View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Connecting Engagement to Classroom Friendships and Popular Peers' Prosocial Behaviour

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Connecting Engagement to Classroom Friendships and Popular Peers' Prosocial Behaviour
Language: English
Authors: Jessica E. Kilday (ORCID 0000-0002-8025-7679), Allison M. Ryan
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2025 95(4):1080-1099.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Grade 6
Descriptors: Friendship, Peer Relationship, Social Status, Student Behavior, Early Adolescents, Emotional Response, Help Seeking, Grade 5, Grade 6, Peer Groups, Social Attitudes, Learner Engagement
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12770
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: There are many ways to leverage support from friendships, and it is important for how students engage with learning in the classroom. Further, friendships are embedded within the larger classroom peer group, which might have different norms for prosocial or disruptive behaviour. Few studies have examined how friends support or deter engagement within the context of competing influences from classmates and popular peers. Aims: This study investigated how early adolescents' classroom friendships were related to their engagement (behaviour, emotion and peer help-seeking). Moreover, whether these associations depended on classmates' and popular peers' behavioural norms. Sample: Participants were 824 fifth and sixth graders (52% girls, 48% boys, 43% White, 30% Black, 6% Hispanic, 6% Asian and 16% multiracial or other) from 46 classrooms in the United States. Methods: We used multilevel modelling to examine the associations between students' friendship experiences (best friend quality, reciprocated friendships, social network centrality and prestige), peer group norms (prosocial and disruptive) and students' engagement. Results: Results showed that the quantity of reciprocated friendships was unrelated to all three types of engagement. However, engagement was positively associated with best friendship quality and with friendship centrality (i.e., being well-connected to many friends). Students' prestige, or being highly desired as a friend, did not diminish behavioural engagement when popularity norms favoured prosocial behaviour. Conclusions: Findings suggest not all aspects of friendship experiences are equal. For engagement, it is important for students to feel like they have friends in class and to draw attention to the prosocial behaviour of popular peers.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1488394
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG3q7XzgY4wOpBgW8iUtKEZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJhqBXnKJiLRDD3dGQIBEICBm_qpP7z5oMdzdeBoDxdg26gbQET58tNYF2vGmTdP5GvyhEkHHI---mPG4UscDVL_7VNVGMaJrek5CwplDhArSYx1yiQCH-w0vZ8eAt8vRiuCci1M0OyF4KBQ7HzUiI5Ydqw_Lo1n0yrbYVd_ZEHbbQkPPUeuh2qYuTwDXEXw29vDC4MnnydNEt0Ptpm00tBcTJlff9p5Uv23xH5C
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189133032;6kx01dec.25;2025Nov10.01:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189133032-1">Connecting engagement to classroom friendships and popular peers' prosocial behaviour </title> <p>Background: There are many ways to leverage support from friendships, and it is important for how students engage with learning in the classroom. Further, friendships are embedded within the larger classroom peer group, which might have different norms for prosocial or disruptive behaviour. Few studies have examined how friends support or deter engagement within the context of competing influences from classmates and popular peers. Aims: This study investigated how early adolescents' classroom friendships were related to their engagement (behaviour, emotion and peer help‐seeking). Moreover, whether these associations depended on classmates' and popular peers' behavioural norms. Sample: Participants were 824 fifth and sixth graders (52% girls, 48% boys, 43% White, 30% Black, 6% Hispanic, 6% Asian and 16% multiracial or other) from 46 classrooms in the United States. Methods: We used multilevel modelling to examine the associations between students' friendship experiences (best friend quality, reciprocated friendships, social network centrality and prestige), peer group norms (prosocial and disruptive) and students' engagement. Results: Results showed that the quantity of reciprocated friendships was unrelated to all three types of engagement. However, engagement was positively associated with best friendship quality and with friendship centrality (i.e., being well‐connected to many friends). Students' prestige, or being highly desired as a friend, did not diminish behavioural engagement when popularity norms favoured prosocial behaviour. Conclusions: Findings suggest not all aspects of friendship experiences are equal. For engagement, it is important for students to feel like they have friends in class and to draw attention to the prosocial behaviour of popular peers.</p> <p>Keywords: friendship; popularity; prosocial behaviour; social capital; social support</p> <p>Teachers recognize the importance of adolescents' friendships for their academic functioning at school (Dawes et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]). Yet, understanding exactly how friends support or deter motivation and engagement is embedded within layered social contexts (Farmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]). Moreover, there are numerous indices of friendship that could be leveraged as a means for adolescents to access social support. Both the quality and quantity of youth's friendships are distinct and have unique affordances (Stotsky & Bowker, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref3">61</reflink>]). In classrooms, these friendships also function within the larger classroom peer group, which can be characterized by different norms for prosocial or disruptive behaviour. These norms can reinforce or deter positive and productive social interactions that occur among friends (Dijkstra & Gest, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]). The purpose of this study is to provide a more comprehensive look at the role of friends in adolescents' classroom engagement by examining three aspects of friendship experience with classmates. Specifically, we consider the <emph>quality</emph> of their best friendship, along with the <emph>quantity</emph> of reciprocated friends and their <emph>network position</emph>, considering all incoming and outgoing friend nominations. Furthermore, we investigate possible interdependencies with the norms and values of the classroom peer context to better elucidate the conditions in which friendships support (or undermine) academic engagement in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-2">Classroom engagement</hd> <p>In this study, we focus on how students' classroom friendships relate to their classroom engagement. Engagement is an appealing academic outcome because it is malleable, observable and teachers often consider student engagement as a challenge in their classroom (Fredricks, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref5">23</reflink>]). Specifically, we consider three components of students' classroom engagement: behavioural, emotional and cognitive. Engagement encompasses a variety of behaviours and emotions that are directed towards learning. The behavioural component is reflected by students' participation and effort in class, while emotional engagement is characterized by positive feelings, interest and enjoyment (Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref6">57</reflink>]). Finally, cognitive engagement is the mental effort and persistence students put forth to improve comprehension (Fredricks, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]). In this study, cognitive engagement is represented by students' help‐seeking with peers because asking for adaptive help shows effort directed towards improved comprehension. It reflects self‐regulation of learning wherein students monitor their understanding and use help‐seeking as a strategy to persist when they encounter difficulties (Karabenick & Gonida, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]). Together, the three types of engagement are complementary and provide a multidimensional view of students' learning.</p> <p>Why are some students more engaged than others? Students' motivation to engage in class is often explained as a combination of their self‐related beliefs (e.g., values, goals, confidence; Linnenbrink‐Garcia et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref9">40</reflink>]; Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref10">58</reflink>]), along with assets conferred through their social relationships (Schunk & DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]). Specifically, student's peer relationships can provide three assets that may facilitate class engagement. First, peers are an important source of social support. High‐quality and reciprocal relationships, where students feel cared for and accepted, can fulfil a <emph>psychological need</emph> for relatedness that energizes motivation towards school (Baumeister & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref13">52</reflink>]). Second, peers can also be considered a form of <emph>social capital</emph>, wherein reciprocated friendships and friendship networks can mean greater access to help and information when needed (Wentzel & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref14">70</reflink>]), while also affirming one's belonging to the peer group (Vaquera & Kao, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref15">63</reflink>]). Finally, from a social learning perspective, students can reference <emph>peer norms</emph> as a model for how to behave, think or feel about something in class (Hamm et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>While these peer factors have been individually associated with students' engagement in previous research (Ryan et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref17">51</reflink>]), little is known about how these influences co‐occur or depend on one another, to explain student engagement. Accordingly, we take an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on theory and research from motivational psychology and sociology to better understand the development of individual engagement within the context of students' broader classroom social systems. Such integration is necessary to understand how the complex dynamics of adolescents' peer relationships pertain to students' motivation and engagement (Daumiller & Hemi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-3">Friendships and psychological needs</hd> <p>According to self‐determination theory, relatedness is one of three psychological needs that must be affirmed to optimize motivation for learning (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref19">52</reflink>]). Likewise, belongingness has been considered a fundamental human need for acceptance, respect and inclusion (Baumeister & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]). Although students interact with many classmates at school, students' friendships are well positioned to fulfil students' psychological needs because they are voluntary relationships characterized by intimacy, closeness, validation, support and help (Berndt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Specifically, we incorporate two measures of friendship quality. First, students directly report on the quality of their best friendship. When perceived friendship quality is high (e.g., by making someone feel good, supported or comfortable sharing) this is associated with more positive outcomes. For example, prior research has linked friendship quality concurrently with higher self‐esteem (Antonopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>]), engagement in class (Hosan & Hoglund, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]) and lower school avoidance (Antonopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]). Similarly, we expect that best friendship quality (hypothesis 1a) will be positively associated with students' classroom engagement.</p> <p>Second, friendships can also be conceptualized on a continuum where friendships are higher quality when they are reciprocated (Newcomb & Bagwell, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref25">47</reflink>]). In reciprocated friendships, youth tend to experience a sense of closeness, as reciprocity suggests these are peers who they can count on, with whom they feel safe to share things or ask for help and whom they trust (Berndt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]; Way et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref27">67</reflink>]). As such, we also investigate youth's reciprocated friendships as leverage for their academic engagement. These might also reflect their psychological need fulfilment because having many reciprocated friends may affirm their belonging to the peer group (Vaquera & Kao, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref28">63</reflink>]). Like ratings of friendship quality, the quantity of students' reciprocated friendships has been positively linked with academic adjustment outcomes, such as grades or GPA and school belonging (Vaquera & Kao, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref29">63</reflink>]; Wentzel & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref30">70</reflink>]). Therefore, we also expect a positive relation between the number of students' reciprocated friendships and their class engagement (hypothesis 1b).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-4">Friendships and social capital</hd> <p>Friendships can also be considered a form of social capital, where one's position in their social network can mean greater access to help, information and support when needed (Wentzel & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref31">70</reflink>]). For example, developing cross‐class friendships is a form of social capital that has been found to attenuate achievement differences between students whose parents have high and low levels of educational attainment (Lessard & Juvonen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]). In this study, we consider the amount of social capital available through friendships based on students' position in their classroom friendship network.</p> <p>There are two types of network positions that students might occupy among their classroom friends. First, <emph>centrality</emph> reflects how connected a student is based on their own <emph>outgoing</emph> friendship nominations, including how connected those friends are to other peers (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]). Second, <emph>prestige</emph> is based on students' <emph>incoming</emph> friend nominations (i.e., who selects the target student as a friend) and considers the number of peers in proximity (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). These social positions are distinct from reputational measures of social status, like popularity and peer acceptance, because they observe how students are <emph>relationally</emph> connected to one another, for example, as close friends, friends of friends or distant peers (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]). Students who are highly central and prestigious in the network may have greater access to social and academic resources.</p> <p>Empirical studies examining students' friendship network position are rare, but a few have begun to clarify the typical social behaviour associated with higher centrality and prestige. High centrality is associated with a mixed profile of positive and negative behaviours, including prosocial behaviour and cooperation, but also with disruptive behaviour, being bossy, picking on others and aggression (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]; Andrews et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]). Whereas social network prestige is related to higher peer preference, prosociality and leadership (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]). From these studies, it seems that prestigious youth enjoy social benefits from their position in the form of social status and positive interactions with peers, whereas social benefits of centrality are less clear. No studies have examined how students' position within their classroom friend network is related to their academic engagement. Students' network positions could afford different academic costs and benefits compared to social. Given the lack of empirical studies in this area, our question examining the associations between students' centrality and prestige with their academic engagement is exploratory (hypothesis 2).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-5">Friendships embedded with classroom peer group norms</hd> <p>While students' friendship quality and network positions depict differences in the quality of support and access to social capital, these do not characterize content of their peers' classroom behaviour. Although students might not be relationally connected to all their classmates through friendship, their classmates do contribute to the broader classroom climate. The classroom climate can be characterized by distinct norms and values, like being kind and cooperative, or being more disruptive (McCormick & Cappella, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]). Further, the norms that define adolescents' peer groups have been found to affect students' individual behaviour (e.g., Müller et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]), who they want to be friends with (e.g., Laninga‐Wijnen et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]), and their level of acceptance or status within the peer group (Dijkstra & Gest, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>]). Thus, social norms are important for shaping how youth interact and organize themselves within peer groups, such as their classroom friendship network. Therefore, it is likely that <emph>peer norms</emph> not only affect students' own classroom academic engagement, but also how much friends are advantageous sources of support. To examine whether the effect of friendships on students' engagement depends on peer norms, we investigate two distinct types of peer norms that also vary by content (i.e., prosocial and disruptive).</p> <p>First, <emph>descriptive peer norms</emph> reflect how much a behaviour occurs in the peer group and are usually operationalized as the group's average (e.g., Ahn & Rodkin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]; Boor‐Klip et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]). In adolescence, descriptive norms can be influential because youth strive to fit in among their peers, which makes them susceptible to changing their behaviour or attitudes to be more in line with their peers (Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref45">72</reflink>]). Many studies have directly linked peer group descriptive norms to individual‐level changes in engagement (Engels et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]; Kindermann, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>]), disruptive behaviour (Müller et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>]; Wang & Kiefer, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref49">66</reflink>]) and value for school (Hamm et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref50">26</reflink>]). There is much prior work showing that prosocial behaviour promotes student engagement (e.g., Brass et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>]), whereas disruptive behaviour suggests classroom disengagement and is related to lower achievement (Kaplan & Maehr, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]; Wang & Kiefer, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref53">66</reflink>]). Accordingly, we expect that prosocial descriptive norms will be positively related to students' engagement (hypothesis 3a), whereas normative disruptive behaviour will be negatively associated with students' engagement (hypothesis 3b).</p> <p>In comparison, <emph>popularity norms</emph> ascribe weight to specific individual's behaviours and values based on their social status in the peer group because popular students have more power and influence over classroom social norms (Veenstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref54">64</reflink>]). Popularity norms are usually operationalized as a correlation between behaviour (e.g., aggression or prosocial behaviour) and popularity (Dijkstra & Gest, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref55">19</reflink>]; Lessard & Juvonen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). Unlike descriptive norms, there is less evidence that popularity norms directly affect students' school adjustment. Several studies have found no main effects of popular students' academic engagement or aggression on their peers' engagement or perceptions of support and cohesion (Laninga‐Wijnen et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref57">37</reflink>]; Lessard & Juvonen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]). As such, we expect no main effects of popularity norms on student engagement (hypothesis 3c). Instead, popularity norms have been found to matter for some students' adjustment more than for others based on their own social status (Laninga‐Wijnen et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref59">37</reflink>]; Lessard & Juvonen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref60">39</reflink>]). For example, high engagement popularity norms buffered the decline of engagement for highly rejected students (Lessard & Juvonen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-6">The moderating role of peer norms</hd> <p>Although research has not investigated how class‐level peer norms affect the associations between friendship and engagement, it is commonly accepted that peers' characteristics matter for determining whether they have a positive or negative influence (Berndt & Keefe, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]; Kindermann, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]). For example, peer influence has been found in both directions, towards increases or decreases in behaviour, to align with their friends and well‐liked peers (Chávez et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>]; Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref65">56</reflink>]). Based on this prior work, we expect that the quality and quantity of friendship support could be enhanced by prosocial norms of classroom peers, whereas friend support in classrooms characterized by higher disruptive behaviour could lessen the benefits. We view this aim as exploratory (hypothesis 4) to better understand the role of peer descriptive norms and peer popularity norms as moderators of the associations between friendship and students' engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-7">Overview of the present study</hd> <p>In sum, prior research has found that high‐quality and reciprocated friendships are conducive to students' school engagement (Bagwell & Bukowski, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]). However, few studies have examined the specific functions of friendships that are embedded within the classroom context. In classrooms, friendships are constrained by proximity and the level of support and types of interactions among friends may be further defined by the broader peer group norms. Therefore, the current study is a comprehensive examination of friends as both a source of psychological support and social capital. The first aim is to examine the main effects of students' friendship experiences (best friend quality, reciprocated friendships, network position) on students' academic engagement. We expect that best friendship quality and reciprocated friendships will be positively related to engagement (hypothesis 1), but there is insufficient evidence to support a directional hypothesis about the role of network position (exploratory hypothesis 2). Next, we consider the role of peer group norms (prosocial and disruptive behaviour) on their academic engagement. For the main effects, we expect that descriptive norms would explain more differences in student engagement than popularity norms (hypothesis 3). Finally, we expect that if any of the associations between friendship experience and engagement vary by classroom, these might be explained by peer group norms (exploratory hypothesis 4).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-8">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133032-9">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in this study are a cross‐sectional sample of 5th graders (55%) from 11 elementary schools and 6th graders (45%) from five middle schools in the Midwestern United States. To focus on students' classroom experiences, students were asked to respond about either their math or science class. The analytic sample for this study was 824 students nested in 46 classrooms. Missing data for each variable was below 5% and were accounted for using an imputation procedure (Keller & Enders, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]). Additional details about the analytic sample, missing data and imputation procedures are reported in the Supporting Information.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-10">Procedures</hd> <p>All survey procedures were approved by the university's institutional review board. Data were collected in the spring of the school year (April–May) after social relationships had time to emerge. The research team explained the purpose of the survey was to learn more about students' classroom experiences in math and science and that their participation was voluntary. Of the 824 students, about 61% reflected on math class while 39% thought about their science class.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-11">Measures</hd> <p>Students rated all Likert‐scale items between 1 and 5, with response anchors ranging from <emph>Not at all true</emph> to <emph>Very true</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-12">Best friend quality</hd> <p>To assess the quality of their best friendship, students responded to eight Likert‐scale items adapted by Rose ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref68">49</reflink>]) that characterize the level of support and closeness the students perceive with their best friend in class (<emph>α</emph> = .90). A sample item is: 'We can talk about things that worry us'.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-13">Friendships</hd> <p>Peer nominations were used to assess adolescents' friendships within classrooms for both fifth and sixth graders. Students were asked, 'Who are your friends in this class? Who do you talk do and hang around with the most?' A class roster was embedded into the survey and students could select as many or as few friends as they wanted. All classmates were listed on the roster and could receive peer nominations. We used these to calculate the number of students' <emph>reciprocated friendships</emph>. Additionally, we used the 'SNA' package in R (v2.6; Butts, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref69">13</reflink>]) to determine students' social network <emph>centrality</emph> and <emph>prestige</emph> (see Supporting Information for details on how these were calculated). These scores were standardized within classrooms to account for differences in class sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-14">Classroom behaviour norms</hd> <p>Peer nominations were used to assess adolescents' classroom behaviour. Students were prompted with the statement: 'All students act differently in school. Which students in your class...' and were able to select as many students as they wanted from the class list for each item. Two items for prosocial behaviour asked which students 'are really cooperative and willing to help others' and 'are really nice'. These were aggregated by summing the number of nominations received for both items and dividing by two. There was one item for disruptive behaviour and students were asked, 'who does not follow school rules—gets in trouble'. Finally, one item measured students' classroom social status by asking, 'Which students in your class are really cool?' These reputational peer nominations were measured at the individual‐level and used to calculate classroom <emph>descriptive norms</emph> and <emph>popularity norms</emph> at level‐2 for each of the 46 classrooms in our sample (see Supporting Information for details). Peer group norms were standardized in analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-15">Academic engagement</hd> <p>We adapted a 10‐item Likert‐scale measure of engagement developed by Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref70">57</reflink>], which included six items on behavioural engagement (e.g., 'I pay attention in my math/science class', <emph>α</emph> = .87) and four items for emotional engagement (e.g., 'I enjoy learning new things in math/science class', <emph>α</emph> = .87). We also assessed students' adaptive help‐seeking with peers using by four items describing adaptive help‐seeking (e.g., 'I would ask someone to explain it to me, not just give me the answer', <emph>α</emph> = .74), which have previously been used in samples of early adolescent students (Ryan & Shim, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-16">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>We conducted multilevel modelling to examine the associations between students' friendship and peer group experiences and their academic engagement. We estimated the two‐level models using the 'lme4' package (1.1.27.1; Bates et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref72">7</reflink>]) in RStudio and estimates across imputed data sets were pooled using the 'mitml' package (v0.4.3; Grund et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]). Level 1 variables were centred at the classroom mean and level 2 variables were centred at the grand mean. We used restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) because we had fewer than 50 classrooms (Snijders & Bosker, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref74">59</reflink>]). To test the fit of random slopes, we compared the fit of nested models by pooling the likelihood‐ratio test across multiply imputed data sets to examine improvements in model fit. Current guidance recommends using a larger alpha value of.2 when fitting slopes in multilevel models due to the loss of power that corresponds with complexity (Luo et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref75">41</reflink>]). We tested cross‐level interactions only when retaining random slopes indicated an improved model fit based on the criteria <emph>α</emph> < .20.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-17">RESULTS</hd> <p>Means, standard deviations and correlations for study variables are reported in Table 1, along with the intraclass correlation for outcome variables. For multilevel models, we first examined each friendship experience individually in separate models for best friendship quality, number of reciprocated friendships and social network position. We then compared the final fixed slopes level 1 model to models that allowed the association between each predictor and engagement outcome to vary across classrooms. At level 2, we examined how the descriptive and popularity norms for prosocial and disruptive behaviour were related to each engagement outcome. The full multilevel models for behavioural engagement, emotional engagement and adaptive help‐seeking are reported in Tables 2–4, respectively. In Table 5, we report beta‐coefficients and variance explained in level 2 models that contained descriptive and popularity norms separately to compare their independent effects.</p> <p>1 TABLE Means, standard deviations and correlations for friendship and peer group experiences, as well as academic engagement in the Spring.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th><th align="left">12</th><th align="left">13</th><th align="left">14</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Friendships</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. BFQ</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. NRF</td><td align="left">.22**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Centrality</td><td align="left">.20**</td><td align="left">.58**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Prestige</td><td align="left">.16**</td><td align="left">.57**</td><td align="left">.30**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Peer reputations</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Prosocial</td><td align="left">.20**</td><td align="left">.20**</td><td align="left">.11**</td><td align="left">.43**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Disruptive</td><td align="left">−.09*</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.07*</td><td align="left">−.41**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Cool</td><td align="left">.16*</td><td align="left">.43**</td><td align="left">.22**</td><td align="left">.62**</td><td align="left">.41**</td><td align="left">.11**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom norms</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Pro DN</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">−.18**</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Pro PN</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Dis DN</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">−.20**</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.78**</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Dis PN</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">−.12**</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.52**</td><td align="left">.10**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Engagement</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. BENG</td><td align="left">.34**</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.13**</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.23*</td><td align="left">−.22**</td><td align="left">.00</td><td align="left">.11**</td><td align="left">.10**</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.11**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13. EENG</td><td align="left">.25**</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.13**</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.08*</td><td align="left">−.10**</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.11**</td><td align="left">.16**</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">−.10**</td><td align="left">.65**</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">14. ADHS</td><td align="left">.26**</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.13**</td><td align="left">−.03</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.10**</td><td align="left">−.07</td><td align="left">.09*</td><td align="left">.13**</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.08*</td><td align="left">.47**</td><td align="left">.42**</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sample mean (SD)</td><td align="left">3.99 (.97)</td><td align="left">3.73 (2.6)</td><td align="left">.19 (.13)</td><td align="left">.18 (.11)</td><td align="left">.20 (.20)</td><td align="left">.16 (.22)</td><td align="left">.19 (.17)</td><td align="left">.24 (.07)</td><td align="left">.40 (.25)</td><td align="left">.24 (.07)</td><td align="left">.14 (.28)</td><td align="left">4.07 (.85)</td><td align="left">3.42 (3.64)</td><td align="left">3.64 (.99)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Range</td><td align="left">1–5</td><td align="left">0–17</td><td align="left">0–.69</td><td align="left">0–.59</td><td align="left">0–.93</td><td align="left">0–1.0</td><td align="left">0–.81</td><td align="left">.15–.56</td><td align="left">−.22–.92</td><td align="left">.09–.44</td><td align="left">−.43–.61</td><td align="left">1–5</td><td align="left">1–5</td><td align="left">1–5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ICC</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.09</td><td align="left">.04</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Means, standard deviation and range are reported as raw values, not standardized within the classroom. * indicates <emph>p</emph> < .05, ** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .01.</p> <ulist> <item>2 Abbreviations: ADHS, adaptive help‐seeking; BENG, behavioural engagement; BFQ, best friend quality; DN, descriptive norm; EENG, emotional engagement; ICC, intraclass correlation; NRF, number of reciprocated friendships; PN, popularity norm; SD, standard deviation.</item> <item>2 TABLE Multilevel model predicting students' perceptions of behavioural engagement in the spring.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Level 1</th><th align="left">Level 2</th></tr><tr><th align="left">M1 covariates</th><th align="left">M2 BFQ</th><th align="left">M3 NRF</th><th align="left">M4 social network</th><th align="left">M5 all level 1</th><th align="left">M6a prosocial norms</th><th align="left">M6b disruptive norms</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fixed effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="left">4.17 (.05)***</td><td align="left">4.17 (.05)***</td><td align="left">4.17 (.05)***</td><td align="left">4.16 (.05)***</td><td align="left">4.16 (.05)***</td><td align="left">4.13 (.05)***</td><td align="left">4.15 (.05)***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Covariates</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 6 (compared to 5)</td><td align="left">−.22 (.08)**[−.37, −.07]</td><td align="left">−.22 (.08)**[−.37, −.07]</td><td align="left">−.22 (.08)**[−.37, −.07]</td><td align="left">−.22 (.08)**[−.37, −.07]</td><td align="left">−.22 (.08)**[−.37, −.07]</td><td align="left">−.16 (.08)*[−.32, −.01]</td><td align="left">−.19 (.08)*[−.34, −.04]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Friendships (L1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Best friend quality (BFQ)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.28 (.03)*** [.22,.34]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.27 (.03)**[.21,.33]</td><td align="left">.28 (.03)*** [.21,.33]</td><td align="left">.27 (.03)***[.21,.33]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">N Reciprocated friends (NRF)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.05 (.03)[−.01,.11]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Network centrality</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.12 (.03)*** [.05,.18]</td><td align="left">.07 (.03)*[.01,.13]</td><td align="left">.06 (.03)*[.002,.12]</td><td align="left">.07 (.03)*[.01,.13]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Network prestige</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">−.001 (.03)[−.06,.06]</td><td align="left">−.03 (.03)[−.09,.03]</td><td align="left">−.03 (.03)[−.09,.03]</td><td align="left">−.03 (.03)[−.09,.08]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Peer Group Norms (L2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Descriptive norms (DN)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.05 (.04)[−.04,.14]</td><td align="left">−.01 (.04)[−.10,.08]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Popularity norms (PN)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.06 (.04)[−.02,.14]</td><td align="left">−.08 (.04)<sup>†</sup>[−.16,.01]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cross‐level interactions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prestige × PN</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.06 (.03)<sup>†</sup>[−.01,.12]</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Variance components</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐level (residual)</td><td align="left">.679</td><td align="left">.609</td><td align="left">.678</td><td align="left">.669</td><td align="left">.607</td><td align="left">.598</td><td align="left">.607</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Class‐level (intercept)</td><td align="left">.028</td><td align="left">.031</td><td align="left">.028</td><td align="left">.028</td><td align="left">.031</td><td align="left">.025</td><td align="left">.027</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prestige</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.007</td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: The variance components in the null model were.680 at the student level (residual) and.037 at the class level (intercept). 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. <sups>†</sups> Indicates <emph>p</emph> < .10, * indicates <emph>p</emph> < .05; ** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .01; *** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .001. A Bonferroni correction would suggest a stricter <emph>α</emph> = .007.</item> <item>3 TABLE Multilevel model predicting students' perceptions of emotional engagement in the spring.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Level 1</th><th align="left">Level 2</th></tr><tr><th align="left">M1 covariates</th><th align="left">M2 BFQ</th><th align="left">M3 NRF</th><th align="left">M4 social network</th><th align="left">M5 all Level 1</th><th align="left">M6a prosocial norms</th><th align="left">M6b disruptive norms</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fixed effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="left">3.53 (.09)***</td><td align="left">3.53 (.09)***</td><td align="left">3.53 (.09)***</td><td align="left">3.51 (.09)***</td><td align="left">3.50 (.09)***</td><td align="left">3.43 (.09)***</td><td align="left">3.48 (.09)***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Covariates</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 6 (compared to 5)</td><td align="left">−.20 (.13)[−.45,.06]</td><td align="left">−.20 (.13)[−.45,.06]</td><td align="left">−.20 (.13)[−.45,.06]</td><td align="left">−.19 (.13)[−.44,.07]</td><td align="left">−.19 (.13)[−.45,.06]</td><td align="left">−.04 (.14)[−.31,.23]</td><td align="left">−.12 (.14)[−.39,.15]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Friendships (L1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Best friend quality (BFQ)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.27 (.04)***[.19,.35]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.26 (.04)***[.18,.34]</td><td align="left">.26 (.04)***[.18,.34]</td><td align="left">.26 (.04)***[.18,.34]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">N Reciprocated friends (NRF)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.03 (.04)[−.05,.11]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Network centrality</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.19 (.04)***[.11,.28]</td><td align="left">.15 (.04)**[.06,.23]</td><td align="left">.15 (.04)**[.06,.23]</td><td align="left">.15 (.04)**[.06,.23]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Network Prestige</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">−.09 (.04)*[−.17, −.01]</td><td align="left">−.12 (.04)**[−.20, −.4]</td><td align="left">−.12 (.04)**[−.20, −.04]</td><td align="left">−.12 (.04)**[−.20, −.04]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Peer group norms (L2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Descriptive norms (DN)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.11 (.09)[−.06,.27]</td><td align="left">.07 (.09)[−.11,.25]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Popularity norms (PN)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.16 (.07)*[.02,.29]</td><td align="left">−.10 (.08)[−.26,.05]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Variance components</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐level (residual)</td><td align="left">1.26</td><td align="left">1.19</td><td align="left">1.26</td><td align="left">1.23</td><td align="left">1.17</td><td align="left">1.17</td><td align="left">1.17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Class‐level (intercept)</td><td align="left">.119</td><td align="left">.122</td><td align="left">.119</td><td align="left">.119</td><td align="left">.122</td><td align="left">.091</td><td align="left">.115</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>: The variance components in the null model were 1.26 at the student level (residual) and.123 at the class level (intercept). 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. * Indicates <emph>p</emph> < .05; ** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .01; *** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .001. A Bonferroni correction would suggest a stricter <emph>α</emph> = .007.</item> <item>4 TABLE Multilevel model predicting students' perceptions of adaptive help‐seeking in the spring.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Level 1</th><th align="left">Level 2</th></tr><tr><th align="left">M1 covariates</th><th align="left">M2 BFQ</th><th align="left">M3 NRF</th><th align="left">M4 social network</th><th align="left">M5 all level 1</th><th align="left">M6a prosocial norms</th><th align="left">M6b disruptive norms</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic> (SE)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fixed effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="left">3.75 (.06)***</td><td align="left">3.76 (.06)***</td><td align="left">3.75 (.06)***</td><td align="left">3.74 (.06)***</td><td align="left">3.75 (.06)***</td><td align="left">3.68(.06)***</td><td align="left">3.72(.06)***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Covariates</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grade 6 (compared to 5)</td><td align="left">−.24 (.09)**[−.41, −.06]</td><td align="left">−.24 (.09)*[−.41, −.06]</td><td align="left">−.24 (.09)**[−.41, −.06]</td><td align="left">−.23 (.09)*[−.41, −.05]</td><td align="left">−.23 (.10)*[−.41, −.05]</td><td align="left">−.10 (.09)[−.27,.07]</td><td align="left">−.18 (.12)[−.36,.004]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Friendships (L1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Best friend quality (BFQ)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.26 (.04)***[.18,.33]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.25 (.04)***[.18,.32]</td><td align="left">.25 (.04)***[18,.32]</td><td align="left">.25 (.04)***[.18,.32]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">N Reciprocated friends (NRF)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.03 (.04)[−.04,.10]</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Network centrality</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.15 (.04)***[.08,.23]</td><td align="left">.10 (.04)**[.03,.18]</td><td align="left">.10 (.04)*[.03,.18]</td><td align="left">.10 (.04)*[.03,.18]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Network prestige</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">−.07 (.04)*[−.15, −.002]</td><td align="left">−.10 (.04)**[−.17, −.03]</td><td align="left">−.10 (.04)**[−.17, −.03]</td><td align="left">−.10 (.04)**[−.17, −.03]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Peer group norms (L2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Descriptive norms (DN)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.11 (.07)[−.02,.24]</td><td align="left">.05 (.09)[−.12,.22]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Popularity norms (PN)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.12 (.04)**[.04,.21]</td><td align="left">−.08 (.05)[−.18,.02]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Variance components</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐level (residual)</td><td align="left">.932</td><td align="left">.873</td><td align="left">.932</td><td align="left">.914</td><td align="left">.861</td><td align="left">.863</td><td align="left">.861</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Class‐level (intercept)</td><td align="left">.039</td><td align="left">.042</td><td align="left">.038</td><td align="left">.038</td><td align="left">.042</td><td align="left">.018</td><td align="left">.036</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note</emph>: The variance components in the null model were.932 at the student level (residual) and.05 at the class level (intercept). 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. * Indicates <emph>p</emph> < .05; ** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .01; *** indicates <emph>p</emph> < .001. A Bonferroni correction would suggest a stricter <emph>α</emph> = .007.</item> <item>5 TABLE Comparison of beta's and R 2 for models including only level 2 descriptive norms and popularity norms separately.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Descriptive norms</th><th align="left">Popularity norms</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Beta</th><th align="left">Total <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> (%)</th><th align="left">Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> (%)</th><th align="left">Beta</th><th align="left">Total <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> (%)</th><th align="left">Δ<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Prosocial behaviour norms</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavioural engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">35</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotional engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">.15*</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adaptive help‐seeking</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="char" char=".">42</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">.11*</td><td align="char" char=".">48</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disruptive behaviour norms</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavioural engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">35</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotional engagement</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">6</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adaptive help‐seeking</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">−.07</td><td align="char" char=".">30</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>: For each outcome, the total variance at level 2 (i.e., <emph>τ</emph><sups>2</sups>) in the null model was:.037 for behavioural engagement,.123 for emotional engagement and.05 for adaptive help‐seeking (see Tables 2–4). Total <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> reflects the total variance at level 2 explained by both grade‐level and behaviour norms, while Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> was computed as the percentage of additional variance explained associated with behaviour norms. *<emph>p</emph> < .05.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-18">Behavioural engagement</hd> <p>Sixth graders reported lower behavioural engagement than fifth graders (<emph>b</emph> = −.22, <emph>p</emph> = .004, 95% CI [−.37, −.07]). Higher quality best friendships were associated with higher behavioural engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .28, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.22,.34]) and this explained 10% of the variance at level 1. In contrast, the quantity of adolescents' reciprocated friendships was unrelated to behavioural engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .05, <emph>p</emph> > .05, 95% CI [−.01,.11]). Therefore, we removed reciprocated friendships from the final level 1 model with network position so that these effects could interpreted independently from one another. Next, we found that centrality was positively associated with behavioural engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .12, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.05,.18]) whereas prestige was not related (<emph>b</emph> = −.001, <emph>p</emph> > .05, 95% CI [−.06,.06]). Social network position explained 1% of the variance in students' behavioural engagement. Finally, we found that allowing the slope for best friendship quality (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>) = 3.507, <emph>p</emph> = .03) and prestige (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) = 2.174, <emph>p</emph> = .114) to vary across classrooms improved model fit. The marginal <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the level 1 model was.12, indicating that the overall proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects was 12%.</p> <p>The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated that 5% of the variance in students' behavioural engagement could be attributed to differences across classrooms. When descriptive and popularity norms were examined separately, neither were associated with students' behavioural engagement. Prosocial descriptive norms explained more variance in behavioural engagement than descriptive norms for disruptive behaviour. Whereas prosocial and disruptive popularity norms explained equal variance (see Table 5). We found only one trending cross‐level interaction between prestige and prosocial popularity norms (<emph>b</emph> = .06, <emph>p</emph> = .093, 95% CI [−.01,.12]; see Figure 1). In classrooms where prosocial behaviour is associated with popularity, prestige is unrelated to behavioural engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .03, <emph>p</emph> = .45, 95% CI [−.05,.12]). Whereas, in classrooms with low prosocial popularity norms, prestige is negatively related to behavioural engagement (<emph>b</emph> = −.10, <emph>p</emph> = .03, 95% CI [−.18, −.01]). The multilevel model that examined descriptive and popularity norms simultaneously indicated that there was a marginally significant and negative association between disruptive popularity norms and behavioural engagement, such that when disruptive peers are also highly popular, this is associated with lower behavioural engagement for everyone (<emph>b</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> = .070, 95% CI [−.16,.01]). The marginal <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the final model containing prosocial and disruptive peer group norms was.13 and.12, respectively. This indicates that the overall proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects was 13% and 12%.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec25/bjep12770-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12770-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Association between prestige and behavioural engagement by classroom prosocial popularity norms. The interaction plot was generated from one of the imputed datasets; Prestige was standardized within classrooms and 95% confidence bands are identified on the plot. Simple slopes analysis showed the slope of prestige was significant at −1 SD below the mean, b = −.10, p = .03. See the online article for a colour version of this figure." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133032-20">Emotional engagement</hd> <p>Adolescents with higher quality best friendships also reported higher emotional engagement in math and science (<emph>b</emph> = .27, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.19,.35]). This explained 8% of the variance at level 1. The quantity of adolescents reciprocated friendships was unrelated to their emotional engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .03, <emph>p</emph> > .05, 95% CI [−.05,.11]) and therefore we removed this from the final models. Examining students' social network position, we found that centrality was positively associated with emotional engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .19, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.11,.28]) whereas prestige was negatively associated (<emph>b</emph> = −.09, <emph>p</emph> = .035, 95% CI [−.17, −.01]) and together, these explained 2% of variance at level 1. Finally, we did not find that random slopes improved model fit for any of the aspects of friendship experience. The marginal <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the level 1 model was.07, indicating that the overall proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects was 7%.</p> <p>The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated that 9% of the variance in students' emotional engagement could be attributed to differences across classrooms. At level 2, the models examining descriptive and popularity norms separately for emotional engagement indicated that only prosocial popularity norms were positively associated with engagement (<emph>b</emph> = .15, <emph>p</emph> = .03, 95% CI [.02,.29]) and they explained 17% of the level 2 variance in adolescents' emotional engagement in math and science. Thus, they were the strongest predictor compared to prosocial descriptive norms (8%), as well as disruptive norms (3%–5% variance explained). The same pattern was found when peer group norms were included simultaneously with students' friendship experiences. The marginal <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the final model containing prosocial and disruptive peer group norms was.09 and.08, respectively. This indicates that the overall proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects was 9% and 8%.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-21">Adaptive help‐seeking</hd> <p>Students in sixth grade reported lower levels of adaptive help‐seeking compared to fifth graders (<emph>b</emph> = −.24, <emph>p</emph> = .009, 95% CI [−.41, −.06]). Having a higher quality best friendship was positively related to adaptive help‐seeking (<emph>b</emph> = .26, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.18,.33]) and this explained 6% of the variance at level 1. However, the quantity of adolescents' reciprocated friendships was unrelated to adaptive help‐seeking (<emph>b</emph> = .03, <emph>p</emph> > .05, 95% CI [−.04,.10]), which we removed from subsequent models. Regarding social network position, we found centrality to be positively associated with adaptive help‐seeking (<emph>b</emph> = .15, <emph>p</emph> < .001, 95% CI [.08,.23]) and prestige was negatively associated (<emph>b</emph> = −.07, <emph>p</emph> = .042, 95% CI [−.15, −.002]). Together, network positions explained 2% of the variance in adolescents' adaptive help‐seeking at level 1. Finally, we found that allowing the association between prestige and adaptive help‐seeking to vary across classrooms improved model fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>) = 1.813, <emph>p</emph> = .163). The marginal <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the level 1 model was.09, indicating that the overall proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects was 9%.</p> <p>The intraclass correlation coefficient indicated that 4% of the variance in students' adaptive help‐seeking could be attributed to differences across classrooms. At level 2, the models examining descriptive and popularity norms separately for adaptive help‐seeking indicated that only prosocial popularity norms were positively associated with adaptive help‐seeking (<emph>b</emph> = .12, <emph>p</emph> = .026, 95% CI [.04,.21]). Moreover, these norms explained 26% of the variance in adaptive help‐seeking behaviour, which is slightly greater than prosocial descriptive norms (20%), and greater than both peer group norms for disruptive behaviour. The same pattern was found when peer group norms were included simultaneously with students' friendship experiences. The marginal R<sups>2</sups> for the final model containing prosocial and disruptive peer group norms was.11 and.09, respectively. This indicates that the overall proportion of variance explained by the fixed effects was 11% and 9%. Although the prestige slope for adaptive help‐seeking varied across classrooms, none of the cross‐level interactions with peer group norms were significant.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-22">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Developing friendships is a priority for adolescents (Hartup, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>]) and decades of research underscore the importance of these peer relationships for how students feel about and participate in school (Berndt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]; Bukowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]). While the mere presence of a friend at school can incur academic benefits (Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref82">68</reflink>]), how youth experience and access support to leverage these benefits is complex. This study draws on multiple theoretical perspectives to investigate adolescents' friendships as embedded within classroom peer groups to elucidate the conditions in which friendships support (or undermine) engagement. Specifically, we found that not all forms of social support are equal, and each plays a distinct role in explaining differences in students' engagement and help‐seeking. Results also highlight a variety of ways that highly prosocial popular peers contribute to classroom contexts that are conducive to engagement.</p> <p>First, confirming hypothesis 1a, our findings are in line with much prior work demonstrating the importance of students' subjective perceptions of social support (Furrer & Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]; King, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). Students who report higher levels of engagement (like interest and effort in class) and peer help‐seeking also report higher best friendship quality, which means they believe their best friend is someone they can talk to, get help with schoolwork and who makes them feel good. We also expected that the quantity of students' reciprocated friendships would be positively related to their engagement and help‐seeking because (a) reciprocity indicates a stronger affective bond and (b) a greater quantity might confer belonging in the peer group (Vaquera & Kao, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref85">63</reflink>]). However, this hypothesis (1b) was not supported. Relying on a sum quantity might mask differences between individual friendships that could be important for students' academic engagement. One recent study examined differential power dynamics within close friendships and found that within‐person differences in friendship dominance were related to increased psychological distress (Schacter et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref86">53</reflink>]). To better understand the possibility of mixed provisions of support in students' friendships, future research might ask students to rate the positive and negative qualities <emph>of each friend</emph> to investigate within and between person associations with academic engagement.</p> <p>Another relevant consideration is that much of the current work demonstrating the importance of friendship reciprocity occurs within broader peer groups who share the same grade‐level (e.g., Lessard & Juvonen, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>]; Wentzel & Caldwell, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref88">70</reflink>]) or who might be friends outside of school (Aikins et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>]). Whereas this study focused exclusively on classroom friendships. In classrooms, students are often introduced to new peers as a product of teachers' seating arrangements and grouping practices (Hoekstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]). Outside of the classroom, students have more choice in who they hang out with, or share things with, such that reciprocity likely plays a more active role shaping adolescents' peer groups. Thus, more work is needed to understand the specific qualities and functions of friendship reciprocity within the context of classrooms.</p> <p>We examined students' centrality and prestige in their classroom network to disaggregate their friendship experience into classmates who students see as their friends (i.e., centrality) and how much each student is selected by their peers as friends (i.e., prestige). While hypothesis 2 was exploratory, we found that across all engagement outcomes, centrality tended to be positively associated with engagement, whereas the association between prestige and engagement was null to negative. The limited prior work on students' social network position has found the social profiles of prestigious youth to be more positive than central youth (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>]; Andrews et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]). There are several reasons why this study suggests an opposite pattern wherein centrality affords academic benefits.</p> <p>First, centrality in this study is made up of outgoing friendships, which reflects the personal meaning that adolescents ascribe to their friendship choices. Students who are highly central are thought to have greater power and control over the available resources in the network, such as information and support (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>]; Spadafora et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref94">60</reflink>]). Our findings suggest that this position is positively related to students' engagement and help‐seeking.</p> <p>Second, this benefit might have been observed because it is most proximal to how students perceive themselves, whereas prior research examining the social profiles of these youth focused instead on how central youth are perceived by peers (Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>]; Andrews et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>]). Among adolescents, van Rijsewijk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref97">62</reflink>]) asked students to identify who in class they would ask for help, and they found that centrality within this type of network demonstrated weak positive associations with achievement. The weak association might suggest that access to help from peers does not translate into immediate gains in achievement, but nevertheless, centrality can have positive implications for their classroom engagement.</p> <p>In contrast, students who held a more prestigious position in their friendship networks also reported lower levels of engagement and adaptive help‐seeking with peers. Although one explanation might be that social attention from peers detracts from their classroom engagement, this study is cross‐sectional. It is also plausible that this negative association pertains to the qualities that students deem attractive for their friend selection, which have been found to change across development. A study among children in 1st to 3rd grade found that students with greater academic resources (e.g., motivation) also received more friendship nominations (Qi et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref98">48</reflink>]). Whereas a study among adolescent learners (5th to 8th grade) found that students who demonstrated moderate levels of disruptive behaviour occupied the most prestigious position in the classroom network (Spadafora et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref99">60</reflink>]). This suggests that negative social behaviour attracts attention from classmates, especially in adolescence. Moreover, this pattern is in line with our finding that prestige is negatively associated with academic engagement.</p> <p>Yet, this association may not be uniformly negative. Consistent with hypothesis 4, we also observed one trending cross‐level interaction that demonstrated when prosocial behaviour is not valued, such as in classrooms with low popularity norms, then prestigious youth also report lower levels of behavioural engagement. However, in classrooms with average to high prosocial popularity norms, youth's higher prestige does not undermine behavioural engagement. Thus, there are both contextual and developmental nuances that are relevant for understanding how prestige relates to students' engagement. This aligns with the body of literature that investigates differences in behaviours that are associated with popularity (e.g., Dijkstra & Gest, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref100">19</reflink>]; McKellar et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref101">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>As classroom friendships are embedded within the larger peer climate, we additionally considered the role of peer group norms. Surprisingly, descriptive norms tended to explain less variance in students' academic adjustment than popularity norms and this was especially true for disruptive behaviours. This disconfirms hypothesis 3 and contrasts with one previous study, which found descriptive norms for aggressive behaviour to have the strongest impact on students' perceptions of the peer climate compared to popularity norms (Laninga‐Wijnen et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref102">37</reflink>]). One reason for this difference might be that their study focused on physical and verbal aggression, which is a more severe and harmful behaviour than what we examined in this study.</p> <p>We also found that prosocial popular peers play an important role in shaping classroom contexts that are conducive to engagement. Two direct effects showed that when prosocial behaviour is highly valued and rewarded with popularity, this is related to higher emotional engagement and adaptive help‐seeking with peers for everyone. Although we expected that popularity norms might matter the most for students at the extremes of social status, we only found this to be the case for behavioural engagement (which was higher at greater levels of prestige). Instead, our findings suggest that popular peers have a more widespread effect on their classmates' academic adjustment. Together, our findings demonstrate differential patterns in how descriptive and popularity norms relate to students' academic adjustment. Given multiple ways that peer group norms can be operationalized, including differences in content and intensity (e.g., disruptive compared aggressive), more work is needed to develop interventions that will have the greatest impact (Veenstra & Lodder, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref103">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-23">Strengths, limitations and future directions</hd> <p>This study has several theoretical and methodological strengths. First, most prior research focuses on peer relationships separately, for example, by focusing on either friends or popular peers. Yet, these peer relationships coexist and might have competing or shared influences. Our study combined multiple types of peer relationships, with friends, classmates and popular peers, to investigate not only their unique associations with academic engagement, but how they interact. We were also able to compare the effect sizes, which showed that best friend quality and popularity norms tended to explain more differences in engagement. In part, the strength of the effect for best friend quality might be inflated due to shared method variance. Nevertheless, it is a strength that this study used both self‐report and peer nominations.</p> <p>Along with these strengths, there are limitations that warrant attention. First, students' engagement was self‐reported, and our results may not be generalizable to observer ratings of classroom engagement. Findings are also cross‐sectional, which does not reflect the changing dynamics of adolescents' peer groups (Meter & Card, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref104">45</reflink>]). How much students feel a sense of relatedness and connection with peers can also vary day‐to‐day, and these matter for students' school engagement and affect (McKellar & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref105">44</reflink>]; Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]). There is much to learn about friends by using repeated measures to differentiate between daily interactions compared to the qualities of dyadic relationship partners. Additionally, longitudinal data is better suited to determine whether social networks effect engagement or vice versa, as it is possible that having numerous friendships could be a source of support or distraction (like the negative associations we observed with social prestige). Finally, some of our findings did not meet a stricter criterion for significance using a Bonferroni correction and thus should be interpreted with caution and require replication in future research with larger samples.</p> <p>Although this study considered multiple friendship experiences, we did not examine the specific mechanisms by which academic engagement was affected. Future research might consider how centrality is associated with specific friendship provisions by including measures of peer relatedness (e.g., 'when I am with my friends, I feel a lot of closeness...'; Zimmer‐Gembeck et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref107">73</reflink>]) as well as access to academic support (e.g., 'my classmates try to make this class interesting'; Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref108">69</reflink>]) or expectations (e.g., 'my classmates want me to share my ideas and materials with them'; Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref109">71</reflink>]). These possible mediating mechanisms would better capture the kinds of social capital that central youth might leverage from friends. Additionally, the null association between reciprocated friendships and engagement suggests that reciprocity in <emph>classroom</emph> friendship nominations is not a substitute for perceived closeness. Combining these network measures with individual perceptions of relatedness would be informative.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-24">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This study investigated multiple types of friendship experiences embedded within classroom peer group norms. Surprisingly, we found that positive academic engagement and adaptive help‐seeking behaviours were not contingent on friendship reciprocity. Rather, students reported greater engagement and help‐seeking based on the quality of their best friendship, along with their network centrality. In other words, students who identified many classmates as their friend, and considering how well‐connected those students were to their classmates in turn. Students who occupied prestigious positions, on the other hand, reported less emotional engagement and adaptive help‐seeking. We found little evidence that peer norms undermined the benefits of friendship for classroom engagement. However, when popularity norms favoured prosocial behaviour, this was protective for prestigious youth, where having high prestige (being highly desired as a friend) did not detract from behavioural engagement. Prosocial popularity norms were also related to higher average emotional engagement and adaptive help‐seeking across classrooms. Our results suggest that teachers can support students' classroom engagement by introducing students to new peers with whom they can develop friendships and by directing their attention to popular peers' prosocial behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-25">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Jessica E. Kilday:</bold> Conceptualization; methodology; software; data curation; investigation; formal analysis; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; validation. <bold>Allison M. Ryan:</bold> Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; project administration; resources; supervision; investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-26">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the Spencer Foundation awarded to Allison M. Ryan. The funding sponsor had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, nor the decision to submit the article for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-27">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0189133032-28">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data available on request by emailing the corresponding author.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0189133032-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref43" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This article is based on the dissertation completed by Jessica Kilday (2023) at the University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref76" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> We conducted sensitivity analyses to determine if our results were robust to differences in how centrality and prestige were calculated (see Supporting Information). In the sensitivity model, outdegree centrality was also positively associated with engagement, but only when other friendship experiences were not accounted for. Additionally, the effect of indegree prestige on behavioural engagement did not vary across classrooms.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189133032-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ahn, H.‐J., & Rodkin, P. C. (2014). Classroom‐level predictors of the social status of aggression: Friendship centralization, friendship density, teacher–student attunement, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (4), 1144 – 1155. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aikins, J. W., Bierman, K. L., & Parker, J. G. (2005). Navigating the transition to junior high school: The influence of pre‐transition friendship and self‐system characteristics. Social Development, 14 (1), 42 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9507.2005.00290.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, N. C. Z. (2020). Prestigious youth are leaders but central youth are powerful: What social network position tells us about peer relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49 (3), 631 – 644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐019‐01080‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, N. C. Z., McDowell, H., Spadafora, N., & Dane, A. V. (2021). Using social network position to understand early adolescents' power and dominance within a school context. School Psychology, 37 (6), 445 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref22" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Antonopoulou, K., Chaidemenou, A., & Kouvava, S. (2019). Peer acceptance and friendships among primary school pupils: Associations with loneliness, self‐esteem and school engagement. Educational Psychology in Practice, 35 (3), 339 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2019.1604324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref66" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bagwell, C. L., & Bukowski, W. M. (2018). Friendship in childhood and adolescence: Features, effects, and processes. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 371 – 391). Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref72" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed‐effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1 – 48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497 – 529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.117.3.497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development, 53 (6), 1447 – 1460. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (1), 7 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends' influence on adolescents' adjustment to school. Child Development, 66 (5), 1312 – 1329. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boor‐Klip, H. J., Segers, E., Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2017). The moderating role of classroom descriptive norms in the association of student behavior with social preference and popularity. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37 (3), 387 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615609158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butts, C. T. (2020). sna: Tools for social network analysis. R package version 2.6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brass, N. R., Hung, C., Stephen, T., Bergin, C., Rose, C., & Prewett, S. (2024). Student's and classmates' prosocial behavior predict academic engagement in middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53 (12), 2789 – 2800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐024‐02027‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bukowski, W. M., Motzoi, C., & Meyer, F. (2008). Friendship as a process, function, and outcome. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 217 – 231). Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chávez, D. V., Palacios, D., Laninga‐Wijnen, L., Salmivalli, C., Garandeau, C. F., Berger, C., & Luengo Kanacri, B. P. (2024). Do adolescents adopt the prosocial behaviors of the classmates they like? A social network analysis on prosocial contagion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 54 (1), 17 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐024‐02037‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daumiller, M., & Hemi, A. (this special issue). Peer relationships and student motivation: Theoretical and methodological approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. British Journal of Educational Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawes, M., Sterrett, B. I., Norwalk, K. E., Farmer, T. W., & Hamm, J. V. (2021). Teachers' perceptions of middle schoolers' social concerns: Strategies and barriers to supporting students' social success. Social Psychology of Education, 24, 465 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐021‐09622‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dijkstra, J. K., & Gest, S. G. (2015). Peer norm salience for academic achievement, prosocial behavior, and bullying: Implications for adolescent school experiences. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35 (1), 79 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614524303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engels, M. C., Phalet, K., Gremmen, M. C., Dijkstra, J. K., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Adolescents' engagement trajectories in multicultural classrooms: The role of the classroom context. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 69, 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Dawes, M., Barko‐Alva, K., & Cross, J. R. (2019). Promoting inclusive communities in diverse classrooms: Teacher attunement and social dynamics management. Educational Psychologist, 54 (4), 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1635020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out‐of‐school contexts: A multidimensional view of engagement. Theory Into Practice, 50 (4), 327 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A. (2014). Eight myths of student disengagement: Creating classrooms of deep learning (p. xvi, 255). Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 148 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.95.1.148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grund, S., Robitzsch, A., & Luedtke, O. (2021). mitml: Tools for multiple imputation in multilevel modeling. R package version 0.4‐3. https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=mitml</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamm, J. V., Schmid, L., Farmer, T. W., & Locke, B. (2011). Injunctive and descriptive peer group norms and the academic adjustment of rural early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31 (1), 41 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610384486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67 (1), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131681</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoekstra, N. A. H., van den Berg, Y. H. M., Lansu, T. A. M., Mainhard, M. T., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2023). Teachers' goals and strategies for classroom seating arrangements: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 124, 104016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosan, N. E., & Hoglund, W. (2017). Do teacher–child relationship and friendship quality matter for children's school engagement and academic skills? School Psychology Review, 46 (2), 201 – 218. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr‐2017‐0043.v46‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well‐being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24 (4), 330 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.0993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabenick, S. A., & Gonida, E. N. (2017). Academic help seeking as a self‐regulated learning strategy. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation of learning and performance (pp. 421 – 433). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, B. T., & Enders, C. K. (2017). Blimp user's manual (version 2.2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78 (4), 1186 – 1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2007.01060.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kindermann, T. A. (2016). Peer group influences on students' academic motivation. In K. Wentzel & G. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts (pp. 31 – 47). Routledge Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769929.ch3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, R. B. (2015). Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement, and well‐being: A latent growth model study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 26 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laninga‐Wijnen, L., Ryan, A. M., Harakeh, Z., Shin, H., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2018). The moderating role of popular peers' achievement goals in 5th‐ and 6th‐graders' achievement‐related friendships: A social network analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (2), 289 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laninga‐Wijnen, L., van den Berg, Y. H. M., Mainhard, T., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2021). The role of aggressive peer norms in elementary school children's perceptions of classroom peer climate and school adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 1582 – 1600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐021‐01432‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lessard, L. M., & Juvonen, J. (2019). Cross‐class friendship and academic achievement in middle school. Developmental Psychology, 55 (8), 1666 – 1679. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lessard, L. M., & Juvonen, J. (2020). Engagement norms buffer academic risks associated with peer rejection in middle school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46 (3), 0165025420915779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420915779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linnenbrink‐Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in education: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (2), 228 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216644450</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, W., Li, H., Baek, E., Chen, S., Lam, K. H., & Semma, B. (2021). Reporting practice in multilevel modeling: A revisit after 10 years. Review of Educational Research, 91 (3), 311 – 355. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321991229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, M. P., & Cappella, E. (2015). Conceptualizing academic norms in middle school: A social network perspective. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35 (4), 441 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614535093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKellar, S. E., Ryan, A. M., Messman, E. A., Brass, N. R., & Laninga‐Wijnen, L. (2021). Teachers' emphasis on mastery goals moderates the behavioral correlates of coolness in early adolescent classrooms. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 67 (2), 203 – 235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKellar, S. E., & Wang, M.‐T. (2022). Adolescents' daily sense of school connectedness and academic engagement: Intensive longitudinal mediation study of student differences by remote, hybrid, and in‐person learning modality. Learning and Instruction, 83, 101659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101659</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meter, D. J., & Card, N. A. (2016). Stability of children's and adolescents' friendships: A meta‐analytic review. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 62 (3), 252 – 284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, C. M., Hofmann, V., Begert, T., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018). Peer influence on disruptive classroom behavior depends on teachers' instructional practice. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 99 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children's friendship relations: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (2), 306 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.117.2.306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qi, H., Mikami, A. Y., & Owens, J. S. (2022). Associations between cross‐racial friendships and children's social and academic adjustment in racially diverse classrooms. Child Development, 93 (5), 1427 – 1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, A. J. (2002). Co‐rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73 (6), 1830 – 1843.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. S. (2012). Changes in help seeking from peers during early adolescence: Associations with changes in achievement and perceptions of teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 1122 – 1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, A., North, E., & Ferguson, S. (2019). Peers and engagement. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students (pp. 73 – 86). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self‐determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schacter, H. L., Hoffman, A. J., & Ehrhardt, A. D. (2023). The power dynamics of friendship: Between‐ and within‐ person associations among friend dominance, self‐esteem, and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52, 1206 – 1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐023‐01763‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, A., Dirk, J., & Schmiedek, F. (2019). The importance of peer relatedness at school for affective well‐being in children: Between‐ and within‐person associations. Social Development, 28 (4), 873 – 892. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2017). Friend influence on early adolescent disruptive behavior in the classroom: Teacher emotional support matters. Developmental Psychology, 53 (1), 114 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 (3), 493 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Vollet, J. W., & Rickert, N. P. (2022). Complex social ecologies and the development of academic motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 2129 – 2165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐022‐09714‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spadafora, N., Al‐Jbouri, E., McDowell, H., Andrews, N. C. Z., & Volk, A. A. (2021). Be a little rude, but not too much: Exploring classroom incivility and social network position in adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 42, 2724316211058074. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316211058074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stotsky, M. T., & Bowker, J. C. (2018). An examination of reciprocal associations between social preference, popularity, and friendship during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47 (9), 1830 – 1841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐018‐0846‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Rijsewijk, L. G. M., van, Oldenburg, B., Snijders, T. A. B., Dijkstra, J. K., & Veenstra, R. (2018). A description of classroom help networks, individual network position, and their associations with academic achievement. PLoS One, 13 (12), e0208173. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaquera, E., & Kao, G. (2008). Do you like me as much as I like you? Friendship reciprocity and its effects on school outcomes among adolescents. Social Science Research, 37 (1), 55 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., & Kreager, D. A. (2018). Pathways, networks, and norms: A sociological perspective on peer research. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 45 – 63). Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veenstra, R., & Lodder, G. M. A. (2022). On the microfoundations of the link between classroom social norms and behavioral development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46 (5), 453 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221100228</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, J. H., & Kiefer, S. M. (2020). Joint implications of teachers and classroom peers for adolescents' aggression and engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 71, 101199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Way, N., Gingold, R., Rotenberg, M., & Kuriakose, G. (2005). Close friendships among urban, ethnic‐minority adolescents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005 (107), 41 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (2), 195 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.96.2.195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35 (3), 193 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68 (6), 1198 – 1209. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2017). Peer and teacher supports in relation to motivation and effort: A multi‐level study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 32 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups: Individual–group similarity and the social "misfit". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (3), 523 – 536. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.50.3.523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmer‐Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage‐environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29 (6), 911 – 933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jessica E. Kilday and Allison M. Ryan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref109"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1488394
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Connecting Engagement to Classroom Friendships and Popular Peers' Prosocial Behaviour
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jessica+E%2E+Kilday%22">Jessica E. Kilday</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8025-7679">0000-0002-8025-7679</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Allison+M%2E+Ryan%22">Allison M. Ryan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2025 95(4):1080-1099.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Friendship%22">Friendship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Status%22">Social Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Help+Seeking%22">Help Seeking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Groups%22">Peer Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Attitudes%22">Social Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12770
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: There are many ways to leverage support from friendships, and it is important for how students engage with learning in the classroom. Further, friendships are embedded within the larger classroom peer group, which might have different norms for prosocial or disruptive behaviour. Few studies have examined how friends support or deter engagement within the context of competing influences from classmates and popular peers. Aims: This study investigated how early adolescents' classroom friendships were related to their engagement (behaviour, emotion and peer help-seeking). Moreover, whether these associations depended on classmates' and popular peers' behavioural norms. Sample: Participants were 824 fifth and sixth graders (52% girls, 48% boys, 43% White, 30% Black, 6% Hispanic, 6% Asian and 16% multiracial or other) from 46 classrooms in the United States. Methods: We used multilevel modelling to examine the associations between students' friendship experiences (best friend quality, reciprocated friendships, social network centrality and prestige), peer group norms (prosocial and disruptive) and students' engagement. Results: Results showed that the quantity of reciprocated friendships was unrelated to all three types of engagement. However, engagement was positively associated with best friendship quality and with friendship centrality (i.e., being well-connected to many friends). Students' prestige, or being highly desired as a friend, did not diminish behavioural engagement when popularity norms favoured prosocial behaviour. Conclusions: Findings suggest not all aspects of friendship experiences are equal. For engagement, it is important for students to feel like they have friends in class and to draw attention to the prosocial behaviour of popular peers.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1488394
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1488394
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12770
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 1080
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Friendship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Help Seeking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Connecting Engagement to Classroom Friendships and Popular Peers' Prosocial Behaviour
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jessica E. Kilday
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Allison M. Ryan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1