A recipe for adolescent popularity: The importance of

relationships with parents and peers.

Katherine C. Little & F. Christy McFarlandUniversity of Virginia

Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Baltimore, MD, March, 2004. The authors can be reached at the Department of Psychology, PO Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400 or, KCL5V@Virginia.edu. 

The authors would like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health for funding awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (Grant # R01 MH58066-07) to conduct and write-up this project. We also extend our gratitude to the KLIFF lab graduate students, project coordinators, and undergraduate assistants.

AbstractResearch in the area of relational predictors of popularity has focused primarily on childhood or college samples. 141 target adolescents were followed for two years and were given the Adult Attachment Interview. These adolescents and their closest same-sex friends completed a measure of friendship quality and a revealed differences task. Sociometric data were also collected. Secure attachment organization was related to more popularity with peers, whereas preoccupied attachment was related to lower peer rankings of popularity. When dimensions of security and preoccupation are both accounted for, only secure attachment is significantly related to popularity. When only preoccupied attachment is accounted for in the model, teens’ autonomy with their close friend is significantly related to their popularity. However, when secure attachment is added to the model, the relationships between teen autonomy and preoccupied attachment with popularity become non-significant.

Introduction• In childhood samples, securely attached children are

better adjusted to the intellectual, social, emotional, and behavioral demands of an early school environment than insecurely attached children, who tend to be more rejected and less well-liked by peers (Cohn, 1990; Granot & Mayseless, 2001).

• Preoccupied (ambivalent) attachment patterns in children are linked to higher levels of peer rejection, and these children also perceive this rejection rate to be much higher than what is actually reported by their peers (Granot & Mayseless, 2001).

• Secure attachment organization is significantly different from preoccupied attachment on measures of self-reported social competence in college samples (Kobak & Sceery, 1988).

• Secure attachment organization is associated with greater peer social acceptance in adolescents aged 14-18 years (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998)

• Because most adolescents spend at least 50% of their time with friends (Steinberg, 2002), companionship with peers is an important factor when considering teenage popularity and close relationships.

• In a sample of high-risk adolescents, higher autonomy with a mother figure was associated with a mild increase in social acceptance as reported by peers, but in a low risk sample, higher autonomy with a mother figure was associated with a dramatic increase in social acceptance with peers (McElhaney & Allen, 2001).

• The current investigation seeks to understand how attachment organization, autonomy with a close friend, and companionship with a close friend combine to predict adolescent popularity.

Introduction (cont.)

Method• Participants:

– Data were collected as part of a multi-method, multi-reporter, longitudinal study of 141 adolescents and their closest friends.

– Measures were administered at two waves of data collection, spaced about 1 year apart. Mean age at time 1 = 13.34 [sd = .63], mean age at time 2 = 14.24 [sd = .77].

– 46.1% male (N=66)– 31.91% minority (N=45)– Median family income $45,000

(range < $5,000 to > $60,000)

Method (cont.)• Attachment: The Adult Attachment Interview

(AAI). (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1995). Adolescents were administered the Adult Attachment Interview at approximately age 14. The individual’s responses were audio taped, transcribed, and then coded based upon overall coherence and the ability of the interviewee to integrate semantic and episodic memories.

• The AAI Q-set (Kobak, et al., 1993). Adolescents’ attachment organization was determined by Q-sort coding the AAI. Interviews were classified for overall states of mind with respect to attachment. This study focused on two types of attachment organization, secure and preoccupied. – Spearman-Brown split-half reliability for secure

attachment was .83 and of preoccupied attachment was .80.

Method (cont.)• The Friendship Quality Questionnaire (Parker &

Asher, 1993) was designed to assess adolescents’ conceptualization of the quality of their relationships with their closest friend. The companionship and recreation subscale was used to measure the extent to which friends spend enjoyable time with one another (Parker & Asher). The target adolescent and their nominated close friend each completed the FQQ about one another.

• A sociometric nominating procedure was used to measure adolescent popularity; it was completed by 420 adolescents (43% of the school). Adolescents were asked to provide positive nominations: “the ten students in your grade that you would most like to spend time with on a Saturday night,” and these nominations were explicitly limited to within-grade peers. Nominations were standardized according to the procedures set forth by Coie and Dodge (1983, 1988).

Method (cont.)• Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System

(ARCS). Teens’ promotion of their autonomy in interactions with their best friends was coded by applying an adapted form of the parental ARCS to an 8-minute hypothetical disagreement task called the Mars task (Allen, Porter, & McFarland, 2001).

– The scale for promotion of autonomy was based upon the use of confident and reasoned arguments during the discussion.

– Interactions were blind- and double-coded.

– Intraclass correlation (N = 141) = .86

Table 1

Partial correlations among attachment and friendship measures

(partialing out gender and minority status)

1 2

3 4 5

1. Adolescent Secure Attachment

-.55*** .29** .12 .06

2. Adolescent Preoccupied Attachment

-.20* -.07 -.08

3. Popularity .21* .31***

4. Teen’s Promoting Positive Autonomy to Close Peer

.11

5. Dyadic Companionship Score (Teen and Close Peer report)

Note: *** p <.001. ** p < .01. * p < . 05. N =140

Table 2 Predicting popularity from secure attachment, companionship, and

positive autonomy with a close friend.

Variables Adolescent Popularity

β Entry β Final R2 ΔR2

Step I. Gender -.06 -.04 Minority Status -.30*** -.11 Statistics for Step I .09** .09*** Step II. Secure Attachment Status .29*** .26** .16*** .07*** Step III. Teen’s Promoting Positive Autonomy to Close Peer

.19* .15+

Teen and Close Friend’s Combined Report of Companionship

.26*** .26***

Statistics for Step III .26*** .07*** Note: *** p <.001. ** p < .01. * p < . 05. + p < .10. N =141

Table 3 Predicting popularity from preoccupied attachment, companionship,

and positive autonomy with a close friend.

Variables Adolescent Popularity

β Entry β Final R2 ΔR2

Step I. Gender -.06 -.04 Minority Status -.30*** -.11 Statistics for Step I .09** .09*** Step II. Preoccupied Attachment Status -.20* -.17* .13*** .04*** Step III. Teen’s Promoting Positive Autonomy to Close Peer

.20* .17*

Teen and Close Friend’s Combined Report of Companionship

.26*** .26***

Statistics for Step III .23*** .07*** Note: *** p <.001. ** p < .01. * p < . 05. N =141

Table 4 Predicting popularity from secure and preoccupied attachment,

companionship, and positive autonomy with a close friend.

Variables Adolescent Popularity

β Entry β Final R2 ΔR2

Step I. Gender -.06 -.04 Minority Status -.30*** -.11 Statistics for Step I .09** .09*** Step II. Secure Attachment Status .29*** .24* Preoccupied Attachment Status -.06 -.04 Statistics for Step II .17*** .08*** Step III. Teen’s Promoting Positive Autonomy to Close Peer

.18* .15+

Teen and Close Friend’s Combined Report of Companionship

.26*** .26***

Statistics for Step III .26*** .09*** Note: *** p <.001. ** p < .01. * p < . 05. + p < .10. N =141

Results• Autonomy (β = .17, p < .05) and

companionship (β = .26, p < .001) are both significantly related to popularity after accounting for preoccupied attachment, but not secure attachment (see Table 3).

• For both models where security is included (see Tables 2 & 4), companionship (β Table 2 = .26, p < .001; β Table 4 = .26, p < .001) is significantly related to popularity, but autonomy is not significant.

Discussion

• Autonomy and companionship will buffer against the negative effects of preoccupied attachment on popularity.

• Autonomy and companionship enhance the effects of secure attachment on popularity, but after accounting for companionship, the effects of autonomy become nonsignificant. This may be because more secure teens do not need the practice managing autonomy in relationships.

Discussion (cont.)

• It is of note that there were very few participants who scored highly on the preoccupation dimension (0% scored 1 SD or more above the mean, .04% scored ½ SD above the mean), in this study.

• Future investigations could examine these individuals’ popularity over time, as well as collecting a larger sample so as to include a greater number of participants reflecting higher preoccupation.

References• Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent

psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69(5), 1406-1419.• Allen, J.P., Porter, M.R., & McFarland, F.C. (2001). The autonomy and relatedness

codingmanual for adolescent peer dyads. Unpublished manuscript. University of

Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. • Cohn, D. A. (1990) Child-mother attachment of six-year-olds and social competence at

school. Child Development, 61(1), 152-162. • Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status:

A five- year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-281.• Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and

social status in school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815-829. • George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The Attachment Interview for Adults.

Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.• Granot, D. & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment security and adjustment to school in

middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(6), 530-541.

• Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W., Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment

and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: a control theory analysis. Child Development, 64(1), 231-245.

• Kobak, R. R. & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

• McElhaney, K. B., & Allen, J. P.  (2001).  Autonomy and adolescent social functioning: the moderating effect of risk.  Child Development, 72, 1, 220-235.

• Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood:Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611-621.

• Steinberg, L. (2002). Adolescence. Boston: McGraw Hill.