Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Theses Theses and Dissertations 4-2016 Why are some aggressive adolescents popular: Subgroups of Chinese aggressive youth Li Niu Purdue University Follow this and additional works at:https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses Part of theChinese Studies Commons, and theDevelopmental Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Niu, Li, "Why are some aggressive adolescents popular: Subgroups of Chinese aggressive youth" (2016).Open Access Theses. 800. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses/800 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Graduate School Form 30Updated(cid:0)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:0)(cid:6) PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared By LiNiu Entitled WHYARESOMEAGGRESSIVEADOLESCENTSPOPULAR:SUBGROUPSOFCHINESEAGGRESSIVEYOUTH MasterofScience For the degree of Is approved by the final examining committee: DoranFrench Chair ShawnWhiteman SaraSchmitt To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Thesis/Dissertation Agreement, Publication Delay, and Certification Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s“Policy of Integrity in Research” and the use of copyright material. DoranFrench Approved by Major Professor(s): DoranFrench 4/22/2016 Approved by: Head of the Departmental Graduate Program Date ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v(cid:1) CHAPTER 1.(cid:1) INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1(cid:1) 1.1(cid:1) Overview .............................................................................................................. 1(cid:1) 1.2(cid:1) Popularity and Aggression ................................................................................... 2(cid:1) 1.3(cid:1) Popularity in Chinese Youth ................................................................................ 4(cid:1) 1.4(cid:1) Diversity of Aggressive Youth ............................................................................. 5(cid:1) 1.5(cid:1) Heterogeneity of Aggressive Youth with Respect to Popularity .......................... 8(cid:1) 1.5.1(cid:1) Variable-Centered Approaches ................................................................... 9(cid:1) 1.5.2(cid:1) Person-Centered Approaches .................................................................... 10(cid:1) 1.6(cid:1) Variation by Age and Gender ............................................................................. 12(cid:1) 1.7(cid:1) The Current Study .............................................................................................. 13(cid:1) CHAPTER 2.(cid:1) METHOD ............................................................................................. 16(cid:1) 2.1(cid:1) Participants ......................................................................................................... 16(cid:1) 2.2(cid:1) Measures ............................................................................................................. 16(cid:1) 2.2.1(cid:1) Peer-reported popularity ........................................................................... 16(cid:1) 2.2.2(cid:1) Peer Nominations of Overt Aggression, Relational Aggression, Overall Aggression, Prosocial Behavior, Attractiveness, and Athleticism ............................ 17(cid:1) 2.2.3(cid:1) Self- and Teacher-Rated Self-Regulation ................................................. 18(cid:1) 2.2.4(cid:1) Academic Achievement ............................................................................ 19(cid:1) 2.3(cid:1) Analytic Plan ...................................................................................................... 19(cid:1) 2.3.1(cid:1) Subgroups of Aggressive Adolescents ...................................................... 19(cid:1) 2.3.2(cid:1) Cluster Analysis of Chinese Adolescents ................................................. 20 iii Page CHAPTER 3.(cid:1) RESULTS ............................................................................................. 22(cid:1) 3.1(cid:1) Characteristics of Aggressive-Popular, Aggressive Non-Popular, and Aggressive Average-Popular Subgroups ........................................................................................ 22(cid:1) 3.2(cid:1) Cluster Analysis .................................................................................................. 25(cid:1) 3.2.1(cid:1) K-Means Cluster Analysis ........................................................................ 25(cid:1) 3.2.2(cid:1) Cluster Solutions Separately by Grade ..................................................... 29(cid:1) 3.2.3(cid:1) Hierarchical Cluster Analysis ................................................................... 29(cid:1) 3.2.4(cid:1) Cluster Membership and Subgroup Membership ..................................... 31(cid:1) CHAPTER 4.(cid:1) DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 32(cid:1) 4.1(cid:1) Characteristics of Aggressive-Popular, Aggressive Non-Popular, and Aggressive Average-Popular Subgroups ........................................................................................ 32(cid:1) 4.1.1(cid:1) Aggression ................................................................................................ 33(cid:1) 4.1.2(cid:1) Prosocial Behavior .................................................................................... 34(cid:1) 4.1.3(cid:1) Self-Regulation ......................................................................................... 34(cid:1) 4.1.4(cid:1) Academic Achievement ............................................................................ 35(cid:1) 4.1.5(cid:1) Attractiveness and Athleticism ................................................................. 36(cid:1) 4.1.6(cid:1) Grade and Gender Effects ......................................................................... 37(cid:1) 4.2(cid:1) Clusters of Aggressive Youth ............................................................................. 38(cid:1) 4.3(cid:1) Summary of the Two Sets of Analyses .............................................................. 42(cid:1) 4.3.1(cid:1) Common Features ..................................................................................... 42(cid:1) 4.3.2(cid:1) Discrepancies ............................................................................................ 43(cid:1) 4.4(cid:1) Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .............................................. 44(cid:1) 4.4.1(cid:1) Limitation .................................................................................................. 44(cid:1) 4.4.2(cid:1) Implications ............................................................................................... 46(cid:1) CHAPTER 5.(cid:1) CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 47(cid:1) REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 48 iv LIST OF TABLES Table (cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)Page Table 1 Standardized Means and Standard Deviations for Subgroup Comparisons of Aggressive Adolescents .................................................................................................... 23(cid:1) Table 2 Standardized Means and Standard Deviations for Cluster Comparisons of Aggressive Adolescents .................................................................................................... 27(cid:1) Table 3 Standardized Means and Standard Deviations for Cluster Comparisons of Popularity, Athleticism, and Attractiveness by Gender and Grade .................................. 28(cid:1) Table 4 Crosstabulation of Cluster Membership of Aggressive Youth across K-Means and Hierarchical Methods ................................................................................................. 30(cid:1) Table 5 Crosstabulation of Cluster Membership of Aggressive Youth across Aggressive Subgroups ......................................................................................................................... 31(cid:1) v ABSTRACT(cid:1) Niu, Li. M.S., Purdue University, May 2016. Why Are Some Aggressive Adolescents Popular: Subgroups of Chinese Aggressive Youth. Major Professor: Doran French. This study examined the heterogeneity of Chinese aggressive adolescents to assess why some aggressive youths are popular and others are not. The sample included 1548 adolescents from eighth and eleventh grade in China and data were obtained from self- reports, teacher reports, and peer assessments. Results from a subgroup analysis in which aggressive youths were classified into high, average, and low popularity subgroups and a k-means cluster analysis indicated that there were two heterogeneous subgroups of aggressive youths who exhibited distinct behavioral profiles. Popular aggressive youths differed from less popular aggressive youths in their higher levels of aggression, prosocial behavior, self-regulation, academic achievement, athleticism, and attractiveness. These results revealed the existence of a small group of popular aggressive youth in Chinese school who differ in multiple ways from those aggressive youths who are not popular. 1 CHAPTER 1.(cid:1)INTRODUCTION 1.1(cid:1) Overview The prevailing opinion prior to the last decade was that it was possible to identify subgroups of children who differed in their social status and that youth in each of these subgroups displayed different levels of aggression (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Specifically, there was assumed to be a group of children who were rejected by others and were aggressive and another group who were liked by others (i.e., high in social preference) that were labeled “popular” and were not aggressive. Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, and Van Acker (2000) showed, however, that a subset of this group identified as popular were aggressive. There is now a large body of research, most of which was conducted in the US and Europe, revealing that children identified as popular by other children are more aggressive than those who are high in social preference. The finding that there is a group of popular children who are aggressive diverges from the previous view that aggression was uniquely characteristic of those with low social status (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Parkhurst & Asher, 1992). Most aggressive youth, however, are not popular. This leads to the important question of what characteristics differentiate aggressive youth that are popular from those 2 who are not. The purpose of this thesis is to explore this question using data from a large study of Chinese adolescents. 1.2(cid:1) Popularity and Aggression Much of the research on children’s peer status in 1970s and 1980s focused on understanding behavioral correlates of children who are classified into distinct sociometric groups. The most commonly used classification system was developed by Coie and his colleagues (1982), in which children were grouped into five sociometric categories (i.e., popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average) based on the extent to which they were liked and disliked by peers. Children who received high scores on social preference (i.e., high in liked score and low in disliked score) were labeled as popular and tended to be kind, trustworthy, prosocial and non-aggressive. Aggressive children tended to be classified into rejected and controversial groups. While children in the rejected group were aggressive and low on social preference (i.e., high in disliked score and low in liked score), those in the controversial group received high scores on social impact (i.e., high in both liked and disliked score). These controversial children tended to be more aggressive than the rejected children and yet were perceived as social leaders similar to that of popular children (Coie et al., 1982; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). These sociometrically popular children differed from the ethnographic portrait of popular adolescents. Ethnographers who observed popular children described them as dominant, sometimes aggressive, and socially manipulative (Adler & Adler, 1995; Adler, Kless, & Adler, 1992). Thus, Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1998) suggested an alternative approach to identifying popular children based on asking children directly to nominate