Editing Popularity (section)

== Interpersonal causes ==
[[File:1922 Locust yearbook p. 171 (Popularity).jpg|thumb|"Popularity" artwork featured in [[East Texas State Normal College]]'s 1922 ''Locust'' yearbook]]

One of the most widely agreed upon theories about what leads to an increased level of popularity for an individual is the perceived value which that individual brings to the group.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Berger|first1=Joseph|author2=Fişek, M. Hamit|title=Diffuse Status Characteristics and the Spread of Status Value: A Formal Theory|journal=American Journal of Sociology|date=1 January 2006 |volume=111|issue=4|pages=1038–1079|doi=10.1086/498633 |s2cid=144034385}}</ref> This seems to be true for members of all groups, but is especially demonstrable in groups that exist for a specific purpose. For example, sports teams exist with the goal of being successful in competitions against other sports teams. Study groups exist so that the members of the group can mutually benefit from one another's academic knowledge. In these situations, leaders often emerge because other members of the group perceive them as adding a lot of value to the group as a whole. On a sports team, this means that the best players are usually elected captain and in study groups people might be more inclined to like an individual who has a lot of knowledge to share.<ref name=Borch /> It has been argued that this may be a result of our evolutionary tendencies to favor individuals who are most likely to aid in our own survival.<ref name=Kanazawa>{{cite journal |last1=Kanazawa |first1=Satoshi |author2=Jody L Kovar|title=Why beautiful people are more intelligent|journal=Intelligence|date=May–June 2004|volume=32|issue=3|pages=227–243|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2004.03.003|citeseerx=10.1.1.106.8858 }}</ref>

The actual value which an individual brings to a group is not of consequence in determining his or her popularity; the only thing that is important is his or her value as perceived by the other members of the group. While perceived value and actual value may often overlap, this is not a requisite and it has been shown that there are instances in which an individual's actual value is relatively low, but they are perceived as highly valuable nevertheless.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Mulford|first1=Matthew|last2=Orbell|first2=John|last3=Shatto|first3=Catherine|last4=Stockard|first4=Jean|date=May 1998|title=Physical Attractiveness, Opportunity, and Success in Everyday Exchange|journal=American Journal of Sociology|language=en|volume=103|issue=6|pages=1565–1592|doi=10.1086/231401|s2cid=144715112|issn=0002-9602|url=https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/28156 }}</ref>

=== Attractiveness ===
Attractiveness, specifically [[physical attractiveness]], has been shown to have very profound effects on popularity.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=de Bruyn |first1=Eddy H. |author2=van den Boom, Dymphna C.|title=Interpersonal Behavior, Peer Popularity, and Self-esteem in Early Adolescence|journal=Social Development|date=1 November 2005|volume=14|issue=4|pages=555–573|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00317.x
}}</ref> People who are physically attractive are more likely to be thought of as possessing positive traits. People who are attractive are expected to perform better on tasks and are more likely to be trusted.<ref name=":1" /> Additionally, they are judged to possess many other positive traits such as mental health, intelligence, social awareness, and dominance.<ref name=Feingold>{{cite journal|last=Feingold|first=Alan|title=Good-looking people are not what we think|journal=Psychological Bulletin|date=March 1992|volume=111|issue=2|pages=304–341|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.304 |s2cid=144166220}}</ref>

Additionally, people who are of above average attractiveness are assumed to also be of above average value to the group. Research shows that attractive people are often perceived to have many positive traits based on nothing other than their looks, regardless of how accurate these perceptions are.<ref name=Webster>{{cite journal|last1=Webster Jr.|first1=Murray|author2=James E. Driskell Jr.|title=Beauty as Status|journal=American Journal of Sociology|date=July 1983|volume=89|issue=1|pages=140–165|jstor=2779050|doi=10.1086/227836|s2cid=146349353}}</ref> This phenomenon is known as the [[Halo effect]]<ref name=":1" /> This means that, in addition to being more well-liked, attractive people are more likely to be seen as bringing actual value to the group, even when they may be of little or no value at all. In essence, physically attractive people are given the benefit of the doubt while less attractive individuals must prove that they are bringing value to the group.<ref name=Borch /> It has been shown empirically that being physically attractive is correlated with both sociometric and perceived popularity. Some possible explanations for this include increased social visibility and an increased level of tolerance for aggressive, social interactions that may increase perceived popularity.<ref name=Borch />

=== Aggression ===
The degree to which an individual is perceived as popular is often highly correlated with the level of aggression with which that individual interacts with his or her peers. There are two main categories of aggression, relational and overt, both of which have varying consequences for popularity depending on several factors, such as the gender and attractiveness of the aggressor.<ref name=Crick>{{cite journal |last1=Crick |first1=Nicki R. |last2=Grotpeter|first2=Jennifer K.|title=Relational Aggression, Gender, and Social-Psychological Adjustment |journal=Child Development|date=1 June 1995<!-- |year=2008 ???-->|volume=66|issue=3|pages=710–722|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x|pmid=7789197 |s2cid=6647537 }}</ref>

The relationship also depends on culture. Prinstein notes that studies have found that increased aggression tends to correlate with higher social status in the United States, but lower social status in China.<ref name="Prinstein" />

==== Relational aggression ====
[[Relational aggression]] is nonviolent aggression that is emotionally damaging to another individual. Examples of relationally aggressive activities include ignoring or excluding an individual from a group, delivering personal insults to another person, and the spreading of rumors. Relational aggression is more frequently used by females than males.<ref name=Borch />

It has been found that relational aggression almost always has a strongly negative relationship with sociometric popularity but can have a positive relationship with perceived popularity depending on the perceived level of attractiveness of the aggressor. For an aggressor who is perceived as unattractive, relational aggression, by both males and females, leads to less perceived popularity. For an attractive aggressor however, relational aggression has been found to actually have a positive relationship with perceived popularity.<ref name=Borch />

The relationship between attractiveness and aggression is further intertwined by the finding that increased levels of physical attractiveness actually further decreased the sociometric popularity of relationally aggressive individuals.<ref name=Borch />

In short, the more physically attractive an individual is, the more likely they are to experience decreased levels of sociometric popularity but increased levels of perceived popularity for engaging in relationally aggressive activities.

==== Overt aggression ====
Overt aggression is aggression that involves individuals physically interacting with each other in acts such as pushing, hitting, kicking or otherwise causing physical harm or submission in the other person. This includes threats of violence and physical intimidation as well.

It has been shown that overt aggression directly leads to perceived popularity when the aggressor is attractive.<ref name=Cillessen-Rose /> Experiments that are controlled for levels of physical attractiveness show that individuals who are attractive and overtly aggressive have a higher degree of perceived popularity than attractive non-overtly aggressive individuals. This was found to be true to a small degree for females and a large degree for males.<ref name=Borch />

Attractive individuals who are overtly aggressive barely suffer any consequences in terms of sociometric popularity. This is a key difference between overt and relational aggression because relational aggression has a strongly negative relationship on sociometric popularity, especially for attractive individuals. For unattractive individuals, there is again a strongly negative relationship between overt aggression and sociometric popularity.<ref name=Borch /> This means that attractive individuals stand to gain a lot of perceived popularity at the cost of very little sociometric popularity by being overtly aggressive while unattractive individuals stand to gain very little perceived popularity from acts of overt aggression but will be heavily penalized with regards to sociometric popularity.

=== Cultural factors ===
According to Talcott Parsons, as rewritten by Fons Trompenaars, there are four main types of culture,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business|last=Trompenaars|first=Alfons|publisher=McGraw Hill|others=Hampden-Turner, Charles.|year=1998|isbn=0786311258|edition=2nd|location=New York|pages=[https://archive.org/details/ridingwavesofcul00trom/page/97 97–98]|oclc=37513179|url=https://archive.org/details/ridingwavesofcul00trom/page/97}}</ref> marked by:
* love/hate (Middle East, Mediterranean, Latin America);
* approval/criticism (United Kingdom, Canada, Scandinavia, Germanic countries);
* esteem/contempt (Japan, Eastern Asia); and
* responsiveness/rejection (the United States).

Only the responsiveness/rejection culture results in teenagers actively trying to become popular. There is no effort for popularity in Northern or Southern Europe, Latin America or Asia. This emotional bonding is specific for the [[high schools in the United States]]. In the love/hate cultures, the family and close friends are more important than popularity. In the approval/criticism cultures, actions are more important than persons, so no strong links develop during school.

=== Demographic differences ===

==== Maturity ====
Popularity is gauged primarily through social status. Because of the importance of social status, peers play the primary role in social decision making so that individuals can increase the chances that others like them. However, as children, individuals tend to do this through friendship, academics, and interpersonal conduct.<ref name="Adler" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=N.,G |first=Miller, Maruyama |date=1976 |title=Ordinal position and peer popularity. |url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.123 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=123–131|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.123 }}</ref> By adulthood, work and romantic relationships become much more important. This peer functioning and gaining popularity is a key player in increasing interest in social networks and groups in the workplace. To succeed in such a work environment, adults then place popularity as a higher priority than any other goal, even romance.<ref name="Lansu"/>

==== Gender ====
These two types of popularity, perceived popularity and sociometric popularity, are more correlated for girls than they are for boys. However, it is said that men can possess these qualities to a larger extent, making them more likely to be a leader, more powerful, and more central in a group, but also more likely than women to be socially excluded.<ref name="Lansu" /> Boys tend to become popular based on athletic ability, coolness, toughness, and interpersonal skills; however, the more popular a boy gets, the worse he tends to do on his academic work. On the other hand, this negative view of academics is not seen at all in popular girls, who gain popularity based on family background (primarily socioeconomic status), physical appearance, and social ability. Boys are also known to be more competitive and rule focused, whereas girls have more emotional intimacy.<ref name="Adler">Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. ''Sociology Of Education'', 65(3), 169–187.</ref>

==== Race ====
In some instances, it has been found that in predominantly white high schools, attractive non-white students are on average significantly more sociometrically popular than equally attractive white students. One theory that has been put forth to explain this phenomenon is a high degree of [[group cohesiveness]] among minority students compared with the relative lack of cohesion amongst members of the majority. Since there is more cohesion, there is more availability for one person to be liked by many since they are all in contact. This acts like [[Zipf's Law]], where the cohesion is a confounding factor that forces the greater links in the smaller minority, causing them to be more noticed and thus more popular.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Modeling Dyadic and Interdependent Data in the Developmental and Behavioral Sciences|publisher=Routledge|others=Selig, James P., Little, Todd D.|year=2008|isbn=9780805859737|editor-last=Card|editor-first=Noel|location=London|pages=61–86|oclc=221663023}}</ref> When considering race as a predictor for perceived popularity by asking a class how popular and important each other person is, African American students were rated most popular by their peers. Popularity in race was found to be correlated with athleticism, and because African Americans have a stereotype of being better at sports than individuals of other races, they are viewed as more popular. Additionally, White and Hispanic children were rated as more popular the better they succeeded in school and came from a higher socioeconomic background. No single factor can explain popularity, but instead the interaction between many factors such as race and athleticism vs. academics.<ref name=Kennedy>Kennedy, E. (1995). Correlates of perceived popularity among peers: A study of race and gender differences among middle school students. ''The Journal of Negro Education'', 64, 186–185.</ref>