Summary Titkova V.V. (Сетевой анализ факторов социального признания и исключения в среде подростков), страница 4

As has beendemonstrated by the previous studies, ethnic minority groups are normally moresolid rather than the ethnic majority groups [Goodreau, Kitts, Morris, 2009]. Thistendency is more relevant for certain ethnic groups as well [Smith, Maas, vanTubergen, 2014].Therefore it can be concluded that at school ethnic minorities do not meetbarriers created by the ethnic majority, and are not discriminated. Supposedly, foradolescents the ethnic status of their classmates is less significant than some otherindices, such as academic performance or, as some studies have demonstrated, musictastes [Thijs, Verkuyten, 2014].In this case, studying together with representativesof various ethnic groups helps ethnic majority adolescents build positive attitudestowards representatives of different nationalities and develop interculturalcommunication skills [Moody, 2001; Pettigrew, Tropp, 2006]. The following appliesto the ethnic minority adolescents as well.

As has been demonstrated in the currentstudy, they tend to establish friendships within their own group. Thus, studyingtogether with ethnic majority adolescents, as well as establishing friendships withthem, helps migrant adolescents integrate.Another significant determinant of high social status of an adolescent in a groupis displaying social aggression. Victimization increases the risk of marginalizationof the adolescent by their peers.Aggressors demonstrate high sociometric popularity regardless of howwidespread bullying is in the group. Prior studies show that there is a negativeconnection between aggressive behavior and sociometric popularity [Cillessen,Rose, 2005]. Adolescents who are being aggressive towards their peers are normally15being judged [Dijkstra et.al., 200; Aslund, 2009; Salmivalli, 2010; Salmivalli et.al.,1996].

However, this effect is contextual: if aggressive behavior is regularlypracticed in the adolescent group, then aggressors can become popular [Rodkinet.al., 2006]. The results of analysis of friendship networks in vocational schoolsslightly contradict the prior studies: regardless of how popular bullying is, beingfriends with the aggressor can be an attractive option for their classmates. Maleaggressors are especially popular in classes with high level of aggression; femaleaggressors show high sociometric popularity regardless of how aggressive their classis overall.Aggressive environment in the classroom creates a certain context forconnection between social status and being “the victim” in the group. If bullying ispracticed in the group, its victims become marginalized by their peers.

This resultsin the victims having less friends, rather than complete isolation. Normallyadolescents, which had been bullied by their peers, stick together seeking protectionand support [Huitsinga, van Duijna, Snijders et al., 2012]. However, the fact thatmarginalization is present demonstrates that adolescents can display aggressionwithout fear of judgment or disapproval from their peers [Sijtsema, Veenstra,Lindenberg et al., 2009]. This can be possibly explained by a suggestion that invocational schools being friends with the victim becomes “dangerous”, becausebeing close to the victim increases the chances to get bullied as well [Sentse,Dijkstra, Salmivalli et al., 2013].The following results of the current study demonstrate how social inclusion isconnected to individual characteristics of adolescents.

Network analysis of structureof negative relations showed that the lower students’ academic performance andsense of belonging to the school community (compared to the average level in class)are the fewer classmates want to communicate with them. At the same time the riskof negative relationships between students increases with the difference inachievement and sense of belonging: straight-A students do not communicate withstudents who perform badly, and vice versa. Due to the fact that these results are16derived from cross-sectional data, here can be no conclusions made about the causalrelationships. However, it can be suggested that low academic performance leads tosocial exclusion, which, in its turn, negatively affects one’s sense of belonging.The antipathy of peers can be associated with adolescent’s low academicperformance at school [Gorman, Schwartz, Nakamoto et al., 2011; Lease, Musgrove,Axelrod, 2002].

However, it is the difference in academic performance and attitudestowards school that leads to antipathy between students. Students who are successfulin their studies and support school culture normally dislike their peers, who are notas academically successful and do not share their passion towards education[Laursen, Bukowski, Nurmi et al., 2010]. More than two thirds of cases of antipathybetween adolescents are connected to the essential differences between them,including differences in behaviours and group norms [Guroglu, Haselager, vanLieshout et al., 2009; Laursen, Bukowski, Nurmi et al., 2010].Other characteristics of adolescents that are not directly connected to theirschool life, such as gender, social economic status are less significant in establishingnegative relationships. Boys and girls are equally prone to be bullied by their peers,even though girls are more likely to initiate negative relations.

Prior studiesdemonstrate contradicting results: some studies show that boys are more involvedinto negative relationships than girls [Card, 2010]; others say that negativerelationships are more likely to be established between adolescents of the samegender [Pal, Stadtfeld, Grow et al., 2015]; others deny the presence of genderdifferences regarding adolescents’ involvement in negative relationships [Gürogluet al., 2009].Socioeconomic status of adolescents has a very weak, but significantconnection with negative relationships within the class. Regardless of the fact thatthe difference in socioeconomic status of pupils does not necessarily increase thepossibility of antipathy between them, some pupils with very high socioeconomicstatus (compared to the group average) get more negative nominations.

This canpossibly be explained by the fact that adolescents with higher socioeconomic statusmight look down on their peers, which fosters resentment [Pal, Stadtfeld, Grow et17al., 2015].For studying the connection between risky behaviours (alcohol consumptionand smoking) with the friendship network structure of adolescents, the current studyused longitudinal data from vocational schools. Social status of adolescents amongtheir peers does not necessarily depend on their behaviours regarding smoking oralcohol consumption, but these practices do have an influence on adolescents’friendship networks. It has been discovered that popularity is not necessarilyconnected to adolescents’ active involvement into risky behaviours, contrary to whathas been demonstrated in prior studies [Gommans et al., 2017; Cohen, Prinstein,2006; Juvonen, Ho, 2008].

Risky behaviours do not affect marginalization orpopularity of students. Boys and girls with high levels of risky behaviours are notprone to either being more active in establishing friendly relationships or being moreattractive friend options to their peers. One possible explanation is that riskybehaviours are quite widespread in vocational schools, thus, they stop determiningthe social status formation. Another possible explanation, based on other studies isthat the importance of risky behaviour fades away eventually; for age groups 15 to18 it just stops being ‘cool’ [Knecht et al., 2010; Burk et al. 2012].Overall, the results of the current study demonstrate the mechanisms of socialselection and social influence. Boys and girls are guided by similarities in smokingand drinking practices when choosing friends (social selection); and adjust theirrisky behavior practices to the ones of their friends (social influence).

This meansthat friendship networks become a mean of spreading risky behaviours amongadolescents. Previous studies on the impact of risky behaviours on the structure ofadolescent social relations show mixed results: some focus on the effect of socialselection, the others on - the effect of social influence, while the third group ofstudies emphasizes the importance of both processes [Steglich et al 2012; Merckenet al., 2013; Burk et al., 2012; Kiuru et al., 2010; Steglich et al., 2010].Perceived popularity, which is defined as ‘being seen’, ‘being noticeable’,18‘being recognizable’ acts as one more index of social status.

Both quantitative andqualitative data demonstrates that adolescents perceive the term ‘popular’ as anegative one. The idea of popularity is seen as some students positioning themselvesabove the rest, thus, having a popular classmate inherently contradicts the idea ofequality. In some of the interviews adolescents have named negative words, such as‘celebs’ or ‘rogue ones’ as synonyms to the word ‘popular’.Considering perceived popularity, both Western European and Americanresearchers show, that popular adolescents comprise a heterogeneous group. The caneither be friendly and be loved by everyone, or become aggressive manipulators[Vaillancourt, Hymel, 2006; Cillessen, Mayeux, 2004; Puckett et al., 2008;Cillessen, Rose, 2005; Dijkstra et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2006].

In the interviewsanalyzed in the current study no one from the students implied that popularclassmates are being manipulative towards others, or behave disrespectfully towardsthe classmates. Thus, using the word ‘popular’ during the interview allows gettingnarratives about adolescents with prosocial behaviour.Adolescents name various criteria of perceived popularity for girls and forboys. Girls are normally perceived as poplar because they are fashionably dressed,attractive, kind, nice, and cute.

Boys are seen as popular if they can stand theirground, are good at sports, do not recognize authorities and confront the teachers,practice risky behaviours. Almost all the studies regardless of the country and thetime they were conducted at, agree on these gender differences [LaFontana,Cillessen, 2002; Lease, Kennedy et al., 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000; Vaillancourt,Hymel, 2006; Dijkstra et al., 2010]. The fundamental difference from the results ofthe prior studies is that in Russian schools there are no gender differences regardingthe importance of academic performance as a criterion of popularity among peers.Being smart and winning academic competitions does not put any kind of stigma onboys.