Social Status and Behaviour draft 22 Septeprints.qut.edu.au/1236/1/1236_1.pdfSocial Behaviour and...

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

1

Running Head: SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND PEER ACCEPTANCE

Walker, Sue (2004) Teacher reports of social behaviour and peer acceptance in early childhood:

Sex and social status differences. Child Study Journal 34(1):pp. 13-28.

Copyright 2004 Faculty of Applied and Professional Studies, State University College at

Buffalo

Teacher Reports of Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance in Early Childhood: Sex

and Social Status Differences

Sue Walker

Centre for Learning Innovation

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia


2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between sex, social

status and social behaviour in a sample of Australian preschool-aged children.

Social behaviour has emerged as an important predictor of social status for

children in middle childhood however, although early childhood may be an

optimum period for implementation of intervention programs, little is known

about the correlates of social status in the preschool years. Additionally,

relatively little research has addressed the issue of sex differences in the factors

that are associated with peer social status. Sociometric interviews were

conducted with 182 children (92 boys and 90 girls) four to five years of age

(mean age 62.4 months). Status groups of popular, rejected, neglected,

controversial and average children were identified according to criteria

established in previous research. Teachers provided an assessment of children’s

social behaviour, peer group entry skills and conflict resolution skills. Results

indicated that rejected children were less likely to engage in prosocial

cooperative behaviour than any other status group. Rejected children were also

rated as less successful overall than other groups in their group entry attempts,

but were not more likely to display aggressive or disruptive behaviour. Teachers

rated boys as more aggressive than girls and more likely to use aggressive or

disruptive strategies in group entry and conflict resolution. Results are discussed

in terms of the relevance of particular behavioural characteristics and social

skills to successful social functioning for preschool-aged boys and girls.

Key words: social behaviour, social status, teacher report, preschool children,

sex differences.


3

Teacher Reports of Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance in Early Childhood:

Sex and Social Status Differences

One of the major tasks of the early childhood years is to learn positive and

socially acceptable ways of interacting with others. As much of this learning occurs

within the context of the peer group, positive peer interactions make a substantial

contribution to children's social and emotional development. Relationships with peers

have significant importance in the lives of even very young children by allowing them

to experiment with roles and relationships and develop social cognitive and

behavioural skills (Asher, 1990; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993). Thus, peer groups are an

important arena within which children can learn positive ways of interacting with

others and the quality and quantity of such interactions may impact on children's later

social cognitive and behavioural competence (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990).

The role that positive peer relationships play in children's overall development

has drawn attention to the potential consequences of rejection from the peer group.

While most children are able to form positive and satisfying relationships with peers

and friends, for some, these relationships are fraught with difficulty. Positive peer

relationships at an early age have been increasingly linked to social competence and

acceptance throughout school (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Ladd, 1990; Ladd & Price,

1987) while poor peer relationships in childhood appear to be correlated with a variety

of negative outcomes including early school withdrawal, delinquency, substance abuse

and mental health problems (Asher, Oden & Gottman, 1977; Kupersmidt, Coie &

Dodge, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987; Woodward & Fergusson, 1999).

Because long term rejection by the peer group has been identified as a

contributing risk factor towards future negative outcomes, much effort has been


4

devoted to identifying the behavioural processes that are associated with successful, or

otherwise, social functioning within the peer group. Previous efforts to establish

distinctive behavioural styles amongst social status groups have revealed some broad

patterns of behaviour that appear important to peer social status. For example,

aggressive and disruptive behaviours have been found to be predictive of rejected

social status whereas prosocial, cooperative behaviours are associated with popularity

(Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb, Bukowski & Pattee, 1993). Neglected

children, who have low acceptance amongst their peers but who are not actively

disliked, are seen to be shy and withdrawn (Newcomb et al, 1993), while controversial

children, who are actively disliked yet enjoy high acceptance within the peer group,

display both cooperative, leadership behaviour and aggressive/ disruptive behaviour

(Coie & Dodge, 1983). Children of average social status have general but moderate

acceptance amongst their peers (Coie & Dodge, 1983; Coie, Dodge & Copotelli,

1982).

Overall, research with children in middle childhood has indicated that prosocial

behaviour and aggressive behaviour appear to be important predictors of peer social

status however, less is known about the correlates of rejection amongst children of

preschool age. It is likely that the social tasks which are important for children at

different ages, and the developmental appropriateness of their behaviour with respect

to these social tasks, will have an influence on the behavioural dimensions which

predict rejection or neglect. There is some evidence, for example, to suggest that

aggressive behaviour may not be as great a discriminator between status groups at

preschool age, when children are less skilled in conflict resolution, than it is in later

years (Dunn & McGuire, 1992; Walker & Irving, 1998). If intervention programs in

early childhood are to be successful then there is evidently a need to identify the


5

specific behavioural characteristics that are associated with social status in early

childhood.

The aim of the present study was, therefore, to examine the broad behavioural

patterns in terms of sociability or aggression that may be linked to social status with

respect to preschool boys and girls in Australia. On the basis of past research (e.g.,

Cantrell & Prinz, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1988; Pettit, Clawson, Dodge & Bates, 1996),

it was expected that more positive, prosocial behaviours would be exhibited by popular

children, that higher rates of aggression would be demonstrated by rejected children

and that neglected children may exhibit lower rates of interaction with their peers. It

was also expected that there would be sex differences in behaviour with girls

displaying more prosocial, cooperative behaviours and boys exhibiting more

aggressive and/or disruptive behaviours.

Along with broad patterns of behaviour, the results of past research with

children of primary school age have increasingly made evident the necessity of

focussing on the situational or contextual aspects of social interactions that may be

associated with successful social functioning within the peer group. Specific tasks

such as peer group entry (Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken & Delugach, 1983; Putallaz,

1983) and conflict management (Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997; Putallaz, Hellstern,

Sheppard, Grimes & Glodis, 1995) have been shown to be particularly effective in

identifying the specific behavioural patterns which may lead to successful outcomes

and competent social functioning.

Previous research has indicated that group entry behaviour may play a critical

role in determining subsequent peer acceptance. For example, popular children appear

to be able to make accurate perceptions of a group’s activity and exhibit behaviour

relevant to that activity (Putallaz, 1983). Unpopular children, on the other hand, are


6

more likely to make self-referent statements or to use strategies which are disruptive to

the group (Dodge et al., 1983; Putallaz, 1983). Sex differences also emerge in the

types of entry bids made and in their success rates. For example, girls appear less

likely to use disruptive approaches to group entry but, if they do, they are more likely

than boys to be rejected for this behaviour (Putallaz & Wasserman, 1989). Although

there may be increasing sophistication with age in the number and types of strategies

used, group entry appears to be a key social task for children of all ages. The present

study therefore, also sought to examine group entry strategies that might differentiate

between social status groups and between boys and girls at preschool age. It was

proposed that popular children would exhibit more competent group entry behaviour in

terms of using direct or group centred approaches more often and that unpopular

children would be more likely to use less competent, disruptive approaches. It was

also expected that boys would use less competent group entry strategies, such as

disruptive approaches, more frequently than girls. Also of interest were the relative

success rates of group entry attempts in terms of sex and social status.

Learning to manage conflict successfully is another key aspect of social

development in early childhood and conflict management thus plays an important role

in the development of positive or negative relationships with peers. Past research has

indicated that socially rejected children engage in higher rates of conflict than non-

rejected children and are likely to utilise conflict management strategies which are not

only more aggressive but also tend to escalate conflict situations (Dodge, Coie, Pettit,

& Price, 1990, Putallaz et al., 1995; Shantz, 1983). There is also evidence that girls

engage in less conflict overall than boys and that they are less likely to use aggressive

strategies to resolve conflict situations (Putallaz et al., 1995). Thus, girls and popular

children appear to engage in fewer conflicts than boys and unpopular children and use


7

strategies designed to mitigate rather than escalate conflict. A third goal of the present

study, therefore, was to consider the joint effects of sex and social status on children’s

conflict behaviour with respect to rates of engagement in conflict and strategy use in

response to conflict situations. It was expected that girls would engage in lower rates

of conflict and utilise more positive and relational conflict management strategies than

boys and that popular children, particularly popular girls, would engage in lower rates

of conflict and use more competent conflict behaviour than unpopular children,

particularly unpopular boys.

Finally, one of the purposes of the present research was to assess the utility of

teacher report in identifying behaviours associated with peer social status for

preschool-aged children. While sociometric measures have the advantage of providing

information about a child's social status from the view of the peer group, teachers are

able to report on more global aspects of individual children's social interactions and

provide insights into specific aspects of social sensitivity or interactional style that may

be relevant to a child's social status (Coie & Dodge, 1988). Because teachers

experience children in a range of different situations over time and are able to make

comparisons among children of the same age, they may well be able to report on

general patterns of interaction that may not be evident from sociometric measures.

Research indicates that rating scales completed by teachers often appear to be the most

accurate indices of actual social behaviour (Kagan & Kolowski, 1988). Thus, although

there are limitations to teacher report data, there is also evidence emerging to support

its validity particularly with respect to the more global aspects of peer encounters

(Coie & Dodge, 1988; Gresham, 1983).


8

Method

Participants

Participating children were drawn from eleven suburban, community based

preschools serving lower to upper middle class families in Queensland, Australia1. In

order that sociometric classification be meaningful, it is necessary that most children

within each preschool class group rate, and are rated by, their peers. Parental

permission to participate was received for 182 preschool children (mean age 62.4

months, SD = 4.22) representing 85% of children across the eleven preschool groups.

This is an acceptable participation rate for sociometric testing. Of this sample, 118

children (57 boys and 61 girls) could be classified in a sociometric status group (see

below).

Procedure

Sociometric Status Classification. In the present study, sociometric data were

collected through a combination of positive nominations and a rating scale. This

procedure, developed by Asher and Dodge (1986), involves the substitution of a

“lowest play rating” score for a “disliked” score which is obtained if a negative

nomination method is used. Although rating scales appear to be a more reliable

measure of popularity than traditional limited choice nomination, particularly with

preschool children (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Asher, Renshaw, Geraci & Dor, 1979;

Hymel, 1983), they do not provide the means to distinguish between children who are

actively disliked (rejected) as opposed to having low impact (neglected). The

combination of the play rating scale with a positive nomination technique thus

provides a valid method for measuring sociometric status with this age group. Prior to

1 Community Kindergartens and Preschools in Queensland are non-compulsory serving children from three to five years of age before formal school entry. The teaching staff are qualified early childhood teachers implementing play-based curriculums.


9

commencing sociometric testing, photographs were taken of all children for whom

parental permission had been given to participate in the research. The use of

photographs increases the reliability of the sociometric measure for preschool-aged

children. Peer ratings were restricted to same sex peers both on the basis of prior

research using peer ratings (e.g., Asher & Hymel, 1981), and an acknowledgment that

the play of preschool age children occurs predominantly in same sex groups (Maccoby,

1988).

Sociometric interviews were conducted individually during the second term of

the school year. Children were first asked to select photographs of the three children

with whom they most liked to play (positive nomination). Selected children were given

a score of 1 for each time they were nominated. Next the participants were asked to

rate all the children on a three-point scale according to how much they liked to play

with them by posting their photographs into one of three boxes. Depicted on the boxes

were a happy face, a neutral face, and a sad face. Children were advised that the happy

face meant they liked to play with that child a lot, the neutral face that they liked to

play with that child a little bit or sometimes, and the sad face that they did not like to

play with that child. Children whose photographs were placed in the box with the

happy face received a rating of three; in the box with the neutral face, a rating of two;

and in the box with the sad face, a rating of one.

For each child the following scores were computed: (a) number of positive

nominations (L score); (b) number of low play ratings (LPR score); (c) a social

preference score (SP) based on subtracting the number of low play ratings (LPR) from

the number of positive nominations (L); and (d) a social impact score (SI) computed

by combining the number of low play ratings (LPR) and the number of positive

nominations (L). These scores were converted into standardised scores with a mean of


10

zero for each sex within each preschool class. Using the procedure outlined by Asher

and Dodge (1986), children were classified into sociometric groups as follows: popular

(L score greater than 0, LPR score less than 0 and SP score greater than 0); rejected (L

score less than 0, LPR score greater than 0 and SP score less than -1.0); neglected (L

score less than 0, LPR score less than 0 and SI score less than -1.0); controversial (L

score greater than 0, LPR score greater than 0 and SI score greater than 1.0); and

average (SP score between -.05 and .05 and SI score between -.05 and .05).

Classification resulted in 26 popular children (12 boys, 14 girls), 23 rejected children

(12 boys, 11 girls), 24 neglected children (13 boys, 11 girls), 11 controversial children

(7 boys, 4 girls) and 34 average children (13 boys, 21 girls). Sixty-four children

remained unclassified. While some authors (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1988; Newcomb &

Bukowski, 1983) advocate including all particpants not identified as having an extreme

group status into the average group, others (e.g., Terry & Coie, 1991; Underwood,

1997) recommend including only true average children within the average group

resulting in a more homogenous average group for comparative purposes. Thus, for the

present study, a pure average group was retained and the group of unclassified children

were not included in any further analyses.

Social Behaviour. Children’s social behaviour, in terms of typical play

behaviours and interactions with peers, was assessed by their teachers via the 25 item

Profile of Peer Relations developed by Walker (2001). The Profile of Peer Relations

measures three aspects of social interaction: Social Behaviour, Peer Group Entry and

Peer Conflict. The Social Behaviour Scale includes three items assessing the

frequency of positive social behaviours (e.g., cooperative play) and three items

reflecting negative social behaviours (e.g., physical or verbal aggression). The Peer

Group Entry Scale includes twelve items that reflect typical strategies that children


11

might use when attempting to gain entry into the play of other children, some of which

might be more successful than others. These items are grouped under: Direct

Approach (e.g., politely asks to join play); Disruptive Approach (e.g., demands to be

included or physically intrudes); and Passive Approach (e.g., stands near or watches

peers). A summary item is also included for group entry. Teachers were asked to

make an assessment of each child's overall success rate in joining others at play on a

single item with a scale ranging from 1 (almost always successful) to 4 (almost always

unsuccessful). The Peer Conflict Scale consists of three items reflecting positive

approaches to conflict resolution (e.g., compromises or suggests an alternative) and

three items reflecting more aggressive approaches to conflict resolution (e.g., threatens

or insults peers). Teachers were asked to indicate the relative frequency with which

they had observed children using each of the behaviours or strategies over the

preschool year. A Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 4 (almost always) was

used to structure teachers' judgements for each item.

Results

Sex and Social Status Differences

Social Behaviour Scale. In order to examine the influence of sex and social

status, a MANOVA was conducted in which sex and social status served as between

group factors. Dependent measures were the subscale scores for positive and negative

social behaviour. Means and standard deviations related to the dependent measures are

presented descriptively in Table 1. Using Wilks' lambda statistic, significant main

effects were found for sex, F (1, 117) = 6.16, p = .003, and for social status, F (4, 117)

= 3.26, p = .002, but not for the sex by social status interaction.


12

Univariate tests revealed significant sex differences in negative social

behaviour, F (1, 117) = 8.90, p = .004. Results indicated that teachers rated boys as

exhibiting more negative social behaviour than girls. Univariate tests with respect to

social status revealed significant status differences in positive social behaviour, F (4,

117) = 6.00, p = .000. Post hoc analyses using Duncan’s multiple range test revealed

significant differences between children classified as rejected and all other status

groups in teacher rated positive social behaviour. Specifically, rejected children were

rated as displaying less positive social behaviour than popular, neglected, controversial

or average children.

Peer Group Entry. A MANOVA was conducted in which sex and social status

served as between group variables and subscale scores for Disruptive Approach, Direct

Approach and Passive Approach served as the dependent variables. Means and

standard deviations related to the dependent measures are presented in Table 2. Using

Wilks’ lambda statistic, significant main effects were found for social status, F (4, 117)

= 1.989, p = .025, and sex, F (1, 117) = 3.035, p = .032 but not for the sex by social

status interaction. Univariate tests revealed significant social status differences for

Passive Approach, F (4, 117) = 2.59, p = .041, and significant sex differences for

Disruptive Approach, F (1, 117) = 6.396, p = .013.

Post hoc analyses using Duncan’s multiple range test indicated that average

status children were rated as using the Passive Approach to group entry significantly

more often than popular or controversial children. With respect to sex differences,

examination of group means indicated that teachers rated boys as using the Disruptive

Approach more often than girls.

To assess possible sex and social status differences in teacher ratings of

children's overall success rates when attempting to join others in play, an ANOVA was


13

conducted in which sex and social status served as the between group variable and the

single item in which teachers rated children on their overall success rate in joining

other children in play served as the dependent variable. Teachers were asked to make

an assessment of how successful children were in joining others at play on a scale

ranging from 1 (almost always successful) to 4 (almost always unsuccessful). The

social status group means for this analysis are depicted in Table 3 in order from most

successful to least successful. A significant main effect was found for social status, F

(4, 117) = 4.400, p = .002. The main effect for sex was not significant nor was the sex

by social status interaction. Post hoc analyses using Duncan’s multiple range test

indicated that popular children were rated by teachers as significantly more likely to be

successful at entering groups than rejected children or neglected children. Rejected

children were also rated as less likely to be successful entering a group than neglected

children.

Peer Conflict. A MANOVA was conducted in which sex and social status

served as the between group variables and the dependent variables consisted of

subscale scores on Positive Conflict and Negative Conflict. Means and standard

deviations related to the dependent variables are presented descriptively in Table 4. A

significant main effect was found for sex, F (1, 117) = 5.219, p = .007, while the main

effects for social status and the sex by social status interaction were not significant.

Univariate tests revealed a significant sex difference for Negative Conflict, F (1, 117)

= 9.837, p = .002, but not for Positive Conflict. Examination of group means indicated

that teachers rated boys as more likely than girls to use negative conflict resolution

strategies such as aggression.


14

Discussion

Previous research has indicated that broad behavioural patterns such as the

display of prosocial or aggressive behaviour may play a part in determining social

status within the peer group (Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb et al.,

1993). The present results support and extend these findings by indicating that

prosocial behaviour in particular appears to be related to peer social status at preschool

age. In contrast to expectations, there were no significant interactions between sex and

social status with respect to the behaviours associated with peer rejection or popularity.

Findings with respect to sex differences will be discussed first.

Sex Differences

The results revealed findings quite consistent in most respects with previous

research on the relationship between sex and children’s social behaviour. Considering

general styles of social interaction first, teachers rated boys as more aggressive than

girls although not less likely to engage in prosocial behaviour. The results with respect

to aggression are in line with past research, both observational and teacher reports,

which has indicated that by the age of two or three, boys consistently exhibit more

physical and verbal aggression than girls (Coie, Dodge & Coppotelli, 1982; Maccoby

& Jacklin, 1980). The lack of sex differences in prosocial or cooperative behaviour is

surprising given that past research has tended to indicate that girls are seen by teachers

as more prosocial than boys (Coie et al., 1982; Walker & Irving, 1998). However, the

questionnaire items dealt generally with style of social interaction rather than specific

aspects of prosocial behaviour, such as showing empathy, which may account for an

absence of sex differences on this dimension.

With respect to group entry strategies, boys and girls were rated as equally

likely to be successful when attempting to enter a group although boys were rated as


15

more likely than girls to use aggressive or disruptive entry approaches. These results

are consistent with those described by Putallaz and Wasserman (1989) who reported

that girls not only were less likely to use disruptive entry strategies, but that they were

more likely than boys to have disruptive entry attempts rejected. Overall, the present

results indicated that girls were no more successful than boys at gaining entry into

groups even though they were less likely than boys to use disruptive strategies

identified in previous research as less competent. These results suggest that skill in

group entry may be of more consequence for girls attempting to enter a group of girls

than for boys attempting to enter a group of boys. Several studies have indicated that

girls spend more time in small group social activities, in cooperative and turn-taking

games, engage in more person fantasy and are more sensitive to the requirements of

collaboration. Boys, on the other hand, prefer to engage in larger group physically

active games and rough and tumble play (Dorsch & Keane, 1994; Fabes, 1994; Fagot,

1985; Jones & Glenn, 1991; Lewis & Phillipsen, 1998; Maccoby, 1988; Mollor,

Hymel & Rubin, 1992). Girls also tend to form close, person-oriented friendships

while boys' friendships are more activity-oriented (Maccoby, 1990). It may be that

aggressive group entry strategies reflect successful or competent social behaviour for

boys within the context of larger, physically active male peer groups; whereas, for girls

attempting to enter smaller, more intimate groups, an understanding of general norms

or rules of group interaction may be more important.

Finally, there were significant sex differences in teacher-reported use of

conflict resolution strategies. Specifically, boys were rated as more likely than girls to

engage in conflict with peers and more likely to use aggressive strategies when

confronted with a conflict situation. Once more, these results are comparable with

previously reported research which has suggested that not only is there more conflict in


16

boys groups, but that when conflict does occur, girls are more likely than boys to use

conflict mitigation strategies and to propose prosocial and positive solutions to social

problems (Miller, Danaher & Forbes, 1986; Putallaz et al., 1995; Shantz, 1983). Boys,

on the other hand, appear more likely to exhibit aggression and use powerful and

controlling strategies, particularly when in conflict with girls (Sims, 1998). The

present results are also consistent with past findings which suggest that maintaining

interpersonal harmony is a higher priority for girls than for boys. Boys appear to be

more concerned with power and status (Maccoby, 1990). These results confirm

previous research findings with older children and indicate that gender-based conflict

resolution strategies appear as early as the preschool years. Thus, as early as four or

five years of age, boys and girls may have different profiles of socially competent

behaviour. It is likely, as Putallaz et al. (1995) suggest, that socialisation and cultural

processes may act to discourage overt conflict behaviour by girls while encouraging

the use of affiliative conflict strategies designed to minimise disruption such as

appealing to social norms or emphasising the appropriateness of a desired outcome.

Similarly, overt conflict involving aggression may be not only acceptable for boys but

positively valued as a means of establishing their social position if it is used in the

service of standing up for themselves.

Social Status Differences

Consistent with past research, teachers rated children sociometrically classified

as popular as engaging in cooperative, prosocial behaviours more often than children

classified as rejected. In fact, rejected children were rated lower by their teachers on

prosocial, cooperative behaviours than any other social status group. These results are

similar to previous research with older children in which these dimensions have been


17

related to popular social status for both boys and girls (Coie, et al., 1990; Dekovic &

Gerris, 1994; Newcomb et al., 1993).

Unexpectedly, ratings of aggressive behaviour did not distinguish between

social status groups overall. Results from a range of studies have suggested that

aggression is an important predictor of rejection, particularly for boys (see Coie et al,

1990). However, there is some evidence that aggression is less strongly correlated

with social status for very young children (Coie et al., 1990). The present results are

therefore consistent with findings which suggest that peer relationship problems may

in fact precede the development of aggressive behaviours (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt,

1983).

Another issue deserving attention concerns the broad definitions of aggression

used in the teacher report. Although aggression is frequently cited as a major cause of

rejection, not all aggressive children are rejected and not all rejected children are

aggressive (Coie, Dodge, Terry & Wright, 1991; French, 1988). Further, Coie and

colleagues (1991) suggest that it may be the type of aggression rather than the

frequency that is linked to rejected status. For example, aggression related to object

acquisition might be more acceptable than unprovoked hostile aggression.

Consequently, items used to make up the aggressive behaviour scale related to physical

and verbal aggression may not tap more specific aspects of aggression responsible for

peers’ dislike.

With respect to group entry, it was expected that rejected children would use

more aggressive and disruptive attempts at group entry than other social status groups.

Such a trend was apparent in the teacher ratings however, the analyses did not reach

significance. Nevertheless, although rejected children were not rated as significantly

different from popular children in the type of group entry strategies employed, they


18

were rated as less successful than any other social status group in their group entry

attempts. The group entry items used in the present study were unable to detect the

reasons for this differential success. However, these results replicate those found in

earlier research with older children whereby it appears that peers respond very

differently to the group entry attempts of high and low status children even when the

same type of entry tactic is used (Dodge et al., 1983; Putallaz & Wasserman, 1989).

As teachers were rating children’s group entry success with respect to known peers in

the present study, it may be that less discernible factors such as reputation were

operating to reduce the success rates of less popular children. Thus, the relative lack of

success of rejected children in this study may be a function of prior reputation rather

than lack of group entry skills per se.

While successful entry into a peer group may be difficult for all children, it

appears particularly important for children who are experiencing difficulties with peer

interaction. Effective group entry is a prerequisite for inclusion into a peer group

within the context of which more competent interaction skills may be learnt. If less

competent children are unable to successfully gain entry into a group of peers, due to

reasons related or unrelated to entry behaviour, they may be denied the opportunity to

learn more effective interactive skills thus making it more likely that they will continue

to experience rejection.

In contrast to expectations, no social status differences were found for the

teacher ratings of involvement in conflict or use of aggressive conflict management

strategies. Past research has consistently indicated that higher levels of conflict and

negative affect are related to low acceptance within the peer group (e.g., Putallaz et al.,

1995). However, it is possible that the use of less competent conflict resolution

strategies do not discriminate as much between social status groups during the early


19

childhood years when children are just beginning to learn how to manage conflict

effectively. It may also be that initial ineffective and aggressive conflict management

strategies become exacerbated over time. For example, McElwain and Olson (1996)

reported results from a study with aggressive preschool-aged boys which suggested

that over the course of the preschool year, aggressive boys elicited higher levels of

aggression and less sophisticated conflict strategies from their peers in response to

their own initial aggressive approach to conflict management. Thus, while aggression

and rates of involvement in conflict may not separate rejected from popular children at

four or five years old, as these behaviours are perpetuated and maintained, in part due

to peers’ changing responses to the aggressor, conflict and aggression may become

more likely to contribute to rejection.

Conclusion

As social status is less stable in preschool than in later years, the preschool

period may be the most optimal time to implement intervention strategies aimed at

improving social competence. Not only is social development a major focus of

preschool programs but teachers in the preschool years also have opportunities to

implement social skill interventions within free play settings that are not available once

children enter the formal school system. The results of the present study thus have the

capacity to inform early childhood professionals wishing to implement intervention

efforts aimed at improving preschool-aged children’s social status.

First, it appears that, at least in early childhood, individual differences in levels

of prosocial cooperative behaviour are directly related to peer popularity. Thus,

bearing in mind the complexity of the relationship between individual behaviour and

rejection from the peer group, teaching of cooperative play skills may still emerge as a

useful focus for interventions in early childhood programs. Second, given the central


20

role played by cooperative group play in the early childhood years and the relative lack

of success of group entry attempts by rejected children, the present findings provide

support for interventions focussed on helping children learn effective group entry

strategies.

The results of the present study also highlight the importance of gender and the

role that gender related interactional styles play in the types of behaviours and social

skills which are related to successful social functioning for boys and girls. The sex

differences noted in social behaviour emphasise the importance of taking gender

related interactional styles into account when targeting specific behaviours and social

skills for intervention.

In conclusion, the clear social status differences evident with respect to

prosocial behaviour suggest that broad based interventions designed to increase

prosocial interactions may be necessary by at least preschool age, if not earlier, if

children’s relationships with their peers are not to be compromised during a period of

rapid development in social knowledge and social competence. With increasing age,

the social demands of the peer group and the factors affecting peer group social status

become more complex and require a greater variety of social skills (Bierman &

Montminy, 1993). If children are not able to develop social skills within the context of

peer interactions in the years before school, they may be at risk for continued rejection

during the school years with the consequent negative outcomes. Early intervention

thus has the potential to influence early developmental pathways and promote positive

outcomes for young children experiencing difficulties in social relationships.

References

Asher, S.R. (1990). Recent advances in the study of peer rejection. In Asher,


21

S.R. & Coie, J.D. (Eds.), Peer rejection in early childhood, (pp. 3-14). New York:

Cambridge University Press

Asher, S.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by

their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22 (4), 444-449.

Asher, S.R. & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social competence and peer

relations: Sociometric and behavioural assessment. In J.D. Wine & M.D. Smye (Eds.),

Social competence, (pp. 125-127). New York: Guildford.

Asher, S.R., Oden, S.L. & Gottman, J.M. (1977). Children's friendships in

school settings. In L.G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education, Vol. 1,

(pp. 33-62). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Asher, S.R., Renshaw, P., Geraci, R. & Dor, A. (1979). Peer acceptance and

social skill training: The selection of program content. Paper presented at the biennial

meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco

Bierman, K.L. & Montminy, H.P. (1993). Developmental issues in social-

skills assessment and intervention with children and adolescents. Behaviour

Modification, 17 (3), 229-254.

Cantrell, V.L. & Prinz, R.J. (1985). Multiple perspectives of rejected,

neglected and accepted children: Relation between sociometric status and behavioural

characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53 (6), 884-889.

Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A. (1983). Continuities and change in children's social

status: A five year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-281.

Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on school behaviour

and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815-

829.


22

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of

social status: A cross age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18 (4), 557-550.

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1990). Peer group behaviour and

peer group social status. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood,

(pp. 17-59). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., Terry, R. & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression

in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child

Development, 62, 812-826.

Coie, J.D. & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1983). A behavioural analysis of emerging

social status in boy's groups. Child Development, 53, 1400-1416.

Dekovic, M. & Gerris, J.R.M. (1994). Developmental analysis of social

cognitive and behavioural differences between popular and rejected children. Journal

of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 367-386.

Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S., & Price, J.M. (1990). Peer status and

aggression in boy's groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child


Dodge, K.A., Schlundt, D.C., Schocken, I. & Delugach, J.D. (1983). Social

competence and children's sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29 (3), 309-336.

Dorsch, A. & Keane, S.P. (1994). Contextual factors in children's social

information processing. Developmental Psychology, 30 (5), 611-616

Dunn, J. & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and Peer relationships in childhood.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33 (1), 67-105.

Fabes, R.A. (1994). Physiological, emotional and behavioural correlates of


23

gender segregation. New Directions for Child Development, 65, 19-34.

Fagot, B.I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step towards

understanding sex roles. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1097-1104.

French, D.C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and

nonaggressive subtypes. Child Development, 59, 976-985.

Gresham, F.M. (1983). Social validity in the assessment of children's social

skills: Establishing standards for social competency. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 1, 299-307.

Hopmeyer, A. & Asher, S.R. (1997). Children’s responses to two types of peer

conflict situations. In Nancy L. Stein (Chair), Multiple perspectives on children’s

understanding, evaluation, and resolution of conflict. Symposium conducted at the

biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, D.C.,

April.

Kagan, D.M. & Kolowski, B.G. (1988). Relationships among measures of

social cognition and measures of social skill. Early Child Development and Care, 37,

163-173.

Kupersmidt, J.B. & Coie, J.D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression,

and school adjustment as predictors of externalising problems in adolescence. Child


Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A. (1990). The role of poor peer

relationships in the development of disorder. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.) Peer

rejection in childhood, (pp. 274-308). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.


24

Jones, A. & Glenn, S.M. (1991). Gender differences in pretend play in a

primary school group. Early Child Development and Care, 77, 127-135

Ladd, G.W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends and being

liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children's early school adjustment?

Child Development, 61, 1081-1100.

Ladd, G.W. & Price, J.P. (1987). Predicting children's social and school

adjustment following the transition from school to kindergarten. Child Development,

58, 1168-1189.

Lewis, T.E. & Phillipsen, L.C. (1998). Interactions on an elementary school

playground: Variations by age, gender, race, group size and playground area. Child

Study Journal, 28 (4), 309-321.

Maccoby, E.E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental

Psychology, 24 (6), 755-765.

Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account.

American Psychologist, 45 (4), 513-520.

Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A

rejoinder and reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-980.

McElwain, N.L. & Olson, S.L. (1996). Conflict and aggression among

preschool children: a short-term longitudinal study. Paper presented at the XIVth

Biennial Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural

Development. Quebec, Canada, August.

Miller, P.M., Danaher, D.L., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for

coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and seven. Developmental

Psychology, 22 (4), 543-548.


25

Mollor, L.C., Hymel, S. & Rubin, K.H. (1992). Sex typing in play and

popularity in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 27 (7/8), 331-353.

Newcomb, A.F. & Bukowski, W.M (1983). Social impact and social

preference as determinants of children’s peer group status. Developmental

Psychology, 19 (6), 856-867.

Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer

relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and

average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (1), 99-128.

Parker, J.G. & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later social adjustment:

Are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Pettit, G.S., Clawson, M.A., Dodge, K.A. & Bates, J.E. (1996). Stability and

change in peer-rejected status: The role of child behaviour, parenting, and family

ecology. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 42 (2), 267- 294.

Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their

behaviour. Child Development, 54, 1417-1426.

Putallaz, M., Hellstern, L., Sheppard, B.L., Grimes, C.L. & Glodis, K.A.

(1995). Conflict, social competence, and gender: Maternal and peer contexts. Early

Education and Development, 6 (4), 433-447.

Putallaz, M. & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children's naturalistic entry behaviour

and sociometric status: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 25

(2), 297-305.

Rubin, K.H. & Asendorpf, J.B. (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition and

shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shantz, C.U. (1983). Social Cognition. in Paul H. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of


26

child psychology, Vol.III, (pp. 495-555). New York : Wiley.

Sims, M. (1998). Young children’s conflict behaviour in child care. Paper

presented at the Australian Research in Early Childhood Conference, Canberra,

January.

Terry, R. & Coie, J.D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining

sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, (5), 867-880.

Underwood, M.K. (1997). Peer social status and children’s understanding of

the expression and control of positive and negative emotions. Merrill Palmer

Quarterly, 43 (4), 610-634.

Walker, S. (2001). Peer acceptance in early childhood: Sex and social status

differences in social information processing, temperament and social behaviour.

Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Walker, S. & Irving K. (1998). The effect of perceived social status on preschool

children's evaluations of behaviour. Journal for Australian Research in Early Childhood

Education, 1, 94-103.

Woodward, L.J. & Fergusson, D.M. (1999). Childhood peer relationship

problems and psychosocial adjustment in late adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 27 (1), 87-104.


27

Author Note

Sue Walker, Centre for Learning Innovation.

This study was conducted as part of Sue Walker’s doctoral research program.

The research was supported in part by a scholarship from Queensland University of

Technology. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sue

Walker, Centre for Learning Innovation, Queensland University of Technology,

Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4069, Australia (e-mail:

[email protected]).


28

Table 1.

Teacher Ratings of Social Behaviour by Sex and by Social Status

Positive Social Behaviours Negative Social Behaviours

Male (n = 57) 3.07 (.58) 1.79 (.73)

Female (n = 61) 2.94 (.63) 1.42 (.54)

Popular (n = 26) 3.36 (.40) 1.40 (.49)

Rejected (n = 23) 2.61 (.78) 1.83 (.81)

Neglected (n = 24) 3.01 (.59) 1.67 (.72)

Controversial (n = 11) 3.05 (.47) 1.82 (.78)

Average (n = 34) 3.04 (.50) 1.47 (.51)

Group (N = 118) 3.02 (.60) 1.58 (.66)

(Scale: 1 =rarely to 4 = almost always).

Note: Standard Deviations appear in parentheses.


29

Table 2.

Teacher Ratings of Group Entry Behaviour by Sex and by Social Status

Disruptive

Approach

Direct Approach Passive

Approach

Male (n = 57)

Female (n = 61)

1.45 (.48)

1.19 (.39)

2.79 (.78)

2.68 (.73)

1.89 (.49)

2.09 (.74)

Popular (n = 26)

Rejected (n = 23)

Neglected (n = 24)

Controversial (n = 11)

Average (n = 34)

1.19 (.32)

1.45 (.65)

1.25 (.34)

1.45 (.57)

1.29 (.35)

2.78 (.75)

2.35 (.82)

2.84 (.70)

3.06 (.51)

2.79 (.76)

1.83 (.68)

1.89 (.60)

2.07 (.53)

1.68 (.56)

2.25 (.67)

Group (N = 118) 1.31 (.45) 2.73 (.75) 2.00 (.64)

(Scale: 1 = rarely to 4 = almost always)



30

Table 3.

Teacher Ratings of Group Entry Success Rates by Social Status

Mean Standard Deviation

Popular (n = 26) 1.35 .49

Controversial (n = 11) 1.64 .67

Average (n = 34) 1.76 .65

Neglected (n = 24) 1.83 .64

Rejected (n = 23) 2.13 .97

Group (N = 118) 1.75 .73

Note: Scale 1 = almost always successful to 4 = almost always unsuccessful


31

Table 4.

Teacher Ratings of Peer Conflict by Sex and by Social Status

Positive Conflict Strategies Negative Conflict Strategies

Male (n = 57) 2.07 (.62) 1.65 (.65)

Female (n = 61) 2.17 (.72) 1.33 (.48)

Popular (n = 26) 2.17 (.63) 1.35 (.44)

Rejected (n = 23) 2.02 (.83) 1.64 (.78)

Neglected (n = 24) 2.17 (.62) 1.46 (.50)

Controversial (n = 11) 2.05 (.82) 1.70 (.80)

Average (n = 34) 2.15 (.60) 1.43 (.51)

Group (N = 118) 2.12 (.67) 1.48 (.59)

(Scale: 1 = rarely to 4 = almost always).


Date post:	07-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Social Status and Behaviour draft 22 Septeprints.qut.edu.au/1236/1/1236_1.pdfSocial Behaviour and...

Documents