Child Development, July/August 2007, Volume 78, Number 4, Pages 1240 – 1254

Peer Group Status as a Moderator of Group Influence on Children’s

Deviant, Aggressive, and Prosocial Behavior
Wendy E. Ellis and Lynne Zarbatany
The University of Western Ontario

Group status was examined as a moderator of peer group socialization of deviant, aggressive, and prosocial
behavior. In the fall and 3 months later, preadolescents and early adolescents provided self-reported scores for
deviant behavior and group membership, and peer nominations for overt and relational aggression, prosocial
behavior, and social preference. Using the social cognitive map, 116 groups were identified involving 526 children
(282 girls; M age 5 12.05). Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that high group centrality (visibility) magnified
group socialization of relational aggression, deviant behavior, and prosocial behavior, and low group acceptance
magnified socialization of deviant behavior. Results suggest group influence on behavior is not uniform but
depends on group status, especially group visibility within the larger peer context.

As children approach adolescence, the vast majority
of their time is spent interacting with peers (Brown,
1990; Hartup, 1993). These interactions provide chil-
dren with needed social support and companionship
and help to shape and direct children’s behavior.
Extant research on peer socialization has focused
primarily on the influence of children’s dyadic friend-
ships, demonstrating that friends’ behavior and atti-
tudes generally become more alike over time (Hartup
& Stevens, 1997). Children interact in many distinct
social units, however, and by early adolescence the
majority of peer interaction takes place in group
contexts (Crockett, Losoff, & Petersen, 1984).
Child and adolescent peer groups typically have
been defined in two ways. Peer networks, or cliques,
consist of three or more peers who regularly associate
and have a common environment and set of norms
(Brown, 1990). Crowds, which typically emerge dur-
ing adolescence, are usually larger than cliques and
form based on reputation only (e.g., ‘‘the jocks’’ or
‘‘the brains’’; Brown, 1990). Within crowds, children
do not necessarily experience a shared climate or even
spend time together. Thus, research examining peer
group influence has most often studied interaction-
This article is based on a doctoral dissertation by the first author
under the direction of the second author. Portions of this research
were funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada, and by a New Research and Scholarly
Initiative and Academic Development Fund Award from The
University of Western Ontario to the second author. The authors
wish to thank the school personnel and children who participated in
this research, and the many students who helped gather and
process the data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Wendy Ellis, King’s University College at The University of Western
Ontario, 266 Epworth Ave., London, Ontario, N6A 2M3. Electronic
mail may be sent to wendy.ellis@uwo.ca.
based groups, and we adopt this approach in the
present research. Ethnographic studies of interaction-
based peer groups have clearly demonstrated their
significance in children’s lives (e.g., Adler & Adler,
1995; Eder, 1985). In recent years, evidence for peer
group socialization has been established in numerous
behavioral domains, including aggression (Cairns,
Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy, 1988; Espelage,
Holt, & Henkel, 2003), deviant behavior (Kiesner,
Cadinu, Poulin, & Bucci, 2002; Urberg, Degirmencioglu,
& Pligrim, 1997), and school engagement/attitudes
(Kindermann, 1993; Ryan, 2001).
Despite our growing understanding of peer group
socialization of behavior, questions remain regarding
the nuances of peer group influence. For example,
information is relatively sparse regarding factors that
may mitigate or exacerbate group influence. Some
promising preliminary evidence regarding child-
related moderating factors, such as identification with
the peer group (Kiesner et al., 2002), status within the
peer group (Crosnoe & Needham, 2004), and family
environment (Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, &
Skinner, 1991), suggests that the effects of group
participation are not expressed uniformly by group
members. However, the potential moderating influ-
ence of group-related factors has not been assessed. In
the present study we explore group status as a mod-
erator of peer group influence on the behavior of
children in the preadolescent and early adolescent
years. Group status reflects the extent to which the
group is in a dominant position in the larger peer
network (Gest, Graham-Bermann, & Hartup, 2001). We
# 2007 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2007/7804-0013

justify our selection of this important group variable
after first describing the peer group socialization pro-
cesses that likely contribute to the group status effect.
Processes of Group Influence
Mechanisms of group influence have not been
investigated extensively, but active and passive group
socialization processes have been described by theo-
rists. Adler (1969) and others (e.g., Baumeister &
Leary, 1995) have argued persuasively that humans
have a fundamental need to feel connected with the
social world. For children, this need likely stimulates
friendship and peer group formation. Proponents of
social identity theory further suggest that peer group
membership plays a critical role in self-appraisal,
with members motivated to create and maintain the
norms of their group to achieve a positive group
identity (Tajfel, 1972; Tarrant, 2002). This self-
socialization process has been posited to explain
conformity in children’s peer groups and the devel-
opment of adolescent risk-taking behavior (Harris,
1995; Stewart-Knox et al., 2005).
A second form of group influence casts group
members as passive recipients of processes such as
peer pressure, manipulation, and social reinforcement
applied by other group members to ensure that group-
valued behaviors are acquired and maintained (e.g.,
Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986). For example, Dishion,
Spracklen, Andrews, and Patterson (1996) coined the
term deviancy training to explain friends’ positive
reinforcement of delinquent behavior. In their study,
delinquent friends reacted to rule-breaking topics by
laughing and displaying positive affect, whereas non-
delinquent friends reacted positively to prosocial talk.
Social reinforcement, as well as certain pressure tactics
may be used to protect group identity and test
members’ commitment and loyalty to the group.
Peer Group Status
Taken together, the most plausible explanation of
group socialization involves a combination of indi-
vidual motivation for group belonging and group
members’ shaping of desired behavior. The extent to
which these processes occur may depend on charac-
teristics of children’s peer groups, especially the
degree to which the group enjoys status within the
larger peer context. Group social status is a character-
istic recognizable and salient to most individuals
(Brown & Lohr, 1987). High-status groups generally
offer greater access to social recognition, relation-
ships, and resources than low-status groups (Eder,
1985). It is not surprising that members of high-status
Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1241
groups identify with their groups (Ellemers, 1993;
Tarrant, 2002) and select their own group members for
activities more than do members of low-status groups
(Horn, 2006). In-group favoritism coupled with a high
degree of group-motivated behavioral conformity
likely help maintain positive group identity and pro-
tect the power that high-status groups provide.
We follow extant research (Adler & Adler, 1995;
Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000) in our
primary conceptualization of group status as reflect-
ing visibility and dominance, but we also explore an
alternative conceptualization of group status sug-
gested by research on status at the individual level
(Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Specifically, we con-
trast the socializing effects of groups that are visible
and well known (group centrality) with those that are
well liked (social preference). At the individual level,
only modest overlap has been observed between
popular children identified based on these two mod-
els of status (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998), and
different behavioral correlates have been associated
with each (Gest et al., 2001). Thus, visibility does not
guarantee liking, and different skills may be impli-
cated in achieving these two social outcomes
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). To the extent that visibil-
ity and liking are group characteristics that enhance
social privilege, we would expect group socialization
efforts to be emphasized in behavioral domains that
contribute to status maintenance. That is, visible
(central) groups should promote behavior that en-
hances group visibility, whereas well-liked (socially
preferred) groups should promote behavior that
enhances likability. However, given that visible
groups have been described as the most powerful
groups in the peer network (Hawley, 2003), we
anticipated that the socializing influences of central
groups would be greater than the socializing influen-
ces of socially preferred groups. We now describe the
behavioral domains most likely to be promulgated by
group centrality and group social preference.
Centrality Status
Peer group social status has been most commonly
conceptualized as the degree to which a group occu-
pies a central location within the larger social network
(e.g., Gest et al., 2001). The visibility of central groups
might be enhanced by having trendy fashions and
gadgets, being physically attractive (for girls), and
engaging in noticeable and prestigious activities (e.g.,
team sports; Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992; LaFontana &
Cillessen, 2002; Lease, Musgrove, & Axelrod, 2002).
Group visibility also may result from positive (i.e.,
prosocial) or negative (i.e., aggressive, antisocial)
1242 Ellis and Zarbatany
behavior, but often a combination of the two is evident
in central groups (Adler & Adler, 1995; Cairns,
Gariepy, Kindermann, & Leung, 1991; Rodkin et al.,
2000). Because central groups are trend setters in their
school and highly influential both within and outside
their peer groups (Adler et al., 1992; Eder, 1985),
central group members likely are highly motivated to
maintain their group membership and social posi-
tion. They may be especially inclined to conform to
group norms and particularly harsh in dealing with
group members who fail to adhere to group standards
for behavior (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003).
We expected that peer group socialization of devi-
ant behavior (e.g., smoking cigarettes, stealing) and
school misconduct (e.g., cheating on a test, talking in
class) would be magnified in central groups because
these behaviors likely contribute to central groups’
visibility and ensure they remain recognized by
others (Rodkin et al., 2000). Because relational aggres-
sion (e.g., social manipulation, rumor spreading;
Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) and prosocial behavior are
important means through which group boundaries
are protected and loyalty is maintained, we also
anticipated greater change in these behaviors with
increasing group centrality. In contrast, group cen-
trality effects were not anticipated for overt aggres-
sion (e.g., hitting, threatening, name calling) because
reliance on overt aggression as a form of social control
diminishes in favor of more subtle manipulative
strategies by early adolescence, and research linking
overt aggression with popularity has been inconsis-
tent (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004; Xie, Li, Boucher,
Hutchins, & Cairns, 2006).
Social Preference Status
High status also can be defined based on peer
liking or social preference (i.e., sociometric popular-
ity). Peer group status has not been assessed in terms
of peer acceptance even though well-liked children
are known to cluster together (Kupersmidt, DeRosier,
& Patterson, 1995). Based on knowledge of the be-
havioral characteristics of well-liked peers, we ex-
pect groups composed of well-liked children to
engage in low rates of deviant behavior and aggres-
sion, and high rates of prosocial behavior and aca-
demic engagement (Lease et al., 2002). These
behaviors likely contribute to their reputation as
being kind and fun to be around.
Well-liked groups may be in a socially advanta-
geous position because others enjoy their company
and wish to join their group. To protect their
well-liked positions, these groups may use subtle
processes to regulate others’ behavior, such as proso-
cial strategies combined with positive affect, rather
than harsh or coercive methods. Given the value of
relationship harmony and acceptance in well-liked
groups, we expected prosocial behavior to be incul-
cated in their groups. We did not expect a moderating
effect of group social preference for aggressive and
deviant behavior because the latter behaviors do not
contribute to the identity of well-accepted groups
and, in fact, are negatively associated with peer
acceptance (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).
Age Considerations
The extant research on group socialization in late
childhood and early adolescence has documented
group influence on behavior in both preadolescence
and early adolescence (Espelage et al., 2003; Kiesner
et al., 2002; Ryan, 2001). Although prosocial behavior
consistently has been recognized as a key element of
individual status across childhood and adolescence
despite changes in its relative importance (LaFontana &
Cillessen, 2002; Xie et al., 2006), other behavioral
correlates of group centrality status vary with age.
Specifically, relational aggression and deviancy become
increasingly important from preadolescence to early
adolescence (Cillessen & Mayeux 2004; LaFontana &
Cillessen, 2002; Xie et al., 2006). Thus, we anticipated
that high-status central groups might more strongly
socialize relational aggression and deviant behavior in
early adolescence than in preadolescence.
Gender Considerations
Information on gender-differentiated behavior at
the peer group level is scarce; therefore, gender
considerations were tentatively based on findings
at the individual level. Previous research has often
shown that boys tend to engage in more deviant
behavior than do girls, and girls tend to engage in
more relational aggression and prosocial behavior
than do boys in late childhood and early adolescence
(e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lease et al., 2002; Santor,
Messervey, & Kusumakar, 2000). Despite these pos-
sible mean differences, deviancy and relational
aggression are socialized in both male and female
peer groups (Espelage et al., 2003; Kiesner et al.,
2002), and both have been associated with high
status for boys and girls (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004;
Hawley, 2003; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Prosocial
behavior has also been established as an important
element of social acceptance and dominance for both
genders (Hawley, 2003; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002).
There is some evidence based on interviews with
African American adolescents (Xie et al., 2006) and

observations of elementary school students (Adler
et al., 1992) that deviant behavior might contribute
more to the status of individual boys than girls, but
the extent to which these findings apply to peer
groups is unknown. In view of existing research, we
had no strong basis for expecting that predictions
regarding the moderating influence of group status
on behavioral socialization would vary substantially
across genders.
Summary and Predictions
Motivations to align with a group and establish
a positive group identity combined with social rein-
forcement, peer pressure, and other group processes
likely contribute to socialization in children’s peer
groups. Because high-status groups have more bene-
fits than low-status groups, pressure from group
members and motivation to conform likely are stron-
gest in these groups.
Although members of high-status central groups
and high-status socially preferred groups both may be
socially advantaged and strive to maintain their
positions (Hawley, 1999), they likely use different
strategies to communicate their preferences, with
central group members relying on a combination of
positive behavior and intimidation and control, and
socially preferred group members primarily using
relationship-building strategies.
Over a 3-month period we examined the moderat-
ing effects of group centrality status and group social
preference status on group socialization in three
domains: deviance (school misconduct and more
serious deviant acts), aggression (overt and rela-
tional), and prosocial behavior. We generally expected
that group socialization effects would be strongest in
high-status groups and that group centrality would
produce stronger effects than group social preference.
We also anticipated that the two types of group status
would produce some nonoverlapping behavioral ef-
fects, with socialization of deviancy, school miscon-
duct, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior
likely to occur in central groups, and socialization of
prosocial behavior likely to occur in well-liked groups.
The moderating effects of group status on deviant
behavior and relational aggression were expected to
be stronger for older than for younger groups.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from all fifth-, sixth-,
seventh-, and eighth-grade classes in four elementary
Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1243
schools (kindergarten to Grade 8) and one middle
school (Grades 5 to 8) in and around a mid-sized
Canadian city. Parental consent was received for all
participants. Census data on socioeconomic and eth-
nic characteristics of the school neighborhoods re-
vealed that the sample was middle to lower-middle
class, with an average yearly income of $32,433, and
primarily (91%) Caucasion. The largest minority
groups are Blacks, Arabs, and West Asians.
Because peer nominations were conducted within
grades (rather than classes) in each school to allow for
cross-class relationships within grades, only grades
that had participation rates of at least 60% were
included in the study to ensure the validity of the
nomination scores. This resulted in exclusion of the
fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade groups from one
school, and the seventh-grade group from another.
In total there were 16 nominating groups with partic-
ipation rates ranging from 60% to 100% (Mdn 5 77%,
M 5 74%, SD 5 10.99): 4 fifth-grade, 4 sixth-grade, 3
seventh-grade, and 5 eighth-grade groups. The begin-
ning sample consisted of 711 children (M age 5 12.05
years, SD 5 1.17).
Although consent was obtained for 711 children, the
number of participants varied across assessment peri-
ods primarily because of absenteeism. A total of 665
children completed questionnaires at Time 1. From
Time 1 to Time 2 (a 3-month interval), 43 participants
were lost for various reasons (26 repeatedly absent, 17
moved away or dropped out). Independent t tests
conducted on all relevant variables showed that drop-
outs were significantly less prosocial, t(658) 5 3.65,
p , .01, and engaged in more school misconduct,
t(658) 5
2.17, p , .05, than those who remained.
Measures
Peer groups. The social cognitive map (SCM) tech-
nique developed by Cairns et al. (1991) was used to
identify children’s natural social groups. This pro-
cedure is based on the assumption that children can
accurately recall the social relationships of children
around them, even those in which they are not directly
involved. Children were asked: ‘‘Do you have a group
(of three or more kids) in your class or grade that you
hang around with a lot?’’ Regardless of their group
membership, all children also were asked: ‘‘Are there
other people in your class or grade who hang around
together a lot?’’ They could identify up to three other
groups in their class or grade. To ensure the validity of
the procedure, group members could include children
who were not participants in the study.
Based on reports from all participants in a nomi-
nating group, a co-occurrence matrix was computed
1244 Ellis and Zarbatany
containing the frequency with which each child was
nominated as being in the same group as every other
child. These affiliation profiles for every child were
then correlated with every other child’s profile, and
groups were clustered according to similarity using
a standard cutoff point for similarity (r . .40). To
create nonoverlapping groups, children who were
initially affiliated with more than one group were
assigned membership to the group for which they had
a .50 correlation with at least 50% of the group
members (Cairns et al., 1991). In cases where this
was true of both group assignments, children were
placed in the group with the strongest correlations
with other group members.
In total there were 14 nominating groups for the
group membership assessment: 4 fifth-grade, 4 sixth-
grade, 2 seventh-/eighth-grade split, 1 seventh-
grade, and 3 eighth-grade groups. All but 1 (see the
following) group had participation rates on the group
membership question higher than 60%. A strength of
the SCM procedure is its strong psychometric prop-
erties in groups with low to moderate participant
rates. Because aggregate responses are used and
groups are generally publicly agreed on, group pro-
files based on participation rates of 50% are almost
indistinguishable from those with participation rates
of 100% (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995).
Furthermore, self-nominated peer groups overlap
considerably with SCM aggregate reports, suggesting
that even children with single (or few) nominations
are reliably placed into groups (Cairns et al., 1995).
Observational data and short-term group stability
assessments also confirm the reliability of the SCM
measure for identifying groups with varying num-
bers of nominations (Cairns et al., 1995; Gest, Farmer,
Cairns, & Xie, 2003).
Given that group stability could confound the
interpretation of group status effects (i.e., if central
groups are more stable, socialization effects may be due
to longer exposure rather than to status), we included
stability as a covariate in all major analyses. Groups
were identified at Time 2 using the same procedure.
Group stability scores were created by dividing the
number of members that remained the same across
periods for each group by the total size of the group at
Time 1 (M stability 5 56.11%, SD 5 33.44%).
Application of the SCM procedure resulted in the
loss of 96 children from the sample. These children
were excluded because they were in a class with very
low participation rates on the group membership
question (n 5 20), they were not nominated as belong-
ing to a group (n 5 20), or they could not be
successfully placed in a group (n 5 56). The latter
occurred when placement of multiple-group members
in other groups resulted in dissolution of the original
group. When only one or two participating children
were members of groups with nonparticipating stu-
dents, they also were excluded, as we were unable to
ascertain group characteristics for these cases. Thus,
the final sample included 526 children (244 boys, 282
girls; M age 5 12.05, SD 5 1.14) and was distributed
across grades as follows: Grade 5 (n 5 99; 54 boys, 45
girls; M age 5 10.37, SD 5 .30), Grade 6 (n 5 136;
67 boys, 69 girls; M age 5 11.42, SD 5 .33), Grade 7 (n 5
142; 67 boys, 75 girls; M age 5 12.40, SD 5 .42), Grade 8
(n 5 149; 56 boys, 93 girls; M age 5 13.37, SD 5 .36).
We compared the 96 (56 boys, 40 girls) excluded
children the 526 group members on all outcome
variables (delinquent behavior, aggression, and pro-
social behavior) using a 2 (gender)  4 (grade)  2
(group member, no or yes) multivariate analysis of
variance. No significant multivariate or univariate
effects emerged involving group membership.
Centrality status. In addition to the specification of
group members, the SCM program determines the
centrality status of each group. The frequency of
individual nominations reflects the group’s position
or status (Gest et al., 2001). A centrality index is
created for each group based on the average of the
two people with the highest number of nominations
within each group (see Cairns et al., 1995, for further
details). Nuclear groups (high centrality status) are
those that have the greatest number of individual
nominations. Peripheral groups (low centrality sta-
tus) are those with the fewest individual nominations.
Secondary groups (average centrality status) are those
that fall between these two extremes. Thus, group
centrality is a categorical variable with three levels.
Cairns et al. (1995) found no difference in group
stability (retest reliability) of central, secondary, and
peripheral groups over a 3-week period, suggesting
that groups with many nominations (central) are no
more accurately identified than groups with few
nominations (peripheral).
Problem behavior. The 18-item Problem Behavior
Scale consisted of 13 items measuring school mis-
conduct (e.g., cheating on an exam, not doing home-
work, being suspended; Jenkins, 1997) and 6 items
assessing deviant behaviors (i.e., destroying school
property, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, using
illegal drugs, stealing, vandalism; Santor et al., 2000).
Participants reported how often they engaged in each
behavior in the past 3 months using a 3-point scale (1
5 never, 2 5 sometimes, 3 5 often). Separate scores were
created for school misconduct (13 items, alpha 5 .82)
and more serious deviant acts (6 items, alpha 5 .82).
Although self-reported measures of deviant behav-
ior may sometimes lead to an underestimation of

deviant behavior, researchers generally have shown
that this method can yield valid results, particularly
with respect to substance abuse (see Brener, Billy, &
Grady, 2003, for a review). Bendixen and Olweus
(1999) used a similar scale of self-reported early
adolescent school-related problem behavior and
non-school-related antisocial behavior, and demon-
strated strong psychometric properties including
stability and convergent validity. Furthermore, our
problem behavior scores were stable over the 3-month
period (school misconduct: r 5 .66; deviant behavior:
r 5 .53).
Overt aggression, relational aggression, prosocial behavior,
and leadership. In a modified version of the Revised
Class Play (Masten, Morrison, & Pellegrini, 1985),
participants were asked to select up to three people
from a list of participating grade-mates who fit eight
behavioral profiles. Two items assessed overt aggres-
sion (starts fights, picks on or teases others), two
assessed relational aggression (when mad, ignores or
stops talking to person; when mad, gets even by
keeping person from being in their group of friends;
Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), two assessed prosocial
behavior (helps others, kind to others), and two
assessed leadership (good leader, everyone listens
to). Leadership scores were used to validate our
conceptualization of group centrality as reflecting
high power. The number of nominations each child
received was averaged across items within each
behavioral cluster and then standardized within
nominating groups to control for group size. At Time
1 the alpha coefficients for overt aggression, relational
aggression, prosocial behavior, and leadership were
.88, .74, .83, and .78, respectively. As part of a larger
study, children also nominated peers on victimization
and shyness.
Social preference status. Social preference status
scores were derived from children’s nominations of
three peers they really enjoyed being with at school
and three peers they did not care to be with at school.
Like-least nominations were subtracted from like-
most nominations, and difference scores were stan-
dardized within groups (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli,
1982). To determine group social preference, chil-
dren’s social preference scores were averaged within
their peer group as identified in the SCM procedure
As expected, group members had similar social
preference scores, as indicated by the significant
intraclass correlation coefficient of .13 (p , .001).
Procedure
This study was part of a larger study on friend and
group influence on behavioral development and
Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1245
psychological adjustment. The current report repre-
sents the findings related to group influence
on behavioral development. Questionnaires were
administered in children’s home classrooms 3 times
during the school year, beginning in October and
subsequently at 3-month intervals. Only data from
the first two waves of data collection are reported
here. The number of days between Time 1 and Time 2
ranged from 88 to 104 (M 5 95.13, SD 5 4.98). The
questionnaire order remained the same across testing
waves to ensure any changes over time were not the
result of order effects. The nomination questionnaires
were placed at the beginning of the questionnaire
booklet, and the remaining questionnaires were
ordered to vary positive and negative adjustment
measures, as well as response format to minimize
carry-over effects. Students were led through the
questionnaires by a pair of undergraduate or gradu-
ate researchers (one male and one female researcher
were present for most of the sessions). Instructions
and examples for each measure were read aloud to the
class and individual questions were read aloud when
necessary. Children were encouraged to ask questions
at any time if needed. Each session took approxi-
mately 1 hr 15 min.
Results
Descriptive Characteristics of Peer Groups
A total of 113 nonoverlapping groups (50 male, 43
female, 20 mixed gender) made up the final sample,
including 25 fifth-grade groups, 34 sixth-grade
groups, 30 seventh-grade groups, and 24 eighth-
grade groups. Group size ranged from 3 to 21 mem-
bers (M 5 7.56, SD 5 4.55). To check for gender and
grade differences in group size, a 3 (group gender)  4
(grade) analysis of variance was computed. Signifi-
cant main effects for gender, F(2, 100) 5 11.32, p , .001,
and grade, F(3, 100) 5 7.18, p , .001, were followed up
with Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. The size of
mixed-gender groups (M 5 8.33, SE 5 .63) was
significantly larger than female groups (M 5 5.79,
SE 5 .54) and male groups (M 5 4.59, SE 5 .47; all ps ,
.01). Male and female groups did not differ in size.
Groups in eighth grade (M 5 8.67, SE 5 .66) were
significantly larger than groups in sixth grade (M 5
4.65, SE 5 .64) and fifth grade (M 5 5.44, SE 5 .61; all
ps , .01), but not seventh grade (M 5 6.19, SE 5 .63).
The interaction between group gender and grade was
not significant. We also checked for grade differences
in the gender composition of the groups using chi-
square analysis but found no grade differences in the
tendency for groups to be same or mixed gender.
1246 Ellis and Zarbatany

Correlations Among Group Variables

0.61***
—
7
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order
correlations among variables at the group level (group
means) at Time 1 are shown in Table 1. Group central-
ity and group social preference were significantly

0.39***
related but only moderately so (r 5 .36). Consistent

0.22*
—
6
with past research, social preference was positively
correlated with prosocial behavior and negatively
correlated with problem behavior, whereas group
centrality status was positively correlated with both
types of aggression, school misconduct, and prosocial

0.35***

0.35***
behavior (Lease et al., 2002). As we expected, leader-

0.13
—
5
ship was significantly related to group centrality (r 5
.57), validating our conceptualization of centrality as
reflecting social power and influence. It is interesting
that leadership was more highly related to group
centrality than to social preference: Fisher r to z trans-

0.28**

0.20*

0.03

0.14
—
formation, t(97) 5 2.24, p , .05.

4
Hypothesis Testing: Analytic Overview
The study of groups involves nested contexts that
are best examined using hierarchical linear modeling

0.66***
0.45***

0.68***
0.14*
(HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). We used a two-

0.13
—
level HLM model to determine the effect of peer 3
group context at Time 1 on children’s behavior at
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations for Group Variables (Group Means) at Time 1

Time 2 and to examine the potential moderating effect

of group status on Time 2 outcomes. Three steps are

0.49***
0.37***
involved in a two-level HLM model. These steps were

0.30**

0.24*

0.16

0.01
—

repeated for each of the Time 2 outcome variables

2

(deviant behavior, school misconduct, overt aggres-

sion, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior).
First, we estimated a fully unconditional model.
Within- and between-group components were used to
0.36***

0.39***

0.57***

estimate the total variance that lay systematically

0.33**
0.09*

0.19*

0.02
—
1

between groups on the outcome variable. The pro-

portion of the total variance between groups relative
to the variance within groups is called the intraclass
correlation (ICC). A significant ICC provides the
foundation for rejecting the null hypothesis that mean
2.22 (0.51)

0.01 (0.55)
1.34 (0.20)
1.09 (0.18)

0.06 (0.53)

0.06 (0.55)

0.07 (0.52)

0.07 (0.51)

scores are identical across groups on the variable of

M (SD)

interest and indicates that multilevel analysis is

warranted. The strength of the ICC also indicates
the level of within-group similarity.
Second, we computed a within-group model in
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

which regression equations were used to predict

individual Time 2 behavior as a function of Time 1
Relational aggression

individual behavior within each peer group. This

School misconduct

Prosocial behavior
Deviant behavior
Overt aggression
Social preference
Group centrality

model also assessed between-group differences when

equated for individual levels of behavior at Time 1. In
Leadership

this equation, the intercept was the average individ-

ual score for behavior at Time 2.
Table 1

Third, we used the randomly varying intercept

from the Level 1 analysis as the dependent variable in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

the between-group (Level 2) model to determine
significant predictors of Time 2 average individual
behavior, beyond the contribution of Time 1 behavior.
Two Level 2 models were computed. First, we tested
the main effect of peer group behavior at Time 1 on
children’s Time 2 behavior. Second, we examined the
moderating effect of group status using interaction
terms for each measure of status and behavior. The
significance of the interaction terms determined
whether peer group status moderated the relation-
ship between Time 1 group behavior and Time 2
average individual behavior. Group size and group
stability were entered as control variables in all Level
2 equations; however, these variables did not emerge
as statistically significant predictors in any of the
Level 2 analyses. Thus, coefficients related to these
variables are not reported. The final model is repre-
sented by the following equation:
b0j ðLevel 1 intercept=Average behavior at Time 2Þ
5 c00 þ c01 ðgroup stabilityÞ þ c02 ðgroup sizeÞ
þ c03 ðgroup behaviorÞ
þ c04 ðgroup social preferenceÞ
þ c05 ðgroup centralityÞ
þ c06 ðsocial preference  group behaviorÞ
þ c07 ðcentrality  group behaviorÞ
þu0j ðgroup errorÞ:
The interpretation of interactions in HLM is basi-
cally the same as in regression analysis. As such,
significant interactions were analyzed according to
the guidelines outlined by Aiken and West (1991). To
decipher the overall pattern of each interaction,
variables in the interaction were split into 1 SD above
and 1 SD below their means. Simple-slope analyses
were conducted to determine whether the slopes
representing each relationship were significantly dif-
ferent from zero at high and low levels.
Predictors in the Level 1 analysis were grand-mean
centered. When using grand-mean centering, the Level
2 model represents the group-level relationship
between the predictor and the outcome adjusted for
the influence of the Level 1 predictor (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992). Thus, final effects are predictive
beyond Time 1 individual behavior. All variables and
group-level interactions at Level 2 were group-mean
centered.
Children’s age and gender were entered as control
variables at Level 1 but did not alter the pattern of
findings for Level 2 models and were excluded from
the final models. At Level 2, cross-level and group-
level interactions with status (i.e., male, female, mixed
Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1247
gender) produced no significant moderating effects
involving group grade and gender. Significant
Status  Behavior interactions were followed up by
three-way interactions with gender and grade to
determine whether the effects applied equally to all
groups in the sample. No significant three-way inter-
actions were found. Thus, gender and grade did not
moderate any of the major findings.
Predicting Deviant Behavior
We first examined peer group effects on children’s
deviant behavior. In the first step, a fully uncondi-
tional model was estimated. The ICC showed that
a significant proportion of the variance (16.24%, p ,
.001) in deviant behavior was between groups and
multilevel analysis was warranted to determine what
variables accounted for the between-group differ-
ences, s 5 .0097, v2(90) 5 186.81, p , .001. At Level 1,
children’s deviant behavior at Time 1 was a significant
predictor of their deviant behavior at Time 2 (t 5 8.77,
p , .001), accounting for 35.51% of the individual level
variance. However, significant variation remained in
deviant behavior scores across peer groups, as indi-
cated by the estimated variance among group means,
s 5 .0018, v2(88) 5 68.17, p , .01. Next, a Level 2 model
was tested with mean group deviant behavior as
a predictor. As a main effect, peer group deviant
behavior at Time 1 was a significant, positive pre-
dictor of children’s deviant behavior at Time 2 (see
Table 2, Panel A). Finally, a Level 2 model testing the
moderating effect of peer group status revealed
significant interactions between peer group deviant
behavior and group social preference status, and
group centrality status (see Table 3, Panel A). Specif-
ically, when the group had high levels of deviant
behavior at Time 1, children in groups with low social
preference showed an increase in deviant behavior at
Time 2, b 5 .27, t(86) 5 2.01, p , .05 (see Figure 1), but
children in groups with high social preference did
not, b 5
.17, t(86) 5
1.27, ns. The interaction be-
tween group centrality and deviant behavior showed
the opposite pattern. When the group was deviant at
Time 1, children in highly central groups experienced
an increase in deviant behavior at Time 2, b 5 .27,
t(86) 5 2.56, p , .01 (see Figure 2), whereas children
in less central groups did not, b 5
.22, t(86) 5
1.54,
ns. The Level 2 model accounted for 41.42% of
variance between peer groups in deviant behavior.
Predicting School Misconduct
We next examined peer group effects on children’s
school misconduct. The fully unconditional model
1248 Ellis and Zarbatany

Table 2 Table 3
Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting Time 2 Individual Behaviors From Hierarchical Linear Models With Group Status as a Moderator of Time 2
Time 1 Group Behavior Behaviors

Variable Effect SE t test Variable Effect SE t test

A. Between-group model for A. Between-group model for deviant behavior

deviant behavior Average intercept (c00) 1.10 .02 62.37***
Group deviant behavior (c03) 0.02 .09 0.18
Average intercept (c00) 1.11 .02 64.57***
Group social preference (c04)
0.07 .02
3.43**
Group deviant behavior (c01) 0.16 .08 1.99*
Group centrality (c05) 0.03 .01 1.99*
B. Between-group model for Social Preference  Group Deviant
0.55 .16
3.37**
school misconduct Behavior (c06)
Average intercept (c00) 1.37 .01 105.73*** Centrality  Group Deviant 0.23 .12 1.92*
Behavior (c07)
Group school misconduct (c01) 0.31 .07 4.12***
Individual deviant behavior at 0.71 .18 3.67***
C. Between-group model for Time 1 (c10)
relational aggression B. Between-group model for school misconduct
Average intercept (c00)
0.01 .04
0.04 Average intercept (c00) 1.37 .01 95.59***
Group school misconduct (c03) 0.24 .08 2.91***
Group relational aggression (c01) 0.23 .08 2.77**
Group social preference (c04)
0.02 .03
0.67
D. Between-group model for Group centrality (c05) 0.04 .02 1.67
prosocial behavior Social Preference  Group School
0.17 .15
1.10
Average intercept (c00)
0.02 .03
0.43 Misconduct (c06)
Group prosocial behavior (c01) 0.03 .07 0.16 Centrality  Group School 0.22 .12 1.85y
Misconduct (c07)
E. Between-group model for Individual school misconduct at 0.60 .05 11.67***
overt aggression Time 1 (c10)
Average intercept (c00)
0.01 .03
0.19 C. Between-group model for relational aggression
Group overt aggression (c01) 0.15 .08 1.97* Average intercept (c00)
0.04 .05
0.98
Group relational aggression (c03) 0.11 .10 1.16
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001. Group social preference (c04)
0.08 .10
0.85
Group centrality (c05) 0.11 .08 1.31
Social Preference  Group Relational
0.21 .16
1.28
Aggression (c06)
showed that a significant proportion of the variance Centrality  Group Relational 0.34 .15 2.26*
(22.01%, p , .001) in school misconduct was between Aggression (c07)
groups, s 5 .1445, v2(96) 5 336.65, p , .001. The Level Individual relational aggression at 0.21 .04 9.59***
Time 1 (c10)
1 model showed that children’s school misconduct at D. Between-group model for prosocial behavior
Time 1 was a significant predictor of their behavior at Average intercept (c00)
0.03 .04
0.76
Time 2 (t 5 13.41, p , .001), accounting for 32.29% of Group prosocial behavior (c03)
0.04 .09
0.39
the individual level variance. After controlling for Group social preference (c04) 0.03 .10 0.33
Time 1 behavior, there remained significant variation Group centrality (c05) 0.10 .07 1.53
Social Preference  Group Prosocial
0.03 .18
0.16
in average school misconduct across peer groups, s 5 Behavior (c06)
.0039, v2(88) 5 141.44, p , .01. The first Level 2 model Centrality  Group Prosocial 0.26 .12 2.09*
showed that peer group school misconduct at Time 1 Behavior (c07)
was a significant positive, predictor of children’s Individual prosocial behavior 0.63 .05 10.62***
school misconduct at Time 2 (see Table 2, Panel B). at Time 1 (c10)
E. Between-group model for overt aggression
The next Level 2 model revealed that the interaction Average intercept (c00)
between peer group school misconduct and group Group overt aggression (c03) 0.14 .09 1.18
centrality status approached significance (p 5 .06; Group social preference (c04)
0.03 .07
.38
see Table 3, Panel B). The interaction between group Group centrality (c05) 0.08 .07 1.18
centrality and school misconduct showed that Social Preference  Group Overt 0.22 .14 1.55
Aggression (c06)
children in highly central groups experienced an Centrality  Group Overt
0.04 .14
.18
increase in school misconduct at Time 2, b 5 .39, Aggression (c07)
t(86) 5 3.34, p , .01 (see Figure 3), but children in Individual overt aggression at 0.69 .08 9.08***
less central groups did not, b 5 .09, t(86) 5 .82, ns. Time 1 (c10)
The between-group model accounted for 83.10% of
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001. yp 5 .06.
variance between peer groups in average school
misconduct.
 Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1249

1.20
2.40
Problem Behavior at Time 2

Average Individual School

Average Individual Deviant

Misconduct at Time 2
1.15 2.05

1.10 1.70

1.35
1.05

1.00
1.00 1 SD below 1 SD above
1 SD below 1 SD above
Group School Misconduct at Time 1
Group Deviant Problem Behavior at Time 1 High Group Low Group
High Group Low Group Centrality Centrality
Social Preference Social Preference

Figure 1. Time 1 Group Deviant Behavior  Group Social Prefer- Figure 3. Time 1 Group School Misconduct  Group Centrality
ence predicting Time 2 deviant behavior. predicting Time 2 school misconduct.

Predicting Relational Aggression aggression across peer groups, s 5 .0291, v2(84) 5

Next, we examined peer group effects on children’s
relational aggression. In the first step, the ICC showed
that a significant proportion of the variance (11.34%,
p , .001) in relational aggression was between groups,
s 5 .1100, v2(96) 5 165.00, p , .01. The Level 1 model
showed that children’s relational aggression at Time 1
was a significant predictor of their relational aggres-
sion at Time 2 (t 5 10.69, p , 001), accounting for
27.80% of the individual level variance in the out-
come. After controlling for Time 1 relational aggres-
sion, there remained moderate variation in relational
1.20
105.72, p 5 .05. The first Level 2 model showed that
group relational aggression was a significant positive
predictor of children’s relational aggression at Time 2
(see Table 2, Panel C). The next Level 2 model pro-
duced a significant interaction between peer group
relational aggression and group centrality (see
Table 3, Panel C). Children who were part of highly
relationally aggressive and central peer groups expe-
rienced an increase in Time 2 relational aggression,
b 5 .35, t(83) 5 2.48, p , .01 (see Figure 4), whereas
children in relationally aggressive, less central groups
did not, b 5
.12, t(83) 5
.80, ns. The between-group
model accounted for 80.95% of the variance between
peer groups in average relational aggression.

Predicting Prosocial Behavior

Problem Behavior at Time 2

1.15
Average Individual Deviant

We next tested peer group effects on children’s

prosocial behavior. A significant proportion of the
1.10 variance (10.75%, p , .001) was between groups,
s 5 .1057, v2(90) 5 147.12, p , .001. The Level 1 model
revealed that children’s prosocial behavior at Time 1
was a significant predictor of their behavior at Time 2
1.05
(t 5 11.06, p , .001), accounting for 58.80% of the
individual level variance. After controlling for Time 1
scores, there remained significant variation in proso-
1.00
1 SD below 1 SD above cial scores across peer groups, s 5 .0369, v2(89) 5
Group Deviant Problem Behavior at Time 1
141.39, p , .01. The first Level 2 model showed that
peer group prosocial behavior was not a significant
High Group Low Group predictor of the same behavior at Time 2 (see Table 2,
Centrality Centrality
Panel D). However, the second Level 2 model testing
Figure 2. Time 1 Group Deviant Behavior  Group Centrality the interaction terms involving group status produced
predicting Time 2 deviant behavior. a significant interaction between peer group prosocial
1250 Ellis and Zarbatany

0.25
0.25
Average Individual Relational

Average Individual Prosocial

Aggression at Time 2

0.10
0.10

Behavior at Time 2
-0.05 -0.05

-0.20 -0.20

-0.35
-0.35
1 SD below 1 SD above 1 SD below 1 SD above
Group Relational Aggression at Time 1 Group Prosocial Behavior at Time 1

High Group Low Group High Group Low Group

Centrality Centrality Centrality Centrality

Figure 4. Time 1 Group Relational Aggression  Group Centrality Figure 5. Time 1 Group Prosocial Behavior  Group Centrality
predicting Time 2 relational aggression. predicting Time 2 prosocial behavior.

behavior and group centrality status (see Table 3, Panel Discussion

D). In this interaction neither slope was significant,
Consistent with previous work, we have demon-
but the significant interaction itself reflects different
strated that peer groups socialize deviancy, school
effects of group context depending on group centrality.
misconduct, and aggression in late childhood and
Average individual prosocial behavior increased with
early adolescence. More important, we have shown
increasing group centrality and decreased with lower
for the first time that peer groups vary in influence,
group centrality (see Figure 5). The between-group
with high-status groups being more powerful agents
model accounted for 21.58% of the variance between
of socialization than low-status groups. Comparison
peer groups in average prosocial behavior.
of two aspects of group status, centrality (visibility)
and social preference (acceptance), revealed the for-
Predicting Overt Aggression mer as primarily associated with behavior change,
especially for behavior that helped maintain group
Finally, we checked for group effects on children’s
status. Specifically, group centrality intensified group
overt aggression. A significant proportion of the
socialization of deviant behavior, school misconduct,
variance (8.90%, p , .001) in overt aggression was
relational aggression, and prosocial behavior. In
between groups, s 5 .0700, v2(96) 5 114.94, p , .01.
contrast, (low) group acceptance affected only the
The Level 1 model revealed that children’s overt
socialization of deviant behavior. These effects were
aggression at Time 1 was a positive predictor of their
obtained regardless of children’s gender and age.
overt aggression at Time 2 (t 5 9.98, p , .001) and
accounted for 51.63% of the individual level variance.
After controlling for Time 1 scores, there remained
Peer Group Socialization of Deviant Behavior and
moderate variation in mean overt aggression scores
School Misconduct
across peer groups, s 5 .0251, v2(81) 5 101.79, p 5 .06.
The Level 2 model with peer group overt aggression Individuals who have a propensity toward deviant
as a main effect showed that there was a significant behavior may be initially drawn together, but as we
effect of Time 1 group overt aggression on children’s and others have shown (e.g., Kiesner et al., 2002), the
Time 2 aggression (see Table 2, Panel E). The second peer group continues to support and shape their
Level 2 model revealed no significant interactions involvement in antisocial activities. Our study dem-
between group status and group aggression (see onstrates that school-related misconduct (e.g., cheat-
Table 3, Panel E). The final model accounted for ing on a test, skipping class) also is strongly
72.09% of the variance between peer groups in susceptible to group influence, a worrisome finding
average overt aggression. given that this behavior can lead to more serious acts

of delinquency (Bryant, Schulenberg, Bachman,
O’Malley, & Johnston, 2000). Most notable, group
influence on deviant behavior and school misconduct
was magnified in central peer groups. Central groups
are well known by others, and their disruptive
behavior is highly visible to peers (Cillessen &
Mayeux, 2004; Rodkin et al., 2000). Acting out in the
classroom is one way for central groups to attract
attention. Similarly, experimenting with smoking or
drinking, or engaging in vandalism may be consid-
ered ‘‘cool’’ or a sign of maturity when central group
members exhibit these acts, and other network mem-
bers may flock to join in. Given that these findings
held regardless of the age or gender configuration of
the groups, it seems reasonable to conclude that
membership in central peer groups may form a sig-
nificant pathway to deviant behavior beginning in
late childhood and possibly earlier.
Children in deviant groups that were low in social
preference (i.e., rejected) also showed increases in
deviancy. Rejected children generally establish net-
works with other rejected children (Ladd, 1983),
alliances that develop from shared negative experi-
ences with parents and peers and lead to a trajectory
of antisocial behavior (Dishion et al., 1991). Because
rejected children are generally isolated from other
peers, when they do find acceptance in deviant
groups they may strive for behavioral conformity to
group norms to maintain group membership.
Our finding that group centrality and group social
preference had opposite effects on group socialization
of deviance suggests that different mechanisms may
underlie group status effects that have long-term
consequences for adjustment (Rodkin et al., 2000).
Central groups may use deviant behavior as a means
of enhancing and protecting their social positions in
the peer network, whereas rejected groups may
engage in deviant behavior as a reaction to problems
experienced at home or with peers (Dishion et al.,
1991). If central groups use deviancy primarily to
mark their maturity and status (Moffitt, 1993), deviant
behavior of central group members should diminish
in most cases as youth exit adolescence and adopt
their adult roles. In contrast, deviant behavior of
rejected-deviant groups may continue or escalate
if underlying problems are not addressed (Hymel,
Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Kupersmidt,
Burchinal, & Patterson, 1995). Unlike central groups,
rejected groups are cut off from other peers and
deprived of opportunities for learning important social
skills. Low social skills combined with delinquent
behavior may contribute to long-term problems such
as psychological distress, poor academic functioning,
and serious criminal behavior (Nelson & Dishion,
Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1251
2004). In the future it would be useful to follow central
and rejected groups over longer periods to confirm
motivation for, as well as manifestation, escalation, and
consequences of, deviant behavior.
Peer Group Socialization of Aggression
Consistent with others’ reports (Cairns et al., 1988),
we found that children’s overt aggression escalated
when they were members of aggressive peer groups.
Given that peer groups’ shared overt aggression is
likely to be goal directed rather than reactive (Poulin
et al., 1997), children in overtly aggressive peer
groups may come to value aggression as a means to
goal attainment and rely on their group alliance
for protection and support. We also provide some of
the first evidence that peer groups contribute to the
socialization of relational aggression (see also
Espelage et al., 2003). Manipulative acts involving
gossip and social exclusion need involvement from
most group members. In socially aggressive peer
groups, members may participate in relational
aggression to guard group boundaries and shield
themselves from similar attacks (Adler & Adler,
1995).
As we anticipated, group centrality moderated
socialization of relational but not overt aggression.
This may reflect early adolescents’ decreasing reli-
ance on overt aggression as a form of social control in
favor of more covert manipulative tactics (Rose et al.,
2004). Compared with overt aggression, relational
aggression is a highly skilled means of controlling
social boundaries because children can use this
behavior to damage relationships without directly
implicating themselves. In this manner, children
are able to maintain positive affect in their relations
with others while deftly preserving their elevated
status. Evidence that individual popularity predicts
increasing use of relational aggression over time
(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004) supports
our contention that this behavior is a tool used to main-
tain status. Overt aggression, in contrast, is unlikely to
be a status-maintaining device in popular groups.
Peer Group Socialization of Prosocial Behavior
The present study was the first to examine peer
group socialization of prosocial behavior. We found
no overall group socialization effect, but central peer
groups did indeed promote prosocial behavior as we
had anticipated. Although this finding gives some
reassurance that central groups are not exclusively
negative in their influence on social behavior, the
combination of prosocial and antisocial behavior
1252 Ellis and Zarbatany
inculcated within central groups is reminiscent
of findings on prosocial dominance described by
Hawley (1999, 2003). Hawley argued that successful
access to resources requires more than brute force but
rather a balance of both coercive and prosocial acts.
Central groups may attract new members by lavish-
ing them with attention and kind acts and then
suddenly shift their attention elsewhere (Adler &
Adler, 1995). This bistrategic approach is likely essen-
tial for dominance regardless of group gender or age.
It remains to be determined whether central group
members’ goals to maintain their group desirability
and exclusivity can be achieved with a strictly uni-
strategic (i.e., prosocial) approach.
Age Considerations Revisited
We did not find the anticipated age differences in
group socialization of deviant behavior or relational
aggression; both increased in high status groups of all
ages (and genders). Although deviance and aggres-
sion gain greater acceptance from childhood to ado-
lescence (Rose et al., 2004), the age range of our
sample may have been too limited to detect moder-
ating effects of grade on the group status effect.
Inclusion of both younger and older samples would
be necessary to determine at what point in develop-
ment status-motivated socialization of deviance and
relational aggression is most intense. At the very least,
our findings suggest that the central group member-
ship motivates acquisition of more ‘‘mature’’ social
behavior as early as age 10.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our findings suggest that group centrality (power)
rather than group liking induces the greatest change
in group members’ behavior (Lightfoot, 1992). How-
ever, this conclusion must be weighed against possi-
ble methodological interpretations of the data. In our
analysis we ruled out group size and group stability
as potential causes of the differentiated effects pro-
duced by group centrality and group social prefer-
ence. In contrast with previous research (Kupersmidt,
DeRosier, & Patterson, 1995), though, considerable var-
iability was evident in peer liking within groups
compared with the other variables examined. Thus,
the socialization context was not particularly homoge-
neous for liking or conducive to obtaining the expected
socialization effect for prosocial behavior. Because our
measure of group liking was based on a compilation of
individual members’ liking rather than liking of the
group as an aggregate, it is possible that group
heterogeneity on social preference was attributable to
low participation rates in some groups. In the future, it
might be useful to conduct a two-stage assessment of
group liking by first identifying the groups and then
obtaining liking ratings for groups rather than indi-
viduals. This type of research would enable a more
complete assessment of the socialization dynamics in
high- and low-status peer groups and determine the
extent to which group liking fuels group socialization
effects.
Our assessment of the behavioral characteristics of
groups also is susceptible to criticism because of the
less-than-perfect participation rates in most groups.
Group behavior scores could be calculated only based
on group members who were in the study. The intra-
class correlations indicated that children perceived
group members as behaviorally similar, however, and
we did obtain the expected group status moderation
effects on behavior. Thus, we are confident that our
assessment of group behavioral characteristics was
not compromised by low participation in some
groups. Still, the two-stage assessment approach that
we described previously for group social preference
might circumvent group behavioral assessment prob-
lems created by low participation rates. Obviously,
such an approach would require large samples and
many participating groups.
The requirements of multilevel analysis demanded
that each child be placed into only one peer group.
Many children were initially identified as multiple
group members but were assigned to a single group
based on the relative strength of their association, or
could not be classified into a single group and were
lost from our sample. When children affiliate with
more than one peer group they may experience
different and possibly conflicting sources of influ-
ence. Similarly, there may be differences in socializa-
tion effects of self-identified and peer-identified peer
groups. Future research comparing socialization
across children’s multiple groups would help
elaborate on the effect of group centrality status as
well as effects of non-status-related group character-
istics (e.g., shared time, group organization) on social-
ization of status- and non-status-related behavior.
General Conclusions
The present study adds to our knowledge of peer
group socialization and shows that peer groups
are powerful contexts that shape both positive and
negative aspects of children’s behavior. We have
shown that peer group socialization is a more com-
plex phenomenon than previously thought, with
mere exposure to group behavior insufficient to
instigate behavioral change. Rather, socialization is

most likely to occur in highly central peer groups and
in behavioral domains that contribute to central
group status. The advantageous position enjoyed by
central groups may encourage dominance-related
skills that help maintain status and access to valued
resources such as space, equipment, and attention
from peers. Thus, children are active players and
likely use peer group membership to maximize their
social benefits.
References
Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The
development of subjective group dynamics: Children’s
judgments of normative and deviant in-group and out-
group individuals. Child Development, 74, 1840 – 1856.
Adler, A. (1969). Individual psychology. Totowa, NJ: Little-
field and Adams.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and
exclusion in pre-adolescent cliques. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 58, 145 – 162.
Adler, P. A., Kless S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to
gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys
and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169 – 187.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497 – 529.
Bendixen, M., & Olweus, D. (1999). Measurement of
antisocial behavior in early adolescence and adoles-
cence: Psychometric properties and substantive find-
ings. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 9, 323 – 352.
Brener, N. D., Billy, J. O. G., & Grady, W. R. (2003).
Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self-
reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: Evi-
dence from the scientific literature. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 33, 436 – 457.
Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In
S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold:
The developing adolescent (pp. 171 – 196). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. A. (1986).
Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity disposi-
tions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 22, 521 – 530.
Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. (1987). Peer-group affiliation and
adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego-identity
and symbolic-interaction theories. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 48 – 55.
Bryant, A. L., Schulenberg, J., Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M.,
& Johnston, L. D. (2000). Understanding the links among
school misbehavior, academic achievement, and cigarette
use: A national panel study of adolescents. Prevention
Science, 2, 71 – 87.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear
models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peer Group Status as a Moderator 1253
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., &
Gariepy, J. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behav-
ior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental
Psychology, 2, 815 – 823.
Cairns, R. B., Gariepy, J. L., Kindermann, T., & Leung, M.
(1991). Identifying social clusters in natural settings.
Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
Cairns, R., Leung, M. C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D.
(1995). Friendships and social networks in childhood
and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability and interrelations.
Child Development, 66, 1330 – 1345.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to
reinforcement: Developmental changes in the associa-
tion between aggression and social status. Child Devel-
opment, 75, 147 – 163.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimen-
sions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 557 – 570.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggres-
sion, gender, and social-adjustment. Child Development,
66, 710 – 722.
Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Percep-
tions of the peer group and friendship in early adoles-
cence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 155 – 181.
Crosnoe, R., & Needham, B. (2004). Holism, contextual
variability, and the study of friendships in adolescent
development. Child Development, 75, 264 – 279.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L.
(1991). Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to
early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers.
Developmental Psychology, 27, 172 – 180.
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. M., &
Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male ado-
lescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373 – 390.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal
relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Educa-
tion, 58, 154 – 165.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural
variables on identity enhancement strategies. European
Review of Social Psychology, 4, 427 – 457.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. (2003). Examina-
tion of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during
early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205 – 220.
Gest, S. D., Farmer, T. W., Cairns, B. D., & Xie, H. (2003).
Identifying children’s peer social networks in school
classrooms: Links between peer reports and observed
interactions. Social Development, 12, 513 – 529.
Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W.
(2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of
number of friendships, social network centrality, and
sociometirc status. Social Development, 10, 23 – 40.
Hartup, W. W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In
B. Laursen (Ed.), Close friendships in adolescence (pp.
3 – 22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and
adaptations in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121(30),
355 – 370.
1254 Ellis and Zarbatany
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A
group socialization theory of development. Psychological
Review, 102, 458 – 489.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance:
A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmen-
tal Review, 19, 97 – 132.
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations
of resources control in early adolescence: A case for the
well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49,
279 – 309.
Horn, S. (2006). Group status, group bias, and adolescents’
reasoning about the treatment of others in school con-
texts. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30,
208 – 218.
Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990).
Children’s peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of
internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to
late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004 – 2021.
Jenkins, P. H. (1997). School delinquency and the school
social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
34, 337 – 367.
Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002).
Group identification in early adolescence: Its relation
with peer adjustment and its moderator effects on peer
influence. Child Development, 73, 196 – 208.
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts
for individual development: The case of children’s
motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29,
970 – 977.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995).
Developmental patterns of childhood peer relations as
predictors of externalizing behavior problems. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 7, 825 – 843.
Kupersmidt, J. B., DeRosier, M. E., & Patterson, C. (1995).
Similarity as the basis for children’s friendships: The
roles of sociometric and withdrawn behavior, academic
achievement and demographic characteristics. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationship, 12, 439 – 452.
Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average
and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 29, 283 – 307.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s
perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multi-
method assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635 – 647.
Lease, M., Musgrove, K., & Axelrod, J. (2002). Dimensions
of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likeability,
perceived popularity and social dominance. Social Devel-
opment, 11, 508 – 533.
Lightfoot, C. (1992). Constructing self and peer culture:
A narrative perspective on adolescent risk taking. In
L. T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development
within social context: Vol. 2. Research and methodology
(pp. 229 – 245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A
revised class play method of peer assessment. Develop-
mental Psychology, 21, 523 – 533.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course
persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxon-
omy. Psychological Review, 4, 674 – 701.
Nelson, S., & Dishion, T. (2004). From boys to men:
Predicting adult adaptation from middle childhood
sociometric status. Development and Psychopathology, 16,
441 – 459.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. G. (1998). Sociometric
popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct
dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18,
125 – 144.
Poulin, F., Cillessen, A., Hubbard, J. A., Coie, J. D.,
Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Children’s friends
and behavioral similarity in two social contexts. Social
Development, 6, 224 – 236.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R.
(2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and
prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36,
14 – 24.
Rose, A., Swenson, L., & Waller, E. (2004). Overt and
relational aggression and perceived popularity: Devel-
opmental differences in concurrent and prospective
relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378 – 387.
Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the
development of young adolescent motivation and
achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135 – 1150.
Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., & Kusumakar, V. (2000).
Measuring peer pressure, popularity and conformity in
adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school perfor-
mance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 165 – 182.
Stewart-Knox, B., Sittlington, J., Rugkasa, J., Harrisson, S.,
Treacy, M., & Abaunza, P. (2005). Smoking and peer
groups: Results form a longitudinal qualitative study of
young people in Northern Ireland. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 44, 397 – 414.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Some developments in European social
psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2,
307 – 322.
Tarrant, M. (2002). Adolescent peer groups and social
identity. Social Development, 11, 110 – 123.
Urberg, K. A., Degirmencioglu, S., & Pligrim, C. (1997).
Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette
smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33,
834 – 844.
Xie, H., Li, Y., Boucher, S. M., Hutchins, C., & Cairns, B.
(2006). What makes a girl (or boy) popular (or unpop-
ular)? African American children’s perceptions and
developmental differences. Developmental Psychology, 42,
599 – 612.