SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND PEER ACCEPTANCE ... - QUT ePrints

6 downloads 0 Views 171KB Size Report
disliked, are seen to be shy and withdrawn (Newcomb et al, 1993), while ... such as peer group entry (Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken & Delugach, 1983; Putallaz,.
Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 1 Running Head: SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND PEER ACCEPTANCE Walker, Sue (2004) Teacher reports of social behaviour and peer acceptance in early childhood: Sex and social status differences. Child Study Journal 34(1):pp. 13-28. Copyright 2004 Faculty of Applied and Professional Studies, State University College at Buffalo Teacher Reports of Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance in Early Childhood: Sex and Social Status Differences

Sue Walker Centre for Learning Innovation Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between sex, social status and social behaviour in a sample of Australian preschool-aged children. Social behaviour has emerged as an important predictor of social status for children in middle childhood however, although early childhood may be an optimum period for implementation of intervention programs, little is known about the correlates of social status in the preschool years. Additionally, relatively little research has addressed the issue of sex differences in the factors that are associated with peer social status. Sociometric interviews were conducted with 182 children (92 boys and 90 girls) four to five years of age (mean age 62.4 months). Status groups of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and average children were identified according to criteria established in previous research. Teachers provided an assessment of children’s social behaviour, peer group entry skills and conflict resolution skills. Results indicated that rejected children were less likely to engage in prosocial cooperative behaviour than any other status group. Rejected children were also rated as less successful overall than other groups in their group entry attempts, but were not more likely to display aggressive or disruptive behaviour. Teachers rated boys as more aggressive than girls and more likely to use aggressive or disruptive strategies in group entry and conflict resolution. Results are discussed in terms of the relevance of particular behavioural characteristics and social skills to successful social functioning for preschool-aged boys and girls. Key words: social behaviour, social status, teacher report, preschool children, sex differences.

2

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

3

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

One of the major tasks of the early childhood years is to learn positive and socially acceptable ways of interacting with others. As much of this learning occurs within the context of the peer group, positive peer interactions make a substantial contribution to children' s social and emotional development. Relationships with peers have significant importance in the lives of even very young children by allowing them to experiment with roles and relationships and develop social cognitive and behavioural skills (Asher, 1990; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993). Thus, peer groups are an important arena within which children can learn positive ways of interacting with others and the quality and quantity of such interactions may impact on children' s later social cognitive and behavioural competence (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990). The role that positive peer relationships play in children' s overall development has drawn attention to the potential consequences of rejection from the peer group. While most children are able to form positive and satisfying relationships with peers and friends, for some, these relationships are fraught with difficulty. Positive peer relationships at an early age have been increasingly linked to social competence and acceptance throughout school (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Ladd, 1990; Ladd & Price, 1987) while poor peer relationships in childhood appear to be correlated with a variety of negative outcomes including early school withdrawal, delinquency, substance abuse and mental health problems (Asher, Oden & Gottman, 1977; Kupersmidt, Coie & Dodge, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987; Woodward & Fergusson, 1999). Because long term rejection by the peer group has been identified as a contributing risk factor towards future negative outcomes, much effort has been

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

4

devoted to identifying the behavioural processes that are associated with successful, or otherwise, social functioning within the peer group. Previous efforts to establish distinctive behavioural styles amongst social status groups have revealed some broad patterns of behaviour that appear important to peer social status. For example, aggressive and disruptive behaviours have been found to be predictive of rejected social status whereas prosocial, cooperative behaviours are associated with popularity (Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb, Bukowski & Pattee, 1993). Neglected children, who have low acceptance amongst their peers but who are not actively disliked, are seen to be shy and withdrawn (Newcomb et al, 1993), while controversial children, who are actively disliked yet enjoy high acceptance within the peer group, display both cooperative, leadership behaviour and aggressive/ disruptive behaviour (Coie & Dodge, 1983). Children of average social status have general but moderate acceptance amongst their peers (Coie & Dodge, 1983; Coie, Dodge & Copotelli, 1982). Overall, research with children in middle childhood has indicated that prosocial behaviour and aggressive behaviour appear to be important predictors of peer social status however, less is known about the correlates of rejection amongst children of preschool age. It is likely that the social tasks which are important for children at different ages, and the developmental appropriateness of their behaviour with respect to these social tasks, will have an influence on the behavioural dimensions which predict rejection or neglect. There is some evidence, for example, to suggest that aggressive behaviour may not be as great a discriminator between status groups at preschool age, when children are less skilled in conflict resolution, than it is in later years (Dunn & McGuire, 1992; Walker & Irving, 1998). If intervention programs in early childhood are to be successful then there is evidently a need to identify the

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

5

specific behavioural characteristics that are associated with social status in early childhood. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to examine the broad behavioural patterns in terms of sociability or aggression that may be linked to social status with respect to preschool boys and girls in Australia. On the basis of past research (e.g., Cantrell & Prinz, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1988; Pettit, Clawson, Dodge & Bates, 1996), it was expected that more positive, prosocial behaviours would be exhibited by popular children, that higher rates of aggression would be demonstrated by rejected children and that neglected children may exhibit lower rates of interaction with their peers. It was also expected that there would be sex differences in behaviour with girls displaying more prosocial, cooperative behaviours and boys exhibiting more aggressive and/or disruptive behaviours. Along with broad patterns of behaviour, the results of past research with children of primary school age have increasingly made evident the necessity of focussing on the situational or contextual aspects of social interactions that may be associated with successful social functioning within the peer group. Specific tasks such as peer group entry (Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken & Delugach, 1983; Putallaz, 1983) and conflict management (Hopmeyer & Asher, 1997; Putallaz, Hellstern, Sheppard, Grimes & Glodis, 1995) have been shown to be particularly effective in identifying the specific behavioural patterns which may lead to successful outcomes and competent social functioning. Previous research has indicated that group entry behaviour may play a critical role in determining subsequent peer acceptance. For example, popular children appear to be able to make accurate perceptions of a group’s activity and exhibit behaviour relevant to that activity (Putallaz, 1983). Unpopular children, on the other hand, are

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

6

more likely to make self-referent statements or to use strategies which are disruptive to the group (Dodge et al., 1983; Putallaz, 1983). Sex differences also emerge in the types of entry bids made and in their success rates. For example, girls appear less likely to use disruptive approaches to group entry but, if they do, they are more likely than boys to be rejected for this behaviour (Putallaz & Wasserman, 1989). Although there may be increasing sophistication with age in the number and types of strategies used, group entry appears to be a key social task for children of all ages. The present study therefore, also sought to examine group entry strategies that might differentiate between social status groups and between boys and girls at preschool age. It was proposed that popular children would exhibit more competent group entry behaviour in terms of using direct or group centred approaches more often and that unpopular children would be more likely to use less competent, disruptive approaches. It was also expected that boys would use less competent group entry strategies, such as disruptive approaches, more frequently than girls. Also of interest were the relative success rates of group entry attempts in terms of sex and social status. Learning to manage conflict successfully is another key aspect of social development in early childhood and conflict management thus plays an important role in the development of positive or negative relationships with peers. Past research has indicated that socially rejected children engage in higher rates of conflict than nonrejected children and are likely to utilise conflict management strategies which are not only more aggressive but also tend to escalate conflict situations (Dodge, Coie, Pettit, & Price, 1990, Putallaz et al., 1995; Shantz, 1983). There is also evidence that girls engage in less conflict overall than boys and that they are less likely to use aggressive strategies to resolve conflict situations (Putallaz et al., 1995). Thus, girls and popular children appear to engage in fewer conflicts than boys and unpopular children and use

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

7

strategies designed to mitigate rather than escalate conflict. A third goal of the present study, therefore, was to consider the joint effects of sex and social status on children’s conflict behaviour with respect to rates of engagement in conflict and strategy use in response to conflict situations. It was expected that girls would engage in lower rates of conflict and utilise more positive and relational conflict management strategies than boys and that popular children, particularly popular girls, would engage in lower rates of conflict and use more competent conflict behaviour than unpopular children, particularly unpopular boys. Finally, one of the purposes of the present research was to assess the utility of teacher report in identifying behaviours associated with peer social status for preschool-aged children. While sociometric measures have the advantage of providing information about a child' s social status from the view of the peer group, teachers are able to report on more global aspects of individual children' s social interactions and provide insights into specific aspects of social sensitivity or interactional style that may be relevant to a child' s social status (Coie & Dodge, 1988). Because teachers experience children in a range of different situations over time and are able to make comparisons among children of the same age, they may well be able to report on general patterns of interaction that may not be evident from sociometric measures. Research indicates that rating scales completed by teachers often appear to be the most accurate indices of actual social behaviour (Kagan & Kolowski, 1988). Thus, although there are limitations to teacher report data, there is also evidence emerging to support its validity particularly with respect to the more global aspects of peer encounters (Coie & Dodge, 1988; Gresham, 1983).

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance Method Participants Participating children were drawn from eleven suburban, community based preschools serving lower to upper middle class families in Queensland, Australia1. In order that sociometric classification be meaningful, it is necessary that most children within each preschool class group rate, and are rated by, their peers. Parental permission to participate was received for 182 preschool children (mean age 62.4 months, SD = 4.22) representing 85% of children across the eleven preschool groups. This is an acceptable participation rate for sociometric testing. Of this sample, 118 children (57 boys and 61 girls) could be classified in a sociometric status group (see below). Procedure Sociometric Status Classification. In the present study, sociometric data were collected through a combination of positive nominations and a rating scale. This procedure, developed by Asher and Dodge (1986), involves the substitution of a “lowest play rating” score for a “disliked” score which is obtained if a negative nomination method is used. Although rating scales appear to be a more reliable measure of popularity than traditional limited choice nomination, particularly with preschool children (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Asher, Renshaw, Geraci & Dor, 1979; Hymel, 1983), they do not provide the means to distinguish between children who are actively disliked (rejected) as opposed to having low impact (neglected). The combination of the play rating scale with a positive nomination technique thus provides a valid method for measuring sociometric status with this age group. Prior to

1

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

8

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance

9

commencing sociometric testing, photographs were taken of all children for whom parental permission had been given to participate in the research. The use of photographs increases the reliability of the sociometric measure for preschool-aged children. Peer ratings were restricted to same sex peers both on the basis of prior research using peer ratings (e.g., Asher & Hymel, 1981), and an acknowledgment that the play of preschool age children occurs predominantly in same sex groups (Maccoby, 1988). Sociometric interviews were conducted individually during the second term of the school year. Children were first asked to select photographs of the three children with whom they most liked to play (positive nomination). Selected children were given a score of 1 for each time they were nominated. Next the participants were asked to rate all the children on a three-point scale according to how much they liked to play with them by posting their photographs into one of three boxes. Depicted on the boxes were a happy face, a neutral face, and a sad face. Children were advised that the happy face meant they liked to play with that child a lot, the neutral face that they liked to play with that child a little bit or sometimes, and the sad face that they did not like to play with that child. Children whose photographs were placed in the box with the happy face received a rating of three; in the box with the neutral face, a rating of two; and in the box with the sad face, a rating of one. For each child the following scores were computed: (a) number of positive nominations (L score); (b) number of low play ratings (LPR score); (c) a social preference score (SP) based on subtracting the number of low play ratings (LPR) from the number of positive nominations (L); and (d) a social impact score (SI) computed by combining the number of low play ratings (LPR) and the number of positive nominations (L). These scores were converted into standardised scores with a mean of

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 10 zero for each sex within each preschool class. Using the procedure outlined by Asher and Dodge (1986), children were classified into sociometric groups as follows: popular (L score greater than 0, LPR score less than 0 and SP score greater than 0); rejected (L score less than 0, LPR score greater than 0 and SP score less than -1.0); neglected (L score less than 0, LPR score less than 0 and SI score less than -1.0); controversial (L score greater than 0, LPR score greater than 0 and SI score greater than 1.0); and average (SP score between -.05 and .05 and SI score between -.05 and .05). Classification resulted in 26 popular children (12 boys, 14 girls), 23 rejected children (12 boys, 11 girls), 24 neglected children (13 boys, 11 girls), 11 controversial children (7 boys, 4 girls) and 34 average children (13 boys, 21 girls). Sixty-four children remained unclassified. While some authors (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1988; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983) advocate including all particpants not identified as having an extreme group status into the average group, others (e.g., Terry & Coie, 1991; Underwood, 1997) recommend including only true average children within the average group resulting in a more homogenous average group for comparative purposes. Thus, for the present study, a pure average group was retained and the group of unclassified children were not included in any further analyses. Social Behaviour. Children’s social behaviour, in terms of typical play behaviours and interactions with peers, was assessed by their teachers via the 25 item Profile of Peer Relations developed by Walker (2001). The Profile of Peer Relations measures three aspects of social interaction: Social Behaviour, Peer Group Entry and Peer Conflict. The Social Behaviour Scale includes three items assessing the frequency of positive social behaviours (e.g., cooperative play) and three items reflecting negative social behaviours (e.g., physical or verbal aggression). The Peer Group Entry Scale includes twelve items that reflect typical strategies that children

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 11 might use when attempting to gain entry into the play of other children, some of which might be more successful than others. These items are grouped under: Direct Approach (e.g., politely asks to join play); Disruptive Approach (e.g., demands to be included or physically intrudes); and Passive Approach (e.g., stands near or watches peers). A summary item is also included for group entry. Teachers were asked to make an assessment of each child' s overall success rate in joining others at play on a single item with a scale ranging from 1 (almost always successful) to 4 (almost always unsuccessful). The Peer Conflict Scale consists of three items reflecting positive approaches to conflict resolution (e.g., compromises or suggests an alternative) and three items reflecting more aggressive approaches to conflict resolution (e.g., threatens or insults peers). Teachers were asked to indicate the relative frequency with which they had observed children using each of the behaviours or strategies over the preschool year. A Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 4 (almost always) was used to structure teachers'judgements for each item. Results Sex and Social Status Differences Social Behaviour Scale. In order to examine the influence of sex and social status, a MANOVA was conducted in which sex and social status served as between group factors. Dependent measures were the subscale scores for positive and negative social behaviour. Means and standard deviations related to the dependent measures are presented descriptively in Table 1. Using Wilks'lambda statistic, significant main effects were found for sex, F (1, 117) = 6.16, p = .003, and for social status, F (4, 117) = 3.26, p = .002, but not for the sex by social status interaction.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 12 Univariate tests revealed significant sex differences in negative social behaviour, F (1, 117) = 8.90, p = .004. Results indicated that teachers rated boys as exhibiting more negative social behaviour than girls. Univariate tests with respect to social status revealed significant status differences in positive social behaviour, F (4, 117) = 6.00, p = .000. Post hoc analyses using Duncan’s multiple range test revealed significant differences between children classified as rejected and all other status groups in teacher rated positive social behaviour. Specifically, rejected children were rated as displaying less positive social behaviour than popular, neglected, controversial or average children. Peer Group Entry. A MANOVA was conducted in which sex and social status served as between group variables and subscale scores for Disruptive Approach, Direct Approach and Passive Approach served as the dependent variables. Means and standard deviations related to the dependent measures are presented in Table 2. Using Wilks’ lambda statistic, significant main effects were found for social status, F (4, 117) = 1.989, p = .025, and sex, F (1, 117) = 3.035, p = .032 but not for the sex by social status interaction. Univariate tests revealed significant social status differences for Passive Approach, F (4, 117) = 2.59, p = .041, and significant sex differences for Disruptive Approach, F (1, 117) = 6.396, p = .013. Post hoc analyses using Duncan’s multiple range test indicated that average status children were rated as using the Passive Approach to group entry significantly more often than popular or controversial children. With respect to sex differences, examination of group means indicated that teachers rated boys as using the Disruptive Approach more often than girls. To assess possible sex and social status differences in teacher ratings of children' s overall success rates when attempting to join others in play, an ANOVA was

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 13 conducted in which sex and social status served as the between group variable and the single item in which teachers rated children on their overall success rate in joining other children in play served as the dependent variable. Teachers were asked to make an assessment of how successful children were in joining others at play on a scale ranging from 1 (almost always successful) to 4 (almost always unsuccessful). The social status group means for this analysis are depicted in Table 3 in order from most successful to least successful. A significant main effect was found for social status, F (4, 117) = 4.400, p = .002. The main effect for sex was not significant nor was the sex by social status interaction. Post hoc analyses using Duncan’s multiple range test indicated that popular children were rated by teachers as significantly more likely to be successful at entering groups than rejected children or neglected children. Rejected children were also rated as less likely to be successful entering a group than neglected children. Peer Conflict. A MANOVA was conducted in which sex and social status served as the between group variables and the dependent variables consisted of subscale scores on Positive Conflict and Negative Conflict. Means and standard deviations related to the dependent variables are presented descriptively in Table 4. A significant main effect was found for sex, F (1, 117) = 5.219, p = .007, while the main effects for social status and the sex by social status interaction were not significant. Univariate tests revealed a significant sex difference for Negative Conflict, F (1, 117) = 9.837, p = .002, but not for Positive Conflict. Examination of group means indicated that teachers rated boys as more likely than girls to use negative conflict resolution strategies such as aggression.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 14 Discussion Previous research has indicated that broad behavioural patterns such as the display of prosocial or aggressive behaviour may play a part in determining social status within the peer group (Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb et al., 1993). The present results support and extend these findings by indicating that prosocial behaviour in particular appears to be related to peer social status at preschool age. In contrast to expectations, there were no significant interactions between sex and social status with respect to the behaviours associated with peer rejection or popularity. Findings with respect to sex differences will be discussed first. Sex Differences The results revealed findings quite consistent in most respects with previous research on the relationship between sex and children’s social behaviour. Considering general styles of social interaction first, teachers rated boys as more aggressive than girls although not less likely to engage in prosocial behaviour. The results with respect to aggression are in line with past research, both observational and teacher reports, which has indicated that by the age of two or three, boys consistently exhibit more physical and verbal aggression than girls (Coie, Dodge & Coppotelli, 1982; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1980). The lack of sex differences in prosocial or cooperative behaviour is surprising given that past research has tended to indicate that girls are seen by teachers as more prosocial than boys (Coie et al., 1982; Walker & Irving, 1998). However, the questionnaire items dealt generally with style of social interaction rather than specific aspects of prosocial behaviour, such as showing empathy, which may account for an absence of sex differences on this dimension. With respect to group entry strategies, boys and girls were rated as equally likely to be successful when attempting to enter a group although boys were rated as

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 15 more likely than girls to use aggressive or disruptive entry approaches. These results are consistent with those described by Putallaz and Wasserman (1989) who reported that girls not only were less likely to use disruptive entry strategies, but that they were more likely than boys to have disruptive entry attempts rejected. Overall, the present results indicated that girls were no more successful than boys at gaining entry into groups even though they were less likely than boys to use disruptive strategies identified in previous research as less competent. These results suggest that skill in group entry may be of more consequence for girls attempting to enter a group of girls than for boys attempting to enter a group of boys. Several studies have indicated that girls spend more time in small group social activities, in cooperative and turn-taking games, engage in more person fantasy and are more sensitive to the requirements of collaboration. Boys, on the other hand, prefer to engage in larger group physically active games and rough and tumble play (Dorsch & Keane, 1994; Fabes, 1994; Fagot, 1985; Jones & Glenn, 1991; Lewis & Phillipsen, 1998; Maccoby, 1988; Mollor, Hymel & Rubin, 1992). Girls also tend to form close, person-oriented friendships while boys'friendships are more activity-oriented (Maccoby, 1990). It may be that aggressive group entry strategies reflect successful or competent social behaviour for boys within the context of larger, physically active male peer groups; whereas, for girls attempting to enter smaller, more intimate groups, an understanding of general norms or rules of group interaction may be more important. Finally, there were significant sex differences in teacher-reported use of conflict resolution strategies. Specifically, boys were rated as more likely than girls to engage in conflict with peers and more likely to use aggressive strategies when confronted with a conflict situation. Once more, these results are comparable with previously reported research which has suggested that not only is there more conflict in

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 16 boys groups, but that when conflict does occur, girls are more likely than boys to use conflict mitigation strategies and to propose prosocial and positive solutions to social problems (Miller, Danaher & Forbes, 1986; Putallaz et al., 1995; Shantz, 1983). Boys, on the other hand, appear more likely to exhibit aggression and use powerful and controlling strategies, particularly when in conflict with girls (Sims, 1998). The present results are also consistent with past findings which suggest that maintaining interpersonal harmony is a higher priority for girls than for boys. Boys appear to be more concerned with power and status (Maccoby, 1990). These results confirm previous research findings with older children and indicate that gender-based conflict resolution strategies appear as early as the preschool years. Thus, as early as four or five years of age, boys and girls may have different profiles of socially competent behaviour. It is likely, as Putallaz et al. (1995) suggest, that socialisation and cultural processes may act to discourage overt conflict behaviour by girls while encouraging the use of affiliative conflict strategies designed to minimise disruption such as appealing to social norms or emphasising the appropriateness of a desired outcome. Similarly, overt conflict involving aggression may be not only acceptable for boys but positively valued as a means of establishing their social position if it is used in the service of standing up for themselves. Social Status Differences Consistent with past research, teachers rated children sociometrically classified as popular as engaging in cooperative, prosocial behaviours more often than children classified as rejected. In fact, rejected children were rated lower by their teachers on prosocial, cooperative behaviours than any other social status group. These results are similar to previous research with older children in which these dimensions have been

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 17 related to popular social status for both boys and girls (Coie, et al., 1990; Dekovic & Gerris, 1994; Newcomb et al., 1993). Unexpectedly, ratings of aggressive behaviour did not distinguish between social status groups overall. Results from a range of studies have suggested that aggression is an important predictor of rejection, particularly for boys (see Coie et al, 1990). However, there is some evidence that aggression is less strongly correlated with social status for very young children (Coie et al., 1990). The present results are therefore consistent with findings which suggest that peer relationship problems may in fact precede the development of aggressive behaviours (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983). Another issue deserving attention concerns the broad definitions of aggression used in the teacher report. Although aggression is frequently cited as a major cause of rejection, not all aggressive children are rejected and not all rejected children are aggressive (Coie, Dodge, Terry & Wright, 1991; French, 1988). Further, Coie and colleagues (1991) suggest that it may be the type of aggression rather than the frequency that is linked to rejected status. For example, aggression related to object acquisition might be more acceptable than unprovoked hostile aggression. Consequently, items used to make up the aggressive behaviour scale related to physical and verbal aggression may not tap more specific aspects of aggression responsible for peers’ dislike. With respect to group entry, it was expected that rejected children would use more aggressive and disruptive attempts at group entry than other social status groups. Such a trend was apparent in the teacher ratings however, the analyses did not reach significance. Nevertheless, although rejected children were not rated as significantly different from popular children in the type of group entry strategies employed, they

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 18 were rated as less successful than any other social status group in their group entry attempts. The group entry items used in the present study were unable to detect the reasons for this differential success. However, these results replicate those found in earlier research with older children whereby it appears that peers respond very differently to the group entry attempts of high and low status children even when the same type of entry tactic is used (Dodge et al., 1983; Putallaz & Wasserman, 1989). As teachers were rating children’s group entry success with respect to known peers in the present study, it may be that less discernible factors such as reputation were operating to reduce the success rates of less popular children. Thus, the relative lack of success of rejected children in this study may be a function of prior reputation rather than lack of group entry skills per se. While successful entry into a peer group may be difficult for all children, it appears particularly important for children who are experiencing difficulties with peer interaction. Effective group entry is a prerequisite for inclusion into a peer group within the context of which more competent interaction skills may be learnt. If less competent children are unable to successfully gain entry into a group of peers, due to reasons related or unrelated to entry behaviour, they may be denied the opportunity to learn more effective interactive skills thus making it more likely that they will continue to experience rejection. In contrast to expectations, no social status differences were found for the teacher ratings of involvement in conflict or use of aggressive conflict management strategies. Past research has consistently indicated that higher levels of conflict and negative affect are related to low acceptance within the peer group (e.g., Putallaz et al., 1995). However, it is possible that the use of less competent conflict resolution strategies do not discriminate as much between social status groups during the early

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 19 childhood years when children are just beginning to learn how to manage conflict effectively. It may also be that initial ineffective and aggressive conflict management strategies become exacerbated over time. For example, McElwain and Olson (1996) reported results from a study with aggressive preschool-aged boys which suggested that over the course of the preschool year, aggressive boys elicited higher levels of aggression and less sophisticated conflict strategies from their peers in response to their own initial aggressive approach to conflict management. Thus, while aggression and rates of involvement in conflict may not separate rejected from popular children at four or five years old, as these behaviours are perpetuated and maintained, in part due to peers’ changing responses to the aggressor, conflict and aggression may become more likely to contribute to rejection. Conclusion As social status is less stable in preschool than in later years, the preschool period may be the most optimal time to implement intervention strategies aimed at improving social competence. Not only is social development a major focus of preschool programs but teachers in the preschool years also have opportunities to implement social skill interventions within free play settings that are not available once children enter the formal school system. The results of the present study thus have the capacity to inform early childhood professionals wishing to implement intervention efforts aimed at improving preschool-aged children’s social status. First, it appears that, at least in early childhood, individual differences in levels of prosocial cooperative behaviour are directly related to peer popularity. Thus, bearing in mind the complexity of the relationship between individual behaviour and rejection from the peer group, teaching of cooperative play skills may still emerge as a useful focus for interventions in early childhood programs. Second, given the central

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 20 role played by cooperative group play in the early childhood years and the relative lack of success of group entry attempts by rejected children, the present findings provide support for interventions focussed on helping children learn effective group entry strategies. The results of the present study also highlight the importance of gender and the role that gender related interactional styles play in the types of behaviours and social skills which are related to successful social functioning for boys and girls. The sex differences noted in social behaviour emphasise the importance of taking gender related interactional styles into account when targeting specific behaviours and social skills for intervention. In conclusion, the clear social status differences evident with respect to prosocial behaviour suggest that broad based interventions designed to increase prosocial interactions may be necessary by at least preschool age, if not earlier, if children’s relationships with their peers are not to be compromised during a period of rapid development in social knowledge and social competence. With increasing age, the social demands of the peer group and the factors affecting peer group social status become more complex and require a greater variety of social skills (Bierman & Montminy, 1993). If children are not able to develop social skills within the context of peer interactions in the years before school, they may be at risk for continued rejection during the school years with the consequent negative outcomes. Early intervention thus has the potential to influence early developmental pathways and promote positive outcomes for young children experiencing difficulties in social relationships.

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

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 21 S.R. & Coie, J.D. (Eds.), Peer rejection in early childhood, (pp. 3-14). New York: Cambridge University Press Asher, S.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22 (4), 444-449. Asher, S.R. & Hymel, S. (1981). Children' s social competence and peer relations: Sociometric and behavioural assessment. In J.D. Wine & M.D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence, (pp. 125-127). New York: Guildford. Asher, S.R., Oden, S.L. & Gottman, J.M. (1977). Children' s friendships in school settings. In L.G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education, Vol. 1, (pp. 33-62). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Asher, S.R., Renshaw, P., Geraci, R. & Dor, A. (1979). Peer acceptance and social skill training: The selection of program content. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco Bierman, K.L. & Montminy, H.P. (1993). Developmental issues in socialskills assessment and intervention with children and adolescents. Behaviour Modification, 17 (3), 229-254. Cantrell, V.L. & Prinz, R.J. (1985). Multiple perspectives of rejected, neglected and accepted children: Relation between sociometric status and behavioural characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53 (6), 884-889. Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A. (1983). Continuities and change in children' s social status: A five year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-281. Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on school behaviour and social status in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child Development, 59, 815829.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 22 Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18 (4), 557-550. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1990). Peer group behaviour and peer group social status. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood, (pp. 17-59). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., Terry, R. & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812-826. Coie, J.D. & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1983). A behavioural analysis of emerging social status in boy' s groups. Child Development, 53, 1400-1416. Dekovic, M. & Gerris, J.R.M. (1994). Developmental analysis of social cognitive and behavioural differences between popular and rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 367-386. Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S., & Price, J.M. (1990). Peer status and aggression in boy' s groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development, 61, 1289-1309. Dodge, K.A., Schlundt, D.C., Schocken, I. & Delugach, J.D. (1983). Social competence and children' s sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29 (3), 309-336. Dorsch, A. & Keane, S.P. (1994). Contextual factors in children' s social information processing. Developmental Psychology, 30 (5), 611-616 Dunn, J. & McGuire, S. (1992). Sibling and Peer relationships in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33 (1), 67-105. Fabes, R.A. (1994). Physiological, emotional and behavioural correlates of

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 23 gender segregation. New Directions for Child Development, 65, 19-34. Fagot, B.I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step towards understanding sex roles. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1097-1104. French, D.C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Development, 59, 976-985. Gresham, F.M. (1983). Social validity in the assessment of children' s social skills: Establishing standards for social competency. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 299-307. Hopmeyer, A. & Asher, S.R. (1997). Children’s responses to two types of peer conflict situations. In Nancy L. Stein (Chair), Multiple perspectives on children’s understanding, evaluation, and resolution of conflict. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, D.C., April. Kagan, D.M. & Kolowski, B.G. (1988). Relationships among measures of social cognition and measures of social skill. Early Child Development and Care, 37, 163-173. Kupersmidt, J.B. & Coie, J.D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalising problems in adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350-1362. Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.) Peer rejection in childhood, (pp. 274-308). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 24 Jones, A. & Glenn, S.M. (1991). Gender differences in pretend play in a primary school group. Early Child Development and Care, 77, 127-135 Ladd, G.W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children' s early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 1081-1100. Ladd, G.W. & Price, J.P. (1987). Predicting children' s social and school adjustment following the transition from school to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168-1189. Lewis, T.E. & Phillipsen, L.C. (1998). Interactions on an elementary school playground: Variations by age, gender, race, group size and playground area. Child Study Journal, 28 (4), 309-321. Maccoby, E.E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24 (6), 755-765. Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45 (4), 513-520. Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-980. McElwain, N.L. & Olson, S.L. (1996). Conflict and aggression among preschool children: a short-term longitudinal study. Paper presented at the XIVth Biennial Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development. Quebec, Canada, August. Miller, P.M., Danaher, D.L., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and seven. Developmental Psychology, 22 (4), 543-548.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 25 Mollor, L.C., Hymel, S. & Rubin, K.H. (1992). Sex typing in play and popularity in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 27 (7/8), 331-353. Newcomb, A.F. & Bukowski, W.M (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of children’s peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19 (6), 856-867. Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children' s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (1), 99-128. Parker, J.G. & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later social adjustment: Are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389. Pettit, G.S., Clawson, M.A., Dodge, K.A. & Bates, J.E. (1996). Stability and change in peer-rejected status: The role of child behaviour, parenting, and family ecology. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 42 (2), 267- 294. Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children' s sociometric status from their behaviour. Child Development, 54, 1417-1426. Putallaz, M., Hellstern, L., Sheppard, B.L., Grimes, C.L. & Glodis, K.A. (1995). Conflict, social competence, and gender: Maternal and peer contexts. Early Education and Development, 6 (4), 433-447. Putallaz, M. & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children' s naturalistic entry behaviour and sociometric status: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 25 (2), 297-305. Rubin, K.H. & Asendorpf, J.B. (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shantz, C.U. (1983). Social Cognition. in Paul H. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 26 child psychology, Vol.III, (pp. 495-555). New York : Wiley. Sims, M. (1998). Young children’s conflict behaviour in child care. Paper presented at the Australian Research in Early Childhood Conference, Canberra, January. Terry, R. & Coie, J.D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, (5), 867-880. Underwood, M.K. (1997). Peer social status and children’s understanding of the expression and control of positive and negative emotions. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 43 (4), 610-634. Walker, S. (2001). Peer acceptance in early childhood: Sex and social status differences in social information processing, temperament and social behaviour. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Walker, S. & Irving K. (1998). The effect of perceived social status on preschool children' s evaluations of behaviour. Journal for Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 94-103. Woodward, L.J. & Fergusson, D.M. (1999). Childhood peer relationship problems and psychosocial adjustment in late adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27 (1), 87-104.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 27 Author Note Sue Walker, Centre for Learning Innovation. This study was conducted as part of Sue Walker’s doctoral research program. The research was supported in part by a scholarship from Queensland University of Technology. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sue Walker, Centre for Learning Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4069, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]).

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 28 Table 1. Teacher Ratings of Social Behaviour by Sex and by Social Status Positive Social Behaviours

Negative Social Behaviours

Male (n = 57)

3.07 (.58)

1.79 (.73)

Female (n = 61)

2.94 (.63)

1.42 (.54)

Popular (n = 26)

3.36 (.40)

1.40 (.49)

Rejected (n = 23)

2.61 (.78)

1.83 (.81)

Neglected (n = 24)

3.01 (.59)

1.67 (.72)

Controversial (n = 11)

3.05 (.47)

1.82 (.78)

Average (n = 34)

3.04 (.50)

1.47 (.51)

Group (N = 118)

3.02 (.60)

1.58 (.66)

(Scale: 1 =rarely to 4 = almost always). Note: Standard Deviations appear in parentheses.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 29 Table 2. Teacher Ratings of Group Entry Behaviour by Sex and by Social Status Disruptive

Direct Approach

Approach

Passive Approach

Male (n = 57)

1.45 (.48)

2.79 (.78)

1.89 (.49)

Female (n = 61)

1.19 (.39)

2.68 (.73)

2.09 (.74)

Popular (n = 26)

1.19 (.32)

2.78 (.75)

1.83 (.68)

Rejected (n = 23)

1.45 (.65)

2.35 (.82)

1.89 (.60)

Neglected (n = 24)

1.25 (.34)

2.84 (.70)

2.07 (.53)

Controversial (n = 11)

1.45 (.57)

3.06 (.51)

1.68 (.56)

Average (n = 34)

1.29 (.35)

2.79 (.76)

2.25 (.67)

Group (N = 118)

1.31 (.45)

2.73 (.75)

2.00 (.64)

(Scale: 1 = rarely to 4 = almost always) Note: Standard Deviations appear in parentheses.

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 30 Table 3. Teacher Ratings of Group Entry Success Rates by Social Status Mean

Standard Deviation

Popular (n = 26)

1.35

.49

Controversial (n = 11)

1.64

.67

Average (n = 34)

1.76

.65

Neglected (n = 24)

1.83

.64

Rejected (n = 23)

2.13

.97

Group (N = 118)

1.75

.73

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

Social Behaviour and Peer Acceptance 31 Table 4. Teacher Ratings of Peer Conflict by Sex and by Social Status Positive Conflict Strategies

Negative Conflict Strategies

Male (n = 57)

2.07 (.62)

1.65 (.65)

Female (n = 61)

2.17 (.72)

1.33 (.48)

Popular (n = 26)

2.17 (.63)

1.35 (.44)

Rejected (n = 23)

2.02 (.83)

1.64 (.78)

Neglected (n = 24)

2.17 (.62)

1.46 (.50)

Controversial (n = 11)

2.05 (.82)

1.70 (.80)

Average (n = 34)

2.15 (.60)

1.43 (.51)

Group (N = 118)

2.12 (.67)

1.48 (.59)

(Scale: 1 = rarely to 4 = almost always). Note: Standard Deviations appear in parentheses.