Psychological Reports, 1991, 69, 831-836. O Psychological Reports 1991
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CHILDREN'S SOCIAL STATUS ' JOHN W. MAAG, STANLEY F. VASA, JACK J. KRAMER,
AND GREGORY K. TORREY University of Nebraska-Lincoln Summary.-Factors related to children's friendships have been empirically related to social development and social status. Idenufying specific factors related to peer status is important for teachers and counselors in recognizing children at risk for behavior and emotional problems. 370 teachers' global opinions about the importance of factors associated with peer status were assessed through a statewide survey. Analysis indicated that social skills, physical attractiveness, and outgoingness were the most frequently cited factors contributing to students' social status. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Peer social relationships of children have been studied extensively in recent years. Peer relationships represent a prominent determinant in the development of prosocial behavior. Socialization within the peer group is associated with helpfulness, friendliness, conformity to rules, and positive attitudes toward others (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Maccoby, 1986; Masters & Furman, 1981; Rubin, 1982). It is not surprising, therefore, that failure to achieve social status in a peer group places children at risk for subsequent adjustment difficulties during adolescence and adulthood (Farington, 1986). For example, rejected children are likely to exhibit aggressive and disruptive behavior, remain unaccepted by peers as they move into new settings and experience academic failure, loneliness, and social dissatisfaction (Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1983; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge, 1983; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1984). Although it is clear that poor peer relations is an important factor in the development of antisocial behavior (e.g., Patterson, 1986), relationships between personal attributes and behavioral characteristics and peer status are quite complex. For example, the distinction between socially neglected and rejected children recently has been the focus of considerable research (Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1983; Coie, et al., 1982; Coie & Kupersrnidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge, et al., 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1984). Rejected children appear at much greater risk for experiencing social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties than their neglected peers (Asher & Dodge, 1986). Although peers view neglected children as shy and with'Address correspondence to Dr. John W. Maag, 202 Barkley Center, University of NebraskaLincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732.
832
J. W. MAAG, ET AL.
drawn, they are less aggressive than rejected and even popular youngsters. Neglected children sometimes exhibit considerable prosocial behavior, but their general lack of assertiveness apparently results in their peers not perceiving them as socially competent (Kauffman, 1989). A variety of classroom conditions can produce different effects on social status and friendship patterns. The same type of classroom behavior can have different implications for peer relations depending on age and gender (Cairns & Cairns, 1986; Maccoby, 1986). For example, bias in peers' perceptions can produce differences in social acceptability for two students who exhibit similar behavior (Hollinger, 1987). Youngsters acquiring a reputation for aggression or cooperativeness may elicit responses from peers and teachers based on their attitudes rather than youngsters' actual behavior. Teachers' attitudes especially play an important role in the education of atypical children. Teachers typically rate rejected students as having more trouble in academic subjects (Li, 1985). These children tend to be viewed by teachers as disruptive, irritable, aggressive, domineering, dishonest, and selfish (Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984). It comes as no surprise that teachers have more positive interactions with students who are high achievers than with those who are low achievers (Good & Brophy, 1987). Given the personal attributes and behavioral characteristics of popular and unpopular children, it is somewhat surprising that there is little research on those factors teachers believe contribute to peer status. This information is important for understanding why some youngsters are rejected or accepted. The purpose of the present study was to obtain teachers' global opinions about the importance of factors they believe to be associated with peer status. It is instructive to assess how knowledge drawn from empirical research about the nature of social status compares with teachers' perceptions on this topic. Teachers and counselors play critical roles in identifying students of low social status. The information obtained in this study may help clarify the relationship between teachers' perceptions and observed behavior associated with social status. METHOD To assess their perceptions of factors associated with social status an 18-item questionnaire was administered to 522 teachers of Grades 4, 5 , and 6 of whom 370 (76 men, 294 women) responded. One hundred sixty-nine teachers did not complete all 18 items of the questionnaire so their responses were omitted from the analysis. Seventy-one percent of those surveyed completed the questionnaire. The respondents included 58% (n = 285) with baccalaureate degrees and 42% with master's degrees (n = 206). The experience of the teachers was classified as one year (n = 2 5 ) , two years (n = 14), three to five years (n = 36), six to ten years (n = 68), ten or more (n = 348), and no response (n = 31). One hundred forty-two teachers reported having
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL STATUS
833
received training in the use of sociometrics while 380 had not and 41 did not respond to this question. Participants received the survey in the mail along with a self-addressed and stamped envelope and were asked to rank order (1 through 7) the factors which they believed contributed most to students' social status within their classrooms. A list of 20 factors, generated from the literature on social acceptance and social status of students, were provided for rating (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1986; Carlson, et al., 1984; Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Coie, et al., 1982). Respondents were instructed to return the survey within three weeks.
RESULTS Observations based on the survey of teachers' perceptions are presented below. It should be noted that, when teachers were asked to identify factors believed to contribute to social status (see Table I), they were not asked to rank all items in these lists but rather to rank only their top seven choices. Median ranks then were calculated, assigning a rank of eight to each item not ranked by a particular teacher. For example, in Table 1 it can be seen that 330 of the total of 370 teachers ranked "social skills" as one of their top seven choices. For those individuals who did not rank this item, it was assigned a rank of 8 to calculate a meaningful median statistic. The 19 items believed to contribute to social status were rank ordered by respondents. The top three contributors to social status were social skills, MEDIAN RANK
OF
TABLE 1 FACTORS BELIEVED TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIAL STATUS Item
Median Rank
Raters
(N= 370) Social Skills Physical Attractiveness Outgoingness Leadership Athletic Ability Academic Achievement Sense of Humor Intelligence Consideration for Others Clothing Reputation Family Background Physical Maturity Speaking Ability Physical Strength Special Talents (MusicIArt) Body Type Parents' Occupations Hairstyle
3.43 3.57 3.65 3.67 4.60 5.32 6.27 6.29 7.60 7.64 7.67 7.70 7.82 7.85 7.88 7.89 7.93 7.97 7.98
330 310 302 304 296 219 234 228 164 155 171 140 98 87 74 66 44 18 16
834
J. W. MAAG, ETAL
physical attractiveness, and outgoingness, respectively. The three lowest contributors were hair style, parents' occupation, and body type, respectively. Table 1 presents the median ranks of the 19 factors believed to contribute to social status. DISCUSSION Respondents clearly believe social factors (e.g., social skills, outgoingness, leadership) are among the most important factors in establishing a student's social status. This finding is consistent with research indicating that high status is associated with helpfulness, friendliness, prosocial interaction with peers, and positive attitudes towards others (e.g., Bullock, Ironsmith, & Poteat, 1988). Conversely, low peer acceptance is based on children's lack of prosocial skills and inappropriate interaction strategies (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983). This finding suggests teachers perceive social competence as a factor contributing to students' social status (e.g., Hughes & Hall, 1987). It is important, then, to solicit teachers' perceptions in identifying children who might receive training in social skills. Academic achievement and intelligence were perceived as fairly important factors contributing to social status. This finding is consistent with relationships which have been reported between intelligence and academic achievement with peer status (Hartup, 1970). Horowitz (1981) noted that intelligence was more predictive of children's peer status than a handicapping condition. Horowitz's results are interesting since handicapped children consistently are rated lower on measures of peer status than nonhandicapped children (Drabman & Patterson, 1981). Therefore, the relationship between intelligence and peer status appears complex and possibly mediated by other factors. An interesting finding is the relatively high rank teachers gave physical attractiveness and athletic ability as factors contributing to social status. In general, intelligent children often enjoy high peer status and tend to be taller, heavier, stronger, and more energetic than their peers of average intelligence (Tuttle, Becker, & Sousa, 1988). Paradoxically, teachers ranked physical strength and body type very low as contributing to social status. These somewhat contradictory findings may suggest other mitigating factors such as students' interpersonal skills affect teachers' ratings. Highly intelligent children, for example, tend to be well-liked by their peers, happy, emotionally stable, and are often leaders at school (Coleman & Fultz, 1985; Reynolds & Bradley, 1983). The results of this study present an interesting yet conflicting picture. On a positive note, respondents accurately identified social skills as the greatest contributor to peer status. Yet teachers presented conflicting responses by rating physical attractiveness very high while simultaneously rating physical strength and body type very low. Intelligence, which researchers re-
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS O F SOCLAL STATUS
835
ported almost as highly related to peer status as are social skills, was ranked as an intermediate indicator of social status. A question arises as to how such results can best be utilized by classroom teachers and other personnel. Teachers can help identify students who could benefit from training in social skills and refer them for intervention. To facilitate this task it is important that teachers serve as liaison with other school personnel. Especially in a time of dirninishng resources, teachers may support the early identification of students likely to be at risk by recognizing several components of social status. REFERENCES ASHER, S. R., & DODGE,K. A. (1986) Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449. ASHER, S. R., & WHEELER,V. A. (1985) Children's loneliness: a comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Cbnrcal Psychology, 53, 500-505. BULLOCK, M. J., IRONSMITH,M., & POTEAT,G. M. (19883 Sociometric techniques with young schemes. School Psychology Rechildren: a review of psychometrics and clossd~cac~ons view, 17, 289-303. CAIRNS,R. B., & CAIRNS, B. D. (1986) The developmental-interactional view of social behavior: four issues of adolescent aggression. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: research, theories, and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 315-342. CARLSON, C. L., LAHEY,B. B., & NEEPER,R. (1984) Peer assessment of the social behavior of accepted, rejected, and neglected children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 12, 187198. COLE,J. D., & DODGE,K. A. (1983) Continuities and changes in children's social status: a f i ~ e - ~ elongitudinal ar scudy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-281. COIE, J. D., DODGE,K. A,, & COPPOTELLI, H . (1982) Dimensions for types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. COIE, J. D., & KWERSMIDT,J. B. (1983) A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416. COLEMAN,. M., & FULTZ,B. A. (1983) Special class placement, level of intelli ence, and the sel/-concepts of gifted children: a social comparison perspective. RemeJal and Special Education, 6(1), 7-12. DODGE,K. A. (1983) Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399. DODGE,K. A., COIE, J. D., & BRAKKE,N. 1). (1982) Behavioral patterns of socially rejected and neglected readolescents: the roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal c h i J ~ s y c h o b 10, , 389-410. DRAFIMAN, R. S., & PATTERSON, J. N. (1981) Disruptive behavior and the social standing of exceptional children. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1(4), 45-55. FARINGTON, D. P. (1986) Stepping stones to adult criminal careers. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: research, theories, and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 359-384. GOOD,T. L., & BROPHY,J. E. (1987) Looking in classrooms. (4th ed.) New York: Harper & Row. HARTUP, W. W. (1983) Peer relations. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: rocrabzation, personality and social development. Vol. 4. New York: Wiley. Pp. 103-196. HOLLINGER, J. D. (1987) Social skills for behaviorally disordered children as preparation for mainstreaming: theory, practice, and new directions. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 17-27. H o ~ o m z E. , (1981) Popularity, decentering ability, and role-taking slcllls m learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 23-30.
836
J . W. MAAG, ETAL.
HUGHES,J. N., & HALL, R. J. (1987) Pro osed model for the assessment of children's social competence. Professional School ~ s ~ c ~ o2,l 247-260. o ~ ~ , K A ~ A NJ. ,M. (1989) Characteristics of behavior disorders of children and youth. (4th ed.) Columbus, O H : Merrill.
LI, A. K. F. (1985) Early rejected status and later social adjustment: a 3-year follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 567-577. MACCOBY, E. E. (1986) Social groupings in childhood: their relationship to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. Ln D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: research, theories, and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 263-284. MASTERS,J. C., & FURMAN,W. (1981) Popularity, individual friendship selection, and specific peer interaction among children. Developmental Psychology, 17, 344-350. NEWCOMB, A. F., & BUKOWSKI, W. M. (1983) Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856-867. PATTERSON, G . R. (1986) Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432-444. REYNOLDS,C. R., & BRADLEY, M. (1983) Emotional stability of intellectually su erior children gy versus n o n d t e d peers as estimated by chronic anxiety levels. School ~ s ~ c ~ o l oReview, 12, 190-194. RDIN, K. H. (1982) Social and social-cognitive developmental characteristics of young isolate, normal, and sociable children. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer-relotionships and social skills in childhood. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 353-374. TUT~LE, F. B., BECKER,L. A,, & SOUSA,J. A. (1988) Characteristics and idenh3cation of gifted and talented students. (3rd ed.) Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Accepted October 18, 1791
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CHILDREN'S SOCIAL STATUS ' JOHN W. MAAG, STANLEY F. VASA, JACK J. KRAMER,
AND GREGORY K. TORREY University of Nebraska-Lincoln Summary.-Factors related to children's friendships have been empirically related to social development and social status. Idenufying specific factors related to peer status is important for teachers and counselors in recognizing children at risk for behavior and emotional problems. 370 teachers' global opinions about the importance of factors associated with peer status were assessed through a statewide survey. Analysis indicated that social skills, physical attractiveness, and outgoingness were the most frequently cited factors contributing to students' social status. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Peer social relationships of children have been studied extensively in recent years. Peer relationships represent a prominent determinant in the development of prosocial behavior. Socialization within the peer group is associated with helpfulness, friendliness, conformity to rules, and positive attitudes toward others (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Maccoby, 1986; Masters & Furman, 1981; Rubin, 1982). It is not surprising, therefore, that failure to achieve social status in a peer group places children at risk for subsequent adjustment difficulties during adolescence and adulthood (Farington, 1986). For example, rejected children are likely to exhibit aggressive and disruptive behavior, remain unaccepted by peers as they move into new settings and experience academic failure, loneliness, and social dissatisfaction (Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1983; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Dodge, 1983; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1984). Although it is clear that poor peer relations is an important factor in the development of antisocial behavior (e.g., Patterson, 1986), relationships between personal attributes and behavioral characteristics and peer status are quite complex. For example, the distinction between socially neglected and rejected children recently has been the focus of considerable research (Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1983; Coie, et al., 1982; Coie & Kupersrnidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge, et al., 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1984). Rejected children appear at much greater risk for experiencing social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties than their neglected peers (Asher & Dodge, 1986). Although peers view neglected children as shy and with'Address correspondence to Dr. John W. Maag, 202 Barkley Center, University of NebraskaLincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732.
832
J. W. MAAG, ET AL.
drawn, they are less aggressive than rejected and even popular youngsters. Neglected children sometimes exhibit considerable prosocial behavior, but their general lack of assertiveness apparently results in their peers not perceiving them as socially competent (Kauffman, 1989). A variety of classroom conditions can produce different effects on social status and friendship patterns. The same type of classroom behavior can have different implications for peer relations depending on age and gender (Cairns & Cairns, 1986; Maccoby, 1986). For example, bias in peers' perceptions can produce differences in social acceptability for two students who exhibit similar behavior (Hollinger, 1987). Youngsters acquiring a reputation for aggression or cooperativeness may elicit responses from peers and teachers based on their attitudes rather than youngsters' actual behavior. Teachers' attitudes especially play an important role in the education of atypical children. Teachers typically rate rejected students as having more trouble in academic subjects (Li, 1985). These children tend to be viewed by teachers as disruptive, irritable, aggressive, domineering, dishonest, and selfish (Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984). It comes as no surprise that teachers have more positive interactions with students who are high achievers than with those who are low achievers (Good & Brophy, 1987). Given the personal attributes and behavioral characteristics of popular and unpopular children, it is somewhat surprising that there is little research on those factors teachers believe contribute to peer status. This information is important for understanding why some youngsters are rejected or accepted. The purpose of the present study was to obtain teachers' global opinions about the importance of factors they believe to be associated with peer status. It is instructive to assess how knowledge drawn from empirical research about the nature of social status compares with teachers' perceptions on this topic. Teachers and counselors play critical roles in identifying students of low social status. The information obtained in this study may help clarify the relationship between teachers' perceptions and observed behavior associated with social status. METHOD To assess their perceptions of factors associated with social status an 18-item questionnaire was administered to 522 teachers of Grades 4, 5 , and 6 of whom 370 (76 men, 294 women) responded. One hundred sixty-nine teachers did not complete all 18 items of the questionnaire so their responses were omitted from the analysis. Seventy-one percent of those surveyed completed the questionnaire. The respondents included 58% (n = 285) with baccalaureate degrees and 42% with master's degrees (n = 206). The experience of the teachers was classified as one year (n = 2 5 ) , two years (n = 14), three to five years (n = 36), six to ten years (n = 68), ten or more (n = 348), and no response (n = 31). One hundred forty-two teachers reported having
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL STATUS
833
received training in the use of sociometrics while 380 had not and 41 did not respond to this question. Participants received the survey in the mail along with a self-addressed and stamped envelope and were asked to rank order (1 through 7) the factors which they believed contributed most to students' social status within their classrooms. A list of 20 factors, generated from the literature on social acceptance and social status of students, were provided for rating (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1986; Carlson, et al., 1984; Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Coie, et al., 1982). Respondents were instructed to return the survey within three weeks.
RESULTS Observations based on the survey of teachers' perceptions are presented below. It should be noted that, when teachers were asked to identify factors believed to contribute to social status (see Table I), they were not asked to rank all items in these lists but rather to rank only their top seven choices. Median ranks then were calculated, assigning a rank of eight to each item not ranked by a particular teacher. For example, in Table 1 it can be seen that 330 of the total of 370 teachers ranked "social skills" as one of their top seven choices. For those individuals who did not rank this item, it was assigned a rank of 8 to calculate a meaningful median statistic. The 19 items believed to contribute to social status were rank ordered by respondents. The top three contributors to social status were social skills, MEDIAN RANK
OF
TABLE 1 FACTORS BELIEVED TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIAL STATUS Item
Median Rank
Raters
(N= 370) Social Skills Physical Attractiveness Outgoingness Leadership Athletic Ability Academic Achievement Sense of Humor Intelligence Consideration for Others Clothing Reputation Family Background Physical Maturity Speaking Ability Physical Strength Special Talents (MusicIArt) Body Type Parents' Occupations Hairstyle
3.43 3.57 3.65 3.67 4.60 5.32 6.27 6.29 7.60 7.64 7.67 7.70 7.82 7.85 7.88 7.89 7.93 7.97 7.98
330 310 302 304 296 219 234 228 164 155 171 140 98 87 74 66 44 18 16
834
J. W. MAAG, ETAL
physical attractiveness, and outgoingness, respectively. The three lowest contributors were hair style, parents' occupation, and body type, respectively. Table 1 presents the median ranks of the 19 factors believed to contribute to social status. DISCUSSION Respondents clearly believe social factors (e.g., social skills, outgoingness, leadership) are among the most important factors in establishing a student's social status. This finding is consistent with research indicating that high status is associated with helpfulness, friendliness, prosocial interaction with peers, and positive attitudes towards others (e.g., Bullock, Ironsmith, & Poteat, 1988). Conversely, low peer acceptance is based on children's lack of prosocial skills and inappropriate interaction strategies (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983). This finding suggests teachers perceive social competence as a factor contributing to students' social status (e.g., Hughes & Hall, 1987). It is important, then, to solicit teachers' perceptions in identifying children who might receive training in social skills. Academic achievement and intelligence were perceived as fairly important factors contributing to social status. This finding is consistent with relationships which have been reported between intelligence and academic achievement with peer status (Hartup, 1970). Horowitz (1981) noted that intelligence was more predictive of children's peer status than a handicapping condition. Horowitz's results are interesting since handicapped children consistently are rated lower on measures of peer status than nonhandicapped children (Drabman & Patterson, 1981). Therefore, the relationship between intelligence and peer status appears complex and possibly mediated by other factors. An interesting finding is the relatively high rank teachers gave physical attractiveness and athletic ability as factors contributing to social status. In general, intelligent children often enjoy high peer status and tend to be taller, heavier, stronger, and more energetic than their peers of average intelligence (Tuttle, Becker, & Sousa, 1988). Paradoxically, teachers ranked physical strength and body type very low as contributing to social status. These somewhat contradictory findings may suggest other mitigating factors such as students' interpersonal skills affect teachers' ratings. Highly intelligent children, for example, tend to be well-liked by their peers, happy, emotionally stable, and are often leaders at school (Coleman & Fultz, 1985; Reynolds & Bradley, 1983). The results of this study present an interesting yet conflicting picture. On a positive note, respondents accurately identified social skills as the greatest contributor to peer status. Yet teachers presented conflicting responses by rating physical attractiveness very high while simultaneously rating physical strength and body type very low. Intelligence, which researchers re-
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS O F SOCLAL STATUS
835
ported almost as highly related to peer status as are social skills, was ranked as an intermediate indicator of social status. A question arises as to how such results can best be utilized by classroom teachers and other personnel. Teachers can help identify students who could benefit from training in social skills and refer them for intervention. To facilitate this task it is important that teachers serve as liaison with other school personnel. Especially in a time of dirninishng resources, teachers may support the early identification of students likely to be at risk by recognizing several components of social status. REFERENCES ASHER, S. R., & DODGE,K. A. (1986) Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449. ASHER, S. R., & WHEELER,V. A. (1985) Children's loneliness: a comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Cbnrcal Psychology, 53, 500-505. BULLOCK, M. J., IRONSMITH,M., & POTEAT,G. M. (19883 Sociometric techniques with young schemes. School Psychology Rechildren: a review of psychometrics and clossd~cac~ons view, 17, 289-303. CAIRNS,R. B., & CAIRNS, B. D. (1986) The developmental-interactional view of social behavior: four issues of adolescent aggression. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: research, theories, and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 315-342. CARLSON, C. L., LAHEY,B. B., & NEEPER,R. (1984) Peer assessment of the social behavior of accepted, rejected, and neglected children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 12, 187198. COLE,J. D., & DODGE,K. A. (1983) Continuities and changes in children's social status: a f i ~ e - ~ elongitudinal ar scudy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-281. COIE, J. D., DODGE,K. A,, & COPPOTELLI, H . (1982) Dimensions for types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. COIE, J. D., & KWERSMIDT,J. B. (1983) A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416. COLEMAN,. M., & FULTZ,B. A. (1983) Special class placement, level of intelli ence, and the sel/-concepts of gifted children: a social comparison perspective. RemeJal and Special Education, 6(1), 7-12. DODGE,K. A. (1983) Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399. DODGE,K. A., COIE, J. D., & BRAKKE,N. 1). (1982) Behavioral patterns of socially rejected and neglected readolescents: the roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal c h i J ~ s y c h o b 10, , 389-410. DRAFIMAN, R. S., & PATTERSON, J. N. (1981) Disruptive behavior and the social standing of exceptional children. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1(4), 45-55. FARINGTON, D. P. (1986) Stepping stones to adult criminal careers. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: research, theories, and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 359-384. GOOD,T. L., & BROPHY,J. E. (1987) Looking in classrooms. (4th ed.) New York: Harper & Row. HARTUP, W. W. (1983) Peer relations. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: rocrabzation, personality and social development. Vol. 4. New York: Wiley. Pp. 103-196. HOLLINGER, J. D. (1987) Social skills for behaviorally disordered children as preparation for mainstreaming: theory, practice, and new directions. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 17-27. H o ~ o m z E. , (1981) Popularity, decentering ability, and role-taking slcllls m learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 23-30.
836
J . W. MAAG, ETAL.
HUGHES,J. N., & HALL, R. J. (1987) Pro osed model for the assessment of children's social competence. Professional School ~ s ~ c ~ o2,l 247-260. o ~ ~ , K A ~ A NJ. ,M. (1989) Characteristics of behavior disorders of children and youth. (4th ed.) Columbus, O H : Merrill.
LI, A. K. F. (1985) Early rejected status and later social adjustment: a 3-year follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 567-577. MACCOBY, E. E. (1986) Social groupings in childhood: their relationship to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. Ln D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: research, theories, and issues. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 263-284. MASTERS,J. C., & FURMAN,W. (1981) Popularity, individual friendship selection, and specific peer interaction among children. Developmental Psychology, 17, 344-350. NEWCOMB, A. F., & BUKOWSKI, W. M. (1983) Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856-867. PATTERSON, G . R. (1986) Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist, 41, 432-444. REYNOLDS,C. R., & BRADLEY, M. (1983) Emotional stability of intellectually su erior children gy versus n o n d t e d peers as estimated by chronic anxiety levels. School ~ s ~ c ~ o l oReview, 12, 190-194. RDIN, K. H. (1982) Social and social-cognitive developmental characteristics of young isolate, normal, and sociable children. In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds.), Peer-relotionships and social skills in childhood. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 353-374. TUT~LE, F. B., BECKER,L. A,, & SOUSA,J. A. (1988) Characteristics and idenh3cation of gifted and talented students. (3rd ed.) Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Accepted October 18, 1791
