews (CASI), privacy screens, and dividers. Questionnaires were completed during a regularly scheduled classroom time or lunch period. Participants were compensated with $10 gift cards. All procedures were approved by the university human subjects committee.

Measures

Participants completed all measures at baseline (Time 1). At one-year follow-up (Time 2), measures of rejection sensitivity, peer importance, digital status seeking, and online status importance were repeated.

Peer Status Variables

Likeability.

Peer likeability at Time 1 was measured using standard sociometric procedures. Adolescents were provided an alphabetized roster of all grademates and asked to nominate an unlimited number of students based on who they “like the most” and “like the least” (Coie & Dodge, 1983). To account for possible order effects on nominee selection, the order of alphabetized names on the rosters was counterbalanced (i.e., A through Z; Z through A) (see Cillessen, 2009). For each participant, nominations were summed and standardized within each grade, and then a difference score was computed between “most liked” and “least liked” standardized scores. In the resulting measure of social preference, higher scores indicated higher levels of likeability.

Popularity.

Peer popularity at Time 1 was measured using standard sociometric procedures. Adolescents were provided an alphabetized roster of all grademates and asked to nominate an unlimited number of students based on who they thought were “most popular” and “least popular” (Coie & Dodge, 1983; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). As above, the order of alphabetized names was counterbalanced to avoid possible order effects. For each participant, nominations were summed and standardized within each grade, and then a difference score was computed between “most popular” and “least popular” standardized scores. In the resulting measure of social reputation, higher scores indicated higher levels of popularity.

In-Person Socioevaluative Concern Variables

Rejection Sensitivity.

Rejection sensitivity was assessed using a modified version of the Children’s Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (Downey et al., 1998). We used two of the peer interaction vignettes and created two new, similar vignettes more appropriate for contemporary adolescents. For each vignette, participants were presented with an ambiguous social situation and asked to answer two questions. First, respondents indicated their level of concern about the possibility of rejection on a scale from 1 (very unconcerned) to 6 (very concerned) (the original asks how anxious or angry a respondent would be in two items). Second, participants estimated the likelihood of rejection on a scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely). Consistent with Downey’s original scoring, rejection concern and expectation ratings were then multiplied and averaged across the six scenarios to create a total rejection sensitivity score, with higher scores reflecting greater sensitivity to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Internal consistency of this measure was good at Time 1 (Cronbach’s α = .86) and Time 2 (Cronbach’s α = .84).

Peer Importance.

Peer importance, or adolescents’ desire to attain popularity from peers, was measured using the four-item Peer Importance Scale (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 very true). Sample items included “It is important for me to be popular with the kids in my grade” and “I try to do things that will make the other kids respect me and think I am cool.” A summed total score (i.e., “peer importance”) was computed, with higher scores indicating that adolescents ascribed high levels of importance to their status among peers. In support of its concurrent validity, previous work has demonstrated that higher scores on this measure are correlated with other measures of adolescents’ desire for peer status, including the difference between adolescents’ current and desired (i.e., actual − ideal) level of acceptance among peers (r = .46, p < .001) (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004). In the current study, internal consistency of this measure was good at Time 1 (Cronbach’s α = .86) and Time 2 (Cronbach’s α = .84).

Online Socioevaluative Concern Variables

Peer-Reported Digital Status Seeking

Digital status seeking was measured using sociometric procedures adopted in prior studies (Nesi & Prinstein, 2018). Study participants were given an alphabetized roster of students in their grade and asked to nominate an unlimited number of grademates based on the question, “Who tries hard to get more activity (i.e., likes, comments, etc.) on their social media profiles (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)?” For each participant, a sum of their nominations was computed and standardized within each school grade, resulting in a measure of adolescents’ digital status seeking behavior, based on the perceptions of their peers. Participants received a range of zero to 25 nominations, and 75.5% of the sample received at least one nomination.

Online Status Importance

Participants’ self-reported valuation of receiving online status indicators, including likes, comments, and followers, was assessed based on two items used in prior research (Nesi & Prinstein, 2018). Items included “I think it’s important to have a lot of followers or friends on social media” and “I think it’s important to have people ‘like’ or comment on the things I post.” Both items were rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Data were analyzed using a mean score of the two items, with higher mean scores indicating higher levels of online status importance. Internal consistency for these items was good at both time points (Cronbach’s α = .83 and .92).

Data Analyses

For descriptive analyses, Pearson and Spearman correlations were conducted to examine bivariate associations among all study variables in SPSS 26.0 (see Table 1). A path model within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework was estimated using Mplus V.8 (Muthen & Muthen, 1992–2017) to test the linear and curvilinear effects of likeability and popularity on all socioevaluative concern outcomes simultaneously. To account for autoregressive effects, each socioevaluative concern outcome (rejection sensitivity, peer importance, online status importance, and digital status-seeking) at Time 2 was autoregressed on itself at Time 1, as well the linear and curvilinear effects of likeability and popularity while controlling for gender. This initial model did not adequately fit the data; the modification index revealed that the paths from Time 1 online status importance on Time 2 rejection sensitivity and peer importance should be included (see Results section and Figure 1). Additionally, gender was examined as a moderator by including gender as a grouping condition. Hypothesized paths involving each linear and quadratic peer status variable were independently estimated for boys and girls, and empirically compared using Wald chi-square tests.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations among Study Variables

Variable n (%) / M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Female 328
(45.9)		 1.00
2. T1 Likeability 0.01
(0.99)		 −.03 1.00
3. T1 Popularity 0.00
(1.01)		 .01 .30*** 1.00
4. T1 Rejection Sensitivity 9.50
(6.15)		 .20*** .07* .05 1.00
5. T1 Peer Importance 1.69
(0.83)		 −.08* .01 .10** .18*** 1.00
6. T1 Sociometric Digital Status Seeking 0.14
(1.10)		 .24*** −.18*** .50*** .06 .10** 1.00
7. T1 Online Status Importance 1.64
(0.91)		 .08* .01 .17*** .30*** .43*** .17*** 1.00
8. T2 Rejection Sensitivity 9.56
(5.86)		 .18*** .07 .05 .35*** .15*** .11** .27*** 1.00
9. T2 Peer Importance 1.77
(0.85)		 −.18** −.02 .02 .14*** .45*** .02 .35*** .30*** 1.00
10. T2 Sociometric Digital Status Seeking 0.18
(1.13)		 .23*** −.03 .46*** .04 .07 .66*** .19*** .13*** .06 1.00
11. T2 Online Status Importance 1.99
(1.08)		 .07 .02 .17*** .17*** .26*** .16*** .47*** .33*** .37*** .21*** 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001. T1=Time 1, T2=Time 2. Pearson correlations are reported for all continuous variables. Spearman correlations are reported for gender. Gender is coded 0=boys, 1=girls.

Figure 1: Conditional Path Model.

Figure 1:

Open in a new tab

Results

Bivariate Correlations among Study Variables

Means and standard deviations for all variables, as well as linear correlations among these variables, are presented in Table 1. Higher levels of likeability were concurrently associated with higher levels of rejection sensitivity and lower levels of sociometric digital status seeking. Higher levels of popularity were concurrently associated with higher levels of peer importance, sociometric digital status seeking, and online status importance. In-person and online indicators of adolescents’ socioevaluative concerns (i.e., rejection sensitivity, peer importance, sociometric digital status seeking, and online status importance) were highly correlated across time points. For example, high levels of rejection sensitivity at Time 1 were associated with higher levels of rejection sensitivity at Time 2. Overall, most in-person and online indicators of socioevaluative concern were modestly intercorrelated across time points.

Path Analysis

Path Analysis and Model Fit

In the path model, Time 2 rejection sensitivity, peer importance, online status importance, and digital status-seeking were regressed on Time 1 linear and quadratic likeability and popularity, while controlling for gender and the autoregressive effects of the socioevaluative concern variables. This initial model did not fit the data well fit (χ2 (12) = 54.55, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.076 (90% CI: 0.056 – 0.097), CFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.844, and SRMR = 0.047). Thus, per the modification index, Time 2 peer importance was regressed on Time 1 online status importance (Table 2). A likelihood ratio test revealed that this addition significantly improved model fit (Δχ2(1) = 24.23 p < .001). The modification index further suggested that Time 2 rejection sensitivity should be regressed on Time 1 online status importance, further improving model fit (Δχ2(1) = 16.95 p < .001). These results suggest that Time 1 online status importance was positively associated with increased rejection sensitivity and peer importance one year later (Table 2). The fit of this final model (see Figure 1) was acceptable (χ2 (10) = 13.81, p > .05, RMSEA = 0.025 (90% CI: 0.00 – 0.053), CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.983, and SRMR = 0.016)

Table 2.

Path Model Examining Linear and Curvilinear Effects of Time 1 Likeability and Popularity on Time 2 Socioevaluative Concern Outcomes

Time 2 Socioevaluative Concern Variables
Rejection Sensitivity Peer Importance Sociometric Digital Status Seeking Online Status Importance1
Time 1 Variables Std. β SE Std. β SE Std. β SE Std. β SE
Autoregressive Associations
 Rejection Sensitivity .26*** .04
 Peer Importance .31*** .04
 Sociometric Digital Status Seeking .47*** .04
 Online Status Importance .16*** .04 .23*** .04 .44*** .03
Peer Status Predictors
 Likeability .08b .04 −.01 .03 −.02 .03 −.004 .04
 Quadratic Likeability .07b .04 .12** .04 .05 .04 .06 .04
 Popularity −.02 .04 −.05 .04 .25*** .04 .10*1 .04
 Quadratic Popularity .01 .08 .02 .04 .12* .03 −.021 .04
Gender .10** .04 −.14*** .04 .11*** .03 .011 .04
Open in a new tab

Note. Blank rows indicate the paths were not included in the model.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001,

b

p <.06. Autoregressive paths between Time 1 and Time 2 socioevaluative concern variables were estimated, and the path from Time 1 online status importance to Time 2 peer importance and rejection sensitivity was included per the modification index.

1

The path between Time 1 Popularity and Time 2 Online Status Importance, as well as the path between Time 1 Quadratic Popularity and Time 2 Online Status Importance, was moderated by Gender (0 = girls, 1 = boys; see p. 12). Results revealed a negative significant association between quadratic popularity and online status importance for girls, but not boys.

Linear Peer Status Variables and Socioevaluative Concern Outcomes

There were no significant linear associations between Time 1 likeability and any Time 2 socioevaluative concern variables. Time 1 linear popularity was significantly associated with Time 2 sociometric digital status seeking; this positive association suggests greater peer-perceived popularity is associated with greater peer-perceived attempts to garner likes, comments, and other attention to one’s social media profiles.

Quadratic Likeability and Socioevaluative Concern Outcomes

Quadratic likeability at Time 1 was significantly associated with peer importance at Time 2. This finding indicates that both higher and lower levels of Time 1 likeability were associated independently with higher levels of these outcomes, controlling for prior levels of each outcome and relevant covariates. Findings further revealed that quadratic likeability was marginally associated with rejection sensitivity (p = .059) but not significantly associated with digital status seeking or online status importance at Time 2 (Table 2).

We used a reduced model to probe the nature of the curvilinear likeability (e.g., linear and quadratic) effects by inserting likeability values between −4 and 4 standard deviations into a model-implied regression equation, resulting in two U-shaped curves (Figure 2, parts A and B). Critical thresholds were then calculated to examine at which levels of likeability peer importance was significantly elevated. Critical thresholds were determined by centering linear and quadratic likeability at each 0.1 standard deviation interval (e.g., 0.1 SD, 0.2 SD, etc.,) and entering each into the path model in place of the standard linear and quadratic terms; the critical threshold was reached when a specific standard deviation value was significant, but the one directly 0.1 below or above was not significant (e.g., for positive and negative effects). These thresholds revealed that those with likeability values ranging from −4 SD – 0.6, and those with values ranging from 0.1 to 4 SD had elevated levels of peer importance, with the effects appearing to be stronger at both poles.

Figure 2: Longitudinal Curvilinear Associations Between Likeability and Socioevaluative Concern.

Figure 2:

Figure 2:

Open in a new tab

Note. The p-values associated with the linear and quadratic effects did not reach the critical .05 threshold, and thus, this graph is merely descriptive. Critical thresholds for significance were not computed.

Note. The dotted lines indicate the critical threshold, and gray shading indicates non-significant regions, while white shading indicates significant regions.

Quadratic Popularity and Socioevaluative Concern Outcomes

Quadratic popularity at Time 1 significantly predicted digital status seeking at Time 2. This finding indicates that both higher and lower levels of Time 1 popularity were associated independently with higher levels digital status seeking, controlling for prior levels of digital status seeking and relevant covariates (see Table 2). In contrast, findings revealed that quadratic popularity at Time 1 was not significantly associated with rejection sensitivity or peer importance at Time 2. Similarly, when the sample was examined as a whole, quadratic popularity at Time 1 was not significantly associated with online status importance at Time 2, however, this effect was significantly moderated by gender (see below).

We again used a reduced model as described above to probe the nature of these curvilinear popularity effects (Figure 3, part A). For digital status seeking, this resulted in a J-shaped curve. Again, critical thresholds were computed; these thresholds revealed that those with popularity values ranging from −1.2 to 4 SD, had higher levels of peer-nominated digital status seeking than those below 1.2 SD, with the effects appearing to be stronger at higher levels of popularity. These results reveal that mildly unpopular, popular, and average youth are reputed to seek status significantly more than severely rejected youth, but very popular youth (>2 SD) appear to be nominated much more than slightly rejected or average peers.

Figure 3: Longitudinal Curvilinear Associations Between Popularity and Socioevaluative Concern.

Figure 3:

Figure 3:

Open in a new tab

Note. The dotted lines indicate the critical threshold, and gray shading indicates non-significant regions, while white shading indicates significant regions.

Note. The dotted lines indicate the critical threshold, and the gray shading indicates non-significant regions, while white shading indicates significant regions. Because the quadratic term for boys was non-significant, the thresholds were only computed for girls.

Gender Moderation

To examine whether gender moderated the associations between Time 1 peer status variables and Time 2 socioevaluative concern variables, the model was re-analyzed with gender as a condition; this model fit the data well, (χ2 (20) = 21.23, p > .05, RMSEA = 0.014 (90% CI: 0.00 – 0.052), CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.995, and SRMR = 0.021). Among the hypothesized paths from Time 1 linear and quadratic peer status variables and Time 2 socioevaluative concern outcomes, only two significant gender differences emerged. Specifically, the association between Time 1 linear popularity and Time 2 online status importance differed by gender, as indicated by a significant Wald test (χ2(1) = 4.88, p < .01). For boys (β = .17, SE = .06, p = .003), the association between popularity and later online status importance was positive and significant, indicating that being popular at Time 1 was associated with increased online status importance one year later. In contrast, for girls, there was no association between popularity and later online status importance (β = −015, SE = .05, p = .787).

Second, the associations between Time 1 quadratic popularity and Time 2 online status importance differed by gender, as indicated by a significant Wald test (χ2(1) = 8.06, p < .01). For boys, quadratic popularity at Time 1 was not significantly associated with Time 2 online status importance (β = .09, SE = .05, p = .082), suggesting no significant differences in online status importance between high- and low-popularity boys and boys of average popularity. For girls, quadratic popularity at Time 1 was significantly negatively associated with Time 2 online status importance (β = −.13, SE = .05, p = .014), resulting in an inverse U-shaped curve for females (see Figure 3b). Critical thresholds were computed; these thresholds revealed that those with popularity values ranging from −1.2 to −4 SD, and those with values ranging from 1.5 to 4 SD reported significantly less online status importance than their peers of average popularity, with the strongest effects appearing at either pole.

Discussion

Socioevaluative concern is an important component of social development, capable of both helping individuals maintain strong social ties (Bagwell & Bukowski, 2018), and placing them at risk for maladaptive social and interpersonal outcomes ( Gao et al., 2017; Prinstein & Aikins, 2004). Few studies have examined peer predictors of socioevaluative concern; however, it was hypothesized that those with prior peer successes as well as those with a history of peer difficulties may be especially likely to develop higher levels of socioevaluative concern. This study extended this literature by examining curvilinear associations between two forms of peer status (i.e., likeability and popularity) and a variety of markers of socioevaluative concern within both in-person and online interactions during a developmental period known to be associated with heightened social sensitivity (Somerville, 2013). Significant curvilinear relations between peer status and socioevaluative concern variables suggested that adolescents who are typically contrasted in the literature (i.e., at lower and higher levels of peer status) may experience more similarities than previously thought. Specifically, findings suggest that adolescents at both high- and low levels of likeability had similar increases in peer importance one year later. Adolescents at both high- and low levels of popularity had increases in digital status seeking, and girls at high- and low levels of popularity had similar decreases in online status importance.

Few studies examining associations among socioevaluative concern and adolescents’ peer relationships have investigated curvilinear associations; our preliminary study suggests this approach was fruitful. Findings suggested that both high and low levels of likeability were associated with one general marker of socioevaluative concern while peer popularity was associated with two aspects of online socioevaluative concern. Regarding the general markers of socioevaluative concern, results suggested that both accepted and rejected youth may have similar drives for increased status (i.e., peer importance), even if the enactment of these goals result in positive outcomes for high-status youth and negative outcomes for low-status youth (Breslend et al., 2018). While the linear and curvilinear effects of likeability failed to reach significance for rejection sensitivity, a similar direction of effects was revealed, suggesting at least a marginal degree of difference between youth of average likeability and their more extreme-rated counterparts. Together, results offer some evidence that may elucidate why prior work has yielded equivocal results. For instance, prior prospective work has suggested mixed results when examining associations between peer status and adolescents’ desires for peer status (Breslend et al., 2018; Lansu et al., 2023; Li & Hu, 2018); however, if the underlying relations were curvilinear, constraining the relation to linear would obscure this effect.

In addition to the examination of curvilinear associations between peer status and markers of socioevaluative concern, this study also offered a novel contribution by examining both in-person and online markers of youths’ orientation towards social evaluation. Findings specific to online concerns were more closely tied to popularity rather than likeability. Notably, curvilinear effects suggested that higher levels of popularity were associated with higher levels of digital status seeking (for both boys and girls) and lower levels of online status importance (for girls only). Together, these findings suggest a similar effect of popularity on both boys’ and girls’ reputation for acceptance-seeking and attendance to social feedback online (i.e., “digital status seeking”); however, popularity appears to have differential effects on individuals’ self-reported valuation of the same online acceptance and social feedback (i.e., “online status importance”) based on gender. Findings reveal that, for young people today, a reputation of high status (i.e., popularity) is associated concurrently and longitudinally with a reputation for similar efforts online (i.e., digital status-seeking). Interestingly though, findings revealed that for girls only, high- and low- levels of popularity were associated with decreased actual reports of ascribed importance, despite a reputation for the opposite. It may be that the most unpopular and popular girls are perhaps more focused with improving or maintaining their reputation in-person, and thus may ascribe comparably less importance to their online persona. Future work should examine how online indicators of status (e.g., followers or likes) among youth active on social media relate to online socioevaluative concern, as such findings would further clarify results presented here.

Together, these results contribute to a burgeoning body of literature suggesting similarity between adolescents at two ends of a continuum of peer status; adolescents of high and low peer status exhibit similar levels of aggressive behavior (Stoltz et al., 2016; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), victimization (Dawes & Malamut, 2018), prosocial behavior, attention-seeking behavior (Lansu et al., 2021), social satisfaction, friendship quality, self-concept (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019), and some aspects of socioevaluative concern. This research suggests that there may be similar orientations towards peers, attunement towards peer reputations, and sensitivity to peer feedback among those with different prior peer experiences. However, their different level of peer status suggests that these similarities in socioevaluative concern may be paired with different social skills or abilities that lead to vastly different reputations and preferences among peers. In other words, it may be that at least for some rejected (i.e., low in likeability) and/or unpopular youth, social-cognitive deficits are not most relevant for understanding social difficulties; perhaps challenges in the selection and enactment of skillful behaviors are more relevant for understanding differences among youth at different levels of peer status (Dodge et al., 2003; Lansford, Malone, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2010). Indeed, the idea that those high and low in status may possess similar cognitive responses to social stimuli (e.g., concern about peer approval), but low-status individuals lack behavioral skills is somewhat counter to commonly purported theories suggesting more global deficits among those with low peer status. Interestingly, data from this study suggest longitudinal associations, revealing that low and high levels of peer status both may increase adolescents’ socioevaluative concerns in ways that also may suggest some developmental benefits that come from peer adversity; this too is an important direction for future research.

Another benefit of including both online and in-person socioevaluative concern variables is exploring the extent to which they predict each other over time, which little research has explored despite the fact that adolescents’ online worlds are “intertwined and interconnected” with their offline lives (Subrahmanyam & Šmahel, 2011). Ad-hoc findings suggested that online status importance (self-reported valuation of online status as reflected by likes, comments, and friends online) was associated longitudinally with in-person rejection sensitivity and peer importance. Additional longitudinal work is needed to replicate these findings, but the current paper does preliminarily suggest that, for adolescents, concern about online experiences can influence in-person experiences over time. The unique features of the digital setting have fundamentally altered the ways adolescents interact with each other and their environment both online and offline (e.g., adolescents now have the ability to interact with a wide audience of known, unknown, or anonymous peers; Nesi, Choukas-Bradley, & Prinstein, 2018a, b), and subsequently, the effects of peer relations on social and cognitive development have undoubtedly shifted as more teens are growing up online.

It is further worth noting that multiple hypothesized tests were conducted to examine relations among peer status and socioevaluative concern, additional linear associations were revealed in two cases, and null associations were revealed in four cases. While results revealed that likeability was associated with one and (marginally associated with another) traditionally in-person marker of socioevaluative concern, they also revealed that it was unrelated to two online markers of socioevaluative concern (digital status-seeking and online status importance). This may be because of incompatibilities between high (or low) levels of likeability and status-seeking in an online context. As a peer report measure, high levels of digital status seeking may connote desperation for increased status, and thus is unlikely to be associated with youth who are perceived as well-liked by their peers. Indeed, likeable youth are kind, altruistic, and exhibit behaviors which benefit others (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Prinstein & Giletta, 2020), and these traits may be somewhat at odds with self-serving behaviors associated with seeking a reputation online.

More surprisingly, results revealed that youths’ perceived popularity was not associated, (either in curvilinear or linear associations), with either general marker of socioevaluative concern assessed (i.e., rejection sensitivity or peer importance). These results are contrary to hypotheses; we expected that highly popular and unpopular youth would have a heightened sensitivity to rejecting feedback due to fears of losing status (Li & Wright, 2014), or experiences being victimized by others (Dawes & Malamut, 2018). We further expected that popular and unpopular youth would ascribe similar importance to increasing their status (e.g., peer importance), due to desires to maintain and advance their respective social positions (Zhang et al., 2022), but the data did not support either of these hypotheses. These null findings are in line with previous linear research which has similarly revealed no associations among these variables (peer importance; Breslend et al., 2018; Li & Hu, 2018; rejection sensitivity; Tobia et al., 2017), and the current research provides evidence that the previous null linear findings are not due to the potentially countervailing effects of a curvilinear relation.

Limitations of the current study suggest avenues for future research. Given the emerging similarities between adolescents with higher and lower levels of peer status on socioevaluative concern, continued investigation of peer status as a quadratic longitudinal predictor of other outcomes may be worth further exploration. Although not investigated here, socioevaluative concern could mediate the effect of peer status on adjustment, for example. Alternatively, there may be important moderators of the effect of peer status on outcomes. Moderators like susceptibility to peer influence (Do, Prinstein, & Telzer 2021), cognitive style (e.g., rumination), and social competence could help explain why attunement to social information is adaptive in some cases and for some outcomes and maladaptive in other cases. Because our measures of socioevaluative concern were measured only concurrently or after our measures of likeability or popularity, it is unknown whether reciprocal patterns among socioevaluative concern and peer status may be present, and this is a future avenue for research. For example, a heightened reputation for digital status seeking is likely to impact later perceptions of likeability or popularity, but the structure of our dataset did not allow for such an investigation. Further, our measure of peer importance did not differentiate popularity goals from likeability goals as recent work has (e.g., Kosir et al., 2022; Garandeau & Lansu, 2019), and curvilinear associations among each of these and both dimensions of peer status would bolster future research. It is further worth noting that of the significant tests, each of the significant quadratic terms were modest in effect size; this is consistent with the J-shaped pattern displayed in three of the four graphs, suggesting that these associations are stronger for high-status youth relative to low-status youth. In addition, our sample was large, diverse, and based in a rural school system; the relevance of peer status to socioevaluative concerns should be studied among suburban and urban youth, as well as youth in different cultures, countries, socioeconomic statuses and developmental periods.

Overall, results from this study offer a new perspective on adolescents’ peer status and socio-cognitive functioning. While prior research has focused on the psychological sequelae of peer status, this research examined the beliefs, values, and feelings associated with adolescents’ peer status, revealing preliminary evidence for some similarities among those at the highest and lowest levels of peer status, as compared to those with average preferences and reputations among peers. These results may help explain mixed past findings about the effects of peer status, and highlight important similarities among adolescents at either end of the peer status spectrum. Finally, this study calls attention to the importance of recognizing interactions between the online and offline worlds in adolescents’ social landscapes.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a NIH grant awarded to the final author (1 R01 HD055342). Jacqueline Nesi is supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (K23-MH122669).

Footnotes

Data are not available, but analysis code are available upon request to the first author. This study was not preregistered.

References

  1. Anderson M & Jiang J (2018a). Teens, social media & technology 2018 (pp. 1–19). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/ [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson M & Jiang J (2018). Teens’ social media habits and experiences (pp. 1–34). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teens-social-media-habits-and-experiences/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Bagwell CL, & Bukowski WM (2018). Friendship in childhood and adolescence: Features, effects, and processes. In Bukowski WM, Laursen B, & Rubin KH (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (p. 371–390). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Breslend NL, Shoulberg EK, McQuade JD & Murray-Close D (2018). Social costs for wannabes: Moderating effects of popularity and gender on the links between popularity goals and negative peer experiences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1984–1906. 10.1007/s10964-018-0810-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. van den Broek N, Deutz MH, Schoneveld EA, Burk WJ, & Cillessen AH (2016). Behavioral Correlates of Prioritizing Popularity in Adolescence. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(12), 2444–2454. 10.1007/s10964-015-0352-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruyn E. H. de, Cillessen AHN & Wissink IB (2010). Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(4), 543–566. 10.1177/0272431609340517 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cillessen AHN, & Marks PEL (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In Cillessen AHN, Schwartz D, & Mayeux L (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system. (pp. 25–56). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coie JD, & Dodge KA (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: A five- year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(3), 261–282. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crick NR, & Dodge KA (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological bulletin, 115(1), 74. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dawes M, & Malamut S (2018). No one is safe: victimization experiences of high-status youth. Adolescent Research Revie. doi: 10.1007/s40894-018-0103-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dawes M, & Xie H (2014). The role of popularity goal in early adolescents’ behaviors and popularity status. Developmental Psychology, 50(2), 489–497. 10.1037/a0032999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Do KT, Prinstein MJ, & Telzer EH (2020). Neurobiological susceptibility to peer influence in adolescence (online first publication). In Kadosh KC (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dodge KA, Lansford JE, Burks VS, Bates JE, Pettit GS, Fontaine R, & Price JM (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74(2), 374–393. 10.1111/1467-8624.7402004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Downey G & Feldman SI (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Downey G, Lebolt A, Rincón C & Freitas AL (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074–1091. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1132363 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Duell N, Clayton MG, Telzer EH, & Prinstein MJ (2022). Measuring peer influence susceptibility to alcohol use: Convergent and predictive validity of a new analogue assessment. International journal of behavioral development, 46(3), 190–199. 10.1177/0165025420965729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans SC, Frazer AL, Blossom JB, & Fite PJ (2019). Forms and functions of aggression in early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(5), 790–798. 10.1080/15374416.2018.1485104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferguson SM & Ryan AM (2019). It’s lonely at the top: Adolescent students’ peer-perceived popularity and self-perceived social contentment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 341–358. 10.1007/s10964-018-0970-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao S, Assink M, Cipriani A, & Lin K (2017). Associations between rejection sensitivity and mental health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 57, 59–74. 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Garandeau CF, & Lansu TAM (2019). Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators? Aggressive Behavior. 10.1002/ab.21824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Guyer AE, McClure-Tone EB, Shiffrin ND, Pine DS, & Nelson EE (2009). Probing the neural correlates of anticipated peer evaluation in adolescence. Child development, 80(4), 1000–1015. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01313.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim J, & Cicchetti D (2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(6), 706–716. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02202.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kosir K, Zorjan S, Mikl A, & Horvat M (2022). Social goals and bullying: Examining the moderating role of self-perceived popularity, social status insecurity and classroom variability in popularity. Social Development. 10.1111/sode.12547 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. LaFontana KM, & Cillessen AHN (2010). Developmental Changes in the Priority of Perceived Status in Childhood and Adolescence. Social Development, 19(1), 130–147. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Fontaine RG, Bates JE, & Pettit GS (2014). Peer rejection, affiliation with deviant peers, delinquency, and risky sexual behavior. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(10), 1742–1751. 10.1007/s10964-014-0175-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, & Bates JE (2010). Developmental cascades of peer rejection, social information processing biases, and aggression during middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 593–602. 10.1017/S0954579410000301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lansu TA, Rovers AC, & te Dorsthorst AM (2021). The (non) gradual association of popularity with peer-nominated and observed behavior in a cooperative and competitive context. Social Development, 30(1), 149–170. 10.1111/sode.12453 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lansu TA (2023). How popularity goal and popularity status are related to observed and peer-nominated aggressive and prosocial behaviors in elementary school students. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 227, 105590. 10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105590 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Larson RW, Richards MH, Moneta G, Holmbeck G, & Duckett E (1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental psychology, 32(4), 744. 10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.744 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lemerise EA, & Arsenio WF (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child development, 71(1), 107–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Li Y & Hu Y (2018). How to attain a popularity goal? Examining the mediation effects of popularity determinants and behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1842–1852. 10.1007/s10964-018-0882-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Li Y, & Wright MF (2014). Adolescents’ social status goals: relationships to social status insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(1), 146–160. 10.1007/s10964-013-9939-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Long Y, & Li Y (2020). The longitudinal association between social status insecurity and relational aggression: Moderation effects of social cognition about relational aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46(1), 84–96. 10.1002/ab.21872 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Marston EG (2011). Rejection sensitivity in adolescence: Peer-related precursors and links with problem behaviors in early adulthood (Publication No. 3484474) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses. [Google Scholar]
  35. Malamut ST, Luo T, & Schwartz D (2020). Prospective associations between popularity, victimization, and aggression in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(11), 2347–2357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nesi J, Choukas-Bradley S & Prinstein MJ (2018a). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—A theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(3), 267–294. 10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nesi J, Choukas-Bradley S & Prinstein MJ (2018b). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 2—Application to peer group processes and future directions for research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(3), 295–319. 10.1007/s10567-018-0262-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nesi J & Prinstein MJ (2018). In search of likes: Longitudinal associations between adolescents’ digital status seeking and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(5), 1–9. 10.1080/15374416.2018.1437733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nick EA, Kilic Z, Nesi J, Telzer EH, Lindquist KA & Prinstein MJ (2021). Adolescent Digital Stress: Frequencies, Correlates, and Longitudinal Association With Depressive Symptoms. Journal of Adolescent Health. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.08.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ojanen T, & Findley-Van Nostrand D (2014). Social goals, aggression, peer preference, and popularity: Longitudinal links during middle school. Developmental Psychology, 50(8), 2134–2143. 10.1037/a0037137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Parker JG, & Asher SR (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?. Psychological bulletin, 102(3), 357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Parkhurst JT, & Hopmeyer A (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 18(2), 125–144. 10.1177/0272431698018002001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Prinstein MJ & Aikins JW (2004). Cognitive moderators of the longitudinal association between peer rejection and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(2), 147–158. 10.1023/b:jacp.0000019767.55592.63 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Prinstein MJ, & Cillessen AHN (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 310–342. 10.1353/mpq.2003.0015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Prinstein MJ & Giletta M (2016). Peer relations and developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti D (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  46. Prinstein MJ, Choukas-Bradley SC, Helms SW, Brechwald WA & Rancourt D (2011). High peer popularity longitudinally predicts adolescent health risk behavior, or does it?: An examination of linear and quadratic associations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36(9), 980–990. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsr053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rose AJ & Rudolph KD (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rose AJ, Swenson LP, & Waller EM (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40(3), 378–387. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rubin KH, Bowker JC, McDonald KL, & Menzer M (2013). Peer Relationships in Childhood 11. The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 2: Self and Other, 2, 242. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rudolph KD & Conley CS (2005). The socioemotional costs and benefits of social-evaluative concerns: Do girls care too much? Journal of Personality, 73(1), 115–138. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00306.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Somerville LH (2013). The teenage brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127. 10.1177/0963721413476512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Steele RG, Hall JA & Christofferson JL (2020). Conceptualizing Digital Stress in Adolescents and Young Adults: Toward the Development of an Empirically Based Model. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(1), 15–26. 10.1007/s10567-019-00300-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Stoltz S, Cillessen AHN, van den Berg YHM and Gommans R (2016), Popularity differentially predicts reactive and proactive aggression in early adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 42: 29–40. 10.1002/ab.21603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Subrahmanyam K, & Šmahel D (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. Springer Science + Business Media. 10.1007/978-1-4419-6278-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tobia V, Riva P, & Caprin C (2017). Who are the children most vulnerable to social exclusion? The moderating role of self-esteem, popularity, and nonverbal intelligence on cognitive performance following social exclusion. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(4), 789–801. 10.1007/s10802-016-0191-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Weinstein EC & Selman RL (2016). Digital stress: Adolescents’ personal accounts. New Media & Society, 18(3), 391–409. 10.1177/1461444814543989 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wright MF (2014). Longitudinal investigation of the associations between adolescents’ popularity and cyber social behaviors. Journal of School Violence, 13(3), 291–314. 10.1080/15388220.2013.849201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang Y, Lan X, Cui G, & Wang J (2022). The Silver Lining in the Dark Cloud of Social Status Insecurity: The Mediating Role of Popularity Goals in the Association Between Social Status Insecurity and Chinese Adolescents’ Bullying Bystander Behaviors. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(17–18), NP15851–NP15873. 10.1177/08862605211023489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES