physical competence and development children's peer · pdf filequest, 1987, 39, 23-35...

QUEST, 1987, 39, 23-35

Physical Competence and the Development of Children's

Peer Relations

John Evans and Glyn C. Roberts

One factor that appears to have significant influence on peer relations, espe- cially for boys, is physical competence. Children gain peer acceptance by excelling at something valued by other children, and there is much evidence that athletic skills are valued by other children. Literature on physical competence and peer relations illustrates that children with competent motor skills appear to be popular not only in formally organized competitive sport settings but also in informal "pick up'' games. The inferior status of low ability children is clearly evident when they attempt to gain entry into playground games. It is concluded that physically competent children acquire more status and enjoy greater social success than do physically inept children. In conclusion, the article suggests that physical education may be used as an intervention strategy to enhance the peer status of physically incompetent children by improving their motor skills.

The literature is replete with accounts of the importance of successful peer relations to the child's development. Hartup (1979), for example, believes that peer interaction is central to childhood socialization because it contributes to the acquisition of social and communicative competencies in a manner that is quite unlike the child's interaction with adults. A fairly consistent picture of the attributes that covary with peer acceptance (and alternatively with peer rejection) has emerged. Popularity appears to be associated with characteristics such as the early onset of pubescence, normalcy of a given name, birth position, sex, ethnicity and social class, physical attractiveness, and academic achievement.

Asher, Oden, and Gottman (1977) contend that one way for a child to gain peer acceptance is to be very good at something valued by other children. And one factor that appears to have a significant influence on peer relations, especial- ly for boys, is athletic ability. Being a competent athlete is likely to be a strong social asset. Much of the literature concerning children's peer relations has focused on social knowledge and social behavior of the child, but the influence of

About the Authors: John Evans is with the School of Education at Deakin Univer- sity, Geelong Victoria 3217, Australia. Glyn C. Roberts is with the Institute for Research on Human Development, at the University of Illinois, Room 137 Children's Research Center, 51 Gerty Drive, Champaign, IL 61821.

24 EVANS AND ROBERTS

physical activity settings has been generally ignored. We are therefore left to resort to anecdotal and indirect evidence to verify the importance of physical competence for peer relations. When we reflect upon our childhood experiences, we can all recall the esteem we held for those who excelled in sports. Indeed, the children we recall most readily from childhood were often the superior athletes. But the formal sports arena is not the only context in which physical competence is valued. The informal physical activity arena, the school playground, also constitutes a context wherein physical competence is highly valued and a powerful attribute.

Indirect evidence for the importance of physical competence comes from contemporary motivation research. Over the past decade, many theorists (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Harter, 1978; Nicholls, 1983) have argued for the centrality of the construct of perception of competence in understanding achievement behavior. In physical education and sport, many researchers have demonstrated that perception of physical competence is important in understanding achievement behavior (e.g., Feltz & Petlichkoff, 1983; Roberts, 1980; Roberts, 1984a, 1984b; Roberts, Kleiber, & Duda, 1981 ; Weiss, Bredemeier, & Shewchuk, 1986). In general, this research has demonstrated that the child's perception of physical competence is crucial to understanding motivated behavior in physical contexts. Although these competencies are domain-specific (Harter, 1978), it has been documented (e.g., Duda, 1981; Veroff, 1969) that achievement in the physical domain is of particular importance for peer recognition and perceiving self-worth. However, the achievement behavior research paradigm has not investigated direct- ly the question of the influence of perception of physical competence on peer

It should be noted here that in this article we are referring to the percep-

d a physi bpular) ch

their reli

ence, not )f compett )nly wher

~mpetence ctual com] are 12 tc

cal 'kill t ~ildren.

raining st

ative self-

). d importa ns have b

oung chi1

enhance 1

ldren lear

1s to psyc 1 children

ions of lo

pete and (

who arc

w status

CHILDREN'S PEER RELATIONS 25

their skills to peers using a process of social comparison (Roberts, 1980). This process typically emerges when children are around 5 to 7 years of age and con- tinues to develop through childhood. When children first begin to use social comparison processes, they are unable to accurately analyze the information to determine their own skill level. However, by the time they reach age 12, children are able to use social comparison processes to accurately determine their own relative abilities. All through this period, being perceived as physically competent is very important to children, boys in particular. Given our society's strong achievement orientation, and the way in which sports and sport celebrities are idolized, we can begin to understand why physical competence is such a desired quality. Lipsky (1981) supports this belief, and even suggests that merely being interested in and knowledgeable about sports can facilitate social acceptance.

Veroff (1969) has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the importance of physical ability in the psychosocial development of the child. He asserts that games and sports may be the domain in which young boys use social comparison processes in order to determine their standing among their peers. "If social comparison goes right-if the child can see himself as not being dis- crepantly incompetent-a child can learn to be reassured about his own standards, about his own autonomy" (p. 50). To successfully master social comparison, a child has to compare favorably with a reasonably large number of others of the same age and sex "with respect to the valued attributes of the social group to which he refers himself' @. 54). Along similar lines, Kleiber (1983) con- tends that "the tasks a child embraces are likely to be those regarded as both socially valuable and personally enjoyable but which provide, in addition, an opportunity for comparing oneself with peers. For along with the growing accom- modation of children to their peers and playmates, comes the tendency for social comparison" (p. 84).

A number of studies shed light on the relationship between athletic ability and peer status in both elementary and high school settings. For instance, Bucha- nan, Blankenbaker, and Cotten (1976), in a study of 802 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-grade children, found that both boys and girls showed a preference for good grades rather than for being good in sports, although a greater percentage of boys than girls indicated they would prefer to be good in sports. Unlike the high school students in Coleman's (1961) study, the elementary school children placed greater importance on academic success. In terms of popularity, Buchanan et al. found that, among boys, athletes were most popular while the more popular girls were student-athletes. Boys indicated that being good in sports was most important for achieving popularity whereas girls felt grades were slightly more important. These results were consistent across the three grade levels and are in accord with the findings of Cratty (1967), Cowell (1970), Cowell and Ismail (1962), and Marks (1954), who also found that leadership and peer acceptance among elementary school children and adolescents are related to motor skill ability.

Spady (1970) argued that, within the peer structure, personal prestige can be achieved by outstanding performance in activities that are both conspicuous and that bring honor to the school. Athletic success, particularly at the high school level, can satisfy both criteria. Coleman's (1961) study of adolescent society indicated that athletes are often prominent members of "the leading crowd" and that athletic involvement is an important source of peer group status. According


to Coleman, school value systems determine the extent to which achievement in various activities results in peer recognition and prestige. For example, some school value climates reward the well-rounded student who is both an athlete and a scholar, whereas others reward the athletic type without a corresponding em- phasis on scholarship. Still other school value climates center around the good scholar and de-emphasize athletic pursuits.

Eitzen (1976), and Spreitzer and Pugh (1976) conducted follow-up studies to see if Coleman's fmdings were still applicable. They asked similar questions: Does sport participation remain the primary determinant of adolescent male status? And under what conditions is sport participation the most important criterion? Findings in both studies provided strong support for the fact that sport participation, and the competence inherent in it, was still the dominant criterion for status among adolescent males. Children showed a clear preference for the athlete over the scholar.

Earlier studies (Biddulph, 1954; Breck, 1950; Fulton & Prange, 1950; McGraw & Tolbert, 1953) have looked in part at the relationship between physical competence and peer group status. Like the Coleman (1961), Eitzen (1976), and Spreitzer and Pugh (1976) studies, each focused on high school or college students as subjects in the investigation.

A more recent study in this area was conducted by Duda (1981), who separated classroom and playing field achievement contexts into four general categories-group (team), individual, competitive, and noncompetitive contexts. When students were asked whether they would prefer to succeed in the classroom or on the sport field, some interesting findings emerged. Across all four achievement categories, boys preferred to succeed more in sport contexts than in classroom contexts. This coincides with the evidence cited above (Coleman, 1961; Eitzen, 1976; Spreitzer & Pugh, 1976). Significantly, Duda found that with the exception of the individual competitive achievement context, girls also preferred to succeed in sport rather than in the classroom. Apparently, girls prefer not to engage in individual competition with other girls but rather in team competition and noncompetition situations. Failure preferences were also revealing. Boys indicated that failure in academic environments was less aversive than failure in sport environments. For boys, failure in sport was very much to be avoided. By contrast, girls reported failure in sports as being less aversive than academic failure. Duda's findings clearly illustrate that sport contexts are salient and im-

ement settings for both boys and girls. mportance of physical competence in peer relations is most apparent bserves children interacting in natural settings such as the school play-

s (1985) examined the process of team selection in games played ntary school children (grades 3-6) and found that group leaders, for ex-

e, were invariably the most competent players and that the selection of teams xded according to a clearly defined hierarchy of ability. As one 5th-grade pcrinted out,

The good players usually get picked first, which son: kes other kids left out because they get picked last if they're not

"fair" teams was the primary goal, and thecm~uren round this was best wed wher ct reveal5

t the two I lost capat

~etimes ma that good ... < ,.

)le player! 3, as the f; ollowing

CHILDREN'S PEER RELATIONS

Well, if you pick the best players as captains, then the teams are going to be pretty much fair, whereas if you pick players who aren't the best players, then they might end up on the same team which would make the game un- fair. (6th-grade boy)

a

Not only were the high ability boys the captains, but they assumed dominant roles in the game and decided who could and could not play. For those boys with poor motor skills, life on the playground was beset with a number of social problems. They were frequently chosen last by their peers, or in some instances not at all. When they did play they were generally relegated to distant posts in the outfield or last place in the batting order, which generated a good deal of frustration, as the following extracts suggest:

I don't know, I'm a good player but, well, they just seem to pick their friends. Sometimes I'm last and I don't get a turn, so I don't know how good I am. One time I was playing kicksoccer and I was on the bad team and I was in the outfield, and nobody ever throws me the ball. Then when my turn comes to bat, the teacher blew the whistle to line up, so I didn't get to kick. (5th- grade boy)

Nobody ever passed the ball to me. They pass it to the good players who can run fast. I can run fast, but they never pass it to me though. (3rd-grade boy)

The data showed, therefore, that children who were deemed proficient in motor skills were likely to be popular choices in the games at recess. This in turn gave them the opportunity to develop and strengthen friendships and further improve their playing skills. However, for the children who were deemed poor in motor coordination, the situation was less encouraging. Not only were they among the last few to be chosen, but they had to be content with minor roles in the game, which meant very little involvement (turns at bat, shots at goal, etc.) and very little chance to improve their skills. Although some children were content with this status, others withdrew in frustration and disappointment. Such children engaged in solitary activities or, if there were several others, they joined together to play their own game. Either way, by withdrawing they increased the social distance between themselves and their peers.

The inferior status of low ability children was clearly evident when they attempted to join a playground game that had already begun. Although children made concerted efforts to accommodate a highly skilled latecomer, those children with poor motor skills were frequently met with a retort like "the game's locked, you can't play," or they were given the unenviable task of finding some- one else to join the game who was of comparable ability, to avoid creating teams of unequal numbers. A 5th-grade boy lamented about the unfairness of it all:

Sometimes it's not really fair because other kids come when the sides are already picked, and like the good players, they always go to the team that has their friends, and then they'll get the game way off line. Sometimes they lock the game and say nobody else can play, but still they let their best friends play.

Getting into a game was a frustrating experience for the low ability player. While some passively accepted the rejection, others attempted to impose themselves on the game, which only tended to aggravate the situation and hinder their future

snesaq au IS 'm uad ssam

0033V PeY

I ay, Zulu

-3lasLw 6q punoi iapuem lsn[ I io puag 6x11 q!m 6qd I :V jssami le op no6 op leqm os :b

ma, q!m Bid 03 ,yk ~~nb lsn[ I os 'am am 1,uop 6aq leq~ :V jnod 0% ueaw leq saop leqm 'q vo!' no6 la1 1,uom daq ley 13~3 aql pw :b

.unI]amos 10 uopg%mq ue m,~ aqg 'aiayl I,U!E no6 moq quq dau '~pq aq aw moq iaAau 6aq~ , ;qLeld l,u!e nod,, Kes pue 8uop am03 Lay pue UDXO e q!m la% pne 6q iaqoue aiaq iaAo mu I -adou--6e1d ue3 I JF qse pm! alaq iaAo UN I :v

jam8 aq oly p8 01 op 01 pag no6 aAq s8uq iaqo leyl~ :b .iaAau ado^ :v

jqiom I! saoa :b .am% aq y unq 01 ,y.Q W,I :v

juaq op 01 Sqhn no6 am few :b .FA :v

in06 op 'a~doad ap13q pne laAo urn nod saqwos os :b ,,-iaqmn aq rial ~0% m,~,, pue ,,%yLe~d 1,~ no&, dm

6aq 'ap13q pue a~doad 03 dn mu I uaqm pue 'y nnq 01 hn pne aiaq iaAo 0% I auq ha~a lng -y l@y unq pue Lpoqamos ial~e urn 'aaq iaho 03 I :y

jop no6 op @qm 'am% aq q J~AO 08 nod uaqM :b

:spopad SS~J 3-np am% pq~ooj e yo[ 03 uo~ssp~ad papap dpa~eada~ SEA O~M lloq ape~3-y,p e 30 mavp ay, sassnxp Ixwa MarMay ~~MOHOJ aw 'pqdame Zyaq 30 sldso~d


social standing particularly for boys, for whom the game constitutes an important achievement context. As revealed in the interview extracts cited, children are sensitive to the social dynamics associated with game construction and main- tenance. Being chosen first, last, or not at all provides them with meaningful information about their peer status.

The importance of physical competence to the development of peer relations also emerged from the studies of children's spontaneous games in school environments by Eifermann (1971), Glassner (1976), Lever (1976), and Polgar (1976). Smoll(1974) reviewed the literature and concluded that children who have above- average physical ability tend to acquire more status, and experience more social success among their peers, than do underachieving youngsters. Some 20 years earlier, Biddulph (1954) concluded that "because of the significant relationship between athletic achievement and personal and social adjustment, it becomes important for all boys instead of a specialized few to develop motor ability" (p. 6). He further recommends that boys with low athletic ability be identified early in life so they may be helped in developing a sound relationship with their peers. We are now also aware that athletic competence is increasingly important to girls.

Although the research evidence is not abundant, it appears reasonable to acknowledge the relationship between peer status and physical competence. Not only are children with accomplished motor skills likely to have more positive peer relations but, as Smoll (1974) suggests, children with poor skills may be disadvantaged when seeking to establish friendships with age-mates. What is sur- prising is the relative absence of studies by physical educators investigating the possibility of intervention through a planned program of skill development. This deficiency was noted by McGraw and Tolbert (1953) over 30 years ago:

It is generally recognized that the ability of the individual to attain status among his peers is extremely important in his total personality development. In addition, the success of one's educational endeavors is conditioned by his acceptance or lack of acceptance in the social group. Physical educators have, for many decades, vigorously postulated that directed participation in big- muscle activities provides an excellent medium through which social accept- ability is achieved. Although there have been many allegations regarding such participation, there seems to be little objective evidence indicating the degree to which physical education experiences aid in the attainment of status in the group. @. 72)

But, it must be noted here, to the extent that physical education provides a structure that recognizes children who surpass their peers in physical competence, then it may harm self-esteem. Physical education should not be regarded as an in-class substitute for competitive sport. Rather, it must be directed toward skill development and enhancement. If physical education attempts to enhance physical skill and status in a positive way, then it may be an appropriate intervention strategy for social acceptance.

A review of the intervention studies shows that very few have been done by physical educators or have even used motor skills as the operant condition. Instead, the majority of research emanates from education, psychology, and al- lied fields such as educational psychology. The majority have focused on the so-


cial skill training component (see Asher, 1983, for a comprehensive review of recent research). Typical research strategy has been to collect sociometric data on children's status in the peer group, then relate this data to observations of the child's social interaction patterns in the group. Parke and Asher (1983) ob- serve that "this methodology has traditionally yielded modest but statistically significant relationships between pro-social behavior and sociometric acceptance, and between negative or antisocial behavior and sociometric rejection" (p. 486).

A frequently cited limitation of these studies has been the difficulty in drawing causal inferences, given that most research has been correlational. The dearth of studies examining the causal antecedents of peer status has led Rubin (1983) to speculate whether in fact much progress has really been made beyond studies conducted some 20 years ago. He cites the works of Hartup, Glazer, and Charlesworth (1967), and Moore and Updegraff (1964) as having earlier identified the behavioral correlates of peer group status. According to Rubin (1983), "we are not much closer to disproving that the negative behaviors noted as being accompaniments to peer rejection are as likely the result of status as the cause of it" (p. 1383). What recent evidence does reveal, however, is the need to begin intervention programs at an early age because peer rejection tends to be a fairly stable phenomenon (Coie & Dodge, 1983). We now turn to a brief discus- sion of how physical education may be able to make a significant contribution to the development of children's peer relations through active intervention.

Physical Education as an Intervention Method

on the use of guided physical cognitive and motor development of physically 74; Daniels & Davies, 1975; Smoll, 1974), just

(Ellis, 1978). However, much e peer status by improving

by Marlowe (1980), Morris (1976) to facilitate

than isolated children instructed in a traditional glum. Success of the games analysis interven-

successful (rather than failure- ldren toward more prosocial :knowledges the limitations

the few a1 I teach physical skills to im-

experienc ng goals. ts one of

ented chi) arlowe ac ttempts to

CHILDREN'S PEER RELATIONS 3 1

employed physical education instruction as a means of enhancing the peer status of unpopular children. Orlick (1981), and Rogers, Miller, and Hannigan (1981), working with elementary and preschool children, assessed the effects of cooperative games on individual social behavior. However, neither study drew conclu- sions regarding their subsequent influence on peer relations. Further, the work of Smith, Smoll, Hunt, Curtis, and Coppel (1979) has indicated that the manner in which adults relate to athletes in terms of the judicious use of social reinforcement is a primary determinant of outcomes in competitive sport contexts. That is, coaching style affects the perception of self-esteem and certain affective components. But this research was not directed at physical skill development, and is therefore only tangentially relevant in this context.

The dearth of studies aimed at improving physical skills of low status children is quite puzzling. Obviously, physical educators are not the only people qualified to undertake intervention programs designed to enhance the motor competencies of children, but they are eminently suited to such a task. Could it be that we have devoted too much attention to those who excel in sport, and too little to the underachievers? In many respects, our society is oriented toward success, and achievement in the field of sport is indeed a salient source of public recognition for pupil, teacher, and coach alike. Our obsession with athletic success is such that those children who are physically incompetent may be over- looked by teachers and ostracized by peers.

Given the importance of peer relations and the accumulating evidence that a disturbingly large number of children lack friends in school (see Asher & Hymel, 1981; Gronlund, 1959), it is essential to identify the factors that lead to satisfy- ing social relationships among children, and to develop educational strategies designed to help those who are having difficulties. One of the most important strategies may be the teaching of physical skills in physical education classes. But this may not of itself increase peer acceptance. There may be considerable advantage in devising an intervention program that seeks both to develop physical competency and to assist with the acquisition of social skills. Clearly, there is a need for some fundamental research in this area. However, future studies first need to identify the low status child before establishing what accounts for the peer rejection and low status. It may well be that the low status child is not deficient in physical ability, but the extant literature strongly suggests that a deficiency in physical skills contributes to low status.

Conclusion

The primary objective of this paper is to draw attention to the anomalous situation whereby we recognize the importance of physical competency in the lives of children, but as professionals in the field, we fail to exploit this phenomenon in facilitating the development of peer relations of children identified as being low-status. As physical educators we have the opportunity, in fact the responsibility, to intervene in the negative social spiral associated with peer rejection.

One of the fundamental tenets of physical education has been its capacity to assist in the development of the whole child-the cognitive, motor, and affective components. At a time when physical education is being challenged to justi-


DUDA, J.L. (1981). A cross-cultural analysis of achievement motivation in sport and the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.

EIFERMANN, R. (1971). Social play in childhood. In R. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Child's play @p. 270-297). New York: Wiley.

EITZEN, D.S. (1976). Athletics in the status system of male adolescents: A replication of Coleman's, "The Adolescent Society". In A. Yiannakis, T. McIntyre, M. Melnich, & D. Hart, (Eds.), Sport sociology: Contemporary themes @p. 114-1 19). Dubuque, IA: KendallIHunt.

ELLIS, N.R. (1978). International review of research in mental retardation, Vol. 9 . New York: Academic Press.

EVANS, J.R. (1985). The process of team selection in children's self-directed and adult- directed games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.

FELTZ, D.L., & Petlichkoff, L. (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic sport participants and dropouts. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 8,23 1-235.

FULTON, R.E., & Prange, E.M. (1950). Motor learning of highly chosen and unchosen teammates. Research Quarterly, 21(2), 126-1 3 1.

GLASSNER, B. (1976). Kid society. Urban Education, 11(1), 5-22.

GRONLUND, N.E. (1959). Sociometry in the classroom. New York: Harper & Brothers.

HARTER, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34-64.

HARTUP, W. W. (1979). Peer relations and the growth of social competence. In M. W. Kent & J.E. Rolf (Eds.), Theprimaryprevention ofpsycho-pathology: Vol. 3. Promoting social competence and coping in children @p. 150-170). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

HARTUP, W.W., Glazer, J.A., & Charlesworth, R. (1967). Peer reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Development, 38, 1017-1024.

KLEIBER, D.A. (1983). Sport and human development: A dialectical interpretation. Jour- nal of Humanistic Psychology, 23(4), 76-95.

LEVER, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23, 478-487.

LIPSKY, R. (1981). How we play the game. Boston: Beacon.

MARKS, J.B. (1954). Interest, leadership and sociometric status among adolescents. So- ciometry, 17, 340-349.

MARLOWE, M. (1980). Games analysis intervention: A procedure to increase peer acceptance of socially isolated children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 422-426.

McGRAW, L. W., & Tolbert, J.W. (1953). Sociometric status and athletic ability of junior high school boys. Research Quarterly, 24, 72-80.

MOORE, S.G., & Updegraff, R. (1964). Sociometric status of pre-school children as related to age, sex, nurturance-giving and dependence. Child Development, 35, 519-524.

MORRIS, G.S. (1976). How to change the games children play. Minneapolis: Burgess.


NICHOLLS, J.A. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability perception of own attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.

NICHOLLS, J.A. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation: A theory and its implications for education. In S.A. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom @p. 211-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

ORLICK, T.D. (1981). Positive socialization via cooperative games. Developmental Psy- chology, 17, 426-429.

PARKE, R.D., & Asher, S.R. (1983). Social and personality development. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 465-509.

POLGAR, S. (1976). The social context of games: Or when play is not play. Sociology of Education, 49, 265-27 1.

PUTALLAZ, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their behavior. Child Development, 54, 1417-1426.

PUTALLAZ, M., & Gottrnan, J.M. (1981). An interactional model of children's entry into peer groups. Child Development, 52, 986-994.

ROBERTS, G.C. (1980). Children in competition: A theoretical perspective and recom- mendations for practice. Motor Skills: lheory Into Practice, 4, 37-50.

ROBERTS, G.C. (1984a). Achievement motivation in children's sport. In J.G. Nicholls (Ed.), lhe development of achievement motivation @p. 25 1-281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

ROBERTS, G.C. (1984b). Toward a new theory of motivation in sport: The role of perceived ability. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 214-228). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

ROBERTS, G.C., Kleiber, D.A., & Duda, J.L. (1981). An analysis of motivation in children's sport: The role of perceived competence in participation. Journal of Sport Psy- chology, 3, 206-216.

ROGERS, M., Miller, N., & Hannigan, K. (1981). Cooperative games as an intervention to promote cross-racial acceptance. American Educatioml Research Jouml, 18(4), 513-516.

RUBIN, K.H. (1983). Recent perspectives on social competence and peer status: Some introductory remarks. Child Development, 54, 1383-1385.

SLUCKIN, A. (1981). Growing up in the playground: Zke social development of children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

SMITH, R.E., Srnoll, F.L., Hunt, E., Curtis, B., & Coppel, D.B. (1979). Psychology and the bad news bears. In G.C. Roberts & K.M. Newel1 (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport-1978 @p. 109-130). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

SMOLL, F.L. (1974). Motor impairment and social development. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 28(1), 4-7.

SPADY, W.G. (1970). Lament for the letter men: Effects of peer status and extracurricu- lar activities on goals and achievement. American Jouml of Sociology, 75, 680-702.


SPREITZER, E., & Pugh, M. (1976). Interscholastic athletics and educational expecta- tions. In A. Yiannakis, T. McIntyre, M. Melnich, & D. Hart (Eds.), Sport sociology: Contemporary themes (pp. 119-124). Dubuque, IA: KendallIHunt.

VEROFF, J. (1969). Social comparison and the development of achievement motivation. In C.P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in children (pp. 46-101). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

WEISS, M.R., Bredemeier, B.J., & Shewchuk, R.M. (1986). The dynamics of perceived competence, perceived control, and motivational orientation in youth sport. In M.R. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport for children and youths (pp. 89-102). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

physical competence and development children's peer · pdf filequest, 1987, 39, 23-35...

Documents