TRANSLATING SOCIAL MOTIVATION INTO ACTION: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF NEED FOR APPROVAL TO SOCIAL OUTCOMES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BY
LAUREN E. BOHN
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology
in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011
Urbana, Illinois
Adviser: Professor Karen D. Rudolph
ii
ABSTRACT
This research examined how 2nd grade children’s need for approval from peers influenced
their social behavior (prosocial behavior, overt and relational aggression, and avoidant behavior)
as well as how peers respond to them (popularity, victimization, and exclusion) across a one year
span. Need for approval was conceptualized as either the motivation to gain approval or avoid
disapproval from peers. Children (N = 526, M age = 7.95, SD = .33) reported on their need for
approval and their teachers reported on children’s social outcomes. As anticipated, having an
approach orientation, as reflected in positive need for approval, is adaptive by promoting positive
outcomes (i.e., popularity) and protecting against negative outcomes (i.e., aggression,
victimization, and exclusion). Conversely, an avoidance orientation is more disadvantageous
because it places children at risk for negative outcomes (i.e. diminished popularity and
heightened aggression, victimization, and exclusion). The current study shows that children’s
approach-avoidance orientation contributes to their peer relationships over time, providing
specific targets for interventions that optimize children’s peer relationships.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………....1
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………...8
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS………………………………………………………………………...13
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………...18
TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………………25
FIGURES.………………………………………………………………………………………..30
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..35
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
During elementary school, children become socialized into a world outside of the home,
causing the peer group to become a highly salient context for development that shapes child
behavior, beliefs, and even personality characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Harris, 1995;
Ladd, 1999). Given that successful peer relationships promote healthy development (Criss et al.,
2009; Mize & Pettit, 1997; Perdue, Manzeske, & Estell, 2009; Wentzel, 1998; Wentzel, Barry, &
Caldwell, 2004), it is important to understand how children are motivated within the context of
these relationships. One factor that may motivate children is their need for approval from peers.
Understanding how a child’s need for approval motivates them to interact with peers in specific
ways may inform efforts to foster positive peer relationships and prevent negative social
outcomes. The goal of this study was to explore how need for approval contributes to children’s
own social behavior and how their peers respond to them.
Need for Approval as a Motivational Construct
Several theories of motivation suggest that individual differences in behavior are
regulated by two systems: an approach system, which is sensitive to reward, and an avoidance
system, which is sensitive to punishment (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000; Gable, Reis, & Elliot,
2003; Gray, 1990). Approach-avoidance dispositions are manifested across a variety of domains,
including temperament, personality, affect, and coping (Gable et al., 2003). In recent years,
researchers have begun to investigate how approach-avoidance dispositions are translated into
the types of goals that children adopt within a social context. Drawing from theories of
achievement goal motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Molden & Dweck, 2006), three types of
social goals have been distinguished (Rudolph, Abaied, Flynn, Sugimura, & Agoston, in press;
2
Ryan & Shim, 2008): mastery goals, which focus on developing relationships or learning new
social skills (e.g., getting to know other kids better, learning how to be a good friend),
performance-approach goals, which focus on demonstrating competence and receiving positive
social judgments (e.g., being seen as popular, having “cool” friends), and performance-avoidance
goals, which focus on avoiding demonstrating a lack of competence and receiving negative
social judgments (e.g., avoiding being viewed as foolish or as a “loser”). Within an achievement
context, previous research suggests that an approach motivation is linked to both mastery and
performance-approach goals, whereas an avoidance motivation is linked to performance-
avoidance goals (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).
Consistent with this approach-avoidance framework, individual differences in need for
approval have been conceptualized in terms of two dimensions (Rudolph, Caldwell, & Conley,
2005). Positive need for approval, presumably driven by an approach orientation, reflects the
motivation to elicit social rewards in the form of positive judgments that enhance self-worth (i.e.,
feeling proud of oneself in the face of social approval). Negative need for approval, presumably
driven by an avoidance orientation, reflects the motivation to avoid eliciting social punishment in
the form of negative judgments that diminish self-worth (i.e., feeling ashamed of oneself in the
face of social disapproval). In previous research, Gable (2006) found that approach motives and
goals were associated with satisfaction in social relationships whereas avoidance motives and
goals were associated with social isolation, implying that need for approval may have important
consequences for interpersonal relationships.
Developmental theories of the self provide a basis for understanding why need for
approval might be important for motivating children within an interpersonal context. Mead’s
symbolic interactionist theory suggests that the appraisals of significant others, in this case peers,
3
are integrated into one’s self-concept (Mead, 1934). During childhood, this process occurs as
children begin to base their sense of self-worth on the actual or perceived appraisals of their
classmates (Caldwell, Rudolph, Troop-Gordon, & Kim, 2004; Cole, Jacquez, & Maschman,
2001; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Harter, 1998). Whereas a global sense of self-worth reflects a
generalized evaluation of the self, contingent self-worth arises when a child’s sense of self is
dependent upon their competence in a given domain (Harter, 1986; Swann, 1996). Indeed,
previous research supports the idea that global self-worth and contingent self-worth represent
distinct but associated constructs (Rudolph et al., 2005). In particular, Crocker and Wolfe’s
(2001) review of research on contingent self-worth reveals that social approval may be especially
motivating to children because of intense affective responses that result from events in the social
domain. Thus, children’s need for approval may be seen as a specific type of contingent self-
worth in which feelings about oneself are dependent upon whether children receive social
approval or disapproval.
Contributions of Need for Approval to Interpersonal Relationships
The present research tested the proposition that approach-avoidance motivation, as
reflected in positive and negative dimensions of need for approval, will be translated into
particular patterns of interacting with peers. Providing a broad framework for understanding
approach-avoidance behavior within an interpersonal context, Caspi, Elder, and Bem (1988)
proposed three orientations that describe how children interact within their social worlds: (1)
“moving towards the world,” as reflected in positive approach behavior; (2) “moving against the
world,” as reflected in negative approach behavior; and (3) “moving away from the world,” as
reflected in avoidant behavior. Each of these orientations may, in turn, shape peer responses that
are oriented either toward, against, or away from the child.
4
Predicting positive approach outcomes. In the present study, positive approach outcomes
were conceptualized in terms of prosocial behavior and peer popularity. Prosocial behavior is
generally defined as voluntary acts intended to help or benefit others (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987;
Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983) although prosocial behavior can benefit the
helper as well as the receiver (Brown, Gary, Greene, & Milburn, 1992; Ellison, 1991; Gecas &
Burke, 1995), perhaps by fulfilling the basic psychological need for relatedness (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Moreover, prosocial children often are more well-liked than
children who are not prosocial (Bowker, Rubin, & Burgess, 2006; Coleman & Byrd, 2003; de
Bruyn & Cillessen, 2006; Veenstra et al., 2008). Thus, high positive need for approval may
motivate children to act in prosocial ways because helping others serves to fulfill their goal of
obtaining positive appraisals through increased popularity. Conversely, children with high
negative need for approval may be unlikely to approach peers in positive ways due to a fear of
being rebuked, and thus may be less popular.
Predicting negative approach outcomes. Negative approach outcomes were
conceptualized as overt and relational aggression and overt and relational victimization. Overt
aggression is defined as direct behaviors intended to harm others through physical damage or
threat of physical damage, whereas relational aggression is defined as indirect behaviors
intended to harm others through manipulation of social relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
In parallel, peers may orient themselves against other children through overt or relational
victimization. In light of research suggesting that bullies are not viewed favorably by peers
(Asher & Coie, 1990) and have problems in their friendships (Hektner et al., 2000), it is likely
that positive need for approval suppresses overt and relational aggression, which would interfere
with children’s ability to nurture their relationships and elicit positive feedback. Similarly, peers
5
may be less likely to victimize children with a positive need for approval because of their efforts
to interact in positive ways.
Negative need for approval may similarly inhibit overtly aggressive behavior because
interacting with peers in conflictual ways could elicit negative appraisals. Children with high
negative need for approval also may be less likely to become targets of overt peer victimization.
Because these children seek to avoid social situations that result in negative judgments, they may
be unlikely to respond or retaliate to aggressive advances, thereby not providing a bully with the
intense physical or emotional reaction they desire. However, negative need for approval actually
may promote relational aggression. Because children high in avoidance motivation do not have
access to socially competent behavior (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Rudolph et al., 2005), they
may seek to buffer themselves from negative judgments by forming partnerships with some
peers through relational aggression. In one study, Bosson and colleagues (2006) found that
sharing negative attitudes about a third party established in-group/out-group boundaries and
boosted self-esteem. This and other research suggests that relational aggression can promote in-
group cohesiveness when ganging up on a collective victim (Dunbar, 2004; Wert & Salovey,
2004). Similarly, if children engage in relational aggression, they could become the targets of
relational victimization as peers seek to retaliate through the same means of manipulating social
relationships.
Predicting avoidance outcomes. Avoidance outcomes were conceptualized as avoidant
behavior (i.e., anxious solitude and social helplessness) and peer exclusion. It has been theorized
that anxious solitude, or children’s passive anxious withdrawal from peers (Coplan, 2000; Rubin,
1982), results from conflicting motivations – normative social approach and abnormally high
avoidance orientation (Asendorpf, 1990). Social helplessness, or children’s lack of displayed
6
persistence and effort as well as diminished feelings of competence in social situations, also may
be indicative of a more general avoidance of social situations as these types of avoidant behavior
tend to co-occur with peer exclusion (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; McElwain, Olson, & Volling,
2002). Positive need for approval is likely to inhibit avoidant behavior, which would orient
children away from peers and decrease their likelihood of obtaining positive appraisals. Children
with high positive need for approval also are less likely to be excluded by peers because they
seek to nurture their relationships through positive interactions and would be seen as desirable
interaction partners. Conversely, high negative need for approval may prompt children to
withdraw from social situations to avoid the detrimental effects of negative peer appraisals
(Johnson, LaVoie, Spenceri, & Mahoney-Wernli, 2001; McElwain et al., 2002). These children
also are likely seen as undesirable interaction partners because they tend to shy away from social
situations, and thus may be more excluded by peers.
Study Overview
The goal of the present research was to examine the contribution of need for approval to
positive approach, negative approach, and avoidance social outcomes (i.e., social behaviors and
peer responses) over a one-year period. A prospective design was used to follow children from
the 2nd – 3rd grade. This developmental stage was targeted because children are beginning to
learn more about social norms, self-presentation strategies, and how to understand social
situations, which may influence subsequent peer interaction experiences (Asher & Gottman,
1981; Banerjee, 2002; Howes, 2001). To validate the idea that positive and negative dimensions
of need for approval, respectively, map onto children’s social approach versus avoidance
motivation, we examined the concurrent association between the two dimensions of need for
approval and social development (i.e., mastery), social demonstration-approach (i.e.,
7
performance-approach), and social demonstration-avoidance (i.e., performance-avoidance) goals.
Following theory and prior research (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), it was expected that positive need
for approval would predict more social development and demonstration-approach goals whereas
negative need for approval would predict more demonstration-avoidance goals.
We also examined possible sex differences in the contribution of need for approval to
social outcomes. Previous research indicates that girls and boys differ systematically in several
relevant peer processes. Girls tend to be more interdependent or communal, whereas boys tend to
be more independent and agentic (Cross & Madson, 1997; Helgeson, 1994; Hibbard &
Buhrmester, 1998). Similarly, girls tend to be more prosocial (Holmgren, Eisenberg, & Fabes,
1998) and to use more relational aggression, whereas boys tend to use more overt aggression
(Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Galen & Underwood, 1997). Because the norms for these types of
social motivation and behavior differ across sex, it is possible that social motivation will have
different implications in girls and boys.
To summarize (see Figure 1), we hypothesized: (1) approach motivation, as reflected in
positive need for approval, would predict: more positive approach outcomes (prosocial behavior
and popularity), less negative approach outcomes (overt and relational aggression and overt and
relational victimization), and less avoidance outcomes (avoidant behavior and exclusion), and (2)
avoidance motivation, as reflected in negative need for approval, would predict less positive
approach outcomes, less direct negative approach outcomes (overt aggression and overt
victimization), more indirect negative approach outcomes (relational aggression and relational
victimization), and more avoidance outcomes. We did not form specific hypotheses regarding
sex differences, but we examined sex as a potential moderator of these social pathways.
8
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Participants were 526 2nd graders (279 girls, 247 boys; M age = 7.95, SD = .33) and their
elementary school teachers in several Midwestern towns. Children were from a variety of ethnic
and socioeconomic backgrounds (67.1% White, 32.9% minority; 33.8% qualified for a
subsidized school lunch program). Parents provided written consent and children provided oral
assent. Consent forms were distributed to 724 children through schools and at parent-teacher
conferences. Of these children, 576 (80%) received consent to participate. Comparison of
participants and nonparticipants revealed no significant differences in age, t(723) = .63, ns, sex,
χ2(1) = .15, ns, ethnicity, χ2(1) = .59, ns, or lunch status (full payment vs. subsidized), χ2(1) = .35,
ns. All teachers of participating children completed surveys.
Child and teacher data were collected during the 2nd (Wave 1; W1) and 3rd (Wave 2; W2)
grades. Longitudinal data were available for 526 (91%) participants. Children with and without
data at both waves did not significantly differ in age, t(574) = 1.92, ns, sex, χ2(1) = .47, ns,
ethnicity, χ2(1) = 1.04, ns, lunch status, χ2(1) = .23, ns, or most of the key study variables, ts(574)
< 1.76, ns. However, children without longitudinal data showed significantly higher levels of W1
positive need for approval, t(574) = 2.06, p < .05, and overt aggression, t(574) = 3.06, p < .01,
and lower levels of prosocial behavior, t(574) = -2.20, p < .05, than did children with
longitudinal data.
Procedures
Participants completed surveys approximately one year apart during the winter of 2nd and
3rd grades. Questionnaires were administered in small groups (up to 4 children) in their
classrooms. All survey items were read aloud by trained research assistants while participants
9
listened and circled their responses. Teacher surveys were distributed and returned at school.
Children received a small gift and teachers received monetary reimbursement for participation.
Measures
Need for approval. Children completed the Need for Approval Questionnaire (Rudolph et
al., 2005), which consisted of two subscales. The positive need for approval subscale assessed
the extent to which peer approval and acceptance augment a child’s sense of self-worth (4 items;
α = .77; e.g., “Being liked by other kids makes me feel better about myself.”). The negative need
for approval subscale assessed the extent to which peer disapproval and rejection weaken a
child’s sense of self-worth (4 items; α = .75; e.g. “I feel like I am a bad person when other kids
don’t like me.”). Children rated how true each item was on a 5-point scale. Scores represent the
mean of the items on each subscale.
To confirm the validity of the two-dimensional structure of need for approval, a
maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle,
2006). Two latent variables were created representing positive and negative need for approval;
the four items on each subscale served as indicators. This model provided an excellent fit to the
data, χ2 (21, N = 526) = 37.41, p < .05, χ2/df = 1.78, comparative fit index (CFI) = .98,
incremental fit index (IFI) = .98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04. The
two latent variables were modestly positively correlated (Φ = .13, p < .05). Moreover, this model
fit the data significantly better, Δχ2(1) = 430.77, p < .001, than a one-factor model in which all
eight indicators loaded onto a single latent variable representing general need for approval,
χ2(21, N = 526) = 468.17, p < .001, χ2/df = 22.29, CFI = .54, IFI = .55, RMSEA = .20.
Social goals. Children completed a measure of social achievement goals (Rudolph,
Abaied, Flynn, Sugimura, & Agoston, in press) that was based on Dweck and colleagues’
10
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Molden & Dweck, 2006) social-cognitive theory of motivation and
specific applications to the social context (Erdley et al., 1997; Ryan & Shim, 2008). Items tapped
the extent to which children endorsed development goals, which involve developing social
competence and learning about relationships (8 items; α = .81; e.g., “I like to learn new skills for
getting along with other kids.”), demonstration-approach goals, which involve demonstrating
social competence by gaining positive social judgments (6 items; α = .81; e.g., “My goal is to
show other kids how much everyone likes me.”), and demonstration-avoidance goals, which
involve demonstrating social competence by avoiding negative social judgments (7 items; α =
.80; e.g. “I try to avoid doing things that make me look bad to other kids.”). Children received
the prompt: “When I am around other kids…” and rated how true each item was on a 5-point
scale. Construct validity has been established for this measure through associations between
social goals and multiple indexes of social adjustment (Rudolph et al., in press). Scores represent
the mean of the items on each subscale.
Prosocial and aggressive behavior. Teachers completed the Children’s Social Behavior
Scale (Crick, 1996). The prosocial behavior subscale assessed the extent to which children
actively engage in inclusive and empathic behaviors towards peers (3 items; α = .88; e.g., “This
child is friendly to most kids, even those s/he does not like very much.”). The overt aggression
subscale assessed the degree to which children engage in direct, physical aggression intended to
harm others (4 items; α = .96; e.g., “This child hits, kicks, or punches peers.”). The relational
aggression subscale assessed how much children engage in manipulation of peer relationships
intended to harm others (5 items; α = .91; e.g., “This child spreads rumors or gossips about some
peers.”). Teachers rated how true each statement was about the child on a 5-point scale. Validity
11
of this measure has been previously established (Crick, 1996). Scores represent the mean of the
items on each subscale.
Avoidant behavior. Teachers completed two measures of avoidant behavior. First, they
completed a measure (Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004) adapted from the Teacher’s Report Form
(Achenbach, 1991) and Child Behavior Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996). This measure assessed the
extent to which children exhibit anxious solitude (6 items; e.g., “This child plays alone more than
most other children.”). Teachers rated how true each statement was about the child on a 5-point
scale. Teacher assessment of anxious solitary behavior has been validated through convergence
with peer behavioral nominations (Coplan, 2000; Ladd & Profilet, 1996; Rubin & Clark, 1983).
Second, teachers completed a measure of social helplessness (Fincham, Hodoka, & Sanders,
1989; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1992). This measure assessed the degree to which
children exhibit helpless social behavior within peer interactions (12 items; e.g., “This child
withdraws or doesn’t notice when other children attempt friendly overtures towards him/her.”).
Teachers rated how true each statement was about the child on a 5-point scale. Previous research
has revealed adequate internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity for this
scale (Fincham et al., 1989; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1992). The two measures of avoidant
behavior were significantly correlated, r = .62, p < .001, suggesting that they tapped a similar
construct. Thus, an avoidance composite score (α = .92) was computed by standardizing and
averaging across the 18 items, with higher scores indicating more avoidant behavior.
Popularity. Teachers provided ratings of children’s popularity with peers on a 7-point
scale. Validity for this approach has been substantiated through correlations with peer reports of
popularity (Jacobsen, Lahey, & Strauss, 1983), as well as through associations with child-
reported peer perceptions (Rudolph & Clark, 2001; Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge, 1997).
12
Victimization. Teachers completed the Social Experiences Questionnaire (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1996) to assess children’s exposure to overt and relational peer victimization. Six
items assessing overt victimization and 5 items assessing relational victimization were added to
the original measure to provide a more thorough examination of victimization (Rudolph, Troop-
Gordon, Hessel, & Schmidt, in press). The overt victimization subscale assessed the extent to
which children are exposed to physical harm or threat of physical harm (11 items; α = .94; e.g.
“How often does this child get hit, punched, or slapped by another kid?”). The relational
victimization subscale assessed the extent to which children are exposed to harm through
manipulation of peer relationships (10 items; α = .95; e.g. “How often do other kids leave this
child out on purpose?”). Teachers rated how often children experienced each type of
victimization on a 5-point scale. Teacher reports of victimization have been shown to correspond
with both child and peer reports (Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005; Putallaz et al., 2007). Scores
represent the mean of the items on each subscale.
Exclusion. Teachers completed a measure of peer exclusion adapted from the Child
Behavior Scale (Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004; Ladd & Profilet, 1996). This scale assessed the
degree to which children are excluded by their peers (7 items; α = .93; e.g., “Peers refuse to let
this child play with them.”). Teachers rated how true each statement was about the child on a 5-
point scale. Teacher reports of peer exclusion converge with child and peer reports (Gazelle &
Ladd, 2003). Scores represent the mean of the items.
13
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Table 1 presents descriptive data for girls and boys across waves. All variables were
generally moderately stable over time. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted with
sex as the between-subjects factor and wave as the within-subjects factor. This analysis revealed
a significant multivariate main effect of sex, F(10, 515) = 24.11, p < .001, a significant
multivariate main effect of wave, F(10, 515) = 4.70, p < .001, and a nonsignificant Sex X Wave
interaction, F(10, 515) = 0.65, ns. Univariate tests revealed a significant main effect of sex for
prosocial behavior, F(1, 524) = 13.63, p < .001, relational aggression, F(1, 524) = 17.46, p <
.001, and relational victimization, F(1, 524) = 6.57, p < .05, reflecting higher scores for girls, and
a significant main effect of sex for overt aggression, F(1, 524) = 28.57, p < .001, and overt
victimization F(1, 524) = 29.26, p < .001, reflecting higher scores for boys. These findings are
consistent with previous research suggesting that girls display more prosocial behavior
(Holmgren, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1991) and tend to be more
relationally aggressive (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) than boys whereas boys tend to be more
overtly aggressive than girls (Crick, Casas & Mosher, 1997). Univariate tests also revealed a
significant main effect of wave on negative need for approval, F(1, 524) = 18.72, p < .001, and
popularity, F(1, 524) = 5.78, p < .05, reflecting higher scores at W1 than W2. Similarly, a main
effect of wave was found for peer exclusion, F(1, 524) = 7.57, p < .01, reflecting higher scores at
W2 than W1.
Construct Validity of Need for Approval
Three hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether the
two dimensions of need for approval mapped onto a social approach-avoidance goal orientation
14
(see Table 2). In each regression, positive and negative need for approval were entered
simultaneously to examine unique effects; separate regressions were conducted to predict each
type of social goal. Given the intercorrelations among social goals (Ryan & Shim, 2008), the
models adjusted for the alternate goals at the first step. As expected, positive need for approval
significantly predicted both social development and demonstration-approach goals. Negative
need for approval significantly predicted demonstration-avoidance goals. These results mirror
previous findings regarding a correspondence between approach-avoidance orientation and
social goals (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), and support the idea that the two dimensions of need for
approval map onto an approach-avoidance orientation.
Correlational Analyses
Table 3 presents W1 intercorrelations among the variables. For both girls and boys, with
just two exceptions, the four dimensions of social behavior and peer responses were significantly
correlated in the expected directions. These correlations were generally moderate in size,
suggesting that these dimensions represent distinct yet related constructs. Positive need for
approval was significantly positively associated with negative need for approval among girls.
Among boys, positive need for approval was significantly negatively associated with avoidant
behavior, and negative need for approval was significantly positively associated with avoidant
behavior. Negative need for approval also was significantly negatively associated with boys’
popularity. There were no significant zero-order correlations between need for approval and
social outcomes in girls.
Overview of Central Analyses
A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses was conducted to examine the
independent and interactive contributions of W1 need for approval and sex to W2 social behavior
15
(prosocial behavior, aggression, and avoidant behavior) and peer responses (peer popularity, peer
victimization, and peer exclusion). The two dimensions of need for approval were entered
together to examine unique effects. The first step included prior (W1) levels of social outcomes,
the second step included the mean-centered main effects of W1 positive and negative need for
approval and sex, and the third step included the two-way interactions (positive need for
approval X sex and negative need for approval X sex)1. Significant interactions with sex were
decomposed to examine the extent to which need for approval predicted each outcome in girls
and in boys.
Predicting Social Behavior
The first set of analyses examined the prediction of prosocial behavior, overt and
relational aggression, and avoidant behavior (see Table 4). Results revealed significant main
effects of sex on W2 prosocial behavior, overt aggression, and relational aggression. As discussed
in the descriptive analyses, girls exhibited higher levels of prosocial behavior and relational
aggression than did boys, whereas boys exhibited higher levels of overt aggression than did girls.
Results also revealed significant main effects of W1 negative need for approval on W2 relational
aggression and W2 avoidant behavior. As expected, negative need for approval predicted
heightened subsequent relational aggression and avoidant behavior.
A significant positive need for approval X sex interaction was found for overt aggression.
Decomposition of this interaction (see Figure 2) revealed that W1 positive need for approval
significantly predicted W2 overt aggression in boys (ß = -0.16, t(245) = -2.87, p < .01) but not in
girls (ß = 0.06, t(277) = 1.22, ns). Specifically, in boys, positive need for approval predicted less
1 The positive need for approval X negative need for approval interaction term was nonsignificant in all analyses
and was not included in the final models.
16
subsequent overt aggression, suggesting that having an approach motivation protected boys
against elevated levels of overt aggression. Girls exhibited low levels of overt aggression
regardless of their positive need for approval.
Predicting Peer Responses
The second set of analyses examined the prediction of peer popularity, peer victimization,
and peer exclusion (see Table 5). Results revealed a significant main effect of sex on W2 overt
victimization, indicating that boys experienced more overt victimization than did girls. Results
also revealed a significant main effect of W1 positive need for approval on W2 peer exclusion. As
expected, positive need for approval predicted less subsequent peer exclusion. Results also
revealed a significant main effect of W1 negative need for approval on W2 overt and relational
victimization, and a marginally significant effect on W2 peer exclusion. Specifically, negative
need for approval predicted heightened overt victimization, relational victimization, and peer
exclusion.
A significant positive need for approval X sex interaction was found for popularity, overt
victimization, relational victimization, and peer exclusion. Decomposition of these interactions
(see Figures 3a – d) revealed similar patterns for each of the peer responses. Specifically, W1
positive need for approval significantly predicted (a) W2 popularity in boys (ß = 0.14, t(245) =
2.61, p < .01) but not in girls (ß = -0.07, t(277) = -1.25, ns); (b) W2 overt victimization in boys (ß
= -0.15, t(245) = -2.42, p < .05) but not in girls (ß = 0.07, t(277) = 1.12, ns), (c) W2 relational
victimization in boys (ß = -0.15, t(245) = -2.49, p < .05) but not in girls (ß = 0.06, t(277) = 1.06,
ns), and (d) W2 peer exclusion in boys (ß = -0.23, t(245) = -4.13, p < .001) but not in girls (ß =
0.01, t(277) = 0.11, ns). Thus, in boys, positive need for approval predicted more subsequent
17
popularity and less subsequent victimization and exclusion, whereas girls’ levels of popularity,
victimization, and exclusion were similar regardless of their positive need for approval.
A significant negative need for approval X sex interaction was found for popularity.
Decomposition of this interaction (see Figure 4) revealed that W1 negative need for approval
significantly predicted W2 popularity in girls (ß = -0.11, t(278) = -2.02, p < .05) but not in boys
(ß = 0.06, t(246) = 1.02, ns). Specifically, in girls, negative need for approval predicted less
subsequent popularity. Boys’ level of popularity was similar regardless of their negative need for
approval.
18
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
Engaging in healthy peer interactions is an important step in normative social
development. Children’s motivation to cultivate constructive relationships with peers is likely a
complex process. The current study examined how need for approval operates as a motivating
factor for children’s specific social behaviors (prosocial behavior, overt and relational
aggression, and avoidant behavior) as well as their peers’ responses to them (peer popularity,
overt and relational peer victimization, and peer exclusion). Positive need for approval, a focus
on social reward in the form of positive appraisals, may be representative of an approach
orientation in which children are motivated to direct themselves towards social situations in
order to elicit positive feedback. An approach orientation may be beneficial as it encourages
children to adhere to social norms and to adopt social goals that promote harmony with peers.
Conversely, negative need for approval, a focus on social punishment in the form of negative
appraisals, may be representative of an avoidance orientation in which children are motivated to
direct themselves away from social situations in order to avoid eliciting negative feedback. An
avoidance orientation may be disadvantageous as it causes children to focus on evading social
interactions and to adopt social goals that promote avoiding displays of competence (or a lack
thereof).
Motivational Implications of Need for Approval
Previous research suggests children’s social orientation influences the types of
achievement goals they adopt in a classroom context (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). To establish need
for approval as a motivational construct, we examined whether positive and negative dimensions
of need for approval mapped onto children’s approach- and avoidance-oriented social goals. The
19
need for approval measure employed in the current study replicated the pattern of association
with social goals previously found, in particular, positive need for approval predicted more social
development and demonstration-approach goals, whereas negative need for approval predicted
more demonstration-avoidance goals. This finding is critical to understanding that need for
approval may be one way in which an approach-avoidance orientation manifests itself as an
outward display of sensitivity to reward (approach) or punishment (avoidance). Our pattern of
results suggests that need for approval motivates children socially and influences how they
interact with peers in accordance to underlying systems of social orientation.
Social Implications of Need for Approval
Social consequences of approach orientation. As expected, an approach orientation,
reflected in higher levels of positive need for approval, predicted moving towards the social
world as opposed to against or away from it, and peers responded in kind. Specifically, approach
orientation predicted more positive approach outcomes (heightened popularity in boys), less
negative approach outcomes (diminished overt aggression and overt and relational victimization
in boys), and less avoidant outcomes (diminished avoidant behavior across the sample and peer
exclusion in boys). Thus, an approach orientation is adaptive in that it promotes positive social
outcomes and protects against several negative social outcomes. As children seek out positive
appraisals from others in order to enhance their feelings of self-worth, it makes sense that they
would do so by approaching others in positive ways as opposed to treating peers poorly or shying
away from them altogether.
It makes sense that children who want to obtain positive self-appraisals and who
approach peers in genuine ways would do so by being helpful, altruistic, empathic, or selfless;
however, the present study did not find support for the idea that an approach orientation predicts
20
more prosocial behavior. This result could be due to our measure of prosocial behavior, which
included three items that tap into active, explicit including and inviting behaviors (e.g. “When
this child notices that another kid has been left out of an activity or group, he/she invites the kid
to join the group.”). This measure does not capture other ways in which children interact
positively with peers such as sharing school supplies, taking turns playing a game, helping a
child who has fallen, or working together to solve a problem. Positive need for approval may
motivate children to act in a variety of prosocial ways within the context of peer interactions
because helpful, responsive, and kind interactions would ensure that they gain the desired
positive judgments from others, an idea replicated in research with adults (Yoeli, 2009).
Although it was hypothesized that an approach motivation would predict more positive
approach outcomes and less negative approach outcomes, as supported by the study findings, it is
possible that an approach motivation actually predicts more negative approach outcomes under
certain conditions. Previous research suggests that the approach motivational system is linked to
anger (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). In particular, anger could directly result from disrupted
approach behavior, such as when an approach goal is blocked or thwarted (Fox, 1991; Frijda,
1986; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). For example, Rudolph and colleagues (in preparation)
found that parent-reported inhibitory control interacted with approach-avoidance orientation,
measured as child reported need for approval and social goals. Specifically, within the context of
poor inhibitory control, approach motivation predicted heightened aggression over time. Thus,
children who are oriented towards their peers but have diminished ability to self-regulate and
suppress inappropriate behavior are more likely to interact with peers aggressively in pursuit of
rewards, as opposed to interacting in positive ways to gain approval. It is important to recognize
21
that although in general an approach orientation may be more adaptive than an avoidance
orientation, it may still influence children to interact with peers in less than optimal ways.
Social consequences of avoidance orientation. Also as expected, an avoidance
orientation, reflected in higher levels of negative need for approval, predicted less positive
approach outcomes (diminished popularity in girls), more direct and indirect negative approach
outcomes (heightened relational aggression, overt victimization, and relational victimization
across the sample), and more avoidant outcomes (heightened avoidant behavior and peer
exclusion across the sample). Thus, an avoidant orientation places children at risk for
maladaptive peer interactions. Children high in negative need for approval not only retreat from
or avoid social situations, but also seek to interact with peers in less adaptive ways (i.e., through
relational aggression) in order to avoid negative self-appraisals. This pattern of findings suggests
that although children with an avoidance orientation may not be perceived by adults to have
impaired social functioning because they may be quiet, not get into trouble, or frequently play by
themselves, these children have serious interpersonal problems that may undermine their
subsequent normative social development.
Although it was thought that avoidant children may be more at risk for relational than
overt forms of victimization, they were actually more likely to be victimized by their peers in
general. These results suggest that avoidant children may be chosen as salient targets of bullying.
An avoidant social orientation could lead children to have fewer friends or to be less accepted by
others (Smith, 2004), making it unlikely that others would protect them from bullying. Avoidant
children also may be less socially skilled due to a lack of experience with social situations and a
need to avoid negative feedback. Deficient social skills, in turn, place children at greater risk for
becoming victims (Card & Hodges, 2008). Avoidant children also are likely to be seen as “easy
22
targets” by aggressors because they are least likely to defend themselves and may reward
aggressors through signs of suffering in the face of clear negative judgments about themselves
(Card & Hodges, 2008).
Sex differences in social motivation. Although several of the findings applied consistently
across sex, most of the interaction effects suggested that positive need for approval protected
boys against negative outcomes. One possible reason the results were not replicated in girls is
that girls’ mean scores on the negative outcome measures (i.e., overt aggression, peer
victimization, peer exclusion) were low regardless of their level of need for approval. Another
possible explanation is that need for approval more strongly motivates boys than girls. Although
typically thought to be agentic or independent (Cross & Madson, 1997; Helgeson, 1994), need
for social approval in boys may reflect a desire to obtain a positive reputation with peers through
observable behavior, and thus boys are more strongly adhering to social norms in terms of being
less overtly aggressive and more popular. Girls’ communal nature may cause them to be more
involved in nurturing their social relationships and less concerned with the type of self-appraisals
they are incurring.
Origins and Malleability of Need for Approval
The current study contributes to existing literature on children’s peer relationships by
elucidating the role of need for approval as a motivational construct. The prospective
longitudinal design shows that an approach-avoidance orientation influences peer interactions
through both the behaviors of the child and how peers respond to them. This research raises
questions about the emergence of need for approval as well as the malleability of approach-
avoidance orientations and how they might be influenced by external factors.
23
Theories of self-concept propose that one of the origins of self-worth is the
internalization of the judgments of others (Harter, 1998). Need for approval is likely an implicit
construct that may not manifest itself until children are initially exposed to peer interactions in a
school context. In this regard, children’s reports of their need for approval may be, in part, a
response to the ways in which peers have already responded to them. Thus, peer responses may
have influenced children’s need for approval prior to our first measurement (i.e., 2nd grade),
which may in turn influence children’s social outcomes at Wave 2 (i.e., 3rd grade). Consistent
with this idea, in a sample of 190 grade school students from minority backgrounds, Storch and
colleagues (2003) found that victimization experiences significantly predicted subsequent social
avoidance. This finding suggests a transactional process in which, for example, negative peer
experiences are internalized, resulting in rumination about and fear of others’ negative
evaluations, which in turn fosters avoidant social interactions.
It is also possible that other factors influence the emergence of need for approval. A
child’s temperament may determine which behavioral system (approach or avoidance) is more
sensitive to external cues. Previous research has found that high infant frustration predicts
subsequent extraversion in childhood (Rothbart, Derryberry, & Hershey, 2000) suggesting that
temperament may influence later approach goals. Similarly, it would be fruitful for future
research to examine how early care experiences (parenting, child care placement) or
socioeconomic disadvantage influence a child’s need for approval, with ramifications for their
broader social interaction style.
Future research also is needed to further explore the stability and malleability of need for
approval over time. First, examining how need for approval influences social behavior and peer
responses over a broader longitudinal timeframe would shed light on whether an approach
24
motivation continues to be adaptive and an avoidance motivation continues to place children at
risk for negative social outcomes as they continue through school. Second, analysis of individual
trajectories across time also may be an important avenue for future research that sheds light on
the malleability of motivation. Specifically, if a child has an avoidance orientation but notices
negative outcomes such as increased victimization and peer exclusion, does the child change
tactics and move towards the social world with more of an approach orientation? If so, what
mechanisms allow this shift to occur and how does it influence a child’s feelings of self-worth?
Conclusion
The findings of the current study provide a detailed account of how a child’s approach or
avoidant social orientation, as indicated through need for approval, contributes to their own
subsequent social behavior and peer responses to them. In light of findings suggesting that an
approach orientation is adaptive, whereas an avoidant motivation is disadvantageous, this
research takes an important first step toward delineating how a child’s social adjustment might
be specifically influenced by their motivation to gain positive approval or avoid disapproval
from peers. The current findings also have practical implications in terms of their benefit in
guiding educational programs used to promote positive peer relationships and reduce problems
with bullying.
25
TABLES
Table 1
Descriptive Data
Wave 1 Wave 2 Stability
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys M SD M SD M SD M SD r r Positive Need for Approval
3.68 1.01 3.67 1.03 3.81 .91 3.68 1.01 .33** .24**
Negative Need for Approval
2.38 1.07 2.24 1.12 2.13 1.01 2.00 1.06 .23** .29**
Prosocial Behavior 3.15b .98 2.93b .98 3.22a 1.02 2.92a 1.04 .25** .36** Overt Aggression 1.29a .75 1.62a .96 1.34a .80 1.72a 1.06 .52** .46** Relational Aggression 2.06a .95 1.80a .78 2.14a 1.00 1.86a .79 .45** .38** Avoidant Behavior 0.00 .86 -0.00 .94 0.01 .86 -0.01 .92 .18** .34** Peer Popularity 4.43 1.35 4.52 1.42 4.38 1.48 4.26 1.57 .46** .54** Overt Victimization
1.51a .50 1.69a .62 1.54a .51 1.78a .65 .25** .25**
Relational Victimization
1.81c .66 1.68c .65 1.86c .70 1.74c .68 .22** .34**
Peer Exclusion 1.52 .71 1.51 .73 1.61 .78 1.61 .78 .37** .45**
Note. **p < .01. aSex difference at p < .001. bSex difference at p < .01. cSex difference at p < .05.
26
Table 2
Correspondance between Need for Approval Dimensions and Social Goal Orientation
Social Development
______________________________ Demonstration Approach
______________________________ Demonstration Avoidance
______________________________
ß t ∆R2 ß t ∆R2 ß t ∆R2
Need for Approval Positive .29 7.26*** .16 .25 5.90*** .06 .08 1.94 .14 Negative -.07 -1.84 .02 0.58 .16 4.23***
Note. ***p < .001.
27
Table 3 Wave 1 Intercorrelations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Positive Need for Approval --- .08 .04 .05 .01 -.15* .07 .03 -.00 -.05
2. Negative Need for Approval .14* --- .09 -.02 -.02 .15* -.16** -.01 .01 .09
3. Prosocial Behavior .09 .01 --- -.46*** -.32*** -.20** .42*** -.24*** -.24*** -.27***
4. Overt Aggression .06 .07 -.38*** --- .69*** .36*** -.29*** .71*** .65*** .43***
5. Relational Aggression .05 .03 -.27*** .49*** --- .28*** -.10 .62*** .72*** .33***
6. Avoidant Behavior .03 .08 -.04 .24*** .26*** --- -.57*** .50*** .48*** .75***
7. Peer Popularity .04 -.05 .35*** -.26*** -.14* -.61*** --- -.32*** -.30*** -.68***
8. Overt Victimization .09 .06 -.31*** .54*** .49*** .45*** -.42*** --- .83*** .56***
9. Relational Victimization .10 .04 -.21*** .32*** .67*** .42*** -.30*** .73**
* --- .57***
10. Peer Exclusion -.01 .02 -.14* .27*** .21*** .80*** -.70*** .51*** .41*** ---
Note. Intercorrelations presented above the diagonal are for boys; intercorrelations presented below the diagonal are for girls.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
28
Table 4
Predicting Wave 2 Social Behavior from Positive and Negative Need for Approval and the Need for Approval x Sex Interactions
W2 Prosocial Behavior
W2 Overt Aggression W2 Relational Aggression
W2 Avoidant Behavior
Predictors β t β t β t β t Step 1 W1 Outcome .31 7.57*** .50 13.35*** .44 11.13*** .26 6.21***
Step 2 W1 Positive NFA -.01 -0.21 -.06 -1.52 .01 0.36 -.04 -0.89 W1 Negative NFA -.01 -0.31 .04 1.61 .11 2.70** .10 2.22*
Sex .12 2.75** -.11 -2.94** .08 2.10* -.01 -0.19 Step 3 Positive NFA x Sex -.09 -1.57 .17 3.10** .07 1.26 .10 1.63 Negative NFA x Sex -.02 -0.34 .03 0.56 .03 0.49 -.07 -1.21
Note. W1 is wave 1 data, W2 is wave 2 data. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
29
Table 5
Predicting Wave 2 Peer Responses from Positive and Negative Need for Approval and the Need for Approval x Sex Interactions
W2 Popularity W2 Overt Victimization W2 Relational Victimization W2 Peer Exclusion Predictors β t β t β t β t Step 1 W1 Outcome .50 13.26*** .27 6.50*** .28 6.61*** .41 10.23***
Step 2 W1 Positive NFA .03 0.87 -.05 -1.16 -.04 -0.94 -.11 -2.66**
W1 Negative NFA -.03 -0.86 .09 2.20* .14 3.38** .08 1.91^
Sex .06 1.49 -.17 -4.06*** .05 1.20 -.01 -0.18 Step 3 Positive NFA x Sex -.15 -2.82** .16 2.62** .15 2.41* .17 2.97**
Negative NFA x Sex -.11 -2.03* .06 0.96 -.00 -0.04 .06 1.02 Note. W1 is wave 1 data, W2 is wave 2 data. ^ p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
30
FIGURES
Figure 1. Theoretical model of the influence of need for approval on social outcomes.
Approach Orientation
(Positive Need for Approval)
Positive Approach Outcomes
(Prosocial Behavior, Peer Popularity)
Direct Negative Approach Outcomes (Overt Aggression,
Overt Victimization)
Avoidance Outcomes (Avoidant Behavior,
Peer Exclusion)
+
_
_
Avoidance Orientation
(Negative Need for Approval)
Indirect Negative
Approach Outcomes (Relational Aggression,
Relational Victimization)
_
+
+
_
_
31
Figure 2. W1 positive need for approval x sex interaction predicting W2 overt aggression,
adjusting for W1 overt aggression.
32
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3. W1 positive need for approval x sex interaction predicting (a) W2 popularity, (b) W2
overt victimization. Analyses adjust for W1 social outcomes.
33
(c)
(d)
Figure 3 (cont). W1 positive need for approval x sex interaction predicting (c) W2 relational
victimization, and (d) W2 exclusion. Analyses adjust for W1 social outcomes.
34
Figure 4. W1 negative need for approval x sex interaction predicting W2 popularity, adjusting for
W1 popularity.
35
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington:
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS 7.0 [Computer Software]. Chicago: Small Waters Corp.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1994). The malleability of behavior inhibition: A study of individual
developmental functions. Developmental Psychology, 30, 912-919.
Asher, S. R. & Coie, J. D. (Eds.). (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Asher, S. R. & Gottman, J. M. (Eds.). (1981). The development of children’s friendships. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Banerjee, R. (2002). Audience effects on self-presentation in childhood. Social Development, 11,
487-507.
Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry
through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal
Relationships, 13, 135-150.
Bowker, J. C. W., Rubin, K. H., & Burgess, K. B. (2006). Behavioral characteristics associated
with stable and fluid best friendship patterns in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 52, 671-693.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, D. R., Gary, L. E., Greene, A. D., & Milburn, N. G. (1992). Patterns of social affiliation
as predictors of depressive symptoms among urban Blacks. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 33, 242-253.
36
Caldwell, M. S., Rudolph, K. D., Troop-Gordon, W., & Kim, D. (2004). Reciprocal influences
among relational self-views, social disengagement, and peer stress during early
adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1140-1154.
Card, N. A. & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations,
causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23, 451-461.
Carver, C. S. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and
implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183-204.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality:
Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741-
751.
Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns
of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824-831.
Cole, D. A., Jacquez, F. M., & Maschman, T. L. (2001). Social origins of depressive cognitions:
A longitudinal study of self-perceived competence in children. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 25, 377-395.
Coleman, P. K. & Byrd, C. P. (2003). Interpersonal correlates of peer victimization among
young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 301-314.
Coplan, R. J. (2000). Assessing nonsocial play in early childhood: Conceptual and
methodological approaches. In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sandgrund, & C. Shafer (Eds.), Play
diagnosis and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 563-598). New York: Wiley.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in
the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317-2327.
37
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 579-588.
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological
adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and
overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.
Criss, M. M., Shaw, D. S., Moilanen, K. L., Hitchings, J. E., & Ingoldsby, E. M. (2009). Family,
neighborhood, and peer characteristics as predictors of child adjustment: A longitudinal
analysis of additive and mediation models. Social Development, 18, 511-535.
Crocker, J. & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593-
623.
Cross, S. E. & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological
Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Cullerton-Sen, C. & Crick, N. R. (2005). Understanding the effects of physical and relational
victimization: The utility of multiple perspectives in predicting social-emotional
adjustment. School Psychology Review, 34, 147-160.
de Bruyn, E. H. & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2006). Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and
antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 607-627.
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M.
(2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of
aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374-393.
Downey, G. & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.
38
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8,
100-110.
Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eisenberg, N. & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91-119.
Elliot, A. J. & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach
and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 804-818.
Ellison, C. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 32, 80-99.
Erdley, C. A., Loomis, C. C., Cain, K. M., Dumas-Hines, F., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Relations
among children’s social goals, implicit personality theories, and responses to social
failure. Developmental Psychology, 33, 263-272.
Fincham, F. D., Hokoda, A., & Sanders, Jr., R. (1989). Learned helplessness, test anxiety, and
academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Child Development, 60, 138-145.
Fox, N. A. (1991). If its not left, its right: Electroencephalograph asymmetry and the
development of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 863-872.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England/New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality,
74, 175-222.
39
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2003). Evidence for bivariate systems: An empirical test
of appetition and aversion across domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 349-
372.
Galen, B. R. & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression
among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589-600.
Gazelle, H. & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress
model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 257-278.
Gazelle, H. & Rudolph, K. D. (2004). Moving toward and away from the world: Social approach
and avoidance trajectories in anxious solitary youth. Child Development, 75, 829-849.
Gecas, V. & Burke, P. J. (1995). Self and identity. In K. S. Cook, G. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.),
Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 41-67). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and
Emotion, 4, 269-288.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of
development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.
Harter, S. (1986). Processes underlying the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of the
self-concept in children. In J. Suls & A. W. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives
on the self (Vol. 3, pp. 136-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-representations. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and
personality development (5th ed., pp. 553-617). New York: Wiley.
40
Hektner, J. M., August, G. J., & Realmuto, G. M. (2000). Patterns and temporal changes in peer
affiliation among aggressive and nonaggressive children participating in a summer school
program. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 603-614.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and
potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.
Hibbard, D. R. & Buhrmester, D. (1998). The role of peers in the socialization of gender-related
social interaction styles. Sex Roles, 39, 185-202.
Holmgren, R. A., Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1998). The relations of children’s situational
empathy-related emotions to dispositional prosocial behavior. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 22, 169-193.
Howes, C. (2001). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher relationships
and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9, 191-204.
Jacobsen, R. H., Lahey, B. B., & Strauss, C. C. (1983). Correlates of depressed mood in normal
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psycology, 11, 29-40.
Johnson, H. D., LaVoie, J. C., Spenceri, M. C., & Mahoney-Wernli, M. (2001). Peer conflict
avoidance: Associations with loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance.
Psychological Reports, 88, 227-235.
Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle
childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 333-359.
Ladd, G. W. & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of
young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 1008-1024.
41
McElwain, N. L., Olson, S. L., & Volling, B. L. (2002). Concurrent and longitudinal associations
among preschool boys’ conflict management, disruptive behavior, and peer rejection.
Early Education & Development, 13, 245-264.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mize, J. & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother-child relationship style, and
children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312-
332.
Molden, D. C. & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology – A lay theories
approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American
Psychologist, 61, 192-203.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Predictors and consequences of
childhood depressive symptoms: A 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 101, 405-422.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Perdue, N. H., Manzeske, D. P., Estell, D. B. (2009). Early predictors of school engagement:
Exploring the role of peer relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1084-1098.
Putallaz, M., Grimes, C. L., Foster, K. J. Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dearing, K. (2007).
Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the
school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523-547.
Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Children’s prosocial dispositions
and behavior. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4, Socialization,
personality, and social development. New York: Wiley.
42
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Hershey, K. (2000). Stability of temperament in childhood:
Laboratory infant assessment to parent report at seven years. In V. J. Molfese & D. L.
Molfese (Eds.) Temperament and personality development across the life span (pp. 85-
119). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Rubin, K. H. (1982). Nonsocial play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53,
651-657.
Rubin, K. H. & Clark, M. L. (1983). Preschool teachers’ ratings of behavioral problems:
Observational, sociometric, and social-cognitive correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 11, 273-286.
Rudolph, K. D., Abaied, J. L., Flynn, M., Sugimura, N., & Agoston, M. (2010). Developing
relationships, being cool, and not looking like a loser: Social goal orientation predicts
children’s responses to peer aggression. Child Development (in press).
Rudolph, K. D. & Bohn, L. E. (2010). Interactive Contributions of Self-Regulation Deficits and
Approach-Avoidance Motivation to Aggressive Behavior and Depressive Symptoms.
Manuscript in preparation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Rudolph, K. D., Caldwell, M. S., & Conley, C. S. (2005). Need for approval and children’s well-
being. Child Development, 76, 309-323.
Rudolph, K. D. & Clark, A. G. (2001). Conceptions of relationships in children with depressive
and aggressive symptoms: Social-cognitive distortion or reality? Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 29, 41-56.
Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Burge, D. (1997). A cognitive-interpersonal approach to
depressive symptoms in preadolescent children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
25, 33-45.
43
Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. S. (2008). An exploration of young adolescents’ social achievement
goals and social adjustment in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
672-687.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullying: Recent developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9, 98-
103.
Storch, E. A., Phil, M., Nock, M. K., Masia-Warner, C., & Barlas, M. E. (2003). Peer
victimization and social-psychological adjustment in Hispanic and African-American
children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 439-452.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1996). Self-traps: The elusive quest for higher self-esteem. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J.
(2008). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in preadolescence: Teachers’ and parents’
perceptions of the behavior of girls and boys. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 32, 243-251.
Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial
behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 222-244.
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school:
Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
195-203.
44
Wert, S. R. & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General
Psychology, 8, 122-137.
Yoeli, E. (2009). Does social approval stimulate prosocial behavior? Evidence from a field
experiment in the residential electricity market. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70,
2163A.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., & Barrett, K. C. (1991). Guilt and empathy: Sex differences and
implications for the development of depression. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The
development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 243-272). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
