Developmental Psychology

The Functions of Aggression in Gaining, Maintaining,

and Losing Popularity During Adolescence: A Multiple-
Cohort Design
Yvonne H. M. van den Berg, William J. Burk, and Antonius H. N. Cillessen
Online First Publication, August 1, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000786

CITATION
van den Berg, Y. H. M., Burk, W. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2019, August 1). The Functions of
Aggression in Gaining, Maintaining, and Losing Popularity During Adolescence: A Multiple-Cohort
Design. Developmental Psychology. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000786
 Developmental Psychology
© 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000
ISSN: 0012-1649 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000786

The Functions of Aggression in Gaining, Maintaining, and Losing

Popularity During Adolescence: A Multiple-Cohort Design
Yvonne H. M. van den Berg, William J. Burk, and Antonius H. N. Cillessen
Radboud University

This study examined associations between perceived popularity trajectories and changes in proactive and
reactive aggression in middle adolescence. The sample included 1,374 adolescents from 5 cohorts who
were followed from Grade 7 to Grade 9 (49% males, Mage ⫽ 12.67 years, SD ⫽ .67). Popularity
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

trajectories were identified based on initial status and changes in status over time, and linear mixed
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

effects models tested group differences in changes of aggression. The results partially confirmed our
expectation that changes in popularity were associated with specific developmental patterns of proactive
and reactive aggression and also varied as a function of status already achieved. Specifically, adolescents
in groups characterized by gains in status increased in proactive aggression, and those in groups
characterized by losses in status decreased in proactive aggression. A more nuanced pattern of group
differences emerged for reactive aggression. Changes in reactive aggression were only found for groups
characterized by changes in unpopular status. Taken together, these findings suggest that proactive
aggression has universal benefits for popularity in middle adolescence, whereas reactive aggression has
differential costs. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: popularity, proactive aggression, reactive aggression, peer status, adolescence

Numerous studies have shown that aggression is related to a
wide range of negative outcomes and maladjustment (Card,
Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). Yet, in contrast to research on
the detrimental nature of aggression, more and more studies argue
aggression can also be functional and beneficial (Ellis et al., 2012;
Hawley & Bower, 2018). Specifically, they argue that status within
a peer group can be achieved and maintained through the strategic
use of aggression, with high status individuals using aggression
deliberately and in a goal-directed manner to demonstrate their
dominance and control over resources. Empirical studies have
found support for this by demonstrating that perceived popularity
is positively associated with more deliberate and goal-directed
aggression (i.e., proactive aggression), and negatively associated
with unintentional and retaliatory acts of aggression (i.e., reactive
aggression; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). However, the association
between perceived popularity and aggression has recently been
shown to be curvilinear, with both popular and unpopular adoles-
cents exhibiting more proactive and reactive aggression than ad-
olescents of average status (Stoltz, Cillessen, van den Berg, &
Gommans, 2016).
The current study therefore served two purposes. First, to rep-
licate and extend previous findings on the associations between
X Yvonne H. M. van den Berg, William J. Burk, and Antonius H. N.
Cillessen, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University.
The authors are grateful to the respondents, teachers, and school admin-
istrators who made this research possible.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William
J. Burk, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, P.O. Box
9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, the Netherlands. E-mail: w.burk@psych.ru.nl
perceived popularity and the two functions of aggression (i.e.,
proactive and reactive aggression) during adolescents’ first 3 years
in secondary education. Second, to test the idea that prospective
associations between popularity and the two functions of aggres-
sion depends on adolescents’ existing status. Specifically, this
study investigated whether adolescents who obtain, maintain, or
lose popular status and those who obtain, maintain, or lose unpop-
ular status differ in their use of proactive and reactive aggression
over time.
Functions of Aggression
Two functions of aggression are generally distinguished in the
literature: reactive and proactive (Card & Little, 2006; Crick &
Dodge, 1996; Hubbard, McAuliffe, Morrow, & Romano, 2010;
Polman, Orobio de Castro, Koops, van Boxtel, & Merk, 2007).
Reactive aggression stems from the frustration-aggression model
(Berkowitz, 1993; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939)
and is defined as a defensive, retaliatory, and angry reaction to an
actual or perceived offense (Crick & Dodge, 1996). It derives
primarily from feelings of frustration (Dollard et al., 1939; Hub-
bard et al., 2010) and is often described as a dysregulated and
undercontrolled response caused by a range of social information
and emotion processing deficits (Card & Little, 2006; Hubbard et
al., 2010). Proactive aggression is rooted in social– cognitive
learning theory and refers to deliberate acts directed at obtaining a
material or social reward (Bandura, 1973; Card & Little, 2006). It
is therefore also called planned, instrumental, goal-oriented, or
“cold-blooded” aggression.
Reactive and proactive aggression increase from childhood to
adolescence, with a peak in middle adolescence (Fite, Colder,
Lochman, & Wells, 2008). Concurrent associations between pro-

1
 2 VAN DEN BERG, BURK, AND CILLESSEN
active and reactive aggression are moderate to strong across de-
velopment (Fite et al., 2008; Ojanen & Kiefer, 2013; Ostrov,
Murray-Close, Godleski, & Hart, 2013). Yet, the strength of the
association varies considerably across studies (Polman et al.,
2007). Proactive and reactive aggression have also been found to
have different precursors, correlates, and consequences (Hubbard
et al., 2010; Murray-Close & Ostrov, 2009; Ostrov et al., 2013).
This has led to the consensus that proactive and reactive aggres-
sion are related, yet distinct types of aggression with unique
precursors and consequences for child and adolescent development
(Poulin & Boivin, 2000).
Popularity and Functions of Aggression
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The definitions of proactive and reactive aggression suggest that
both functions are distinctively related to youths’ social status.
Traditionally, social status has been conceptualized in terms of
acceptance and likability in the peer group (i.e., sociometric pop-
ularity; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Later, researchers have
realized that youths who are highly accepted by their peers are not
necessarily popular, powerful, or influential (LaFontana & Cil-
lessen, 1998; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). As a result, measures
of perceived popularity were developed to assess a form of social
status reflecting impact, visibility, and social dominance among
peers (see, e.g., Cillessen, 2011). Previous studies investigating the
association between social status and the functions of aggression
predominantly examined status in terms of peer acceptance. These
studies have shown that reactive, but not proactive, aggression is
associated with lower levels of peer acceptance (i.e., peer rejec-
tion) and impaired psychosocial functioning (Card & Little, 2006;
Hubbard et al., 2010; Ostrov et al., 2013). Yet theoretically, it is
perceived popularity that should be related to proactive aggression.
The evolutionary perspective on aggression does not view ag-
gression simply as an undesired behavior, but as a means to gain
resources when used effectively (Ellis et al., 2012; Hawley &
Bower, 2018). As resources (e.g., material objects, information,
and social capital) are often limited, members within any given
society have to compete for these resources. This can be done by
using prosocial or cooperative strategies, or by using more aggres-
sive and coercive strategies. Irrespective of the strategies used,
those who control the most resources are considered to be the most
successful competitors and have the highest status within their
social group. As such, social status predicts high and increasing
levels of aggression as a means of demonstrating individuals’
dominance and control over resources. Based on this perspective,
proactive aggression may be especially related to social status in
terms of perceived popularity (i.e., social dominance), but not
necessarily in terms of peer acceptance (i.e., likability). Therefore,
we focused on (perceived) popularity as a predictor of both pro-
active and reactive aggression.
There is also empirical support for the idea that popularity is
distinctively associated with both proactive and reactive aggres-
sion. In 2003, Prinstein and Cillessen demonstrated that popularity
was concurrently associated with higher levels of proactive ag-
gression and lower levels of reactive aggression. Yet, they found
no prospective association between popularity and either proactive
or reactive aggression. In a recent study by Stoltz and colleagues
(2016), proactive aggression was associated with higher levels of
popularity, whereas reactive aggression was associated with lower
levels of popularity, both concurrently and over time. These stud-
ies both indicated that proactive aggression is more common
among popular youth, whereas reactive aggression seems to be
more common among unpopular youth. However, the findings
from Prinstein and Cillessen (2003) and Stoltz and colleagues
(2016) were based on relatively small samples and a relatively
short time span (1 to 1.5 years). Moreover, the results were to some
extent inconsistent with one another. Therefore, there is a need for
replication with larger samples over a longer period of time.
As popularity is a top priority in middle adolescence (LaFontana
& Cillessen, 2010), it is particularly important to examine the
associations of popularity with proactive and reactive aggression
in this specific developmental period. Proactive and reactive ag-
gression both seem to peak in middle adolescence (Fite et al.,
2008; Ojanen & Kiefer, 2013). Yet, studies also show that high
levels of proactive aggression remain rather stable or sometimes
even further increase, at least among a subgroup of middle ado-
lescents (Ojanen & Kiefer, 2013; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker,
2006). It is argued that this is partially driven by increasing
concerns about social status (Ojanen & Kiefer, 2013). Hence, it is
in this developmental stage that adolescents are more concerned
about their status within the larger peer group and are most likely
to prioritize status over other social goals (Cillessen, Mayeux, Ha,
de Bruyn, & LaFontana, 2014; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010).
Therefore, the first goal of this study was to examine prospective
associations between (changes in) popularity and changes in pro-
active and reactive aggression in middle adolescence. We examine
the development of popularity and both functions of aggression
across 3 years in middle adolescence, a time when attaining
popularity is a top priority and aggression is often seen as a means
to achieve status.
Functions of Aggression Depend on Status Achieved
In the studies by Prinstein and Cillessen (2003) and Stoltz and
colleagues (2016), curvilinear associations between popularity and
the function of aggression were also reported. These effects were
interpreted as indicating that popular and unpopular adolescents
exhibit higher levels of both reactive and proactive aggression than
adolescents of average status. Moreover, it was argued that both
popular and unpopular youth display (increasing levels of) proac-
tive aggression to gain status. This observation leads us to question
whether the prospective association between popularity and pro-
active and reactive aggression are actually the same for youth at
the top and bottom of the status hierarchy. To investigate this idea,
we operationalized popular status in terms of an adolescent’s
initial membership in one of three popularity groups (popular,
average, and unpopular) and changes in group membership over
time (obtain, maintain, or lose). Conceptualizing popularity as
discrete categories provides the possibility to differentiate between
popular and unpopular adolescents and between those who main-
tain, obtain, or lose their status. We propose that unpopular ado-
lescents will not gain status if they exhibit proactive aggression,
and that popular adolescents will not lose status if they exhibit
reactive aggression.
The reasons why the association between popularity and func-
tions of aggression might depend on adolescents’ initial status
involve differences in social-emotional skills and differences in
peers’ reaction to aggressive behaviors. The effective use of pro-
 FUNCTIONS OF AGGRESSION AND POPULARITY
active aggression requires sufficient emotion regulation skills,
social skillfulness, and social knowledge (Crick & Dodge, 1996;
Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997; Hubbard et al.,
2010). Popular adolescents typically have the skills necessary to
strategically use proactive aggression as a means of exerting their
dominance and achieving their goals. Unpopular youth may not be
able to increase their status with proactive aggression as they have
insufficient skills to effectively use this strategic type of aggres-
sion. So, unpopular adolescents may not able to obtain higher
status because of their inability to strategically use aggression to
achieve their goals.
The association between popularity and proactive and reactive
aggression may also depend on adolescents’ initial status because
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
peers may respond differently to aggressive behaviors of popular
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and unpopular adolescents. Peers may accept and support aggres-
sive acts from popular adolescents more than they accept the same
behaviors perpetrated by adolescents of lower status (Hawley &
Bower, 2018). In fact, the use of proactive aggression by an
unpopular adolescent may backfire and result in a loss of status or
at least contribute to the maintenance of their unpopular position.
Similarly, peers may accept (or at least not disapprove of) reactive
aggression by popular adolescents, whereas the same behaviors are
disapproved of or even punished when displayed by unpopular
adolescents. Thus peers may react differently to the aggressive
behaviors exhibited by popular and unpopular adolescents by
rewarding popular adolescents for using aggression but sanction-
ing unpopular adolescents for the same behavior.
Current Study
The aim of the present study was to investigate how adolescents
who gain, maintain, or lose popularity differ in proactive and
reactive aggression over time. To accomplish this goal, we used a
large longitudinal sample of five same-aged cohorts followed
across three annual assessments. Two research questions were
addressed. First, do popular status groups differ in their use of
proactive aggression? We expected that:
H1: Adolescents who maintain their popular status will ex-
hibit the highest levels of proactive aggression.
H2: Adolescents who obtain a popular status will be the only
group that increases in proactive aggression.
H3: Adolescents who lose their popular status will be the only
group that decreases in proactive aggression.
Second, do popular status groups differ in their use of reactive
aggression? We expected that:
H4: Adolescents who maintain their unpopular status will
exhibit the highest levels of reactive aggression.
H5: Adolescents who obtain an unpopular status will be the
only group that increases in reactive aggression.
H6: Adolescents who lose their unpopular status will be the
only group that decreases in reactive aggression.
Moderation by gender was explored, given the anticipated mean
level gender differences in popularity and both forms of aggression
(Card, Hodges, Little, & Hawley, 2005; Card et al., 2008; Rose,
3
Glick, & Smith, 2011). Yet, because of the inconsistent detection
of gender differences in the associations between popularity and
either measure of aggression (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Stoltz et
al., 2016), no specific gender-related hypotheses were formulated.
Method
Participants
Data were derived from the Kandinsky Longitudinal Study, a
longitudinal study designed to detect youths at risk of social and
emotional problems in secondary education. The study started in
2010 when the head of a large secondary school requested a yearly
assessment of students’ socioemotional well-being. For the next 6
years, the social and emotional functioning of all students in
Grades 7 through 10 (i.e., the first 4 years of secondary education
in The Netherlands) was assessed on an annual basis.
For the current study, we used data collected from students
attending 7th- through 9th-grade classrooms in Waves 1 through 7
(2010 –2016).1 This resulted in a total sample of 1374 adolescents
(48.9% male) initially aged 12.67 years (SD ⫽ .42, range ⫽
11.09 –14.75 years) from five cohorts (n cohort2010 –2012 ⫽ 273; n
cohort2011–2013 ⫽ 275; n cohort2012–2014 ⫽ 282; n cohort2013–2015 ⫽
258; n cohort2014 –2016 ⫽ 286). Most participants were born in the
Netherlands (96.4%) to parents who were both born in the Nether-
lands (81.1%).
Measures
Each year, popularity, proactive aggression, and reactive aggres-
sion were assessed with computerized peer nominations within
classrooms. Classmates were used as the reference group for the
nominations because participants spent the majority of the school
day with the same group of classmates. Each nomination question
was presented at the top of the computer screen, followed by a
roster with the first names of all classmates. By clicking on names,
adolescents could nominate as many or as few classmates as they
wanted, with a minimum of one. They could not nominate them-
selves, as their own name was not presented on the personalized
screen. Same-sex and other-sex nominations were allowed (for
psychometric properties, see van den Berg & Cillessen, 2013).
Perceived popularity. Adolescents were asked to nominate
classmates “who were most popular” and “who were least popu-
lar.” The number of nominations received for each question was
counted and standardized within classrooms. A score for popular-
ity was computed as the difference between the standardized most
popular and least popular scores, again standardizing the resulting
scores within classrooms (Cillessen & Marks, 2011). The popu-
larity scores ranged from ⫺3.31 to 3.08 at Time 1 (T1),
from ⫺3.32 to 2.64 at Time 2 (T2), and from ⫺3.07 to 3.02 at
Time 3 (T3).
Reactive aggression. Adolescents were asked, “Who feels
threatened or attacked easily, even though this might not have been
1
The first two waves are overlapping with the data used by Stoltz et al.
(2016). Because of this partial overlap in the samples, we performed all
analyses with and without the first KLS cohort. The same pattern of
statistically significant results emerged in the analyses with and without the
first cohort, so we report the results that include data from all five cohorts.
 4 VAN DEN BERG, BURK, AND CILLESSEN

intended? These classmates are not able to control their behavior
and feelings and react with aggressive behavior, like yelling or
hitting” (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Stoltz et al., 2016). Nominations
received were counted and standardized within classrooms. The
reactive aggression scores ranged from ⫺1.27 to 4.96 at T1,
from ⫺1.28 to 5.28 at T2, and from ⫺1.41 to 4.99 at T3.
Proactive aggression. Adolescents were asked, “Who tries to
reach their goals by using aggressive behavior? These classmates
intimidate, manipulate, or bully others to get admiration, respect or
objects” (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Stoltz et al., 2016). Nominations
received were counted and standardized within classrooms. The
proactive aggression scores ranged from ⫺.94 to 5.09 at T1,
from ⫺.81 to 5.00 at T2, and from ⫺1.45 to 4.99 at T3.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
procedure and at the same time during the school year (final 2
weeks of November and first week of December).
Results
Imputation Strategy
A total of 1,288 adolescents (94%) participated in the study in
all three waves. The most common reason for nonparticipation was
that the adolescent left the school. An additional 450 students did
not complete the aggression items in 2011 because of a technical
error (i.e., the items were omitted from the online questionnaire for
some classrooms). We used a multiple imputation procedure to

account for the missing values. Specifically, we used the predictive

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Procedure
Each year, the head of school formally requested the research
and claimed responsibility for the parental consent procedure. The
school requested parental permission at the beginning of the school
year for all assessments that they considered necessary for the
well-being of the students. The school distributed a letter to the
parents in which the purpose and procedures of the assessment was
described. The letter also asked parents to respond if they wanted
to exclude their child from participation. No parent objected to the
participation of his or her child. Adolescents were asked to give
assent at the start of each assessment. None of the participants
declined to fill out the questionnaire prior to or during the assess-
ment. Anonymized data were made available to the researchers for
scientific purposes. Procedures were approved by the Institutional
Review Board of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Radboud
University (ECG2012-2505– 038; “Sociometry as a Method to
Measure Social Relationships Among Children and Adolescents”).
Adolescents completed the computerized questionnaire on indi-
vidual 10-in netbook computers during a 45- to 60-min classroom
session. Prior to each assessment, one of the researchers explained
the goal and set up of the study. Participants were instructed that
the data would be processed anonymously and handled confiden-
tially. Adolescents were asked to keep their answers to themselves
and to be truthful in answering all questions. They were not
allowed to talk to other students during the assessment, but they
could ask questions to the researchers and could stop participation
at any time. Each year, data was collected using an identical
mean matching algorithm from the MICE package (van Buuren &
Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011) in R (R Core Team, 2018) to obtain
20 imputations, each based on 20 between-imputation iterations.
The imputed values were based on adolescent gender, popularity,
proactive, and reactive aggression. In addition to visually inspect-
ing the distributions of imputed values, three paired sample t tests
compared the observed and imputed values of popularity, proac-
tive, and reactive aggression. These analyses indicated that the
imputed values did not differ from the observed values on any
study measure (all ps ⬎ .659).
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents bivariate correlations among all study mea-
sures. The correlations were pooled across imputations using the
micombine.cor function in the miceadds package (Robitzsch, Gr-
und, & Henke, 2018). Gender was negatively correlated with all
measures except for popularity at Time 1 (T1), indicating that
males were nominated as more popular and aggressive (both
proactively and reactively) than females. The concurrent correla-
tions indicated that popularity was positively associated with pro-
active aggression (range ⫽ .27 to .33), and negatively with reactive
aggression (range ⫽ ⫺.12 to ⫺.14). The prospective correlations
of popularity with aggression at earlier and later assessments
showed the same directional pattern, but popularity was more
consistently linked to proactive aggression (range ⫽ .18 to .25)
than to reactive aggression (range ⫽ ⫺.04 to ⫺.12).

Table 1
Bivariate Associations Between All Study Measures

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender (males ⫽ 0)
2. Popularity T1 ⫺.05
3. Popularity T2 ⫺.09ⴱⴱ .80ⴱⴱ
4. Popularity T3 ⫺.10ⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱ .73ⴱⴱ
5. Proactive aggression T1 ⫺.30ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ
6. Proactive aggression T2 ⫺.30ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ
7. Proactive aggression T3 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ
8. Reactive aggression T1 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ ⫺.08ⴱ ⫺.04 .50ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ
9. Reactive aggression T2 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .19ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ
10. Reactive aggression T3 ⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽ 1,374. T1 ⫽ Time 1; T2 ⫽ Time 2; T3 ⫽ Time 3.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 FUNCTIONS OF AGGRESSION AND POPULARITY
Popularity trajectories were created by initially identifying three
popularity groups (popular, average, and unpopular) at T1 and at
T3 in each of the imputed data sets using ⫾ 1 SD to differentiate
groups. In each imputed dataset, seven popularity trajectories were
created using the T1 and T3 groups. Three trajectories described
adolescents with stable levels of popularity. Stable popular (n ⫽
94, range ⫽ 91–97) included adolescents who were popular at T1
and T3; stable average (n ⫽ 770, range ⫽ 767–775) included
adolescents who were average at T1 and T3; and stable unpopular
(n ⫽ 100, range ⫽ 97–102) included adolescents who were un-
popular at T1 and T3. Four trajectories described adolescents with
popularity scores that changed from T1 to T3. Lose popularity
(n ⫽ 112, range ⫽ 109 –117) included adolescents who were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
popular at T1 but not popular by T3; obtain popularity (n ⫽ 112,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
range ⫽ 109 –115) included adolescents who were not popular at
T1 and became popular by T3; lose unpopularity (n ⫽ 76, range ⫽
71–78) included adolescents who were unpopular at T1 but not
unpopular by T3; and obtain unpopularity (n ⫽ 110, range ⫽
106 –114) included adolescents who were not unpopular at T1 and
became unpopular by T3.
Chi-square analyses examined whether the composition of the
popularity trajectories differed as a function of gender. The chi-
square values for each imputed dataset were pooled using the
micombine.chisquare function in the miceadds package (Robitzsch
et al., 2018). This analysis indicated that the composition of the
popularity trajectories differed for males and females, F(6,
4016.16) ⫽ 12.91, p ⬍ .001. Cell-wise tests indicated that five of
the seven trajectories significantly differed in gender composition:
Males were overrepresented in the stable popular (60%), obtain
popularity (60%), and lose unpopularity (61%) groups. Females
were overrepresented in the obtain unpopularity (62%) and stable
average (55%) groups.
Popularity Trajectories Predicting
Changes in Aggression
Two linear mixed models were performed using the lmer func-
tion with the package lme4 (Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker,
2015) to examine changes in proactive and reactive aggression as
a function of popularity trajectories. In both models, popularity
trajectories, gender, and time (and all interactions between these
three predictors) were included as fixed effects. Reactive aggres-
sion was included as a time-varying covariate in the model pre-
dicting proactive aggression, and proactive aggression was in-
cluded as a time-varying covariate in the model predicting reactive
aggression. Individual differences in aggression were modeled
with a random intercept and cohort differences in the associations
between popularity trajectories and aggression were modeled with
a random slope. Type 3 conditional F tests were computed with the
Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The mi-
combine.F function in the miceadds package (Robitzsch et al.,
2018) was used to pool the omnibus F tests. Estimated means,
standard errors, and pairwise comparisons (with Tukey adjust-
ment) were obtained with the emmeans and pairs functions in the
emmeans package using the recover_data.mire and emm_basis-
.mira extensions developed for pooling results from multiply im-
puted mixed effect models (Lenth, 2018).
For proactive aggression, the statistically significant main effect of
popularity trajectories, F(6, 64.69) ⫽ 9.98, p ⬍ .001, was qualified by
5
the interaction with time, F(12, 258.06) ⫽ 3.89, p ⬍ .001. The
three-way interaction between popularity trajectory, time, and gender
was not statistically significant, F(12, 405.2) ⫽ 1.54, p ⫽ .109. Figure
1 presents the estimated means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of
each popularity trajectory separately for the three measures of proac-
tive aggression. Between-groups comparisons tested whether adoles-
cents in the stable popular group were more proactively aggressive
than those in the other groups (i.e., Hypothesis 1) at T1 and T3. At T1,
the stable popular group had higher levels of proactive aggression
than all other groups (all ps ⬍ .05) except for the lose popularity
group. At T3, the stable popular group had higher levels of proactive
aggression than all other trajectories (all ps ⬍ .001) except for the
obtain popularity group (see Figure 1). Adolescents in the stable
unpopular and lose popularity groups also differed from the other
groups in proactive aggression at T1, and adolescents in the obtain
popularity group differed from all other groups at T3.
Within-group comparisons tested whether adolescents who ob-
tained popular status increased in proactive aggression from T1 to
T3 (Hypothesis 2) and those who lost popular status decreased in
proactive aggression over time (Hypothesis 3). These comparisons
indicated that the adolescents in the obtain popularity group in-
creased in proactive aggression across all three assessments (ps ⬍
.001) and those in the lose popularity group decreased in proactive
aggression across all three assessments (ps ⬍ .001). In addition,
adolescents in the lose unpopularity group increased in proactive
aggression, and adolescents in the obtain unpopularity group de-
creased in proactive aggression from T1 to T3 (ps ⬍ .001). Thus,
the omnibus tests indicated that the popularity trajectories differed
in proactive aggression over time and these differences were not
further moderated by gender. Follow-up analyses indicated that (a)
adolescents who maintained their popular status were perceived as
the most proactively aggressive, (b) adolescents who obtained
popular status and those who lost unpopular status increased their
proactive aggression, and (c) adolescents who lost popular status
and those who obtained unpopular status decreased their proactive
aggression.
For reactive aggression the statistically significant main effect
of popularity trajectories, F(6, 33.9) ⫽ 14.25, p ⬍ .001, was
qualified by the interaction with time, F(12, 7151.75) ⫽ 3.09, p ⬍
.001. The three-way interaction between popularity trajectory,
time, and gender was not statistically significant, F(12, 330.75) ⫽
0.92, p ⫽ .523. Figure 2 presents the estimated means and 95% CIs
of each popularity trajectory separately for the three measures of
reactive aggression. Between-groups comparisons tested whether
adolescents in the stable unpopular group were more reactively
aggressive than those in the other groups (i.e., Hypothesis 4) at T1
and T3. At T1, the stable unpopular group had higher levels of
reactive aggression than all other groups (all ps ⬍ .001). At T3, the
stable unpopular group had higher levels of reactive aggression
than all other trajectories (all ps ⬍ .001) except for the obtain
unpopularity trajectory (see Figure 2). Adolescents in the lose
unpopularity group also differed from all other groups in reactive
aggression at T1, and adolescents in the obtain unpopularity group
also differed from all other groups at T3.
Within-group comparisons tested whether adolescents who ob-
tained unpopular status increased in reactive aggression from T1 to
T3 (Hypothesis 5) and those who lost unpopular status decreased
in reactive aggression over time (Hypothesis 6). Adolescents in the
obtain unpopularity group increased in reactive aggression from
 6 VAN DEN
1
Proactive aggression (z-score)
0.5
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
-0.5
-1
Figure 1. Estimated means and 95% confidence intervals for proactive aggression of the seven popularity
trajectories.
T1 to T3 and from T2 to T3 (ps ⬍ .001) but did not increase in
reactive aggression from T1 to T2 (p ⫽ .256). Adolescents in the
lose unpopularity group decreased in reactive aggression across all
three assessments (ps ⬍ .001). In addition, adolescents in the
stable popularity group also decreased in reactive aggression from
T1 to T3. Thus, the omnibus tests indicated that the popularity
trajectories differed in reactive aggression over time and these
differences were not further moderated by gender. Follow-up
analyses indicated that (a) adolescents who maintained their un-
popular status were perceived as the most reactively aggressive,
(b) adolescents who obtained unpopular status increased in reac-
tive aggression over time, and (c) adolescents who lost their
unpopular status decreased in reactive aggression.
Discussion
In this study, we examined how adolescents who gain, maintain
or lose popular or unpopular status differed in proactive and
reactive aggression over time. We proposed that prospective as-
sociations between popularity and the functions of aggression
would depend on status already achieved. To test this proposition,
we created groups of adolescents who maintained, gained, or lost
popular and unpopular status across three school years and exam-
ined group differences in proactive and reactive aggression over
time. Popularity and aggression were assessed yearly from early to
middle adolescence, immediately following the transition from
BERG, BURK, AND CILLESSEN
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Popularity trajectories
elementary to secondary education. This is a time when adoles-
cents form new groups with previously unacquainted peers, and
when questions of gaining, maintaining, and losing status are of
primary importance (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). Our results
replicated previous work in which popular adolescents exhibited
the highest levels of proactive aggression, and unpopular adoles-
cents exhibited the highest levels of reactive aggression. Our
results also extend previous work by demonstrating that prospec-
tive associations between popularity and reactive, but not proactive
aggression, varied as a function of adolescents’ initial status.
Specifically, adolescents in groups characterized by increases in
status (obtain popularity and lose unpopularity) increased in pro-
active aggression and those in groups characterized by decreases in
status (lose popularity and obtain unpopularity) decreased in pro-
active aggression. In addition only adolescents who obtained un-
popularity increased in reactive aggression, and those who lost
their unpopular status decreased in reactive aggression.
Popularity and the Distinct Functions of Aggression
This study builds on two earlier studies on proactive and reac-
tive aggression and popularity in adolescence (Prinstein & Cil-
lessen, 2003; Stoltz et al., 2016). We replicated that high levels of
proactive aggression are generally associated with high status and
that high levels of reactive aggression are generally associated
with low status in a larger sample and over a longer time period.
 FUNCTIONS OF AGGRESSION AND POPULARITY
1
Reactive aggression (z-score)
0.5
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
-0.5
-1
Popularity trajectories
Figure 2. Estimated means and 95% confidence intervals for reactive aggression of the seven popularity
trajectories.
In addition, popular youth who maintained their high status dis-
played the highest levels of proactive aggression across time.
Unpopular youth who retained their low status over time exhibited
the highest levels of reactive aggression. These results illustrate the
roots of both functions of aggression in social– cognitive learning
theory and the frustration-aggression model (Berkowitz, 1993;
Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge et al., 1997; Hubbard et al., 2010).
Proactive aggression requires social skillfulness and emotion reg-
ulation to effectively assert dominance and control. When used
effectively, strategic use of aggression is rewarded in terms of
status maintenance, thus further reinforcing the use of proactive
aggression over time. In contrast, when adolescents respond ag-
gressively due to a lack of social skills or emotion regulation, peers
will respond in disapproving and negative ways underscoring
adolescents’ low status.
The current study extends our understanding of the prospective
associations between popularity and the functions of aggression by
showing that changes in reactive aggression depended on adoles-
cents’ initial status, and changes in proactive aggression did not.
That is, adolescents who lost their unpopular status were the only
group that decreased in reactive aggression over time. Adolescents
who became unpopular were the only group that increased in
reactive aggression. Thus, adolescents who obtained or lost un-
popular status changed in reactive aggression over time. Obtaining
or losing popular status was not related to changes in reactive
aggression. A different pattern of group differences emerged for
proactive aggression. Adolescents who became popular and those
7
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
who lost their unpopular status increased in proactive aggression;
those who became unpopular and those who lost their popular
status decreased in proactive aggression. In other words, changes
in popular and unpopular status were associated with changes in
proactive aggression. Taken together, these findings suggest that
proactive aggression has universal benefits for popularity, whereas
reactive aggression has differential costs.
The results of this study are in line with the evolutionary
perspective on the function of proactive aggression (Ellis et al.,
2012; Hawley & Bower, 2018). According to this viewpoint, the
effective, strategic, and proactive use of aggression provides one
way in which adolescents can exert social dominance to gain and
control resources. Although we had expected that only popular
adolescents would have the knowledge and skills necessary to
effectively use proactive aggression, our findings also indicated
that adolescents who were initially unpopular and subsequently
gained status (i.e., lose unpopularity group) also increasingly used
proactive aggression over time. Thus, gains in status were associ-
ated with increasing levels of proactive aggression, irrespective of
ones already achieved status in the peer group.
Although our hypotheses regarding the differential benefits of
proactive aggression were partially unexpected, our results did
indicate that the use of reactive aggression has differential costs.
That is, changes in unpopular status (and not popular status) were
related to changes in reactive aggression. This suggests that ado-
lescents of higher status do not face the same social sanctions for
using aggression in a reactive manner as those of lower status. This
 8 VAN DEN BERG, BURK, AND CILLESSEN
is the first study to demonstrate that initial status shapes the
functional use of aggression. However, there is also evidence that
suggests that the use of some forms of aggression may not have the
same consequences for all youth. Ettekal and Ladd (2015) exam-
ined the costs and benefits of various forms of aggression for
children’s peer acceptance, rejection, and friendships. Using a
person-oriented approach (i.e., identifying aggression trajectories)
they found that children with moderate levels of aggression (es-
pecially relational aggression) became better liked over time and
were nominated more often as friends. Surprisingly, they also
found that children who abstained from any form of aggression
had significant decreases in peer acceptance and friendships over
time. The present study, as well as the one by Ettekal and Ladd
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(2015), demonstrate how person-oriented and variable-oriented
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
approaches can be used in a complementary manner to gain a
better understanding of the complex associations between social
status and aggression.
The Role of Gender
With regard to gender differences, we found that males were
nominated as more popular, as well as more proactively and
reactively aggressive than females. Furthermore, males were over-
represented in popularity trajectories characterized by gains in
status (stable popular, obtain popularity, lose unpopularity) and
females were overrepresented in trajectories characterized by the
maintenance of average status (stable average) and loss of status
(obtain unpopularity). However, gender did not further moderate
the associations between popularity groups and changes in either
of the aggression measures over time. That is, the popularity group
differences in proactive and reactive aggression reported in this
study did not differ for adolescent males and females.
Although the mean-level gender differences in popularity and
both functions of aggression are not surprising (Card et al., 2005,
2008; Rose et al., 2011), the lack of moderating effects of gender
on the popularity-aggression link indicates that the functions of
aggression for gaining, maintaining, and losing social status are
not gender-specific. This is in line with previous research arguing
that the underlying motives and processes regarding status acqui-
sition and maintenance apply equally to males and females (Haw-
ley, 1999).
Limitations and Future Directions
This study contributed to research on the popularity-aggression
link (cf. Mayeux, Houser, & Dyches, 2011) and to the relatively
new focus on the function of aggression for youth’s social status
(Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Stoltz et al., 2016). Despite the
strengths of this study, several caveats deserve mentioning.
First, we used peer nominations to measure both functions of
aggression and popularity. Shared method variance therefore may
have inflated the magnitude of associations. Measuring popularity
and aggression by questioning those who frequently interact with
each other and are insiders in the peer culture has high face validity
and is considered a reliable and valid technique (Cillessen &
Marks, 2017; Stoltz et al., 2016). Still, future studies may also
consider alternative methods such as observational or self-report
instruments. A second and related point is that our measures of
proactive and reactive aggression did not distinguish between the
frequency and severity of the aggressive acts. This distinction has
been successfully used in research investigating the functions of
aggression for bullying behavior (see, e.g., van Noorden, Bu-
kowski, Haselager, Lansu, & Cillessen, 2016) and may prove to be
equally helpful in further understanding the links between the
functions of aggression and popularity. Third, we categorized
adolescents into popularity trajectories and examined group dif-
ferences in aggression over time. We created the categories based
on a commonly used statistical criterion (i.e., ⫾1 SD), yet there
was an inevitable loss of information in the conversion of contin-
uous to categorical scores. In addition, we did not use statistical
procedures to identify co-occurring trajectories of status and ag-
gression such as latent growth curve mixture modeling, instead
electing to form the trajectories directly from the popularity cate-
gories. This strategy allowed us to directly test our hypotheses, it
provided meaningfully sized groups, and groups characterized by
specific types of changes. Yet, it is unclear to what extent alter-
native strategies would have produced comparable results. Fourth,
the adolescents in our sample were quite homogeneous in age and
ethnic background and all attended a single school in the Nether-
lands. It remains an open question whether our findings generalize
to more diverse samples and age groups.
Despite these limitations, this study provides several promising
and viable directions for future research. First, although we fo-
cused on the functions of aggression, investigating the combina-
tion of forms and functions is a logical next step in understanding
the complex dynamics of status and aggression. In a study with
preschool children, Ostrov and colleagues (2013) found that pro-
active relational aggression was uniquely associated with de-
creases in peer rejection, whereas reactive relational aggression
was associated with increases in peer rejection over time. Prinstein
and Cillessen (2003) found that proactive overt aggression was
concurrently associated with popularity, whereas reactive overt
aggression was associated with unpopularity. Moreover, reactive
aggression was differently associated with popularity depending
on its form. Thus, combining forms and functions of aggression
will reveal further specific associations with popularity as well as
other social behaviors.
Another direction for future research is to examine the under-
lying processes that explain how and why changes in popularity
correspond to changes in aggression. For instance, we do not know
whether adolescents who scored high on proactive aggression were
the ones who actually strived for popularity and thought they could
achieve status by means of aggression. In line with the definition
of proactive aggression (Card & Little, 2006) and the evolutionary
perspective on aggression (Ellis et al., 2012; Hawley & Bower,
2018), we asked adolescents “who uses proactive aggression to
achieve or maintain a certain status.” Yet, we did not consider their
own social goals, the importance they place on obtaining or main-
taining popularity, or the ways in which they thought they could
acquire or protect their own status. In future studies, researchers
may include participants’ own motives for displaying certain be-
haviors and whether they actually aspire to become (more) popular
(Dawes & Xie, 2014; Ojanen & Findley-Van Nostrand, 2014; van
den Broek, Deutz, Schoneveld, Burk, & Cillessen, 2016). By doing
so, we can empirically test whether adolescents who strive for
popularity and think they can acquire status by means of aggres-
sion, are the ones who most frequently use proactive aggression.
Similarly, reactive aggression was defined and operationalized as
 FUNCTIONS OF AGGRESSION AND POPULARITY
an angry or frustrated reaction to an actual or perceived offense
(Crick & Dodge, 1996). Youth who display such reactions often
have problems in regulating their emotions or have hostile biases
when interpreting social information (Card & Little, 2006; Hub-
bard et al., 2010). Assessing these and other sociocognitive func-
tions would allow explicit testing of whether adolescents with such
deficits or biases are the ones who retain low status or are at risk
of obtaining unpopular status.
Finally, previous studies have argued that the functionality of
aggression is context specific (Ellis et al., 2012). In this study,
aggression and popularity were assessed among adolescents within
the classroom context. This is a salient context for studying these
constructs, because it is a context in which adolescents spend much
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of their time. If proactive aggression is beneficial for obtaining
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
status in the classroom, as our results suggest, this does not
necessarily mean that proactive aggression is also beneficial or
functional outside of the classroom. The functions of aggression
may also be specific to this developmental period. The relatively
low levels of reactive aggression exhibited by popular adolescents
and the relatively low levels of proactive aggression displayed by
unpopular adolescents seems to indicate that links between status
and aggression have been established by early adolescence. A
further understanding of whether or when these patterns emerge
and potentially disappear is needed.
Conclusion
This study replicated and extended previous work on the asso-
ciations between peer status and functions of aggression. Associ-
ations between popularity and both measures of aggression were
robust, concurrently within each year, and also when examining
changes in popularity and changes in proactive and reactive ag-
gression over time. Our findings provide a more nuanced under-
standing of these concurrent and prospective links, by revealing
that popular adolescents maintain their high status and less popular
adolescents gain status through the use of proactive aggression
(universal benefits); whereas only less popular adolescents lose
status through the use of reactive aggression (differential costs).
These findings have the potential to move research on the associ-
ations between popularity and aggression in a new direction: while
certain behaviors may be beneficial for some, the same behaviors
may come at a cost for others.
References
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear
mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67,
1– 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Card, N. A., Hodges, E. V. E., Little, T. D., & Hawley, P. H. (2005).
Gender effects in peer nominations for aggression and social status.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 146 –155. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000414
Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in
childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations
with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral De-
velopment, 30, 466 – 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406071904
9
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct
and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-
analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to
maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x
Cillessen, A. H. N. (2011). Toward a theory of popularity. In A. H. N.
Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer
system (pp. 273–299). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Marks, P. E. L. (2011). Conceptualizing and
measuring popularity. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux
(Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–56). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Marks, P. E. L. (2017). Methodological choices in
peer nomination research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cad
.20206
Cillessen, A. H. N., Mayeux, L., Ha, T., de Bruyn, E. H., & LaFontana,
K. M. (2014). Aggressive effects of prioritizing popularity in early
adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 204 –213. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/ab.21518
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types
of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18,
557–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing
mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development,
67, 993–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131875
Dawes, M., & Xie, H. (2014). The role of popularity goal in early
adolescents’ behaviors and popularity status. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 50, 489 – 497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032999
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors
in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146 –1158. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146
Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S.
(1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psy-
chiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 106, 37–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.37
Dollard, J., Doob, N., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939).
Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10022-000
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A. J., Gray, P.,
Griskevicius, V., . . . Wilson, D. S. (2012). The evolutionary basis of
risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice.
Developmental Psychology, 48, 598 – 623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0026220
Ettekal, I., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Costs and benefits of children’s physical
and relational aggression trajectories on peer rejection, acceptance, and
friendships: Variations by aggression subtypes, gender, and age. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 51, 1756 –1770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
dev0000057
Fite, P. J., Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2008). Devel-
opmental trajectories of proactive and reactive aggression from fifth to
ninth grade. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37,
412– 421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374410801955920
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-
based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0470
Hawley, P. H., & Bower, A. R. (2018). Evolution and peer relations:
Considering the functional roles of aggression and prosociality. In W. M.
Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer inter-
actions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 106 –122). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Hubbard, J. A., McAuliffe, M. D., Morrow, M. T., & Romano, L. J. (2010).
Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Pre-
 10 VAN DEN BERG, BURK, AND CILLESSEN
cursors, outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement. Journal of
Personality, 78, 95–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009
.00610.x
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s
stereotypes of popularity. Social Development, 7, 301–320. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00069
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes
in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social
Development, 19, 130 –147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008
.00522.x
Lenth, R. (2018). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares
means (R package Version 1.2.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package⫽emmeans
Mayeux, L., Houser, J. J., & Dyches, K. D. (2011). Social acceptance and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
popularity: Two distinct forms of peer status. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp.
79 –102). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Murray-Close, D., & Ostrov, J. M. (2009). A longitudinal study of forms
and functions of aggressive behavior in early childhood. Child Devel-
opment, 80, 828 – 842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009
.01300.x
Ojanen, T., & Findley-Van Nostrand, D. (2014). Social goals, aggression,
peer preference, and popularity: Longitudinal links during middle
school. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2134 –2143. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0037137
Ojanen, T., & Kiefer, S. (2013). Instrumental and reactive functions and
overt and relational forms of aggression: Developmental trajectories and
prospective associations during middle school. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 37, 514 –517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0165025413503423
Ostrov, J. M., Murray-Close, D., Godleski, S. A., & Hart, E. J. (2013).
Prospective associations between forms and functions of aggression and
social and affective processes during early childhood. Journal of Exper-
imental Child Psychology, 116, 19 –36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp
.2012.12.009
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and
peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0272431698018002001
Polman, H., Orobio de Castro, B., Koops, W., van Boxtel, H. W., & Merk,
W. W. (2007). A meta-analysis of the distinction between reactive and
proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 35, 522–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-
9109-4
Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and proactive aggression:
Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 12, 115–
122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.2.115
Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of
adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310 –342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq
.2003.0015
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Robitzsch, A., Grund, S., & Henke, T. (2018). miceadds: Some additional
multiple imputation functions, especially for mice (R package Version
3.0 –16) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project
.org/package⫽miceadds
Rose, A. J., Glick, G. C., & Smith, R. L. (2011). Popularity and gender:
Two cultures of boys and girls. In A. H. N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, & L.
Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 103–122). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Stoltz, S., Cillessen, A. H. N., van den Berg, Y. H. M., & Gommans, R.
(2016). Popularity differentially predicts reactive and proactive aggres-
sion in early adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 29 – 40. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/ab.21603
van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate
imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software,
45, 1– 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
van den Berg, Y. H. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2013). Computerized
sociometric and peer assessment: An empirical and practical evaluation.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 68 –76. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0165025412463508
van den Broek, N., Deutz, M. H. F., Schoneveld, E. A., Burk, W. J., &
Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Behavioral correlates of prioritizing popu-
larity in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 2444 –
2454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0352-7
van Noorden, T. H. J., Bukowski, W. M., Haselager, G. J. T., Lansu,
T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Disentangling the frequency and
severity of bullying and victimization in the association with empathy.
Social Development, 25, 176 –192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12133
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Barker, E. D. (2006). Subtypes of aggressive
behaviors: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 30, 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016
5025406059968
Received October 23, 2018
Revision received June 14, 2019
Accepted June 26, 2019 䡲