European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers.

27: 411–423 (2013)

Published online 28 September 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.1884

Being Called a ‘Streber’: The Roles of Personality and Competition in the Labelling
of Academically Oriented Students

KATRIN RENTZSCH*, MICHELA SCHRÖDER-ABÉ and ASTRID SCHÜTZ

Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, University of Bamberg, Germany

Abstract: The current research investigated a phenomenon that has received little attention so far: the labelling
of students who are characterised by a strong academic orientation. We analysed whether personality predicts
being labelled a ‘Streber’ (literally a person who strives for success; German origin, similar to the English word
‘nerd’) and labelling others as Strebers. Besides individual characteristics, we examined the impact of the
classroom context. In Study 1 (N = 317), eighth-grade students nominated classmates who were considered to
be Strebers and provided self-ratings on how often they had labelled others as Strebers. In Study 2 (N = 358),
using a round robin design, we had students rate each of their classmates on the extent to which the students
perceived their classmates to be Strebers. Results showed that being labelled was associated with introversion
and conscientiousness. Labelling others was related to extraversion, low conscientiousness and low agreeable-
ness. Furthermore, the labelling and the expected relation between individual characteristics and labelling were
stronger in high-achieving than in low-achieving classes. Results are discussed with respect to personality traits
as potential risk factors in peer stigmatisation and the impact of the classroom context. Copyright © 2012 European
Association of Personality Psychology

Key words: personality; adolescents; Streber; Big Five; labelling; social relations model

At the end of Grade 5, Marius’ achievements decrease. His
parents don’t know that the other children in class punish
him when he receives an A. At the beginning of Grade 6,
he complains about stomach aches or headaches on Monday
mornings. He stops doing his homework and doesn’t talk
about school at home. Every morning when he boards the
school bus, the mental war starts over again. (Schoener,
2010, p. 2, transl. by authors)
In most societies, academic striving is positively valued,
as demonstrated by international comparisons or efforts to
improve individual performances (e.g. Program for Interna-
tional Student Assessment PISA; OECD, 2009; No Child
Left Behind Act; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). But
academic striving seems to have another side of the coin as
illustrated by the initial story. Ironically, there are contexts
in which high achievement is rather unpopular. Very little
attention has been paid to this phenomenon, although it
has been observed at the workplace (Kim & Glomb, 2010)
or among students in college (Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas,
Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009; Exline & Lobel, 1999). Likewise,
it seems that academic orientation has a bad reputation
among adolescents too.
*Correspondence to: Katrin Rentzsch, Personality Psychology and Psycho-
logical Assessment, University of Bamberg, Markusplatz 3, D-96045
Bamberg, Germany.
E-mail: katrin.rentzsch@uni-bamberg.de
THE LABELLING OF ACADEMICALLY ORIENTED
STUDENTS AS ‘STREBERS’1
In contrast to general societal demands, peers tend to stigma-
tise academically oriented classmates as ‘Strebers’ (Boehnke,
Pelkner, & Kurman, 2004; Breidenstein & Meier, 2004;
Rentzsch, Schütz, & Schröder-Abé, 2011). Etymologically,
Streber is a German word describing a person who strives for
something (cf. German verb ‘streben’; Dutch verb ‘streven’).
From a cross-cultural perspective, labels that are very similar
to the German ‘Streber’ are found across different countries
and societies, for example, in the USA (‘nerd’; e.g. Bishop
et al., 2004; Brown, Mory, & Kinney, 1994) or Israel (‘Hnun’;
e.g. Boehnke, 2008). Similar English concepts are ‘dork,’
‘brain’ (e.g. Prinstein & La Greca, 2002), ‘geek’ (e.g. Tyson,
Darity, & Castellino, 2005) and ‘teacher’s pet’ (e.g. Tal &
Babad, 1990). All labels have in common that they are used
to refer to academically oriented students. Still, there are some
differences; for example, a Streber typically is a student who is
associated with ambitious studying and academic striving,
whereas those who spend much time at the computer are often
called nerds (Duden, 2007; Hornby, 2005).
Being labelled a Streber is not a trifle. The term Streber is
one of the most frequently used and most feared labels among
adolescents at school (Pelkner & Boehnke, 2003). It is a well-
known fact that students like Marius, who obviously put much
1
In German, there is no ‘s’ for the plural of ‘Streber.’ We added an ‘s’ at the
end to make it sound more natural in English.

Received 7 September 2011

Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology Revised 11 June 2012, Accepted 14 June 2012
412 K. Rentzsch et al.
effort into schoolwork, are at risk of being punished by their
classmates. Ambitious students who are labelled Strebers are
perceived as unpopular (Rentzsch et al., 2011) and report
feelings of negative affect (Breidenstein & Meier, 2004).
Similarly, activating the stereotype of Strebers is related to
negative affect and distracting thoughts in students who have
been labelled Strebers (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2012b). Another
potential consequence of being labelled a Streber is that the
respective student might reduce future efforts at school.
Landsheer, Maassen, Bisschop, and Adema (1998) comment:
‘If high achievement in the sciences results in unpopularity, it
could lead to lesser effort by better students’ (p. 188). Simi-
larly, Pelkner, Günther, and Boehnke (2002) found that the
fear of being called a Streber predicted lower achievement in
mathematics. Several discussion forums on the Internet in
which parents or students describe their concerns about being
labelled a Streber provide information about the social rele-
vance of that label (see http://www.labbe.de/mellvil, http://
www.schueler-gegen-mobbing.de).
We thus conceptualise calling somebody a Streber as a
soft form of aversive interpersonal behaviour that resembles
antisocial teasing (Kowalski, 2004; see also Breidenstein &
Meier, 2004) and verbal bullying (Olweus, 1990; see also
Gaida, 2010). Teasing can be defined as ‘identity confronta-
tion couched in humor’ (Kowalski, Howerton, & McKenzie,
2001, p. 178). Applied to the Streber phenomenon, those
who are labelled often feel that their identities are threatened,
and those who label others often think that it is just fun
(Breidenstein & Meier, 2004).
Given the importance of the topic and the potential effects
on the targets, it is surprising that the stigmatisation of
studious students has not yet received much attention. Most
of the research has been conducted in sociology or
educational psychology and has focused on crowds or youth
cultures (e.g. Bishop et al., 2004; Brown & Klute, 2003).
The few existing studies on students called Strebers have
addressed the link between being labelled and school
achievement only. For example, it has been shown that
being called a Streber is significantly, albeit only moderately,
correlated with school grades (Pelkner & Boehnke, 2003). As
achievement does not explain the whole story about so-called
Strebers, we expected factors other than achievement to be
relevant to this labelling. The current article extends previous
research as follows:
(1) We investigated whether basic personality traits are
associated with the labelling of students as Strebers. As
there is no previous research on the connection between
personality and the labelling of students as Strebers, we
began with a broad approach and analysed global dimen-
sions of personality (i.e. the Big Five; Asendorpf & van
Aken, 2003; Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1990; Costa &
McCrae, 1992).
(2) We focused not only on the perspective of the targets who
are labelled Strebers but also on the perspective of the
students who label others as Strebers. Given that most
attention has been paid to the targets of the labelling so
far, we aimed to close this research gap and analysed the
personality traits of both groups.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
(3) We also considered the context in which the labelling
took place and therefore investigated the role of the
academic environment.
Because of the lack of previous research, we based our
hypotheses on stereotypical characteristics of so-called Stre-
bers, anecdotal evidence and also on related literature on per-
sonality and interpersonal behaviour or classroom relations.
PERSONALITY AND BEING LABELLED
Why should the labelling of students as Strebers be related to
certain personality traits? It is evident that self-ascribed
personality traits are related to behavioural tendencies (e.g.
Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006; Vazire, 2010). Because
personality traits are connected to even ‘thin slices’ of
observable behaviour (Borkenau, Mauer, Riemann, Spinath,
& Angleitner, 2004), they are also related to interpersonal
perceptions (Back, Baumert, et al., 2011; Funder, 1999); for
example, extraverted people tend to be socially active (Mehl
et al., 2006), wear fashionable clothing and are perceived as
popular (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011). Strebers usually
are regarded not only as having few friends, as being shy,
unfashionable and unathletic but also as ambitious and diligent
(Pelkner & Boehnke, 2003; Rentzsch & Schütz, 2012a). If
these associations have a kernel of truth and are at least in part
caused by the behaviour of the students who are perceived as
Strebers, those students should also exhibit characteristic
scores on corresponding personality traits.
One of the most important factors in social interaction is
extraversion. Extraverted people like to have an impact on
the things going on in their peer groups, they enjoy social
interactions and they are sociable, dominant and popular
(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002;
Selfhout et al., 2010). Introverts are described as quiet, shy,
reserved and withdrawn (John & Srivastava, 1999). As a
so-called Streber is usually described as someone who is
shy and withdrawn, sitting next to the teacher and having
no friends in class (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2012a), we expected
students labelled as Strebers to reveal low levels of
extraversion.
The situation is less straightforward when it comes to
agreeableness as another important predictor of peer relation-
ships in adolescents (e.g. Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002).
Agreeable persons are described as warm, soft-hearted,
sympathetic or friendly, whereas disagreeable people are
described as cold, unfriendly or hard-hearted (John &
Srivastava, 1999). However, neither agreeableness nor
disagreeableness is particularly characteristic of descriptions
of so-called Strebers. Furthermore, past research has yielded
contradictory findings on the connection between agreeable-
ness and being the target of teasing. Georgesen, Harris,
Milich, and Young (1999) did not find significant relations,
but a study by Jensen-Campbell et al. (2002) suggested that
low levels of agreeableness predict becoming the target of
victimisation. Because of these inconsistent findings, we
tested the relation between agreeableness and being labelled
a Streber in an explorative way.
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Considering openness and conscientiousness, both traits
are associated with high academic confidence in school
(Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch, 1997; Graziano &
Ward, 1992). Because academic confidence fits very well
with the description of Strebers (Pelkner & Boehnke, 2003;
Rentzsch & Schütz, 2012a), it can be assumed that openness
and conscientiousness are positively related to being called
a Streber. However, openness is a trait that is particularly
associated with academic abilities (Costa & McCrae, 1992),
whereas conscientiousness is related to academic effort
(Trautwein, Lüdtke, Roberts, Schnyder, & Niggli, 2009).
When it comes to peer perceptions, evaluations of bright
students seem to differ from those of hard-working students.
Several studies have shown that students whose academic
success is due to effort are regarded less positively than
students whose academic success is due to high ability
(Juvonen & Murdock, 1993, 1995; Tannenbaum, 1962). In
a similar vein, Pelkner et al. (2002) showed that it is the
studiousness of students in particular that is evaluated
negatively by peers (see also Rentzsch et al., 2011; van der
Linden, Scholte, Cillessen, Nijenhuis, & Segers, 2010).
Because conscientiousness is characterised by academic
orientation and academic effort, whereas openness is charac-
terised by academic orientation and academic abilities, we
assumed that being labelled a Streber would be related to
high conscientiousness but not to openness.
Neuroticism is characterised by anxiety, emotional insta-
bility, nervousness and worrying (John & Srivastava, 1999).
However, students who are perceived as Strebers are usually
not described in such terms. Moreover, findings regarding
the relation between neuroticism and victimisation seem to
be inconsistent: On the one hand, it has been found that
neuroticism is related to being the target of teasing or bully-
ing (Georgesen et al., 1999; Tani, Greenman, Schneider, &
Fregoso, 2003). On the other hand, there are studies showing
no connection between neuroticism and being the target of
victimisation (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002; Slee & Rigby,
1993). We therefore decided to test the relation between
neuroticism and being labelled a Streber in an explorative
manner.
PERSONALITY AND LABELLING OTHERS
When investigating the relation between the Big Five and the
tendency to label other students as Strebers, we consulted
research demonstrating the link between personality and
certain social behaviours (e.g. Funder & Colvin, 1991;
Nezlek, Schütz, Schröder-Abé, & Smith, 2011; Ozer &
Benet-Martínez, 2006; see also the special issue on personal-
ity and social relations in European Journal of Personality,
2004, volume 18). For example, it has been shown that the
Big Five are related to classroom behaviour and adjustment
in the long run (Graziano et al., 1997). More specifically,
certain personality traits predispose people to antisocial be-
haviour (Bollmer, Harris, & Milich, 2006).
For example, extraversion is related to antisocial interac-
tions such as bullying and teasing (Georgesen et al., 1999;
Tani et al., 2003). It has been shown that extraverted students
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Streber 413
show more social dominance and influence in class than
introverted students (van der Linden et al., 2010). As we
refer to the labelling of others as Strebers as a form of antiso-
cial teasing, we assumed that students who label others as
Strebers would exhibit high extraversion.
In addition, we argue that disagreeableness should also
play a role in the labelling of students as Strebers. Disagree-
able individuals are described as demanding, cold, not for-
giving, stubborn and not compassionate (Costa & McCrae,
1992). In a similar vein, a study by Jensen-Campbell and
Graziano (2001) revealed that disagreeable adolescents are
less likely to use constructive tactics such as compromise to
cope with interpersonal conflict than agreeable adolescents.
In accordance with that, Georgesen et al. (1999) showed
that disagreeableness was related to teasing. We therefore
assumed that students who tease others for being Strebers
would have lower scores on agreeableness than other
students.
For a long time, conscientiousness has been studied as a
trait that is associated with intrapersonal aspects such as
achievement and effort at school (see Jensen-Campbell &
Malcolm, 2007). But recently, interpersonal aspects of con-
scientiousness have been emphasised (Jensen-Campbell &
Malcolm, 2007; Nezlek et al., 2011), and it has been demon-
strated that underlying factors such as honesty, self-control,
social responsibility, or rule orientation have social implica-
tions (Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005).
For example, Jensen-Campbell and Malcolm (2007) found
that low levels of conscientiousness were linked to attention
difficulties and externalising problem behaviours that can be
seen as indicators of poor self-regulatory skills and lack of
emotional control. In accordance with that, research has
shown that low levels of conscientiousness are related to
antisocial behaviour and teasing (Bollmer et al., 2006;
Georgesen et al., 1999). We therefore expected students
who label others as Strebers to be less conscientious than
other students.
THE CURRENT STUDIES
In the current article, we investigated two questions. First, we
examined whether being labelled a Streber and labelling
others as Strebers are connected to personality traits. We
expected students who are labelled Strebers to exhibit lower
extraversion and higher conscientiousness than other class-
mates and hypothesised that students who label others as
Strebers would be more extraverted, less agreeable and less
conscientious than other classmates. Second, we investigated
whether the labelling of students as Strebers and the relation
between personality and labelling are affected by the class-
room context. Building on research that has shown that the
average classroom performance has an effect on individual
perceptions of students (Huguet et al., 2009; Marsh & Parker,
1984), we assumed that the performance level of a class
would be an important factor influencing the perception
of students as Strebers. We therefore assumed that high-
performance contexts would create a competitive atmosphere
and thus a climate where students are easily at risk of falling
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per
414 K. Rentzsch et al.
behind. Thus, in such contexts, the striving of the others would
not be welcome. We hypothesised that in high-performance
contexts, students might tend to devalue those who excel
and fit the characteristics of a stereotype (Bishop et al., 2004;
Tesser, 1988).
In addition, our research aimed to establish and compare
different methods for identifying Strebers and students who
label others because there has been no established method
up to now. In Study 1, a nomination task was used to identify
so-called Strebers, and self-ratings were used to identify
those who label others (whom we call teasers). In Study 2,
we identified Strebers and teasers in a more sophisticated
way using peer ratings in a round robin design and social
relations analysis in order to investigate whether the findings
with respect to personality traits from the first study could be
conceptually replicated.
STUDY 1
In extending previous research, we examined the effects of
personality traits in predicting the labelling of students as
Strebers. In contrast to previous studies, we considered the
targets of the labelling as well as those who label others.
Method
Participants
Three hundred seventy-two students from 17 eighth-grade
classes at six German schools were contacted to participate
in the study. In the end, 317 students (174 girls, 143 boys)
participated. This dropout was primarily due to parents not
giving consent and to students being ill on the day when
the study was conducted. Participants’ ages ranged from 13
to 17 years (M = 14.1, SD = 0.5). Class size varied from 16
to 28 students. It is important to mention that in the German
school system, students share the same lectures with their
classmates and therefore stay together in class most of the
time at school. Thus, they get to know each other very well,
which allows them to provide precise ratings of each other.
Measures
Personality. The Big Five personality traits were assessed
with the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle,
1991; German adaptation by Lang, Lüdtke, & Asendorpf,
2001). Responses were made on 5-point Likert scales
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Three items had to be excluded from the analyses (one item
each from the agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness
scales) because of low corrected item-total correlations and
internal consistencies (cf. Roth, 2002, for similar results with
adolescents). Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alphas) of
the final scales were .77 (neuroticism), .83 (extraversion), .78
(openness), .62 (agreeableness) and .76 (conscientiousness).2
2
The low reliability of agreeableness is consistent with past research that has
shown that the internal consistency of agreeableness measured with the German
version of the BFI is about 0.67 (see Lang et al., 2001). Furthermore, scales such
as the BFI or NEO Five Factor Inventory have revealed low internal consisten-
cies for agreeableness in early adolescence (e.g. Roth, 2002).
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Strebers. To identify students who were labelled Strebers
by their peers, we used a nomination procedure. All
students received a list with the names of their classmates,
and each name was linked to a numeric code. Participants
were asked to write down the codes of two of their
classmates who were most likely to be considered
Strebers.3 As the frequencies of nominations were not
normally distributed, we classified students who had been
nominated into the category ‘Streber’ and students who had
not been nominated into the category ‘not a Streber.’
Teasers. To identify students who labelled others as
Strebers, we used a one-item self-rating (‘How often have
you called a classmate “Streber”?’, Pelkner et al., 2002).
Responses were made on a 4-point Likert-type scale
(1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often).
Procedure
Data were collected during regular school days at the end of the
school year. After having received permission from school
authorities, principals, teachers and parents, the questionnaires
were administered to participants during regular class hours in
45-minutes sessions. A research assistant informed the
participants about the purpose of the study, emphasised that
responses were anonymous and explained how to use the
numeric codes. Participants first completed the peer nomina-
tions. After handing each student a list of classmates’ names
with codes, the research assistant assured the students that the
lists would be destroyed after the study. Finally, participants
completed teaser self-ratings and then personality measures.
Strategy for data analysis
The data set was structured hierarchically in that 317 students
were nested in 17 classes, and classes were nested in six
schools. To address this nested data structure, we conducted
multilevel analyses (multilevel random coefficient modelling;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) with the software HLM 7.0
(Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2011) to predict Streber
nominations and teaser self-ratings, respectively. In this study,
we considered two levels: students on Level 1 and classes on
Level 2.4 The Big Five personality traits were treated as
Level-1 predictors. Predictors at Level 1 were group-mean
centred. For all analyses, we considered random slopes models;
when a random effect revealed no meaningful variance, we
treated the variable as fixed in that model. Because Streber
nomination was a dichotomous dependent variable, logistic
multilevel analyses were conducted (HLM Bernoulli option;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Regarding the prediction of teaser
self-ratings, we ran multilevel analyses for ordinal outcomes
3
In a pilot study, we asked students how many students in their class were
generally regarded as Strebers. The majority of students said that there were
about two so-called Strebers. Given this finding, we set a limit of two
nominations.
4
A three-level model with schools at the third level could not be applied be-
cause of the low number of units at Level 3 (six schools). Despite a rather
small number of Level-2 units (17 classes), the number of Level-1 units (stu-
dents) within classes was rather large. The estimation of multilevel regres-
sion coefficients and their standard errors was still reliable (cf. Asendorpf,
Penke, & Back, 2011; Maas & Hox, 2005).
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Table 1. Summary of correlations, means and standard deviations
for predictors and outcome measures at Level 1 (students), Study 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Neuroticism —
2. Extraversion .21 —
3. Openness .09 .29 —
4. Agreeableness .21 .09 .18 —
5. Conscientiousness .12 .06 .18 .39 —
6. Streber nomination .02 .12 .06 .06 .36 —
7. Teaser self-rating .02 .17 .02 .30 .30 .20 —
M 2.86 3.69 3.54 3.46 3.11 0.32 2.22
SD 0.74 0.75 0.71 0.58 0.70 0.47 0.83
Note: N = 316 to 317.
(HLM Ordinal option). Regression coefficients in both types of
analyses correspond to log-odds ratios. As the regression coef-
ficients in multilevel analyses for ordinal outcomes refer to the
log-odds of a response to the first category of a variable (e.g. the
response ‘1’ in teaser self-ratings) relative to responses to the
other categories, the first category should be coded towards
the positive end of the variable (e.g. ‘I often called someone a
“Streber”’) to facilitate the interpretation of coefficients. There-
fore, scores for teaser self-ratings were inverted prior to multi-
level analyses.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations between all variables
are listed in Table 1. Level-1 regression coefficients for
multilevel models predicting Streber nominations and teaser
self-ratings are shown in Table 2.
Focusing on Streber nominations, as expected, conscien-
tiousness was significantly positively related to being nomi-
nated a Streber in class (t = 3.94, p = .001), whereas openness
did not reveal a significant effect (t = 1.11, p = .27). Further-
more, the likelihood of being nominated a Streber in class
significantly increased with decreasing scores on extraversion
(t = 2.50, p = .01). Thus, introverted and conscientious
classmates were nominated as Strebers. Neuroticism and
agreeableness did not reveal significant effects (ps > .26).
With respect to the teaser self-ratings, conscientiousness
yielded a significant negative effect (t = 3.91, p < .001). In
line with our hypotheses, students with higher extraversion
(t = 3.66, p < .001) and lower scores on agreeableness
(t = 3.75, p < .001) reported labelling others as Strebers
more often than other students. Neuroticism and openness
did not show significant effects (ps > .70).5
STUDY 2
In Study 2, we aimed to replicate the findings from the first
study using different operationalisations of so-called Strebers
and teasers. The conceptualization of the Streber phenomenon
was extended in that we considered the perception of students
5 Participants
Additional analyses were conducted with sex as a further Level-1 predictor.
As results revealed the same effects when sex was included, we did not in-
clude it in the reported analyses.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Streber 415
Table 2. Coefficients from multilevel models describing relations
between the Big Five and outcome measures at Level 1 (students),
Study 1
7
Streber nomination Teaser self-rating
Intercept 0.96** (0.16) 2.90 ** (0.26)
Neuroticism 0.00 (0.21) 0.06 (0.16)
Extraversion 0.52* (0.21) 0.61** (0.17)
Openness 0.25 (0.22) 0.03 (0.21)
Agreeableness 0.45 (0.39) 0.82** (0.22)
Conscientiousness 1.46** (0.37) 0.70** (0.18)
Note: Columns represent different models, cells show coefficients from
multilevel analyses and standard errors (in parentheses), N = 316 to 317.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
as Strebers as a two-sided process and took into account that
the perception of another student depends not only on the
characteristics of the target but also on the characteristics of
the perceiver. For further illustration, Bill’s rating of Anna as
a typical Streber depends not only on Anna’s characteristics
but also on Bill’s tendency to stigmatise his fellow students.
The Social Relations Model (SRM; Kenny, 1994) provides a
conceptual and statistical framework for such dyadic processes.
The SRM proposes that the rating of another person can be
decomposed into three components (i.e. perceiver effect, target
effect and relationship effect). For example, the perception of
another student as a Streber consists of the average tendency
of the rater to label others as Strebers (i.e. perceiver effect,
‘teaser’), the average effect of the target person to be perceived
as a Streber by his or her classmates (i.e. target effect, ‘Streber’)
and the specific tendency of a specific rater to perceive a specific
target as a Streber (i.e. relationship effect). Target effects are
similar to the mean of the ratings a student receives from all
other classmates controlling for the average tendency of each
of the classmates to rate others in a certain way. A perceiver
effect reflects the mean of the ratings a student gives to his or
her classmates controlling for how each classmate is seen by
the other students in class (the formulas can be found in detail
in Kenny, 1994, p. 236). Therefore, the rating of a student as a
Streber can be seen as a kind of conglomerate of the target’s
reputation in class, the rater’s teasing tendencies and the specific
relationship between them. In contrast to Study 1, the design of
Study 2 enabled us to separate the tendency of the rater to label
others as Strebers from the effect of the target person to be
perceived as a Streber in class and vice versa.
In Study 2, we extracted target and perceiver effects of
Streber ratings via social relations analysis and used them as
new indicators of Strebers and teasers, respectively. Apart from
that, we examined whether the findings from Study 1 would
also hold when students’ academic achievement was included
as a control variable in the multilevel models. Furthermore,
we tested whether the average classroom achievement would
contribute to the relations mentioned earlier.
Method
Four hundred forty-two students from 20 eighth-grade classes at
eight German schools were contacted to participate in the study.
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per
416 K. Rentzsch et al.
In total, 358 students participated in the study at the end of the
school year. This dropout was primarily due to parents not
giving consent and to students being ill on the day when the
study was conducted in class. Participants who had problems
understanding the instructions or who skipped full pages of the
questionnaire (3%, 12 students) and participants who did not
provide ratings on any target (4%, 16 students) were excluded
from the analyses (Kenny, 2007). The final sample consisted
of 330 students (163 girls, 157 boys)6 from 20 classes. Partici-
pants’ ages ranged from 13 to 17 years (M = 14.3, SD = 0.6).
Measures
Personality. As in Study 1, the Big Five personality traits
were assessed with the BFI (John et al., 1991; German
adaptation by Lang et al., 2001). One item had to be
excluded from the analyses (openness) because of a low
corrected item-total correlation (cf. Roth, 2002, for similar
results). Internal consistencies of the final scales were .74
(neuroticism), .82 (extraversion), .79 (openness), .61
(agreeableness) and 0.76 (conscientiousness).7
Strebers and teasers. Using a round robin design, students
had to rate each of their classmates and indicate the extent to
which they think the other student is a Streber (one indicator;
‘I think X is a Streber’). Responses were made on 7-point
Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). To guarantee anonymity, we used numeric
codes on the answer sheets. All students received a list
with the names of their classmates, and each name was
linked to a numeric code. The numeric codes were
presented in a random order.
Academic achievement. Individual grade averages were
computed by calculating the mean of the students’ self-
reported grades in math, physics, German and English. Class
grade averages were computed by calculating the mean of all
individual grade averages within one class. In the German
grading system, low scores correspond with high
achievements. For ease of interpretation, scores were inverted
prior to analyses, such that high scores represent high
achievement.
Procedure
The procedure closely resembled that of Study 1. Participants
first completed personality measures and then the round robin
design. In accordance with ethical considerations and parental
as well as school consent, we used numeric codes in order to
guarantee anonymity. A research assistant assured the students
that the lists with students’ names would be destroyed after the
study. Participants provided information on demographics and
individual grades at the end of the questionnaire.
Strategy for data analysis
In the current study, social relations effects of Streber peer
ratings were computed via social relations analysis using
6
Ten participants did not provide information on their sex.
7
See footnote 2.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
the R package Triple R (Schmukle, Schönbrodt, & Back,
2010).8 Group size varied from 8 to 27 participants. Target
and perceiver effects were uncentered as classes varied
with regard to class size and class grade average. Thereafter,
we ran multilevel analyses with the software HLM 7.0
(Raudenbush et al., 2011) to predict target and perceiver
effects on Streber perceptions. As in Study 1, students were
modelled at Level 1 nested in classes at Level 2. Predictors
at Level 1 were group-mean centred and entered into the
models simultaneously to control for their intercorrelations.
In the first model, the SRM target and perceiver effects
were predicted by Big Five personality traits. In the second
model, target and perceiver effects were predicted by the
Big Five controlling for individual grade average.9 In the
third model, class grade average was entered as a predictor
at Level 2. Prior to analyses, class grade average scores were
z-standardised across all classes. This procedure is similar to
the grand-mean centering of the Level-2 predictor.
Results
Social relations analysis
The analysis revealed that perceiver, target and relationship
variances were significantly different from zero (ps < .001),
indicating that Streber ratings did not depend on only one
of the components. Twenty-five per cent of the variance
represented target variance, reflecting consensus within
classes in rating students as Strebers. Perceiver variance
was about 21%. Relationship variance was particularly large
(54%). This is a typical finding as measurement error could
not be separated from relationship variance because there
were no multiple indicators of Streber ratings. Furthermore,
Streber ratings did not show reciprocity effects: Generalised
reciprocity, the correlation between perceiver and target
effects (r = .08, p = .41) and dyadic reciprocity, the correla-
tion between relationship effects (r = .002, p = .93), were
almost zero. This finding indicates that perceiving others
as Strebers is not answered by being perceived as a Streber
in return.
Multilevel analyses
Descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables are
listed in Table 3. Multilevel models were used to predict
Streber target effects and Streber perceiver effects (Table 4).
Predicting Streber target effects. Matching the results
from Study 1, we found a significant positive effect of
conscientiousness on being perceived as a Streber in class
8
Triple R is a package for the software R that analyses round robin data
based on the Social Relations Model and its formulae provided by Kenny
(1994). We also ran social relations analyses with the classical software
BIGSOREMO (Kenny, 2007), which revealed almost identical results.
9
Additional analyses were conducted with sex as a further Level-1 predictor.
As sex did not change any of the other effects, we did not include it in the
reported analyses. We also conducted multilevel analyses with sex  person-
ality interactions as additional predictors across Study 1 and Study 2. Out of
20 possible interaction effects, there was only one significant interaction ef-
fect (i.e. boys who were low in conscientiousness were more prone to label
others as Strebers than boys high in conscientiousness; for girls, it was the
reverse).
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Streber 417

Table 3. Summary of correlations, means and standard deviations for predictors and outcome measures at Level 1 (students), Study 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Neuroticism —
2. Extraversion .22 —
3. Openness .06 .27 —
4. Agreeableness .21 .01 .05 —
5. Conscientiousness .22 .19 .27 .27 —
6. Grade .02 .05 .13 .09 .26 —
7. Streber target effect .09 .02 .17 .05 .30 .62 —
8. Streber perceiver effect .15 .03 .02 .31 .14 .05 .14 —
M 2.87 3.57 3.54 3.55 3.13 4.36 1.98 1.98
SD 0.69 0.74 0.69 0.52 0.64 0.67 0.92 0.86

Note: N = 317 to 330.

Table 4. Coefficients from multilevel models describing relations between the Big Five, individual grade average, and outcome measures at
Level 1 (students), Study 2

Streber target effect Streber perceiver effect

Big Five Big Five + grade Big Five Big Five + grade

Intercept 1.99** (0.09) 2.01** (0.09) 2.00** (0.09) 2.00** (0.09)

Neuroticism 0.13 (0.08) 0.06 (0.06) 0.10 (0.08) 0.09 (0.07)
Extraversion 0.12 (0.08) 0.08 (0.07) 0.01 (0.06) 0.01 (0.07)
Openness 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.06) 0.12 (0.07) 0.12 (0.07)
Agreeableness 0.01 (0.14) 0.02 (0.11) 0.31** (0.09) 0.32** (0.09)
Conscientiousness 0.62** (0.10) 0.33** (0.08) 0.00 (0.08) 0.03 (0.08)
Grade 0.79** (0.10) 0.14 (0.08)

Note: Columns represent different models, cells show coefficients from multilevel analyses and standard errors (in parentheses), N = 317–330.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

(t = 6.10, p < .001) in the first model. Again, in line with our
hypothesis, openness did not have a significant effect
(t = 0.49, p = .62). Extraversion was negatively but not
significantly related to the Streber target effect (t = 1.40,
p = .18). Thus, in contrast to Study 1, the risk of being
perceived as a Streber was not higher for more introverted
students in class. All other Big Five factors did not reveal
significant effects (ps > .14).
In the second model, we used the Big Five as predictors
and controlled for individual grade average. If the relation
between conscientiousness and being perceived as a Streber
in class could be fully explained by academic achievement,
then the regression coefficient between conscientiousness
and the target effect would no longer be significant when
controlling for individual grade average. This was not the
case (Table 4). Instead, conscientiousness still significantly
predicted the Streber target effect (t = 4.14, p = .001). In line
with the results of the first model (without controlling for
grade average), all other Big Five factors did not reveal
significant effects (ps > .25).
Additionally, a further analysis including main effects
and interaction effects between personality predictors and
individual grade average indicated a significant interaction
between conscientiousness and individual grade average
(b = 0.61, t = 5.33, p < .001; with main effects remaining sig-
nificant). For examining the direction of the effect, Level 1
equations for this interaction effect were estimated for
students at 1 SD above the mean and 1 SD below the mean
of individual grade average: In students with higher individ-
ual grades, the relation between conscientiousness and being
perceived as a Streber was stronger (b = 0.78) as compared
with students with lower individual grade averages in class
(b = 0.08). Thus, the positive relation between conscientious-
ness and being perceived as a Streber in class was especially
pronounced in students with high individual grade averages.
The simple slopes for values on conscientiousness 1 SD
above and 1 SD below the mean are displayed in Figure 1.10
In the third model, we ran intercepts-and-slopes-as-
outcomes analyses (Burstein, Linn, & Capell, 1978;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to examine whether the rela-
tions between individual variables such as personality
traits and the target effect were moderated by classroom
context and whether the classroom context had an impact
on the Streber target effect per se. Although our first two
models had not yielded a significant main effect of
10
We also conducted additional multilevel analyses including interaction
effects between the other personality predictors and individual grade average
for both outcome measures. None of them was significant. Models with all
two- way and three-way interaction effects (individual grade average
personality and individual grade average  personality  class grade aver-
age) could not be computed because there were too many parameters than
would be feasible to estimate given the small sample or group sizes (Maas
& Hox, 2005).

Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per
418 K. Rentzsch et al.
Figure 1. Simple slopes of Streber target effects on conscientiousness at
high and low levels of individual grade average.
extraversion on being rated a Streber in class, the analysis
revealed that the negative relation between extraversion
and the Streber target effect was moderated by class grade
average (g = 0.17, t = 2.70, p = .01). For examining the
direction of the effect, within-class equations for this
cross-level interaction effect (consisting of an intercept
and the slope for extraversion) were estimated for classes
at 1 SD above the mean and 1 SD below the mean of
class grade average (see Huguet et al., 2009; Nezlek &
Plesko, 2003). The negative effect of extraversion on the
target effect could be found only in high-achieving classes
(b = 0.23) but not in low-achieving classes (b = 0.11). Only
in high-achieving classes were introverted students at a
higher risk of being perceived as a Streber than extraverted
students. The simple slopes for values on extraversion 1 SD
above and 1 SD below the mean are displayed in Figure 2.
We also explored cross-level interactions for the other Big
Five variables. None of them was significant (ps > .11).
Furthermore, we found that the relation between individ-
ual grade and the target effect at Level 1 was moderated
by class grade average (g = 0.27, t = 2.81, p = .01). Again,
within-class equations for this cross-level interaction effect
were estimated for classes 1 SD above the mean and 1 SD
below the mean of class grade average. The positive effect
of individual grade average on the Streber target effect
was much stronger in high-achieving classes (b = 1.06) as
compared with low-achieving classes (b = 0.53). Especially
in high-performance classes, students with good grades were
at higher risk of being the target of the Streber label than
students with lower academic achievements (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Simple slopes of Streber target effects on extraversion at high and
low levels of class grade average.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Figure 3. Simple slopes of Streber target effects on individual grade average
at high and low levels of class grade average.
With respect to the relevance of a high-performance con-
text, we also tested whether the outcome measure (Streber
target effect) alone was determined by class grade average.
Results showed that being rated a Streber (as indicated by
the intercept of the Streber target effect) also varied across
classes with respect to the class’ grade average: g = 0.25,
t = 3.14, p = .01, indicating that the phenomenon of being
perceived as a Streber was stronger in high-achieving classes
as compared with low-achieving classes. In high-performance
contexts, students were at higher risk of being rated as Strebers
than in low-performance contexts.
Predicting Streber perceiver effects. With respect to the
question of who labels others as Strebers, agreeableness
significantly predicted Streber perceiver ratings (t = 3.34,
p = .001) in the first model. Students low in agreeableness
in particular tended to rate others as Strebers. This finding
supported our expectations and the results from Study 1.
The effect for openness (t = 1.65, p = .10) was not
significant, although there was a moderate trend indicating
that students with lower scores on openness had a stronger
tendency to rate others as Strebers. All other main effects
were not significant (ps > .23). Results remained the same
when controlling for individual grade average in the second
model (Table 4). 11
Although we had not provided hypotheses about the
relation between individual grade average and rating others
as Strebers, individual grade average (t = 1.70, p = .09)
revealed a moderate trend indicating that students with lower
grades had a stronger tendency to rate others as Strebers.
Furthermore, results from an intercepts-and-slopes-as-
outcomes analysis (third model) revealed that the negative
relation between individual grade average and Streber
perceiver effect was significantly moderated by class grade
average (g = 0.20, t = 2.01, p = .04). Within-class
equations indicated that the negative effect of individual grade
average was true for high-achieving classes (b = 0.36) but not
for low-achieving classes (b = 0.04). The simple slopes for
values on individual grade average 1 SD above and 1 SD below
the mean are displayed in Figure 4. As can be seen in Figure 4,
only in high-achieving classes were students with lower grades
more prone to rate others as Strebers than students with higher
11
See footnote 10.
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Figure 4. Simple slopes of Streber perceiver effects on individual grade av-
erage at high and low levels of class grade average.
grades. All other cross-level interactions were not significant
(ps > .26).12
With regard to the impact of classroom achievement on
rating others as Strebers, results indicated that the ratings
varied significantly across classes with respect to their grade
average (g = 0.24, t = 2.90, p = .01). Perceiving others as
Strebers occurred in high-achieving classes in particular but
less so in low-achieving classes, supporting our assumption
that a high level of achievement in class fosters the devalua-
tion of students as Strebers.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
By taking personality into account, the current study was
the first to investigate factors above and beyond academic
achievement in predicting the labelling of students as
Strebers. In doing so, we analysed both targets and actors
of the labelling.
12
Besides considering the Big Five factors, we created an agency (extraver-
sion, openness) and a communion (conscientiousness, agreeableness, emo-
tional stability) index according to Digman (1997) and tested our
hypotheses. Across studies, analyses revealed that communion predicted be-
ing nominated as a Streber (Study 1: b = 0.96, t = 3.25, p = .001) as well as
being perceived as a Streber (Study 2: b = 0.43, t = 3.62, p < .001), whereas
agency did not (Study 1: b = 0.25, t = 1.06, p = .29; Study 2: b = 0.01,
t = 0.08, p = .94). Results agree with the picture that was shown for the
Big Five factors: We assume that individuals high in communion were more
likely to be called Strebers because conscientiousness (which yielded signif-
icant effects as a separate Big Five factor) is included in the communion in-
dex. Furthermore, communion showed a significant negative effect on
labelling other students as Strebers (Study 1: b = 1.53, t = 5.73, p < .001)
and on perceiving other students as Strebers (Study 2: b = 0.37, t = 3.31,
p = .001). Additionally, agency was significantly related to labelling other
students in class as Strebers in Study 1(b = 0.58, t = 2.21, p = .04), whereas
it was not significantly related to perceiving others as Strebers in Study 2
(b = 0.07, t = 0.88, p = .38). Overall, the results on agency/communion
correspond well with the results of the Big Five personality traits (e.g. extra-
version, an important factor for agency, was significantly related to labelling
others in Study 1 but not in Study 2). Students who are labelled as Strebers
are characterised by high communion, whereas students who tend to label
others as Strebers exhibit low communion and, in Study 1, high agency.
Across both studies, we did not find interaction effects between agency/com-
munion and gender, individual grade average, or class grade average on be-
ing labelled a Streber or labelling others as Strebers, except one interaction in
Study 1 (b = 0.68, t = 2.19, p = .04), revealing that boys higher in commu-
nion were more often called Strebers than boys lower in communion. For
girls, there was no effect.
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Streber 419
Predictors of being labelled and of labelling others
Extending previous research, our results show that personal-
ity traits significantly contribute to the labelling of students
as Strebers even when controlling for academic achievement.
We found that conscientious students were more likely than
less conscientious students to be perceived as Strebers in
class. In contrast to conscientiousness, there was no signifi-
cant relation with openness. This is an interesting finding
because both conscientiousness and openness have been found
to be related to academic orientation. However, conscientious-
ness, in particular, is associated with effort and studiousness,
whereas openness is associated with ability (Costa & McCrae,
1992; Trautwein et al., 2009). Our results that indicated that
students who are labelled as Strebers are more conscientious
than others in their class support findings that emphasise the
negative perception of effort by peers (Juvonen & Murdock,
1993; Landsheer et al., 1998; Rentzsch et al., 2011). However,
as we did not assess intelligence or effort per se, it would be
relevant to include other objective measures of ability or effort
aside from academic achievement in future research and to
investigate their predictive values in the process of the label-
ling. Aside from the main effect of conscientiousness, our
results revealed that the relation between conscientiousness
and being perceived as a Streber was particularly pronounced
in high-achieving students as compared with low-achieving
students. Thus, even though previous research has primarily
emphasised individual grades in predicting being labelled as
a Streber (e.g. Pelkner & Boehnke, 2003), our research points
to the importance of conscientiousness because conscientious-
ness reinforced the effect of grades on being labelled.
In addition, we found that students who were viewed as
Strebers were more introverted than their classmates (partic-
ularly in high-achieving classes). This finding is in accor-
dance with studies on interpersonal conflict (e.g. Scholte,
Engels, Overbeek, de Kemp, & Haselager, 2007), and it
dovetails with the description of so-called Strebers as being
shy or withdrawn (Rentzsch & Schütz, 2012a). Building
a bridge between introversion and being labelled, such
behavioural tendencies might have fostered the perception
of being a Streber (see also Back, Baumert, et al., 2011).
Considering agreeableness and neuroticism in being labelled
as a Streber, we did not find significant effects across both
studies. The effects for neuroticism and agreeableness were
consistently very low suggesting that students labelled as
Strebers are not particularly high or low in emotional stabil-
ity as well as agreeableness.
With respect to the students who label others, our studies
consistently demonstrated that students who tend to label
others as Strebers were less agreeable than other students in
class. Interestingly, this finding fits with previous research
on teasing and interpersonal conflict, suggesting that the
actors of the teasing are those who show little compassion
to others (Bollmer et al., 2006; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano,
2001; Tani et al., 2003). In Study 1, we found that those who
label others were more extraverted and less conscientious
than their classmates. Our results are in line with findings
by Georgesen et al. (1999) who showed that teasers are
particularly low in agreeableness and conscientiousness and
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per
420 K. Rentzsch et al.
high in extraversion. Furthermore, our result on conscien-
tiousness in those who label others underline recent findings
that conscientiousness comprises interpersonal aspects (e.g.
students low in conscientiousness exhibit low self-regulatory
skills, which in turn is related to interpersonal problem
behaviour; Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2007).
In sum, we found that the effects of conscientiousness
on being the target of the labelling and disagreeableness on
labelling others, as well as extraversion on being the target
of labelling in high-achieving classes were consistent across
both studies. In accordance with previous studies that have
shown that personality traits influence classroom behaviour
and adjustment (Graziano et al., 1997), our findings on
peer perceptions point to the relevance of personality charac-
teristics in labelled students. For example, because
introversion is negatively related to social competency
(Graziano & Ward, 1992) and to adjustment in peer relation-
ships (Graziano et al., 1997) but positively related to general
peer victimisation (Mynard & Joseph, 1997), introverted
students who are perceived as Strebers are potentially at risk
of becoming the targets of ongoing stigmatisation.
However, the significant effects of extraversion and con-
scientiousness on labelling others as Strebers could not be
replicated in Study 2. That result may be due to the different
operationalisations of students who label others: self-ratings
in Study 1 and perceiver effects in Study 2. First, the differ-
ence may be due to the fact that the teaser self-rating in Study
1 referred to self-reported frequencies of behaviour (‘How
often have you called a classmate “Streber”?’), whereas the
other-ratings from Study 2 were about perceptions (‘I think
X is a Streber’) with regard to indicating the extent to which
one perceives others as Strebers. In fact, the method in
Study 2 may be regarded as more indirect because it was less
transparent to participants that the study was on labelling or
stigmatisation. Second, the ratings in the two studies differed
in that Study 1 was about frequencies, and Study 2 was
about intensities. Third, Study 2 corrected for target effects,
whereas Study 1 did not. Fourth, shared method variance
might be an issue: In Study 1, the teaser self-rating was
regressed on personality self-ratings, whereas in Study 2,
other-ratings (the perceiver effect) were regressed on person-
ality self-ratings. As there might have been more common
variance among the self-rating measures in Study 1 as
compared with the other-rating and self-rating measures in
Study 2, this might have fostered stronger effects on labelling
others as Strebers in Study 1 than in Study 2. As the per-
ceiver effects reflect rater tendencies that are not confounded
by the tendencies of the targets and less affected by socially
desirable responding, this approach seems to be the more
solid one and ought to be the procedure of choice in future
studies even if the procedure is very time-consuming.
The importance of class performance
Aside from individual characteristics, our research points out
that the average performance in a class—a context factor that
has not yet been examined in interpersonal perception—
plays a critical role in labelling. Our results showed a consis-
tent pattern: Being perceived as a Streber, perceiving others
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
as Strebers and their relations with extraversion and individ-
ual grade average were found in high-achieving classes in
particular.
Drawing on the literature about the Big-Fish-Little-Pond
effect, it has been suggested that the comparison level of
classes has a strong influence on individual perceptions
(Huguet et al., 2009). It therefore seems plausible that in
high-performance contexts in particular, the striving of peers
is taken seriously and is not easily forgiven. Maybe it is the
competitive atmosphere within high-achieving classes that
leads students to compare themselves with others and—if
that comparison reveals an unfavourable outcome—to devalue
those who excel and fit the characteristics of a stereotype
(Bishop et al., 2004).
Strengths, limitations and directions for future research
The current research benefits from several methodological
advantages. Multilevel random coefficient modelling was used
to take the hierarchical data structure into account and to simul-
taneously examine the effects of Level-2 (e.g. class grade
average) and Level-1 variables (e.g. extraversion). Only with
such analyses can the impact of classroom achievement on
individual level relations be analysed properly (Raudenbush
& Bryk, 2002). In addition, it should be emphasised that our
data go beyond self-reports because being labelled was primar-
ily assessed via peer ratings. More specifically, we used peer
nominations in Study 1 and peer perceptions from a round
robin design in Study 2. We extended the one-sided perceptions
from Study 1 by using two-sided perceptions in Study 2: By
partitioning peer perceptions into perceiver, target and relation-
ship effects, we took the dyadic nature of interpersonal percep-
tions into account (Kenny, 1994).
Despite those methodological advantages, there are also
methodological limitations. As outlined before, because of
the operationalisation of being labelled a Streber by interper-
sonal perceptions in Study 2, we did not assess interpersonal
behaviour such as teasing or bullying. It is therefore not
clear whether somebody who strongly tends to rate others
as Strebers also tends to publicly use the term for derogation
in the classroom or engages in other active bullying. Al-
though our results are similar to those from studies on teasing
or interpersonal conflict, they still cannot be generalised to
interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Additionally, our
hypotheses on personality traits and being labelled were
based on research showing that personality is reflected in
observable behaviour (Borkenau et al., 2004; Vazire, 2010),
which causes interpersonal perceptions (Back, Baumert,
et al., 2011; Funder, 1999). According to the PERSOC
(personality and social relationships) model (Back, Baumert,
et al., 2011), certain cues of the observed person, which
correspond with the personality traits of the observed person,
are supposed to be connected to interpersonal perceptions in
the observer. Still, the question remains regarding which observ-
able cues have the potential to foster perceptions of a student as a
Streber depending on his or her personality. For example,
introverted students might have been perceived as Strebers
because they wore glasses, unfashionable clothes or sat alone
in class (see Back, Schmukle, et al., 2011, for the cue correlates
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per

of extraversion). Here, glasses, clothes or seating distance could
have served as cues that mediated the relation between personality
and interpersonal perceptions. Future research should therefore try
to replicate the current findings and include observations of be-
haviour (see the special issue on Personality Psychology as a truly
behavioural science, Furr, 2009) and relevant cues. Moreover, our
results point to the Big Five personality traits and academic
achievement as meaningful predictors of the labelling. However,
there was still variance in the outcome measures that remained
unexplained. Considering the negative connotation of the label
Streber, future research is clearly warranted to examine further
predictors of the labelling of students as Strebers.
An important limitation is the correlational and cross-
sectional design of our study, which makes it impossible to
draw conclusions about the causal direction of the effects that
have been found. For example, introversion could be a risk
factor of being labelled a Streber, but the reverse pattern
could also be true: Maybe students become more introverted
and withdrawn because of the labelling. Future research should
use longitudinal or experimental designs to provide insight
into the causes of the labelling as well as the long-term
consequences.
Future studies also should investigate whether our results
can be generalised to other societies. The representativeness
of our studies is limited in that both samples were drawn
from German schools. However, there are some indications
that the phenomenon is not restricted to Germany or Europe
and that similar labels are used in countries like the USA or
Israel (Bishop et al., 2004; Boehnke et al., 2004; Brown
et al., 1994; Rentzsch et al., 2011; Tal & Babad, 1990).
Clearly, cross-cultural research is needed to understand the
correlates of this phenomenon in different societies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are grateful to the German National Academic Founda-
tion for the financial support of this research.
REFERENCES
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-
relationship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface
personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71(4), 629–666.
DOI: 10.1111/1467–6494.7104005
Asendorpf, J. B., Penke, L., & Back, M. D. (2011). From dating to
mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes
of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of
Personality, 25(1), 16–30. DOI: 10.1002/per.768
Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. J. A., Hartung, F.-M.,
Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., . . . Wrzus, C. (2011). PERSOC: A
unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of
personality and social relationships. European Journal of Person-
ality, 25(2), 90–107. DOI: 10.1002/per.811
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011). A closer look at
first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and
interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal
of Personality, 25(3), 225–238. DOI: 10.1002/per.790
Bishop, J. H., Bishop, M., Bishop, M., Gelbwasser, L., Green, S.,
Peterson, E., . . . Zuckerman, A. (2004). Why we harass
nerds and freaks: A formal theory of student culture and
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Streber 421
norms. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 235–251. DOI: 10.1111/
j.1746–1561.2004.tb08280.x
Boehnke, K. (2008). Peer pressure: A cause of scholastic under-
achievement? A cross-cultural study of mathematical achieve-
ment among German, Canadian, and Israeli middle school
students. Social Psychology of Education, 11(2), 149–160.
DOI: 10.1007/s11218–007–9041–z
Boehnke, K., Pelkner, A.-K., & Kurman, J. (2004). On the interrelation
of peer climate and school performance in mathematics: A German-
Canadian-Israeli comparison of 14-year-old school students. In B.
N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga
(Eds.), Ongoing themes in psychology and culture. Melbourne,
FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (2006). Reactions to
bullying and peer victimization: Narratives, physiological arousal,
and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 803–828.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.003
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model
of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(5),
515–524. DOI: 10.1016/0191–8869(90)90065–y
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner,
A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and
intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4),
599–614. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.86.4.599
Breidenstein, G., & Meier, M. (2004). ‘Streber’ - zum Verhältnis
von Peer Kultur und Schulerfolg [‘Careerist’ - relationship of
peer culture and success in schools]. Pädagogische Rundschau,
58(5), 549–563.
Brown, B. B., & Klute, C. (2003). Friendships, cliques, and crowds.
In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook
of adolescence (pp. 330–348). Malden, MA, US: Blackwell
Publishing.
Brown, B. B., Mory, M. S., & Kinney, D. (1994). Casting adolescent
crowds in a relational perspective: Caricature, channel, and context.
In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal
relationships during adolescence (pp. 123–167). Thousand Oaks,
CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Burstein, L., Linn, R. L., & Capell, F. J. (1978). Analyzing multilevel
data in the presence of heterogeneous within-class regressions.
Journal of Educational Statistics, 3(4), 347–383.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are
basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.
DOI: 10.1016/0191–8869(92)90236–I
Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F.
(2009). Achievement goal promotion at university: Social
desirability and social utility of mastery and performance goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 119–134.
DOI: 10.1037/a0012824
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256. DOI:
10.1037/0022–3514.73.6.1246
Duden. (2007). Duden - Das Herkunftswörterbuch [Duden - Etymo-
logical dictionary] (4thedn .). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance:
Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward
comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 307–337. DOI:
10.1037/0033–2909.125.3.307
Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to
person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1991). Explorations in behavioral
consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 773–794.
DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.60.5.773
Furr, R. (2009). Personality psychology as a truly behavioural
science. European Journal of Personality, 23(5), 369–401. DOI:
10.1002/per.724
Gaida, C. (2010). Mobbing gegen Streber. Streber-Mobbing in
Deutschland und den USA [Bullying against Strebers. Streber-
bullying in Germany and the USA]. Marburg: Tectum Verlag.
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per
422 K. Rentzsch et al.
Georgesen, J. C., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Young, J. (1999). ‘Just
teasing. . .’: Personality effects on perceptions and life narratives
of childhood teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25(10), 1254–1267. DOI: 10.1177/0146167299258007
Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in
adolescence: Personality and adjustment during a developmental
transition. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 425–439. DOI: 10.1111/
j.1467–6494.1992.tb00979.x
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Finch, J. F. (1997).
The self as a mediator between personality and adjustment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 392–404.
DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.73.2.392
Hornby, A. S. (2005). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of
current English (7thedn .). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huguet, P., Dumas, F., Marsh, H., Régner, I., Wheeler, L., Suls, J.,
. . . Nezlek, J. (2009). Clarifying the role of social comparison in
the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE): An integrative study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 156–170.
DOI: 10.1037/a0015558
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness
as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality,
69(2), 323–362. DOI: 10.1111/1467–6494.00148
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Malcolm, K. T. (2007). The importance
of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal relationships.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 368–383.
DOI: 10.1177/0146167206296104
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G., Workman, K. A.,
Furdella, J. Q., & Egan, S. K. (2002). Agreeableness, extraversion,
and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and
deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(3),
224–251. DOI: 10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A.
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(2ndedn ., pp. 102–138). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five
Inventory - Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of
California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1993). How to promote social
approval: Effects of audience and achievement outcome on
publicly communicated attributions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(2), 365–376. DOI: 10.1037/0022–0663.85.2.365
Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1995). Grade-level differences in
the social value of effort: Implications for self-presentation tactics
of early adolescents. Child Development, 66(6), 1694–1705.
DOI: 10.2307/1131904
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations
analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kenny, D. A. (2007). SOREMO Version V.2. Storrs, CT: University of
Connecticut.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive
ability, personality, and victimization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(5), 889–901. DOI: 10.1037/a0019985
Kowalski, R. M. (2004). Proneness to, perceptions of, and
responses to teasing: The influence of both intrapersonal and
interpersonal factors. European Journal of Personality, 18(4),
331–349. DOI: 10.1002/per.522
Kowalski, R. M., Howerton, E., & McKenzie, M. (2001). Permitted
disrespect: Teasing in interpersonal interactions. In R. M. Kowalski
(Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal
relationships (pp. 177–202). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association.
Landsheer, H. A., Maassen, G. H., Bisschop, P., & Adema, L.
(1998). Can higher grades result in fewer friends? A reexamina-
tion of the relation between academic and social competence.
Adolescence, 33(129), 185–191.
Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Testgüte
und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des
Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittlalten und alten
Erwachsenen [Validity and psychometric equivalence of the
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
German version of the Big Five Inventory in young, middle-aged
and old adults]. Diagnostica, 47(3), 111–121. DOI: 10.1026//
0012–1924.47.3.111
van der Linden, D., Scholte, R. H. J., Cillessen, A. H. N., Nijenhuis,
J. t., & Segers, E. (2010). Classroom ratings of likeability and
popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(5), 669–672.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for
multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. DOI: 10.1027/
1614–2241.1.3.86
Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-
concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond
even if you don’t learn to swim as well? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 47(1), 213–231. DOI: 10.1037/0022–
3514.47.1.213
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personal-
ity in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories
of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(5), 862–877. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.862
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully/victim problems and
their association with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in 8 to
13 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1),
51–54.
Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2003). Affect- and self-based
models of relationships between daily events and daily well-being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 584–596. DOI:
10.1177/0146167203029005004
Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Schröder-Abé, M., & Smith, C. V. (2011). A
cross-cultural study of relationships between daily social interaction
and the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 79
(4), 811–840. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6494.2011.00706.x
Olweus, D. (1990). Bullying among school children. In K. Hurrelmann,
& F. Lösel (Eds.), Health hazards in adolescence (pp. 259–298).
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
(2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. n. (2006). Personality and the pre-
diction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology,
57, 401–421. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127
Pelkner, A.-K., & Boehnke, K. (2003). Streber als Leistungsverwei-
gerer? Projektidee und erstes Datenmaterial einer Studie zu math-
ematischen Schulleistungen [Nerds as achievement objectors?
Project idea and first data material of a study about mathematical
school achievements]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,
6(1), 106–125.
Pelkner, A.-K., Günther, R., & Boehnke, K. (2002). Die Angst vor
sozialer Ausgrenzung als leistungshemmender Faktor. Zum Stel-
lenwert guter mathematischer Schulleistungen unter Gleichaltri-
gen [The fear of social exclusion as an achievement-inhibiting
factor: The value of high mathematics achievement among
peers]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45, 326–340.
Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2002). Peer crowd affiliation
and internalizing distress in childhood and adolescence: A longi-
tudinal follow-back study. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
12(3), 325–351. DOI: 10.1111/1532–7795.00036
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear
models: Applications and data analysis methods (2ndedn .).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2011). HLM7.
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
Rentzsch, K., & Schütz, A. (2012a). Being stigmatized as Streber.
Stereotype characteristics and demographic background. Manu-
script in preparation for publication.
Rentzsch, K., & Schütz, A. (2012b). When high achievement faces so-
cial exclusion: Activating a stereotype of high-achieving students
provokes dysfunctional cognition, negative affect, and reduced task
performance. Manuscript in preparation for publication.
Rentzsch, K., Schütz, A., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2011). Being
labeled nerd. Factors that influence the social acceptance of
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per

high-achieving students. The Journal of Experimental Education,
79(2), 143–168. DOI: 10.1080/00220970903292900
Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R.
(2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical
investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires.
Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744–
6570.2005.00301.x
Roth, M. (2002). Überprüfung der Anwendbarkeit des NEO-Fünf-
Faktoren Inventars (NEO-FFI) bei Jugendlichen im Alter zwischen
14 und 16 Jahren [Evaluation of the applicability of the NEO-Fünf-
Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI; German version of the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory) to adolescents aged 14 to 16 years]. Diagnostica,
48(2), 59–67. DOI: 10.1026//0012–1924.48.2.59
Schmukle, S. C., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Back, M. D. (2010). Triple
R: A package for round robin analyses using R (version 0.3).
Retrieved from http://www.persoc.net/Toolbox/TripleR
Schoener, J. (2010, September 28). Abgemeldet bei den anderen
[Disregarded by the others], ZEIT ONLINE. Retrieved from
http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/schule/zeit-schulfuehrer/2010/
Schulwechsel
Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., Overbeek, G., de Kemp, R.
A. T., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2007). Stability in bullying and
victimization and its association with social adjustment in child-
hood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
35(2), 217–228. DOI: 10.1007/s10802–006–9074–3
Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., &
Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks
and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach.
[Article]. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 509–538. DOI: 10.1111/
j.1467–6494.2010.00625.x
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck’s per-
sonality factors and self-esteem to bully-victim behaviour in
Copyright © 2012 European Association of Personality Psychology
Streber 423
Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differences,
14(2), 371–373. DOI: 10.1016/0191–8869(93)90136–Q
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1990). The teacher’s pet phenomenon: Rate of
occurrence, correlates, and psychological costs. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(4), 637–645. DOI: 10.1037/0022–0663.82.4.637
Tani, F., Greenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso, M. (2003).
Bullying and the Big Five: A study of childhood personality and
participant roles in bullying incidents. School Psychology Inter-
national, 24(2), 131–146. DOI: 10.1177/0143034303024002001
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1962). Adolescent attitudes toward academic
brilliance. New York: Columbia University Bureau of
Publications.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of
social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 21: Social psychological studies of the
self: Perspectives and programs, pp. 181–227). San Diego, CA
US: Academic Press.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Roberts, B. W., Schnyder, I., & Niggli,
A. (2009). Different forces, same consequence: Conscientiousness
and competence beliefs are independent predictors of academic
effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 97(6), 1115–1128. DOI: 10.1037/a0017048
Tyson, K., Darity, W., Jr., & Castellino, D. R. (2005). It’s not ‘a
Black Thing’: Understanding the burden of acting white and
other dilemmas of high achievement. American Sociological
Review, 70(4), 582–605. DOI: 10.1037/0022–0663.82.4.637
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: A
desktop reference. Washington, D.C.: Education Publications
Center, U. S. Department of Education.
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other
knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281–300. DOI: 10.1037/a0017908
Eur. J. Pers. 27: 411–423 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/per