peer status: measuring liking and acceptance sociometric techniques – how individuals are...

14
PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group • Nominations; Roster-and-Rating Peer Acceptance: extend child preferred/liked by peers Peer Rejection: extent child disliked by peers Perceived Popularity - Ratings of how well a child is liked by his or her peers, made by teachers, parents, and children

Upload: anabel-freeman

Post on 21-Jan-2016

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE

• Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group• Nominations; Roster-and-Rating• Peer Acceptance: extend child preferred/liked by peers• Peer Rejection: extent child disliked by peers

• Perceived Popularity - Ratings of how well a child is liked by his or her peers, made by teachers, parents, and children

Page 2: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

POPULARITY VS. LIKING

• Sociometric Popularity

• High liking and acceptance

• May or may not have high status/power

• Perceived Popularity – peers perceived to have status, visibility, and ability to influence

• May be liked or not liked

• If aggressive, only viewed as popular by other aggressive children

• If aggressive, often results in delinquency, poor academics

• In childhood: sociometric liking and perceived popularity positively correlated

• In adolescence: weak or no relationship b/w sociometric liking and perceived popularity

Page 3: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

TYPES OF PEER STATUS: MEASURES

• Acceptance = number of “most liked” nominations from peers• Rejection = number of “least liked” nominations from peers

• Social Preference = acceptance minus rejection• Measures likeability or sociometric popularity

• Social Impact = acceptance plus rejection• Measures visibility within group or perceived popularity

Page 4: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

TYPES OF PEER STATUS

Peer Status Rejection AcceptanceSocial

Preference“liking”

Social Impact “visibility”

Popular/Accepted LOW HIGH HIGH HIGHRejected HIGH LOW LOW HIGHControversial HIGH HIGH MODERATE HIGHNeglected LOW LOW LOW LOWAverage MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Page 5: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

TYPES OF PEER STATUS (SOCIOMETRIC NOMINATIONS)• Popular children - liked by many peers and disliked by very few

• Average children - have some friends but are not as well liked as popular children

• Neglected children - are often socially isolated and, although they are not necessarily disliked, have few friends

• Controversial children - liked by many peers but also disliked by many

• Rejected children - disliked by many peers and liked by very few

Page 6: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

SUB-TYPES OF PEER STATUS

• Two types of popular children• Popular-prosocial - friendly toward their peers and well liked • Popular-aggressive - athletic, arrogant, and aggressive but at the same time

viewed as “cool” and attractive

• Two types of rejected children• Aggressive-rejected - not accepted by their peers because of their low level of

self-control and high level of aggression • Nonaggressive-rejected - tend to be anxious, withdrawn, and socially unskilled

Page 7: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

SUB-TYPES OF PEER STATUS

• Two types of neglected children

• Socially reticent - watch others from afar, remain unoccupied in social company, and hover near but do not engage in interaction

• Unsociable or socially uninterested - not anxious or fearful but simply refrain from social interaction because they prefer to play alone

Page 8: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE POPULAR??

• Children and adolescents say: physical attractiveness, social connectedness

• Young children: popularity = liking and peer acceptance

• Adolescents: expand definition to include people who are easily recognized and grab attention

• Sociometric Liking - Agreeableness

• Negatively correlated with bullying, overt/relational aggression

• Positively correlated with prosocial behaviors and academic ability

• Perceived Popularity - Extraversion

• Positively correlated with bullying, social dominance/power (E), cool, athletic, leadership, social ability

• High in overt and relational aggression

(Closson, 2009; Xi et al., 2006; LaFontana & Cilessen, 2009)

Page 9: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE POPULAR??

• Physical appearance

• Facial attractiveness

• Body build: Ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph

• Pubertal effects• Early maturing boys more popular

• Early maturing girls less popular

• Ability to blend in• Children who look or act “odd” are unlikely to be popular

• Children with disruptive or hyperactive behavior are likely to be rejected • Characteristics that matter

• Names (normal, not odd)• Gender typical behavior (follow gender appropriate patterns) • Clothing (“right “ or “in” style/ type)• Ethnicity (children of same ethnicity more readily accept each other)

Page 10: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

CAUSES OF PEER STATUS

• Temperament • Poor effortful control and high extraversion-surgency → aggressive-rejected

children

• Low extraversion-surgency → nonaggressive-rejected children• Difficult children do not get along well with peers

• Inhibited children at risk for being neglected or rejected

• Temperament x Environment interactions• Poor effortful control + parental conflict → rejection

• Shy + negative parenting → socially withdrawn

Page 11: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

CAUSES OF PEER STATUS• Parenting styles

• Authoritative vs. Authoritarian Parenting

• Overprotective parenting – Neglected children

• Abusive parenting – Rejected children

• Secure vs. Insecure Infant Attachment

• Cognitive skills

• Deficits in social skills can lead to maladaptive behavior, poor interactions, and reduced peer acceptance

• Opposite also true: Peer rejection can lead to deficits in social skills

Page 12: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

OUTCOMES OF PEER STATUS• Popular Aggressive – High Perceived Popularity• Externalizing behaviors

• Engaging in risky behaviors

• Academic difficulties

• Rejected Children• Loneliness, depression, LSE - Greater for non-aggressive rejected children

• Poor academic performance, greater delinquency, low-quality mentor relationships

Page 13: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

OUTCOMES OF PEER STATUS: ATTRIBUTIONS• Children’s attributions for Rejected Peer• Internal for bad behaviors – “She’s not a nice person”• External for good behaviors - “The teacher made her be nice to me”

• Children’s attributions for Popular and Average Children• Internal for good behaviors – “She’s a nice person”• External for bad behaviors - “She was mean because she was tired”

Page 14: PEER STATUS: MEASURING LIKING AND ACCEPTANCE Sociometric techniques – how individuals are perceived by members of their peer group Nominations; Roster-and-Rating

STABILITY OF POPULARITY• For elementary-school children: strong, positive correlation between perceived and

sociometric liking

• Secondary school: relationship declines

• Assessed relationship at 3 time points: 5th grade, 9th grade, 12th grade (Cillessen & Borch, 2006)

• Boys – relationship declines, but remains positive (5th grade: r = .77, 9th grade: : r = .63; 12th grade: : r = .30)

• Girls – relationship moves from positive in 5th grade (r = .67), to no relationship in 9th grade (r =.04), to negative in 12th grade (r = -.49)