Testing the hypotheses: effects of descriptive norms and network density

The first hypothesis we set out to test was whether behavioural norms of entire groups (i.e., classrooms) were less influential than the behavioural norms of specific subgroups

within classrooms; it is known that adolescents (and individuals of all ages for that

matter) tend to interact mostly and preferentially only with a subset of peers within larger groups (e.g., their friends, Cobb, 2010; Duffy & Nesdale, 2009; Hartup, 1993; Hartup & Stevens, 1999; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Hruschka, 2010; Rodkin & Ahn, 2009; Siegler, DeLoache, & Eisenberg, 2011), so we reasoned that peers would be more likely to influence and be influenced by the subgroup of peers they interact with more often, are more exposed to, are more salient, or are more liked than by the peers of the class at large. This hypothesis has to do with the size of the group of peers whose behavioural norms can potentially influence the negative impact of individual victimization on likeability. Although the effect of classroom-level descriptive norms has been assessed in several studies (Gasser et al., 2017; Jonkman et al., 2009; Laninga- Wijnen, Harakeh, Steglich, Dijkstra, Veenstra & Volleberg, 2017; Mercer et al., 2009; Nesdale & Dalton. 2011; Nesdale et al., 2005, 2008; Peets et al., 2015; Pozzoli et al., 2012; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Sentse et al., 2015), few have actually focused on its potential effects on behaviour-peer status associations (Boor-Klip et al., 2015; Chang, 2004; Isaacs et al., 2013; Karna et al., 2010; Sentse et al., 2007). Chang (2004) also reported that in classrooms where aggression was normative, aggressive peers were better accepted. Sentse et al. (2007) reported that bullying was better accepted in classrooms with high levels of bullying and victimization was also better accepted in classrooms with high levels of victimization. Karna et al. (2010) found that the positive impact of victimization on rejection was strengthened in classrooms where bullying was reinforced. Isaacs et al. (2013) reported that victimized girls were better accepted in

classrooms with lower levels of bullying. Boor-Klip et al. (2015) found that highly (overt) aggressive peers were better liked in classrooms with a high (overt) aggression norm.

And still fewer have been the studies that have directly compared the contribution of behavioural norms of differently sized groups (e.g., entire classrooms versus subgroups within classrooms) to account for between-classroom variation in the impact of behaviour on peer status. In fact, to our knowledge, only the study by Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra (2008) has addressed this problem (see also Dijkstra & Gest, 2015). They compared the effect of entire classes’ versus the subgroup of most popular peers’ behavioural norm for proactive aggression (bullying) on the impact of individual bullying on acceptance and rejection, and found that it was the latter that turned out more influential. They reported that bullying was better accepted when bullying was more prevalent in the subgroup of most popular peers and the opposite was true of rejection. In fact, these moderating effects were not detected either when they analyzed the impact of the subgroup of non-popular peers’ behavioural norm for bullying. The results of our analysis lend support to this finding as we also found that when the behavioural norm analyzed was aggression, the norm of the subgroup of most visible adolescents was more influential than the norm of the entire class (Table 3.3). Thus, when aggression was normative in the subgroup of most visible peers, then victimized peers were less disliked, that is, the behavioural norm for aggression of the subgroup of most visible (or popular) peers weakened the negative impact of individual victimization on likeability (Figure 3.4).

A second test of this same hypothesis involved the comparison of the effect of class-level norms for prosociality versus the norms for prosociality of the subgroup of most visible peers (Table 3.3). In this analysis, however, both group norms turned out to

have the same effect of attenuating the negative relation of individual victimization to likeability (Figs. 3.2 and 3.3). That is, when prosocial behaviour is prevalent in the classroom or in the subgroup of most visible (popular) peers, victimized peers are better accepted. Dijkstra & Gest (2015) also showed that peers scored higher on acceptance in classrooms where popular peers had a high prosocial norm.

Our second hypothesis posited that the behavioural norms of the subgroup of most visible peers would be more likely than the norms of the subgroup of most likeable peers to influence the negative association between likeability and peer victimization. This hypothesis thus examined the potential effects of status type, namely, visibility versus likeability, on the potential moderating role of norms for aggression and for prosocial behaviour on the relation of individual victimization to likeability. Previous research has reported that most popular (or visible) peers are more influential than most likeable peers (e.g., Cillessen, 2011). We also found that this was indeed the case in our study as the aggression and the prosocial visibility norms weakened the negative relation between likeability and victimization (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4). Thus, the extent that victimized peers were liked (or disliked) was influenced by how normative were aggression and prosocial behaviour in the subgroup of most visible classmates. High levels of prosocial behaviour and aggression by visible (popular) peers attenuated the level of disliking of highly victimized peers. We also found that neither the aggression

likeability norm, nor the prosocial likeability norm had any significant effect on the

likeability-victimization association. In other words, the behavioural norms of most likeable peers were less influential than the behavioural norms of most visible (popular) peers. These results lend further empirical support to the notion that visible (popular) peers have greater impact than likeable classmates (Boor-Klip et al., 2015; Dijkstra & Gest, 2015; Shi & Xie, 2012; Shin, 2017).

Our third hypothesis predicted that prosocial norms might have a greater effect than

aggression norms on the likeability-victimization negative association found in this

study and in previous research (see above: 3.5.4). Thus, this hypothesis was concerned with the behavioural domain of the norms assessed, namely, aggression versus

prosocial behaviour. As already indicated, the foundation for this prediction was not

that strong as visibility (or popularity) has been found to be more influential than likeability (this study: see hypothesis 2; see also Cillessen, 2011), and the former is typically more strongly positively associated with aggression than the latter (review in Cillessen, 2011). Moreover, prosocial behaviour is more strongly associated with likeability than with visibility and the correlation with the former is positive, whereas the correlation with the latter is negative. Our results partly confirmed this hypothesis as whereas only the aggression visibility norm influenced this link, however, we found that both the prosocial norm of classrooms as well as that of the subgroup of most visible peers did have a moderating (weakening) effect on the negative impact of victimization on likeability (Figs. 3.2 and 3.3).

The fourth hypothesis investigated the effect of classroom density on the negative impact of individual victimization on peer likeability. Density is defined as the relative number of ties between members within a group (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and provides an index of the group members’ mean level of connectivity (maximal when each and every member is connected to every possible partner in the group). Ann et al. (2010) assessed the effect of group density on the relation of aggression and victimization to peer-perceived popularity (visibility in this study) and social preference (likeability in this study) in third- and fourth-graders. They found that mean social preference tended to be greater in classrooms with high density and that the negative impact of aggression on social preference was attenuated in classrooms with high

density. Although our hypothesis was concerned with the effect of classroom density on the negative relation of individual victimization (not aggression) to likeability, and Ann and colleagues (2010) failed to find any significant effect in their analysis, we predicted that a similar weakening effect could be obtained in our analysis. However, the hypothesis was not borne out by the results (Table 3.3). Thus, contrary to our hypothesis, highly victimized peers were more liked in groups with low (not high) density (Fig. 3.5). We also run analyses to evaluate the effect of the interaction between density and the various group norms for aggression and for prosocial behaviour analysed on the negative link between individual victimization and likeability. We found that the link was weakened by the interaction between density and two different prosocial norms, that of the classroom and that of the subgroup of most visible peers (Table 3.3). Thus, highly victimized peers were less disliked in classrooms with a high prosocial norm and a low density (Figure 3.6) and in classes with low density and where the subgroup of most visible (or popular) peers had a high prosocial norm (Figure 3.7). These results are consistent with the finding already described that low density attenuated the negative impact of individual victimization on likeability and add two further insights. First, prosocial norms emerge as more influential than aggression norms when they are assessed in interaction with group density. Second, norms defined at classroom-level and at the level of the subgroup of most visible (popular) peers are more influential than norms defined at the level of the subgroup of most liked peers when they are assessed in interaction with group density (see also Table 3.2).

Density is one among several other indices of a group’ network structure which is throwing new light on the role of contextual factors that individually or in interaction moderate the relations of behaviour to peer status. For example, in hierarchically structured groups (with high embeddedness), highly victimized peers are more disliked

(Ann and colleagues, 2010; Martin-Babarro et al., 2016), highly aggressive peers are more popular and better liked (Garandeau et al., 2011), and levels of bullying are higher (Garandeau et al., 2014).