Cited by 561Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Understanding Popularity in the Peer System

Cillessen, Antonius H.N., Rose, Amanda J.·2005·Current Directions in Psychological Science

Abstract

Much research has focused on youth who are rejected by peers; who engage in negative behavior, including aggression; and who are at risk for adjustment problems. Recently, researchers have become increasingly interested in high-status youth. A distinction is made between two groups of high-status youth: those who are genuinely well liked by their peers and engage in predominantly prosocial behaviors and those who are seen as popular by their peers but are not necessarily well liked. The latter group of youth is well known, socially central, and emulated, but displays a mixed profile of prosocial as well as aggressive and manipulative behaviors. Research now needs to address the distinctive characteristics of these two groups and their developmental precursors and consequences. Of particular interest are high-status and socially powerful aggressors and their impact on their peers. The heterogeneity of high-status youth complicates the understanding of the social dynamics of the peer group, but will lead to new and important insights into the developmental significance of peer relationships.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x

Cites

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?

  • Adolescence is marked by the introduction of a new form of peer status reflecting dominance, power, influence, and visibility.

    “At the peer group level, adolescence is marked by the introduction of a new form of peer status, reflecting adolescents’ dominance, power, influence, and visibility (Cillessen & Rose 2005, Parkhurst & Hopmeyer 1998).”

    From Adolescent Suicide as a Failure of Acute Stress-Response Systems. (2019) · cites this paper as Cillessen & Rose 2005

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 18 · Cited by 561

Authors
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Cillessen, Antonius H.N.
Venue
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Published
2005-04
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
102-105
ISSN
  • 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8721
OpenAlex
W2156974052
Cited by
561
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 38
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
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
peer popularity, peer rejection, peer aggression, prosocial behavior, social power, peer relationships, youth development, peer group dynamics

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