{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026623376623376622, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.613733905579399, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Aggression, Exclusivity, and Status Attainment in Interpersonal Networks

This paper engages two core ideas: first, that status mobility is facilitated through connectivity, or having a large number of ties to others, as suggested by theories of social capital and social networks; and second, that aggression is an expressive or irrational reaction to frustrations, humiliations, or social pathologies. In contrast, I argue that in certain contexts, both of these propositions are reversed: status is attained through selective bridging rather than high network connectivity, and aggression is instrumental for social climbing, particularly when it is directed toward high status, aggressive, or socially close targets. The argument is expected to hold only in contexts that are small (in terms of the number of participants), bounded (in terms of the ease and frequency with which they are entered and exited), and flat (in terms of formal hierarchy). Data from a longitudinal survey of adolescents combined with information from their high school yearbooks provide a unique opportunity to test these propositions, which are supported. High connectivity decreases the likelihood of attaining high status, while selective bridging increases it. Status is further enhanced by reputational, as opposed to physical, aggression, and decreased by victimization. Moreover, aggression toward aggressive, high status, or socially close peers provide additional status boosts. These effects hold regardless of the extent to which status is desired.