https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219838973 Gifted Child Quarterly 1–16 © 2019 National Association for Gifted Children Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0016986219838973 journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq Feature Article Developmental Significance of Peer Status Success in the social world is not universal. Some youth adeptly navigate the peer system, while others experience significant social difficulties. Peer status is an index of comparative social standing among peers that researchers have long used to reflect a “majority opinion” of how posi- tively or negatively an individual is regarded by the peer group. The construct of peer status emerges from the peer relations literature as a reliable marker of social success and difficulty as well as an indicator of future risk and resil- iency (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). While measures of likeability and acceptance sufficiently capture peer sta- tus in childhood, the transition into adolescence requires measures of peer status to also capture reputation, power, and prestige, attributes often distinct from being well-liked (Cillessen & Marks, 2011). While interest in the social development and adjustment of gifted youth is not new (see Neihart, Pfeiffer, & Cross, 2016; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002), peer status is an understudied topic in the gifted field despite its importance as a context for under- standing individual differences. The aim of the present study is to expand the current understanding of the social experiences of academically gifted youth by examining two types of peer status (preference-based and reputation- based) and their distinct associations with adjustment dur- ing adolescence. Preference-Based Peer Status. Historically, the gold standard for measuring peer status employs a peer nomination meth- odology to assess each individual’s likeability by having peers nominate classmates for a positive (e.g., “like the most”) and/or negative (e.g., “liked the least”) interpersonal criterion (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). Nominations received for liking (e.g., acceptance) and disliking (e.g., rejection) are summed and used to create a category (e.g., rejected, popular, controversial, neglected, and average) or a continuous index of peer status (acceptance, rejection, social preference) that reflects a consensus view provided by the peer group for each student (Rubin et al., 2006). Children who are disliked by peers and have low preference-based 838973GCQ XX X 10.1177/0016986219838973Gifted Child QuarterlyPeairs et al. research-article 2019 1 Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Corresponding Author: Kristen F. Peairs, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Box 90086, Durham, NC 27708-0086, USA. Email: kf2@duke.edu From A (Aggression) to V (Victimization): Peer Status and Adjustment Among Academically Gifted Students in Early Adolescence Kristen F. Peairs 1 , Martha Putallaz 1 , and Philip R. Costanzo 1 Abstract Peer status is an important indicator and predictor of adjustment. While gifted children tend to enjoy favorable peer status, their social functioning during adolescence is less clear. The current study seeks to enhance this understanding by examining both preference- and reputation-based peer status of gifted adolescents. Peer nominations were used to assess the peer status, aggression, victimization, and prosocial leadership of 327 public school seventh graders (44% male; 42% White). School records provided giftedness information, course grade, and standardized test scores, and substance use was self-reported. Gifted students were viewed as less aggressive and more prosocial and had higher academic achievement than nonidentified students. Giftedness moderated the peer status–adjustment relationship. Rejection related to higher victimization and test scores, but these associations were most exaggerated for gifted students. Popularity positively related to aggression and substance use; however, the associations were greatly attenuated for gifted students. Findings underscore the heterogeneity of gifted adolescents’ social experiences. Keywords peers, social/emotional, adolescents, academically gifted, path analysis