User:Satellite 13/sandbox

Wikipedia article.

Comprehensive Theories
To date only one comprehensive theory of interpersonal popularity has been proposed: that of A. L. Freedman in the book Popularity Explained. The 3 Factor Model proposed attempts to reconcile the two concepts of sociometric and perceived popularity by combining them orthogonally and providing distinct definitions for each. In doing so, it reconciles the counter intuitive fact that liking does not guarantee interpersonal popularity nor does interpersonal popularity guarantee being well liked.

“Popularity Explained”
Popularity Explained was first published as a blog before being converted to a book and various versions have been available on Amazon since 2013. Before the blog it was a university assignment.

Conceptual Foundations
There are four primary concepts that Popularity Explained relies on.

1. Liking and attraction are not the same. The interpersonal feeling of “liking” is not the same as “attraction” and that both are responsible for different human behaviours. The neurological evidence of this comes from the research of Kent C. Berridge and his incentive salience model. Popularity Explained extrapolates the conclusions of this research and applies it to human-human interpersonal interactions.

2. A hierarchy of interpersonal attraction exists in all social groups. Popularity Explained develops a very broad definition of interpersonal “attraction” asserting that it is based on a multitude of different factors but primarily those of: socioeconomic status; interpersonal similarity; physical appearance; and efficacy. It proposes the concept of a “Hierarchy of Attraction” which, in simple terms, is just a stylized bell curve that illustrates how attractive people are relative to each other in terms of a percentile.

3. Interpersonal attraction (in the broadest sense) results in Input of Energy. Input of Energy is the interpersonal actions that an individual takes, consciously and unconsciously, when they experience an interpersonal attraction. Examples of Input of Energy given in the book include: attempts at physical proximity; changes in verbal communications; changes to non-verbal communication; biased interpersonal judgements; cognitive intrusion; and helping behaviour.

4. Sociometric and perceived popularity are correlated but not equivalent. By combining these two concepts, Popularity Explained defines eight prototypical student types that can be plotted on a single graph.

The 3 Factor Model
According to Freedman, an individual's place in the social landscape is determined by a combination of three factors: what they are; who they are; and the situation. 1. What refers to all those aspects of a person that are objective: participation in sports, physical appearance, etc. Perceived popularity is primarily the result of what a person is. It is mediated by Input of Energy combining with the Hierarchy of Attraction. This preferential receipt of Input of Energy by a select few is what propels them to the “popular” side of Figure 2.5.

2. Who refers to the personality of the individual and how they treat other people. It is this factor that is responsible for determining where a student sits along the “liking” and “disliking” dimensions of Figure 2.5. The more pro-social an individual, the more they will be liked.

3. The Situation refers to the circumstances that an individual finds them self in. Different circumstances may result in different social outcomes. For example, the same student may be perceived as popular when in the social context of their church youth group but unpopular within the social context of their school as a whole.

Utility and Criticisms
The three factor model can explain many contradictory findings in the sociological and psychological literature. For example: 1. Why is the use of interpersonal aggression socially damaging to some and not to others? 2. Why is popularity so closely related to school? 3. Why is popularity an international and cross-generational phenomenon?

The primary criticism according to Amazon reviews is that the book is too heteronormative and over focuses on "boy / girl" relations.