Sociometrics and popularity-

James has brought to my attention "sociometrics", so I have decided just to do a little blog defining what it is and how I might be able to use it for some research for my topic. James also raised a good point by stating that popularity is differently defined by different people. I think this is important point to keep in mind as individuals and cultures will all have a different definition of peer popularity.

Sociometry is the known as the method for measuring social relationships. Sociometrics can reveal structures that give a group its form: the alliances, the subgroups, the hidden beliefs, the forbidden agenda’s and the ideological agreements. I think that sociometry can be used in order to increase the understanding of peer relations and how peers and others measure the popularity of each other.

Wu, Hart, Draper and Olsen (2001), describe research which suggests that "it is peer perceptions representing the perspective of many 'insiders' (peers, as apposed to outsiders such as teachers and parents) that may ultimately determine a child's sociometric status." Wu, Hart, Draper and Olsen (2001) state that sociometrics is used to identify children that may be rejected or neglected by their peers. Its and interesting this sociometry stuff so as I immerse myself in readings, I'm sure my understanding of it will blossom too ;o)

I also found this abtract to this an article which I found really interesting regarding the 2 types of popularity definitions that I was struggling with.

Sociometric popularity is computed based on peer liking and dislike. The relation between sociometric popularity and perceived popularity, based on peer identification of school associates considered popular, was investigated in a sample of 727 middle school students (7th and 8th grades). Most sociometrically popular students were not high on perceived popularity. Most students high on perceived popularity were not sociometrically popular. Perceived popularity was correlated more highly with a measure of dominance than was sociometric popularity. Sociometrically popular students who were not high on perceived popularity were characterized by peers as kind and trustworthy but not as dominant, aggressive, or stuck-up. Students who were high on perceived popularity but not sociometrically popular were characterized as dominant, aggressive, and stuck-up but not as kind and trustworthy. Sociometrically popular students who also were high on perceived popularity were characterized as kind, trustworthy, and dominant but not as aggressive or as stuck-up. (Parkhurst, 1998)

I shall try and get hold of the whole article because its very interesting. Well that's all for now my furry friends of the forrest! take care..




Parkhurst, J. T. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer perceived popularity. The Journal of Early Adolescents, 18(2), 125-144. Retrieved on the 3rd of October from: http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/2/125

Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draper, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics for preschool children: Cross-informant concordance, temporal stability, and reliability. Merrill Palmer Quarterly.

Popularity- Definition? and a spanner.

Hey everyone,
I have recently being thinking about what popularity means within the school context. Now, alot of literature that I have being reading suggests that popularity refers to how well liked someone is . However, I was thinking about what the 'popular' group was like when I was at school. The popular group at my school were those who were into partying, boys, fashion, taking risks and always looked good. They seemed to do reasonably ok at school and were quite confident. However, they weren't necessarily liked by their peers but they were idolised. It was strange because although no one really liked them, but most people wanted to be them!

So I'm finding a bit of a clash in definitions. Because I'm getting the sense that the popular kids by definition are the 'good', involved, smart and well liked kids. This could also have something to do with the American literature.

Sternberg (1993) does suggest that popularity is a bit paradoxical.

Here is the quote from Sternberg (1993) about paradoxical popularity
" There are limits to the number of friendships that anyone person can maintain. Because popular girls get a high number of affiliative offers, they have to reject more offers of friendships than other girls. Also, to maintain their higher status, girls who form the elite group must avoid associations with lower status girls.. These girls are likely to ignore the afflilative attempts of many other girls, leading to the impression that they are stuck-up. Shortly after these girls reach their peak of popularity, they become increasing disliked" (p. 183)

This doesn't really solve my dilemma so I thought I'd got your comments about whether the popular group at your school were 'good', involved, smart and well liked kids? or were they a bit deviant? or a bit of both?

Sternberg, L. (1993) Adolescence 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.

Teen Challange Day

SEX and popularity

well I found this little article about sexual experience and popularity. Lauren commented that a lot of the popular people at her school were the more sexually experienced ones. So I thought this research was interesting. Sorry the text isn't that great if you click on the article it should open to a readable size

Hollander, D. (2003). How to win friends? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 25(5), 200-200

Which group were you?!

I've just been reading a few journal articles to see what sort of research is out there about popularity within schools. I found one article which summarises 5 groups which are generally found within schools

• Popular- peers perceive them as social leaders
• Average status- they are not considered leaders and not rejected by peers
• Controversial- sometimes showing leadership skills but at times can be aggressive
• Neglected- usually are withdrawn or neglected by peers
• Rejected- actively unaccepted or shunned by the rest of the peer group

Gumpel, T. S. & Ish-Shalom, K. V. (2003). How do young adults remember their social status? A retrospective analysis of peer rejection in childhood and adolenscence, and protective factors predictive factors predictive of its remission, 6,(2). 129-157

How To...

Hello again.
Today's lecture got me thinking about sociocultural competencies in regard to my topic. I found this article in the Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence. It highlights some of the reasons children tend to be more accepted by their peers. The section focuses more on peer acceptance than popularity, but I thought it was quite good.

Ive pasted section from the article which I found interesting:

Factors such as physical attractiveness, cultural traits, and disabilities affect the level of peer acceptance, with a child's degree of social competence being the best predictor of peer acceptance. Children who are peer-accepted or popular have fewer problems in middle and high school, and teens who are peer-accepted have fewer emotional and social adjustment problems as adults. Peer-accepted children may be shy or assertive, but they often have well-developed communication skills. Peer-accepted children tend to:

• Correctly interpret other children's body language and tone of voice. Well-liked children can distinguish subtleties in emotions. For example, they can distinguish between anger directed toward them versus toward a parent.
• Directly respond to the statements and gestures of other children. Well-liked children will say other children's names, establish eye contact, and use touch to get attention.
• Give reasons for their own statements and gestures (actions). For example, well-liked children will explain why they want to do something the other child does not want to do.
• Cooperate with, show tact towards, and compromise with other children, demonstrating the willingness to subordinate the self by modifying behavior and opinions in the interests of others. For example, when joining a new group where a conversation is already in progress, well-liked children will listen first, establishing a tentative presence in the group before speaking (even if it is to change the subject).

This highlights how sociocultural competencies effect peer acceptance at school. Groups within schools create a "Cultural Map" indicating how one should act in certain situations, how we should dress, and how we should view others. They define what is culturally acceptable (or 'cool' enough) with in their school culture. If we stray from this map the consequence my result in not being accepted.

I found a lot of the things outlined in the article pretty obvious reasons to why children are more accepted. However, for some people (i.e those from another culture) might not find these social directions or rules as obvious.

Friendship, Popularity and Peer Acceptance

Hey ALL.
Just found this site which expands a bit on friendship, popularity and peer acceptance.

What are peer relationships and friendship?

Peer acceptance represents social status or popularity within a large group, whereas friendships represent relationships based on mutual respect, appreciation, and liking. Early adolescence is a time characterized by friendships that share more common feelings and are more supportive than when children are younger (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987). At the same time, youth who have more mutual friends (i.e., individuals with a similar degree of affection for one another) are more likely to be accepted by their larger peer group (George & Hartmann, 1996; Parker & Asher, 1993).

Peer acceptance and friendships are distinct constructs and contribute to youth development. Peer acceptance has been shown to be associated with greater feelings of belonging (Brown & Lohr, 1987) and fewer behavioral problems in youth (Coie, Terry, Lenox, Lochman, & Hyman, 1995), whereas, friendships have been shown to directly influence feelings of loneliness (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1993). However, both peer acceptance and friendships similarly provide youth with self-esteem and improved psychological adjustment (Parker & Asher, 1993).

Taken From - Jin Yu,J., Tepper, K. H. & Russell, S. T. (2007). Peer relationships and friendships. http://cals-cf.calsnet.arizona.edu/fcs/content.cfm?content=peer_rel