1

PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN CHILDHOOD

Kenneth H. Rubin1, Julie C. Bowker2, Kristina L. McDonald1, and Melissa Menzer1

1 University of Maryland, College Park

2 University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

This chapter was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant 1R01MH58116 to

Kenneth H. Rubin. Email: krubin@umd.edu

KEY WORDS: peers, friendship, peer acceptance, peer rejection, popularity, peer group, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, individual differences, culture

2

ABSTRACT

The significance of peers in the lives of children and adolescents is described. The chapter begins

with a discussion of theory relevant to the study of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Next

examined are the prevalence, stability, and characteristics of children’s friendships, the psychosocial

correlates and consequences of having a mutual friendship and of having friendships with others

who are experiencing adjustment difficulties. Thereafter, sections are focused on the assessment of

peer acceptance, rejection, and popularity, and the behavioral, social-cognitive, affective, and self-

system concomitants and longitudinal outcomes of peer acceptance and rejection. Subsequently, the

extant literature pertaining to child and adolescent peer groups, cliques and crowds is described. In

the next section, the growing literature on culture and peer relationships is discussed. Then, in the

summary, we present a transactional, developmental framework for understanding individual

differences in children’s peer relationships experiences.

3

PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN CHILDHOOD

INTRODUCTION

Imagine, for a moment, that you are witnessing two school children interacting in a jocular

manner. Imagine too that suddenly, one of the children falls to the ground seemingly writhing in

pain. And finally, imagine that the school principal calls out to you that she is ready for your

appointment and that you do not get to see how the interaction plays out.

As a novice observer of children, you may rush-to-judgment and assume that you had

witnessed something of a battle that had resulted in an injury or that a more serious battle between

the two children was about to begin. An expert witness, on the other hand, might come to an

entirely different conclusion. This expert witness might suggest to the novice that the outcomes of

the above described scenario are entirely unpredictable without first knowing something about: (1)

the ages, sexes, and cultural backgrounds of the children; (2) the known dispositional,

temperamental, personality, and behavioral characteristics of the children; (3) the child-rearing and

parent-child relationship histories of each child; (4) whether or not the jocular interaction was

interpreted by each member of the dyad as a non-literal or literal agonistic interchange; (5) the social

cognitive and information processing skills of each child; (6) the peer reputations of each child; and

(7) whether or not the children were friends, enemies, acquaintances, or strangers. There are many

additional features and constructs that would be relevant to allow some reasonable prediction of the

very meaning of the interaction and the nature of the outcome; but for now, the seven features

noted above can suffice.

The goal of the above-described thought-exercise was to demonstrate some of the many

social, emotional, biological and cognitive factors that are interconnected within each child’s social

universe. Some of these factors may describe individual characteristics of each child (e.g., age, sex,

temperament); some help define the very meaning of the interaction (e.g. Was it rough-and-tumble

4

play or was it aggression?); and some are focused on the nature of the relationships between the

children (e.g. Is their relationship characterized by mutual like or dislike?) and their standing within

the peer group (e.g. Are these children rejected? Are they popular?). In short, observing individuals

interacting with one another and fully understanding what it is that is occurring requires the

consideration of children’s individual characteristics, their relationships, their group memberships,

and the communities and cultures within which they are dwelling (Hinde, 1987, 1995). Put another

way, the study of peer interactions, relationships, and groups is rather complicated business.

Scholarly discussion of children's peer experiences dates at least as far back as the early

writings of William James, Louis Terman, Charles H. Cooley, G. Stanley Hall in the late 1800s and

early 1900s, and the emergence of developmental psychology itself. Indeed, it is noteworthy that as

early as the publication of the first Handbook of Child Psychology (Murchison, 1931), the literature on

children's peer interactions and relationships was sufficiently extensive that no fewer than two

chapters--one by Charlotte Buhler and one by Helen Marshall--of this landmark volume were

broadly devoted to this topic. The impressive historical continuity of scientific interest in children's

peer interactions and relationships belies many important discontinuities, however. For one,

empirical interest in this topic has waxed and waned several times during this century. For another,

great gulfs in methodological rigor and sophistication separate early work from more recent work in

this area such that very few, if any, of the studies showcased in Buhler's and Marshall's chapters are

even familiar to most contemporary researchers. One could go so far as to suggest that most studies

cited in even more recent, yet still historically significant reviews of the literature on children’s

worlds of peers (e.g., Campbell, 1964; Hartup, 1970, 1983) would be unrecognizable by many of

today’s young scholars.

The significance of peers. Perhaps most importantly, during the past quarter-century, there has

been a noteworthy shift in the assumptions about the origins of and proximal and distal influences

5

on children’s peer relationship experiences and the conclusions drawn regarding the developmental

significance of children's interactions and relationships with peers. For example, most early authors

noted that variability in children's interactions and relationships with peers derived from broader

achievements or failings of intra-individual constitutional development. Moreover, in early writings,

experiences in peer interactions, relationships, and/or groups were not considered to be of

significant adaptational consequence. Thus, the early literature on children's peer interactions and

relationships was largely normative-focused and descriptive, emphasizing developmental milestones

in the form, salience, or complexity of peer interaction and relationships. This early work can be

contrasted with the voluminous contemporary literature that seems to be ignoring developmental

differences in favor of describing and understanding individual differences. This individual

differences perspective has led contemporary researchers to conclude that experiences with peers

directly promote, extend, discourage, or distort children's intra- and interpersonal growth and

adjustment. The ability to initiate and maintain positive group and dyadic peer relationships is now

regarded as an important developmental achievement, and most contemporary scholars are

interested in the varying degrees to which individual children succeed at this task. Indeed, it is

assumed that children who experience success with peers are on track for adaptive and

psychologically healthy outcomes; those who have difficulty in the peer milieu are considered at risk

for maladaptive intra- and interpersonal outcomes.

Goals. To examine the significance of peers in children’s lives, this chapter is organized in the

following manner. We begin with a brief discussion of relevant theory. Next, we review the literature

on children’s friendships. For example, we examine factors that attract children to one another as

friends, describe provisions of friendship, and discuss consequences for children who are friendless,

those whose friends are experiencing adjustment difficulties, and those with friendships that are less

than optimal. Next, we describe the correlates, proximal determinants, and consequences of being

6

accepted or rejected by the peer group. This section leads to a discussion of the functions of the

peer group and the processes involved in peer group formation. Thereafter, we review the growing

literature pertaining to culture and peer relationships. Our chapter concludes with a summary and a

discussion of transactional models of development.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES The theoretical groundwork for modern research on children’s peer relationships can be traced back

to the early decades of the twentieth century. In his early writings, Piaget (1932) argued that

children's relationships with peers could be clearly distinguished from their relationships with

parents. Adult-child relationships were viewed as falling along a vertical plane of dominance and

power assertion. It was proposed that children accept adults' rules, not necessarily because they

understand them, but rather because obedience is required. By contrast, children's peer relationships

were portrayed as being balanced, egalitarian, and as falling along a more-or-less horizontal plane of

power assertion and dominance. Given the supposed even playing field of peer interaction, Piaget

proposed that children could productively experience opportunities to examine conflicting ideas and

explanations, to negotiate and discuss multiple perspectives, and to decide to compromise with or to

reject the notions held by age-mates. Piaget’s thoughts have certainly influenced a large body of

theory and research on children’s peer interactions, particularly regarding the relations between how

children think about their social worlds (social-cognition), their social behaviors, and the quality of

their peer relationships. Although his theoretical writings were clearly directed to themes of

normative development, contemporary researchers have incorporated his ideas about the benefits of

peer interaction into studies of individual differences and developmental psychopathology (e.g.,

Rubin & Coplan, 2004).

Like Piaget, Sullivan (1953) believed that the concepts of mutual respect, equality, and

reciprocity developed from peer experiences. But rather than focusing on the significance of peer

7

interactions as Piaget did, Sullivan emphasized the significance of close relationships – specifically

chumships or best friendships -- for the emergence of these concepts. In the early school years,

whether friends or not, Sullivan argued that children were basically insensitive to their peers. During

the juvenile years (late elementary school), however, children were thought to recognize and value

each other's personal qualities; as a consequence, peers gained power as personality-shaping agents.

Sullivan's theory has proved influential in the contemporary study of children's friendships, (e.g.,

Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002) as well as in the understanding of the negative

psychological consequences of not having close dyadic relationships with friends (e.g., Asher &

Paquette, 2003).

Building on the turn-of-the-century notions of Cooley (1902), Mead (1934) proposed that

the ability to reflect on the self developed gradually over the early years of life, primarily as a function

of peer interaction. This theoretical position has influenced contemporary researchers who have

examined the relations between peer rejection and victimization, and the organization of the self-

system (e.g., Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003; Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005).

A basic tenet of social learning theory is that children learn about their social worlds, and

how to behave within these contexts, through direct peer tutelage and indirect observation of peers

"in action" (Bandura & Walters, 1963). From this perspective, peers are viewed as behavior control

and behavior change agents for each other. In this regard, children punish or ignore non-normative

social behavior and reward or reinforce positively those behaviors viewed as culturally appropriate

and competent. Indeed, it has been argued that merely observing the social reward/punishment

consequences of particular behaviors can play a significant social teaching role (e.g., Shortt, Capaldi,

Dishion, Bank, & Owen, 2003).

Ethological theory has provided a substantive influence on the study of children's peer

relationships. It is a central principle of ethological theory that social behavior and organizational

8

structure are limited by biological constraints, and that they serve an adaptive evolutionary function

(e.g., Benenson & Alavi, 2004). A basic focus of contemporary human ethological research has been

the provision of detailed descriptions of the organization and structure of social behaviors and

groups (e.g., Vaughn & Santos, 2009). Moreover, with the assumption that behavior is best

understood when observed in natural settings, ethological theory has influenced the methods by

which children’s peer interactions and relationships are studied. For example, a central (and long-

standing) question in the study of peer interactions and relationships is why it is that whatever

children (and their peers) may tell us about their social lives is not necessarily what one may observe

on the playground, in the classroom, or at home.

Finally, there is the Group Socialization Theory (1998). Harris has argued that the peer group

plays a more significant role than do parents in children’s personality and social development. Harris

suggested that once children find themselves outside of the home, they adapt to, and follow, the

prevailing norms in the groups within which they spend their time; for the most part, those groups

comprise other children! Drawing from social psychological perspectives on the significance of

group norms (a motivation to “fit in”), in-group biases and out-group hostilities, and social cognitive

views of group processes, she posited that children’s identities develop primarily from their

experiences with peers. Of course, Harris has challenged the long-held belief that parenting matters;

indeed, that belief has been acknowledged as “veritas” for centuries (see Collins, Maccoby,

Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000, for a response to Harris’ Group Socialization Theory.

Given Harris’ argument that the peer group is as important, if not more important than parenting

for normal personality and social development, there is now an opportunity to address some central

questions about the causal roles that genes, biology, family, and peers play in child and adolescent

adjustment and maladjustment.

CHILDREN AND THEIR FRIENDS

9

Functions of friendship: Developmental considerations

In the peer relations literature, a friendship is defined as a close relationship between two

individuals (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Unlike parent-child and other familial relationships

(e.g., sibling relationships), friendships are considered voluntary relationships because both parties

choose to become involved in the relationship. A primary defining characteristic of friendships is its

reciprocal nature. A “true” friendship can only exist when both individuals view each other as a friend.

For this reason, researchers argue that reciprocal friendship nominations are required for the

identification of a friendship (e.g., both children name each other as a friend; Parker & Asher, 1993).

Friendships are also characterized by reciprocal affection such that both parties share positive affect

and liking for each other. Although similarities in surface characteristics (e.g., race, gender),

behaviors (e.g., aggression), and interests (e.g., academic subject matter) may help to draw

individuals together into friendships, it is argued that mutual affection constitutes the basis of

friendship (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006).

Researchers have indicated that the specific functions of friendship vary across different stages

of development (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). During early childhood, friendships provide

opportunities for enjoyable play and help children to regulate their behavior. During middle

childhood, friendships provide opportunities for children to learn about behavioral and emotional

norms, offer emotional and social support, provide instrumental aid and assistance, and help

children to develop the necessary social skills for later intimate relationships (e.g., Newcomb &

Bagwell, 1995; Sullivan, 1953). Also during late childhood and early adolescence, friendship provides

opportunities for the expression and regulation of affect (e.g., Denton & Zarbatany, 1996). During

adolescence, friendships play an important role in successful identity development (Erikson, 1968;

Sullivan, 1953).

10

Children's understanding of friendship. To understand the ways in which children think about

their friendships, researchers have asked the following questions: “What is a best friend?” and “What do

you expect from a best friend?” Content-analyses of responses to these questions and others reveal that

most children describe friendships as involving reciprocity or mutual “give-and-take” (Asher et al.,

1996). A child might share his or her favorite toy with a friend and in turn, expect that the friend will

reciprocate with the sharing of his or her favorite toy. Young and older children and adolescents

appear to agree on the importance of reciprocity in friendships, but a number of developmental

differences in friendship conceptions exist. For instance, at the beginning of middle childhood (ages

7-8 years), children tend to describe friends as individuals who are enjoyable and rewarding to be

with. During middle childhood, children also view friends as individuals who live close by, have nice

toys, and like to play in similar ways. At around 10 and 11 years, shared values become more central

to children’s conceptions of friendship, and children begin to expect their friends to be loyal and

also to help them deal with other peers (e.g., stick up for them). Later, young adolescents (11 to 13

years) describe friends as individuals with similar interests (e.g., similar athletic interests) who engage

in intimate disclosure and actively try to understand each other. Thus, reciprocity is considered a

central feature of friendship; however with increased age, children begin to develop a more mature

view of friendship that places emphasis on intimacy and commitment (e.g., Gummerum & Keller,

2008; Schneider & Tessier, 2007). Mechanisms that may account for developmental changes in

friendship conceptions include the development of perspective-taking skills (Selman & Schultz,

1990), improvements in children’s understanding of reciprocity (Youniss, 1980), shifts from concrete

to abstract thinking, and changing social needs (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker., 2006). Of course, the

importance of such factors may differ across cultures (Gummerum & Keller, 2008).

Children also become better able to differentiate between the characteristics and qualities of

friendships and other dyadic relationships with increased age. For example, Berndt and Perry (1986)

11

found that children make sharper distinctions between the supportiveness provided by friends and

casual acquaintances as they move from childhood into early adolescence. Recent research suggests

that children also begin to think about social situations differently when good friends are involved

(e.g., Burgess, Wojslawowicz, Rubin, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth-LaForce, 2006). In such studies,

children are presented with hypothetical negative social situations in which a negative event occurs

(e.g., a classmate spills milk on an art project), and the intent of the peer instigator is ambiguous.

Children are told that the identity of the peer instigator is either a close friend or an unfamiliar peer.

When compared to children’s responses when the peer instigator is an unfamiliar peer, children tend

to make more adaptive attributions about why the situation happened (e.g., give the protagonist the

“benefit of the doubt”), report higher self-efficacy to deal with the situation, anticipate more positive

outcomes, and tend to select more direct coping strategies (such as appeasement) when the peer

instigator is a good friend (Burgess et al., 2006).

Individual differences. Investigators have recently begun to examine individual differences in

how children think about friendship (Burgess et al., 2006). An underlying assumption of this

research has been that the ways in which children and adolescents think about their social

relationships may reflect, if not predict, the kinds of relationships they have with peers. In one

study, Schneider and Tessier (2007) asked both typical and anxiously-withdrawn 10-to-12 year olds

about their expectations for their best friends. Notable group differences emerged; anxious

withdrawn adolescents were more likely to discuss their own needs than the needs of their friends and

to describe how their friends can be sources of help to them. In contrast, non-withdrawn

adolescents were more likely to describe expectations of intimacy from their friends. Given that

withdrawn children are more victimized and rejected by their peers than non-withdrawn children

(e.g., Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor, et al., 2006), the authors posit that withdrawn-anxious

adolescents may actually need more instrumental aid and help than their non-anxious counterparts.

12

It is possible that early dispositionally-based social preferences influence children’s social

needs and expectations for friendship. For instance, unsociable children, who do not have strong

desires to be with their peers and do not mind spending time alone, may view a best friend as a

casual acquaintance with whom they only occasionally spend time (Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil, &

Armer, 2004). Thus, in this regard, personality characteristics may influence children’s and

adolescents’ friendship conceptions and expectations, however these hypotheses have yet to be

empirically tested.

Individual differences in children’s thinking about friendship have also been revealed when

children are presented with hypothetical vignettes involving peers with whom their relationship

differs (e.g., Burgess et al., 2006; Peets, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2008). As described in greater detail

below, researchers have demonstrated that aggressive and withdrawn children think about

hypothetical negative scenarios involving unfamiliar peers in negative and psychologically unhealthy

ways. And yet, it has been recently discovered that their thinking improves when good friends are

involved in the scenarios. For instance, socially-withdrawn children are less likely to blame

themselves for hypothetical, negative social events when the negative outcomes are caused by close

friends rather than unfamiliar others. Aggressive children are less likely to endorse vengeful coping

strategies to deal with negative events when good friends rather than unfamiliar others are

protagonists in the scenarios (Burgess et al., 2006). Thus, it appears that aggressive and socially-

withdrawn children’s thoughts about interpersonal dilemmas with friends are more positive and

adaptive than their thoughts about interpersonal dilemmas with peers-in-general. It is not known,

however, whether changes in thinking about the construct of friendship or about resolving

interpersonal dilemmas with friends may function protectively over time, perhaps by changing the

experienced nature of peer relationships and friendship.

The prevalence and stability of friendship. It is well-documented that the majority of children and

13

adolescents have at least one mutual friend (e.g., Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). For example,

Hinde, Titmus, Easton, and Tamplin (1985) found that approximately 75 percent of preschool-aged

children had one friendship, as determined by teacher- and mother-reports and observations of time

spent together in play. Similarly, Parker and Asher (1993) reported that approximately 78 percent of

children in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades had at least one mutual friendship (as determined by mutual

nominations of “friend”) and 55 percent had a mutual best friendship (as determined by mutual

nominations of “very best” friend). Beyond differences in prevalence, there are a number of good

reasons to distinguish between children’s best and other friendships. Comparisons of children’s best

and good friendships have indicated that children rate their very best friendships more positively than

“second” or “third” best friendships (e.g., Kiesner, Nicotra, & Notari, 2005), and that best

friendships are more influential on children’s psychosocial adjustment than “good” or regular

friendships (e.g., Urberg, 1992). Lastly, it is important to note that most friendships during

childhood and adolescence involve same-sex, same-grade, and same-school individuals (Rubin,

Bukowski, & Parker, 2006), but involvement in other-sex friendships does increase with age (e.g.,

Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000; Poulin & Pedersen, 2007). Same-sex friendships are generally

perceived as more intimate than other-sex friendships during early adolescence, but other-sex

friendships become increasingly intimate during the adolescent years as interaction and intimacy

with other-sex peers increases in importance (e.g., Poulin & Pedersen, 2007). Despite this increase in

intimacy however, it is still the case that the majority of other-sex friendships during adolescence are

not considered to be best friendships (Poulin & Pedersen, 2007).

Once friendships are formed, the majority of children’s friendships are often maintained or

stable across the school year (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996). Children’s friendships also

become more stable with age (e.g., Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1985). Berndt and Hoyle

(1985), for instance, found that 50 percent of 5-year-olds’ friendships were stable for one school

14

year; the comparable rate for 10-year-olds’ friendships was 75 percent. Significantly, young

adolescents’ best friendships are more stable than regular friendships (Bowker, 2004). Moreover,

multi-context friendships (e.g., friendships between children who spend time together inside and

outside of school) are more stable than single-context friendships (Chan & Poulin, 2007).

Whereas most children’s friendships are stable, friendship dissolution is not an uncommon

occurrence (Chan & Poulin, 2007). Low levels of intimacy, affection, or mutual liking in friendships

are often associated with friendship dissolution (Branje, Frijns, Finkenauer, Engels, & Meeus, 2007;

Schneider, Fonzi, Tan, & Tomada, 1997). Also, if the friendship dyad comprises at least one

aggressive child, friendship stability is compromised (e.g., Hektner, August, & Realmuto, 2000).

Two opposing theoretical perspectives exist on the positive versus negative impacts of

friendship dissolution on children’s adjustment. The first view purports that termination is a normal,

inevitable and often desirable part of friendship development (e.g., Erwin, 1993). Since friendship is

based largely on similarities between individuals, as well as propinquity and opportunities for

interaction, friendships should come-and-go as individuals develop new interests, competencies, and

values. In addition, friendships may be expected to change in response to normative developmental

changes in environments, as well as more idiosyncratic changes (e.g., moving location). In contrast,

the second view emphasizes the potentially negative impact of friendship dissolution on

psychological well-being. Disruptions of close peer relationships have been associated with

depression, guilt, and anger (e.g., Laursen, Hartup & Keplas, 1996). In addition, friendship loss may

be particularly stressful and painful due to the special role of intimacy in friendships during late

childhood (Buhrmeister & Furman, 1987; Erwin, 1993). Friendship dissolution may be particularly

difficult if the termination is viewed as an interpersonal rejection.

From these perspectives, friendship dissolution may have both positive and negative effects

on the child. Although there is little empirical research directly examining the concomitants of

15

friendship dissolution, some evidence suggests that dissolution can lead to negative adjustment,

although not for all children. For example, it has been reported that children whose friendships

dissolved during the course of a school year and were not replaced with new friendships experienced

increased behavioral and social difficulty from the beginning to the end of the academic year

(Wojslawowicz Bowker, Rubin, et al., 2006). Significantly, the results also indicated that dissolution

was not negative if the lost friendship was quickly replaced by a new friendship.

Similarities between friends. Interpersonal attraction theory and the “homophily” hypothesis suggest

that children are attracted to, and become friends with, others who are similar to them (e.g.,

Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven, 1998; Rubin, Lynch, Coplan, Rose-Krasnor, &

Booth, 1994). In support, researchers have shown that friends are likely to be similar to each other

on such “surface” or easily observable characteristics as gender, race, and ethnicity (e.g., Hamm,

Brown, & Heck, 2005; Kao & Joyner, 2004; Kupersmidt, DeRosier, & Patterson, 1995). Children

and their friends are also more similar than non-friends with reference to antisocial behavior, drug,

and alcohol use (e.g., Popp, Laursen, Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, 2008; Selfhout, Branje, & Meeus, 2008),

aggression (e.g., Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy, 1988; Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby,

1995), shyness and social withdrawal (e.g., Rubin, Wojslawowicz, et al., 2006), internalized distress

(Hogue & Sternberg, 1995), academic performance (Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2003), and the extent

to which they display prosocial behaviors (Haselager et al., 1998). Greater similarities between

friends than non-friends in peer acceptance and likeability have also been revealed (Kupersmidt et

al., 1995). And, it has been shown for both children and adolescents that friends have similar

perceptions of the quality of their friendships (Simpkins, Parke, Flyr, & Wild, 2006).

Although the debate is still out as to whether children actively select friends who are similar

to themselves or become similar to their friends as a consequence of peer influence after the

friendship has formed (e.g., Popp et al., 2008), it is well-documented that similarity between friends

16

may not always encourage psychological adaptation and well-being. For example, similarities in

aggression between friends have been linked concurrently and predictively to increases in aggressive

behavior (e.g., Poulin & Boivin, 2000). There is also evidence that similarity in high levels of

aggression is associated with increased aggressive coping (Brendgen, Bowen, Rondeau, & Vitaro,

1999). Researchers have hypothesized that social norms differ in the friendships of aggressive

children whereby negative thoughts about, and negative interactions with social others and also with

each other, may be more normative and also more likely to be viewed as acceptable (Leary & Katz,

2005). Interestingly, evidence suggests that the features of aggressive children’s friendships differ

from those of non-aggressive children. Specifically, researchers have shown that aggressive children

are more likely to engage in “deviant” talk in the company of friends than are non-aggressive

children; exchanges of deviant messages may well reinforce aggressive and delinquent behavioral

patterns (e.g., Piehler & Dishion, 2007).

Interactions between friends. When children and adolescents are observed to interact with either

their friends or age-mates with whom they are not as familiar, there are several ways in which their

interactions differ. In general, children and adolescents display more positive affect (e.g., smiling,

laughing), engage in more self-disclosure, exhibit more reciprocal and on-task behavior, and play in

more sophisticated ways with friends compared to non-friends (e.g., Simpkins & Parke, 2002). For

instance, Dunn and colleagues found that preschool best friends engaged in more positive

interactions and more cooperative and complex play when interacting with each other than with

casual acquaintances (e.g., Dunn & Cutting, 1999). Relatedly, in an observational study of 9- and 10-

year-olds, Simpkins and Parke (2002) reported that children exhibited more positive behavior (e.g.,

responding positively, displaying positive affect) and higher play sophistication (e.g., engagement in

positive fantasy play, and play characterized by negotiation) when interacting with friends than non-

friends.

17

Not only do children interact more positively with their friends than non-friends, but also,

they experience more episodes of conflict and disagreements when in the company of friends. For

example, Simpkins and Parke (2002) reported that children were observed to direct a greater number

of negative behaviors toward friends and to display more negative affect when interacting with

friends than non-friends. These findings have been interpreted with reference to the greater amount

of time friends spend together relative to the time they spend with non-friends (Laursen, Hartup, &

Keplas, 1996). But, conflicts between friends tend to be less intense than those that occur between

non-friends (Hartup, Laursen, Stewart, & Eastenson, 1988). And friends are more likely to resolve

their conflicts with each other than non-friends, often using conflict resolution strategies, such as

negotiation and compromise, that help to ensure that their friendships will last and continue into the

future (e.g., Laursen et al., 1996; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Simpkins & Parke, 2002). Thus, it

appears that friendships during childhood and adolescence provide a “safe” relational context not

only for positive, enjoyable interaction, but also for successful conflict resolution.

Friendship and gender. Researchers have found that girls’ expectations of their friends

emphasize what they might receive whereas boys’ expectations focus on what they might receive and

also what they might give to a friend (Craft, 1994). When presented with hypothetical conflicts

involving peers and friends, girls are more likely to endorse prosocial goals and conflict resolution

strategies; boys are more likely to endorse control and agentic or status-oriented social goals and

strategies (Rose & Asher, 2004). Furthermore, girls report caring more about having friendships

than do boys (Benenson & Benaroch, 1998), and girls report greater distress when imagining the

termination of their friendships (Benenson & Christakos, 2003). Taken together, these findings have

led researchers to characterize girls as more dyadically-oriented and boys as more group-oriented in

their relationships with peers (e.g., Rose & Rudolph, 2006).

18

Girls’ orientation towards dyadic relationships may help to explain why their friendships

tend to be more intimate and supportive relative to the friendships of boys (e.g., Rose & Rudolph,

2006). Researchers posit that girls’ may be more emotionally invested in their friendships, which in

turn, may help to foster intimacy and feelings of closeness. Yet, it is important to note that boys and

girls report relatively equal levels of satisfaction in their friendships (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993).

And, it appears that girls’ friendships can lead to considerable psychological stress. As noted

previously, girls experience more concern and anxiety about their friendships, especially when

friendship conflict or termination occurs (Benenson & Christakos, 2003). And although the

friendships of girls may be more intimate than those of boys, girls report more jealousy, exclusivity,

and also relational victimization within their friendships than do boys (Crick & Nelson, 2002). In

contrast, boys’ report more physical victimization in their friendships relative to girls (Crick &

Nelson, 2002). Because jealousy, exclusivity, and relational victimization can lead to mistrust, it is not

too surprising that girls’ friendships have been shown to be less stable than those of boys (Benenson

& Christakos, 2003; Chan & Poulin, 2007).

Children without friends. Whereas the majority of children and adolescents are successful in

forming friendships, a sizable minority is not. Investigators have shown that approximately 15 to 20

percent of children and young adolescents are without any mutual friends (Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005;

Wojslawowicz Bowker et al., 2006). A similar proportion of children appear to be consistently or

chronically without any mutual friends; longitudinal studies have indicated that 15 percent of youth are

chronically friendless for at least 6 months (Parker & Seal, 1996; Wojslawowicz Bowker et al., 2006).

Reasons for friendlessness vary. For example, some children may be unable to form

friendships when their families re-locate and they are newcomers to the school (e.g., South &

Haynie, 2004). Since children who were not involved in peer relationships likely miss out on

developmental opportunities important for positive social adjustment and growth (Rubin, Coplan, &

19

Bowker, 2009), the lack of social skills is often cited as both a cause and consequence of

friendlessness (Parker & Seal, 1996). But many socially unskilled children are as likely as their more

socially skilled age-mates to have at least one mutual best friend (Rubin, Wojslawowicz, et al., 2006),

suggesting that the lack of social skills alone may not explain why many children are friendless.

Regardless of the reasons for being friendless, developmental and clinical psychologists have

identified friendlessness as a significant risk factor for psychosocial maladjustment during childhood

and adolescence (e.g., Rubin, Bukowski, et al., 2006). As noted above, children who lose a best

friendship and are unable to later replace the “lost” friendship with a “new” one experience

increased peer victimization (Wojslawowicz Bowker et al., 2006). Moreover, it has been shown that

peer victimization predicts increasing internalizing and externalizing problems, but only for children

without a mutual friendship (Hodges, Vitaro, Boivin, & Bukowski, 1999). There is also evidence that

friendless children who are not victimized experience adjustment difficulties. Ladd and Troop-

Gordon (2003), for example, demonstrated that chronic friendlessness predicted internalizing

problems during early childhood after controlling for chronic victimization and chronic rejection.

Interestingly, the longitudinal relations between chronic friendlessness and internalizing problems

were partially mediated by children’s self-beliefs, perhaps because the consistent experience of being

without a friend interferes with the development of a positive sense of self, which in turn, can

protect against problems of the internalizing ilk (Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003).

Friendship and adjustment: Short and long-term considerations

In general, having friends during childhood has been associated with positive adjustment and

psychological well-being (e.g., Hartup & Stevens, 1997). For instance, investigators have shown that

children with friends report less loneliness and higher self-esteem than children without friends (e.g.,

Brendgen, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 2000; Bukowski, Hoza, & Newcomb, 1991). Having one mutual

friend can be especially helpful for children who are at-risk for internalizing and externalizing

20

problems; these children are often rejected and victimized by their peers (e.g., Hodges et al., 1999;

Laursen et al., 2007) and may lack parental support (e.g., Rubin, Dwyer, et al., 2004). It is likely that

friendships help such children by providing a sense of security, and offering much needed emotional

and social support. Although there exist very few longitudinal studies on the outcomes of having

friends during childhood, results from one investigation reveal that friendship involvement in

preadolescence (age 10 years) positively predicts self-esteem during early adulthood (age 23 years;

Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998), even after controlling for peer acceptance/rejection. This

finding supports Sullivan’s (1953) theoretical premise that having friends or chums during childhood

can play a unique role in predicting later positive social and emotional functioning and well-being.

Considerable variability exists in the quality of children’s friendships; some friendships are

more supportive whereas others are more conflict-ridden. Those friendships characterized by positive

relationship qualities such as intimacy, caring, and support, have been shown to be associated with

positive thoughts about oneself and general psychological well-being during childhood and early

adolescence (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). Children and adolescents with positive or high-quality

friendships report fewer psychological difficulties compared to children with less positive

friendships (e.g., Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007); this appears to be especially the case during such

stressful situations as school transitions (Boute et al., 2007) and early dating experiences (e.g.,

LaGreca & Mackey, 2007).

In general, adolescents report greater levels of intimacy in their friendships than do younger

children (e.g., Way & Greene, 2006). Yet, recent evidence suggests a “dark” side to many positive

friendships during late childhood and adolescence (Bowker & Rubin, 2009; Rose, Carlson, & Waller,

2007). Rose (2002), for example, revealed positive associations between friendship quality and the

tendency to co-ruminate, or repeatedly discuss problems and negative events with a friend. These

associations were particularly strong for young adolescent girls. Although such discussions may

21

foster intimacy and feelings of closeness, Rose and colleagues have shown that co-rumination is

concurrently and predictively associated with such internalizing problems as depression and anxiety

(Rose et al., 2007), most likely because repeated discussion about negative problems draws increased

attention towards these difficulties, but does not necessarily facilitate positive or successful coping.

The individual characteristics of the child, the characteristics of the best friend, and whether

the friendship is stable also appear to “matter” when considering the ways in which children’s

friendships impact their adjustment. As noted above, having aggressive friends during childhood has

been linked to increased aggressive behavior and delinquency (e.g., Hektner et al., 2000; Vitaro,

Pedersen, & Brendgen, 2007). Children with aggressive friends also appear to be at-risk for

emotional maladjustment (e.g., Brendgen et al., 2000), and such academic problems as early high

school drop-out (e.g., Véronneau, Vitaro, Pedersen, & Tremblay, 2008). Similarly, Berndt, Hawkins,

and Jiao (1999) found that behavior problems increased after the transition from elementary-into-

middle school, but only for those children whose stable best friendships were with age-mates who

had behavior problems themselves.

In contrast to the wealth of literature documenting the correlates and consequences of

having friendships with aggressive peers, very little empirical research has been conducted on the

possible impact of having a friend who is shy and socially withdrawn. In a recent growth curve

modeling study, Oh and colleagues (2008) reported that the greater the 5th grade best friend’s social

withdrawal, the more likely it was that the target child would be highly withdrawn in the 5th grade. It

was also revealed that children whose best friends were socially withdrawn in the 6th grade (after the

transition from elementary-to-middle school) were more likely to evidence a pattern of increasing

growth in social withdrawal over time. Taken together, findings clearly indicate that having friends

with peers who, themselves have behavioral difficulties, may lead to increased adjustment difficulty,

especially for children with behavioral difficulties of their own. However, there is also evidence that

22

having prosocial and sociable friends can promote school adjustment and social competence

(Wentzel, McNamara, & Caldwell, 2004). Thus, a next logical step for researchers would be to

determine whether the presence of prosocial and socially competent friends can represent a positive

“force” in the lives of aggressive and socially-withdrawn children.

Summary

In summary, most children and adolescents have at least one friend, and many of these

friendships are relatively stable. Children become friends with others who are similar to themselves

in physical (e.g., race), behavioral (e.g., aggression) and educational (e.g., grade point averages)

characteristics, and also those with similar peer successes and failures (e.g., peer rejection).

Developmental changes in the functions of children’s friendship have been evinced, along with

developmental differences in children’s conceptions or understanding of friendship. In general,

children develop a more mature and sophisticated understanding of friendship that incorporates not

only notions of reciprocity but also intimacy and commitment as they move from childhood into

adolescence. When children interact with their friends, they do so in both positive and negative

ways. Despite some negativity in their interactions however, it is the case that friends typically

resolve their conflicts using negotiation and compromise—strategies that likely promote the

maintenance of the relationship. Children who are unable to form friendships may miss out on the

social-cognitive benefits of interacting with friends, and also experience considerable psychological

distress. Although having friends has been positively linked to adjustment and may protect children

from difficulties with the larger peer group, the joint consideration of individual child characteristics

and friendship features reveals some variability in the degree to which friendship contributes

positively to adjustment. For example, there is growing evidence suggesting that children who

befriend similarly-aggressive or similarly-withdrawn children experience increased adjustment

difficulties over time. While some forms and functions in the friendships of girls and boys have been

23

revealed, it is clear that friendship represents an important relational developmental context for

positive development and adjustment for all children and adolescents.

PEER ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION

Peer acceptance reflects the peer group’s attitudes toward the child, or how well-liked or

disliked a child is, on average, by members of his or her peer group. Interest in peer acceptance

originated in the early 1930’s (Koch, 1933) and has grown in the last few decades as advances in the

measurement of social status and behavior have evolved. In this section, we examine the behavioral,

social-cognitive, and social-affective correlates of status in the peer group. To provide background

about extant research paradigms, we begin by reviewing some of the ways that peer acceptance and

rejection, and more recently perceived popularity, have been operationalized and measured.

The Measurement of Acceptance and Rejection

Sociometric measures use peers’ reports of how much they like or dislike each child in their

class (or school grade) to assess peer acceptance and rejection. Typically, children are provided with

a class roster and are requested to nominate up to three class/grade-mates who they like to play

with, like to work with, or simply like the most. Then children are asked to nominate peers who they

do not like to play or work with, or those who they like the least. Although many researchers limit

the number of nominations that children can make for “liked most” and “liked least” to the top

three for each nomination, Terry (2000) has argued that unlimited nominations for each category

may decrease error variance and have better reliability and validity. Received nominations are

summed for all children in a class/grade and then divided by the number of possible raters to

compute a proportion of how many classmates like and dislike each child. Scores are standardized

within each class or grade to control for group size (sometimes scores are standardized within

gender as well depending on the study goals).

24

Sociometric nominations are often used to calculate several different indicators of

sociometric status. Rejected children are those who receive few “liked most” nominations and many

“liked least” nominations. Children identified as popular receive many “liked most” nominations

and few “liked least” nominations. Nominations are also used to distinguish sociometrically rejected

and popular children from children who receive many “liked most” and “liked least” nominations,

labeled as “controversial” children, and children who receive few “liked most” and few “liked least”

nominations, labeled as “neglected” (for a detailed description of sociometric categorization

schemes, refer to Cillessen, 2009).

An alternative to sociometric nominations is a rating-scale measure of peer acceptance. With

this method, children are provided with a class roster and asked to rate each of their classmates (or a

randomly selected group of grade-mates for children in middle or high school) on a scale (e.g., 1 =

“not at all” to 5 “very much”) of how much they like to play or work each person. This, too, yields a

continuous indicator of peer acceptance. With the rating scale, data are gathered for each child in

class, rather than just the few who are prominent as may be the case when nominations are used.

However, this method does not distinguish well between neglected and rejected children (Cillessen,

2009).

Rather recently, investigators have also become interested in perceived popularity, or who

children think are “popular,” cool, central, or highly visible. Perceived popularity is different from

sociometric popularity, as the former pertains to those who children think are perceived by the

group as popular and the latter is a personal choice regarding who the individual child likes. To

measure perceived popularity, researchers typically ask children to nominate peers who they perceive

as “popular” (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). The number of

nominations a child receives is then divided by the number of possible nominations they could have

received and this fraction is standardized within class or grade. Some researchers construct

25

measures of perceived popularity by asking teachers to rate children on such questions as “is popular

with boys/girls,” and “has lots of friends” (Rodkin, Farmer, Van Acker, & Pearl, 2006). To create a

measure of perceived popularity that is methodologically comparable to sociometric popularity,

other researchers also ask children who is “not popular,” and then subtract the number of “not

popular” nominations received by each child from the number of received “popular” nominations

(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Regardless of measurement, the relation between perceived and

sociometric popularity ranges from moderate to strong but in adolescence this association seems to

decline and does more so for girls (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004).

The Behavioral Correlates of Peer Acceptance

As sociometric methodology blossomed, researchers turned their attention to understanding

why it is that some children are liked or disliked by their peers. Peer rejection was thought to be

predicted by behaviors or characteristics that deviated in some significant way from group norms.

Acceptance was viewed as a consequence of children displaying peer-valued characteristics. In this

section, we examine the behavioral correlates of well-liked and rejected children.

There have been numerous reviews of the behavioral correlates of sociometric status (e.g.,

Asher & McDonald, 2009; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Generally, there has been a greater

emphasis on the correlates of peer rejection than on peer acceptance. The reason for this emphasis

derives from reports that peer rejection during childhood predicts negative outcomes during the

adolescent and early adulthood periods (e.g., Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998).

Broadly speaking, sociometrically popular children are prosocial, have good communication

skills, and are good leaders. Well-accepted children are more sociable, helpful, sensitive, agreeable,

and cooperative than their rejected or average peers (e.g., Chen & Tse, 2008; Gazelle, 2008; Tomada

& Schneider, 1997). They tend to be less aggressive and withdrawn than their rejected age-mates,

but they are still assertive when need be (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Sociometrically popular

26

children also have more advanced cognitive, social-cognitive (e.g., social information processing),

and social-problem solving skills relative to their less popular peers (e.g., Renshaw & Asher, 1983).

They are more likely to actively interact with others, and participate in group constructive activities

(Pakaslahti, Karjalainen, & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2002). They also tend to be good athletes, good

students, and have good senses of humor (e.g., Daniels & Leaper, 2006).

At a more task-specific level, there is evidence that popular children are better at entering

ongoing peer activity and handling peer conflicts than are other children. When entering new

groups, well-liked children are more likely than others to take the group’s frame of reference and say

something on topic without drawing undue attention to themselves (Putallaz & Gottman, 1981).

Additionally, popular or well-liked children typically negotiate, compromise, and otherwise deal with

peer conflict in competent ways (e.g., Troop-Gordon & Asher, 2005).

The Behavioral Correlates of Peer Rejection

Why are some children more likely to be rejected than others? Rubin and colleagues have

suggested models of equifinality within which different pathways to peer rejection are described

(e.g., Parker, Rubin, Erath, Wojslawowicz, & Buskirk, 2006; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). In

one exemplar, it is suggested that aggression is a central cause of rejection; in another scenario,

socially anxious and withdrawn behavior places children on a pathway to rejection. Thus, in the

next section, we review the empirical literature linking aggressive and withdrawn behaviors to peer

rejection during childhood and adolescence.

Aggression and disruptive behavior. Childhood aggression, in its varied forms, is the strongest

behavioral predictor of peer dislike in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (see Bierman,

2004; Rubin et al., 2006 for reviews). Some of the most significant studies in which causal links

between behavior and rejection have been explored have involved laboratory-based observations of

unfamiliar peers in playgroups. In these paradigms, researchers have observed children’s social

27

behaviors, and have gathered sociometric nominations over time (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge,

1983). This methodological design has allowed the examination of behaviors that predict peer

acceptance and rejection within newly formed groups. Findings have indicated that rejected boys in

these groups display both more instrumental and reactive aggression, less cooperation, and more

time off-task than do the popular boys.

Although aggressive behavior is generally associated with peer rejection, there are important

exceptions. Aggressive children who have other valued characteristics (e.g., athletic ability) may not

be rejected by the peer group, but instead be identified as sociometrically “controversial” (Parkhurst

& Hopmeyer, 1998) or perceived to be popular (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,

1998; Rose et al., 2004). They may also be socially central within their peer networks and considered

to be “cool” (Rodkin et al., 2006).

Another factor that may distinguish between aggressive children who are rejected and those

who are not, is whether the child is also disruptive and hyperactive. Aggressive-rejected boys are

likely to be disruptive and hyperactive or inattentive and immature, whereas aggressive non-rejected

boys are not (e.g., Miller-Johnson, Coie, Maumary-Gremaud, Bierman, & The Conduct Problems

Prevention Research Group, 2002). More generally, it has been found that immature social

behaviors are associated with peer rejection. For example, when attempting to join an ongoing peer

activity, poorly accepted children are more likely to make self-focused or irrelevant statements and

act in ways to get the group’s attention (Putallaz & Gottman, 1981). Furthermore, when playing

games with peers, rejected children are less likely to regulate their emotions. In one study, Hubbard

(2001) found that rejected children, relative to average children, expressed more anger when losing a

game and evidenced more nonverbal happiness when winning.

Significantly, the negative associations between aggression and acceptance appear to differ

depending on child age (Sandstrom & Coie, 1999). For instance, the negative relation between active

28

misconduct and social preference is smaller in magnitude for young adolescents than for elementary-

aged children. Others have reported that the negative association between physical aggression and

social preference decreases in strength as children progress through junior high school (Cillessen &

Mayeux, 2004). There may be many reasons for the decreasingly negative association between

aggressive behavior and peer acceptance with increasing age. To begin with, older children are more

likely to be members of cliques of similarly behaving peers; in this regard, aggressive children may

positively reinforce each other’s aggressive behavior (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy,

1988). Clique members who are central to the group (that is, they frequently display behavior that is

normative and defining of the group) may be the most accepted and popular. Also, the ways in

which peers judge likability may change with age; younger children may perceive their peers in a

more global fashion whilst older children may have a more differentiated view of their social worlds

(Rubin et al., 2006).

On a related note, researchers have examined the ways in which behaviors may contribute to

the stability of peer rejection over time. In one study of boys between 5 and 7 years, two-thirds of

nonaggressive-rejected boys improved their status over a one year period whereas only 42 percent of

aggressive-rejected boys improved their status (Cillessen, van IJzendoorn, van Lieshout, & Hartup,

1992). The association between aggression and stability of rejection may change with increasing age.

Sandstrom and Coie (1999), for example, found that peer-rated aggression in 4th grade was positively

associated with improvement in social preference in 5th grade, but more so for boys than for girls.

These results suggest that in 4th grade, aggressive-rejected children have an easier time improving

their status than nonaggressive-rejected children, perhaps due to the increasing prevalence of peer

cliques (Cairns, Leung, & Cairns, 1995) or age-related shifts in norms about the acceptability of

aggression (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997).

29

Social withdrawal. A second pathway to peer rejection appears to begin with the

demonstration of socially anxious and withdrawn behavior. Highly withdrawn behavior has been

linked with peer rejection in numerous studies (see Rubin et al., 2009) and around the world

(Casiglia, Lo Coco, & Zapulla, 1998; Hart et al., 2000; Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990;

Valdivia, Schneider, Chavez, & Chen, 2005); approximately 10 to 20 percent of rejected children are

withdrawn (Cillessen et al., 1992) and approximately 25 percent of withdrawn children are rejected

(e.g., Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993). It appears likely that withdrawn children are rejected because

they are viewed by peers as “easy marks” or “whipping boys” (Olweus, 1993) who produce few

social overtures, appear overly compliant to peers’ requests and demands, and shy away from the

demonstration of assertive, confident behavior in the company of peers. These children exhibit a

lack of social competence in that their social goals often result in peer non-compliance and outright

rejection (e.g., Stewart & Rubin, 1995).

The association between social withdrawal and rejection may differ depending on the form

of withdrawn behavior displayed, as well as the age of the child. With regard to different forms of

social withdrawal, solitary-passive behavior refers to the display of solitary exploratory and/or

constructive activity in the company of others; solitary-active behavior refers to the display of

solitary sensorimotor activity and/or dramatic play in the company of others (Coplan, Rubin, Fox,

Calkins, & Stewart, 1994). Whereas solitary-passive play may be normal for young children, it

becomes increasingly associated with rejection with increasing age (Rubin & Mills, 1988). Solitary-

active play is deviant throughout childhood and is associated with rejection as early as preschool and

kindergarten (Rubin & Mills, 1988).

A third form of withdrawn behavior has been referred to as reticence; this behavior

comprises watching others from afar and avoiding activity altogether (Coplan et al., 1994).

Reticence has been found to reflect internalized feelings of social anxiety (Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker,

30

2009) and beginning in early childhood, appears to elicit peer rejection in vivo (Hart et al., 2000;

Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Stewart & Rubin, 1995). Behavioral reticence, as judged by children’s

preschool teachers, has not only been linked to peer rejection in the U.S.A., but also in China and

Russia (Hart et al., 2000), and social withdrawal has been associated with peer rejection among

Indian children (Prakash & Coplan, 2007).

Further, whereas boys and girls are equally likely to be socially withdrawn (Rubin, Coplan, &

Bowker, 2009), boys who demonstrate solitary-anxious behavior are at greater risk for peer rejection

and emotional difficulties than are solitary-anxious girls (Coplan, Gavinsky-Molina, Lagace-Seguin,

& Wichmann, 2001; Gazelle, 2008; Gazelle & Ladd, 2003). However, observational work has shown

that socially anxious girls are also likely to be treated poorly by peers (Gazelle et al., 2005). Further,

Gazelle (2008) has qualified this sex difference through the examination of subgroups of anxious-

solitary children. She found that agreeable anxious-solitary and normative anxious-solitary girls were

less rejected than their male counterparts. However, if children were attention-seeking or aggressive

in addition to being anxious and solitary, they were equally likely to be rejected by peers, regardless

of gender.

This consistently demonstrated sex difference may result because anxious-solitary boys

violate gender norms of male confidence and self-assuredness (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1998).

Following from Gazelle (2008), even if anxious-solitary boys are prosocial or otherwise socially

skilled, they still stand out as being atypical in terms of gender norms about extraversion.

Also, important to consider is that peer rejection is not only associated with anxious solitude,

but may serve to reinforce such behaviors in children. Gazelle and Ladd (2003) found that anxious-

solitary children who were excluded early in kindergarten evidenced the most stability in their

behavior. In contrast, anxious-solitary children who were not excluded by peers displayed decreased

anxious solitude over time. In this regard, there appears to be a dialectic relation between anxious-

31

solitude and rejection. The behavior may initially result in peer rejection (Stewart & Rubin, 1995);

thereafter, the in vivo experience of rejection may evoke subsequent retreat from social interaction

within the peer milieu. Rubin and colleagues have described this transactional relation between

social withdrawal and peer rejection in several reviews (e.g., Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009).

The Behavioral Correlates of Perceived Popularity

Growing interest in the topic of perceived popularity emanates from recent popular trade

publications on such topics as “mean girls” and “Queen Bees” (Simmons, 2002; Wiseman, 2002).

Perceived popularity has been linked to a varied list of characteristics, including dominance in the

peer group, the display of both physical and relational aggression (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et

al., 2004), prosocial behavior, (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), having a good sense of humor

(Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006), academic competence, athletic ability, being attractive, and being

stylish and wealthy (Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006).

The hodgepodge of characteristics that describe the perceived popular group may suggest at

least two different groups of children. Rodkin and colleagues (2006) identified “model” children,

who were perceived as being “cool” and at the same time were academically competent, physically

skilled, sociable, and not rated as aggressive by teachers. They also identified a group of “tough”

children, who were also highly popular but were also highly aggressive and physically competent.

Both groups of children were socially central in the peer group and perceived by peers to be “cool”.

In a previous review, Rubin (2002) referred to these two groups as being popular by virtue of their

decency versus popular by virtue of their dominance.

One of the central questions in the study of perceived popularity is how it is concurrently

and/or causally related to forms of aggressive behavior. As noted above, both overt and relational

forms of aggression have been concurrently linked with perceived popularity. However, when

examining the complex nature of these associations, it seems as if relational aggression may be more

32

central to the establishment and maintenance of perceived popularity. For example, Rose et al.

(2004) found that the link between overt aggression and perceived popularity could be explained

through the association of both constructs with relational aggression. Further, Cillessen and Mayeux

(2004) found evidence to suggest that children who attain social prominence with peers increase

their use of relational aggression as a means to maintain their status during adolescence.

The relation between perceived popularity and aggression may depend on the age and

gender of those being studied. Thus, although, perceived popularity is linked with aggression during

early adolescence, for younger children this association appears nonexistent (Cillessen & Mayeux,

2004; Rose et al., 2004). Furthermore, relational aggression is more strongly associated with

perceived popularity for girls than boys (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004).

Contextual Differences in the Behavioral Correlates of Status

Contextual factors are important to consider in discussions of the behavioral correlates of

peer acceptance and rejection. In person-group similarity models of acceptance (Wright,

Giammarino, & Parad, 1986), behaviors deviating from group norms are likely to be dismissed

and/or viewed unfavorably by group members. Thus, if a behavior is valued by group members, its

display will be accompanied by peer acceptance; on the other hand, if a behavior lacks value, or does

not reflect group norms, its display will be accompanied by peer rejection.

Support for the person-group similarity model was initially drawn from a study by Wright et

al (1986). These researchers discovered that in a boys’ summer camp, for social groups within which

the mean level of aggressive behavior was high, the association between aggression and peer

rejection was not negative but instead was near zero. In contrast, for low aggression groups, the

association between aggression and acceptance was significant and negative. Additionally, in high

aggression groups, social withdrawal was strongly and negative linked with acceptance; in the low

aggression groups, social withdrawal was uncorrelated with peer acceptance. These findings have

33

since been replicated and extended (e.g., Chang, 2004; Stormshak, Bierman, Bruschi, Dodge, Coie, &

The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). For example, Boivin, Dodge, and Coie

(1995) found that when such behaviors as aggression and social withdrawal were non-normative in

playgroups, these behaviors were associated with lower peer status. Strormshak et al. (1999) reported

that for boys in classrooms characterized by high aggression, the negative association between

aggression and acceptance was decreased.

And yet, it is important to note that Wright et al (1986) found that prosocial behavior was

associated with peer acceptance, regardless of the group norms vis-à-vis aggression. Wright and

colleagues hypothesized that prosocial behaviors may be universally associated with peer acceptance.

Stormshak et al. (1999) also found that there were some behaviors that seemed to be universally

disliked or appreciated no matter the classroom norms. For instance, prosocial behaviors were

consistently and positively linked with peer acceptance; inattentive-hyperactive behaviors were

consistently negatively associated with acceptance. However, Boivin et al. (1995) and Chang (2004)

reported that higher classroom or group levels of assertive prosocial behavior strengthened the

positive association between this form of behavior and peer acceptance.

The person-group similarity model may also explain why different behaviors may be

associated with group acceptance for boys and girls. For example, Moller, Hymel, and Rubin (1992)

found that boys who engaged in forms of play that were more typical of girls were less accepted by

both their male and female peers. Additionally, Berndt and Heller (1986) examined children’s

judgments of the behavior of hypothetical peers. Hypothetical boys who chose activities more

typical of girls (e.g., boys choosing to bake brownies rather than fix a bicycle) were judged to be less

popular than hypothetical girls who chose activities more typical of boys.

The person-group similarity model may be useful in explaining gender differences in

associations between both anxious solitude and aggression and peer acceptance. As noted

34

previously, for boys, the relation between displays of anxious solitude and rejection is higher than

that for girls (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003); perhaps this is because anxious solitude is particularly deviant

from the norms of male play groups. Interestingly, Stormshak et al. (1999) found that in classrooms

marked by high aggression, aggressive girls were no better liked than nonaggressive girls; on the

other hand, aggressive boys were more accepted if they were in aggressive groups. Again, gender

norms influence criteria for peer acceptance.

Social Cognitive, Self-System, and Affective Correlates of Peer Acceptance and Rejection

The goal of understanding the behavioral correlates of social status is driven by the

assumption that peer rejection partly results from the ways in which children behave in various

social situations. An additional premise is that a child’s thoughts about others, about the self, and

about the larger social milieu account, in part, for why children behave as they do (Rubin & Rose-

Krasnor, 1992). Thus, an indirect relation is posited to exist between thinking about things social

and peer reputation and status. In the following section, we review evidence for this relation.

Social information processing. Social information processing (SIP) models attempt to explain

online processing and decision-making that precedes, accompanies, and follows peer interactions

(Crick & Dodge, 1994; Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992). Most SIP models account for individual

differences in interactive behavior by acknowledging that individuals enter social situations with

unique interpersonal and relationship histories (e.g., beliefs, schema, scripts, working models) that

influence thinking about social behavior in context. Many SIP models involve a series of sequential

steps that explain how children attend to, encode, and interpret social information and choose and

evaluate goals and strategies.

For example, a model proposed by Rubin and Rose-Krasnor (1992) outlined five major

social information processing steps. First, children may select a social goal or envision what they

would like to happen in a given social situation (e.g., obtaining access to a desired object). Second,

35

they examine the task environment which entails attending to and interpreting relevant social cues

(e.g., Who has possession of the desired object? Is the individual familiar or unfamiliar? A friend or

non-friend? Older or younger? Is the situation a public or private one?). Third, children retrieve and

select behavioral strategies. Then, in the fourth step, children implement their chosen strategy.

Finally, it is proposed that children evaluate the outcome and their success at achieving their goals.

Crick and Dodge (1994) have proposed a similar social-cognitive model designed to account

for aggression in children. This model consists of six steps: (1) encoding of social cues; (2) interpreting

of encoded cues; (3) clarifying goals; (4) accessing and generating potential responses; (5) evaluating

and selecting responses; and (6) enacting chosen responses. More recently, Lemerise and Arsenio

(2000) revised the Crick and Dodge (1994) model to allow for emotional and affective reactions to

be influenced by and influence each step of social information processing.

From a large body of SIP research, a clear message has emerged: Aggressive and rejected

children demonstrate characteristic deficits or qualitative differences in performance at various

stages of these models. Rejected-aggressive children are prone to interpretations that their peers

mean them harm, especially in situations in which it is unclear whether a received harm was intended

or not (Dodge et al., 2003). When selecting social goals, rejected children tend to have motives that

undermine, rather than establish or enhance, their social relationships. For example, their goals

might comprise “getting even” with or “defeating” their peers (Rabiner & Gordon, 1992).

Aggressive children are more likely to view aggression as a viable or appropriate response in social

situations than are children who are not aggressive (e.g., Erdley & Asher, 1998). They anticipate

greater rewards for their aggressive behavior (Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen, 1986) and expect that

aggression will lead them to feel better about themselves and will be less hurtful to victims (Boldizar,

Perry, & Perry, 1989). Additionally, aggressive-rejected children are less concerned about subsequent

retaliation and peer rejection (Boldizar et al., 1989).

36

Although knowledge is relatively limited, there is some evidence that withdrawn children

also process social information differently than average children. Withdrawn children are more likely

than aggressive or comparison children to feel as if they will fail in social situations and to attribute

their social failures, once experienced, to personal, dispositional characteristics rather than to

external circumstances (Wichmann, Coplan, & Daniels, 2004). Withdrawn children also are less

likely to generate productive and assertive social strategies to resolve interpersonal dilemmas. Instead

they suggest more adult dependent strategies or they suggest interpersonal avoidance to deal with

the possibility of peer conflict (Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream, 1984). Relevantly, when children

have anxious expectations of peer rejection, they become increasingly withdrawn over time

(London, Downey, Bonica, & Paltin, 2007).

Thus, the social-cognitive profiles of extremely withdrawn and extremely aggressive children

are quite distinct. The latter group misinterprets ambiguous social stimuli, misblames others, and

often responds with inappropriate anger-aggravated hostility. There can be no doubt why such

cognition-behavior sequences are associated with peer rejection. Withdrawn children, by the middle

school years, do not appear to have difficulties in interpreting social cues and in generating

competent solutions to interpersonal dilemmas. Their problem is in the production or enactment

phase of the processing sequence (Stewart & Rubin, 1995). Social dilemmas may evoke emotionally

anxious-fearful reactions in withdrawn children; their inability to regulate and overcome their

wariness is thought to result in an unassertive, submissive social problem solving style.

It is important to note that the majority of the SIP research, as it relates to peer interaction,

has been focused on aggressive children where peer status is unmeasured or unspecified. Given the

extant data, it is somewhat difficult to know whether SIP difficulties emanate from children’s

behavioral tendencies (e.g., aggression; withdrawal) or from peer group status and experience (e.g.,

rejection; acceptance). It is known that rejected and accepted children may differ in their

37

motivations and strategies for social interaction. In general, it seems as if rejected children are less

focused on relational outcomes than nonrejected children. For example, Renshaw and Asher (1983)

found that well-liked children were more likely to formulate prosocial goals than were lower status

children and they also generated more sophisticated strategies to achieve their goals. Additionally,

Chung and Asher (1996) presented minor conflict-of-interest situations to children (e.g.,

disagreements about what television show to watch) and asked them to rate various goals and

strategies on the likelihood that they would pursue them in each situation. They found that girls’

peer acceptance was negatively associated with endorsement of hostile and coercive strategies. For

boys, acceptance was negatively related to seeking help from adults.

In summary, how children think about their social interactions partially predicts their social

behavior. Aggressive-rejected children tend to perceive hostility in other’s behaviors and thus they

are more likely to react in negative or hostile ways. Withdrawn children tend to blame themselves for

social failures and, thus, are less likely to choose assertive actions on their own behalf. These social

cognitive tendencies reinforce problematic behaviors and increase negative social interactions with

peers.

Rejection sensitivity. A relatively new construct in peer relations research is rejection-sensitivity.

Rejection sensitivity is defined as the tendency to defensively expect, readily perceive, and overreact

to rejection (Downey, Lebolt, Rincon, & Freitas, 1998). Such sensitivity is thought to develop from

rejection experiences with parents or other significant adult (e.g., teachers), and peers. To assess

rejection-sensitivity, children are typically presented with hypothetical scenarios in which rejection

from peers or teachers is a possibility. Children are then asked how nervous and angry they would

feel in each situation as well as how much they expect to be rejected.

Downey and colleagues have hypothesized that the social cognitions that define rejection

sensitivity are likely to be costly to a child’s relationships with peers. Particularly, angry expectations

38

of rejection may lead to angry, aggressive behavior with peers. In support of this hypothesis,

Downey et al. (1998) found that angry expectations of rejection in 5th to 7th graders were positively

associated with teacher-rated aggression and school reports of teacher and peer conflicts. Angry

expectations of rejection were also negatively associated with teacher-rated social competence.

Longitudinal evidence suggests that peer rejection predicts increases in rejection sensitivity

over time (Sandstrom, Cillessen, & Eisenhower, 2003). Sandstrom and colleagues (2003)

distinguished between on-line rejection sensitivity, which reflects children’s immediate reflexive

reactions to rejection and was measured through reactions to experimentally induced rejection, and

generalized rejection sensitivity, which refers to the trait-like reflective processing measured by

Downey et al.’s (1998) measure. They found that rejected girls experienced more distress in response

to experimentally induced rejection (on-line rejection sensitivity) than did nonrejected girls. They

also reported that the association between rejection and externalizing behavior was stronger for girls

who were low on rejection sensitivity. In comparison, online rejection sensitivity predicted

externalizing behaviors for boys, such that for highly sensitive boys, rejection was more strongly

with externalizing behaviors than for less sensitive boys. The authors suggested that this gender

difference resulted from highly rejection-sensitive girls’ reflection of their own roles in negative peer

interactions rather than automatically assigning blame to others; this may have resulted in rejection-

sensitive girls analyzing their behaviors and making adaptive changes. In contrast, highly rejection-

sensitive boys may have disproportionately attributed interpersonal problems to the peer group and

not to themselves. The study of the processes by which peer rejection and rejection sensitivity

become linked over time is a new, potentially productive area that peer relations researchers are

beginning to explore.

Loneliness. Given that many rejected children are often excluded by their peers, many

researchers have examined the links between peer acceptance, rejection and loneliness (Asher &

39

Paquette, 2003). Generally, rejected children are lonelier and find their social relationships to be less

fulfilling than typical or non-rejected children (e.g., Boivin & Hymel, 1997). Examining subgroups

of rejected children, Boivin, Poulin, and Vitaro (1994) found that submissive-rejected students, when

compared with average-status students and aggressive-rejected students, reported higher levels of

loneliness. Additionally, children whose rejected status is stable become increasingly lonely over time

(Burks, Dodge, & Price, 1995).

When considering the relation between loneliness and peer rejection, other features of peer

relationships must necessarily be considered. For example, researchers have argued that the

association between rejection and loneliness may be incidental because peer rejection is also

negatively associated with the number of friends children have and the quality of their friendships,

and positively associated with peer victimization, and these factors are related to childhood

loneliness (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993). In support, investigators have found links between peer

rejection and loneliness in older children that were mediated by such factors as victimization and

belongingness (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995). Further, Ladd, Kochenderfer, and Coleman

(1997) found that changes in loneliness among kindergarteners could be explained by the number of

friendships children had and the experience of peer victimization. These researchers proposed that

the provisions offered by peer acceptance is much like that provided by friendship. Thus, friendship

could operate as a protective factor insofar as felt loneliness is concerned; this may be especially the

case for children who experience peer rejection.

The Self-System

Children’s relationships with their peers have the potential to influence how they think and

feel about themselves. As noted above, Sullivan (1953) argued that peer relationships help children

to learn about themselves and to shape their self-concepts. Given this position, it is reasonable to

assume that children who are rejected by peers also have negative self-views whereas children who

40

are well-liked have more positive self-concepts. Early research suggested that this was the case; data

revealed that rejected children viewed themselves as less socially competent and have lower self

worth than non-rejected children (Hymel et al., 1990; Rubin & Mills, 1988); there is also a trend for

the magnitude of this relation to increase with age (Ladd & Price, 1987). Further, some longitudinal

evidence shows that being rejected in school predicts later negative social self-concept (Hymel et al.,

1990; Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003) although there is also support for a model in which negative

self-perceptions predict increases in peer rejection (Salmivalli & Isaacs, 2005). It is likely that peer

rejection and negative self-perceptions mutually reinforce one another.

Despite the significant associations between peer rejection and negative self-perceptions, it is

also the case that not all rejected children think and feel poorly about themselves. For example,

aggressive-rejected children tend to think more positively about themselves relative to nonaggressive-

rejected and withdrawn-rejected children (Boivin, Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994); they also underestimate

how disliked they are by classmates (Zakriski & Coie, 1996). It has been suggested that although

aggressive children are rejected by peers, their peers are afraid to treat them badly because they fear

retribution and this is not the case for nonaggressive-rejected children. Thus, aggressive-rejected

children may not be aware of their rejection whereas it is more evident to nonaggressive rejected

children. Alternatively, aggressive-rejected children may be more likely to employ self-protective

mechanisms, helping them to ignore negative feedback. If this is the case, it is likely that these self-

protective mechanisms further contribute to their social difficulties as they may not realize the

consequences of their peer difficulties (Zakriski & Coie, 1996).

Summary

There is clearly evidence that different behavioral profiles apply to rejected and accepted

children. Whereas rejected children are aggressive and disruptive or withdrawn and socially anxious,

sociometrically popular children are prosocial, good communicators, and cognitively skilled.

41

Rejected and accepted children also think about their worlds differently. Rejected children are more

likely to expect negative treatment from peers and generate less skilled social responses than are

well-liked children. Rejected children also experience their social worlds in less positive ways, feeling

more lonely and less competent than their more accepted peers. These concurrent markers of

maladjustment and distress may foretell the likelihood of future adjustment difficulties. In the next

section, we address this very issue.

OUTCOMES OF PEER RELATIONSHIPS

In an early review, Parker and Asher (1987) suggested two conceptual models to explain the

association between peer rejection, social behavior, and subsequent maladjustment. Their models

were based on the assumption that social behavior affects peer group status, which, in turn, limits

the child’s positive socialization experiences with peers and promotes negative social experiences,

leading to poorer social adjustment outcomes. For example, in the “causal model,” rejected peers

tend to interact with their peers in a more negative manner, causing them to receive poorer

treatment from peers than children who are more readily accepted. Peer maltreatment was thought

to lead to the subsequent development of adjustment difficulties. The second model proposed by

Parker and Asher was referred to as the “incidental model” in which it was assumed that peer

rejection does not affect later adjustment. Instead, social status was considered a byproduct of the

child’s behavioral style and that it was the child’s behavioral tendencies that affected developmental

outcomes.

More recently, Ladd and Burgess (2001) suggested the possibility of an “additive model” in

which relational risk factors, such as peer rejection, increase the likelihood of later dysfunction

beyond the risks associated with behavioral characteristics. They also suggested the possibility of a

“moderated risk-adjustment model” in which relational risks (e.g., peer rejection) exacerbates

maladjustment among children who are behaviorally at risk. One of the challenges of these models

42

is that rejected status is often strongly linked with children’s behavioral characteristics and the

intertwining of these constructs is difficult to manage when attempting to discern primary causal

mechanisms. Yet another, perhaps more serious challenge to traditional peer researchers, results

from the lack of attention typically paid to why it is that children behave in ways that lead to

rejection to begin with and whether factors dispositional to the child or associated with the child’s

home experiences account for outcomes of negative consequence. We address this latter issue in the

conclusions section when we introduce the “transactional model” (see also Parker, Rubin, et al.,

2006). For now, we examine the extant literature on whether peer rejection predicts later adjustment

difficulties. Although there is evidence that peer rejection may affect several different facets of later

adjustment including, life status, school and job performance, and psychopathology (e.g., see Parker

et al., 2006; Rubin et al., 2006 for reviews), the majority of research has focused on how and whether

peer rejection is associated with later externalizing and internalizing problems.

Peer Rejection and Externalizing Problems

Externalizing difficulties comprise behaviors that are disruptive, destructive, harmful to

others, and in violation of societal norms. Delinquency, aggressive or violent behavior, and criminal

involvement are exemplars of externalizing behaviors. Researchers have clearly demonstrated a

connection between peer rejection in childhood and externalizing difficulties in adolescence and

beyond (e.g., Bagwell et al., 1998; Miller-Johnson et al., 2002; Sandstrom, et al., 2003).

Support for an incidental model involving peer rejection and externalizing problems derives

from an investigation by Kupersmidt and Coie (1990) who found that rejected 5th grade children

were more likely to have externalizing problems at the end of high school than were children who

were sociometrically average or popular. However, when both 5th grade rejection and aggression

were compared as predictors of subsequent adolescent externalizing difficulties, aggression was

43

consistently the strongest “predictor” of such externalizing problems as getting in trouble with the

law.

More recent investigations have supported components of the additive, interactional, and

causal models. Consistent with an additive model, Ladd and Burgess (2001) found that peer rejection

in kindergarten was associated with first-grade behavioral misconduct, after controlling for

kindergarten misconduct. Building on this, Miller-Johnson et al. (2002) reported that peer rejection

in first grade predicted early onset conduct problems in 3rd and 4th grades, even after controlling for

earlier aggression and ADHD symptoms. However, in partial support of a causal model, Miller-

Johnson et al. found that kindergarten rejection partially mediated the association between early

ADHD symptoms and subsequent conduct problems.

In support of additive and interactional models, DeRosier, Kupersmidt, and Patterson

(1994) found that chronic peer rejection predicted later “acting out” behaviors, even after

controlling for initial levels of behavior. Furthermore, chronic rejection and early behaviors

interacted in such a way that the initial level of “acting out” magnified the effects of chronic

rejection on later “acting out.” Dodge et al. (2003) have suggested that early social rejection acts like

a social stressor, increasing a child’s tendency to act aggressively, beyond their initial levels of

aggression; this speculation was supported, but only for children who were initially aggressive. For

children who were below the median on aggression, social rejection did not predict increased

aggressive behavior.

Recent work by Prinstein and LaGreca (2004) has extended the interactional model to

examine the relations between aggression, acceptance, and the health risk behaviors of girls. Over

the course of their 6-year longitudinal study, they found that girls’ childhood aggression predicted

later substance use and sexual risk behavior. However, social preference moderated this risk, such

44

that for highly accepted aggressive junior high school girls, there was not an association between

early aggression and risky health behaviors at the end of high school.

Another causal pathway that may link peer rejection and subsequent externalizing problems

derives from the extant literature on peer associations. Aggressive-rejected children affiliate with

other antisocial peers (Dishion & Piehler, 2009). And affiliation with antisocial peers promotes

deviancy training and subsequent externalizing problems (e.g., Dishion & Piehler, 2009).

Peer Rejection and Internalizing Problems

Low peer acceptance and peer rejection are associated contemporaneously with such

internalizing problems as anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem (e.g., Bell-Dolan, Foster, &

Christopher, 1995; Rubin & Mills, 1988, Sandstrom et al., 2003). Furthermore, research indicates

that the lack of peer acceptance, and especially peer rejection, are associated with increased rates of

internalizing symptoms (e.g., Coie et al., 1995; Gazelle & Ladd, 2003).

There is also growing evidence of the concurrent and longitudinal associations between

anxious-withdrawal and such internalizing problems as low self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness, and

depression (e.g., Burks et al., 1995; Prior, Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2000; Rubin, Chen,

McDougall, Bowker, & MacKinnon, 1995). Given the significant association between peer rejection

and anxious-withdrawal (Rubin et al., 2009), some researchers have proposed that the interaction

between these two constructs may best predict problems of an internalizing nature (e.g., Gazelle &

Ladd, 2003). For example, Rubin et al. (2009) suggested that withdrawal may be linked to

internalizing problems through such negative peer experiences as rejection and victimization.

Gazelle and Ladd (2003) also proposed that a combination of individual factors, such as anxious

solitary behavior, and interpersonal risk factors, such as peer rejection or exclusion, may contribute

to internalizing difficulties over time. They found that anxious solitary children who were also

45

excluded by peers early in kindergarten displayed more depressive symptoms years later in the year

than anxious solitary children who were not earlier excluded by peers.

In summary, children who are rejected by peers are at greater risk for both externalizing and

internalizing problems than their better-accepted counterparts. Whilst children who act aggressively

or are withdrawn are likely to be rejected, peer rejection also likely exacerbates these behavioral

tendencies. In combination with these behavioral risk factors, peer rejection is much more likely to

lead to later maladjustment.

The Peer Group as a Social Context

Thus far, we have examined the significance of dyadic peer relationships and status within

the peer group-at-large. In this section, we explore the structural and functional characteristics of the

peer group within which friendships and social reputations exist. We also describe processes

involved in group formation, and group norms and organization. Our discussion is focused on

informal peer groups which are initiated and overseen by their participants; we will not discuss

formal peer groups that are usually under the supervision and direction of an adult.

The Peer Group as a Social Context

During the early years of childhood, one may observe groups of children interacting and

playing in their classrooms and on the playground. However, the group activities of young children

are often uncoordinated or are structured by an adult. Play during this age period often embodies

intentions that appear independently oriented or self-centered (Isaacs, 1933). With the transition

from early childhood to middle childhood, groups of peers become peer groups.

Typically, peer groups comprise five or six members, usually of the same sex (Chen, Chang,

& He, 2003). During childhood, small, intimate groups of friends, known as cliques, are prevalent.

Participation in cliques decline in adolescence and are replaced, in large part, by participation in

reputation-based “crowds.” Crowds comprise larger collections of individuals who share the same

46

image or status among peers, even if, in fact, they actually spend little time interacting with each

other (Brown & McNeil, 2009).

The shift from clique to crowd membership may be a consequence of social-cognitive

developments pertaining to self- and group-identity, and a more sophisticated understanding of

relationships and group norms. For example, during early adolescence, individuals turn increasingly

to trustworthy peers for social support (for a review, see Rubin et al., 2006). At the same time,

adolescents strive to acquire a sense of group identity that varies in lifestyle and values from their

parents (Brown & McNeil, 2009). In addition, the ability to develop, maintain, and adaptively

dissolve the different types of relationships (friendships, romantic relationships, platonic

relationships) that may exist within given crowds increases with age.

By the late adolescent years, however, peer groups become less clearly defined (Kinney,

1993). During this period, mixed-sex cliques emerge, and these cliques may be further divided into

romantic couples (Brown & McNeil, 2009). Furthermore, with the emergence of their own personal

values, adolescents begin to become more independent from their cliques. Thus, the necessity of

crowd membership becomes less important and the possibility of multiple or partial group

memberships emerges as a reality (Brown & McNeil, 2009).

Insofar as the nature of the peer group is concerned, some researchers have argued that

groups are defined by how members influence and are influenced by each other. For example, as

early as the preschool years, dominance hierarchies and affiliative networks exist (Vaughn & Santos,

2009). Not only can dominance structures describe individual standing within groups, but they can

also identify smaller groups with the larger peer structure. For example, groups comprise core and

marginal members (Hogg, 2005). Within the group, core members are highly visible, popular, and

socially powerful. Thus, core members have the power to persuade other group members to think

like and agree with them (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). In some cases, status as a core member spans

47

across a number of groups. For example, Sussman, Pokhrel, Ashmore, and Brown (2007) have

identified a core group of “populars” who dominate the school setting. In contrast, marginal group

members have relatively little status and power and their membership status within the group is

more likely to fluctuate than that of a core member.

The “glue” that holds groups together is drawn from shared values, attitudes, and behaviors

of its constituent members (Brown & McNeil, 2009; Kindermann & Gest, 2009). Thus, members in

groups are interconnected through their dyadic relationships, while at the same time, sharing

common interests and social conventions. These shared values and norms enforce appropriate

within-group interactions between members (Brown & McNeil, 2009).

Some researchers have reported that boys are more likely to interact in groups, whereas girls

are more likely to be exclusive in their relationships (Benenson, Apostoleris & Parnass, 1997).

Others report that girls value group membership more than boys and that they have more friends

than boys (Lohman, & Newman, 2007). Yet others have failed to find significant sex differences in

the extensivity of peer networks (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, & Cairns, 1995). This incongruence may

be a function of the variety of methods used by researchers in their different studies; for example,

sex differences in the extensivity of networks and affiliation have been found when observational

methods have been employed (e.g., Benenson et al., 1997); but self-reports of group affiliations yield

different results (e.g., Newman et al., 2007).

Peer Group Functions

From participating in peer groups, children are able to develop and fine-tune skills that are

necessary for the maintenance of efficient group functioning. Based on observations from his

ethnographic research, Fine (1987) argued that group participation allows children to learn (1) how

to engage in cooperative activity aimed at collective rather than individual goals; (2) about social

structures within and across groups; (3) the skills associated with leading and following others; (4)

48

the control of hostile impulses towards in-group and out-group peers; and (5) to mobilize aggression

in the service of group loyalty by directing it towards "outsiders.” Moreover, the peer group

provides a social context within which close relationships are developed. These relationships may

become sources of social support in times of stress (Hartup & Stevens, 1997).

Another function of the peer group is to reinforce identity development. For example,

social identity development theory (Nesdale, 2004) suggests that children and adolescents have a

basic need to belong, and thus, are motivated to form friendships, belong to cliques and groups, and

gain acceptance by their peers. The association with peers who have similar views and normative

beliefs allows children to develop a sense of identity within the broader peer group.

Lastly, it has been argued that peer group experiences may have a significant effect on the

social, emotional, and behavioral functioning and adjustment of individuals within larger social

settings. For example, the profile of peer networks significantly predicts changes in individual

members’ academic motivation (Kindermann, 1993; Kindermann & Gest, 2008). Similar findings

have been reported concerning the contributions of peer groups to such matters as school drop out,

teenage pregnancy, and delinquency (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Chen et al., 2001).

Cliques and Crowds

The two main types of child and adolescent peer groups are cliques and crowds (Brown &

McNeil, 2009). As noted above, cliques are small friendship-based groups involving much inter-

member contact and interaction; crowds are reputation-based groups wherein interaction between

members may or may not occur (Brown & McNeil, 2009). Membership or affiliation status within

cliques and crowds has been assessed in different ways. For example, with less stringent criteria for

group membership, Espelage, Hold, and Henkel (2003) found that the majority of children in

middle school report belonging to cliques; when more restricted criteria for group membership are

used, it has been found that 25 percent of middle-school children in middle school are clique

49

members (Henrich et al., 2000). Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, and Steinberg (1993) have documented

several types of common crowds, such as “normals,” “jocks,” “brains,” “populars,” “loners,”

“druggies,” as well as crowds based on socioeconomic or ethnic backgrounds.

Given these crowd labels, different behaviors may define membership and different

consequences of membership may occur. For example, “jocks” are involved in athletics and tend to

be popular as well as physically and romantically attractive; “brains” worry about their grades and

have marginal standing with peers; and “druggies/burnouts” do poorly in school, are less socially

competent, are hostile toward authority figures, and engage in risky health behaviors (e.g., La Greca,

Prinstein, & Fetter, 2001). However, these outcomes may not generalize across school contexts due

to the values of the school at large. For example, in a school within which academic proclivity is

highly valued , “brains” may be members of the popular crowd; in schools wherein academics are

not equally stressed by the student body, “brains” may be outsiders (Sussman et al., 2007).

In terms of group longevity, cliques are relatively stable for brief periods of time. They do

become increasingly fluid over longer periods of time (Kindermann, 1993, 2007), most likely

because cliques comprise several dyadic friendships, and many friendships come-and-go during the

typical school year (Wojslawowicz Bowker et al., 2006). Very little empirical attention has been paid

to addressing the stability or fluidity of crowd membership over time (for an exception, see Kinney,

1993). The existing literature suggests that membership in crowds is highly visible, salient, and more

exclusive in middle school and the early years of high school than in the later years of high school.

This suggests that by high school, adolescents may embrace multiple identities and crowd

affiliations.

Despite differences that may exist within the structures of peer groups, all of them inevitably

disintegrate in the late adolescent years. This is largely due to the integration of the sexes that

accompanies this period. By the mid-high school years, mixed sex cliques become commonplace.

50

Both girls and boys feel sufficiently confident to approach one another directly without the support

of clique membership. Another contributing factor to the decline in the importance of cliques and

crowds results from adolescents developing their own personal beliefs and norms. In this regard,

adolescents no longer see it necessary to identify themselves as members of particular social groups,

whether they are cliques or crowds.

Groups and Adaptation

As previously noted, group affiliation may be associated with adaptive and maladaptive

development. For example, researchers have found a negative relation between peer group

membership and externalizing/internalizing problems (Newman et al., 2007). Likewise, Prinstein

and La Greca (2002) argued that being a member of a given peer group strongly enhances self-

concept and may protect against the development of internalizing problems. Significantly,

membership in stigmatized peer groups may be associated with maladjustment. In a longitudinal

follow-back study, Prinstein and La Greca found that populars/jocks saw a decrease in internalizing

problems over time whereas brains saw an increase in internalizing problems over time.

Summary

In summary, peer groups provide children a unique social context in which they are able to

learn about themselves, others, and relationships between people and groups. Children’s initial

dyadic experiences with friends allow them to acquire the necessary skills for competent social

interaction and peer acceptance. When children become members of social groups, and become

accepted by group members, they may become active participants in cliques. At the same time, some

adolescents become members of crowds. Cliques and crowds provide different social opportunities

for adolescents. The former provides a context for adolescents to test and develop values and roles

in the absence of adult monitoring; the latter offer extra-familial support in the development of a

sense of self.

51

CULTURE AND PEER RELATIONSHIPS

The review offered thus far has focused mainly on the extant “Western” literature. An

emerging literature suggests, however, that across cultures, children’s experiences with peers may

vary substantially (Chen, French, & Schneider, 2006). In this section, we review research pertaining

to friendship, and peer acceptance and rejection from a cultural and cross-cultural perspective.

Culture and Friendship

From a Western perspective, friendship is often referred to as a close, mutual, and voluntary

dyadic relationship. Significantly, characteristics and defining properties of friendship appear to

differ from culture-to-culture. For example, that friendship represents a voluntary choice of its

members may not be the case in some cultures; in some cultures, parents may choose their

children’s companions and friends (Keller, 2004). Indeed, the very definition of “friend” may vary

across cultures (Keller, Edelstein, Schmid, Fang, & Fang, 1998). Furthermore, the functions of

friendship may vary across cultures. Children may place more or less value on such provisions of

friendship as intimacy and exclusivity depending on cultural, societal norms (French, Lee, & Pidada,

2006; Gonzalez, Moreno, & Schneider, 2004). In one recent study, French et al. (2006) reported that

Korean adolescents view exclusive friendships as necessary for the development of social

competence; Indonesian adolescents, on the other hand, place greater emphasis on the peer group at

large for the development of social competence. And, there is some evidence that the nature of

conflict resolution among friends also varies across cultural lines. For example, French and

colleagues (2005) reported that Indonesian children are more likely to disengage or give in during

conflict between friends; North American children are less inclined to disengage or give in and seem

more inclined to work things out. Given the differences noted above, it is clear that cross-cultural

developmental research is sorely needed if we are to begin to understand the very meaning of this

relationship within and between cultures.

52

Ethnicity, race, and friendship. Beyond the rather limited cross-cultural, developmental work on

friendships, there have been studies of race, ethnicity, and friendships within culturally diverse

nations. In general, there is considerable evidence suggesting that children and adolescents form

friendships with same-race/ethnicity peers (see Graham et al., 2009, for a recent review). From

preschool through high school, with a peak of intensity during middle and late childhood, there is a

tendency for students to interact more often with same-race/ethnicity peers more often than with

cross-race/ethnicity classmates (e.g., Way & Chen, 2000). Given these differences in the quantity of

social interactions with same-race/ethnicity peers, it is unsurprising that race/ethnicity homophily

exists in friendship partners (Kao & Joyner, 2004). But, there is some evidence to suggest that

acculturation may influence the prevalence of cross-racial/ethnicity friendships. For example,

although Kawabata and Crick (2008) have reported that Latino/a Americans are highly likely to

engage in same-ethnicity friendships, Updegraff et al. (2006) have found that when Mexican

American parents were acculturated into European American culture, their children were more likely

to have diverse social networks.

In terms of friendship quality, Aboud, Mendelson, and Purdy (2003) reported that the same-

race and cross-race friendships of European- and African-Canadian children were similar in quality,

although same-race friendships appeared to be more intimate. Schneider, Dixon, and Udvari (2007)

reported that East Asian-Canadians had higher quality friendships with same-ethnic peers than with

cross-ethnic peers, whereas Indian-Canadian and European-Canadian did not differ qualitatively in

their same-ethnic and cross-ethnic friendships. Finally, whereas European American children

generally rate their friendships as high in positive friendship qualities, other racial/ethnic groups

within North America are less inclined to do so (e.g., Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003; DuBois &

Hirsch, 1990; Way 2006). For example, Way and colleagues (2001) found that Chinese American

young adolescents, particularly boys, reported that their friendships were relatively low in quality. In

53

contrast, Latina American girls had relatively high quality and intimate friendships relative to African

American and Chinese American youth.

In sum, the extant literature on same- and cross-race friendship, albeit limited in number of

studies and scope, suggests that some same-ethnic and cross-ethnic friendships are more similar

than they are different; in other cases, differences may be greater. Yet, given the sparse data base,

clearly much more work is required before a conclusion may be drawn about qualitative differences

or similarities in the friendship prevalence, stability and quality of same race/ethnicity and

interracial/ethnicity friendships (see Graham et al, 2009 for a recent and relevant review).

Culture and Peer Acceptance/Rejection

Peer Acceptance. It seems to be a universal finding that accepted and well-liked children are

rated by others (peers, teachers, etc.) as cooperative, friendly, prosocial, and sociable. Across many

nations, socially skilled and competent children who are accepted by their peers are better adjusted

in school, less aggressive and withdrawn, and less likely to have psychosocial problems. Research

supporting this conclusion derives from such diverse countries as China (Chen, Liu et al., 2002);

Greece (Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996); Italy (Casiglia, Lo Coco, & Zappulla, 1998); and Russia (Hart

et al., 2000), among others.

Peer Rejection. The behavioral characteristics of rejected children are much less clear-cut than

the characteristics of children accepted by peers. For example, social withdrawal is associated with

peer rejection when a culture values assertiveness, expressiveness, and competitiveness (Triandis,

1990). Thus, researchers have reported that socially withdrawal is associated with peer rejection in

such countries as Argentina, Canada, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States (Casiglia

et al., 1998; Cillessen et al., 1992; Rubin et al., 1993; Schaughency, Vannatta, Langhinrichsen, &

Lally, 1992). In China, however, Chen, Rubin, and Sun (1992) reported that shy and inhibited

behavior was positively linked with peer acceptance. In several studies thereafter, Chen and

54

colleagues found that shy/withdrawn behavior was associated contemporaneously and predictively,

not only with peer acceptance, but also with teacher-assessed competence, leadership, and academic

achievement (Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1995; Chen, Rubin, Li, & Li, 1999).

Importantly, historical change may affect cultural values and beliefs. This argument was

made recently, not only by Chen and colleagues, but also by others, who have suggested that the

changing economic and political climate in China is being accompanied by preferences for more

assertive, yet competent, social behavior. To support this argument, it has been reported that shy,

reserved behavior among urban Chinese elementary school children has increasingly become associated

with negative peer reputation (Chang et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2005; Hart, Yang, et al., 2000).

Behavior that is harmful to others is viewed negatively across many diverse countries and

cultures. For example, aggression among children in North American (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995),

China (Xu et al., 2004), Croatia (Keresteš & Milanovic, 2006), Greece (Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996),

India (Prakash & Coplan, 2007), Italy (Tomada & Schneider, 1997), Indonesia (French et al., 2006),

the Netherlands (Haselager, Cillessen, et al., 2002), and Russia (Hart et al., 2000) is associated with

peer rejection. The one qualification to this consistency is derived from recent reports that young

American adolescents who are perceived as popular by their peers are more likely to display

aggressive behavior (e.g., Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006). Whether this relation holds in other

countries and cultures is, as yet, unknown.

In summary, there appears to be cross-cultural variability in the relations between such social

behaviors as aggression and social withdrawal and peer acceptance/rejection. However, there is

much more to social behavior than aggression and withdrawal. Certainly, the very definition of

social competence varies across cultures (Rubin, 1998; 2006). Rubin (2006) has recently suggested an

agenda for those researchers interested in examining the relations between social

competence/incompetence and peer acceptance/rejection within and between cultures. Among the

55

questions listed in this agenda are the following: (1) What defines social competence/incompetence in

Western, Eastern, Northern, and Southern cultures? (2) Can one identify the many components that

define socially competence/incompetence? (3) Does the definition of competent/incompetent

behavior differ at different developmental stages? (4) Do the components that define socially

competent/incompetent behavior differ at these developmental stages? (5) Is socially

competent/incompetent behavior, howsoever defined, associated with peer acceptance/rejection?

(6) Are these associations consistent across age from childhood through adolescence?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, we have reviewed the extent literature on children’s peer relationships. We

have probed the meanings and significance of friendship, the correlates and consequences of peer

acceptance and rejection, and the importance of the peer group. Significantly, we have argued that

impoverished peer relationships, specifically rejection and exclusion, represent risk factors for the

development of psychopathology, school drop-out, and such disaffected adolescent behavior as

delinquency and risk-taking. Two models of peer rejection were described: the “causal model” and

the “incidental model.” As noted above, proponents of the causal model posit that rejected children

interact with their peers in a negative manner, thereby eliciting peer rejection. In turn, rejection is

thought to lead to adjustment difficulties. Proponents of the incidental model assume that peer

rejection is a byproduct of the child’s behavioral style and that it is the child’s behavioral tendencies

that affect developmental outcomes.

These two models are particularly limited, however, because neither has taken into account

the possibility that factors other than the child’s social behavior and the peer group’s reaction to it

are responsible for the subsequent developmental outcomes. Thus, in this concluding section, we

briefly describe two transactional models suggesting that children’s acceptance/rejection and

friendships do not appear “out-of-the-blue”, but rather, have life-long developmental histories.

56

Transactional Models of Development

Sameroff (2003) has suggested that development is a dynamic, multidirectional process

influenced by child characteristics, family and environmental characteristics, and the interactions and

interdependencies thereof. Indeed, proponents of transactional models of development view the

child as an active agent of change in his or her social environment. These changes, in turn, function

to produce intra- and interpersonal transformations in the child. Accordingly, we propose that the

child's dispositional and biologically-based characteristics, his or her parents' socialization practices,

the quality of relationships within and outside of the family, and the forces of culture, stress, and

social support impinging on the child and the family, determine, in large part, the roads to peer

acceptance or rejection, qualitatively rich or impoverished friendships, and the positive or negative

outcomes that may follow from such experiences.

A pathway to psychosocial adaptation. We posit that the combination of (a) an even-tempered,

easy disposition, (b) the experience of sensitive and responsive parenting, and (c) the general lack of

major stresses or crises during infancy and early childhood combine to predict the development of

secure parent-child attachment relationships. And drawing from the early research on continuities

of infant attachment, we hypothesize that these secure primary relationships influence subsequent

social and emotional development.

Most infants and toddlers have relatively easy-going temperaments and develop secure

relationships with their parents. These relationships appear to be caused and maintained, in part, by

sensitive and responsive caregiving (Rubin & Burgess, 2002). From a transactional perspective, it is

probably the case that parental responsivity and sensitivity is easier to deliver (a) when one's infant

or young child is relatively easy-going; and (b) when the family unit is relatively stress-free.

Given the development of a secure attachment relationship, a conceptual link to the

development of social competence can be suggested. The basis for this link derives from the notion

57

that a secure attachment relationship results in the child's development of a belief system that

incorporates the parent as available and responsive to his or her needs (Bowlby, 1982). The child

who feels secure is likely to explore the peer milieu, engage in healthy bouts of peer interaction, and

think positively about relationships outside of the family (e.g., friendships) (Booth, Rose-Krasnor, &

Rubin, 1991). Furthermore, these early interactions with peers allow the exchange of ideas,

perspectives, roles, and actions (Piaget, 1932). And from social negotiation, discussion, and conflict

with peers, children learn to understand others' thoughts, emotions, motives, and intentions (e.g.,

Golbeck, 1998). In turn, armed with these new social understandings, children develop the abilities

to think about the consequences of their social behaviors, not only for themselves but also for

others.

Once socially competent behavior is demonstrated by the child and recognized by the

parent, the secure parent-child relationship may be nurtured and maintained by (1) the child's display

of socially appropriate behavior in extra-familial settings and (2) parents who are emotionally

available, sharply attuned to social situations and to the thoughts and emotions of her or his child,

able to anticipate the child's behaviors and the consequences of the child's actions, and able to

predict the outcomes of her or his own actions for the child (see Kerns & Richardson, 2004 for

relevant reviews). For example, the secure child's demonstration of competent social behavior in

the peer group is likely to be reinforced by parents who believe that such activity is both desirable

and necessary for normal development. Indeed, it is known that parents of socially competent

children provide opportunities for them to play with peers and they tend to carefully monitor their

children's social activities (e.g., Pettit, Brown, Mize, & Lindsey, 1998). Furthermore, the sensitive,

competent parent helps the child deal flexibly with his or her social failures, as they occur.

This competent, secure relationship system serves both parent and child well; for example,

as noted above, peer acceptance is a developmental outcome of socially competent behavior.

58

Furthermore, the ability to initiate and maintain friendships is associated with competent relationship

(negotiation, compromise, conflict resolution) skills. Peer acceptance and the experience of rich

friendships that provide the child with confidence and security in the extra-familial milieu enable the

child to continue to interact with age-mates and schoolmates in positive ways. Barring negative life

events, the socioemotional outcomes of the just-described transactions are likely to be positive

(Parker et al., 2006; Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 2006).

A maladaptive pathway. In previous writings, we have described two possible developmental

pathways to-and- from peer rejection and social isolation (e.g., Rubin & Burgess, 2002). One

pathway begins with an infant who is perceived by his or her parents as having a difficult

temperament; the other begins with an infant perceived to be fearful and inhibited. We describe the

former transactional model below.

Irritable and overactive infants often have mothers who are more aggressive, less nurturant,

more anxious, and less responsive than mothers of non-difficult babies. Family living conditions,

however, may be critical mediating factors; for example, Crockenberg (1981) reported that mothers

of temperamentally difficult babies who have social and financial support are less negative in their

interactions with their infants than other high risk mothers. And van den Boom (1994) reported

that providing parenting training for young mothers of temperamentally difficult babies led to

significantly more competent maternal behavior as well as to the greater probability of the infant’s

developing a secure attachment relationship. Alternatively, the “control” group mothers of

dispositionally difficult infants remained relatively insensitive and responsive; their infants were

more likely to develop an insecure attachment relationship. For some families, then, the interaction

between infant dispositional characteristics and ecological setting conditions may promote parenting

practices that result in the establishment of insecure, perhaps hostile, early parent-child relationships.

59

Extant data suggest that there is a group of insecure babies who have already established

hostile relationships with their primary caregivers by 12 or 18 months; researchers have found that

when these insecure Avoidant infants reach preschool age, they often direct their hostility, anger,

and aggression against peers (e.g., Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, & Fox, 2003). Importantly, however, a

difficult temperament left “unchecked” by competent parenting may itself lead to the display of

aggressive behavior with peers (e.g., Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer, & Hastings, 2003). And as noted

above, aggression, from very early in childhood, is a highly salient determinant of peer rejection.

Thus, it follows logically (and, indeed empirically) that aggressive children who are rejected by their

peers are precluded from the very activities that supposedly aid in the development of social skills --

peer interaction, negotiation, and discussion. Furthermore, the aggressive child is unlikely to trust

his or her peers; aggressive children believe that negative social experiences are usually caused

intentionally by others. This mistrust and misattribution to others of hostile intention may account

for the finding that the friendships of aggressive children are marked by hostility and insecurity (e.g.,

Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Hodges et al., 1997).

Furthermore, given the salience of aggression on school grounds, teachers and school

counselors may request meetings with the parents of aggressive children. These meetings must

assuredly be discomforting to parents; especially to those parents who have not enjoyed a secure and

pleasant relationship with their child or to those experiencing a good deal of stress. One may posit at

least two possible outcomes from these teacher-parent meetings: (1) Parents may attribute their

child's maladaptive behavior to dispositional or biological factors, thereby alleviating themselves of

the responsibility of having to deal with aggressive displays. This type of attributional bias may lead

to parental feelings of helplessness in the face of child aggression, and thus, predict a permissive or

laissez-faire response to aggressive behavior. Or, (2) parents may attribute their child's behaviors to

external causes and utilize overly harsh, power assertive techniques in response to their children's

60

maladaptive behavior. Both the neglect of aggression and the harsh treatment of it, especially in an

environment lacking warmth, are likely to create even more problems for the child, the parents, and

for their relationships (Patterson & Fisher, 2002).

In summary, we propose that socially incompetent, aggressive behaviors may be the product

of difficult temperament, of insecure parent-child relationships, of authoritarian or laissez-faire

parenting, of family stress, and most likely of the joint interactions between "all of the above". And,

one result of aggression and hostility is likely to be peer rejection and potentially unsupportive,

distrusting associations (friendships, networks) with children of like “character”. Ultimately, the

consequences for aggressive-rejected children appear to be severe; these children are more likely to

be delinquent, engage in substance use and sexually risky behavior, and to drop out of school

(Dodge et al. 2003; Miller-Johnson et al., 2002; Prinstein & LaGreca, 2004).

A proviso. Most infants with a difficult, irritable/angry disposition do not develop insecure

attachment relationships and do not behave in an aggressive fashion during the preschool and

elementary school years (see Rubin & Burgess, 2002 for a relevant review). Indeed, in most studies

of the predictive relations between infant difficult temperament and the subsequent development of

attachment relationships, no clear predictive picture emerges. Thus, it may be posited that skilled

parenting, under conditions of limited stress and optimal support, can buffer the effects of

potentially "negative" biology. Basically, this is the classic argument of goodness of fit between parental

characteristics and infant dispositional characteristics (Thomas & Chess, 1977).

Likewise, a difficult temperament is not necessary for the development of social behavioral

deviations from the norm. It may well be that parental overcontrol and undercontrol, and a lack of

parental warmth and sensitivity, especially when accompanied by familial stress and a lack of social

support, can interact to deflect the temperamentally easy-going infant to pathways of social

61

behavioral and relationships difficulties. This latter statement is merely conjecture that reaches out

for empirical substantiation.

Summary. Transactional models such as the ones offered above represent formidable

research challenges. Children's social behaviors, social-cognitions, and family and peer relationships

are not expected to remain constant over time, and patterns of change over time must be used to

predict subsequent changes and organism states. Progress in studying transactional models of

development has been aided largely by the evolution of such statistical procedures as structural

equation modeling, growth curve analyses, hierarchical linear modeling, and survival analyses. These

procedures allow for the examination of bidirectional and reciprocal influences in multivariate

longitudinal data sets. Future growth in our understanding of the relations between children's

individual, dispositional characteristics, social interaction styles, and the quality of their social

relationships will require the acceptance of transactional models of development, and competence in

employing the aforementioned statistical procedures.

KEY POINTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In this section, we provide the reader with ten key points to take away from this review of

literature. We also present five questions that remain to be addressed in the study of peer relations

research. We list these points and questions, in point form, below:

Key Points

1) Contemporary peer relations research draws from the early theories of Piaget, Sullivan,

Cooley, Mead, Bandura, and Harris, whose work described how peer interactions and relationships

influence the development and adjustment of children.

2) Friendships are close, voluntary, dyadic relationships characterized by mutual affection

and most often formed between similar peers. Reciprocity is an important feature of both child and

62

adolescent friendships, but friendships become more intimate and more influential on adjustment

during adolescence.

3) Although friendship involvement is often linked to adaptive adjustment and well-being,

not all friendships represent positive relationship contexts; for instance, friendships with aggressive

children or friendships that are poor in relationship quality may lead to psychosocial difficulties.

4) Successes with the larger peer group are reflected by such constructs as peer acceptance,

peer rejection, and perceived popularity. Whereas peer acceptance and peer rejection refer to how

much the child is liked or disliked by the peer group, perceived popularity is an index of social

visibility that refers to the extent to which the child is perceived as popular.

5) Whilst children who act aggressively or are withdrawn are likely to be rejected, peer

rejection also likely exacerbates these behavioral tendencies.

6) Social information processing theory and research suggests that children’s social behaviors

can be explained in part by how they think about themselves and their social worlds.

7) The two most common types of peer groups in childhood and early adolescence (same-

sex cliques and crowds) strongly influence adjustment, but are typically replaced by mixed-sex

cliques and groups by the end of high school.

8) Notable gender differences exist in the forms, functions, correlates and consequences of

childhood friendships and peer group relationships. For instance: boys tend to be more group-

oriented in their peer relationships whereas girls are more dyadic-oriented, anxious-withdrawn boys

have more peer difficulties than anxious-withdrawn girls, and relational aggression appears to be

more strongly related to perceived popularity for girls than for boys.

9) Although the friendship and peer experiences of children of different races, ethnicities,

and cultures are similar in many ways, important differences have been noted (e.g., the association

63

between shyness and rejection in China versus the US). Additional culturally-sensitive research is

needed.

10) Transactional models propose that a child’s dispositional and biologically-based

characteristics, his or her parents’ socialization practices, the quality of relationships within and

outside of the family, and the forces of culture, stress, and social support impinging on the child and

the family, largely determine peer acceptance or rejection, qualitatively rich or impoverished

friendships, and the positive or negative outcomes that may follow from such experiences.

Questions for future research

1) Can socially competent friends represent positive forces in the lives of aggressive or

anxious-withdrawn children?

2) Do social information processing biases emanate from children’s behavioral tendencies

(e.g., aggression; withdrawal) or from their peer group experiences?

3) What factors influence stability and change in crowd and peer group membership over

time?

4) Do the meanings of friendship, acceptance, rejection, and popularity differ across

cultures?

5) Can transactional models of development better explain individual differences in peer

relationships than “causal” and “incidental” models?

64

References

Aboud, F., Mendelson, M., & Purdy, K. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165-173.

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of competence-related and

motivational beliefs: An investigation of similarity and influence among friends. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95, 111–123.

Asher, S.R. & McDonald, K.L. (2009). The behavioral basis of acceptance, rejection, and perceived

popularity. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer

interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 232-248). New York: Guilford.

Asher, S., & Paquette, J. (2003). Loneliness and peer relations in childhood. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12, 75-78.

Bagwell, C.L., Newcomb, A.F., & Bukowski, W.M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer

rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140-153.

Boldizar, J. P., Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1989). Outcome values and aggression. Child Development,

60, 571–579.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Bell-Dolan, D. J., Foster, S. L., & Christopher, J. M. (1995). Girls' peer relations and internalizing

problems: Are socially neglected, rejected, and withdrawn girls at risk? Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 24, 463-473.

Benenson, J. F., & Alavi, K. (2004). Sex differences in children's investment in same-sex peers.

Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 258-266.

Benenson, J., Apostoleris, N., & Parnass, J. (1997). Age and sex differences in dyadic and group

interaction. Developmental Psychology, 33, 538-543.

65

Benenson, J. & Christakos, A. (2003). The greater fragility of females’ versus males’ closest same-sex

friendships. Child Development, 74, 4, 1123-1129.

Berndt, T.J. (1999). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 11, 1, 7-10.

Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friendships on adjustment

to junior high school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 13–41.

Berndt, T.J. & Heller, K.A. (1986). Gender stereotypes and social inferences: A developmental

study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 889-898.

Berndt, T. J., & Hoyle, S. G. (1985). Stability and change in childhood and adolescent friendships.

Developmental Psychology, 21, 1007–1015.

Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children’s perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships.

Developmental Psychology, 22, 640–648.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. The handbook of social psychology,

Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 193-281). New York, NY US: McGraw-Hill.

Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection: Developmental processes and intervention. New York: Guilford

Publications.

Boivin, M., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1995). Individual-group behavioral similarity and peer

status in experimental play groups of boys: The social misfit revisited. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 69, 269-279.

Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential model.

Developmental Psychology, 33, 1, 135-145.

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection,

and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood.

Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.

66

Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peer rejection in childhood.

Development and Psychopathology, 6, 483-498.

Boldizar, J. P., Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1989). Outcome values and aggression. Child Development,

60, 571–579.

Booth, C. L., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Rubin, K. H. (1991). Relating preschoolers’ social competence

and their mothers’ parenting behaviors to early attachment security and high-risk status.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 363–382.

Bowker, A. (2004). Predicting friendship stability during early adolescence. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 24, 2, 85-112.

Bowker, J. C., & Rubin, K. H. (2009). Self-consciousness, friendship quality, and internalizing

problems during early adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Original work

published 1969)

Branje, S. J. T., Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., Engels, R., & Meeus, W. (2007). You're my best friend:

Friendship commitment and stability in adolescence. Personal Relationships, 14, 443-459.

Brendgen, M., Bowen, F., Rondeau, N., & Vitaro, F. (1999). Effects of friends’ characteristics on

children’s social cognitions. Social Development, 8, 41–51.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. (2000). Deviant friends and early adolescents’ emotional

and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 2, 173-189.

Brown, B. B., & McNeil, E. L. (2009). Informal peer groups in middle childhood and adolescence.

In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions,

relationships, and groups (pp. 232-248). New York: Guilford.

Brown, B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer group

affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.

67

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy.

Child Development, 58, 1101-1103.

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1994). Using rating scale and nomination

techniques to measure friendships and popularity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,

485–488.

Bukowski, W., Sippola, L., & Newcomb, A. (2000). Variations in patterns of attraction to same- and

other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36, 147-154.

Burgess, K.B., Wojslawowicz, J.C., Rubin, K.H., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2006).

Social information processing and coping styles of shy/withdrawn and aggressive children:

Does friendship matter? Child Development. 77, 371-383.

Burks, V. S., Dodge, K. A., & Price, J. M. (1995). Models of internalizing outcomes of early

rejection. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 683–695.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge:

University Press.

Cairns, R., Cairns, B., Neckerman, H., Gest, S., & Gariepy, J. (1988). Social networks and aggressive

behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815-823.

Cairns, R.B., Leung, M.C., Buchanan, L. & Cairns, B. (1995). Friendships and social networks in

childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Development, 66, 1330-

1345.

Card, N. & Hodges, E. (2006). Shared targets for aggression by early adolescent friends.

Developmental Psychology, 42, 6, 1327-1338.

Casiglia, A. C., Lo Coco, A., & Zappulla, C. (1998). Aspects of social reputation and peer

relationships in Italian children: A cross-cultural perspective. Developmental Psychology, 34, 723–

730.

68

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns

of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824-831.

Chan, A. & Poulin, F. (2007). Monthly changes in the composition of friendship networks in early

adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 4, 578-602.

Chang, L. (2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social

behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 691-702.

Chang, L., Lei, L., Li, K. K., Liu, H., Guo, B., et al. (2005). Peer acceptance and self-perceptions of

verbal and behavioural aggression and social withdrawal. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 29, 48-57.

Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children:

The imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76, 182-195.

Chen, X., Chang, L., & He, Y. (2003). The peer group as a context: Mediating and moderating

effects on the relations between academic achievement and social functioning in Chinese

children. Child Development, 74, 710–727.

Chen, X., Chen, H., & Kaspar, V. (2001). Group social functioning and individual socioemotional

and school adjustment in Chinese children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 264-299.

Chen, X., French, D., & Schneider, B. (2006). Culture and peer relationships. In X. Chen, D.

French, & B. H. Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 3-20). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Chen, X., Liu, M., Rubin, K., Cen, G., Gao, X., & Li, D. (2002). Sociability and prosocial orientation

as predictors of youth adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study in a Chinese sample.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 128-136.

Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Li, D., & Li, Z. (1999). Adolescent outcomes of social functioning in

Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 199–223.

69

Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer relationships in Chinese and

Canadian children. Social Development, 3, 269–290.

Chen, X. & Tse, H.C. (2008). Social functioning and adjustment in Canadian-born children with

Chinese and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1184-1189.

Chung, T., & Asher, S.R. (1996). Children's goals and strategies in peer conflict situations. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 42, 125-147.

Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82-99). New York: Guilford.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes

in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.

Cillessen, A. H., van Ijzendoorn, H. W., van Lieshout, C. F., & Hartup, W. W. (1992). Heterogeneity

among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 893–905.

Coie, J. D. (1990). Towards a theory of peer rejection. In S. R.Asher & J. D.Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection

in childhood (pp. 365–398). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children's social status: A five-year

longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282.

Coie, J.D., & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys'

groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.

Coie, J. D., Terry, R., Lenox, K. F., Lochman, J. E., Hyman, C. (1995). Childhood peer rejection and

aggression as predictors of stable patterns of adolescent disorder. Development and

Psychopathology, 7, 697-713.

Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000).

Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American

Psychologist, 55, 218-232.

70

Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual

romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development, 71, 1395–1408.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner.

Coplan, R. J., Gavinsky-Molina, M. H., Lagace-Seguin, D., & Wichmann, C. (2001). When girls

versus boys play alone: Gender differences in the associates of nonsocial play in

kindergarten. Developmental Psychology, 37, 464–474.

Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing

between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology,

40, 2, 244–258.

Coplan, R.J., Rubin, K.H., Fox, N.A., Calkins, S.D., Stewart, S.L. (1994). Being alone, playing alone,

and acting alone: Distinguishing among reticence and passive and active solitude in young

children. Child Development, 65, 129-137.

Craft, A. (1994). Five and six year-olds views of friendship. Educational Studies, 20, 2, 181-194.

Crick, N., & Dodge, K. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing

mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological

adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within

friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 30, 599-607.

Daniels, E. & Leaper, C. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of sport participation, peer acceptance,

and self-esteem among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 55, 878-880.

Denton, K., & Zarbatany, L. (1996). Age differences in support processes in conversations between

friends. Child Development, 67, 1360–1373.

71

DeRosier, M.E., Kupersmidt, J.B., & Patterson, C.J. (1994). Children’s academic and behavioral

adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Development,

65, 1799-1813.

Dishion, T., Andrews, D., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early

adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development,

66, 1, 135-151.

Dishion, T. J., & Piehler, T. F. (2009). Deviant by design: Peer contagion in development,

interventions and schools. In K. H. Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of

Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups (pp. 589-602). New York: Guilford.

Dodge, K.A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399.

Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates. J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J.

(2003). Peer rejection and social information processing factors in the development of

aggressive behavior and problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374-393.

Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincon, C., Freitas, A.L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s

interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69, 1074-1091.

DuBois, D., & Hirsch, B. (1990). School and neighborhood friendship patterns of Blacks and

Whites in early adolescence. Child Development, 61, 524-536.

Dunn, J., & Cutting, A. (1999). Understanding others and individual differences in friendship

interactions in young children. Social Development, 8, 201–219.

Erdley, C.A. & Asher, S.R. (1998). Linkages between children’s beliefs about the legitimacy of

aggression and their behavior. Social Development, 7, 321-339.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects

on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205 – 220.

72

Fine, G. A. (1987). With the boys: Little league baseball and preadolescent culture. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

French, D., Lee, O., & Pidada, S. (2006). Friendships of Indonesian, South Korean, and U.S. Youth:

Exclusivity, intimacy, enhancement of worth, and conflict. In X. Chen, D. French, & B. H.

Schneider (Eds.), Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 379-402). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

French, D., Pidada, S., & Victor, A. (2005). Friendships of Indonesian and United States youth.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 304-313.

Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and

styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73,

241–255.

Gazelle, H. (2008). Behavioral profiles of anxious solitary children and heterogeneity in peer

relations. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1604-1624.

Gazelle, H. & Ladd, G.W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress model of

internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 257-278.

Gazelle, H., Putallaz, M., Li, Y., Grimes, C.L., Kupersmidt, J., & Coie, J.D. (2005). Anxious solitude

across contexts: Girls’ interactions with familiar and unfamiliar peers. Child Development,

76, 227-246.

Golbeck, S. L. (1998). Peer collaboration and children’s representation of the horizontal surface of

liquid. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 542–572.

Gonzalez, Y., Moreno, D., & Schneider, B. (2004). Friendship expectations of early adolescents in

Cuba and Canada. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 436-445.

73

Graham, S., Taylor, A.Z., & Ho, A.Y. (2009). Race and ethnicity in peer relations research. In K. H.

Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and

groups (pp. 232-248). New York: Guilford.

Grotpeter, J., & Crick, N. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child

Development, 67, 2328-2338.

Gummerum, M., & Keller, M. (2008). Affection, virtue, pleasure, and profit: Developing an

understanding of friendship closeness and intimacy in Western and Asian cultures.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 130-143.

Hamm, J., Brown, B., & Heck, D. (2005). Bridging the ethnic divide: Student and school

characteristics in African American, Asian-descent, Latino, and White Adolescents’ cross-

ethnic friendship nomination. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 1, 21-46.

Harris, J. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Touchstone.

Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L. J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., et al. (2000). Peer acceptance in

early childhood and subtypes of socially withdrawn behaviour in China, Russia and the

United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 73-81.

Hartup, W. W. (1970). Peer interaction and social organization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s

manual of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 361–456). New York: Wiley.

Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.

Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 103–196). New York: Wiley.

Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M. A., & Eastenson, A. (1988). Conflicts and the friendship

relations of young children. Child Development, 59, 1590–1600.

Hartup, W.H., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation across the life span.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 76-79.

74

Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, H. N., van Lieshout, C. F. M., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., & Hartup,

W. W. (2002). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys across middle childhood:

Developmental pathways of social behavior. Child Development, 73, 446–456.

Haselager, G., Hartup, W., van Lieshout, C., & Riksen-Walraven, J. (1998) Similarities between

friends and nonfriends in middle childhood. Child Development, 69, 1198-1208.

Hatzichristou, C., & Hopf, D. (1996). A multiperspective comparison of peer sociometric status

groups in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 67, 1085-1102.

Hektner, J., August, G., & Realmuto, G. (2000). Patterns and temporal changes in peer affiliations

among aggressive and nonaggressive children participating in a summer school program.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 2, 603-614.

Henrich, C. C., Kuperminc, G. P., Sack, A., Blatt, S. J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2000). Characteristis and

homogeneity of early adolescent friendship groups: A comparison of male and female clique

and nonclique members. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 15-26.

Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hinde, R. A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 1–

15.

Hinde, R., Titmus, G., Easton, D., & Tamplin, A. (1985). Incidence of “friendship” and behavior

toward strong associates versus nonassociates in preschoolers. Child Development, 56, 1, 235-

245.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowksi, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship

protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology,

35, 1, 94-101.

75

Hogg, M. (2005). All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others: social identity

and marginal membership. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp.

243-261). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized distress in adolescent peer groups.

Developmental Psychology, 31, 897–906.

Hubbard, J. A. (2001). Emotion expression processes in children’s peer interaction: The role of peer

rejection, aggression, and gender. Child Development, 72, 1426-1438.

Huesmann, L. R. & Guerra, N.G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and

aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408-419.

Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children's peer

relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from

middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004-2021.

Isaacs, S. (1933). Social development in young children: A study of beginnings. London: Routledge.

Kao, G., & Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends? Activities among

interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 557-573.

Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment.

Developmental Psychology, 44, 1177-1183.

Keller, M. (2004). A cross cultural perspective on friendship research. Newsletter of the International

Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, 28, 10–14.

Keller, M., Edelstein, W., Schmid, C., Fang, F., & Fang, G. (1998). Reasoning about responsibilities

and obligations in close relationships: A comparison across two cultures. Developmental

Psychology, 34, 731-741.

76

Keresteš, G., & Milanovic, A. (2006). Relations between different types of children's aggressive

behavior and sociometric status among peers of the same and opposite gender. Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology, 47, 477-483.

Kiesner, J., Nicotra, E., & Notari, G. (2005). Target specificity of subjective relationship measures:

Understanding the determination of item variance. Social Development, 14, 1, 109-135.

Kindermann, T. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of

children's motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.

Kindermann, T. A. & Gest, S. D. (2009). Assessment of the peer group: Identifying social networks

in natural settings and measuring their influences. In: Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., &

Laursen, B. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (Chapter 6). New York:

Guilford.

Kinney, D. (1993). From "nerds" to "normals": Adolescent identity recovery within a changing

social system. Sociology of Education, 66, 21-40.

Koch, H.J. (1933). Popularity in preschool children: Some related factors and a technique for its

measurement. Child Development, 4, 164-175.

Kupersmidt, J. B. & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment

as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350-1362.

Kupersmidt, J., DeRosier, M., & Patterson, C. (1995). Similarity as the basis for children’s

friendships: The roles of sociometric status, aggressive and withdrawn behavior, academic

achievement and demographic characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,

439-452.

La Greca, A. M., & Mackey, E. R. (2007). Adolescents’ anxiety in dating situations: Do friends and

romantic partners contribute? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 4, 522-533.

77

Ladd, G.W. & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the

linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child

Development, 72, 1579-1601.

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B.J., & Coleman, C.C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship,

and victimization: Distinct relation systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school

adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181-1197.

Ladd, G., Kochenderfer, B., & Coleman, C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young

children’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 3, I1103-1118.

Ladd, G. W. & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following the

transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168-1189.

Ladd, G. W. & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The role of chronic peer difficulties in the development

of children’s psychological adjustment problems. Child Development, 74, 5, 1344-1367.

La Greca, A., Prinstein, M., & Fetter, M. (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: Linkages with

health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 131-143.

Laursen, B., Bukowski, W., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2007). Friendship moderates prospective

associations between social isolation and adjustment problems in young children. Child

Development, 78, 4, 1395-1404.

Laursen, B., Hartup, W. W., & Keplas, A. L. (1996). Towards understanding peer conflict. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 42, 76–102.

Leary, A., & Katz, L. F. (2005). Observations of aggressive children during peer provocation and

with a best friend. Developmental Psychology, 41, 124-134.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition

in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107-118.

78

London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection

sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 481–506.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J. D., Maumary-Gremaud, A., Bierman, K. & The Conduct Problems

Prevention Research Group (2002). Peer rejection and aggression and early starter models

of conduct disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 217-230.

Moller, L.C., Hymel, S., & Rubin, K.H. (1992). Sex typing in play and popularity in middle

childhood. Sex Roles, 26, 331-353.

Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children's ethnic prejudice. The development of the

social self (pp. 219-245). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Newman, B., Lohman, B., & Newman, P. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging:

Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42, 241-263.

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306-347.

Oh, W., Rubin, K. H., Bowker, J.C., Booth-LaForce, C., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Laursen, B. (2008).

Trajectories of social withdrawal from middle childhood to early adolescence. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 4, 553-566.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in schools. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Pakaslahti, L., Karjalainen, A., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2002). Relationships between adolescent

prosocial problem-solving strategies, prosocial behaviour, and social acceptance. International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 137-144.

Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted

children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S .R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood:

79

Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.

Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.

Parker, J., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk, A. A. (2006). Peer relationships

and developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental

Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (2nd edition), Vol. 2. (pp. 419-493). New York:

Wiley.

Parker, J. G. & Seal, J. (1996). Forming, losing, renewing, and replacing friendships: Applying

temporal parameters to the assessment of children’s friendship experiences. Child

Development, 67, 2248-2268.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer perceived popularity:

Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144.

Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social learning mediators of aggression.

Child Development, 57, 700-711.

Peets, K., Hodges, E. V., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Affect-congruent social-cognitive evaluations and

behaviors. Child Development, 79, 1, 170-185.

Pettit, G. S., Brown, E. G., Mize, J., & Lindsey, E. W. (1998). Mothers’ and fathers’ socializing

behaviors in three contexts: Links with children’s peer competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

44, 173–193.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Piehler, T., & Dishion, T. (2007). Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic

mutuality, deviant talk, and patterns of antisocial behavior. Child Development, 78, 5, 1611-

1624.

Popp, D., Laursen, B., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Burk, W. (2008). Modeling homophily over time with

an actor-partner interdependence model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 4, 1028-1039.

80

Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the

formation and development of boys’ friendships. Developmental Psychology, 36, 233–240.

Poulin, F., & Pedersen, S. (2007). Developmental changes in gender composition of friendship

networks in adolescent girls and boys. Developmental Psychology, 43, 6, 1484-1496.

Prakash, K., & Coplan, R. (2007). Socioemotional characteristics and school adjustment of socially

withdrawn children in India. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 123-132.

Prinstein, M., & La Greca, A. (2002). Peer crowd affiliation and internalizing distress in childhood

and adolescence: A longitudinal follow-back study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 325-

351.

Prinstein, M. J. & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood rejection, aggression, and depression as

predictors of adolescent girls' externalizing and health risk behaviors: A six-year longitudinal

study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 103-112.

Prior, M, Smart, D., Sanson, A, & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Does shy-inhibited temperament in

childhood lead to anxiety problems in adolescence? Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry 39, 461-468.

Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their behavior. Child Development,

54, 1417-1426.

Rabiner, D. L., & Gordon, L. V. (1992). The coordination of conflicting social goals: Differences

between rejected and nonrejected boys. Child Development, 63, 1344-1350.

Renshaw, P. D., & Asher, S. R., (1983). Children's goals and strategies for social interaction. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 29, 353-374.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2006). They’re cool: Social status and

peer group supports for aggressive boys and girls. Social Development, 15, 175-204.

81

Rose, A. (2002). Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73, 6, 1830-

1843.

Rose, A. J., & Asher, S. R. (2004). Children’s strategies and goals in response to help-giving and

help-seeking tasks within a friendship. Child Development, 75, 749-763.

Rose, A., Carlson, W., & Waller, E. (2007). Prospective associations of co-rumination in friendship

and emotional adjustment: Considering the socioemotional trade-offs of co-rumination.

Developmental Psychology, 43, 4, 1019-1031.

Rose, A., & Rudolph, K. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential

trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological

Bulletin, 132,1, 98-131.

Rose, A., Swenson, L., & Waller, E. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived

popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental

Psychology, 40, 378-387.

Rubin, K. H. (1998) Social and emotional development from a cross-cultural perspective.

Developmental Psychology, 34, 611-615.

Rubin, K. H. (2002). The friendship factor. New York: Viking Press.

Rubin, K. (2006). On Hand-Holding, Spit, and the 'Big Tickets': A Commentary on Research from a

Cultural Perspective. Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 367-376). New York, NY US:

Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, K., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W.

Damon, R. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.,) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,

and personality development (6th ed) (pp.571-645). New York: Wiley.

82

Rubin, K. H. & Burgess, K. (2002). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children. In M. Bornstein

(Ed.), Handbook of Parenting. (2nd Edition). Volume 1, 383-418. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., Dwyer, K. M., & Hastings, P. D. (2003) Predicting preschoolers’

externalizing behaviors from toddler temperament, conflict, and maternal negativity.

Developmental Psychology, 39, 164-176.

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). Socioemotional characteristics of withdrawn and

aggressive children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518–534.

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., McDougall, P., Bowker, A., & McKinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo

Longitudinal Project: Predicting internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence.

Development and Psychopathology, 7, 751-764.

Rubin, K. H. & Coplan, R.J. (2004) Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and

social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 506-534.

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R.J., & Bowker, J.C. (2009). Social withdrawal and shyness in childhood and

adolescence. Annual Review of Psychology. 60, 141-171.

Rubin, K. H., Daniels-Beirness, T., & Bream, L. (1984). Social isolation and social problem solving:

A longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 17-25.

Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K.M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A.H., Burgess, K.B., & Rose-Krasnor, L.

(2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. Journal of

Early Adolescence, 24, 326-356.

Rubin, K. H., Lynch, D., Coplan, R., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth, C. (1994). “Birds of a feather…”:

Behavioral concordances and preferential personal attraction in children. Child Development,

65, 1778-1785.

83

Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. L. (1988). The many faces of social isolation in childhood. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 916–924.

Rubin, K. H. & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving. In V.B. Van Hasselt & M.

Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social development (pp. 283-323). New York: Plenum.

Rubin, K., Wojslawowicz, J., Rose-Krasnor, L., Booth-LaForce, C., & Burgess, K. (2006). The best

friendships of shy/withdrawn children: prevalence, stability, and relationship quality. Journal

of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 139-153.

Salmivalli, C. & Isaacs, J. (2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness,

and children’s self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development, 76, 6, 1161-1171.

Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A.H.N, & Eisenhower, A. (2003). Children’s appraisal of peer rejection

experiences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment. Social Development, 12, 530-550.

Sandstrom, M. J. & Coie, J.D. (1999). A developmental perspective on peer rejection: Mechanisms

of stability and change. Child Development, 70, 955-966.

Schmidt, M. E., & Bagwell, C. L. (2007). The protective role of friendships in overtly and

relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53, 439-460.

Schaughency, E., Vannatta, K., Langhinrichsen, J., & Lally, C. (1992). Correlates of sociometric

status in school children in Buenos Aires. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 317-326.

Schneider, B., Dixon, K., & Udvari, S. (2007). Closeness and Competition in the Inter-Ethnic and

Co-Ethnic Friendships of Early Adolescents in Toronto and Montreal. The Journal of Early

Adolescence, 27, 115-138.

Schneider, B., Fonzi, A., Tani, F., & Tomada, G. (1997). A cross-cultural exploration of the stability

of children’s friendships and predictors of their continuation. Social Development, 6, 3, 322-

339.

Schneider, B. & Tessier, N. (2007). Close friendship as understood by socially withdrawn, anxious

84

early adolescents. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 38, 4, 339-351.

Schneider, B., Woodburn, S., del Pilar Soteras del Toro, M., & Udvari, S. (2005). Cultural and gender

differences in the implications of competition for early adolescent friendship. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 51, 2, 163-191.

Selfhout, M., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2008). The development of delinquency and perceived

friendship quality in adolescent best friendship dyads. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36,

4, 471-485.

Selman, R. & Schultz, L. (1990). Making a friend in youth: developmental theory and pair therapy. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Bank, L., & Owen, L. D. (2003). The role of adolescent

peers, romantic partners, and siblings in the emergence of the adult antisocial lifestyle. Journal

of Family Psychology, 17, 521-533.

Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York, NY: Harcourt.

Simpkins, S., & Parke, R. (2002). Do friends and nonfriends behave differently? A social relations

analysis of children’s behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 263-283.

South, S., & Haynie, D. (2004). Friendship networks of mobile adolescents. Social Forces, 83, 1, 315-

350.

Stewart, S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1995). The social problem-solving skills of anxious-children.

Development and Psychopathology, 7, 323-336.

Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C. J., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & the Conduct Problems

Prevention Research Group (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer

preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169-182.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

85

Sussman, S., Pokhrel, P., Ashmore, R., & Brown, B. (2007). Adolescent peer group identification

and characteristics: A review of the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 1602-1627.

Terry, R. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of sociometric techniques.

New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 88, 27-53.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Tomada, G., & Schneider, B. H. (1997). Relational aggression, gender, and peer acceptance:

Invariance across culture, stability over time, and concordance among informants.

Developmental Psychology, 33, 601–609.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies on individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman,

(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 41-133). Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press.

Troop-Gordon, W. P., & Asher, S. R. (2005). Modifications in children’s goals when encountering

obstacles to conflict resolution. Child Development, 76, 568-582.

Updegraff, K., McHale, S., Whiteman, S., Thayer, S., & Crouter, A. (2006). The nature and correlates

of Mexican-American adolescents' time with parents and peers. Child Development, 77, 1470-

1486.

Urberg, K. (1992). Locus of peer influence: Social crowd and best friend. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 21, 4, 439-45.

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: the moderating roles of sex and

peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396-408.

Valdivia, I. A., Schneider, B. H., Chavez, K. L., & Chen, X. (2005). Social withdrawal and

maladjustment in a very group-oriented society. International Journal of Behavioral Development,

29, 219-228.

86

Van den Boom, D. C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and

exploration: An experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class

mothers with irritable infants. Child Development , 65, 1457-1477.

Vaughn, B. E. & Santos, A. J. (2009). Structural Descriptions of Social Transactions Among Young

Children: Affiliation and Dominance in Preschool Groups. In K. H. Rubin, W. M.

Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. New York:

Guilford.

Véronneau, M., Vitaro, F., Pedersen, S., & Tremblay, R. (2008). Do peers contribute to the

likelihood of secondary school graduation among disadvantaged boys? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 100, 2, 429-442.

Vitaro, F., Pedersen, S., & Brendgen, M. (2007). Children’s disruptiveness, peer rejection, friends’

deviancy, and delinquent behaviors: A process-oriented approach. Development and

Psychopathology, 19, 433-453.

Way, N. (2006). The Cultural Practice of Close Friendships among Urban Adolescents in the United

States. Peer relationships in cultural context (pp. 403-425). New York, NY US: Cambridge

University Press.

Way, N., & Chen, L. (2000). Close and general friendships among African American, Latino, and

Asian American adolescents from low-income families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 274-

301.

Way, N. & Greene, M. (2006) Changes in perceived friendship quality during adolescence: The

patterns and contextual predictors. Journal of Research on Adolescence.16, 293-320.

Wentzel, K., Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. (2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on

motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 2, 195-203.

Wichmann, C., Coplan, R. J., & Daniels, T. (2004). The social cognitions of socially withdrawn

87

children. Social Development, 13, 377–392.

Wiseman, R. (2002). Queen bees and wannabees. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Wojslawowicz Bowker, J., Rubin, K., Burgess, K., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2006).

Behavioral characteristics associated with stable and fluid best friendship patterns in middle

childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52,4, 671-693.

Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups; Individual-

group similarity and the social misfit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523-536.

Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Piaget-Sullivan perspective. Chicago,

University of Chicago Press.

Xu, Y., Farver, J., Schwartz, D., & Chang, L. (2004). Social networks and aggressive behavior in

Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 401-410.

Zakriski, A. L. & Coie, J. D., (1996). A comparison of aggressive-rejected and nonaggressive-

rejected children’s interpretations of self-directed and other-directed rejection. Child

Development, 67, 1048-1070.