Hey everyone! I know you are all working hard on your blogs. However, my internet homepage is set on ninemsn website... and this article caught my attention
Special Beauty Report: Erasing Ethnicity
What do people think about the whole idea??
Im slightly be shocked by it!! It goes to show how the media really influences ideal beauty.
Good luck with your blogs everyone
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
More on Sex...
I was just searching through another lot of articles and I came across another article relating to sex and popularity. This journal article is a little bit more in depth. I found it quite interesting. The article talks about a number of things however I have summarised some key concepts here.
The idea of the article was to explore the benefits of sexual intercourse and oral sex on adolscents. Most benefits were found among peer relations and perceptions through the use of sociometric assessment. The results found that adolescents' reports of oral sex and intercourse were significantly associated with peer perceived popularity but not likability among peers. According to Prinstein, Meade & Cohen (2003) these results suggests that adolescents may either enjoy higher status or they feel pressure to report higher sexual activity.
Prinstein, Meade & Cohen (2003) conclude that
"Adolescents may believe that sexual activity best matches a prototype of popular, high-status adolescents. Reputation-based measures of peer status identify those individuals who best match this prototype of popularity; indeed, only this measure of status was associated with sexual behavior. The desire to engage in, or simply report, sexual activity may reflect adolescents' motivation to imitate that prototype (e.g., Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995)."
In contrast they found that the more sexual partners, the more likely popular status and peer acceptance declined. I thought this research was useful, as it clearly identifies the differences between being liked and being popular within their research. I hope you all found it interesting, a link to the article can be found below.
Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C.S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003) Adolescent Oral Sex, Peer Popularity, and Perceptions of Best Friends' Sexual. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, (4), 243-249.
The idea of the article was to explore the benefits of sexual intercourse and oral sex on adolscents. Most benefits were found among peer relations and perceptions through the use of sociometric assessment. The results found that adolescents' reports of oral sex and intercourse were significantly associated with peer perceived popularity but not likability among peers. According to Prinstein, Meade & Cohen (2003) these results suggests that adolescents may either enjoy higher status or they feel pressure to report higher sexual activity.
Prinstein, Meade & Cohen (2003) conclude that
"Adolescents may believe that sexual activity best matches a prototype of popular, high-status adolescents. Reputation-based measures of peer status identify those individuals who best match this prototype of popularity; indeed, only this measure of status was associated with sexual behavior. The desire to engage in, or simply report, sexual activity may reflect adolescents' motivation to imitate that prototype (e.g., Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995)."
In contrast they found that the more sexual partners, the more likely popular status and peer acceptance declined. I thought this research was useful, as it clearly identifies the differences between being liked and being popular within their research. I hope you all found it interesting, a link to the article can be found below.
Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C.S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003) Adolescent Oral Sex, Peer Popularity, and Perceptions of Best Friends' Sexual. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, (4), 243-249.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
