Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors within Early Adolescent Friendship Cliques:What's Status Got to Do with It?
This study involved an examination of the role of perceived popularity and social dominance in the social behaviors used within early adolescents' (N = 387) friendship cliques. A status hierarchy between cliques within each grade (based on peer-rated perceived popularity) and a status hierarchy between individuals within each clique (based on friend-rated social dominance) were delineated. Results revealed that adolescents' within-clique dominance rank and their clique's collective perceived popularity status were independently related to their social behaviors used within their cliques and their likability by friends and peers. Levels of aggression were highest within perceived popular cliques and perceived unpopular cliques, whereas levels of prosocial behavior and friend/peer likability were lowest in perceived unpopular cliques. Findings also indicated that aggression toward clique members was associated with social dominance within the clique. However, dominant adolescents using both aggressive and prosocial behaviors within their cliques may be afforded the most social rewards.
Traditionally, developmental researchers have conceptualized high-status youths as liked, sociable, and nonaggressive and low-status youths as disliked, unsociable, and aggressive or withdrawn (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). However, recent work has begun to show that behavioral characteristics and outcomes associated with social status are not as clearcut as previously thought. For example, when considering measures of social status based in sociology (i.e., perceived popularity) and ethology [End Page 406] (i.e., social dominance), high status is often associated with aggressive behavior (Hawley, 2003; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). In fact, researchers have argued that some aggression may be normative and beneficial to social adjustment (Hawley, 2003; Little, Brauner, Jones, Nock, & Hawley, 2003), especially if aggression is carefully balanced by the use of prosocial behavior (Hawley, 2003). Thus far, the social behaviors and experiences of such high-status children and adolescents have been quantitatively studied within the larger peer group context (e.g., Hawley, 2003; Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Rodkin et al., 2000; Savin-Williams, 1979) and, less often, within dyadic friendships (Hawley, Little, & Card, 2007).
Except for a few ethnographic studies (Adler & Adler, 1998; Merten, 1997), researchers have yet to explore associations between status and behavior used within friendship cliques. Unlike larger peer groups such as classmates or grademates at school, cliques are comprised of youths who voluntarily and frequently associate with one another and identify one another as friends (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). By late childhood/early adolescence, nearly all youths report being members of cliques (Rubin et al., 1998; Thompson, O'Neill Grace, & Cohen, 2001). Since the prevalence and social influence of cliques has been reported to peak during early adolescence (Thompson et al., 2001), the associations between social status and the dynamics within cliques may be particularly important to study at this stage of development.
Social status is a central aspect of daily life for early adolescents, as inclusion and acceptance by peers become strongly desired (Merten, 2004). During this time, social status exists within the larger peer network (e.g., classroom or grade) as well as within smaller social groups (e.g., cliques) and can reflect one's own social reputation or one's reputation based on with whom one affiliates (Cairns, Perrin, & Cairns, 1985). Both individuals within cliques and cliques within the larger peer network may be organized hierarchically (Adler & Adler, 1998). For purposes of this study, the hierarchy of cliques within the larger peer network (i.e., grade) was determined based on the collective status (i.e., peer-rated perceived popularity) of those who comprise each clique, and the hierarchy within each clique was determined based on the status (i.e., friend-rated social dominance) of each individual clique member. The primary aim of the present study was to examine the relationships between two measures of [End Page 407] social status (i.e., perceived popularity and social dominance) and early adolescents' experiences within their cliques.
Developmental psychologists have traditionally assessed social status using measures of peer liking and disliking (i.e., sociometric status). Sociometric measures allow individuals to be classified based on social preference (nominations of like most minus like least), and social impact (nominations of like most plus like least) (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Social preference is a measure of relative likability in the peer group, whereas social impact is a measure of visibility in that peers regard the child with strong opinions (Terry, 2000). Thus, those who score high on social impact are highly liked, highly disliked, or a combination of both. During early adolescence, both peer likability (i.e., social preference) and social impact have been positively associated with supportiveness, assertiveness, and physical attractiveness; however, social impact has also been positively associated with disruptiveness and aggression (Coie et al., 1982). Prior to the present study, research examining whether peer likability and social impact relate to measures of status within and between friendship cliques has been lacking.
Over the past decade, researchers have been turning their attention to assessments of status using measures of peer-rated social reputation (i.e., perceived popularity). Perceived popularity is often assessed by asking participants to nominate who is most and least popular (e.g., LaFontana & Cillessen, 1999; Lease et al., 2002) and is said to measure social prominence in the peer group (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Rodkin et al., 2000). Across Grades 4-10, perceived popularity has been positively associated with the use of prosocial behavior toward peers (Gorman et al., 2002; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000). In comparison, positive associations between perceived popularity and both overt and relational forms of aggression toward peers have been most commonly reported across Grades 6-10 (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). It has been argued that the ability to maintain a position of high social status within the peer group using aggressive means requires keen interpersonal skills that develop with age (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Furthermore, perceived popular youths are often described by peers as cool, nice, and funny yet also conceited, exclusionary, and mean (Adler & Adler, 1998; Closson, 2009; Eder, Evans, & Parker, 1995). Given their mixed profile, it is not surprising that perceived popular early adolescents [End Page 408] are not necessarily well liked by all peers (Farmer, Estell, Bishop, O'Neal, & Cairns, 2003; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Certain peers may admire their prosocial characteristics, whereas others may resent their social power and disapprove of their aggressiveness. Indeed, the prominence of perceived popular youths enables peers to notice their behaviors and form strong opinions of them. Therefore, perceived popular youths are likely to score high on social impact (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).
Research findings in regard to gender differences in associations between peer-directed aggression and perceived popularity have been mixed. Using an early adolescent sample, one study demonstrated that overt aggression was more strongly linked with perceived popularity for boys than for girls (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Other studies have indicated that overt and relational aggression may be positively associated with perceived popularity for both boys and girls; however, the association involving relational aggression may be stronger for girls than for boys in early adolescence (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Whether the association between perceived popularity and overt aggression within cliques is stronger for boys than for girls and the association between perceived popularity and relational aggression within cliques is stronger for girls than for boys remain empirical questions to be explored in the current study.
Although researchers are beginning to uncover a great deal about perceived popular youths, relatively little is known about those who are perceived as comparatively less popular. Using a preadolescent sample, Adler and Adler (1998) demonstrated that subordinate to the popular cliques there may be other groups such as middle friendship circles and social isolates. In Adler and Adler's qualitative study, children in middle friendship circles were described as nice to peers, with primarily positive relationships with friends. Comparatively, social isolates were those at the bottom of the peer status hierarchy, as they were generally rejected by the larger peer group but would sometimes befriend peers at school who were of similar low status. Similarly, Prinstein and Cillessen (2003) found that in Grade 10, peer-directed aggression was quantitatively associated with low levels of perceived popularity but to a lesser degree than the association with high levels of perceived popularity. Taken together, these findings suggest that youths in perceived average cliques may be the least aggressive individuals in the peer group.
Not only may a status hierarchy exist between cliques within the larger peer network, but a status hierarchy between individuals within cliques may also be present (Adler & Adler, 1998). According to Adler and Adler, at the top [End Page 409] of the hierarchy within cliques are leaders followed by those who are second tier and finally those who are followers. During preadolescence and early adolescence, the leaders within popular cliques have been found to use aggression toward socially threatening subordinate clique members to secure their own dominant position within the clique (Adler & Adler, 1998; Merten, 1997). The current study sought to determine whether these ethnographic findings can be replicated through quantitative measures and assess whether such behavior occurs within lower status cliques.
Using an ethology based conception of social dominance, researchers have studied the development and influence of status hierarchies by assessing the relative social dominance of individuals in a group (e.g., Hawley, 1999). According to this perspective, group members use aggression to compete for resources, thereby establishing and maintaining dominance hierarchies (Savin-Williams, 1979). Through competition, socially dominant individuals gain greater access than others to social resources (e.g., being deemed the leader of the group) or material resources (e.g., the preferred spot in the lunch cafeteria) that are highly desired by group members (Hawley, 1999). Relative to their subordinate peers, socially dominant youths have been characterized as more influential, daring, physically attractive, and socially appropriate; thus, they are often perceived as attractive social partners and are afforded high status (Hawley, 1999; Savin-Williams, 1979; Savin-Williams & Freedman, 1977).
The traditional view of social dominance suggests that dominant individuals use aggressive strategies to attain their goals. However, Hawley (1999) proposed that social dominance may be obtained by acquiring resources, regardless of the means by which they are attained. Hawley's resource control theory suggests that one's ability to compete for and control social or material resources determines each group member's status within the dominance hierarchy. According to Hawley and her colleagues (e.g., Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., 2007; Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2002), dominant children and adolescents tend to use one of three strategies of resource control: prosocial (e.g., reciprocity, cooperation, persuasion, and helping behaviors), coercive (e.g., aggression, manipulation, deception, insults, and threats), or bistrategic (i.e., the use of either prosocial or coercive strategies depending on what would bring the most success given the context of the situation).
During late childhood and early adolescence, prosocial dominance is associated with positive social characteristics and outcomes (e.g., perceived as popular, liked by peers, agreeable, conscientious, sensitive to social cues, socially connected, and positive affect) (Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., 2002). Comparatively, coercive dominance is associated with aggression, [End Page 410] hostility, willingness to cheat, negative affect, and loneliness (Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., 2002). Bistrategic dominants are socially competent, sharing characteristics and outcomes of prosocial dominants (e.g., perceived as popular, reasonably liked by peers, agreeable, conscientious, socially skilled, and socially integrated) as well as coercive dominants (e.g., high levels of hostility, loneliness, cheating, and aggression) (Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., 2002). Bistrategic individuals report the highest need for recognition and highest influence over their peers (Hawley et al., 2002). Hawley and colleagues (2007) found that Grades 7-10 peer-rated bistrategic dominants were aggressive within their dyadic friendships. Despite the presence of aggression and conflict in their friendships, they were rated as intimate and fun. Interestingly, the study also showed that the resource control strategy employed with peers may not necessarily be the same strategy used within their friendship. For example, peer-rated prosocial dominants did not differ from coercive dominants or bistrategic dominants in the level of coercive behaviors used within their friendships. Therefore, dominance strategies may differ depending on the social context. As a study of early adolescents' experiences within cliques, the current study extends the extant literature by exploring dominance processes in a context not previously examined through quantitative measures.
Some research suggests that there may be gender differences in the peer-directed social behaviors of socially dominant early adolescents. For instance, in a study with youths at a summer camp, Savin-Williams (1979) found that verbal ridicule (i.e., verbal and relational aggression) was the most frequent expression of social dominance for both boys and girls. However, socially dominant boys used more physical aggression, whereas socially dominant girls tended to use more prosocial strategies. Similarly, Hawley (2003) found that more boys than girls used coercive dominance strategies and that more girls than boys used prosocial dominance strategies, whereas boys and girls were equally likely to be bistrategic. Although previous research suggests that there may be gender differences in dominance strategies used within the larger peer group, it is presently unknown whether these gender differences exist within the context of a friendship clique.
Qualitative researchers have demonstrated that status hierarchies may exist at two levels: between cliques within the larger peer network and between individuals within each clique (Adler & Adler, 1998). Drawing upon the extant literature to inform the methodology of the current study, I used quantitative measures of perceived popularity and social dominance to [End Page 411] delineate these two hierarchies. It was decided that within the larger peer network, cliques may be organized hierarchically based on the collective perceived popularity of the individuals who comprise each clique as rated by peers. It was also decided that within each clique, individuals may be organized hierarchically based on the level of social dominance of each individual within their clique as rated by clique members. The overarching aim of the current study was to identify these two types of hierarchies and quantitatively examine how social status may be associated with social behaviors and experiences within cliques.
Little is known about gender differences in the use of aggressive and prosocial behaviors within cliques. Merten (1997) described a popular clique of early adolescent girls as often being mean within the clique, yet they were also nice toward clique members as well as toward outsiders. Unfortunately, Merten's study did not involve a comparable clique of early adolescent boys. Adler and Adler's (1998) ethnography examining preadolescent clique dynamics suggested that boys and girls in popular cliques may behave in similar ways toward clique members, involving a balance of both aggressive and prosocial behaviors. In addition, there are no apparent differences in Adler and Adler's descriptions of the within-clique behaviors of boys and girls in lower status cliques. Therefore, in the present study it was expected that the relationship between social status and behaviors within cliques would be similar for boys and girls.
Peer-directed prosocial behavior has previously been linked with high perceived popularity (e.g., Gorman et al., 2002; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000), whereas peer-directed aggression has previously been associated with high and low levels of perceived popularity (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Furthermore, Adler and Adler (1998) described those in middle friendship circles as having positive relationships with friends. Therefore, it was expected that members of perceived popular cliques and perceived unpopular cliques would demonstrate more within-clique aggression than members of perceived average cliques. In addition, it was expected that members of perceived popular cliques and perceived average cliques would demonstrate more within-clique prosocial behavior than members of perceived unpopular cliques.
Adler and Adler (1998) found that individuals in middle friendship circles were nice to all peers, and their friendships were less exclusive and more intimate than those in perceived popular cliques. Therefore, those in perceived average cliques were expected to be more liked by peers and friends than those in perceived popular and perceived unpopular cliques. Furthermore, previous research has found that an individual's perceived popularity has been positively associated with peer social impact [End Page 412] during early adolescence (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). Therefore, it was expected that individuals in perceived popular cliques would score higher on peer social impact than individuals in perceived average cliques and perceived unpopular cliques.
Previous research has associated peer-rated social dominance with peer-directed aggression (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1979) that is used for instrumental purposes (Hawley, 1999). Therefore, this study tested the hypothesis that high dominants would use more aggression, particularly instrumental aggression, within their clique than subordinate clique members. In addition, the least dominant adolescent has been found to be the least liked individual in a peer group (Savin-Williams, 1979; Savin-Williams & Freedman, 1977). Thus, this finding was expected to be replicated within the friendship clique context.
According to Hawley and colleagues (Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., 2002), youths who employ both prosocial and coercive resource control strategies (i.e., bistrategic) are often rated high on perceived popularity. Based on this research, it was expected that high dominants who were bistrategic would be members of cliques with a high level of perceived popularity among members. In addition, Hawley (2003) has shown that peer-rated social dominants who are bistrategic or prosocial may be more liked by peers than those who are coercive. Therefore, it was expected that bistrategic dominants and prosocial dominants would be more liked by peers and friends than aggressive dominants.
Participants were 387 early adolescents (53% girls) from three middle schools comprised of Grades 6-8 in a small city in western Canada. The local population consists primarily of Caucasian families (97%) of middle socioeconomic status (Statistics Canada, 2006). The participation rate for the entire sample was 75%, exceeding the recommended minimum participation rate of 60% when utilizing unlimited sociometric nomination procedures (Nukulkij, Cillessen, Bellmore, Whitcomb, & Burke, 2002, as cited in Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2003).
Students who received parental permission to participate completed a series of questionnaires that were group administered in their classrooms during a [End Page 413] 45-minute session. As described below, students completed a number of self-report and peer-report measures.
Consistent with previous research (e.g., LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002), participants nominated an unlimited number of participating grademates they like most ("students who you personally like the most") and an unlimited number of peers they like least ("students who you personally like the least"). Nominations from other-gender peers and grademates outside a participants' classroom were allowed, as such procedures have been shown to improve the predictive validity of sociometric measures (Poulin & Dishion, 2008). Numbers of like-most and like-least nominations received for each participant were separately summed and standardized within grade and school. Like-most z-scores minus like-least z-scores were calculated, and the resulting score was restandardized within grade and school to create a continuous measure of peer likability for each participant. Like-most z-scores plus like-least z-scores were calculated, and the resulting score was restandardized within grade and school to create a continuous measure of peer social impact for each participant (Coie et al., 1982).
Participants nominated an unlimited number of participating grademates as most popular ("students who you think are most popular") and as least popular ("students who you think are least popular") (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Lease et al., 2002; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Participants were allowed to nominate other-gender peers and grademates outside their classroom. The number of most-popular and least-popular nominations received by each participant were each summed and standardized within grade and school. A continuous measure of perceived popularity for each participant was created by subtracting least-popular z-scores from most-popular z-scores, and the resulting score was restandardized within grade and school.
Adapting the procedures described by LaFontana and Cillessen (1999), cliques were classified as perceived popular, perceived average, or perceived unpopular by assessing the collective perceived popularity of all members in a clique. The likelihood of individuals within each clique being similar in terms of perceived popularity is high, given that youths who are dyadic friends as well as those who hang around together have similar levels of perceived popularity (Farmer et al., 2003; Rose, Swenson, & Carlson, 2004). A criterion cutoff score of 1 standard deviation was used to tentatively classify cliques. Specifically, cliques whose members' mean perceived popularity score was [End Page 414] equal to or greater than 1.00 were classified as perceived popular, cliques whose members' mean perceived popularity score was equal to or less than -1.00 were classified as perceived unpopular, and cliques whose members' mean perceived popularity score was greater than -1.00 and less than 1.00 were classified as perceived average. Since it was possible that the scores of one or two clique members could skew a clique's mean perceived popularity score, it was important to examine the homogeneity of individual scores within each clique. Therefore, cliques whose members' mean perceived popularity score was near either criterion cutoff score (i.e., a score between .75 and 1.25 or a score between -.75 and -1.25) were reassessed to ensure that the cliques were appropriately classified. If the majority (i.e., more than 50%) of the clique members' individual perceived popularity scores were greater than or equal to 1.00, the clique was classified as perceived popular. If the majority of the clique members' individual perceived popularity scores were less than or equal to -1.00, the clique was classified as perceived unpopular. Finally, if the majority of the clique members' individual perceived popularity scores were greater than -1.00 and less than 1.00, the clique were classified as perceived average. As a result, there were 23 perceived popular cliques, 34 perceived average cliques, and 17 perceived unpopular cliques.
Cliques were identified using a modification of the procedures described by Paxton, Schutz, Wertheim, and Muir (1999). Using a list of participating grademates, participants were instructed to identify the "students who are in the group of friends you hang around with most often." Because cliques generally range in size from 3 to 10 members (Ennett, Bauman, & Koch, 1994; Paxton et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 1998), participants were instructed to list not more than 9 friends. If their clique consisted of more than 10 friends (including themselves), participants were to choose 9 of their friends in the clique with whom they spend the most time. Friendship clique nomination data were analyzed using the UCINET 6.0 statistical package (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). By identifying clusters around mutual friendship ties, the program generated a list of all possible cliques. Since the program allowed individuals to be members of more than one clique, it was necessary to consider all possible cliques that any one individual may have membership in and assign individuals to the clique in which they had the highest number of friendship links. To assess the strength of the friendship ties among members in each clique, friendship cohesion was calculated as the observed number of within-clique links divided by the possible number of within-clique links (i.e., observed links/ni × [ni - 1], where ni = the number of members in clique i) (Ennett et al., 1994; Paxton et al., 1999). A unilateral friendship nomination (i.e., A nominates B as a friend, but B does [End Page 415] not nominate A) was counted as one within-clique link, and a reciprocated friendship nomination (i.e., A nominates B as a friend, and B nominates A as a friend) was counted as two within-clique links. A maximum of two links was possible between any two clique members. In previous studies, some researchers have not set a minimum criterion cutoff score for friendship cohesion (e.g., Ennett et al., 1994). Such studies are limited because it is unknown whether cliques consist of valid friendship relations among members. Obtaining cliques with strong friendship ties among members was of greater importance than the exhaustive assignment of participants to cliques. Paxton et al. (1999) proposed that a cutoff score of .40 should be stringent enough to allow for the inclusion of cliques with valid and meaningful friendship ties between friends. Of the 387 participants, 11 participants (6 boys and 5 girls) were not members of a clique (i.e., they were either members of a dyad or were not identified as a friend). Following the procedures outlined above, 74 cliques were identified. Cliques ranged in size from 3 to 9 members (M = 5.56, SD = 1.62). Thirty-four cliques were composed of all girl members, 29 were all boy members, and 11 were mixed-gender cliques. Friendship-cohesion scores calculated for each clique ranged between .40 and 1.00 (M = .72, SD = .18). Since no clique fell below the minimum required friendship-cohesion score of .40, all cliques were included in subsequent analyses.
These measures were a compilation and modification of several measures that have previously been developed by researchers (Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, & Hymel, 1979; Lease et al., 2002; Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley, 2003; Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). These original measures were developed to assess the larger peer group context; therefore, it was necessary to modify the wording of items to apply exclusively to the friendship clique context. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding members of their clique by rating to what extent each item described each friend using a 4-point scale, from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a whole lot). Constructs assessed included friend likability ("I like this friend," "I like to spend time with this friend"; α = .75; adapted from Asher et al., 1979), prosocial behavior ("This friend helps someone in our group when they are having problems," "This friend is nice to someone in our group when they need help"; α = .70; adapted from Prinstein et al., 2001), instrumental relational aggression ("To get what he/she wants, this friend tells others in our group to stop liking someone in our group," "To get what he/she wants, this friend gossips or spreads rumors about someone in our group"; α = .75; adapted from Little, Jones et al., 2003), instrumental overt aggression ("This friend hits, kicks, or punches someone in our group to get what he/she wants," "This friend says mean things to someone in our group to get what he/she [End Page 416] wants"; α = .62; adapted from Little, Jones et al., 2003), reactive relational aggression ("If someone in our group upsets or hurts this friend, he/she tells others in our group to stop liking the person that hurt him/her," "If this friend is mad at someone in our group, he/she gossips or spreads rumors about them"; α = .75; adapted from Little, Jones et al., 2003), reactive overt aggression ("This friend hits, kicks, or punches someone in our group if they have angered him/her," "This friend says mean things to someone in our group if he/she is hurt by them"; α = .61; adapted from Little, Jones et al., 2003), and social dominance ("This friend has influence and power over our group of friends," "This friend gets people in our group to do what he/she wants"; α = .68; adapted from Lease et al., 2002).
Using the mean score as rated by clique members from the social dominance items, individuals within cliques were classified as high dominant, moderate dominant, or low dominant. Savin-Williams and Freedman (1977) suggested that the most striking individual differences occur between the most dominant individual and the least dominant individual of a group. Therefore, only one clique member was classified as high dominant (i.e., the individual with the highest mean social dominance score as rated by his/her friends), only one clique member was classified as low dominant (i.e., the individual with the lowest mean social dominance score as rated by his/her friends), and all other clique members were classified as moderate dominant. Following this procedure, 74 individuals were classified as high dominant, 228 individuals were classified as moderate dominant, and 74 individuals were classified as low dominant.
Correlational analyses were conducted between all variables of interest in the present study to determine whether any significant associations existed between variables (Table 1). Noteworthy positive correlations were found between clique perceived popularity and peer likability, clique perceived popularity and peer social impact, individual social dominance and peer social impact, and individual social dominance and all types of aggression. Correlational analyses were also conducted between all variables for boys and girls separately (Table 2). In general, a similar pattern of correlations was found for boys and girls. A particularly noteworthy finding was that the correlations between social status variables (i.e., clique perceived popularity and social dominance) and behavior within cliques were similar for boys and girls. Fisher's z-tests (Cohen, 1988) were used to test for significant [End Page 417] differences in the correlations for boys and girls. With the exception of the correlation between instrumental relational aggression and instrumental overt aggression, all of the correlations between the different types of aggression were significantly stronger for girls than for boys. In addition, the correlation between reactive overt aggression and peer likability was significantly different between boys (r = .09, p > .05) and girls (r = -.20, p < .01).
Initially, the gender composition of each clique (i.e., all boy, all girl, or mixed gender) was included as an independent variable in all multivariate analyses. There were no significant main effects or interaction effects found for clique gender composition. Therefore, the data were reanalyzed with the clique gender composition variable removed. These results are presented below.
It was of interest to determine if an individual's use of social behavior within her or his clique varied as a function of that individual's dominance rank within the clique and/or the clique's level of perceived popularity. To examine potential differences in social behavior, a 2 (gender) × 3 (clique perceived popularity) × 3 (dominance rank) MANOVA was conducted whereby gender (i.e., boy, girl), perceived popularity of clique (i.e., perceived popular, perceived average, and perceived unpopular), and dominance rank (i.e., high dominant, moderate dominant, low dominant) were used as the independent variables, and instrumental overt aggression, instrumental relational aggression, reactive overt aggression, reactive relational aggression, and prosocial behavior were used as the dependent variables.
Results revealed a significant main effect of gender (F[5, 354] = 20.36, p < .001). Examination of subsequent univariate analyses indicated a significant effect of gender for prosocial behavior (F[1, 376] = 58.02, p < .001), instrumental relational aggression (F[1, 376] = 6.68, p < .01), and reactive relational aggression (F[1, 376] = 12.94, p < .001). Girls engaged in more prosocial behavior (M = .41, SD = .83) than boys (M = -.47, SD = .98), more instrumental relational aggression (M = .15, SD = 1.12) than boys (M = -.17, SD = .81), and more reactive relational aggression (M = .21, SD = 1.14) than boys (M = -.24, SD = .75). Girls and boys did not differ on their level of instrumental overt aggression (F[1, 376] = .86, p > .05 [Ms = .07 and -.07]) or reactive overt aggression (F[1, 376] = 1.20, p > .05 [Ms = -.03 and .04]).
prosocial behavior, instrumental relational aggression, instrumental overt aggression, and reactive overt aggression (Table 3). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that adolescents in perceived average cliques engaged in more prosocial behavior than adolescents in perceived unpopular cliques. Adolescents in perceived popular cliques engaged in more instrumental relational aggression, instrumental overt aggression, and reactive overt aggression than adolescents in perceived average cliques. In addition, adolescents in perceived unpopular cliques engaged in more instrumental overt aggression than adolescents in perceived average cliques.
Results also indicated a significant main effect of dominance rank (F[10, 708] = 3.91, p < .001). Examination of subsequent univariate analyses revealed a significant effect of dominance rank for all types of aggression (Table 4). Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that high dominants engaged in more instrumental relational aggression and instrumental overt aggression than all other clique members and also engaged in more reactive relational aggression and reactive overt aggression than low dominants. Moderate dominants engaged in more aggression, regardless of form or function, than low dominants. No significant interactions were found.
It was of interest to determine if an individual's ratings of peer and friend regard were associated with her or his dominance rank and/or the clique's level of perceived popularity. To examine potential differences in peer/friend regard, a 2 (gender) × 3 (clique perceived popularity) × 3 (dominance rank) MANOVA was conducted whereby gender (i.e., boy, girl), perceived popularity of clique (i.e., perceived popular, perceived average, and perceived unpopular) and dominance rank (i.e., high dominant, moderate dominant, low dominant) were used as the independent variables, and scores on peer likability, peer social impact, and friend likability were used as the dependent variables.
A significant main effect of gender was not found (F[3, 355] = .57, p > .05). Boys and girls were rated as equally liked by friends (F[1, 376] = .03, p > .05 [Ms = -.06 and .05]) and by peers (F[1, 376] = 1.63, p > .05 [Ms = -.08 and .14]) and were rated similarly on social impact (F[1, 376] = .02, p > .05 [Ms = -.01 and .01]).
peer likability, peer social impact, and friend likability (see Table 3). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that adolescents in perceived popular cliques were more liked by peers than adolescents in perceived average cliques and perceived unpopular cliques. In addition, adolescents in perceived average cliques were more liked by peers than adolescents in perceived unpopular cliques. In terms of peer social impact, adolescents in perceived popular cliques scored higher on peer social impact than adolescents in perceived average cliques and perceived unpopular cliques. In addition, adolescents in perceived unpopular cliques scored higher on peer social impact than adolescents in perceived average cliques. In terms of friend likability, adolescents in perceived popular cliques and perceived average cliques were more liked by friends than adolescents in perceived unpopular cliques.
Results also revealed a significant main effect of dominance rank (F[6, 710] = 3.20, p < .01). Examination of subsequent univariate analyses indicated a significant effect of dominance rank for peer social impact (see Table 4). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that high dominants scored higher on peer social impact than moderate dominants and low dominants. Also, moderate dominants scored higher on peer social impact than low dominants. No significant interactions were found.
High dominants (n = 74) were assigned to one of three types of dominance strategies (i.e., prosocial dominant, aggressive dominant, bistrategic dominant). For purposes of this analysis, each high dominant's mean level of aggression (i.e., mean score across the four types of aggression) was calculated to determine the individual's overall tendency toward engaging in aggressive behavior regardless of the form and function of aggression.1 [End Page 424] High dominants were classified as prosocial dominant if their score for prosocial behavior was higher than the mean of their clique and their mean level of aggression was lower than the mean of their clique. Similarly, high dominants were classified as aggressive dominant if their mean level of aggression was higher than the mean of their clique and their score for prosocial behavior was lower than the mean of their clique. High dominants were classified as bistrategic dominant if their scores for both prosocial behavior and mean level of aggression were equal to or higher than the means of their clique. Following this procedure, 25 high dominants were classified as prosocial dominant (10 boys, 15 girls), 29 were classified as aggressive dominant (14 boys, 15 girls), and 20 were classified as bistrategic dominant (8 boys, 12 girls). Chi-square analyses indicated no significant gender differences in dominance strategy (χ2 [2, n = 74] = .49, p > .05).
It was of interest to determine whether dominance strategy was associated with clique perceived popularity and peer/friend regard. It was also of interest to determine whether high dominants employing one of the three types of strategies were perceived as equally socially dominant by clique members. To examine potential differences in social dominance, clique perceived popularity, and peer/friend regard, I conducted a MANOVA whereby gender (i.e., boy, girl) and dominance strategy (i.e., prosocial dominant, aggressive dominant, bistrategic dominant) served as the independent variables, and scores on social dominance, clique perceived popularity, peer likability, peer social impact, and friend likability were used as the dependent variables.
social impact (F[1, 376] = 2.80, p > .05 [Ms = .49 and .11]), and their clique's level of perceived popularity did not differ (F[1, 376] = .25, p > .05 [Ms = -.01 and -.02]).
Multivariate results revealed a significant main effect of dominance strategy (F[10, 128] = 3.85, p < .001). Univariate results for social dominance were nonsignificant (F[2, 73] = 2.28, p > .05), indicating that high dominants were considered to be equally dominant regardless of the strategy they tended to employ within their cliques. Results also revealed a significant univariate effect of dominance strategy for clique perceived popularity, peer likability, and friend likability (Table 5). Bonferroni post hoc analyses indicated that bistrategic dominants were more likely to be members of cliques with higher perceived popularity than were prosocial dominants. In addition, relative to aggressive dominants, prosocial dominants and bistrategic dominants were more liked by friends, and bistrategic dominants were more liked by peers. A significant interaction between gender and dominance strategy was not found.
Inspired by qualitative work on clique dynamics in late childhood and early adolescence (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985; Merten, 1997), the present study quantitatively delineated two types of status hierarchies within early adolescents' social worlds and examined variations in within-clique behavior and experiences based on relative status differences. The results from this study suggest that the perceived popularity of cliques and the social dominance of individuals within each clique are associated with how one is regarded by friends and peers and also are associated with one's behavior within the clique.
As expected, relatively few gender differences emerged. Nevertheless, results revealed significant negative associations between most types of aggression within cliques and peer likability for girls but not for boys. In particular, the correlation between reactive overt aggression and peer likability differed significantly for boys and girls: reactive overt aggression was negatively associated with peer likability for girls, whereas the correlation was nonsignificant for boys. These findings allude to girls' heightened social awareness (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1999). Relative to boys, girls may be more aware of peers who are aggressive toward friends in their clique and may dislike them for engaging in such behavior. Correlational [End Page 427] analyses also revealed significant gender differences in the associations between the various types of aggression whereby these positive correlations were stronger for girls than for boys. These findings suggest that compared to boys, girls may be less selective in the type of aggression they use toward the friends in their clique. Consistent with previous research suggesting girls are highly prosocial toward peers (Hawley, 2003; Lease et al., 2002), the present results showed that girls were also more prosocial toward the friends in their clique than were boys. In addition, girls were more relationally aggressive toward friends in their clique than were boys, yet girls did not differ from boys in terms of overt aggression, consistent with some previous peer level research (e.g., Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Beyond these differences, gender did not affect the associations between social status and social behavior within cliques or peer/friend regard. Thus, it appears that the processes involved in clique dynamics as they relate to social status within and between cliques may be similar for boys and girls.
The results demonstrate that membership in perceived popular cliques may be associated with drawbacks as well as benefits. The finding that perceived popular clique members were aggressive toward the friends in their clique contributes to the growing body of research showing that there may be negative components to being perceived as popular during early adolescence (e.g., Merten, 2004; Sandstrom & Cillessen, 2006). Compared to members of lower status cliques, those in perceived popular cliques used more instrumental relational aggression. Some researchers have suggested that peer-directed relational aggression may be used intentionally to damage another peer's social reputation, thereby maintaining an individual's own high status (e.g., Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Thus, instrumental relational aggression used toward other popular clique members may be an effective method for maintaining or increasing one's status within the clique by decreasing the social position of others.
Despite the existence of aggression within their cliques, members of perceived popular cliques were reasonably well liked by their friends and were prosocial toward their friends. Receiving prosocial acts may provide sufficient incentive for popular youths to maintain amiable friendships. However, Adler and Adler (1998) have suggested that niceness within popular cliques may sometimes be disingenuous and that liking and disliking among members may be influenced by the preferences of clique leaders. Nevertheless, the benefits associated with membership in these cliques may outweigh negative [End Page 428] aspects, as the desire for popularity may be stronger than the desire for a stable, high-quality friendship in early adolescence (Merten, 2004).
Youths in perceived popular cliques scored the highest on peer social impact and peer likability. Thus, the behaviors of those in high-status positions in the social milieu may be widely noticed, allowing for their peers to form strong opinions of them. Although many peers may personally like those in perceived popular cliques, these positive feelings are potentially an indication of admiration, since those with high social status are looked up to and most often emulated by others (Lease et al., 2002). Despite their use of aggression, perceived popular early adolescents are still held in high esteem by many of their peers.
In contrast to perceived popular cliques, membership in perceived unpopular cliques may be associated with the fewest positive aspects. Individuals in these cliques were aggressive toward their friends and, compared to those in perceived popular and perceived average cliques, were less liked not only by their peers but also by their friends. Interestingly, individuals in perceived unpopular cliques used more instrumental overt aggression toward the friends in their clique than did members of perceived average cliques. Adler and Adler (1998) have found ethnographic evidence suggesting that low-status youths are often discontented with their social position in the peer group. If this is the case, the present findings may reflect their desire to increase their status; however, instrumental overt aggression may not prove as effective a method as using relational or reputational forms of instrumental aggression (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). Although popular youths may use aggression to their advantage, unpopular youths may not possess the savoir faire required to produce their desired effect (Adler & Adler, 1998), as evidenced by their lower levels of prosocial behavior toward clique members. This inability to balance aggression with prosocial behavior may prevent unpopular adolescents from ascending the hierarchy and contributes to the negative perceptions held by their friends and peers. Although perceived unpopular cliques consisted of reciprocated friendships, Adler and Adler (1998) have suggested that they may be forced relationships based on availability since these children tend to be excluded by the larger peer group. Therefore, individuals in perceived unpopular cliques may not have strong positive feelings for one another because their affiliation may be motivated by a lack of an alternative source of friendship.
Many researchers have focused on studying those who are at extreme ends of social status continua (e.g., accepted versus rejected youths) or have used an average group primarily as a means of comparison. This study has demonstrated the importance of devoting attention to average status groups. Membership in perceived average cliques may be beneficial [End Page 429] for early adolescents, as it may foster generally positive friendship experiences. Indeed, the results showed that youths in perceived average cliques were reasonably liked by their peers, were well liked by their friends, and engaged in high levels of prosocial acts as well as low levels of aggressive behavior within their friendship cliques. This study provided support for Adler and Adler's (1998) qualitative finding that children in middle friendship circles may have the highest-quality friendships and engage in less aggression within their cliques because they are satisfied with their midlevel status and are less concerned with ascending the hierarchy.
Unlike Adler and Adler's (1998) research with preadolescents, the current study demonstrated that status hierarchies within cliques are not exclusive to popular cliques in early adolescence, as social dominance was measurable within cliques at all levels of perceived popularity. Whether this difference is due to developmental differences between preadolescent and early adolescent samples is an important question for future research. Furthermore, the lack of interaction effects between clique perceived popularity and individual social dominance suggests that processes related to social dominance within cliques may be largely independent of the status of the clique. The findings demonstrate that the higher one's dominance rank within the clique, the more aggressive toward clique members one is likely to be regardless of the perceived popularity of the individual's clique.
Following the suggestion of Savin-Williams (1979; Savin-Williams & Freedman, 1977), I hypothesized that low dominants would be least liked by friends. Contrary to what was expected, low dominants were reasonably well liked by friends, possibly because they were the least aggressive members of each clique yet used levels of prosocial behavior comparable to that of other clique members. Compared to the rest of their clique, low dominants scored the lowest on peer social impact. Because these individuals are likely to be nonaggressive within their clique as well as within the larger peer group and may be more withdrawn (Lease et al., 2002; Savin-Williams, 1979; Savin-Williams & Freedman, 1977) yet get along with others, they may go somewhat unnoticed by many peers.
In contrast, high dominants were found to use more instrumental aggression (both relational and overt forms) toward the friends in their clique than any subordinate members used. Previous research has shown that instrumental aggression is often used by socially dominant youths to protect their position within the peer group (Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., [End Page 430] 2002). The present results demonstrate that instrumental aggression may be a useful tool in maintaining a dominant position within friendship cliques as well. Additionally, the current findings indicate that high dominants scored higher than subordinate clique members on peer social impact regardless of the perceived popularity of their clique. High dominants may interact with their friends in a manner that is readily apparent to the entire peer group. Alternatively, these youths may utilize dominance strategies within the larger peer group as well as with their friends (Hawley et al., 2007), making them controversial social figures.
Interestingly, prosocial dominants, aggressive dominants, and bistrategic dominants were perceived by their friends to be equally socially dominant within cliques across all levels of perceived popularity. In other words, the type of strategy used by high dominants did not influence their cliques' perception of the degree of their social dominance. Hawley (2003) found that prosocial or bistrategic socially dominant early adolescents may find the most success at resource control (i.e., getting what they want) within the larger peer network. However, the findings in the current study indicate that all three strategies can be effective in maintaining the highest dominance rank within a clique.
The most intriguing findings regarding dominance strategies related to high dominants who used both prosocial and aggressive behaviors within their cliques. Such bistrategic dominants were more likely to be members of cliques higher in perceived popularity than were prosocial dominants, and both types of dominant adolescents were more liked by friends than were aggressive dominants. Interestingly, bistrategic dominants were the most liked by peers. The finding that high dominants who were bistrategic within their cliques were well liked and were members of higher status cliques provides additional support for Hawley and colleagues' (Hawley, 2003; Hawley et al., 2007) assertion that bistrategic adolescents may be the most socially successful individuals in a peer group. Using aggression within the clique may effectively allow social dominants to maintain power and control by inducing a degree of fear or intimidation in others (Adler & Adler, 1998; Merten, 1997), while prosocial behavior may allow them to offset negative repercussions. Although there may be costs to membership in cliques with bistrategic dominant leaders, their unpredictability may be alluring and exciting to some adolescents (Hawley et al., 2007).
Although every effort was made to achieve a high participation rate, a 100% participation rate was not obtained. Thus, there may have been a few [End Page 431] members of each clique who were not accounted for. Consequently, it is possible that the dominance hierarchy within each clique may have been slightly different had every student in each school participated in the study. However, a dominance hierarchy was found to exist regardless of who held each position within the clique at the time of data collection.
The present study assessed the extent to which within-clique aggressive and prosocial behaviors were characteristic of early adolescents. What remains unknown is the frequency of such behaviors used among friends in cliques. For example, individuals may be regarded as aggressive because aggression is often a noticeable behavior or because they frequently act aggressively, or perhaps it is a combination of the two. It would be expected that the frequency of prosocial acts would be high whereas the frequency of aggressive acts would be fairly low, since it is unlikely that most youths would tolerate constant hostility within their cliques. Nevertheless, even occasional acts of aggression from clique members are liable to harm victims, especially since the aggression originates from an individual with whom the victim shares a social relationship. Therefore, studies of social-psychological adjustment as it relates to the frequency and perceived impact of within-clique aggression are warranted.
Also of interest for future research is a quantitative comparison of friendship quality across cliques of differing levels of perceived popularity and between clique members with differing levels of social dominance. Qualitative research has suggested that friendships within popular cliques may be of poorer quality (i.e., high conflict, victimization, unstable, restrictions on self-expression and choice of friends) than the friendships of lower status (i.e., average) youths (Adler & Adler, 1998; Merten, 1997, 2004). Furthermore, Hawley and colleagues (2007) found that socially dominant adolescents and their friends report having higher quality friendships than subordinate adolescents. Thus, it would be interesting to assess in future studies whether the friendship quality of dominant and subordinate early adolescents differ as a function of their clique's level of perceived popularity.
The findings from the current study have several implications. Methodologically, this research has shown that two distinct hierarchies can be distinguished among early adolescent peer groups: (1) a dominance hierarchy within cliques based on measures of individual social dominance and (2) a status hierarchy within the larger peer network based on measures of clique perceived popularity. Delineating these structures can provide a useful template from which researchers can understand how early adolescents organize themselves socially and function within such contexts. Additionally, this research has shown that within-clique aggression may be socially rewarded by affording high status to certain aggressive individuals, especially [End Page 432] when they have sufficient social prowess to offset their aggression with prosocial behaviors. Overall, the results from the present study offer a more comprehensive understanding of the complex associations between social status and the dynamics within early adolescent friendship cliques.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leanna M. Closson, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4. E-mail: lclosson@interchange.ubc.ca.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Asher, S. R., Singleton, L., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 443-444.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., and Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1985). Social structure and social cognition in early adolescence: Affiliative patterns. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(3), 339-355.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147-163.
Closson, L. M. (2009). Status and gender differences in early adolescents' descriptions of popularity. Social Development, 18(2), 412-426.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-569.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58(3), 154-165.
Eder, D., Evans, C. C., & Parker, S. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Koch, G. G. (1994). Variability in cigarette smoking within and between adolescent friendship cliques. Addictive Behaviors, 19(3), 295-305.
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 sub-types or rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 992-1004.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97-132.
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2007). The allure of a mean friend: Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial skills. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(2), 170-180.
Hawley, P. H., Little, T. D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influencing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(5), 466-474.
Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 143-165.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1999). Children's interpersonal perceptions as a function of sociometric and peer-perceived popularity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 225-242.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children's perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 635-647.
Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children's social constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11(1), 87-109.
Little, T. D., Brauner, J., Jones, S. M., Nock, M. K., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Rethinking aggression: A typological examination of the functions of aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 343-369.
Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Disentangling the "whys" from the "whats" of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 122-133.
Merten, D. E. (1997). The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education, 70, 175-191.
Merten, D. E. (2004). Securing her experience: Friendship versus popularity. Feminism & Psychology, 14(3), 361-365.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144.
Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., Wertheim, E. H., & Muir, S. L. (1999). Friendship clique and peer influences on body image concerns, dietary restraint, extreme weight-loss behaviors and binge eating in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(2), 255-266.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 479-491.
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.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Carlson, W. (2004). Friendships of aggressive youth. Considering the influences of being disliked and of being perceived as popular. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 25-45.
Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40(3), 378-387.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 619-700). New York: Springer Verlag.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Sociometric status and children's peer experiences: Use of the daily diary method. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(4), 427-452.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Likeable versus popular: Distinct implications for adolescent adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(4), 305-314.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child Development, 50(4), 923-935.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Freedman, D. G. (1977). Bio-social approach to human development. In S. Chevalier-Skolnikoff & F. E. Poirier (Eds.), Primate biosocial development: Biological, sociological, and ecological determinants (pp. 563-601). New York: Garland.
Statistics Canada (2006). 2006 Community Profiles. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm.
Terry, R. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of sociometric techniques. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and A. H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Vol. Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development: No. 88; Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 27-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
1. The creation of dominance strategy subtypes distinguishing the form of aggression (i.e., relational vs. overt) used by high dominants relative to their clique was considered. For example, high dominants were classified as relationally aggressive dominant if their mean level of relational aggression was higher than the mean of their clique and if their scores for prosocial behavior and overt aggression were lower than the mean of their clique. Chi-square analyses revealed no gender differences in dominance strategy subtype when subdividing based on the form of aggression (χ2 [6, n = 74] =.57, p >.05). In addition, the creation of dominance strategy subtypes distinguishing the function of aggression (i.e., instrumental vs. reactive) used by high dominants relative to their clique was considered. Chi-square analyses revealed no gender differences in dominance strategy subtype when subdividing based on the function of aggression (χ2 [6, n = 74] = 6.75, p >.05). Due to unacceptably low sample sizes in each cell, a decision was made to aggregate across type of aggression for the dominance strategy analyses. Nevertheless, a pattern of findings from exploratory analyses (e.g., examination of means) alluded that dominant youths who use overt aggression (alone or in combination with relational aggression) toward the friends in their clique may be less liked by friends and peers compared to other subtypes of dominant youths, including those who are primarily relationally aggressive or bistrategic. However, bistrategic dominant youths may be more liked by peers and have higher levels of clique perceived popularity than other dominant youths regardless of the form of aggression they use. These findings represent trends in the data from exploratory analyses with very small sample sizes and should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, it may be reasonable for future studies with larger sample sizes to distinguish the forms of aggression when examining dominance strategies. Conversely, exploratory analyses did not demonstrate a pattern of findings to indicate a need to subdivide dominance strategies based on the function of aggression.


The original Red Dawn, circa 1984.
It was the mid 1980s when I first saw the American movie classic, Red Dawn. Set in a small Colorado foothills town, the movie is a classic good guys verses bad guys movie pitting the blood thirsty red army of the Soviet Union against an all American, self-relient cast of characters fighting a guerrilla war of a second independence.
I had grown up on a steady litany of stories of the propaganda machine that was the Soviet Union, of their brainwashed populace; of their inability to know the truth.
We had Hollywood. And I wonder if Hollywood didn't do a better job of brainwashing our populace than the Russian KGB did theirs.
I spent many a day throughout my elementary years planning the defense of my town from the inevitable invasion of those 'red devils', those commies who had plans to blow us off the face of the earth. I had an active imagination but it had plenty of source material.
Ask anyone over 40 and they'll tell you that there was deep distrust of the Soviet empire.
And no one knew a single Russian person.
We lived off of myth.
And then the myth fell down. It was the Berlin Wall actually, but it is hard to imagine now the fear that so gripped the west for so many years.
So afraid of the communist threat was our nation that we entered bloody wars, we propped up cruel and tyrannical dictators over those who were democratically elected, we pumped millions of dollars in support to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and we allowed our daily rhetoric to be that of vitriol, hostility, culture assassination, exaggeration and hysteria.
This is not to say that there was not actually a threat. I'm quite certain there was – competing ideologies by the world's standards most always lead to confrontation. And when the two groups holding the ideologies also have a lot of nuclear bombs, then the threats escalate.
I was sitting in a book store under an Istanbul mosque several years ago talking with my friend Serdar about politics and faith and we began talking about the tension between the east and the west. I was trying to see a way forward, to see a way to better relations, to see some hope but Serdar stopped me.
He said it so matter a factly, as if it were true; gospel fact.
Is it true? Do we need an enemy? Do we look for a bad guy in order to make ourselves feel better?
I am not sure that we "need" an enemy but I am sure that we do have one.
Jesus tells us in John 10:10 that "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy." So yes, we do have an enemy.
But too often we mistake him for someone else. Depending on your persuasion it could be the communist or the catholic, the Muslim or the Jew or the evangelical Christian, the right wing conservative or the left wing liberal.
We end up creating gross over generalizations of entire groups based on their very worst examples. We vilify them as the enemy and neglect any real conversations that could lead to understanding and honoring relationships.
And we keep doing it over and over again. We keep repeating the past.
I have been reading Mustafa Aykol's book Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty and it has been enlightening to hear the scope of Islamic history told from the point of view of a Turkish, Muslim scholar and journalist. Aykol's perspective serves to reinforce the value and importance of reading widely and from a broad range of perspectives, of reading patiently while waiting for a more nuanced, deeper understanding to emerge before casting judgment.
By way of example, Aykol's handling of what we in the west call the Armenian genocide – for indeed it was a genocide – is framed in the historic backdrop of the rising tide of nationalism which was sweeping through Europe at that time. What happened in Germany to the Jews because of this rabid nationalism had happened in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Crimea twenty years prior as countries there waged wars of independence from the Ottoman Empire and in a victorious wave of nationalism, drove out or slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Turkish Muslims and Jews. These atrocities fueled the Ottoman people's own nationalistic impulses which led to the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in the second decade of the 20th century. What happened in the Balkans in no way justifies their actions toward Armenians in Anatolia, but it does frame these terrible events in the complex context of the tension of those times.
Gaining a deeper understanding of the complexity of the historical and cultural context helps us to have more meaningful and respectful conversations with those with whom we disagree. Remaining outside of this place of deeper understanding leads to intolerant and insular positions bound up in the darkness of falsehood, slander, hypocrisy and injustice.
In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch tells his daughter Scout that, "You never really understand a person until you consider his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." He might well have added historical events, people groups and even religions to his statement for unless we are willing to climb into the complexity of the historical and cultural context of those, we will never truly understand them.
Click here to find Islam Without Extremes at Amazon.
Pastor Aaron left early to head down south for a class he is taking and he asked me a month or so ago if I could fill in.
I said yes and I am still processing the experience.
The process of prayer and study and writing the sermon was quite a good one. It allowed me to come to new insights, to grow, to be stretched as I thought about the text – Luke 9 : 23 – 26 – and about how to share what I felt I was hearing and learning to a congregation who is not me.
And yet, I don't know if I would preach again. I am just not sure it is worth the time investment. I am not sure that my preaching affected any change, not sure if it drew anyone closer to the Lord, not sure if preaching in general is worth the effort.
This is something I am wrestling with so I am not writing off preaching. I just don't know that placing the Sunday morning sermon as the cornerstone of church discipleship is wise or helpful.
Again, I am processing aloud here so don't take offense if you regularly deliver the message Sunday mornings.
But as I read the Bible I see Peter preaching to large crowds but then those crowds gathering in homes (presumably in small groups) to discuss and pray and worship and hold one another accountable, and to confess to one another and to meet one another's needs.
I can envision discipleship taking place in that setting.
I am having a hard time envisioning discipleship taking place through a weekly sermon.
The best way to grow in Christ is not in a classroom and it's not by listening to another sermon. The best way is as Jesus taught, to follow him, and friends, we must surely know that Jesus is on the move.
But again, I am working through this thought process and because of that would love to hear what others are thinking, are observing in their own church setting or finding in scripture.
Oh, and if you'd like to see it, here is a link for you to take a look at my sermon.
It has finally come to pass that we were able to plant our potatoes.
Our goal is to grow enough potatoes to last until March or April of next year – we did that once a few years before moving to Turkey and would like to do it again.
I'm not sure if we ordered enough seed though – it's been a while since we've done this and so we lack the recent experience we need to know exactly what we are doing.
But we are keeping records so that we can keep track of what we planted, what did well and how much we produced.
At any rate, it was a lot of fun to prepare the garden beds and plant.
Colorado Rose potatoes – we'll see what these are like.
In so many ways, gardening and growing our own food is just another part of cobbling together a lively hood, a life here in the states.
It is a slow journey, one that recently has felt a bit buried in the darkness of discouragement and wondering if we can do this.
But there is something about digging in the dirt, about laying down seed with the hope – and the faith – that from that dark grave, new life will grow forth.
Our winter here in South Dakota has seemed to drag on a bit further into spring than I would have expected.
It is our first spring in the states in over five years and so I have been looking forward to it with some excitement.
In Turkey, I always relished that first morning that I was able to comfortably enjoy our balcony for my morning routine of journaling, reading, prayer and quiet.
The birds singing, the air crisp and the feeling of fresh air a marvolous reminder of the beauty of this world. I've been looking forward to that moment here as well.
We have a nice back patio too and I've been getting it ready; sweeping off the leaves, cleaning the winter grime from the few pieces of patio furniture we have, and waiting.
Waiting seems to be a theme in my life. I've been back in the states now going on ten months and I'm still waiting to feel settled, to feel like I can settle.
I came across a quote from Paulo Coelho the other day that seems to mark my progress.
Waiting is painful. Forgetting is painful. But not knowing which to do is the worst kind of suffering.
Perhaps a little melodramatic but it in some ways gets to what I've been working through these last months.
The Scriptures contain many stories of people who waited years or even decades before the Lord's promises came to pass. What modern believers can learn from the patience of biblical saints like Abraham, Joseph, David, and Paul is that waiting upon the Lord has eternal rewards.
This morning I ventured out to the back patio for my first morning outside in the fresh air this year. It is supposed to be 78 degrees today.
I just received a free copy of Jeff Shinabarger's new book, More or Less: Choosing a Lifestyle of Excessive Generosity. My receiving it free highlights one of the true advantages of the digital age – advanced copies of books are virtually free to give away and help spread the word.
I am excited about the book. The endorsements and table of contents get me very excited. Living simply is a topic rich in the history of my personal journey and one that was put far back on the shelf when we lived in Turkey.
I'll write a proper review when I finish it.
Now that we are working to settle back into life in the states, simplicity – living more with less – is a value I'd like to recapture and I am hopeful that this book will be part of that journey.
We've enjoyed nearly six months house sitting a grand home but will be moving into a new home at the end of the month. We are looking forward to getting into our place that we can take a bit more ownership over, even as we rent to begin with. We just today got a package in the mail filled with packets of heirloom seeds from Baker Creek Heirloom seeds.


text:
Lac du Baggersee is a lake in Bas-Rhin, France. The French name is a tautology as See already means lake in German.

References

Baggersee
Landforms of Bas-Rhin

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Well, it's been awhile since we posted in this news section, but this is definitely news-worthy: this is our 10th year of performing together as a trio, and we also plan to welcome two more babies to the trio family this year, making it a total of TEN! We have so enjoyed playing together in concerts, weddings, church services, and many other events near and far over this wonderful decade. We have also built a huge repertoire of music for ourselves, and we have had tons of fun in the process. We love playing together, and we are so grateful for the support of our community of family and friends. Here's hoping for 10 more (years, not babies...)!


Naupaktos is largely an unknown quantity. The serenity of this Greek coastal town in western Greece is unrivalled and with good reason. Everything you need is right here; clean air, fresh produce and a sense of purpose. Oh yeah, and literally like no tourist in sight.
Naupaktos definitely ticks most of the boxes. Like most Greek towns it combines the seaside with the mountainous with functionality and style. And at just 200 km from Athens, you really can't go wrong.
Particularly if you visit in October, which is when the most significant event in the town is celebrated; The Battle of Lepanto Festival. The town has history. Part of the festival narrative centers around the actual battle that took place in 1571. Back then, Greece was being passed around the great powers like prison cigarettes. At the time, Venetians and Spanish were the ones in charge, managing to break the Ottoman offensive that would've yielded a significant chunk of land to the Muslim crusaders. And so every year on the 7th of October the festival takes place to commemorate the epic fight. As far as military re-enactments go, this ones up there with Chios's rocket war.
As with most parts of Greece, one can trace its history through the different buildings that still stand. In Naupaktos one can see traces of the Venetians, Ottomans and the pirates in the castles and fortifications that were built. The Venetian castle of Naupaktos is one of the most impressive and well-kept in Greece.
The Tower of Botsaris is but a stone's throw away from the castle. The two towers (I know, confusing) that make up the actual edifice were built within a century apart from each other (15th and 16th) and were primarily used by the Ottoman head. After the war of independence they were re purposed as museums and exhibition spaces. How's that for inventiveness?
Also worth noting is the statue of Miguel de Cervantes (yes, that one) in the central square. The statue is there to celebrate the great Spanish intellectual after he fought in the battle of Lepante where he lost his left arm.
Seeing as this is a primo spot for romantic canoodling with your significant other, its more than likely that you'll want to explore. And that's a great thing, too. Naupaktos is nothing if not an outdoors-y type of place.
The Oreini Nafpaktia is a natural paradise covered in chestnut, walnut and pine trees, with lush waterfalls and equally beguiling fauna. This mountain forest is home to warthogs, deer, foxes, wolves, hares, hedgehogs, lynx as well as a number of endemic bird species such as gold eagles and woodpeckers. And that's before we get to the many rustic villages (around 45) that dot the mountainous slopes.
And of course, there's the beach. The glorious beach, which you're never really that far away from. And naturally, Naupaktos has 2 super dope beaches complete with blue flag status and sweeping views of the gulf off Patras and its state of the art bridge.
That's Greece, though. You think you've seen it all, and then this beauty comes waltzing in and suddenly you just have to go to Naupaktos.


text:
Q: VALUE! Ignore text in excel cell calculation I often run into VALUE! errors in my calculations because they contain numbers and text. How can I leave the text in the cell and proceed with the calculation?
For example:
cell A1 contents look like this: 101.1 J
cell A2 contents look like this: 500 U
cell A3 contents look like this: 0.2
If I want to add A1+A2+A3 into cell A4, how can I ignore the J and U to calculate 101.1+500+0.2 to get 602.3 in cell A4?
Thanks!

A: You need extract the values from the strings - and this can only be done if you have some kind of information about the format to the numbers. In your example, you could place the following formula in B1:B3 and then add a =SUM(B1:B3):
=IF(ISNUMBER(A1),A1,VALUE(LEFT(A1,SEARCH(" ",A1)-1)))

The above formula will extract the number and convert it to a value - unless it was already a number.

A: Using Custom Function
Place below code in Standard Module
Function add_num(cell1, ParamArray Arr() As Variant)

    Dim temp As Double
    For i = LBound(Arr) To UBound(Arr)
        temp = temp + GetNumber(Arr(i))
    Next

    add_num = GetNumber(cell1.Value) + temp
End Function

Function GetNumber(ByVal str As String) As Double
    Dim objRegEx As Object
    Set objRegEx = CreateObject("VBScript.RegExp")
    objRegEx.IgnoreCase = True
    objRegEx.Global = True

    objRegEx.Pattern = "\d{1,2}([\.,][\d{1,2}])?"

    Set allMatches = objRegEx.Execute(str)

    For i = 0 To allMatches.Count - 1
        result = result & allMatches.Item(i)
    Next

    GetNumber = result
End Function

add_num function can be called from excel interface using =addnum(<cells>). It accepts multiple cells.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Our pod is designed with the following design philosophies: safety, simplicity, and efficiency. Safety was possibly the biggest factor in order to have SpaceX allow us to fly. Simplicity was important due to make it easy to manufacture, and it also reduces the potential points of failure on the pod. Efficiency, and scalability was chosen when it didn't conflict with the previous to in order to make it go faster and be more applicable with the full scale Hyperloop.
To design the pod, 3 main design groups were made in order to develop this massive project: Structures, Power, and Controls. Each of these contained different subsystems, listed below, and made it much easier to manage the massive amount of work that needed to be done!


The advancements in the technological field of games development have allowed online gaming software developers to explore numerous themes and give punters more to enjoy than just spinning reels. Playtech is among the software companies that have perfected the art of traversing this slot element to make it among the best. The firm is especially known for drawing inspiration for some of its best sets from the film industry, and among them is the Baywatch Slot.
Baywatch is a big name in the entertainment business, and it inspired movies and series that have spun sequels over the years. One of the original works that bore the name was an eighties TV show, which is the main reason for the brand's popularity. Playtech focuses on the series in the creation of their slot game.
In the set, punters are presented with five reels and three rows that are beautifully designed with small transparent square bubbles to hold the icons; this is to give some attention to the backdrop which is an ocean stretch that meets with the blue sky that covers most of the top of the screen. CJ Parker, the female lead in the movie, stands to the left side of the screen clad in a red bodysuit holding a torpedo buoy. The slot does not include any animated elements aside from her hair swaying with the wind. No music is included in the Baywatch Slot, but the relaxing atmosphere is heightened by the sound of light waves and seagulls cawing.
Play the game automatically using the Auto Spin button that allows two to fifteen continuous rounds.
If a winning combination is landed, the payouts of the round are displayed in the Paid section before being accrued to the credit balance.
The wild can easily be spotted since it is a yellow icon with the word Wild written across it in red. The speed boat also acts as the wild but makes rarer appearances than the red wild. These two symbols can replace any other to complete winning combos aside from the lifebelt, which is the scatter.
Each time the lifebelt appears on the game screen, it awards a two x multiplier and is collected to get players closer to landing one of the three featured progressive jackpots. If three of them appear at a go, they trigger a free spins bonus. During the spins, three extra icons appear on the reels; a rescue child, woman, and man. Each of them has the power to land one of the three jackpots when the necessary levels are completed, and the child triggers the highest. They also carry multiplier bonuses of between two and one hundred times.
Baywatch online slot can be played in both free and real money modes. Depending on the casino, NZ dollars can be used to activate the gameplay. Playtech provides the set with mobile compatibility in both download and no download modes with the latter being the most preferred by gamblers.


text:
Born in Tonei, Manchuria, in 1940, Hidetoshi Nagasawa graduated in architecture in Tokyo in 1963. He was always interested in the artistic avant-garde, which he came to know through the Gutai group. At 26 years of age, he left his homeland and travelled by bicycle through Asia and Europe, reaching Milan where he settled in 1968. He established strong friendships with artists such as Fabro, Trotta, Nigro and Castellani. He founded the Casa degli Artisti in Milan together with Fabro and Jole De Sanna. He devoted himself initially to performance and scriptural works before focussing from 1972 on sculpture. He adopted materials such as paper, wood, stone and metals to incorporate in his works contributions drawn from eastern and western cultures and religions, with the theme of travel often appearing. In the 1980s, he began creating his first environments, exploring the confine between sculpture and architecture: the idea of suspension and the attempt to create "anti-gravitational" works represent the central nucleus of his work from this period. In the 1990s instead, the garden became the preponderant theme: a personal exploration of a topos of eastern culture, starting out from the Zen gardens of the Japanese tradition. Nagasawa was a lecturer at the Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti in Milan. He participated in the Venice Biennale in 1972, 1976, 1982, 1988; he was invited to Documenta 9 in Kassel in 1992 and in 2006 participated in the XII Biennale of Sculpture in Carrara. He has also held solo shows at the Padiglione d'Arte Contemporanea in Milan in 1988, the Galleria Comunale in Bologna in 1993, the Fondazione Mirò in Palma de Majorca in 1996, the Torre Guevara in Ischia in 2006. From July 2010 he was featured in solo shows in the leading Japanese museums: the Museums of Modern Art in Saitama and in Kawagoe, the National Museum of Art in Osaka, the Museums of Modern Art in Kamakura and in Hayama and the Nagasaki Prefectural Art Museum.
EQUILIBRIUM. An idea for Italian sculpture EQUILIBRIUM. An idea for Italian sculpture

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


My source dated this "Imperial Ballroom, Nelson, Lancashire, England, 1963". So, it must be May 11 or July 31. I'm inclined to say it's from May, mainly for the suits. Those suits are the same suits they wore on PPM LP cover, and in some other venues such as Stowe. By June the were already wearing their collarless suits.
Also, Lewisohn describes "...mayhem...2000 frantic teenagers..."
and this audience appears to be rather frantic.


Rutland, MA, native Megan Pantos has thrived on the Western New England campus by keeping a healthy balance between her academics and career pursuits, love of music, volunteer work, and faith-based activities. Currently in the Doctor of Pharmacy program, Megan completed her first rotation this past spring at Health Alliance hospital, and was later offered a position there as a pharmacy technician and intern. She also worked on a research project with Dr. Daniel Kennedy to identify new drugs that could be used in the treatment or prevention of heart attacks, strokes, or cancer. She presented this research in a poster presentation at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Annual Meeting and plans to continue this research throughout the upcoming year. Additionally, Megan has spent the last three years gaining pharmacy experience at Walgreens.
She is in her third year as a Resident Advisor for junior and senior students, which has given her the opportunity to expand her skills while also helping her residents succeed through unique programming and mentorship.
Music has provided Megan with numerous opportunities and friendships over the years. One of these most notable experiences was getting to perform at the Women Composers Festival of Hartford. She is also a member of Campus Chorus, where she has served as President and Vice President, and continues to help the music program to have its presence known on campus. Off campus, she has worked with the Children's Choir of Springfield and taken dance lessons with the McInerney School of Irish Dance.
Megan has enjoyed welcoming prospective students to campus and helping their families while working for the Office of First Year Students for the last two years. She is proud to highlight Western New England during Open Houses throughout the year and then welcome new students on Accepted Students Day.
She is a member of the Phi Delta Chi and Alpha Lambda Delta honor societies, and is consistently on the Dean's List. Megan also won the Department of Communication's 7th annual public speaking contest as a freshman with her speech discussing careers in pharmacy.
In her spare time, Megan enjoys volunteering both at her church and with the Worcester County Reserve Deputy Sheriff's Association. Along with her twin brother, Megan is the youngest sworn in Reserve Deputy.


text:
KNOW YOUR PHONE
My Mobile Reviewer
Home Know Your Phone Samsung Galaxy M30s Android 10 Update Will Conquer The Smartphone Industry
Samsung Galaxy M30s Android 10 Update Will Conquer The Smartphone Industry
Ayantika Halder
Samsung Galaxy M30s was spotted on Wi-Fi Alliance running on Android 10, denoting that the phone should soon receive the Android 10 update. According to Samsung's roadmap, the phone is expected to receive the update in April. However, it is speculated that the company is running much ahead of the schedule. If the phone running Android 10 has been certified by Wi-Fi Alliance, it only means that the update should arrive soon. Moreover, the rear camera module of the Samsung Galaxy M31 has leaked, only revealing that the phone may sport an L-shaped quad-camera setup with flash support.
Starting with the Samsung Galaxy M30s phone, it was spotted on Wi-Fi Alliance with the model number SM-M307F. The phone is listed to run on Android 10, and a firmware version – M307F.001 – was also included. A Wi-Fi Alliance certification suggests that the phone is in line to receive the Android 10 update ahead of its schedule. Even the Samsung Galaxy M20 and Samsung Galaxy M30, which were slated to get the update in January 2020, started receiving the update in December last year. This lends more weight to the fact that Samsung is ahead on its rollout schedule, and Samsung Galaxy M30s should get the update soon as well.
Samsung is all set to launch the Galaxy M31 this year, and a rear camera module photo of the phone has been leaked by a popular digital platform. The module suggests that the Samsung Galaxy M31 will sport L-shaped cameras with four cameras on board, and a fifth cut out is seen for the flash. This refutes previous reports of a triple camera setup on the Galaxy M31, and it remains to be seen exactly what gets integrated on the phone at the end. As per rumours, the phone is expected to be powered by the Snapdragon 665 SoC, 4GB RAM, offer 64GB of storage and come in three colour options like blue, black, and red. Regardless of the number of cameras, the Galaxy M31 is rumoured to feature a 48-megapixel sensor when it launches.
Previous articleMovierulz 2020, Will Let You Download Latest HD Movies on Smartphone
Next articleBest Earbuds Under $50 in the USA 2020
Ayantika Halder is a dreamer and believes that sky is not the limit. She is a firm believer that pen is mightier than sword and spends most of her day reading and writing. In her spare time, she loves watching TV series, movies and is already planning for her next trip.
What to Expect From Mobile World Congress 2020?
List of Best 8GB RAM Mobile Phones to Buy in India
List of Budget Triple Camera Smartphones to Buy in 2019
Get in Line for Android Q
The New OPPO Reno Can Give DSLRs A Run For Their...
Google's Android Q developer beta is available on all Pixel phones...
Tencent Launches PUBG PC Lite Beta Version. Let's Take a Look
Realme X To Launch in India on July 15
LG Report Claims That 2020 iPhone Models To Use OLED Display...
POCO is Now an Independent Brand
Latest Huawei P40 Pro Leak Reveals Penta-Camera Setup
ExtraMovies | Download Hindi Dubbed, Bollywood, Hollywood Movies
Movierulz 2020, Will Let You Download Latest HD Movies on Smartphone
OPPO Launches Reno2 series in India first, ahead of global launch
Know Your Phone31
In-Depth23
Guest Posts2
Fueled by the love for smartphones, My Mobile Reviewer is dedicated to creating content that simplifies the world of smartphones. Right from the latest news, to reviews of the just-launched mobile phone, in-depth analysis of trends, an exclusive breakdown of complicated tech, and a forum that brings together smartphone enthusiasts to answer all your pertinent queries.
Contact us: contact@mymobilereviewer.com
Assault on Battery: Fast-Charging explained
Honor Announces Two Pad 5 Tablets for India


text:
Kula

Localidades
Kula (Bulgária)
Kula (Malo Crniće)

Outros
Kula Diamond

Desambiguação