In plain language
If being kind and cooperative is the key to friendship, why do so many antisocial people seem socially successful? Drawing on resource control theory — the idea that people use both prosocial and antisocial (coercive) strategies to win social resources like friendships — this study followed 2,803 Australian students every year from grade 8 through grade 12. Each year the researchers measured antisocial behavior (aggression, rule breaking), prosocial behavior (cognitive and affective empathy), peer-nominated close friendships, and wellbeing (mental health and self-esteem).
Statistical clustering of students' joint trajectories identified four stable profiles: non-strategic (low on both), bi-strategic (moderately high on both antisocial and prosocial behavior), prosocial (low antisocial, high prosocial), and antisocial (very high aggression and rule breaking). The "dark side" had real upsides in junior high: bi-strategic youth attracted the most close friendship nominations from the opposite sex of any group, and even antisocial youth were preferred by the opposite sex over non-strategic youth. But those advantages faded by senior high, when bi-strategic youth lost roughly one full opposite-sex friendship nomination — possibly because peers eventually detect their more aversive behaviors.
The dark side also carried costs. Bi-strategic youth reported relatively low wellbeing, and this cost was significantly more pronounced for females. Prosocial youth were the only group who maintained both high friendship numbers and high wellbeing across all of high school. The findings suggest that mixing coercion with kindness can pay off socially in the short term, but being genuinely prosocial is the more durable strategy.
Key findings
- Four stable behavior profiles emerged across five years: non-strategic, bi-strategic (high on both antisocial and prosocial behavior), prosocial, and antisocial (very high aggression and rule breaking).
- In junior high (grades 8–10), bi-strategic youth received the most opposite-sex close friendship nominations of any profile, for both males and females.
- The bi-strategic advantage disappeared in senior high: from junior to senior high, bi-strategic youth lost approximately one full opposite-sex friendship nomination.
- In same-sex friendships, prosocial youth received the most nominations of any profile; bi-strategic youth never out-performed prosocial youth, and antisocial never out-performed non-strategic youth.
- Bi-strategic youth experienced relatively low wellbeing, and this psychological cost was significantly stronger for females than males.
- Prosocial youth were the only group to maintain both high friendship numbers and high wellbeing throughout high school.
How to cite
APA
Ciarrochi, J., Sahdra, B. K., Hawley, P. H., & Devine, E. K. (2019). The upsides and downsides of the dark side: A longitudinal study into the role of prosocial and antisocial strategies in close friendship formation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 114. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00114
BibTeX
@article{ciarrochi2019upsides,
author = {Ciarrochi, Joseph and Sahdra, Baljinder K. and Hawley, Patricia H. and Devine, Emma K.},
title = {The Upsides and Downsides of the Dark Side: A Longitudinal Study Into the Role of Prosocial and Antisocial Strategies in Close Friendship Formation},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
year = {2019},
volume = {10},
pages = {114},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00114}
}
Related work
- All publications by Joseph Ciarrochi (searchable, with free PDFs)
- Process-Based Therapy & Idionomic Analysis
Author: Joseph Ciarrochi (ORCID 0000-0003-0471-8100). Free copy hosted with permission for scholarly use. Please cite the published version via the DOI above.