THE ASSOCIATION OF PEER ACCEPTANCE-REJECTION WITH CHILDREN’S PERCEPTION OF PARENTAL BEHAVIORS

SAMUEL H. COX

North Texas State University

Measures of peer acceptance-rejection have been used widely as operationally valid correlates of maladjustment in research with children (e . g., Bower, 1960). Goldin (1969) reported that 11 of 12 studies reviewed indicated that maladjusted normals (including peer-rejected Ss) perceived parents as less accepting than did matched controls. Armentrout (1972) reported a significant relationship between a sociometric measure of peer popularity and perceived parental behavior of ac- cepting-rejecting.

The present study and that of Armentrout differ from earlier studies in their employment of sociometric methods to measure peer status and published instru- ments t o measure perceived parental behaviors.

Armentrout (1972) used only a single, positive sociometric choice and pointed out that “no attempt was made to determine which children had negative valence for their classmates, so the Ss low in popularity as defined in this study could conceivably have included children who were actively disliked as well as simply ignored by peers . . . [p. 2621.” The present study used a combination of positive and negative sociometric choices to identify popular as well as actively disliked children as part of a larger study on family influence on the child’s social acceptance (Cox, 1966).

METHOD Subjects

A sociometric instrument was administered to 1,281 children in grades 6 through 9 in an all-white, middle-class school district near Fort Worth. Each S nominated four same-sexed classmates whom he liked most (LM) and two as liked least (LL). A derived score, LM votes minus LL votes, transformed to a standard score (mean = 50.0, SD = 10.0) by same-sexed class-groups, was computed for each S to provide comparable scores across classes and sex groups. Two extreme groups of 61 Ss each were identified and the parents interviewed. Nine families of high-peer-status Ss and 13 families of low-peer-status Ss declined to participate in the study, which left 52 high- and 48 low-peer-rated adolescents available for the study. Peer-rejected Ss’ (25 boys; 23 girls) derived scores ranged from 23 to 44, and peer-accepted Ss (27 boys; 25 girls) ranged from 59 to 77 on the derived measure.

Procedure Perceived parental acceptance-rejection was measured by three scales (Loving,

Rejecting, and Neglecting) of the Roe and Siegelman (1963) Parent Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR), which defines the Loving-Rejecting dimension of parent- child relations. Separate questionnaires for the mothers and fathers were adminis- tered by professional employees of the school district. Scores on the three scales were transformed to a distribution with a mean of 50 and SD of 10 for fathers and mothers separately in order to provide comparable scores across scales. The scores on the Rejecting and Neglecting scales were reflected so that high scores on all the

THE ASSOCIATION OF PEER ACCEPTANCE-REJECTION 223

scales represented nonaversive parental behaviors. not remember his father and was excluded from that part of the analysis.

One low-peer-status S could

RESULTS A two-way (Sex X peer status) unweighted means analysis of variance was

accomplished for each of the three PCR scales for fathers and mothers separately. Only one significant sex difference was noted; boys, regardless of their peer status, perceived fathers as more rejecting than did girls (F = 8.91, df = 1, 95, p < .Ol). Each of the three PCR scales (Loving, Rejecting, and Neglecting) significantly discriminated between high- and low-peer-status children for fathers and for mothers, regardless of the child’s sex. There were no significant interactions. Table 1 reports the results of tests of significance between means of high- and low-peer status Ss on each scale for fathers and for mothers.

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF MEANS ON THREE P c R SCALES FOR HIGH- .4ND LOW-PEER-STATUS CHILDREN’S PERCEPTION OF FATHERS AND MOTHERS

Peer Status High Low Scale M SD M SD t

Fathers Loving 54.3 6 . 0 45.1 11.1 5.05** Rejecting* 53.7 7 . 8 45.2 10.1 4.63** Neglecting* 55.0 6 . 2 44.6 10.7 5.91**

Mothers Loving 53.5 6 . 6 46.2 11.3 3.90** Rejecting* 53.4 7 . 4 46.0 10.9 3.89** Neglecting* 52.9 7 . 3 46.7 11.4 3.21**

*Indicates variable reflected. High scores represent nonaversive pole of scales. **p < .01.

These results were consistent with previously reported research (Armentrout, 1972; Goldin, 1969). Further, they supported the growing evidence that children’s perceptions of parental behaviors have a pervasive influence on the children’s behavior.

8719 Adams Hill Drive San Antonio, Tex. 78227

REFERENCES ARMENTHOUT, J . A. sociometric classroom popularity and children’s reportas of parent child-rearing

behaviors. Psychological Reports, 1972, SO, 261-262. BOWER, E. Early identification of emotionally handicapped children in school. Springfield, Ill. : Charles

C. Thomas, 1960. Cox, S. H. Family background effects on personality development and social acceptance. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian University, 1966. GOLDIN, P. C. A review of children’s reports of parental behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71,

ROE, A., & SIEGELMAN, M. A parent-child relations questionnaire. Child Development, 1963, 34, 222-226.

355-369.