Summary Titkova V.V. (Сетевой анализ факторов социального признания и исключения в среде подростков), страница 5

The quantitative data demonstrates that the adolescents that are consideredpopular because of being smart have better grades rather than their peers, are welldisciplined: are always ready for class, never skip lessons and are not being late forclass.19There is a significant connection between sociometric popularity and perceivedpopularity. However, certain groups of students only have one type of popularity,for example, high perceived popularity together with low sociometric popularity.These adolescent groups have different behaviours, as well as attitudes and academicperformance. Some adolescents, which are academically successful and are welldisciplined (compared to the class average), have high sociometric popularity, buttheir level of perceived popularity is low.

These students have the lowest risk ofbeing socially excluded. At the same time, the students with an opposite position(low sociometric popularity and high perceived popularity) often misbehave, showup late, skip lessons and ignore homework, thus, they have a higher risk to besocially excluded.Adolescents establish their friendships and negative relationships in variousways.

Friendship networks are twice as dense as negative networks. 96 percent ofadolescents are involved in friendship networks, 70 percent are involved in negativerelationships. Friendships between students in class have high reciprocity andtransitivity. Reciprocity is twice as low for negative networks. As demonstrated inother studies, base effects, such as reciprocity, transitivity, homophily can vary inpositive and negative networks [Yap, Harrigan, 2017; Huitsinga, van Duijna,Snijders et al., 2012; Boda, Neray, 2015]. Transitional structures such as ‘myfriend’s friend is my friend’ are very rare or even absent in negative networks [Yap,Harrigan, 2017].

Adolescents reciprocate friendship nominations more often, ratherthan negative relationships [Boda, Neray, 2015].In friendship networks ties are distributed more equally rather than in negativenetworks: all the students in class have some friends, whereas all the negative tiescan be concentrated on one person. One class can have pupils, who are avoided bymany classmates at once, as well as students, who are not involved into any negativerelationships at all. As demonstrated by the analysis, adolescents are normally notunified in their negative relationships: some people might avoid communicationwith certain classmates, whereas others dislike someone else. It is quite necessary to20mention that the effects are not equally displayed in all the classes in the sample. Asdemonstrated by the prior studies, in some groups positive ties are concentratedaround individual participants [Yap, Harrigan, 2017; Huitsinga, van Duijna, Snijderset al., 2012], in others, on the contrary, they are spread more evenly [Boda, Neray,2015; Jiao, Wang, Liu at al., 2017].Analysis of relationship between the structures of positive and negativenetworks demonstrated that friends make similar choices on whom to avoid, andoften choose both pupils who are close to each other as their enemies.

This meansthat adolescent groups create conditions for strengthening negative ties withfriendship ties and vice versa: my friend’s friends are my friends, and my friend’senemies are my enemies. This reflects how the class is divided into separatefriendship cliques that have strong friendship ties formed inside them. Moreover,there are negative ties established between different cliques. The followingdemonstrates that studying relationships between adolescents requires amultidimensional approach that demonstrates a general tendency to form positivelinks with those who have an equivalent structure of negative networks [Huitsinga,van Duijna, Snijders et al., 2012; Pal, Stadtfeld, Grow et al., 2015].8. General conclusions of the studyThe results presented above suggest that adolescents in Russian schools pay alot of attention to academic success.

Good grades as well as positive academicattitudes are connected to high social status, whereas low grades and negativeacademic attitudes result in social exclusion and loss of social status. Adolescentschoose to preserve the social connections that are beneficial for supporting orincreasing one’s academic achievement, thus, getting high social status or avoidingsocial exclusion. The following demonstrates the mechanisms described in Socialexchange theory [Хоманс, 1984], that focuses on building social ties that provide abalance between costs and benefits.In cases when building a relationship is not beneficial, for example, if the other21person does not share one’s interests, or is not as successful with studies, negativeties are established. This can be explained by the fact that relationships in adolescentgroups are balanced and are based on structural equivalence, which means thatadolescents communicate with their friends’ friends, and avoid the people theirfriends dislike.

The following fits into the structure described by the Theory ofstructural balance [Heider, 1958].Adolescents establish friendships or negative relationships based on their ownsuccesses/attitudes and the successes and attitudes of others aiming to achieve orperceive social status. This can be perceived as implementation of the mechanismdescribed by the Goal-framing theory [Lindenberg, 2008]. If the group does notsupport the value of education, the punishment mechanism, described by Socialmisfit theory, comes in place. In this case, positive achievements are punished assomething that is contradicting with group norms [Wright et al., 1986].The absence of social exclusion and discrimination towards adolescents ofanother ethnicity from their ethnic majority peers means there are opportunities forthem to get successfully integrated.

Ethnic minority adolescents create friendshipties more often rather than negative ties within their own group, which can bepartially explained by Social identity theory [Tajfel, 1984]. Ethnic minorityadolescents can form groups based on a similar migration experience, cultural andsocioeconomic similarity. By forming solid friendship groups among themselvesand building negative relationships with the rest, ethnic minority adolescentsincrease their group identity and cohesiveness.High social status of aggressors demonstrates that aggression is perceived asapproved behaviour in adolescent groups.

Due to the fact that aggressors becomemore attractive friends, rather than the victims, the latter become even moremarginalized by their peers. Aggression is used by adolescents to achieve the aim:high social status. Group context creates favorable conditions and recognizes thisbehaviour as acceptable. As a result, we can see two mechanisms that are, quitelikely, supporting each other – the mechanism described by the Goal-framingapproach [Lindenberg, 2008], as well as the mechanism presented by the Theory of22social identity [Ojala, Nesdale, 2004; Kwon et.al., 2012]. Adolescents realize thatthey act according to group norms and preserve their group identity and status [Ojala,Nesdale, 2004].Similarities in risky behaviour practices lower the “costs” of establishingfriendly relationships within the group, which is perfectly described in Socialexchange theory mechanisms [Хоманс, 1984]: the adolescent does not have to makeany extra effort (bear any extra costs) to create a friendship.

The social influence ofpeers on the spread of risky behaviours among adolescents can be explained by themechanisms of social reinforcement, suggested by Differential AssociationReinforcement Theory [Kim, Akers, Yun, 2013; Burgess, Akers, 1966]. Accordingto this theory, behaviours are learned and acquired through social connections, andif friends approve of a certain behaviour, it will be successfully reproduced.Analysis of interviews demonstrated that in current Russian cultural context apopular adolescent is someone who is friendly, responsible, ready to help others andacademically successful. This image corresponds with the one described in somestudies conducted in Eastern Asia, but contradicts with the idea of popularity as acharacteristic that is based on social dominance and high position in the grouphierarchy, presented in studies originating from America and Western Europeancountries.

Criteria that the high social status in the group is based on, according tothe ecological approach, can be connected to the historical and cultural contexts[Chen, French, Schneider, 2006, с.3-10]. As stated by G. Hofstede, Russian societyis more collectivist rather than the one in USA and some Western Europeancountries [Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov, 2010]. Therefore, it can be suggested thatperceiving popularity as discrepancy of equality among adolescents is associatedwith the prevalence of values of collectivism in the teenage environment.

One cansuggest that as a result of Russian institutional system of school education (the sameclass composition for 11 years) a more blended structure of social relations develops23with the absence of a distinct hierarchical structure of the group. This does also affectthe specificity of the term ‘popularity’ in the context of Russia.Presented results are a contribution to theoretical concepts of the factors andmechanisms of status formation in different group contexts. Its’ results allow tomake corrections to existing theories and scientific perceptions.

The effects of socialcontext can be local depending on the situation. In particular cases they can also bea result of a coincidence. We have not been able to find contextual effects on theschool level: some effects were noticeable on the class level only in 7% of the cases,or when there has been a particular contingent ‘concentrated’ in the group. This alsomakes it impossible to consider gender differences as linking the status and behaviorof adolescents in a strictly defined way. Gender differences which affect factors andmechanisms of popularity are not universal and can be mediated by group context.The majority of studies on social status in small adolescent groups areconducted in USA and Western Europe.

However, the results might not be relevantin different cultural contexts, which were demonstrated in the current study on thecase of the term ‘popularity’.The educational environment in Russian schools is built in the way thatencourages academic achievements and attitudes as one of the main axis used byyoung adolescents to build their relationships and social status. The exception is thecontext of rarely encountered classes, where the adolescent environment itselfsupports strong anti-school attitudes and social aggression.

This can be considereda valuable scientific and practical result, because academic culture and academicperformance are school environment parameters that are changeable and subject tocontrol. Thus, it is possible to create effective programmes to improve anunfavorable adolescent environment.249. PublicationsTitkova V.V., Ivaniushina V.A., Alexandrov D.A. Smart, Pretty orIndependent: Who Is Popular at School? // Voprosy obrazovaniya.