Middle School Peer Reputation in High-achieving Schools:
Ramifications for Maladjustment versus Competence by Age 18
Alexandria S. Curlee, Leona S. Aiken, and Suniya S. Luthar
Arizona State University
Curlee, A., Aiken, L., & Luthar, S. (2018). Middle school peer reputation in high-achieving
schools: Ramifications for maladjustment versus competence by age 18. Development and
Psychopathology, 1-15. doi:10.1017/S0954579418000275
FOR PUBLISHED VERSION, PLEASE EMAIL SLuthar@asu.edu
Alexandria S. Curlee, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University; Leona S.
Aiken, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University; Suniya S. Luthar, Department of
Psychology, Arizona State University
This research was supported by NIH grant DA014385. We are grateful to the children
and families who have participated in this research, and thank Yu Liu, Department of
Psychological, Health, and Learning Sciences, University of Houston, for her assistance with the
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suniya S. Luthar,
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ 85287-
1104. Phone number: 480-965-7598. E-mail: Suniya.Luthar@asu.edu
Short title: Peer Reputation and Future Adjustment
In an upper-middle class setting, we explored associations between students’ peer reputation in
the 6th and 7th grades with adjustment at 12th grade. With a sample of 209 students, a confirmatory
factor analysis of peer reputation dimensions supported a four-factor model, i.e., popular,
prosocial, aggressive, isolated. Structural equation models were used to examine prospective
links between middle school peer reputation and diverse 12th grade adjustment indices, including
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 2
academic achievement (SAT scores and GPA), internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and use
of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Prosocial reputation was connected to higher academic
achievement levels and fewer externalizing symptoms. Both prosocial and isolated reputations
were negatively associated with dimensions of substance use, whereas popularity was positively
associated. Implications for future research and interventions are discussed.
Keywords: peer reputation, prosocial, longitudinal, substance use, adolescence
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 3
The central question addressed in this study is as follows: Among youth in upper-middle
class communities, might dimensions of negative and positive peer reputation, measured through
peer nominations in middle school, be significantly related to adjustment at the end of high
school? In view of the strong influence of peers during adolescence, we aimed to investigate
long-term associations of peer reputation in middle school with academic outcomes (both GPA
and standardized SAT scores), internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and substance use
(alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use) in late adolescence in a sample of relatively affluent
youth. Peer reputation was characterized on four dimensions: popular, prosocial, aggressive, and
isolated. Specific positive versus negative associations, characterized below, were expected
between individual dimensions assessed in middle school and outcomes fully six years later.
Our focus on this group stems from the perception that “privileged” youth attending high-
achieving schools should generally be well adjusted; the greater social support, more material
resources, and high-quality education associated with higher socioeconomic status would place
them on a positive developmental path (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). However, by adolescence,
this demographic of teens exhibits high externalizing symptoms and elevated rates of substance
use compared to national norms (for reviews, see Luthar, Barkin, & Crossman, 2013; Luthar &
Kumar, in press). The quality of their peer reputations may relate to adjustment over time,
including academic achievement, psychopathology, and substance use.
Peer Relationships and Reputation
Peer influence on adolescents’ behavior may occur through both interaction with and
observation of other youth. Through social learning, teens develop beliefs about normative peer
behavior and adjust their conduct to align with age-group members (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005).
In smaller peer sets, youth take on specific in-group norms, and as part of group membership, are
labeled by their peers with certain reputations (Rubin, Coplan, Chen, Buskirk, & Wojslawowicz,
2005). Youth also self-select into groups based on reputation, reinforcing their beliefs and
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 4
behaviors through shared group norms (Chung-Hall & Chen, 2010). Regardless of selection or
socialization, social identity theory states that group membership plays a role in identity
development and subsequent behaviors (Barber, Stone, Hunt, & Eccles, 2005), with far-reaching
effects on adjustment. Thus, peer reputation merits examination in terms of future functioning.
Middle School Peer Reputation
The impact of peer reputation may be particularly important in middle school, a time
when youth begin to place more importance on the evaluations of peers rather than parents
(Rosenberg, 1979). As part of this process, youth invest in earning and maintaining a positive
peer reputation, often desiring to be seen as popular (Cillessen, Schwartz, & Mayeux, 2011). The
acquisition of particular types of peer reputation may in turn have significant ramifications for
adjustment over time.
For youth in high-achieving schools, reputation may be especially influential given
increased social competition. Adolescents with parents of relatively high socioeconomic status
have been found to have greater competitiveness and peer envy than adolescents with parents of
middle or low socioeconomic status (Luthar & Kumar, in press; Buunk, Stulp, & Ormel, 2014).
One possibility is that adults with high socioeconomic status may pass on to their children an
emphasis on extrinsic values such as status (Ciciolla, Curlee, Karageorge, & Luthar, 2016) that
could enhance their children’s pressure to succeed socially.
Measuring Peer Reputation
Peer reputation, based on classmate nominations along multiple dimensions (e.g.,
aggressiveness, isolation), reflects a young person’s social behaviors, characteristics, and
influence among peers (Gest, Sesma, Masten, & Tellegen, 2006). Peer reputation is distinct from
sociometric status (i.e., whether the child is liked or disliked) assessed by nominations from
classmates for “liked most” and “liked least” (Prinstein & La Greca, 2004). Put another way,
peer reputation consists of the major behavioral profiles, both negative and positive, that tend to
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 5
define an individual in the eyes of peers (Prinstein, 2007). Behavioral profiles as peer reputations
are useful in capturing peer concepts such as perceived popularity (Rubin et al., 2005).
Peer reputation has commonly been measured by the Revised Class Play (RCP; Masten,
Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985), wherein students place their classmates into different roles for a
play which they are directing. The roles map onto specific attributes that underlie dimensions of
peer reputation. Peer nominations for the RCP roles typically reveal four dimensions: popular,
prosocial, aggressive, and isolated. The first two are sometimes combined into one positive
reputation labeled sociability-leader (Obradović, Burt & Masten, 2009; Gest et al., 2006; Masten
et al., 1985). Zeller, Vannatta, Schafer, and Noll (2003) explored the psychometric properties of
the RCP across elementary, middle, and high school students, finding a four-factor model to be a
reliable and valid way to evaluate behavioral reputation across all age ranges (see also Luthar &
Popular reputation describes youth who are socially central and prominent among their
peers, reflected in RCP roles “everyone likes to be with” and “makes new friends easily.” In
contrast, a prosocial reputation is characterized by friendliness, trustworthiness, and helpfulness
as reflected in roles “helps others when they need it” and “polite” (Zeller et al., 2003). The
aggressive, or aggressive-disruptive reputation, encompasses hostile and antisocial behavior
exemplified in roles “gets into a lot of fights” and “teases other children too much.” Lastly, an
isolated reputation represents youth who interact rarely with peers as illustrated by the roles “has
trouble making friends” and “often left out” (Gest et al. 2006; Masten et al., 1985).
Each peer reputation relates to personal and behavioral adjustment concurrently and over
time among low- and middle-socioeconomic status youth, including academic achievement,
internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and more rarely studied substance use. Both person-
oriented and variable-oriented approaches are used to establish reputation-outcome linkages
(Luthar & McMahon, 1996). The variable-oriented strategy predominates in studies linking the
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 6
RCP to outcomes considered here. Finally, we note that with two exceptions (Becker & Luthar,
2007; Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999), the literature reviewed here is based on samples of students in
low and middle socioeconomic status communities.
Prosocial Peer Reputation and Adjustment
Prosocial is the least understood peer reputation, partly because prosocial reputation is
separated from popular reputation in only some research. On its own, high prosocial reputation is
associated with positive adjustment indices such as relatively low externalizing symptoms (Gest
et al., 2006; Luthar, 1995). High prosocial reputation longitudinally predicts the highest teacher
ratings of adaptive functioning among the four common RCP peer reputations (Realmuto,
August, & Hektner, 2000), as well as better academic and romantic outcomes later in life (Gest et
al., 2006). The scant research linking prosocial reputation to substance use shows a negative
relationship (Carlo, Crockett, Wilkinson, & Beal, 2011).
In this sample, we predicted that youth with higher prosocial scores would exhibit
positive outcomes in high school. These outcomes included low levels of internalizing and
externalizing symptoms, high academic achievement, and infrequent substance use over time.
Popular Peer Reputation and Adjustment
Popular reputation, or perceived popularity as distinct from likeability, has gained recent
attention. Beyond RCP popular reputation, popularity is measured by peer nominations of “most
popular” and “least popular” (e.g., Mayeux, Sandstrom, & Cillessen, 2008). Unlike likeability,
popularity is associated with both positive and negative traits (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). On
the one hand, youth with popular reputations thrive as well-adjusted individuals, manifesting
relatively high social and romantic competence in longitudinal research (Gest et al., 2006).
Similarly, popular reputation among 9th grade students predicted lower internalizing symptoms
over time (Luthar, 1995). On the other hand, popular reputation has also been linked to negative
outcomes. Among elementary and middle school children, popular reputation was positively
associated with externalizing symptoms (Gest et al., 2006), and a sociable reputation among high
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 7
school youth was associated with academic declines over a six-month period (Luthar, 1995).
Moreover, youth who use substances in middle school are more likely to be rated as popular by
their peers (Killeya-Jones, Nakajima, & Costanzo, 2007), and peer-perceived popularity
positively predicts alcohol use (Guyll, Madon, Spoth, & Lannin, 2014; Mayeux, et al., 2008).
Further distinguishing popularity from likability are positive associations between
popularity and both aggression and deviant behavior (López-Romero & Romero, 2010;
Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). Perceived popularity in high school has been linked to high-risk
behaviors in emerging adulthood, including drug use and sexual behavior (Sandstrom &
Cillessen, 2010). Popularity also exhibits positive longitudinal bidirectional relationships with
both physical and relational aggression (Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004).
For popular youth, aggressive behaviors may be useful during adolescence with decreased
effectiveness as they age (Cillessen & Rose, 2005).
In affluent communities, popular youth tend to be particularly prone to high substance
use, reporting higher rates of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit drug use compared to national norms
and compared to inner-city youth (Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999). Elevated rates of use have been
replicated across several samples from relatively affluent schools (Coley, Sims, Dearing, &
Spielvogel, 2017; Lund, Dearing, & Zachrisson, 2017; Luthar & Barkin, 2012). Within the
context of affluence, these elevated rates may be connected to ease in acquiring substances along
with a desire for peer approval. Indeed, peer-perceived popularity has been associated with
substance use in boys in affluent, suburban communities (Becker & Luthar, 2007; Luthar &
In this study, we predicted negative associations of popular reputation with academic
success and internalizing symptoms. Conversely, we predicted positive associations of popular
reputation with substance use and externalizing symptoms.
Aggressive Peer Reputation and Adjustment
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 8
Most studies positively link aggressive reputations with elevated maladjustment, not
surprisingly, given that aggression is an externalizing behavior (Reef, Diamantopoulou, van
Meurs, Verhulst, & van der Ende, 2011). Peer-nominated aggressive reputation predicted teacher-
rated low competence (Yang, Chen, & Wang, 2014), as well as teacher-reported elevated
externalizing symptoms four years later (Realmuto et al., 2000). Childhood aggressive reputation
predicted externalizing symptoms, worse academic achievement, and lower job competence 10
years later (Gest et al., 2006; Morison & Masten, 1991).
Few studies have explored the relationship between aggressive reputation and substance
use. Peer-reported aggressive reputation in pre-adolescent girls predicted cigarette use, heavy
episodic drinking, and marijuana use in late adolescence (Prinstein & La Greca, 2004). This is
consistent with evidence that teacher-, parent- and self-reported childhood aggression are each
linked with later substance use (Jester, Nigg, Buu, Puttler, Glass, et al., 2008; Fite, Colder,
Lochman, & Wells, 2007).
Despite these associations with negative outcomes, aggressive reputation has also shown
positive links with social competence and higher status among peers (Becker & Luthar, 2007;
Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Unlike youth viewed as isolated, youth seen as aggressive have
many peer interactions (Bagwell, Coie, Terry, & Lochman, 2000), which may be associated with
social feedback and higher social status. This is supported by the previously discussed
association between popularity and aggression (Cillessen & Borch, 2006; Gest et al. 2006). More
specifically, there is a strong link between popularity and relational aggression, a means to
achieve high peer status (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004).
In this study, we expected that associations between aggressive reputation and outcome
measures would resemble those for popular reputation. These included positive links with
externalizing symptoms and substance use and negative links with internalizing symptoms and
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 9
Isolated Peer Reputation and Adjustment
Prior work is inconclusive on the relationship between isolated peer reputation and
internalizing symptoms (Oh, Rubin, Bowker, Booth-LaForce, Rose-Krasnor et al., 2008;
Realmuto et al., 2000; Morison & Masten, 1991). Gest and colleagues (2006) found that when
the isolated reputation is divided into three facets (peer exclusion, withdrawn, sad-sensitive),
only high scores on the sad-sensitive facet were related to higher risk for internalizing symptoms.
Research focused on self-reported social isolation suggests that peer isolation puts children at
risk for later internalizing symptoms. Moreover, children isolated from peers show higher odds
of suicide attempts, elevated depressive symptoms, and lower self-esteem (Hall-Lande,
Eisenberg, Christenson, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2007).
Encouragingly, isolated reputation is positively linked to higher concurrently assessed
academic achievement (Chen, Wang, & Cao, 2011; Luthar & McMahon, 1996). Further, high
academic achievement appears to be protective over time, mitigating the longitudinal
relationship of isolated reputation to internalizing symptoms (Chen, Yang, & Wang, 2013). In
addition to academic benefits, a higher score on sensitive-isolated reputation predicted fewer
externalizing problems four years later (Realmuto et al., 2000).
Evidence on isolation from peers and substance use is mixed. Some research connects
peer isolation to a greater risk of substance use (Prinstein, Rancourt, Guerry, & Browne, 2009);
other studies indicate a lower risk, particularly for alcohol use (Kramer & Vaquera, 2011). It is
conceivable that an isolated reputation may be protective from negative outcomes such as drug
use, since these children remain sheltered from the deviant influences of their peers.
In this study, we predicted a positive relationship between scores on isolated reputation
and both internalizing symptoms and academic outcomes. In contrast, we predicted a negative
relationship between isolated reputation scores and both externalizing symptoms and substance
Summary of Goals: Illuminating the Long-term Implications of Peer Reputation
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 10
Given mixed evidence on links between peer reputation and outcomes, coupled with
powerful peer influences during middle school and elevated social competitiveness among youth
in relatively affluent communities, our goals were to investigate the long-term associations of
peer reputation in middle school, and multiple outcomes in late adolescence. Adjustment indices
examined included academic performance (both GPA and standardized SAT scores), symptoms
of both internalizing and externalizing, and substance use (alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use).
Hypotheses were that (a) both popular and aggressive reputations in middle school would be
positively associated with substance use and externalizing symptoms and negatively associated
with internalizing symptoms and academic outcomes in late adolescence; (b) prosocial reputation
in middle school would be negatively associated with substance use, internalizing symptoms, and
externalizing symptoms, and positively associated with academic outcomes in late adolescence,
and (c) isolated reputation in middle school would be negatively associated with substance use
and externalizing symptoms and positively associated with academic outcomes and internalizing
symptoms in late adolescence.
Data for this study from 6th, 7th, and 12th grades (1999, 2000, & 2005 respectively) came
from a larger longitudinal study, the New England Study of Suburban Youth (NESSY; Luthar &
Barkin, 2012), in which data were collected annually in middle and high schools in a suburban
community. At the beginning of the study, of the eligible 346 sixth grade students in the two
middle schools in the town, 319 participated (152 females and 167 males), producing a 92%
initial participation rate. Another 37 students joined the study in 7th grade. When long-term
outcome data were collected in 2005 at the end of 12th grade, 209 of the original participants
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 11
completed the questionnaires, generating a 59% retention rate across the six years (Luthar &
Most students in the sample were Caucasian (92% white non-Hispanic). The average age
of the 319 participants at wave one (6th grade) of the study was 11.57 (SD= .54) years for boys
and 11.56 (SD= .50) years for girls. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), the
approximate mean and median annual family income at the first wave of the study were
$188,000 and $152,000, respectively, classifying this community as affluent. More recent state
data from 2014 shows mean and median family income at approximately $255,000 and $152,000
(Department of Economic and Community Development, 2016).
Participants were recruited for the study through passive consent with letters mailed
home to parents with study information and a form to request that their child not participate. All
survey materials were stored by subject number, and to date, data have been presented in
aggregate form to protect participants’ confidentiality in accordance with approved IRB
Data collection in the 6th and 7th grades occurred during school hours over a two-day
period in classrooms of 20–25 students with questions read aloud to students. Classroom teachers
were gifted $1 per participating student toward a pizza party, a recommendation from the school
administration, and teachers were compensated $5 for each student they rated. With permission
from parents and the school administration, class grades were collected for all participating
students. In the 12th grade, data were collected with students seated at tables in the cafeteria.
Again, class grades were collected with permission from parents and school administration, as
were SAT scores.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 12
Revised Class Play nominations in 6th and 7th grades. To measure social reputation, the
Revised Class Play (RCP; Masten, et al., 1985) was used. We selected, a priori, four items to
represent each of the four RCP dimensions in this study. These were items that have high face
validity as measures of the construct and have consistently shown high factor loadings on the
dimension in past research (Zeller et al., 2003; Luthar & McMahon, 1996).
Students chose classmates who best fit roles for an imaginary play they were directing.
Each student received a list of participating classmates from their English class; in reminding
children of all available classmates, using such a list decreased the likelihood that some students
(e.g., those absent from class that day) would be overlooked in nominations. Students could
nominate up to three peers in all, including boys and girls, for each role and could nominate the
same peer for more than one role. Students were not allowed to self-nominate. This procedure
produces a sum of counts of peer nominations for children within a given class, generated by a
group who knows them well, as they have interacted with them for several months as classmates.
In short, what we obtained were nominations on children’s observed behaviors by a group of
others who interacted with them regularly.
Roles in the play included both positive (“is a good leader”) and negative (“can’t get
others to listen”) attributes. The same 16 items from the RCP in 6th grade and 7th grade were
analyzed. The observed score on each item was the number of nominations a student received,
standardized within classroom and gender to control for variation in overall class size and gender
mix within classrooms (Realmuto et al., 2000; Luthar & McMahon, 1996).
Good psychometric properties of the RCP have been documented with middle school
children, including high factor structure reliability across 6 months with the 4-factor model
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 13
(Luthar & McMahon, 1996) and across 17 months with the 3-factor model (Masten et al., 1985).
High internal consistency of RCP scale scores measured by coefficient alpha using a 4-factor
model have been documented across genders (Luthar & McMahon, 1996), cross-culturally
(Casiglia, LoCoco, & Zappulla, 1998), and across school levels (Zeller et al., 2003), including
elementary, middle school and high school. Construct validity has been supported through
comparison to related adjustment indices (Casiglia et al. 1998; Luthar & McMahon, 1996).
When measured in middle school, the RCP was found to have predictive validity for
psychosocial adjustment during adolescence and early adulthood (Gest et al., 2006; Morison &
Masten, 1991). As reported below, we found adequate internal consistency of the RCP scales in
both the 6th and 7th grade in the present data.
12th Grade Outcome Variables
Substance use. To measure substance use, the frequency of drug use grid from the
Monitoring the Future study was employed (Bachman, O'Malley, & Johnston, 1984). This
measure asks participants to endorse how often a substance was used over the preceding year, as
well as over the preceding month. Responses were on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
“never” to “40+ times.” Self-report has been previously documented as a valid method of
measuring drug use, showing construct validity, external validity, and internal validity
(O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1983). In this study, use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana
over the past year served as outcome measures of drug use, given that these three substances
have the highest rates of use among high school students (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman,
Internalizing and externalizing symptoms. The internalizing and externalizing scales
of the Youth Self Report (YSR), a 112-item measure (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), were used
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 14
to determine symptom severity. The three alternative responses to each item were as follows: 0
“Not True,” 1 “Somewhat or Sometimes True,” and 2 “Very True or Often True.” Internalizing
symptoms were computed using the YSR subscales Anxious-Depressed, Withdrawn-Depressed,
and Somatic, whereas externalizing symptoms consisted of Rule Breaking and Aggressive
Behavior subscales. This widely used measure has been shown to be reliable and valid
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for girls and boys,
respectively, were as follows: Anxious-Depressed .78 and .86, Withdrawn-Depressed .72 and .76,
Somatic .70 and .85, Rule Breaking .68 and .77, and Aggressive Behavior .82 and .82. For the
combined internalizing subscale, there was good internal consistency, as measured by coefficient
alpha .85 for girls and .92 for boys; the same was true for the combined externalizing subscale,
with coefficient alpha of .84 for girls and .88 for boys.
Academic outcomes. Academic achievement was measured with two variables.
Grade point average (GPA) was calculated for each student using grades from four
classes (English, math, science, and social studies) from the previous three school-year quarters.
GPA was used as an indicator of academic achievement. Letter grades were coded such that an
A+ received a score of thirteen and an F received a score of one.
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores assess a high school student’s academic college
readiness. The SAT is a standardized test taken by high school students in the United States and
is a widely used criterion for college admissions. When SAT data were collected in this study,
tests were scored on a scale from 400 to 1600, higher scores indicating higher college readiness.
Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2011) was used to evaluate the extent to which the
models fit the data within a structural equation model framework. Two classes of analyses were
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 15
performed. The first was a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) examining the factor
structure of the RCP. The second was a series of structural models predicting 12th grade outcomes
from middle school peer reputations (i.e., from the four RCP dimensions). Variance-covariance
matrices were analyzed to estimate parameters for both measurement and structural models.
Goodness of fit was assessed by chi-square tests as well as root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR). Adequate fit was based on the following cut-off scores: RMSEA < .08, CFI > .
95, and SRMR < .05 (Yu & Muthén, 2002; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
All analyses of 12th grade outcomes controlled for 6th grade status on the same or
closely related measures. Specifically, GPA at Grade 6 served as the covariate for Grade 12 GPA;
Grade 6 GPA also served as the covariate for SAT, which is only measured in the 12th grade.
Measures of anxiety and depression at Grade 6 served as covariates for Grade 12 internalizing.
Delinquency at Grade 6 served as the covariate for Grade 12 externalizing. Grade 6 alcohol use,
cigarette use, and marijuana use served as covariates for Grade 12 alcohol use, cigarette use, and
marijuana use, respectively.
Of the original 356 participants with data from 6th, 7th, or both grades, 147 cases (41%)
were eliminated because the child was not available in 12th grade to collect data. On 6 of 8 study
variables, there were non-significant differences between retained and attrited 6th grade students:
GPA ([retained – attrited], t(317) = 1.37, p = .17, d = .16), depression symptoms (t(313) = 0.91, p
= .37, d = .10), anxiety symptoms (t(310) = 0.36, p = .72, d = .04), delinquency (t(308) = -0.28, p
= .78, d = .04), prosocial reputation t(317) = 1.37, p = .17, d = .16, and isolated reputation
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 16
t(317)= -0.33, p = .74, d = .04. However, children who attrited had higher aggressive and
popularity scores, [retained – attrited] t(317) = -3.42, p < .01, d = .38, t(317) = -2.35, p = .02, d =
.26, respectively. In all, 14% of attrited students had aggression scores at least two standard
deviations above the mean in Grade 7 as opposed to 7% of retained students. For popularity,
these values were 11% versus 5%, respectively. Substance use was almost nonexistent in Grade 6
so was not used in attrition analyses.
Missing data were handled in all analyses with full information maximum likelihood
estimation (FIML) in Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2011). There were 23 students who lacked
only 6th grade RCP reputation scores and 10 who lacked only 7th grade RCP scores. All peer
reputation data from students measured at a particular grade were complete. RCP measures are
based on peer report; therefore, students with permission to participate in the study did not have
to be present to be nominated by their peers for roles in the RCP. One participant did not respond
to 12th grade alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Five GPA and fourteen SAT scores were
missing, and one participant was lacking YSR data.
The measurement model for the RCP predicted a four-factor structure previously reported
by Luthar and McMahon (1996) and Zeller et al. (2003). Table 1 shows the items hypothesized
to compose each reputation along with the mean count and standard deviations of nominations
received by students. The relatively low skew and kurtosis of the items were within the cutoffs
provided by West, Finch, and Curran (1995) for use of maximum likelihood estimation.
INSERT TABLE 1
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 17
Initial confirmatory factor analysis. The model for the CFA contained the four RCP
dimensions as latent factors, with the 16 individual items permitted to load only on their specific
latent factors. The four RCP latent factors were permitted to covary, since the RCP measure
permitted nominations of a student on multiple scales. The initial CFAs were estimated on 6th and
7th grades separately; identical models were estimated in the two grades. Initial modeling of the
four-factor, 16-item model in each grade surfaced two extremely highly correlated items on the
aggression factor: “picks on other kids” and “teases other children too much”, r = .73 in 6th grade
and r = .71 in 7th grade. The “picks on other kids” item was deleted, due both to this high
correlation and its high skew and kurtosis in 6th grade. The prosocial item “will wait their turn”
was also deleted due to its strong cross loadings on popularity and aggressive factors in 6th grade
and popularity, aggressive, and isolated factors in 7th grade.
The CFA models at each grade were re-estimated with the 14 items listed in Table 2 (i.e.,
(4 popular, 3 prosocial, 3 aggressive, 4 isolated). Models are presented in Figure 1. Fit was
acceptable, based on fit indices in both grades: Grade 6 (χ2 (71, N = 186) = 116.04, p < .01; CFI
= .97; RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .04, .08]; SRMR = .05) and Grade 7 (χ2 (71, N = 199) = 87.24,
p = .09; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03 [90% CI = .00, .06]; SRMR = .04). All items loaded on their
respective factors, with item loadings ranging from .64 to .92 and .59 to .94 in the 6th and 7th
grades, respectively (see Table 2). Composite reliabilities, reported in Table 2, ranged between .
67 and .93 and were calculated by dividing the sum of the squared standardized factor loadings
by the sum of squared standardized factor loadings plus the sum of the residual error variances
following Raykov (1997).
INSERT FIGURE 1 AND TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 18
Specification of combined-grades model. Within each grade, the three or four indicators
of each reputation were summed to create four reputation scale scores per grade level. As shown
in Figure 2, the measured reputation scale scores in the 6th and 7th grades served as indicators of
the latent RCP dimensions; for model identification, unstandardized loadings of the two
indicators per reputation scale were constrained equal. RCP dimensions were permitted to
correlate. Within each grade, all indicators were permitted to correlate to account for shared time
The combined-grades model fit the data well (χ2 (6, N = 209) = 8.42, p = .21; CFI = .99;
RMSEA = .04 [90% CI = .00, .11]; SRMR = .04) without further adjustments to the model.
Correlations among latent factors are given in Figure 2, as are standardized loadings of all
indicators on their respective factors. All indicators loaded significantly on their respective
factors (p < .01 in all cases), and all peer reputation latent factors were significantly correlated (p
< .01 in all cases) with the exception of isolated and aggressive.
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
Structural Equation Models
A total of seven path models were used to predict adjustment outcomes at Grade 12 from
the four RCP scores and appropriate covariates. Continuous outcomes included academic
achievement (GPA and SAT scores) and psychopathology (internalizing and externalizing), and
ordered categorical outcomes included alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. The latent variable
structure of the RCP from the combined-grades model served as predictors of each outcome in a
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 19
series of structural equation models (SEMs). Appropriate Grade 6 covariates were included in the
models (e.g., Grade 6 GPA in the model predicting Grade 12 GPA). Descriptive statistics of the
adjustment outcome variables are reported in Table 3.
INSERT TABLES 3 AND 4 ABOUT HERE
Correlations of latent RCP variables. Table 4 contains the correlations estimated in the
SEMs among the RCP latent dimensions and of the RCP dimensions with the seven outcome
variables. There were substantial correlations among the RCP latent variables, notably between
popular and isolated (latent correlation = -.54) and between prosocial and aggressive (latent
correlation = -.47). Prosocial was positively correlated with GPA and SAT, while aggression was
negatively correlated. Popular exhibited positive correlations with all substance use variables,
while the opposite was true for isolated reputation. Aggression was only slightly
(nonsignifcantly) positively correlated with alcohol and marijuana use, but more strongly with
cigarette use. No RCP dimension correlated with internalizing, whereas prosocial correlated
negatively, and aggressive positively, with externalizing.
Academic Outcomes (GPA, SAT). Model fit was adequate for structural models
predicting academic outcomes: GPA (χ2 (18, N = 209) = 20.12, p = .33; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03
[90% CI = .00, .07]; SRMR = .05) and SAT (χ2 (18, N = 209) = 18.22, p = .44; CFI = 1.00;
RMSEA = .01 [90% CI = .00, .07]; SRMR = .05).
Table 5 reports the path coefficients for the prediction of Grade 12 GPA, with the four
RCP reputations and corresponding outcome covariate as predictors in the GPA structural model.
In this model with simultaneous prediction from the four RCP reputations, only prosocial but not
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 20
aggressive reputation was a significant predictor, attributable to the strong negative correlation
between the prosocial and aggressive reputations. The same result was found for prediction of
SAT scores (see Table 5). In addition, the covariate Grade 6 GPA was a significant predictor of
Grade 12 GPA but did not predict Grade 12 SAT scores.
INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
Psychological Symptomatology Outcomes (Internalizing, Externalizing). Fit
statistics suggested acceptable model fit for psychopathology: internalizing symptoms (χ2 (18, N
= 209) = 27.15, p = .08; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .0, .08]; SRMR = .04) and
externalizing symptoms (χ2 (18, N = 209) = 23.61, p = .17; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04 [90% CI = .
00, .08]; SRMR = .05). In the structural models in which each outcome was predicted
simultaneously from the four reputation latent variables plus corresponding covariates, prosocial
reputation negatively predicted externalizing, with no RCP dimensions predicting internalizing
symptoms (see Table 5). Regarding covariates, measures of internalizing at Grade 6 (depression
and anxiety) did not predict Grade 12 internalizing, whereas delinquency at Grade 6 positively
predicted Grade 12 externalizing. Finally, given the positive skew and kurtosis of both
internalizing and externalizing, we re-estimated models with robust maximum likelihood (MLR);
results were consistent with ML.
Substance Use Outcomes (Alcohol, Cigarettes, Marijuana). Substance use was
measured on ordered categorical scales of use frequency (never, 1-2 times, 3-5 times…40+
times). The structural models specified an ordered categorical dependent variable and were
estimated with weighted least squares means and variances adjusted (WLSMV) estimator (Yu &
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 21
Muthén, 2002). Fit statistics from the WLSMV models suggested that the models fit the data
adequately: alcohol (χ2 (18, N = 209) = 26.54, p = .09; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .00, .
09]), cigarettes (χ2 (18, N = 209) = 21.89, p = .24; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03 [90% CI = .00, .
08]), and marijuana (χ2 (18, N = 209) = 19.51, p = .36; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .02 [90% CI = .
00, .07]). As shown in Table 5, with all four reputations and corresponding Grade 6 covariate as
predictors, popular reputation positively predicted all three substance use outcomes, whereas
prosocial and isolated reputations negatively predicted all three substance use outcomes (p = .06
in one case).
Aggressive reputation has a positive correlation with cigarette use yet did not predict
cigarette use in the path model. This is attributable to prediction of cigarette use by popular and
prosocial reputations in the model and strong correlation between the aggressive reputation and
both popular and prosocial reputations.
An anomalous negative path coefficient was noted for aggressive reputation predicting
marijuana use (p = .04). This negative coefficient is directly attributable to statistical
suppression, with aggressive reputation serving as a suppressor variable. As shown in Table 4,
aggressive reputation manifested a small, nonsignificant model estimated positive correlation
with marijuana use (r = .07) while being substantially correlated with popular and prosocial
reputation (r = .33, -.47, respectively). When aggressive reputation was included as a predictor of
marijuana use in the model containing all reputation latent variables, the standardized path
coefficient for popular (path coefficient = 31.) exceeded its correlation with marijuana use (r =
24). In turn, aggressive reputation manifested a negative path (path coefficient = -.33) that
exceeded its correlation with marijuana use (r = .07) and was of reversed sign of this close to
zero correlation coefficient. This pattern well represents the general pattern of statistical
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 22
suppression (Tzelgov & Henik, 1991). The suppression effect can be interpreted to mean that
aggressive reputation is partialed out of the popular reputation, and that this partialed measure of
popular reputation unconfounded with aggressiveness predicts marijuana use.
Covariates of substance use at Grade 6 were included in the models. Although Grade 6
cigarette use did not predict Grade 12 cigarette use, and Grade 6 marijuana use did not predict
Grade 12 marijuana use, Grade 6 alcohol use positively predicted Grade 12 alcohol use.
In the first long-term, prospective study to explore dimensions of middle school peer
reputation in the context of relative affluence, findings revealed that these were significantly
related to multiple adjustment outcomes several years later at the end of high school, ranging
from performance on a major standardized test (SAT) to frequency of substance use. The
findings on substance use are of particular significance because this is a problem that has been
repeatedly documented among teens in relatively affluent schools (Coley et al., 2017; Lund et al,
2017; Luthar et al., 2013) with potentially serious long-term sequalae including markedly
elevated rates of addiction to drugs and alcohol, relative to norms (Luthar et al., 2017).
More generally, our findings on peer relationships provide critical insights that further
illuminate the bigger picture of an academically and socially competitive environment in which
many upper-middle class children may struggle (see Luthar et al., 2013). Peer reputation, as an
aspect of peer environment, impacts the behaviors and beliefs of youth and may be particularly
salient for teens whose peer environment may be highly competitive and prone to envy, which in
turn presages maladjustment (Luthar & Kumar, in press; Luthar et al., 2013).
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 23
A prosocial reputation in middle school was associated with healthy adjustment outcomes
in later years. These included relatively high academic grades and SAT scores, low
psychopathology symptoms, and the novel finding of low substance use (alcohol, cigarettes, and
marijuana use in 12th grade according to model path coefficients) by late adolescence.
One reason that a prosocial reputation may be associated with positive future outcomes is
because prosocial behaviors are associated with positive adjustment. For example, prosocial
spending has been linked to positive well-being in both rich and poor countries (Aknin,
Barrington-Leigh, Dunn, Helliwell, Burns, et al., 2013). Moreover, helping others is associated
with better mental health, (Schwartz, Meisenhelder, Yusheng, & Reed, 2003), greater life
satisfaction, and higher self-esteem (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Additionally, a positive
relationship exists between prosocial behavior and academic endeavors (Caprara, Kanacri,
Gerbino, Zuffiano, Alessandri, et al. 2014).
Not only prosocial behaviors, but the values underlying the behaviors of young people
with prosocial reputations may foster well-being. In an environment where competition is rife
and getting ahead is highly emphasized (Luthar et al., 2013), youth who value helping others and
showing kindness, rather than personal gain and status, may in some way be protected from the
subcultural risk of high competitiveness (Ciciolla et al., 2016). For instance, prosocial values
have been linked to less delinquency, drug use, and risky sexual behavior among diverse groups
of adolescents (Ludwig & Pittman, 1999) suggesting that valuing prosocial activities decreases
the likelihood of risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, prosocial values have been tied to intrinsic
values such as friendship, community, and personal growth, which are thought to fulfill basic
psychological needs, unlike extrinsic values such as status and wealth (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, &
Kasser, 2004). In the United States, where youth place great importance on extrinsic goals such
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 24
as attaining money and fame (Twenge & Kasser, 2013), a greater focus on intrinsic goals
promoted by prosocial values may be a key part in improving the well-being of adolescents.
Although the outcomes of both may appear beneficial, many middle school children do
not actively strive for a prosocial reputation, but instead endeavor to be viewed as popular
(Cillessen et al., 2011). Popular reputation was distinct from prosocial reputation among youth in
this study, showing positive relationships with all three substance use outcomes, corroborating
prior findings that separate prosocial and popular as distinct reputations (Gest et al., 2006; Zeller
et al., 2003; Realmuto et al., 2000; Luthar & McMahon, 1996).
The relationship between substance use at Grade 12 and pre-adolescent popularity may
derive from third variables that assist youth in gaining a popular reputation as well as increase
risk for drug use or delinquent behavior. For instance, children in 6th and 7th grades who have low
parental monitoring or who spend much time with older children may be viewed as popular by
peers and may be at greater risk for drug use concurrently and in the future (Luthar et al., 2013;
2017; Dishion, Nelson, & Kavanagh, 2003). Alternatively, according to Reputation Enhancement
Theory, as youth develop a reputation among their peers, their behavior is influenced by their
emerging identities and by the desire to maintain that identity (Emler & Reicher, 1995). In
accordance with this theory, children with a popular reputation may behave in ways that meet
with peer approval, and in relatively affluent communities, substance use has been linked with
peer acceptance (Luthar & D’Avanzo, 1999; Becker & Luthar, 2007). Indirectly, popular children
seeking to maintain their social standing may behave in ways that put them at greater risk for
substance use, including disregarding social rules and seeking peer attention (López-Romero &
Romero, 2011; de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006).
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 25
In this study, isolated peer reputation appeared protective against experimentation with
substances, supporting work by Kramer and Vaquera (2011) who examined friend nominations
and substance use. Limited interactions with peers may be one explanation for this relationship:
specifically, less opportunity for contagion of high-risk behaviors and less time unmonitored by
adults (Kramer & Vaquera, 2011; Dishion et al., 2003). These low levels of high school
substance use could benefit isolated youth given that the younger the age of substance use
initiation, the greater the risk of a substance use disorder as an adult (Pitkänen, Lyyra, &
Pulkkinen, 2005; Grant & Dawson, 1998).
Evidence was not found for a relationship between isolated peer reputations in middle
school and elevated internalizing problems at the end of high school, contrary to the positive
association between these constructs in previous work (Hall-Lande et al., 2007; Gest et al., 2006;
Realmuto et al., 2000). It is possible that the reason that children are isolated may be more
important than the peer reputation of isolated. As noted at the outset of this paper, Gest and
colleagues (2006) identified three facets of isolated peer reputation (sad-sensitive, shy-
withdrawn, and peer isolated) and showed that the different facets predicted different relations
with adjustment outcomes. An isolated peer reputation due to voluntary withdrawal from social
interactions had different implications for internalizing symptoms than an isolated reputation due
to active rejection by peers. Thus, although our findings suggest no significant relationship
between an isolated peer reputation and internalizing problems, this does not preclude the
possibility that more complex relationships do exist between different types of isolated students
and internalizing symptoms.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 26
Consistent with prior findings, aggressive peer reputation was negatively correlated with
academic outcomes, GPA and SAT scores, and was positively correlated with externalizing
symptoms and cigarette use. However, apart from cigarette use, observed correlations of
outcomes with aggression were smaller in absolute value than those of the other three
reputations. This is most likely attributable to the loss of children with high aggression scores in
the sample by the 12th grade. Additionally, the lower correlations of aggression than of other RCP
dimensions with outcomes resulted in a failure of aggression to show statistical significance as a
predictor in models that included all four RCP dimensions. Finally, the one anomalous negative
path coefficient that was found from aggression to marijuana use was attributable to statistical
suppression. In all, the weak predictive contribution of aggression to outcomes should be treated
with caution, due to selective attrition of children with higher aggressive reputation scores.
Limitations, Implications, and Future Directions
Our findings may be somewhat limited due to the moderate retention rate of the original
sample of 6th and 7th grade children at Grade 12. There was no evidence of selective attrition on 6
of the 8 study variables in 6th grade (GPA, depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms,
delinquency, prosocial reputation, and isolated reputation). However, there was evidence of
selective loss of popular and aggressive children. Even with the selective loss of popular
students, we did obtain significant findings for predicted relationships of popularity with
academic outcomes and substance use, but as noted earlier expected findings for aggression
appear to have been obscured by attrition.
Behavioral trait nominations in this study were constrained to three peers, as in other
recent research (e.g., Chung-Hall & Chen, 2010; Becker & Luthar, 2007; Prinstein & La Greca,
2004; Farmer, Estell, Bishop, O’Neal, & Cairns, 2003; Lease, Musgrove, Axelrod, 2002; Rodkin,
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 27
Farmer, Pearl, & Acker, 2006), whereas some studies have set higher limitations (e.g. 10
nominations, Kwon, Lease, & Hoffman, 2012), unlimited nominations (Sandstrom & Cillessen.
2010), or, in contrast, have limited nominations to one per gender (Gest et al, 2006).
Acknowledging that our use of three nominations may limit generalizability of findings (Becker
& Luthar, 2007), we note, at the same time, that the relationships documented between RCP
dimensions and outcomes do converge with findings from studies that employ different peer
nomination strategies. Further, our scales based on three nominations showed good psychometric
properties, replicating previous findings on the dimensionality of the RCP.
Offsetting these weaknesses are several strengths of the study. The measurement
approach employed both 6th and 7th grade peer nomination scores as indicators of reputation.
Thus, we have more than a single snapshot of children to characterize how they are viewed by
their peers, strengthening the measurement of reputation. Adjustment indicators spanned
subjectively experienced distress, self-reported substance use, and official school records of both
GPA and scores on the SAT. The longitudinal design encompassed the developmentally critical
years from preadolescence to late adolescence. In terms of substantively extending the literature
on peer reputation, our findings corroborated some associations previously noted in the literature
and demonstrated several new associations, important from both a conceptual and practical
Perhaps most important are the findings on the long-term ramifications of prosocial
behavior. In operationalizing “wellness” among children and adolescents, resilience researchers
have exhorted greater consideration of behaviors that reflect kindness, altruism and doing for the
greater good (Luthar, Lyman, & Crossman, 2014; Luthar, 2017). The present findings show that
such prosocial behaviors, as judged by peers in their everyday environments, can have salutary
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 28
effects for the children over the course of several years. These beneficial effects include
relatively high GPA and SAT scores, a critically important finding in this highly competitive,
upwardly mobile setting.
Also noteworthy in this regard are associations showing that what is sometimes a
“positive” peer reputation – popularity – in fact connotes risk for frequent substance use several
years later, whereas what is thought of as negative – isolated reputation – can mitigate risk for
frequent substance use. This finding was consistent across all three substance use variables.
Future research should replicate our findings given the known high risk for substance use among
teens in high achieving contexts (Luthar & D'Avanzo, 1999; Luthar et al., 2017).
Future studies should also address the issue of generalizability of findings among
students from ethnic minority families as well as different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Additionally, evaluating the impact of middle school peer reputation on participants who have
entered adulthood would add to the literature on long-term effects of reputation. It is possible
that significant long-term benefits exist for preteens able to maintain everyday prosocial
behaviors even when this may not be “cool” in the eyes of the wider peer group.
In summary, results of this study indicate that there can, in fact, be benefits to a deliberate
focus on kindness, integrity, and compassion in settings where personal achievement and getting
ahead are disproportionately emphasized (Luthar, 2017). From an applied perspective, it may be
useful to disseminate findings on prosocial behaviors among adults, specifically within high
achieving school communities. Youth tend to benefit when they see significant adults as valuing
their decency and kindness as much as their grades and achievements (Ciciolla et al., 2016;
Luthar & Kumar, in press). Moreover, parents and educators might be motivated to promote
prosociality if the benefits for the children were not only for their psychological adjustment but
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 29
also for what is so highly prized in such communities – high academic grades and SAT scores.
Thus, encouraging adults to model prosocial behaviors could improve their children’s chances of
adaptive functioning and even their personal accomplishments over time.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and
profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and
Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., . .
. Norton, M. I. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a
psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635-652.
Bachman, J. G., O'Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (1984). Drug use among young adults: The
impacts of role status and social environment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47(3), 629-645.
Bagwell, C. L., Coie, J. D., Terry, R. A., & Lochman, J. E. (2000). Peer clique participation and
social status in preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305.
Barber, B. L., Stone, M. R., Hunt, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Benefits of activity participation:
The roles of identity affirmation and peer group norm sharing. Organized activities as
contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs,
Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2007). Peer-perceived admiration and social preference:
Contextual correlates of positive peer regard among suburban and urban
adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(1), 117-144.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371-399.
Buunk, A. P., Stulp, G., & Ormel, J. (2014). Parental social status and intrasexual
competitiveness among adolescents. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 1022-1037.
Caprara, G. V., Kanacri, B. P. L., Gerbino, M., Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Vecchio, G., . . .
Bridglall, B. (2014). Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence:
Evidence from a school-based intervention. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 38(4), 386-396.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 31
Carlo, G., Crockett, L. J., Wilkinson, J. L., & Beal, S. J. (2011). The longitudinal relationships
between rural adolescents’ prosocial behaviors and young adult substance use. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 40(9), 1192-1202.
Casiglia, A. C., LoCoco, A., & Zappulla, C. (1998). Aspects of social reputation and peer
relationships in Italian children: A cross-cultural perspective. Developmental Psychology,
Chen, X., Wang, L., & Cao, R. (2011). Shyness‐sensitivity and unsociability in rural Chinese
children: Relations with social, school, and psychological adjustment. Child development,
Chen, X., Yang, F., & Wang, L. (2013). Relations between shyness-sensitivity and internalizing
problems in Chinese children: Moderating effects of academic achievement. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(5), 825-836.
Chung‐Hall, J., & Chen, X. (2010). Aggressive and prosocial peer group functioning: Effects on
children's social, school, and psychological adjustment. Social Development, 19(4), 659-
Ciciolla, L., Curlee, A. S., Karageorge, J., & Luthar, S. S. (2016). When mothers and fathers are
seen as disproportionately valuing achievements: implications for adjustment among upper-
middle class youth. Journal of youth and adolescence, 1-19.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Borch, C. (2006). Developmental trajectories of adolescent popularity: A
growth curve modeling analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 935-959.
Cillessen, A. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes
in the association between aggression and social status. Child development, 75(1), 147-163.
Cillessen, A. H., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 102-105.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Schwartz, D., & Mayeux, L. (Eds). (2011). Popularity in the peer system.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 32
Coley, R. L., Sims, J., Dearing, E., & Spielvogel, B. (2017). Locating economic risks for
adolescent mental and behavioral health: poverty and affluence in families, neighborhoods,
and schools. Child development. doi:10.1111/cdev.12771
de Bruyn, E. H., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and
antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(6), 607-627.
Department of Economic and Community Development, State of Connecticut (2016).
Connecticut 2014 Income Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/ecd/cwp/view.asp?
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). The family check-up with high-risk young
adolescents: Preventing early-onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behavior Therapy,
34(4), 553-571. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80035-7
Emler, N., & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency: The collective management of
reputation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Bishop, J. L., O’Neal, K. K., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Rejected
bullies or popular leaders? The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African
American early adolescents. Developmental psychology, 39(6), 992.
Fite, P. J., Colder, C. R., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2007). Pathways from proactive and
reactive aggression to substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 355-364.
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky
decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Developmental
psychology, 41(4), 625.
Gest, S. D., Sesma, A., Jr., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2006). Childhood peer reputation as a
predictor of competence and symptoms 10 years later. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 34(4), 509-526.
Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1998). Age of onset of drug use and its association with DSM-IV
drug abuse and dependence: results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic
Survey. Journal of substance abuse, 10(2), 163-173.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 33
Guyll, M., Madon, S., Spoth, R., & Lannin, D. G. (2014). Popularity as a predictor of early
alcohol use and moderator of other risk processes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 75(6), 919-928.
Hall-Lande, J. A., Eisenberg, M. E., Christenson, S. L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Social
isolation, psychological health, and protective factors in adolescence. Adolescence,
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a
multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.Jester, J. M., Nigg, J. T., Buu, A., Puttler, L. I., Glass,
J. M., Heitzeg, M. M., . . . Zucker, R. A. (2008). Trajectories of childhood aggression and
inattention/hyperactivity: Differential effects on substance abuse in adolescence. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(10), 1158-1165.
Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (2005). Monitoring the Future: National
Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2005, Vol. 1, NIH Publication No. 06-5883, Bethesda,
MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
Killeya-Jones, L., Nakajima, R., & Costanzo, P. R. (2007). Peer standing and substance use in
early-adolescent grade-level networks: A short-term longitudinal study. Prevention Science,
Kramer, R. A., & Vaquera, E. (2011). Who is really doing it? Peer embeddedness and substance
use during adolescence. Sociological Perspectives, 54(1), 37-58.
Kwon, K., Lease, A. M., & Hoffman, L. (2012). The impact of clique membership on children's
social behavior and status nominations. Social Development, 21(1), 150-169.
Lease, A. M., Musgrove, K. T., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in
preadolescent peer groups: Likability, perceived popularity, and social dominance. Social
Development, 11(4), 508-533.
López-Romero, L., & Romero, E. (2010). Goals during adolescence and their relationship with
antisocial behavior. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 166-177.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 34
López-Romero, L., & Romero, E. (2011). Reputation management of adolescents in relation to
antisocial behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human
Development, 172(4), 440-446. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2010.549156
Ludwig, K. B., & Pittman, J. F. (1999). Adolescent prosocial values and self-efficacy in relation
to delinquency, risky sexual behavior, and drug use. Youth & Society, 30(4), 461-482.
Lund, T.J., Dearing, E., & Zachrisson, H. D. (2017). Is affluence a risk for adolescents in
Norway? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(3), 628-643. doi:10.1111/jora.12304
Luthar, S. S. (1995). Social competence in the school setting: Prospective cross-domain
associations among inner-city teens. Child Development, 66(2), 416-429.
Luthar, S. S. (2017). Doing for the greater good: What price, in academe? Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 12, 1153-1158. DOI10.1177/1745691617727863
Luthar, S.S. & Barkin, S.H. (2012). Are affluent youth truly “at risk”? Vulnerability and
resilience across three diverse samples. Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 429-
Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2013). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the
upper-middle classes. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4), 1529-1549.
Luthar, S. S., & D'Avanzo, K. (1999). Contextual factors in substance use: A study of suburban
and inner-city adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 11(4), 845-867.
Luthar, S.S., & Kumar, N.L. (In press): Youth in high-achieving schools: Challenges to mental
health and directions for evidence-based interventions. In A. W. Leschied,, D. H. Saklofske,
and G. L. Flett, Handbook of School-Based Mental Health Promotion: An Evidence-
Informed Framework. New York: Springer.
Luthar, S. S., Lyman, E. L., & Crossman, E. J. (2014). Resilience and positive psychology. In M.
Lewis & K. D. Rudolph (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (3rd ed.).
(pp. 125-140). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Luthar, S. S., & McMahon, T. J. (1996). Peer reputation among inner-city adolescents: Structure
and correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(4), 581-603.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 35
Luthar, S. S., Small, P. J., & Ciciolla, L. (2017). Adolescents from upper-middle class
communities: Substance misuse and addiction across early adulthood. Development and
Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class play method of peer
assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 523-533.
Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky
proposition? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(1), 49-74.
Morison, P., & Masten, A. S. (1991). Peer reputation in middle childhood as a predictor of
adaptation in adolescence: A seven-year follow-up. Child Development, 62(5), 991-1007.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2011). Mplus User's Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Obradović, J., Burt, K. B., & Masten, A. S. (2009). Testing a dual cascade model linking
competence and symptoms over 20 years from childhood to adulthood. Journal of Clinical
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(1), 90-102.
Oh, W., Rubin, K. H., Bowker, J. C., Booth-LaForce, C., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Laursen, B.
(2008). Trajectories of social withdrawal from middle childhood to early adolescence.
Journal of abnormal child psychology, 36(4), 553-566.
O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1983). Reliability and consistency in self-
reports of drug use. International Journal of the Addictions, 18(6), 805-824.
Pitkänen, T., Lyyra, A., & Pulkkinen, L. (2005). Age of onset of drinking and the use of alcohol
in adulthood: A follow-up study from age 8-42 for females and males. Addiction, 100(5),
Prinstein, M. J. (2007). Assessment of adolescents' preference- and reputation-based peer status
using sociometric experts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(2), 243-261.
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(3), 310-342.
Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as
predictors of adolescent girls' externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(1), 103-112.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 36
Prinstein, M. J., Rancourt, D., Guerry, J. D., & Browne, C. B. (2009). Peer reputations and
psychological adjustment. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.),
Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. (pp. 548-567) New York, NY:
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184.
Realmuto, G. M., August, G. J., & Hektner, J. M. (2000). Predictive power of peer behavioral
assessment for subsequent maladjustment in community samples of disruptive and
nondisruptive children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(2), 181-190.
Reef, J., Diamantopoulou, S., van Meurs, I., Verhulst, F. C., & van der Ende, J. (2011).
Developmental trajectories of child to adolescent externalizing behavior and adult DSM-IV
disorder: results of a 24-year longitudinal study. Social psychiatry and psychiatric
epidemiology, 46(12), 1233-1241.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Acker, R. V. (2006). They’re cool: Social status and
peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15(2), 175-204
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Chen, X., Buskirk, A., & Wojslawowicz, J. C. (2005). Peer
relationships in childhood. Developmental science: An advanced textbook, 5, 469-512.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for
adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(4), 305-314.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2010). Life after high school: Adjustment of popular
teens in emerging adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56(4), 474-499.
Schwartz, C. E., Meisenhelder, J. B., Yusheng, A., & Reed, G. (2003). Altruistic social interest
behaviors are associated with better mental health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 778–785.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal
contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 37
Twenge, J. M., & Kasser, T. (2013). Generational changes in materialism and work centrality,
1976-2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role
modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 883-897.
Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: definitions,
implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 524-536.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Income in 1999 by Selected Household, Family, and Individual
Characteristics: 2000 Census. Retrieved from
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial
behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 98(2), 222.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal
variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Yang, F., Chen, X., & Wang, L. (2014). Relations between aggression and adjustment in Chinese
children: Moderating effects of academic achievement. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 43(4), 656-669.
Yu, C. Y., & Muthén, B. (2002, April). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models
with categorical and continuous outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Zeller, M., Vannatta, K., Schafer, J., & Noll, R. B. (2003). Behavioral reputation: A cross-age
perspective. Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 129.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 38
Distribution of items from the RCP
6th Grade M(SD) 7th Grade M(SD)
has many friends 1.87(2.85) has many friends 1.94(3.44)
everyone listens to 1.41(2.15) everyone listens to 1.39(2.21)
makes new friends easily 1.61(2.08) makes new friends easily 1.74(2.51)
everyone likes to be with 1.62(2.38) everyone likes to be with 1.63(2.55)
plays fair 1.82(1.84) plays fair 1.81(1.64)
polite 1.93(2.35) polite 2.03(2.09)
will wait their turn 1.89(1.76) will wait their turn 2.11(2.04)
helps other people when
they need it 2.02(1.99)
helps other people when
they need it 1.94(1.92)
rather play alone than
with others 1.11(2.50)
rather play alone than
with others 1.06(2.09)
has trouble making
has trouble making
can't get others to listen 1.29(2.35) can't get others to listen 1.36(1.99)
often left out 1.52(3.12) often left out 1.45(2.57)
interrupts when other
children are speaking 1.12(2.29)
interrupts when other
children are speaking 1.26(2.75)
gets into a lot of fights 1.04(2.10) gets into a lot of fights 0.93(1.83)
teases other children too
teases other children too
picks on other kids 1.00(2.17) picks on other kids 1.00(1.99)
Note. Based on counts of number of nominations received by students on RCP items
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 39
The Standardized Factor Loadings on Peer Reputation Latent Constructs for Respecified Model
6th Grade 7th Grade
has many friends 0.85 0.88
everyone listens to 0.77 0.82
makes new friends easily 0.86 0.89
everyone likes to be with 0.85 0.92
plays fair 0.78 0.59
polite 0.73 0.64
helps other people*0.80 0.66
rather play alone*0.73 0.82
has trouble making friends 0.90 0.90
can't get others to listen 0.77 0.69
often left out 0.92 0.94
gets into a lot of fights 0.72 0.63
teases other children* 0.64 0.84
Composite reliability 0.90 0.81 0.90 0.73 0.93 0.67 0.91 0.77
Note. Composite reliability calculated as suggested by Raykov (1997). Two RCP items removed: ‘will wait turn’
and ‘picks on other kids’. Latent variables allowed to covary and variances equal to one. *Item name shortened
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 40
Descriptive Data on Adjustment Outcomes in 12th Grade
M(SD) Skew Kurtosis % Zeros
GPA 9.24(1.79) -0.83 0.58
) -0.27 -0.25
Internalizing Symptoms 7.89(7.40) 1.93 6.52
Externalizing Symptoms 10.32(7.06) 1.74 6.72
Alcohol Yearly Use 3.48(2.18) -0.38 -1.27 17%
Cigarette Yearly Use 1.79(2.32) 0.87 -0.90 53%
Marijuana Yearly Use 1.79(2.20) 0.81 -0.89 50%
Note. GPA range (1=F to 13=A+); SAT (400 to 1600); Internalizing symptoms, Youth Self-Report (0 to
62); Externalizing symptoms, Youth Self-Report (0 to 64); Substance Use (0=never to 6=40+ times)
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 41
Correlations Between Measured Outcome Variables and Peer Reputation Latent Constructs
Middle School Peer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Popular -
2. Prosocial .32 -
3. Isolated -.54 -.32 -
4. Aggressive .33 -.47 -.13 -
12th Grade Outcomes
5. GPA .07 .43 -.01 -.19 -
6. SAT .02 .34 .00 -.19 .50 -
-.00 -.11 .04 .07 .02 .12 -
.05 -.32 .04 .21 -.29 -.01 .58 -
9. Alcohol Yearly Use .35 -.06 -.34 .06 -.13 -.00 -.00 .33 -
10. Cigarette Yearly
.25 -.18 -.20 .29 -.25 -.16 .17 .39 .48 -
11. Marijuana Yearly
.24 -.10 -.29 .07 -.17 -.06 .09 .34 .51 .49
Note. Bolded correlations are significant at the 0.05 level.
Path Coefficients for Prediction of 12th Grade Outcomes from Peer Reputation Latent
Constructs and Covariates
Parameters Unstandardized (SE) Standardized (SE) pR2 (SE)
GPAa on: .19 (.06)
Popular -.05 (.22) -.03 (.13) .84
Prosocial .83 (.24) .48 (.13) <.01
Isolated .23 (19) .13 (.11) .20
Aggressive .13 (.24) .08 (.14) .51
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 42
GPA Grade 6 .09 (.04) .14 (.07) .05
SATa on: .13 (.06)
Popular -12.99 (21.53) -.08 (.13) .55
Prosocial 74.34 (23.70) .46 (.14) <.01
Isolated 17.85 (18.44) .11 (.11) .33
Aggressive 21.01 (23.11) .13 (.14) .36
GPA Grade 6 .28 (4.23) .01 (.07) .95
Internalizinga on: .04 (.03)
Popular .32 (.93) .04 (.13) .73
Prosocial -.67 (.99) -.09 (.13) .50
Isolated .11 (.82) -.01 (.11) .90
Aggressive .08 (.95) .01 (.13) .94
CDI Grade 6 .05 (.12) .05 (.11) .69
RCMAS Grade 6 .16 (.13) .13 (.11) .22
Externalizinga on: .18 (.06)
Popular 1.40 (.97) .20 (.14) .15
Prosocial -2.89 (1.01) -.41 (.14) <.01
Isolated .20 (.80) .03 (.11) .80
Aggressive -.57 (1.01) -.08 (.14) .58
Delinquency Grade 6 .15 (.05) .23 (.07) <.01
Alcoholb on: .26 (.08)
Popular .72 (.30) .34 (.14) .01
Prosocial -.77 (.34) -.36 (.15) .02
Isolated -.57 (.25) -.27 (.11) .02
Aggressive -.49 (.33) -.23 (.15) .13
Alcohol Grade 6 .73 (.26) .28 (.09) <.01
Cigarettesb on: .22 (.08)
Popular .62 (.29) .30 (.14) .03
Prosocial -.95 (.37) -.46 (.16) <.01
Isolated -.51 (.29) -.25 (.13) .06
Aggressive -.24 (.32) -.12 (.15) .43
Cigarette Grade 6 .17 (.29) .05 (.08) .56
Marijuanab on: .26 (.10)
Popular .65 (.31) .31 (.14) .03
Prosocial -.98 (.40) -.46 (.17) .01
Isolated -.88 (.34) -.42 (.14) <.01
Aggressivec-.69 (.37) -.33 (.16) .04
Marijuana Grade 6 .28 (.43) .05 (.07) .51
Note. aSEM with outcome variable treated as continuous. bSEM with outcome variable treated as ordered
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 43
categorical. csuppression effect
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 44
Figure 1. Respecified 6th and 7th Grade CFA Models Excluding Two Items of the RCP with
Figure 2. Combined grades model with reputation scale scores in 6th grade and 7th grade as
indicators of each latent factor with standardized loadings.
PEER REPUTATION AND FUTURE ADJUSTMENT 45