Cited by 60Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentSocial Power and Status Dynamics

A test of the bistrategic control hypothesis of adolescent popularity

Hartl, Amy C, Laursen, Brett, Cantin, Stéphane, Vitaro, Frank·2020·Child Development

Abstract

Abstract Resource Control Theory (Hawley, 1999) posits a group of bistrategic popular youth who attain status through coercive strategies while mitigating fallout via prosociality. This study identifies and distinguishes this bistrategic popular group from other popularity types, tracing the adjustment correlates of each. Adolescent participants (288 girls, 280 boys; Mage = 12.50 years) completed peer nominations in the Fall and Spring of the seventh and eighth grades. Longitudinal latent profile analyses classified adolescents into groups based on physical and relational aggression, prosocial behavior, and popularity. Distinct bistrategic, aggressive, and prosocial popularity types emerged. Bistrategic popular adolescents had the highest popularity and above average aggression and prosocial behavior; they were viewed by peers as disruptive and angry but were otherwise well-adjusted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cdev.13269

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adolescents in the "bistrategic" profile reported similar levels of all forms of aggression.

    “Adolescents in the “bistrategic” profile reported similar levels of all forms of aggression, alike previous findings by Hartl et al. ( 2019 ), meaning that indirect aggression does not particularly coadunate with prosociality and its associated social gains.”
  • Contrary to previous peer-nomination studies, no evidence for mainly aggressive or mainly prosocial groups was found.

    “Contrary to previous works that looked for profiles using peer-nomination to collect data (e.g., Berger et al., 2015 ; Hartl et al., 2019 ; McDonald et al., 2015 ), no evidence for mainly aggressive 1 or mainly prosocial groups was found.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartl, A. C., Laursen, B., Cantin, S., & Vitaro, F.
Affiliations
  • Florida Atlantic University (US)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Hartl, Amy C
Venue
Child Development
Published
2020-05-01
Volume
91
Issue
3
Pages
e635-e648
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
OpenAlex
W2953489771
Cited by
60
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3
FWCI
8.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-2008-2588)
  • US National Science Foundation (0909733, 1620294, 1248598)
  • National Science Foundation (0909733, 1620294, 1248598)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
physical aggression, relational aggression, prosocial behavior, peer nominations, peer status, peer adjustment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Aggression, Child, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Peer Group, Social Behavior, Social Desirability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review