Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Preadolescent Cliques Patricia A. Adler

19 Pages·2007·0.47 MB·English

DynamicsofInclusion and Exclusion inPreadolescentCliques
PatriciaA.Adler;PeterAdler
SocialPsychologyQuarterly,Vol.58,No.3.(Sep.,1995),pp.145-162.
StableURL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-2725%28199509%2958%3A3%3C145%3ADOIAEI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
SocialPsychologyQuarterlyiscurrentlypublishedbyAmericanSociologicalAssociation.
YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceofJSTOR'sTermsandConditionsofUse,availableat
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html.JSTOR'sTermsandConditionsofUseprovides,inpart,thatunlessyouhaveobtained
priorpermission,youmaynotdownloadanentireissueofajournalormultiplecopiesofarticles,andyoumayusecontentin
theJSTORarchiveonlyforyourpersonal,non-commercialuse.
Pleasecontactthepublisherregardinganyfurtheruseofthiswork.Publishercontactinformationmaybeobtainedat
http://www.jstor.org/journals/asa.html.
EachcopyofanypartofaJSTORtransmissionmustcontainthesamecopyrightnoticethatappearsonthescreenorprinted
pageofsuchtransmission.
JSTORisanindependentnot-for-profitorganizationdedicatedtoandpreservingadigitalarchiveofscholarlyjournals.For
moreinformationregardingJSTOR,[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
FriMar3010:24:052007
Social Psychology Quarterly
1995. Vol. 58. No. 3. 145-162
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion
in Preadolescent Cliques*
PATRICIA A. ADLER
University of Colorado
PETER ADLER
University of Denver
A critical structural form organizing the social arrangement of children's lives is the clique.
This primary group colors the character of children's preadolescent years and shapes their
socialization to adult life. In this paper we draw on longitudinal participant observation and
on depth interviews with advanced elementary-school children to explore the central feature
of clique dynamics: the techniques of inclusion and exclusion. Cliques are circles of power
wherein leaders attain and wield influence over their followers by cyclically building them
up and cutting them down, first drawing them into the elite inner circle and allowing them
to bask in the glow of popularity and acceptance, and then reducing them to positions of
dependence and subjugation by turning the group against them. We conclude by discussing
the generic features of these inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics, the characteristics of
this cyclical pattern, the implications of this socializing experience for the broader societal
dynamics of power and manipulation, and the kind of in-grouplout-group dzfferentiation that
can lead to prejudice and discrimination.
One of the dominant features of children's offering individuals the opportunity to form
lives during the later elementary school years close friendships of their own choosing (Elkin
(fourth through sixth grades) is the popular- and Handel 1989), to learn about society, to
clique structure that organizes their social practice their behavior, and to evolve their
worlds. The fabric of their relationships with selves and identities. Autonomous from the
others, their levels and types of activity, their world of adults (Fine 1981), they are often
participation in friendships, and their feelings forged in opposition to adult values (Elkin
about themselves are tied to their involvement and Handel 1989), with a culture of resistance
in, around, or outside the cliques organizing to adult standards (Corsaro 1985). Thus they
their social landscape. Cliques are basically represent a robust form of children's peer
friendship circles, encompassing a high like-
culture that is unique in its own right, and yet
lihood that members will identify each other
at the same time is a staging ground for future
sociometrically as mutually connected (Halli-
adult behavior.
nan 1979; Hubbell 1965; Peay 1974). Yet
The research on cliques is cast within the
cliques are more than that: they have a
broader literature on elementary-school chil-
hierarchical structure, being dominated by
dren's friendship groups. One group of such
leaders, and are exclusive, so that not all
works examines independent variables that
individuals who desire membership are ac-
can influence the character of children's
cepted. They function as bodies of power
friendship groups. These include studies
within grades, incorporating the most popular
focusing on the way children clump together
individuals, offering the most exciting social
into racial groups (Criswell 1937; Schofield
lives, and commanding the most interest and
1981; Singleton and Asher 1977), into
attention from classmates (Eder and Parker
class-stratified groups (Coleman 1961; Gor-
1987). As such they represent a vibrant
don 1957; Hollingshead 1949), and into
component of the childhood experience.
gender-segregated groups (Berentzen 1984;
Studying popular cliques offers vital socio-
Best 1983; Goodwin 1990; Hallinan 1979;
logical insight because these groups mobilize
Lever 1976; Thorne 1993; Thorne and Luria
powerful forces that produce important effects
1986).
on individuals. They are primary groups,
Other studies in this group look at the
influence of structural characteristics of class-
* A modified version of this paper was presented at the
rooms and schools, such as size or organiza-
annual meetings of the American Sociological Associa-
tion, held in Los Angeles in August 1994. tion (Dawe 1934; Gump and Friesen 1964;
146 SOCIAL PSYCHOL. OGY QUARTERLY
Hallinan 1979; Wicker 1969), how students' bias engendered by in-group toward out-
shared interests create bonds (Cusik 1973), group members (Hamilton and Gifford 1976;
and the influence of weak social skills (the Sherif et al. 1961; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel et al.
social skill deficit hypothesis) (Asher and 1971). This notion is tied to the contact
Renshaw 1981; Gottman, Gonso, and Ras- hypothesis, namely that lack of contact leads
mussen 1975; Kinney 1993; Oden and Asher people to assume that out-group members are
1977; Putallaz and Gottman 1981) on chil- different and undesirable (Allen and Wilder
dren's ability to form and be accepted into 1979). This is opposed by two hypotheses:
friendship groups. the similarity theory, that contact under
Yet another cluster of research within this favorable conditions will dissipate in-group1
genre employs sociometric measures to inves- out-group hostility and will lead to friendship
tigate the characteristics of friendship circles. (Homans 1950), and the idea that some
Asking children to identify schoolmates they contact may make relations even worse than
liked or disliked, researchers generated mod- they had been in the abstract (Perlman and
els of reciprocal choice. These studies Oskamp 1971; Schofield 198 1; Triandis and
examine the number, size, exclusiveness, and Vassilou 1967). Looking internally at groups
stability of children's friendship groups as social svstems. studies have shown that
(Glidewell et al. 1966; Hallinan 1979) as well contact with both competing out-groups and
as their sociometric exclusion, or social unpopular individual children can help in-
isolation, and its negative consequences groups to define their behavior boundaries
(Asher, Oden, and Gottman 1977; Gronlund and make them more cohesive (Allen 1981;
1959; Hymel and Asher 1977; Roff, Sells, Best 1983; Sherif et al. 1961).
and Golden 1972). A third group of studies examines the
Although the term clique is used occasion- behavioral dynamics associated specifically
ally in this literature, its definition differs with cliques. Corsaro (198 1, 1985) explored
from the way we use it here. These previous the origins of cliques in a preschool; he noted
scholars considered cliques as fundamentally that among the children he observed, conflicts
equivalent to friendship groups, and identified developed between others' attempts to be
from four to eight per grade level. That usage included in their play space and these
lacks the feature of exclusiveness, whereby children's resistance to those intrusions. Joint
only one clique dominates the upper status play thus formed the basis for friendship
rung of a grade and is identified by members groups that included some children and
and nonmembers alike as the "popular excluded others. Best (1983) traced the
clique. We begin to see studies engaging development of cliques in an elementary
"I
the exclusivity feature in the research on school, following a group of boys and their
popularity, which incorporates the element of leaders through the early elementary grades
status stratification, such that members of and observing the progressive formation of
groups identified as popular are more likely to the "tent club," an exclusive group that
be true cliques. These studies focus primarily included the popular boys and made the
on identifying the features designed to foster others into outcasts.
popularity in children (Adler, Kless, and Researchers have also articulated the pres-
Adler 1992; Asher et al. 1977; Young and ence of behavioral cycles engendered by
Cooper 1944). cliques. Epperson (1963) examined how
A second body of literature examines the excluded individuals reacted with behaviors
features of children's inter- and intragroup that exacerbated their rejection, which led
relations. Thick barriers exist between groups them to redouble their offensive efforts and
of popular and unpopular children, keeping thus to cycle progressively further into
them firmly separated socially (Kinney 1993). unpopularity. Eder (1985) described the
Research on in-grouplout-group relations "cycle of popularity" characterizing popular
discusses the conflict, hostility, and possible middle-school girls, who reached their peak
popularity shortly after being accorded entry
I In contrast to the popular cliques, smaller, less to the popular group; thereafter their popular-
exclusive friendship circles can be found among the ity plummeted as a result of their abandon-
unpopular children (see Adler and Adler undated). ment of old friends, their failure to respond to
Although these circles would fit the characteristics of
friendly overtures by out-group members, and
sociometric groups, they cannot be considered true
cliques. their exclusive friendship with other popular
PREADOLESCI ENT CLIQUES 147
girls. Other girls' earlier admiration and children through the dynamics of inclusion
liking for them was replaced by dislike and and exclusion, showing the relationship of
disrespect. Blau (1964) proposed a cyclic these processes to the core features of cliques
model of small-group dynamics wherein identified above. We conclude by construct-
individuals inflate the talents, abilities, and ing a model of inclusionary and exclusionary
potential contributions they can offer a group dynamics of cliques, showing both the
in order to gain entry. Subsequently they interconnection of the factors and their effect
diminish themselves modestly by flaunting on clique members. We compare this model
their weaknesses, thereby reducing the com- with other images of clique behavior and
petitive status striving within the group and consider the implications of this form of
promoting social integrati~n.A~l l of these childhood socialization for adult society.
cycles involve downward progressions, two
through the actions of others and one by
METHODS
choice.
Although these studies are diverse in their In this paper we draw on data gathered
focus, they identify several features as central through longitudinal participant observation
to clique functioning without thoroughly and interviews with students in the upper
investigating their role and interrelation: grades (4 through 6) of elementary schools.
- -
boundarv maintenance and definitions of Over the course of seven years (1987-1994)
membership (exclusivity), a hierarchy of we observed and interacted with children both
popularity (status stratification and differen- inside and outside their schools. The children
tial power), and in-grouplout-group relations we studied came from seven uublic and five
(cohesion and integration). In this paper our private schools drawing on middle- and upper
goal is to investigate these dynamics and their middle-class neighborhoods (with a smatter-
association. and to add to these ~revious ing of children from lower socioeconomic
concerns an interest in how cliqueLl eaders areas) in a large, predominantly white univer-
generate and maintain their power and sity community with a population of around
authority (leadership, powerldominance) and 85,000. While conducting our research, we
what influences followers to comply so occupied several roles: parent, friend, counse-
readily with those leaders' demands (submis- lor, coach, volunteer, and carpooler (see Fine
sion). We offer a model of clique dynamics and Sandstrom 1988). We undertook these
that shows their connection to these critical diverse roles both as they presented them-
elements of clique functioning, and modifies selves naturally and as deliberate research
Eder's and Blau's earlier models of cyclic strategies; sometimes we combined the two as
behavior within cliques. Inclusionary dynam- opportunities for interacting with children
ics form the basis for the attraction of cliques; became available through familial obligations
exclusionary dynamics reinforce cohesion. or work/school requirements. As a research
Yet individuals experience these dynamics team, we are of different genders; thus we
cyclically: they are drawn (and redrawn) into could interact well with both boys and girls,
the inner circles of cliques and are treated and employ an array of roles and perspec-
positively, only to be relegated to the outer tives.
circles by dominating and exclusionary be- In interacting with children we tried to
haviors. These interactional models are not develop and expand on the "parental"
intended to describe all children's friendship research role by observing, casually convers-
groups-only those (consisting of one-quarter ing and interacting with, and interviewing
to one-half of the children) which embody children, children's friends, other parents,
this exclusive and stratified character. and teachers. This approach built on our
We begin by discussing the combination of natural parenting activities, contacts, inter-
longitudinal participant observation and depth ests, and style, taking us into locations and
interviews that we conducted with elemen- events populated by children. In this way, we
tary-school children. Then we follow the followed our generally "laissez-fairist" ap-
proach (Adler and Adler 1984). Thus at some
times we used our age, experience, and
Blau's model is based on small groups and is not
authority to make suggestions-and interdic-
addressed directly to children's cliques, but it resembles
tions, but more often we cast aside these
these other cyclical models and thus warrants mention
here. attitudes and demeanors and hung around
148 SOCIAL PSYCHO1, OGY QUARTERLY
with the children, getting involved in their main understanding of the setting and the
gossip and (mis)adventures. Most often we participants' behavior from our years of
interacted with children nonjudgmentally, participant observation with nearly 100 chil-
drawing on our own childhood experiences, dren of each gender, we augmented these data
and reduced our tendency to take responsibil- with more narrowly focused conversations
ity, give help, or make decisions. As a result, with children. We conducted in-depth un-
some children inquired why we were so structured interviews with approximately 40
knowledgeable about their scene, but more boys and girls from a variety of ages and
often than not children regarded us as "cool" social groups, selecting individuals from the
parents because we knew what was going on popular inner circles, the follower groups,
and because they could talk to us. Many of and the unpopular out- group^.^ Parents and
the children, and their parents as well, knew children with whom we had already talked
that we had written or were writing papers helped us with our research by referring new
about features of their experience, because we subjects to us, thus helping us to sample
discussed this subject openly when it came up theoretically (Glaser and Strauss 1967) for
in conversation at sporting, social, and school others in different situations.
events. The children we befriended relished We continued these snowball referrals
the role of' research subjects because it raised (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981) until we
their status in adults' eyes to that of believed we had covered the range of existing
"experts," whose lives were important and social roles and experiences and had reached
who were consulted seriously about various theoretical saturation. Then we conducted
matters. On our part, this role involved a interviews with seven selected teachers at
delicate balance between caring parents and three different elementary schools. In this
accepting friends. way we gained a broader overview of social
We did most of our research outside the cliques and their dynamics from individuals
schools. We followed our daughter and son, whose experiences were rooted more compar-
their friends and enemies, the children of our atively as a result of working with many
neighbors and friends, and other children we different groups of children over the years.
met through our involvement in youth leisure Throughout the data-gathering process we
activities through their school and out-of- engaged in continual inductive analysis
school experiences. Studying the circles to (Becker and Geer 1960), developing catego-
which our children belonged usually boosted ries and typologies of behavior that fit within
the research: we had a "membership role" these inclusionary and exclusionary stages
(Adler and Adler 1987) in the setting and and forging them into the broader generic
came naturally into contact with children and model we present in the conclusion.
their parents, we knew and interacted with
many of them over a period of years, and we
could triangulate (Denzin 1989) by observing TECHNIQUES OF INCLUSION
them, talking with them, and hearing about
Cliques maintained exclusivity through
them from others. Our children inadvertently
careful membership screening. Cliques are
obliged us by occupying or passing through
not static entities; they shifted irregularly and
different strata of the clique hierarchy: one
evolved their membership as individuals
consistently belonged to the popular group,
moved away or were ejected from the group
but the other moved between the popular, the
and others took their place. In addition,
follower, and the unpopular groups.
cliques were characterized by frequent group
Though most studies of children focus on
activities designed to foster some individuals'
institutionalized educational settings, we con-
inclusion while excluding others. They had
centrated on children's recreational settings,
embedded, although often unarticulated,
becoming involved in various after-school
modes of considering and accepting or
arenas such as organized youth sports,
extracurricular academic activities, and
neighborhood play. Although we derived our Many of these interviews (especially with the
younger children) were conducted with the mothers
present. The mothers reminded their children about
For a further discussion of methodological epistemo- forgotten past experiences and translated some of our
logical, and ethical issues associated with researching in ideas for the children into concrete situations involving
the parental role, see Adler and Adler (1996). specific people.
PREADOLESCENT CLIQUES 149
rejecting potential new members. These her, but Hope and I didn't like her, so we kicked
modes were linked to the leaders' critical her out. So then she went to the other clique, the
power in making vital group decisions. Margo clique.
Leaders derived power from their popularity
Timing was critical to recruitment. The
and used it to influence membership and
beginning of the year, when classes were
social stratification within the group. This
reconstructed and people were shuffled into
stratification manifested itself in tiers and
new social configurations, was the major time
subgroups within cliques, composed of peo-
when cliques considered new additions. Once
ple who were ranked as leaders, followers,
these alliances were set, cliques tended to
and wannabes (see Adler and Adler undated).
close their boundaries once again and to
Cliques embodied systems of dominance
socialize primarily within the group. Kara, a
whereby individuals with more status and
fifth-grade girl, offered her view:
power exerted control over others' lives.
They accomplished this by alternately apply- In the fall, right after school starts, when
ing the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion everyone's lining up and checking each other
to various people, both within and outside the out, is when people move up, but not during the
school year. You can move down during the
boundaries of the clique (see Elkin and
school year, if people decide they don't like
Handel 1989).
you, but not up.
Although people could play with friends
Recruitment
who were in different classes, getting together
As Blau (1964) noted in discussing small at lunch, at recess, and before and after
groups and organizations, initial entry into school, individuals in elementary school were
cliques often occurred at the invitation or bound more tightly to their classrooms than
solicitation of clique members. Those at the they would be when they reached middle or
center of clique leadership had the most junior high school (Hallinan 1979; Hansel1
influence over this process; they defined 1984). At the beginning of the year, individ-
potential members as acceptable or unaccept- uals separated from their key allies in their
able, and their definitions were followed by clique (often through conscious planning by
other members of the group. If clique leaders the school), assessed the new pool of eligibles
decided they liked someone, the mere fact of in their classes, and tried to recruit them into
their friendship with that person accorded him the clique (through what Rizzo 1989 called
or her status and membership in the group, as "friendship bid^").^
Eder (1985) noted in her study of popular Most individuals felt that an invitation to
middle-school girls. membership in the popular clique was irresist-
Potential new members also could be ible. They asserted repeatedly that the popular
brought to the group by established members group could get any people they wanted to
who had met and liked them. The leaders then join with them. One of the strategies used by
decided whether these individuals would be the cliques was to try to select new desirables
granted a probationary period of acceptance and seek them out. This usually entailed
in which they could be informally evaluated. separating those people from their established
If the newcomers were liked, they were friends. Melody, an unpopular fourth-grade
allowed to remain in the friendship circle; if girl, described her efforts to hold on to her
they were rejected, they were forced to leave. best friend, who was being targeted for
Alexis, a popular, dominant seventh-grade recruitment by the popular clique:
girl, reflected on the boundary maintenance
that she and her best friend, Hope, two clique She was saying that they were really nice and
stuff. I was really worried. If she joined their
leaders, had exercised in sixth grade:
group she would have to leave me. She was
Q: Who defines the boundaries of who's in or
over there and she told me that they were
who's out?
making fun of me, and she kind of sat there and
Alexis: Probably the leader. If one person might went along with it. So I kind of got mad at her
like them they might introduce them, but if one for doing that. "Why didn't you stick up for
or two people didn't like them, then they'd start
- --
to get everyone up. Like in sixth grade, there Davies (1982) observed that proximiry rather than
was Dawn Bolton and she was new. And the liking is often the most basic element in children's
girls in her class that were in our clique liked friendships.
SOCIAL PSYCHO1, OGY QUARTERLY
me?" She said, "Because they wouldn't like me was in the popular clique but not a central
anymore." member, application for clique entry was
accomplished more easily by individuals than
Melody subsequently lost her friend to the
by groups. He described how individuals
clique.
found routes into cliques:
When clique members wooed someone to
join them, they usually showed only the better It can happen any way. Just you get respected
side of their behavior. The shifts in behavior by someone, you do something nice, they start
associated with leaders' dominance and status to like you, you start doing stuff with them. It's
stratification activities did not begin until the like, you just kind of follow another person who
is in the clique back to the clique and he says,
new person was firmly committed to the
"Could this person play?" So you kind of go out
group. Julie recalled her inclusion in the
with the clique for a while and you start doing
popular clique, and its aftermath:
stuff with them, and then they almost like invite
In fifth grade I came into a new class and I knew you in. And then soon after, like a week or so,
nobody. None of my friends from the year you're actually in. It all depends. . . . But you
before were in my class. So I get to school a can't bring your whole group with you, if you
week late, and Amy comes up to me and she have one. You have to leave them behind and
was like, "Hi Julie, how are you? Where were just go in on your own.
you? You look so pretty." And I was like, wow,
Successful membership applicants often expe-
she's so nice. And she was being so nice for
rienced a flurry of immediate popularity be-
like, two weeks, kiss-ass major. And then she
cause their entry required clique leaders' ap-
started pulling her bitch moves. Maybe it was
proval, which gave them associational status.
for a month that she was nice. And so then she
had clawed me into her clique and her group,
and so she won me over that way, but then she Realignment of Friendships
was a bitch to me once I was inside it, and I
couldn't get out because I had no other friends. Status and power in a clique were related to
'Cause I'd gone in there and already been stratification; those who remained more
accepted into the popular clique, so everyone closely tied to the leaders were more popular.
else in the class didn't like me, so I had nowhere Individuals who wanted to be included in the
else to go.
inner circle often had to work regularly to
maintain or improve their position.
Eder (1985) also has noted that popular girls
are often disliked by unpopular people Like initial entry, this was sometimes
accomplished by people striving on their own
because of their exclusive and elitist manner
for upward mobility. Danny was brought into
(befitting their status).
the clique by Tim, a longtime member who
went out of his way to befriend him. Soon
Application after joining the clique, however, Danny
abandoned Tim when Jesse, the clique leader,
A second way in which individuals gain
took an interest in him. Tim discussed the
initial membership into a clique is through
feelings of hurt and abandonment caused by
actively seeking entry (Blau 1964). Several
this experience:
factors influence the likelihood that a person
I felt really bad, because I made friends with
will be accepted as a candidate for inclusion,
him when nobody knew him and nobody liked
as described by Darla, a popular fourth-grade
him, and I put all my friends to the side for him,
girl:
and I brought him into the group, and then he
Q: What about movement between cliques?
dumped me. He was my friend first, but then
Did you ever see people come up into being in Jesse wanted him. . . . He moved up and left me
the popular clique? behind, like I wasn't good enough anymore.
Darla: Coming in, it's really hard coming in, it's The hierarchical structure of cliques, and
like really hard, even if you are the coolest the shifts in position and relationships within
person. They're still like, "What is she doing?" them, caused friendship loyalties within these
(exasperated) You can't be too pushy, and like I
groups to be less reliable than they might
don't know, it's really hard to get in, even if
have been in other groups. People looked
you can. You just got to be there at the right
toward those above them, and were more
time, when they're nice, in a nice mood.
susceptible to being wooed into friendship
According to Brian, a fifth-grade boy who with individuals more popular than them-
PREADOLESCE NT CLIQUES 151
selves. When courted by a higher-up, they Clique members who were gaining in popu-
could easily drop their less popular friends. larity thus sometimes received special atten-
The stratification hierarchies in cliques tion. At the same time, leaders might try to
might motivate lower-echelon members to cut out their rivals' independent base of
seek greater inclusion by propelling them- support from other friends. Melanie, a
selves toward the elite inner circles, but fourth-grade girl, had occupied a second-tier
membership in these circles was dynamic; leadership position with Kristy, her best
active effort was required to sustain it. More friend. She explained what happened when
popular individuals also had to invest re- Denise, the clique leader, came in and tore
peated effort in their friendship alignments to apart their long-standing friendship:
maintain their central positions relative to
Denise split me and Kristy up. Me and Kristy
people just below them, who might rise and
used to be best friends but she hated that, 'cause
gain in group esteem. Efforts to protect
even though she was the leader, we were
themselves from potential incursions by popular and we got all the boys. She didn't want
others took several forms, including coopta- us to be friends at all. But me and Kristy were,
tion, position maintenance, realignment of like, getting to be a threat to her, so Denise
followers, and challenge to membership, only came in the picture and tore me and Kristy
some of which draw on inclusionary dynam- apart, so we weren't even friends. She made
i c ~ . ~ Kristy make totally fun of me and stuff. And
they were so mean to me.
Realignment of followers involved the
perception that other clique members were Clique leaders were able to undercut potential
gaining in popularity and status, and might challengers by coopting them and cutting
challenge the leaders' position. The leaders, them off from their bases of support. Thereby
however, instead of trying to hold them in they illustrated Simmel's (1950) concept of
place (position maintenance) or exclude them the tertius gaudens, the one who draws
from the group (membership challenge), advantage from the quarrels of others by
shifted their base of support: they incorpo- dividing and conquering.
rated lesser but still loyal members into their Julie's experiences illustrated how it felt to
activities, thereby replacing previous, prob- be the one realigned into the higher level of
lematic supporters with new ones. This popularity. She elaborated further on how
happened when Davey, a fifth-grade clique she, in the fifth grade, had been induced by a
leader, began to feel that Joe was becoming very dominant clique leader to drop her best
very popular in his clique, developing follow- friend:
ers who were loyal to him exclusively and not
Yeah, Amy tore me and Debby apart, 'cause I
to Davey. He stopped inviting Joe to his
still wanted to be Debby's friend and Amy was
house after school and to sporting events with
like, "She's a bitch, we don't want to be friends
his family, and began to play with other
with her. She's ugly, she's mean." And I was
clique members who were outside Joe's
like, "Yeah, you're right."
circle. This realignment pushed Joe and his
group out of the center of the clique, In friendship realignment, clique members
elevating Davey's new best friends to the top. abandoned previous friendships or destroyed
In cooptation, leaders diminished other existing ones in order to assert themselves as
members' threats to their position by drawing part of relationships with those in central
them into their orbit, thus increasing their positions. All of these actions were geared
loyalty and diminishing their independence. toward improving the instigators' position and
thus assuring their inclusion. The outcome,
whether anticipated or not, was often the
Position maintenance involved friendship stasis-the separation of people and the destruction of
opposite of friendship realignment-and required a their relationships.
conscious effort to hold the primary loyalty and
friendship of important clique members so that they
would not turn away from the leaders to potential rising Ingratiation
stars. Because this subject falls outside both inclusionary
and exclusionary dynamics, we do not discuss it here. In addition to being wooed into the elite
Challenge to membership involved an attack on rising
strata and breaking up friendships to consoli-
stars' popularity and power, accompanied by efforts to
ostracize them from the group. Because this dynamic is date or use power in the group, currying favor
exclus~onary,w e discuss ~t later in the paper. with people in the group was another dynamic
152 SOCIAL PSYCHOL, OGY QUARTERLY
of inclusion found in clique behavior. Like the leader's shifting tastes and whims if they
the previously described inclusionary endeav- were to maintain status and position in the
ors, ingratiation can be directed either upward group. Part of their membership work in-
(supplication) or downward (manipulation). volved a constant awareness of the leader's
Addressing the former, Dodge et al. (1983) fads and fashions, so that they could align
noted that children often begin their attempts their actions and opinions accurately with the
at entry into groups with low-risk tactics; current trends, in a timely manner (also see
rather than ingratiating themselves directly Eder and Sanford 1986).
with the leader, they first attempt to become The art of ingratiating oneself with a clique
accepted by more peripheral members. They was not practiced only upward, however.
elevate their gaze and their attempts at Besides outsiders' supplicating insiders and
inclusion only later. The children we ob- insiders' supplicating those of higher stand-
served did this as well, making friendly ing, individuals at the top had to consider the
overtures toward clique followers and hoping effects of their actions on their standing with
to be drawn by them into the center. More those below them. Although leaders did not
often, however, group members curried favor have to imitate their followers' style and
with the leader to enhance their popularity taste, they had to act so as to hold their
and obtain greater respect from other group adulation and loyalty. To begin this process,
members. One way of doing this was by people at the top made sure that those directly
imitating the group leaders' style and inter- below them remained firmly placed where
ests. Marcus and Andy, two fifth-grade boys, they could count on them. Any defection,
described how borderline people fawned on especially by the more popular members of a
their clique and its leader to try to gain clique, could threaten their standing. Leaders
inclusion: often employed manipulation to hold clique
members' attention and loyalty. Oswald et al.
Marcus: Some people would just follow us
(1987) noted that one way in which children
around and say, "Oh yeah, whatever he says,
assert superiority over others and obligate
yeah, whatever his favorite kind of music is, is
my favorite kind of music. " them with loyalty is to offer them "help,"
Andy: They're probably in a position where either materially or socially.
they want to be more in because if they like Another technique involved acting in dif-
what we like, then they think more people will ferent ways toward different people. Bill, a
probably respect them. Because if some people sixth-grade boy, recalled how the clique
in the clique think this person likes their favorite leader in fifth grade used this strategy to
group, say it's REM or whatever, so it's, say,
maintain his position of centrality:
Bud's [the clique leader's], this person must
know what we like in music and what's good
Mark would always say that Trevor is so
and what's not, so let's tell him that he can
annoying, "He is such an idiot, a stupid baby,"
come up and join us after school and do
and everyone would say, "Yeah, he is so
something.
annoying. We don't like him." So they would
Not only outsiders and peripherals fawned all be mean to him. And then later in the day,
Mark would go over and play with Trevor and
on more popular people. This was also
say that everyone else didn't like him, but that
common practice among regular clique mem-
he did. That's how Mark maintained control
bers, even those with high standing. Melanie,
over Trevor.
the second-tier fourth-grade girl mentioned
earlier, described how, in fear, she used to
Mark employed similar techniques of
follow the clique leader and parrot her
manipulation to ensure that all the members
opinions:
of his clique were similarly tied to him. Like
I was never mean to the people in my grade many leaders, he shifted his primary attention
because I thought Denise might like them and among the different clique members, so that
then I'd be screwed. Because there were some everyone enjoyed the power and status
people that I hated that she liked and I acted like associated with his favor. Then, when his
I loved them, and so I would just be mean to the followers were out of favor, they felt
younger kids, and if she would even say, "Oh relatively deprived and strove to regain their
she's nice," I'd say, "Oh yeah, she's really
privileged status. This process ensured their
nice!"
loyalty and compliance.
Clique members, then, had to stay abreast of To a lesser degree, clique members curried
:ENT CLIQUES 153
friendship with outsiders. Although they did outside their cliques, thus supporting their
not accept them into the group, they some- power and authority on the foundation of
times included them in activities and tried to others' subservience. These very techniques
influence their opinions. While the leaders fostered clique solidarity, however, because
had their in-group followers, lower-status members developed internal cohesion through
clique members could look to outsiders for their collective domination over others, and
respect, admiration, and imitation if they were tied to the leaders by their fear of
cultivated them carefully. This attitude and derision and exclusion by the leader-
this behavior were not universal, however, dominated group.
because some popular cliques were so dis-
dainful and so unkind to outsiders that
Subjugation of the Out-Group
nonmembers hated them. Diane, Jennifer,
and Alyssa, three popular junior high school When clique members were not being nice
girls who had gone to two different elemen- to outsiders to try to keep them from straying
tary schools, described how the grade school too far outside their influence, they largely
cliques to which they had belonged displayed subjected them to exclusion and rejection.
different relationships with individuals of Insiders were entertained by picking on these
lesser status: lower-status individuals. As one clique fol-
lower remarked, "One of the main things is to
Diane: We hated it if the dorks didn't like us and
keep picking on unpopular kids because it's
want us to be with them. 'Cause then we
weren't the popularest ones, 'cause we always just fun to do." Eder (1991) observed that this
had to have them look up to us, and when they kind of ridicule, in which the targets are
wouldn't look up to us we would be nice to excluded and are not encouraged to join in the
them. laughter, contrasts with teasing, in which
Jennifer: The medium people always hated us. friends make fun of each other in a more
Alyssa: They hated us royally and we hated lighthearted manner but permit the targets to
them back whenever they started.
remain in the group by also jokingly making
Thus, despite notable exceptions (as de- fun of themselves. Hilary, a fourth-grade
scribed by Eder 1985), many popular-clique clique leader, described how she acted toward
members strove from time to time to outsiders:
ingratiate themselves with people less popular Me and my friends would be mean to the people
than themselves, to ensure that their domi- outside of our clique. Like, Eleanor Dawson,
nance and adulation extended beyond their she would always try to be friends with us, and
own boundaries, throughout the grade. we would be like, "Get away, ugly."
Interactionally sophisticated clique mem-
bers not only treated outsiders badly, but
TECHNIQUES OF EXCLUSION
managed to turn others in the clique against
Individuals enhanced their own and others' them. Parker and Gottman (1989) observed
status by maneuvering into more central and that gossip is one way of doing this. Hilary
more powerful positions and/or recruiting recalled how she turned all the members of
others into such positions. These inclusionary her class, boys as well as girls, against an
techniques reinforced their popularity and outsider:
prestige while maintaining the group's exclu-
I was always mean to people outside my group
sivity and stratification. Yet the inclusionary
like Crystal, and Emily Fiore; they both moved
dynamics failed to contribute to other, schools. . . . I had this gummy bear necklace,
essential clique features such as cohesion and with pearls around it and gummy bears. She
integration, the management of in-group and came up to me one day and pulled my necklace
out-group relationships, and submission to the off . . .it was my favorite necklace, and I got all
clique's leaders. These features are rooted, of my friends, and all the guys even in the class,
along with other sources of domination and to revolt against her. No one liked her. That's
power, in the exclusionary dynamics of why she moved schools, because she tore my
gummy bear necklace off and everyone hated
cliques. Exclusionary techniques illuminate
her. They were like, "That was mean. She
how clique leaders enhanced their elite
didn't deserve that. We hate you."
positions by disdaining and deriding others
lower in the prestige hierarchy both inside and Turning people against an outsider solidi-