Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Popularity

Popularity refers to a form of social status within groups, marked by high visibility, influence, and prestige among peers, often conferring advantages in resource access and mating opportunities.^[1] In empirical social science, it is distinguished from likeability or acceptance, as popular individuals wield power and attract attention irrespective of universal affection.^[2]^[3]
Psychological studies measure popularity primarily through peer nomination methods, where group members select others perceived as prominent or admired, revealing hierarchies that predict behavioral norms like prosociality or aggression.^[4]^[5] Determinants include physical attractiveness, social competence, and contextual factors such as school size or family environment, with evolutionary analyses framing it as a dominance strategy rooted in ancestral selection for coalitional alliances and status signaling.^[6]^[7]^[8] Longitudinal data link adolescent popularity to adult outcomes, including higher income, underscoring causal pathways via enhanced networks and skill development rather than mere correlation.^[9] While conferring benefits like influence, it can foster illusions of broad approval and expose individuals to rivalry or normative pressures.^[10]^[11]

Conceptual and Historical Foundations

Definition and Scope

Popularity in social psychology denotes the degree to which individuals receive positive peer evaluations within a group, encompassing both affective liking and perceived social prominence. Sociometric popularity, derived from peer nominations of liking, reflects interpersonal acceptance and is associated with traits such as kindness and trustworthiness.^[12] In contrast, perceived popularity, based on nominations of who holds social influence or visibility, often correlates with dominance behaviors and may involve lower likability.^[10] These dual dimensions highlight that popularity is not monolithic but bifurcated into preference-based acceptance and status-based power.^[3] The scope of popularity research primarily spans developmental and social psychology, focusing on peer relations during childhood and adolescence, where group dynamics shape individual trajectories. Studies examine its implications for social influence, behavioral adjustment, and long-term outcomes, such as adult income correlations observed in longitudinal data from high school cohorts.^[9] Empirical investigations employ peer nomination techniques to quantify status hierarchies, distinguishing popularity from rejection or average acceptance to isolate its unique predictors and consequences.^[13] This body of work underscores popularity's role in interpersonal networks, extending to influence processes where high-status individuals shape group norms and behaviors.^[14] While overlapping with concepts like social status, popularity specifically emphasizes peer-derived evaluations rather than formal hierarchies or objective achievements, such as fame through media exposure. Preference-oriented popularity predicts prosocial outcomes and well-being, whereas status-oriented forms link to risks like aggression or relational strain.^[15] Research cautions against conflating the two, as meta-analyses reveal divergent associations with agentic versus communal goals.^[16] Thus, the construct's scope excludes transient admiration or celebrity, prioritizing enduring group-based social standing verifiable through relational data.^[1]

Historical Development

The concept of popularity traces its linguistic roots to Latin popularitas, denoting the condition of appealing to or being favored by the populace, with the English term emerging around 1600 via French popularité.^[17] ^[18] In ancient Roman politics during the late Republic (circa 133–27 BCE), populares referred to a faction of politicians who cultivated mass support among plebeians through reforms and direct appeals, contrasting with the senatorial optimates who prioritized elite consensus; this usage framed popularity as a strategic pursuit of broad public favor to challenge entrenched power.^[19] ^[20] The systematic empirical study of popularity in interpersonal and group dynamics began in the early 20th century, coinciding with advances in social sciences. Jacob L. Moreno pioneered sociometry in the 1920s, formalizing it as a method to quantify social attractions and repulsions through peer nominations, thereby enabling the identification of popular individuals within groups.^[21] ^[22] His seminal 1934 work, Who Shall Survive?, outlined sociometric techniques applied in institutional settings, such as the New York State Training School for Girls (1932–1938), where repeated measurements revealed patterns of social choice and rejection, laying groundwork for popularity as a measurable relational construct.^[23] ^[24] Following Moreno's innovations, sociometric approaches proliferated in psychology and sociology from the 1930s onward, influencing research on peer relations in educational and therapeutic contexts.^[25] By mid-century, studies expanded to differentiate sociometric popularity—based on mutual liking and acceptance—from perceived popularity tied to visible status and influence, often involving assertive behaviors.^[26] This evolution shifted popularity from anecdotal observation to data-driven analysis, emphasizing its role in group dynamics and individual adjustment, though early methods faced critiques for oversimplifying complex social hierarchies.^[27]

Biological and Evolutionary Bases

Evolutionary Perspectives

From an evolutionary standpoint, popularity represents a mechanism for attaining social status within groups, which in ancestral environments facilitated access to resources, mates, and alliances essential for survival and reproduction. Human social hierarchies likely emerged to minimize intragroup conflict and coordinate collective action among interdependent foragers, with high-status individuals gaining differential reproductive benefits. Empirical studies indicate that peer-perceived popularity correlates with dominance signals, such as physical formidability and proactive aggression, which historically signaled competitive ability in contest scenarios over scarce resources.^[8]^[28] Evolutionary models distinguish two primary pathways to status: dominance, achieved through intimidation or coercion, and prestige, earned via displays of skill, knowledge, or generosity that elicit voluntary deference. Both strategies are viable for elevating social influence, as demonstrated in experimental paradigms where dominant tactics (e.g., forceful compliance) and prestigious ones (e.g., expertise sharing) independently enhance perceived leadership and group respect. Popularity in contemporary peer settings often blends these, with proactive aggression boosting status more than reactive forms, though prestige-oriented behaviors like prosociality predominate in stable groups to foster long-term coalitions.^[29]^[30]^[8] Sex differences in popularity strategies align with sexual selection pressures, where males leverage physical dominance and attractiveness for mating advantages—high-status adolescent boys exhibit markedly higher rates of sexual activity (e.g., 69% engaging in intercourse or heavy petting versus 7% for low-status peers)—while females emphasize relational aggression and cues of fertility. These patterns suggest popularity serves as a proxy for fitness indicators, with status hierarchies calibrating reproductive opportunities; however, modern contexts may decouple status from fertility due to altered resource distributions.^[28]^[31]^[28]

Genetic and Physiological Underpinnings

Twin studies and genomic analyses have demonstrated that popularity within social networks exhibits significant genetic heritability. A 2008 study analyzing over 1,000 adolescent twins and siblings found that popularity, measured as the number of times an individual is named by peers as a friend, has a heritability estimate of approximately 45-50%, with genetic factors influencing both the tendency to form connections and the structure of those networks.^[32] Similarly, research on friendship networks using twin data reports substantial heritability for network size (around 30-40%) and homophily, indicating that genetic predispositions contribute to the scale and composition of social circles that underpin popularity.^[33] These findings suggest that variants in genes related to social cognition and extraversion—such as those influencing dopamine receptor sensitivity—partly explain why some individuals naturally attract larger, more interconnected peer groups.^[34] Physiologically, testosterone levels correlate with behaviors that enhance social status and popularity, particularly in competitive contexts. Experimental administration of exogenous testosterone in men increases motivation for status-seeking actions, such as prosocial displays aimed at gaining approval or dominance in groups.^[35] ^[36] In naturalistic settings, rising testosterone accompanies ascents in social hierarchy, fostering assertiveness and reduced fear of rejection that facilitate peer admiration.^[37] This hormonal effect aligns with evolutionary pressures favoring high-status individuals for mating and alliance formation, though excessive levels can promote antisocial tactics that undermine long-term popularity.^[38] Physical attractiveness, rooted in physiological symmetry and health markers like skin quality and body proportions, strongly predicts popularity across developmental stages. Longitudinal data show that attractive adolescents experience greater peer nominations for popularity due to implicit biases toward symmetric faces and fit physiques, which signal genetic fitness.^[39] ^[40] These traits, influenced by hormones such as estrogen and testosterone during puberty, enable easier social integration and resource accumulation, with effects persisting into adulthood.^[41] Neuroendocrine factors like dopamine release in response to social rewards further reinforce popularity by enhancing the pleasure derived from peer validation, creating feedback loops that sustain high-status positions.^[42]

Types of Popularity

![Social network diagram segment][float-right] In social psychology, peer popularity is primarily categorized into two distinct dimensions: sociometric popularity and perceived popularity. Sociometric popularity reflects the degree to which an individual is liked and accepted by peers, often measured through unlimited peer nominations for "most liked" and "least liked" classmates, yielding a social preference score.^[13] This type emphasizes affective bonds and prosocial traits, with high sociometrically popular youth described by peers as kind, trustworthy, and fun.^[13]^[10] Perceived popularity, conversely, captures visibility and social dominance, assessed via peer nominations for "most popular" individuals, independent of liking.^[13] It correlates with attributes like attractiveness, athleticism, and leadership but frequently involves relational or overt aggression, as high perceived popularity often stems from influence or intimidation rather than universal affection.^[13]^[10] Research from 1998 peer perception studies of middle school children found that those high in perceived but low in sociometric popularity were rated as dominant and aggressive, while the reverse profile highlighted cooperation without dominance.^[13] These dimensions show moderate correlation (r ≈ 0.40-0.50 in adolescent samples) but represent orthogonal constructs, with overlap greater in childhood and divergence increasing through adolescence as status hierarchies emphasize power dynamics.^[43]^[13] In network analyses, sociometric popularity aligns with dense, reciprocal friendships, whereas perceived popularity links to central positions in status cliques, potentially involving asymmetric ties.^[44] Some studies propose subtypes within perceived popularity, such as "feared" versus "admired" status, but the core binary distinction persists across empirical work on youth peer groups.^[45]

Measurement Techniques

Sociometric methods, originating from Jacob Moreno's work in the 1930s, form the cornerstone of measuring popularity in psychological research, particularly among children and adolescents in group settings such as classrooms. These techniques primarily involve peer nominations, where participants select peers they perceive as most or least popular, often using unlimited or limited nomination formats to identify high-status individuals.^[4] Peer ratings complement nominations by having individuals evaluate all group members on a Likert scale for perceived popularity, providing a more granular assessment that correlates strongly with nomination-based scores.^[46] A key distinction in sociometric measurement separates popularity from likeability or acceptance; nominations for "most popular" capture visibility and dominance, whereas "most liked" reflect affective preference, with empirical studies showing moderate to low overlap between the two constructs.^[4] Standardized procedures compute popularity scores as the proportion of nominations received relative to group size, enabling classification into categories like popular or controversial status based on combined positive and negative nominations.^[47] Self-ratings of popularity, while easier to administer, often overestimate status due to self-enhancement biases and show weaker validity compared to peer-derived measures.^[46] Teacher ratings serve as an auxiliary method, where educators rank students' social prominence, but these are prone to halo effects and less sensitive to peer dynamics, correlating modestly with sociometric indicators (r ≈ 0.30-0.50).^[4] Observational approaches, involving behavioral coding of interactions like attention received or leadership initiations, offer ecological validity but are resource-intensive and typically used in mixed-methods designs to validate self- or peer-reports rather than as primary measures.^[46] In network analysis extensions of sociometrics, popularity equates to indegree centrality in friendship or advice-seeking graphs, quantified via adjacency matrices from nomination data, with software like UCINET facilitating computation for larger groups.^[4]

Determinants of Popularity

Individual Characteristics

Physical attractiveness consistently emerges as a key individual determinant of popularity, particularly in peer contexts from childhood onward. Studies demonstrate that more attractive individuals receive higher sociometric nominations for popularity among kindergarten peers, with correlations strengthening in adolescence where facial attractiveness moderates links between aggression and status.^[48]^[49] This effect holds across sexes but appears pronounced for females, where physical appearance ranks among top criteria for peer admiration and social preference.^[50]^[51] Extraversion stands out among personality traits as a reliable predictor of social status and popularity attainment in face-to-face groups and broader networks. Meta-analytic reviews confirm that extraverted individuals gain initial status advantages due to visible assertiveness and social engagement, with effects persisting across diverse contexts including adolescence and workplaces.^[52] Traits like low neuroticism and high agreeableness further correlate with peer liking, though dominance-related facets (e.g., narcissism) more strongly forecast popularity defined as visible status rather than pure likability.^[53] Sex differences modulate these patterns, with males often prioritizing athletic prowess tied to extraversion, while females emphasize relational traits alongside appearance. Cognitive abilities, such as intelligence, show weaker or context-dependent ties to popularity, often curvilinear rather than linear. High-IQ adolescents tend to be more liked by peers than average-IQ counterparts but reciprocate less affection, potentially due to mismatched social interests or perceived aloofness.^[54] Experimental data from college networks indicate intelligence contributes modestly to advice-seeking popularity but trails physical attractiveness and extraversion in friendship ties, with optimal popularity at moderate rather than extreme IQ levels.^[55] These findings underscore that while intelligence aids competence-based status, it rarely overrides social visibility traits in peer popularity dynamics.^[56]

Behavioral Strategies

Individuals pursue popularity through a combination of prosocial and aggressive behavioral strategies, with effectiveness varying by developmental stage and context. Prosocial strategies, such as helping peers, sharing resources, and providing emotional support, positively predict popularity in school settings, particularly among children and early adolescents.^[57] For instance, behavioral interpersonal emotion regulation—using actions like comforting or reassuring others—has been linked to increased popularity nominations in middle school samples.^[58] These tactics foster visibility and alliance-building, aligning with evolutionary pressures for cooperative status attainment.^[59] Aggressive strategies, including overt bullying, relational manipulation, and dominance displays, also contribute to popularity, especially in adolescence where status hierarchies emphasize agency over communion. Longitudinal studies indicate that adolescents with high popularity goals exhibit elevated aggression, which in turn reinforces their perceived status through intimidation and resource control.^[60] Meta-analyses confirm that antisocial goals correlate positively with aggressive behavior, enabling short-term gains in dominance but risking long-term relational costs.^[61] However, pure aggression yields lower popularity than hybrid approaches; "bistrategic" individuals who balance prosocial cooperation with calculated aggression achieve higher social dominance, as evidenced in peer network analyses of preadolescents.^[62] Contextual moderators influence strategy efficacy: in prosocial-normative classrooms, cooperative behaviors amplify popularity more than aggression, while aggressive norms reward dominance tactics.^[63] Adolescents aware of these dynamics may strategically prioritize visibility through humor, leadership in group activities, or selective alliances, often compromising likability for status.^[64] Empirical data from sociometric assessments underscore that overt behaviors signaling confidence—such as initiating interactions or defending territory—outweigh passive conformity for popularity accrual.^[65] Despite these patterns, individual differences in callous-unemotional traits can drive maladaptive aggression under popularity insecurity, reducing overall strategy success.^[66]

Cultural and Demographic Factors

Cultural factors shape the pathways to popularity by influencing societal values around social status and interpersonal dynamics. In individualistic cultures, such as those predominant in Western societies, personal achievements and assertiveness are more strongly linked to attaining high social status, as these traits align with emphases on independence and self-expression.^[67] Conversely, collectivist cultures prioritize group harmony and interdependence, where popularity often derives from conformity to social norms and contributions to collective goals rather than standout individualism.^[68] Cross-cultural studies highlight that these orientations affect how traits like uniqueness or relational maintenance predict peer acceptance, with individualistic contexts rewarding atypical or dominant behaviors more than collectivist ones.^[69] Demographic variables, including gender, age, socioeconomic status (SES), and ethnic background, systematically influence popularity attainment among adolescents. Gender differences emerge in the behaviors that confer popularity: among boys, physical prowess, athletic competence, and dominance are key predictors, while for girls, physical appearance and relational skills gain prominence, with sport competence increasing in importance for boys and attractiveness for girls across age groups.^[70] Relative age within a school cohort also plays a role, as students born earlier in the academic year exhibit advantages in physical maturity and cognitive development, leading to higher popularity ratings compared to younger peers in the same grade.^[71] ^[72] Socioeconomic status further modulates peer status, with adolescents from higher SES families experiencing stronger social relationships and greater popularity, potentially due to access to resources facilitating prosocial behaviors and extracurricular involvement.^[73] ^[74] Lower SES correlates with diminished peer networks, exacerbating isolation. Ethnic minority status can indirectly boost popularity through elevated aggression levels, particularly in classrooms with higher ethnic diversity, where such behaviors serve as compensatory strategies for social positioning.^[75] ^[76] These patterns underscore how demographic contexts interact with behavioral repertoires to determine social hierarchies.

Consequences of Popularity

Adaptive Benefits

High social status, often reflected in peer popularity, evolved as an adaptive trait conferring fitness advantages in ancestral human environments characterized by group living and resource scarcity. Individuals achieving elevated status through social influence and alliances gained preferential access to critical resources such as food and protection, enhancing survival probabilities in competitive coalitions.^[77] This resource allocation stemmed from deference behaviors, where lower-status members yielded to high-status ones, facilitating efficient group coordination and reducing conflict over limited supplies.^[77] Reproductive success represented a primary adaptive benefit, with high-status males in nonindustrial societies exhibiting significantly greater numbers of offspring, particularly under non-monogamous mating systems where status translated into multiple partners.^[78] Cross-cultural analyses of 33 societies confirmed that men's status strongly correlated with reproductive gains, as dominant or prestigious individuals attracted mates signaling genetic quality and provisioning ability.^[78] ^[79] In primates and extending to humans, high-ranking positions increased mating opportunities, underscoring status as a heritable signal of fitness.^[77] Popularity in adolescent peer groups, as a precursor to adult status, likely amplified these benefits by fostering early alliance formation and social learning. Deference to popular individuals enabled knowledge transfer of survival skills, boosting collective and individual adaptability in interdependent societies.^[77] High status also mitigated chronic stress through reduced subordination, promoting physiological health and longevity conducive to prolonged reproduction.^[80] These mechanisms highlight popularity's role in navigating hierarchies, where prestige-based status—earned via respected skills—outperformed dominance in sustaining long-term fitness advantages.^[77]

Maladaptive Risks

High peer-perceived popularity during adolescence correlates with elevated engagement in health-risk behaviors, such as tobacco and alcohol use, marijuana consumption, and risky sexual activity. Longitudinal analyses of Dutch adolescents (N=1,857, ages 11-17) demonstrated that baseline popularity at age 11 independently predicted higher incidences of these behaviors by age 17, even after controlling for prior maladjustment and socioeconomic factors, suggesting popularity exerts a prospective influence on risk escalation.^[81] Similar patterns emerge in U.S. samples, where aggressive and relational forms of popularity—distinct from likeability—bidirectionally link to substance use and rule-breaking, as popular youth model and normalize deviance to sustain status.^[82] Popularity hierarchies in school settings often foster aggressive behaviors, including bullying perpetration, as high-status individuals leverage dominance to deter rivals and maintain visibility. A three-wave study of 799 early adolescents revealed that classroom norms favoring aggressive popularity predicted steeper increases in peer-reported bullying over time, with asymmetries in status distribution amplifying these effects through competitive exclusion.^[5] This dynamic extends to moral disengagement, where the need for popularity motivates adolescents to justify harmful actions, correlating with a 0.25 effect size in meta-analytic reviews of bullying links.^[83] Psychological pressures of sustained popularity can heighten vulnerability to internalizing issues, including social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. Peer-nominated popular adolescents exhibit longitudinally bidirectional ties to avoidance behaviors, with high status at one wave predicting greater fear at the next among 7th-9th graders (N=2,179).^[84] Early adulthood follow-ups indicate that high school centrality in aggressive networks forecasts persistent anxiety symptoms, contrasting with prosocial popularity's protective role.^[85] These risks underscore how visibility invites scrutiny and relational volatility, potentially undermining long-term emotional resilience.

Adult and Organizational Impacts

Longitudinal research indicates that childhood popularity at age 9 correlates with prosocial behaviors, skillful leadership, and prestige in emerging adulthood at age 24, though curvilinear patterns show average popularity levels associating with the highest positive outcomes while low popularity links to reduced prestige.^[86] In contrast, adolescent popularity at age 16 predicts both prosocial elements like social engagement and forceful traits such as dominance and proactive relational aggression in adulthood, with higher popularity linearly increasing dominance.^[86] Prioritizing broad peer popularity over high-quality close friendships during high school, as tracked in a 10-year study of 169 adolescents from ages 15 to 25, associates with elevated social anxiety in early adulthood, whereas strong friendships predict improved self-worth and reduced depression and anxiety symptoms. In professional contexts, the social networks cultivated through popularity during secondary school influence adult earnings, with larger networks correlating to higher income levels later in life. Adults exhibiting high workplace popularity, defined by peer perceptions of likability and social centrality, receive elevated supervisor ratings for task performance and trust, facilitating greater organizational influence through impression management tactics. ^[87] Within organizations, popularity among peers enhances relational dynamics, boosting employee engagement, creativity, and overall job performance via positive interactions, though excessive focus on likeability in leadership can compromise productivity by deterring necessary assertive decisions.^[88] Social hierarchies, often intertwined with popularity gradients, provide cognitive benefits like simplified decision-making and perceived control but may undermine team effectiveness and collective learning when steep inequalities emerge.^[89] ^[90] High-status individuals in these structures tend to attain influence through dominance traits, yet persistent status disparities exacerbate well-being deficits and hinder equitable resource distribution.^[77] ^[91]

Popularity in Broader Contexts

Popularity on digital and social media platforms is primarily measured through quantitative metrics such as follower counts, engagement rates (calculated as the ratio of likes, comments, shares, and saves to impressions or followers), impressions, and video views. On Twitter (now X), key indicators include impressions, engagement rates, and follower growth, with high-performing accounts often achieving engagement rates above 0.05%. Instagram and TikTok emphasize video views, watch time, and shares, where content exceeding 10% engagement relative to views signals strong popularity. These metrics differ from offline measures by enabling real-time scaling and algorithmic tracking across global audiences.^[92]^[93]^[94] Platform algorithms amplify popular content by prioritizing items with early high engagement, creating self-reinforcing dynamics where initial interactions predict broader dissemination. Recommendation systems on platforms like TikTok and Instagram use machine learning to rank content based on predicted user interest, often favoring emotionally charged or novel posts that sustain attention, as evidenced in analyses of content trajectories on Wikipedia and news sites showing power-law distributions in popularity growth. This amplification follows a feedback loop: modest initial popularity triggers wider exposure, accelerating virality through network effects where connected users reinforce spread via shares and endorsements. Empirical models, such as coupled Friedkin-Johnsen frameworks, demonstrate how social influence and recommendation interplay drives sustained popularity, independent of content quality alone.^[95]^[96]^[97] Viral dynamics on social media exhibit patterns of rapid ascent followed by decay, influenced by social reinforcement (repeated exposures strengthening adoption) and weakening (saturation reducing novelty). Studies of information spreading reveal that popularity peaks when reinforcement outweighs fatigue, with network topology—such as dense clusters in follower graphs—exacerbating echo chambers that concentrate influence among subsets of users. Influencer emergence often adheres to meritocratic principles, where content alignment with audience preferences and timely posting outperform mere connectivity, as modeled in network formation analyses. However, artificial inflation via bots or paid promotions can distort genuine popularity signals, though platforms increasingly deploy detection algorithms to mitigate this, with verified accounts maintaining higher credibility in engagement metrics.^[98]^[99]^[100] Cross-platform variations highlight adaptive strategies: TikTok's For You Page algorithm democratizes access by de-emphasizing follower counts in favor of content performance, enabling rapid rises for newcomers, whereas Twitter's timeline favors recency and replies from influential nodes. Longitudinal data indicate that sustained popularity correlates with consistent high-engagement posting rather than sporadic virality, with predictors including visual appeal, timeliness, and reciprocity in interactions. These dynamics underscore a departure from traditional popularity's reliance on physical proximity, substituting scalable digital networks that prioritize algorithmic curation over organic social bonds.^[93]^[99]

Popularity of Non-Personal Entities

Popularity applied to non-personal entities encompasses the collective preference, adoption, and positive evaluation of brands, products, ideas, cultural artifacts, and other inanimate objects within social groups. Unlike interpersonal popularity, which hinges on personal traits and interactions, non-personal popularity arises from shared perceptions shaped by marketing, cultural transmission, and network effects, often manifesting in metrics such as market share and consumption rates. Empirical studies indicate that these dynamics parallel human popularity in relying on social influence, where initial adoption by influential nodes accelerates diffusion across populations.^[101] Measurement of non-personal popularity typically employs quantitative indicators derived from consumer behavior data. Brand awareness, assessed through unaided recall (spontaneous mention without prompts) and aided recognition (identification from cues), serves as a foundational metric, with surveys revealing that high-recall brands achieve up to 20-30% greater market penetration in competitive sectors.^[102] Additional gauges include share of voice, calculated as a brand's media mentions relative to competitors, and net promoter score (NPS), which quantifies loyalty by subtracting detractors from promoters on a 0-10 scale, often correlating with repeat purchase rates exceeding 50% for scores above 50.^[103]^[104] Sales volume and social media engagement further validate popularity, as evidenced by products garnering millions of mentions experiencing exponential demand surges.^[105] The rise and fall of popularity for cultural objects and ideas follow identifiable mechanisms, including imitation, herding, and feedback loops amplified by media exposure. Research on cultural items demonstrates that popularity peaks when social validation thresholds are met, after which saturation or novelty fatigue prompts decline, with empirical models showing decay rates of 10-20% annually post-peak for fads like viral phrases or consumer trends.^[101] In brand contexts, authenticity and purpose-driven attributes enhance sustained popularity; for instance, consumers exhibit 4-6 times higher purchase intent toward brands perceived as socially purposeful, based on global surveys of over 60,000 respondents across 30 countries conducted in 2020.^[106] Sociological analyses extend this to "social objects," where mundane items gain elevated status through communal rituals and shared narratives, fostering loyalty akin to interpersonal bonds.^[107] Factors influencing non-personal popularity mirror interpersonal ones but emphasize extrinsic signals like advertising spend and endorsements. Peer-reviewed investigations reveal that non-product attributes, such as experiential associations, contribute more to brand loyalty than functional utility, with structural equation modeling in media brand studies confirming path coefficients of 0.4-0.6 for experience-driven identification.^[108] Cultural and demographic variables modulate these effects; local brands often outperform globals in authenticity perceptions, leading to 15-25% higher word-of-mouth propagation in regional markets.^[109] However, methodological challenges persist, as self-reported metrics may inflate due to social desirability bias, underscoring the need for triangulated data from transaction logs and sentiment analysis.^[110]

Critical Analysis and Debates

Methodological Limitations

Sociometric methods, particularly peer nomination techniques, dominate the measurement of popularity in social psychology research, where individuals nominate peers as most or least popular within a group such as a classroom.^[4] ^[46] However, these approaches are prone to methodological biases, including response distortions from long nomination rosters, which can overwhelm participants and lead to inconsistent or fatigued selections, especially in larger groups like middle school grades.^[111] ^[111] Additionally, nominations often conflate distinct dimensions of peer status—sociometric popularity (based on affective liking and acceptance) with perceived popularity (reflecting visible status or dominance, sometimes linked to antisocial traits)—resulting in measures that fail to isolate these constructs reliably.^[16] ^[112] Peer nominations also introduce interpersonal biases, such as social desirability effects where nominators favor those perceived as similar or avoid antagonizing high-status peers, potentially inflating scores for aggressive or dominant individuals who project influence without genuine acceptance.^[113] ^[114] Studies indicate that self-perceived popularity often diverges from peer-assessed measures due to positively biased self-views, particularly among adolescents prone to overestimating their status, which complicates validation and longitudinal tracking.^[115] ^[2] Furthermore, the context-bound nature of these methods—typically confined to school or small-group settings—limits generalizability to adult or cross-cultural populations, where popularity cues like relational aggression may not translate equivalently.^[116] ^[117] Alternative measures, such as self-ratings or teacher evaluations, address some nomination pitfalls but introduce others, including subjective inaccuracies from informants' limited exposure or halo effects, where teachers conflate popularity with academic performance or behavior.^[46] ^[118] Questionnaire-based scales for popularity-related traits suffer from underreported structural validity, with many failing replication due to poor psychometric rigor, as highlighted in broader critiques of social psychology metrics.^[119] ^[120] Network analysis approaches to popularity perceptions offer promise but remain constrained by small sample sizes and assumptions of stable peer structures, which do not account for dynamic shifts in adolescent social networks.^[2] Overall, these limitations underscore the need for multi-method convergence and bias-corrected designs to enhance the validity of popularity assessments.

Theoretical Controversies

A central theoretical controversy in popularity research revolves around the distinction between sociometric popularity, defined as social preference or likability based on peer acceptance nominations, and perceived popularity, which captures status or prestige through nominations of admired or influential peers. Sociometric measures emphasize mutual liking and prosocial qualities, correlating with positive peer relations and emotional well-being, whereas perceived popularity often aligns with visibility, dominance, and mixed behavioral repertoires, including aggression. This bifurcation, empirically validated in longitudinal studies of adolescents, challenges monolithic definitions of popularity prevalent in earlier theories and underscores that the two constructs, while correlated (r ≈ 0.40–0.60), predict divergent outcomes, with perceived popularity showing weaker links to interpersonal trust.^[13]^[16] Debates intensify over the mechanisms driving these forms of status, particularly whether prosocial behaviors alone suffice for high standing or if aggressive tactics provide a complementary or superior route in competitive peer ecologies. Early models prioritized prosociality as the primary path, rooted in cooperative theories of group cohesion, but subsequent evidence reveals that relational and overt aggression predict gains in perceived popularity during early adolescence, especially among males, suggesting adaptive value in signaling resource control or mate access. Latent profile analyses identify heterogeneous trajectories, including purely prosocial profiles (high likability, low aggression), aggressive-dominant profiles (high status via coercion), and bistrategic profiles (balanced aggression and prosociality yielding maximal status). Critics contend this duality reflects methodological artifacts or short-term fads rather than enduring causal dynamics, questioning whether aggression erodes status over time or if cultural norms amplify its role in Western samples.^[121] Further contention arises in integrating these constructs with broader social hierarchy theories, such as whether popularity functions as prestige (earned via competence and generosity) or dominance (enforced via intimidation), with implications for evolutionary continuity from primate coalitions. Prestige models predict sustained benefits from prosocial routes, aligning with long-term reciprocity, while dominance theories highlight aggression's efficiency in fluid adolescent groups where immediate visibility trumps reciprocity. Empirical discrepancies, including cross-cultural variations where collectivist societies favor prosocial exclusivity, fuel skepticism about universality, as do concerns over underpowered studies inflating effect sizes for aggressive paths. These debates persist due to causal inference challenges, with experimental manipulations rare and observational data prone to confounding by unmeasured traits like physical attractiveness.^[65]^[122]

References

[1]
Popularity as a social concept: Meanings and significance.
In spite of the large number of studies that use a measure of popularity, the meaning of the construct remains elusive.
[2]
How adolescents' popularity perceptions change - ScienceDirect.com
Popularity is a social dimension associated with power, prestige, and visibility within the group (Cillessen and Marks, 2011). Friendship and popularity ...
[3]
Status Check: What Does It Mean to Be Popular? - Behavioral Scientist
Sep 16, 2017 · If you believe that many other people are doing something, it makes you think that it's of higher value and it makes you more likely to do it.
[4]
[PDF] Conceptualizing and measuring popularity
Research in social psychology has shown consistently that people who are consid- ered physically attractive or beautiful are evaluated positively, even when.
[5]
Classroom Popularity Hierarchy Predicts Prosocial and Aggressive ...
Mar 2, 2019 · This study examined the coevolution of prosocial and aggressive popularity norms with popularity hierarchy (asymmetries in students' popularity).
[6]
Some factors associated with popularity. - APA PsycNet
The writers regard the term popularity as an approximate synonym for numerous terms, such as social adjustment, personal adjustment, social competence, ...
[7]
(PDF) Popularity - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · We provide novel evidence that early family en- vironment, school composition and school size play a signi cant role in determining popularity.
[8]
Popularity as a form of social dominance: An evolutionary perspective.
An organizing theme in this chapter is the role of aggression in social dominance and popularity. Our focus is primarily on studies that link aggression ...
[9]
Most Likely to Succeed: Long-Run Returns to Adolescent Popularity
Feb 1, 2018 · In this paper we seek a distinctively social foundation for success by investigating the long-term association between high school popularity and income.<|separator|>
[10]
The Illusion of Popularity | Psychology Today
Feb 5, 2024 · There is “sociometric popularity," which describes a well-liked teen who is “fun and kind." On the other hand, “perceived popularity” is defined ...
[11]
Relative likeability and relative popularity as sources of influence in ...
May 12, 2023 · The present study contrasts two forms of peer status as sources of friend influence: Relative likeability and relative popularity.
[12]
The Difference Between Being Cool and Being Popular
Apr 6, 2022 · Sociometric popularity primarily reflects “likeability,” and it is linked with traits such as being kind and trustworthy. Peer-perceived ...
[13]
Sociometric Popularity and Peer-Perceived Popularity - Sage Journals
Sociometric popularity is computed based on peer liking and dislike. The relation between sociometric popularity and perceived popularity, based on peer ...
[14]
The power of popularity: Influence processes in childhood and ...
The current chapter takes a closer look at the interplay between popularity and social influence processes. Before focusing on the role of popularity ...
[15]
The Truth about Popularity and Status - Unmistakable Creative
Feb 9, 2021 · Because likability is what predicts all those great things; status actually predicts increased risks for depression, anxiety, and substance use.
[16]
Preference and popularity as distinct forms of status: A meta-analytic ...
Preference is about who you like, while popularity is about who you are seen as popular, powerful, or influential among peers.
[17]
Popularity - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating c. 1600 from French popularité and Latin popularitas, popularity means the fact or condition of being beloved or having a popular quality.
[18]
popularity, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English ...
popularity is of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from Latin. Partly formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: Latin populāritās; popular adj., ‑ity ...
[19]
Optimates and Populares | Roman Senate, Patricians, Plebeians
Sep 29, 2025 · The two groups differed, therefore, chiefly in their methods: the Optimates tried to uphold the oligarchy; the Populares sought popular support ...
[20]
Populares - voice of people in Roman Senate
Sep 30, 2024 · Populares were a group of Roman politicians who from the 2nd century BCE tried to gain the support of the people, ie the plebeians, by promising social, ...
[21]
The Science of Sociometry - Michigan Psychodrama Center
In 1924, Moreno began to develop the concept of sociometry, which is the study of social relations and how they are affected by individual choices. He saw ...
[22]
Sociometric Status - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Sociometric methods have a long history, dating back to a book by Jacob L. Moreno in 1934 in which he described the first sociometric test. A sociometric test ...
[23]
Who Shall Survive: A New Approach to the Problem of Human ...
Feb 8, 2012 · Publication date: 1934. Topics: Psychology and Psychiatry. Publisher: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.
[24]
[PDF] Introduction to Sociometry - The Hoop & The Tree
Jacob Levy Moreno coined the term sociometry and conducted the first long-range sociometric study from 1932-38 at the New York State Training School for Girls ...
[25]
History of Sociometry, Psychodrama, Group Psychotherapy, and ...
Feb 24, 2021 · Beginning in 1935, Moreno started predicting boxing match winners through the application of sociometric analysis; for the next 19 years, he ...
[26]
Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring ...
Sociometry provides a means by which peer group researchers can conceptualize and measure the interpersonal forces of attraction and repulsion.
[27]
(PDF) History of Sociometry, Psychodrama, Group Psychotherapy ...
The philosophy and methods of Jacob Moreno's sociatry offer social workers valuable tools for upholding the core values of the social work profession. Moreno's ...
[28]
Dominance-Popularity Status, Behavior, and the Emergence of ...
Current evolutionary perspectives on adolescent romantic relations and sexuality. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 11 ...Introduction · Sex As A Scarce Resource In... · Results<|separator|>
[29]
Prestige and dominance-based hierarchies exist in naturally ...
May 1, 2019 · Prestige and dominance are thought to be two evolutionarily distinct routes to gaining status and influence in human social hierarchies.
[30]
evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable ...
These findings demonstrate that Dominance and Prestige are distinct yet viable strategies for ascending the social hierarchy, consistent with evolutionary ...
[31]
Associations Between Attractiveness, Dominance, and Status
Dec 6, 2021 · In Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 261–275). Springer. Go to Reference. Crossref · Google Scholar. De ...
[32]
Model of genetic variation in human social networks - PNAS
These results suggest that natural selection may have played a role in the evolution of social networks. They also suggest that modeling intrinsic variation in ...
[33]
Heritability in friendship networks - ScienceDirect.com
We find a substantial heritability component in twins' network sizes and network homophily, but not in twins' network closeness.
[34]
Heritability of social cognitive skills in children and adolescents
A heritability of 0.68 was found for social cognitive skills, with shared environmental influences at 0.05. Social cognition appears to be under considerable ...
[35]
Exogenous testosterone increases status-seeking motivation in men ...
Our study provides evidence that testosterone specifically boosts status-related motivation when there is an opportunity to improve one's social status.
[36]
Testosterone causes both prosocial and antisocial status-enhancing ...
Sep 26, 2016 · These findings show that testosterone can cause prosocial behavior in males and provide causal evidence for the social status hypothesis in men.
[37]
Large scale study links status and testosterone - Psychology
Jul 29, 2018 · Over the roughly three-month test period, male members who gained high status among the band showed a growth in testosterone levels. Women, ...<|separator|>
[38]
The role of testosterone in social interaction - ScienceDirect.com
Several recent studies suggest that testosterone facilitates particular social emotional mechanisms that tend to enhance the ability of an individual to achieve ...
[39]
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND THE ACCUMULATION OF ...
This study contends that physically attractive youths' greater social integration and lesser social stigma help them accumulate psychosocial resources that ...
[40]
Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research - PMC - NIH
We review the facial characteristics that influence attractiveness judgements of faces (eg symmetry, sexually dimorphic shape cues, averageness, skin colour/ ...
[41]
Attraction and Beauty - Noba Project
Physical qualities that increase attractiveness include youthfulness, symmetry, averageness, masculinity in men, and femininity in women.
[42]
Dopamine and serotonin in human substantia nigra track social ...
Feb 26, 2024 · Dopamine and serotonin are hypothesized to guide social behaviours. In humans, however, we have not yet been able to study neuromodulator ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[43]
Science Says There Are 2 Types of Popularity. You're Probably ...
Jul 6, 2017 · According to science there are actually two distinct types of popularity -- likability and status. The first is important in childhood.
[44]
Behavioral Changes Predicting Temporal Changes in Perceived ...
Sociometric popularity refers to popularity derived from liking and social preference whereas perceived popularity refers to popularity derived from social ...
[45]
What Makes a Popular Kid, Popular? - UConn KIDS
Oct 17, 2019 · Researchers have found that there are three types of popularity among teenagers: being feared, being loved, and being both feared and loved.Missing: networks | Show results with:networks
[46]
Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. - APA PsycNet
We discuss sociometric measures (peer nominations or ratings) of popularity but also address alternative measures, such as self-ratings, teacher ratings, and ...
[47]
Sociometric Status - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The main method for studying social status has been peer nominations, or sociometrics, where students list the names of classmates or grademates whom they like ...
[48]
Physical Attractiveness and Popularity: A Predictive Study
The purpose of the study was to identify physical attractiveness as a causal antecedent to sociometric choice in kindergarten children.
[49]
Facial Attractiveness as a Moderator of the Association between ...
This study examined the relations between facial attractiveness, aggression, and popularity in adolescence to determine whether facial attractiveness would ...
[50]
Peer-Perceived Admiration and Social Preference - PubMed Central
As expected, peer-perceived admiration was associated with physical aggression, physical appearance, and athletic ability. Unexpectedly, results also showed ...
[51]
College Students' Perceptions of Sports Fandom as a Social Status ...
In the current study, "being physical attractive" and "getting good grades" were ranked as the two most important determinants of female popularity, while " ...
[52]
Personality predictors of social status attainment - ScienceDirect.com
This research strand found that some traits (i.e. extraversion, narcissism, and trait dominance) predict (initial) status attainment across most contexts.
[53]
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-51301-001
[54]
Is There a Connection Between Being Smart and Being Liked?
Apr 2, 2021 · The results of the study indicated that being intelligent influenced both being liked and liking others. Interestingly, it did so in opposite ways.
[55]
(PDF) What makes you popular: beauty, personality or intelligence?
This study explores the determinants of popularity within friendship and advice networks. We involved almost 200 college students in an experiment.
[56]
Telling people they are intelligent correlates with the feeling of ...
Our study revealed that positive IQ feedback correlated with increased people's SAI and one subscale of state narcissistic admiration: striving for uniqueness.
[57]
Popularity and Adolescents' Perceptions of Acceptance Predicting ...
This study examined the dual roles of adolescents' perceptions of social acceptance and sociometric popularity in predicting relative changes over time in ...
[58]
Becoming popular: interpersonal emotion regulation predicts ...
Behavioral IER strategies (which use behavior to reassure or comfort in order to regulate affect) were associated with greater popularity, while cognitive ...
[59]
(PDF) Popularity, Social Preference, and Social Behaviors
Nov 12, 2022 · The existing research supports that individuals will use effective and amicable social strategies to achieve greater social integration ...
[60]
Bidirectional Associations between Popularity, Popularity Goal, and ...
Aug 31, 2020 · In general, the findings seem to indicate that popularity may be associated with a range of both prosocial and aggressive behaviors, but ...
[61]
Social Goals and Youth Aggression: Meta‐analysis of Prosocial and ...
Aug 9, 2025 · Aggressive behavior was positively related to antisocial goals, while prosocial goals were negatively related to aggressive behavior (Samson et ...
[62]
[PDF] Prosociality and Reactive Aggression Predict Externalizing
Jan 15, 2021 · For instance, Hawley (1999, 2003) showed that adolescents who were prosocial as well as aggressive were among the most socially dominant, ...
[63]
The Role of Prosocial and Aggressive Popularity Norm ... - NIH
Aug 12, 2019 · This study examined the role of prosocial and aggressive popularity norm combinations in prosocial and aggressive friendship processes. Three ...
[64]
[PDF] Perceived Popularity Related to Aggression and Victimization?
Jan 3, 2023 · LaFontana and Cillessen (2010) found that adolescents were inclined to prioritize popularity over other domains like achievement, romantic ...
[65]
How popularity goal and popularity status are related to observed ...
Popularity goal was related to high levels of aggression according to peers (only for boys) and to low levels of prosocial behavior across reporters and ...Brief Report · Method · ResultsMissing: sociology | Show results with:sociology
[66]
The Roles of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Social Status Insecurity
Jan 27, 2021 · The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among social status insecurity, callous-unemotional (CU) traits, and popularity-motivated aggression and ...
[67]
Does culture affect long-run growth? | CEPR
Sep 21, 2010 · Individualism emphasises personal freedom and achievement and therefore individualist culture awards social status to personal accomplishments ...
[68]
Collectivism and Individualism in Status Hierarchies
Oct 9, 2019 · Collectivistic perceptions of society emphasize the dynamics that influence people's fate and behavior, while individualistic perceptions ...
[69]
[PDF] Are Atypical Things More Popular? - Wharton Faculty Platform
Research on cross-cultural psychology has demonstrated the influ- ence of culture on individual-level psychological pro- cesses (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). But ...
[70]
[PDF] Criteria-of-Personal-Boys-and-Girls-Popularity-as-Ranked-by-Greek ...
For same-gender popularity, as with personal popularity, being a good friend was the most highly ranked criterion.Missing: sex | Show results with:sex
[71]
More popular because you're older? Relative age effect on ...
May 5, 2021 · Results indicate a statistically significant positive relation of both types of relative age with popularity status in classes.
[72]
More popular because you're older? Relative age effect on ...
It has been found that in countries that have a policy of grade retention, relatively younger pupils are more likely to repeat a class [9, 23, 25].
[73]
How do socioeconomic status relate to social relationships among ...
Jun 3, 2020 · Adolescents with lower socioeconomic status had poorer social relationships compared to those with higher socioeconomic status.
[74]
Adolescents' Characteristics and Peer Relationships in Class - MDPI
Jul 22, 2022 · Results: Immigrant background, academic achievement, and socioeconomic status all proved to be important factors influencing relationships with ...1. Introduction · 1.2. 2. Adolescents With Low... · 3. Results
[75]
(PDF) Associations between Ethnic Minority Status and Popularity in ...
Multi-level Structural Equation Models showed that ethnic minority status was indirectly associated with higher popularity, through higher aggression. Moreover, ...
[76]
the role of Ethnic Classroom Composition and Aggression - PubMed
Multi-level Structural Equation Models showed that ethnic minority status was indirectly associated with higher popularity, through higher aggression.
[77]
Understanding Social Hierarchies: The Neural and Psychological ...
In this review we explore the nature of social hierarchies and the traits associated with status in both humans and nonhuman primates.
[78]
Men's status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies
Sep 6, 2016 · When mating is not monogamous, high-status males are able to translate status into large reproductive gains, leading to a strong correlation ...
[79]
An Evolutionary Perspective on the Role of Status in Close ...
One reason that evolutionary psychologists prefer the term status (or social rank) ... ), Evolutionary perspectives on social psychology (pp. 3–12). New York, NY ...
[80]
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144000
[81]
High Peer Popularity Longitudinally Predicts Adolescent Health Risk ...
Aug 18, 2011 · Surprisingly, subsequent research suggested that not low, but high levels of popularity were associated with at least one form of maladjustment— ...Results · Preliminary Analyses · Discussion<|separator|>
[82]
Bidirectional Associations between Popularity, Popularity Goal, and ...
Aug 31, 2020 · High levels of popularity and popularity goal have been linked concurrently and uniquely with aggression (Cillessen et al. 2014). Across time, ...
[83]
Bullying Perpetration, Moral Disengagement and Need for Popularity
Jul 31, 2021 · This study examined longitudinal associations between need for popularity, moral disengagement, and bullying perpetration.
[84]
The longitudinal link between popularity, likeability, fear of negative ...
Feb 1, 2023 · This study investigated the longitudinal bidirectional associations between likeability, popularity, fear of negative evaluation, and social avoidance.Popularity (peer Report) · Social Avoidance (peer... · Results
[85]
A downside to being popular in high school, study says - CNN
Sep 12, 2017 · The study, of which Narr was the lead author, also found that being popular in high school was tied to having higher social anxiety by early ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[86]
Long‐term implications of childhood and adolescent popularity for ...
Mar 6, 2024 · Peer acceptance in adolescence also positively predicted romantic relationship involvement in adulthood (Rauer et al., 2013). Altogether, ...
[87]
Impressing for popularity and influence among peers: The ...
This study considers both a mediating role of peer-rated workplace popularity and a moderating role of self-rated social dominance orientation.
[88]
Governance for Workplace Culture: Leveraging Positive Peer ...
Nov 15, 2023 · Studies show that positive peer relationships positively affect job performance by increasing factors such as employee engagement, creativity ...
[89]
Ease and control: the cognitive benefits of hierarchy - ScienceDirect
We have argued that hierarchies have two major cognitive benefits—they are easy to process and they provide a sense of control ...
[90]
Exploring Positive Outcomes of Social Hierarchies at Work
Jul 6, 2022 · At the team level, hierarchy may hurt team effectiveness (Greer et al., 2018) and hinder collective learning (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011).
[91]
Status and Development: How Social Hierarchy Undermines Well ...
Nov 1, 2022 · This article outlines the specific mechanisms through which status inequality exacerbates economic disparity between groups and challenges redistributive ...
[92]
Top 11 Twitter Metrics to Track in 2025 - Socialinsider
Sep 9, 2025 · Performance metrics – Tracking followers' growth, engagement, impressions, and video views helps you measure reach, interaction, and overall ...
[93]
Essential TikTok Metrics Marketers Need To Track - Socialinsider
Aug 22, 2025 · Essential TikTok metrics include reach, impressions, engagement rate, follower growth, video views, watch time, likes, comments, shares, and ...<|separator|>
[94]
The social media metrics to track in 2025 (and why)
Jun 26, 2025 · Metrics like video views and most active times can help you understand video engagement and the best times to post.
[95]
Everything You Need to Know About Social Media Algorithms
Oct 30, 2023 · This guide covers everything about social media algorithms, including important factors to watch out for and how to adapt your social media marketing ...
[96]
Characterizing and Modeling the Dynamics of Online Popularity
We provide a quantitative, large scale, temporal analysis of the dynamics of online content popularity in two massive model systems: the Wikipedia and an ...
[97]
A Coupled Friedkin-Johnsen Model of Popularity Dynamics in Social ...
Apr 3, 2025 · Popularity dynamics in social media depend on a complex interplay of social influence between users and popularity-based recommendations ...
[98]
Spreading dynamics of information on online social networks - PNAS
Jan 23, 2025 · We uncover a ubiquitous mechanism that the information-spreading dynamics are basically driven by the interplay of social reinforcement and social weakening ...<|separator|>
[99]
(PDF) A Systematic Literature Review of Predictors of Social Media ...
This systematic review gathers and summarizes 68 naturalistic studies that measure popularity based on users' reach (e.g., followers, fans and subscribers) or ...
[100]
‪Nicolò Pagan‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬
A meritocratic network formation model for the rise of social media influencers. N Pagan, W Mei, C Li, F Dörfler. Nature communications 12 (1), 6865, 2021. 24 ...
[101]
(PDF) THE DYNAMICS OF POPULARITY - ResearchGate
Feb 25, 2020 · Abstract. What are the mechanisms that drive the rise and fall of popularity of cultural objects, phrases, names, and organizational practices?Missing: ideas | Show results with:ideas
[102]
Brand Metrics: What to Measure in Your Brand Tracking Study
The classic metric for measuring brand loyalty is Net Promoter Score (NPS). Best used in combination with more nuanced measures, NPS is an excellent baseline to ...
[103]
What Is Brand Awareness? 20 Critical Metrics to Measure It - Invoca
Mar 4, 2025 · What Is Brand Awareness? 20 Critical Metrics to Measure It · 1. Coverage · 2. Share of Voice · 3. Mentions · 4. Message Pull-Through. Using Blog and ...
[104]
10 Brand Metrics To Track Your Performance | SurveyMonkey
Brand awareness is measured by two basic metrics, unaided brand recall and aided brand recognition. In unaided brand recall, you measure the number of people ...
[105]
How to measure brand awareness: 9 key metrics to track - Zapier
Aug 23, 2024 · Social listening, branded search volume, backlink profiles, and earned media coverage are just a few metrics to track brand awareness.
[106]
Global Study Reveals Consumers Are Four To Six Times More ...
Jun 17, 2020 · Consumers are four to six times more likely to buy from, trust, champion, and defend companies with a strong Purpose.
[107]
Exploring the overlooked world of social objects - Mark Schaefer
Sep 11, 2024 · Social objects come from a theory proposed by sociologist Karin Knorr Cetina. It creates a remarkably simple and useful ignition point for a word-of-mouth ...
[108]
The Influence of Non-Product-Related Attributes on Media Brands ...
The research focuses on whether the consumption experience, especially non-product-related, has more significance in forming brand associations.
[109]
Local versus global food consumption: the role of brand authenticity
Feb 14, 2020 · Empirical evidence shows consumers to value authentic brands for which they are willing to pay higher prices and to spread positive words, among ...The Concept Of Brand... · Brand Communication Of Brand... · Empirical Studies
[110]
Choosing the right metrics for brand growth - Kantar
Apr 3, 2025 · Metrics serve as the backbone of any tracking study, offering a structured way to measure brand health, customer sentiment, and market trends.
[111]
Methodological Issues in the Use of Peer Sociometric Nominations ...
The most widely used method to measure sociometric status is peer nomination, in which the participant is asked to nominate peers he or she likes most or likes ...Introduction · Results · Method Bias In Sociometric...<|separator|>
[112]
Sociometric Popularity and Peer-Perceived Popularity: Two Distinct ...
Aug 10, 2025 · Sociometrically popular students who were not high on perceived popularity were characterized by peers as kind and trustworthy but not as dominant, aggressive, ...
[113]
Do Peer Nominations Suffer from a Likeability Bias?
The findings suggest that peer nomination outcomes may not be reduced to likeability and that peer nominations can be regarded as one suitable method for ...Missing: popularity | Show results with:popularity
[114]
Is aggression associated with biased perceptions of one's ...
Oct 30, 2020 · First, most studies did not distinguish between biases in peeracceptance (i.e., being liked) and biases in rejection (i.e., being disliked) ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[115]
Positively Biased Self-Perceptions of Peer Acceptance and ... - NIH
Positively biased perceptions led to increases in relational, but not overt, aggression. This pattern was observed even when the effects of gender, race, peer ...
[116]
Can at-risk young adolescents be popular and anti-social ...
This study aimed to extend the understanding of anti-social behaviour and its association with popularity and sociometric status in a sample of at-risk ...<|separator|>
[117]
Sociometry as a method for investigating peer relationships
The main purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between sociometric and peer perceived popularity in Slovenian students of different ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
[118]
[PDF] Cognitive biases in teacher attunement to peer‐nominated bullies ...
Apr 22, 2020 · Previous research has shown that peer nominations are a reliable and age-appropriate instrument to identify bul- lying and victimization ...
[119]
Hidden Invalidity Among 15 Commonly Used Measures in Social ...
Apr 9, 2020 · It has recently been demonstrated that metrics of structural validity are severely underreported in social and personality psychology.
[120]
Looking to solve the replication crisis in psychology? Limitations of ...
May 13, 2016 · New research led by Jana Uher highlights methodological limitations of the widely used questionnaire methods.
[121]
A latent profile analysis of aggression and prosocial behavior in ...
Jul 10, 2025 · There was evidence for popularity being based on using strategic, aggressive, prosocial and typical social strategies; the groups differed ...
[122]
Adolescents' Popularity-Motivated Aggression and Prosocial ...
Jan 28, 2021 · ... adolescents may be concerned with different types of popularity. Future research may consider specific types of social status insecurity ...