General aim: Bullying perpetration is widely recognized as maladaptive (Farrington, 2012; Holt et al., 2015; Ttofi et al., 2011, 2012) and in recent years, research on bullying has been dedicated to understand the role of social status in the peer group for bullying involvement. Even though bullies are not usually liked by their peers (e.g. Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), research suggest that bullies are perceived as popular (Reijntjes et al., 2013; Sentse et al., 2015; van der Ploeg et al., 2020), which reflects a high social standing in the peer hierarchy. However, the existing literature is overwhelming with respect to distinctive aspects of social status and distinctive forms of bullying perpetration, which is why this meta-analysis synthesizes existing prospective research on social outcomes of bullying perpetration, specifically popularity, acceptance, and rejection among peers. The aim of this work is thus to summarize the field and identify important gaps in the existing literature. Background: From an evolutionary perspective, a high status in the group is beneficial as it enables one to obtain and maintain resources (e.g. Hawley et al., 2008). Bullying peers may be an effective way to form a group hierarchy, similar to other species in which a “pecking order’ is formed, because bullies demonstrate their strengths by engaging in aggressive behaviors and their dominant position may prevent them from becoming bullied themselves (Archer & Benson, 2008). Established hierarchies prevent ongoing power battles and facilitate group stability (Zwaan et al., 2013). It seems plausible that affiliation with peers who bully might be beneficial, which is reflected in high popularity ratings. Not only might bullies be popular, bullying can also be seen as a strategy to achieve popularity. That is, bullying perpetration might come with positive consequences such as visibility, admiration, and a central position in the classroom (de Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006), and in this way, indeed, an increase in popularity (Reijntjes et al., 2013; Sentse et al., 2015; van der Ploeg et al., 2020). In contrast to positive associations between bullying and popularity, it is assumed that bullying comes at the cost of one’s likeability as bullies are usually not well liked by their peers (Hafen et al., 2013). Peer acceptance (being liked) and rejection (being disliked) represent affection and belongingness (Sentse et al., 2015), and, as such, are very different constructs to popularity. There is evidence that prosocial and cooperative behavior – which is diametrically opposed to bullying – is associated with higher levels of likeability (van den Berg et al., 2014). Indeed, some studies found evidence that bullies are usually more disliked and rejected by their peers than non-involved children (Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003), though this does not seem to be universally the case (Pozzoli & Gini, 2020; Salmivalli et al., 1996). Our understanding of the prospective associations between bullying perpetration and social status is still not complete and overwhelming considering the different constructs of social status. Moreover, those different constructs of social status – popularity, acceptance, and rejection – have rarely been reviewed together in one study, signifying the importance of giving an overview of the present state of empirical research. For this purpose, we will focus on popularity, acceptance, and rejection as distinctive indicators of social status. In addition to reviewing studies that examined acceptance and rejection, we also include studies on “social preference” as a fourth outcome measure. This concept is usually obtained by measuring the difference between nominations for being liked and disliked. Importantly, the benefits of bullying perpetration might not be attainable for those who are also victimized by their peers. Bully-victims are a different group compared to bullies and those non-involved in bullying (Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2013). Whereas bullies are seen as proactive and strategic in their use of aggression (e.g. Sutton et al., 1999), bully-victims are often impulsive and high in reactive aggression which may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining a high social status (Guy et al., 2017). Indeed, bully-victims are even more rejected and less accepted compared to ‘pure’ bullies (e.g. Veenstra et al., 2005) and are not popular (Guy et al., 2019). Bullying status, i.e., with and without victimization, will thus be tested as moderator. Finally, associations between bullying and popularity have primarily been found in adolescent samples. During adolescence the importance of the peer group and social status increases (Ojanen & Salmivalli, 2005) and popularity is prioritized over likeability (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). In other words, popularity is thus particularly important in adolescence and less so in childhood (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). This might mean that associations between bullying and popularity are more strongly positive in adolescence but less strongly positive, neutral or even negative in childhood. Developmental period, i.e., childhood versus adolescence, will thus also be tested as moderator. Herein after we will refer to bullies as those who are involved in ‘pure’ bullying-perpetration and to bully-victims as those who are involved in bullying perpetration-victimization.