Researchers at the University of Virginia, led by psychologist Joseph Allen, recruited 184 thirteen-year-olds from public middle schools in suburban and urban areas of the southeastern United States and followed them for ten years, gathering information directly from the teens themselves along with their peers and parents. At age 13, the researchers asked each teen to nominate up to ten classmates they would most want to spend a Saturday night with, a standard way of measuring peer-perceived popularity. The teens who scored highest on that measure tended to share a specific profile: early romantic involvement, minor delinquent behavior, and a strong preference for spending time with peers who were considered physically attractive, a pattern the researchers called pseudomature behavior. Allen and his colleagues, Megan Schad, Barbara Oudekerk, and Joanna Chango, published the results in the journal Child Development in 2014.
What happened next is the part of the study that has kept getting cited. The apparent social advantage did not hold. As the researchers followed these once-popular teens into their early twenties, the pattern reversed. Peers began rating the formerly cool teens as less competent at managing relationships, not more. Compared with their less-cool classmates from middle school, they reported more significant problems with alcohol and drugs and were more likely to have engaged in criminal behavior. Allen’s explanation was that the behaviors that won attention at 13, acting a little older, a little edgier, a little more grown-up than the situation called for, kept needing to escalate to hold that same audience as adolescence went on, pulling some of these teens toward more serious versions of the same behavior by the time they reached their twenties.
This finding lines up with a separate body of research that draws a sharper line between two things that get lumped together under the single word popularity. Developmental psychologist Antonius Cillessen and colleagues have spent years studying the distinction between what researchers call sociometric popularity, meaning how genuinely well liked a person is by their peers, and perceived popularity, meaning how visible, dominant, or high-status they appear within the group. The two overlap heavily in early adolescence and diverge as adolescence goes on. A research review tracking this literature reports that Cillessen and Mayeux’s own longitudinal data found the two measures correlating strongly, around 0.70, in fifth grade, with that correlation weakening over the following four years to around 0.30 for boys and turning slightly negative for girls. In plain terms, the well-liked kids and the high-status kids start out mostly being the same kids, and by high school they are often not.
The Artful Age
A weekly letter on aging well, family across generations, and the creative life after the kids leave home.
Psychologist Mitch Prinstein, whose research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has focused heavily on this same distinction, has argued that likability and status point toward different long-term outcomes. In his synthesis of the research, likability, being the kind of person others enjoy being around and trust, is associated with better outcomes decades later across work, relationships, and general well-being. Status, the kind of popularity built on visibility, influence, and being seen as important within a group, shows a much weaker and sometimes negative association with those same long-term outcomes, which fits closely with what Allen’s decade-long study found happening to a real group of formerly cool teens.
The behaviors underlying likability, in Prinstein’s account, are fairly ordinary rather than mysterious. Across the studies he reviews, the trait that shows up most consistently in genuinely well-liked people, at any age, is a basic pattern of prosocial behavior: sharing attention rather than dominating it, cooperating instead of competing for position, and generally not treating other people as an audience. Status-seeking behavior tends to run in something close to the opposite direction, prioritizing being noticed over being trusted. Neither pattern is inherently about being extroverted or introverted. A quiet person can be deeply liked, while the loudest person in a group can command attention without inspiring much affection at all.
That distinction also explains why popularity can look so different from the inside. Perceived popularity is public and immediately visible: who gets invited, who sets the tone, whose approval other people seem to want. Likability is less theatrical. It exists in the number of people who feel safe around someone, trust them with private information, or leave an interaction feeling better rather than smaller. The first produces obvious social signals; the second is often revealed only over time.
Allen’s study does not mean that every socially dominant thirteen-year-old is headed for addiction, criminality, or failed relationships. The sample was relatively small, and the researchers were examining a specific cluster of pseudomature behaviors rather than popularity in every form. Many teenagers who are highly visible or romantically active grow into perfectly healthy adults. The finding was narrower: when early status depends on appearing older, riskier, and more sophisticated than one’s peers, the qualities that create that status may become liabilities as everyone else catches up.
At thirteen, breaking a minor rule can look daring. At twenty-three, the same need to prove fearlessness may require a much larger risk. Early romantic experience can look sophisticated when few classmates have it; several years later, when relationships require patience, trust, and emotional steadiness, simply having started earlier offers little advantage. A performance that succeeds because it is ahead of schedule eventually stops being impressive once the rest of the group reaches the same stage.
The broader lesson is not that unpopular teenagers secretly win in the end, or that adolescent status never matters. Social rejection can cause real harm, and being accepted by peers is an important part of development. It is that there are at least two very different ways to be accepted. One is built by making people notice you. The other is built by making people feel that you notice them.
At thirteen, those two abilities can look almost identical. Both may produce invitations, influence, and a crowded Saturday night. But as adolescence gives way to adulthood, they begin to separate. Attention has to be repeatedly recaptured, often through an increasingly dramatic performance. Trust accumulates more quietly. The teenagers who appeared coolest were briefly ahead at playing the social game in front of them. The teenagers who learned how to be liked were developing skills for a much longer one.