THE PEER RELATIONSHIPS AND FRIENDSHIPS OF SOCIALLY WITHDRAWN

CHILDREN

Kenneth H. Rubin, Julie Wojslawowicz, & Wonjung Oh

University of Maryland

In: LoCoco, AS., Rubin, K.H, & , Zappulla, C. (Eds). (2007). L’isolamento sociale durante l’infanzia (Social withdrawal in childhood). Milan, Italy: Unicopli.

THE PEER RELATIONSHIPS AND FRIENDSHIPS OF SOCIALLY WITHDRAWN

CHILDREN

During the past three decades, the topic of children's peer relationships has taken a prominent position in the

fields of developmental and clinical psychology. This reflects, in part, a growing conviction that children who

enjoy strong and positive relationships with peers fare well in their social and academic lives and that those

who suffer from peer rejection and friendlessness may be "at risk" for later socioemotional and academic

difficulties (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, in press). Why the latter group is at risk has not been well addressed

from the perspective of a “grand theory” of peer interactions and relationships. And yet, there is a good deal

of consensus across diverse theoretical perspectives as to the many benefits of peer interactions and

relationships in childhood and adolescence.

Theories relevant to the study of peer interactions and relationships: A brief overview

Piaget (1932), in his earliest writings, portrayed children's relationships with peers, unlike their relationships

with adults, as being relatively balanced, egalitarian, and as falling along a more-or-less horizontal plane of

power assertion and dominance. It was within this egalitarian context that Piaget believed children could

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 peers. From such interactions,

Piaget argued that children came to develop the capacity for sensitive perspective-taking; in turn, the ability to

understand the thoughts, feelings, and literal viewpoints of others was thought to lay the basis for socially

competent behavior and the development of meaningful and rich social relationships (Hubbard, Dodge,

Cillessen, Coie, & Schwartz, 2001; see Rubin et al., in press for a review).

Mead (1934), building upon even earlier notions suggested by Cooley (1902), was another early

theorist who asserted the significance of social interaction for normal development. Like Piaget, Mead

emphasized the importance of the development of perspective-taking through peer interaction. In his theory

of symbolic interactionism, Mead postulated that the ability to self-reflect developed gradually over the early years,

primarily as a result of play and social interaction. With participation in organized, rule-governed activities

with others, especially peers, children were thought to learn to consider and coordinate the perspectives of

multiple others with respect to the self. Such perspective-taking experiences led to the conceptualization of

the "generalized other" or the organized perspective of the social group, which in turn, led to the emergence of

an organized sense of self. Thus, according to Mead, social interaction was critical for the development of

perspective-taking and the self-system.

The classic personality theory of Sullivan (1953) has served as a guide for much of the current

research concerning children's peer relationships and social skills. Like Piaget, Sullivan believed that

the concepts of mutual respect, equality, and reciprocity developed from peer relationships.

Sullivan, however, emphasized the significance of "special" relationships -- chumships and

friendships -- for the emergence of these concepts. In the early school years, whether friends or not,

Sullivan thought children were basically insensitive to their peers. During the juvenile years (late

elementary school), however, children were thought to be able to recognize and value each other's

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

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

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

significant motivational force in development and adjustment. (e.g., Asher & Paquette, 2003).

Learning and social learning theory have also stimulated current research on children's peer

relationships and social skills. It was originally suggested, and it is now known, that children learn

about their social worlds, and how to behave within them, through direct peer tutelage as well as by

observing 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.

From ethological theory, it is argued that there is a relation between biology and the ability to

initiate, maintain, or disassemble social relationships. It is a central tenet of ethological theory that

social behavior and organizational structure are limited by biological constraints, and that they serve

an adaptive evolutionary function (Hawley, 2003; Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1976). And finally,

there is the Group Socialization Theory of Harris (1995; 1998). In a series of literature reviews, Harris

challenged the view that primarily parents mold children’s personalities; rather, in her view, the peer

group plays a more significant role in personality and social development. Briefly, it is proposed

that, once children find themselves outside the home, they take on the norms prevalent in the

groups within which they spend their time and, 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, it is argued that children’s identities develop primarily from their experiences within the

peer group.

Taken together, these theories and the data supportive of them (see Rubin et al., in press;

Rubin, Coplan, Chen, Buskirk, & Wojslawowicz, 2005 for relevant reviews) have led psychologists

to conclude that peer interactions and relationships are important forces in the development of

normal social relationships and social skills. But these theories are focused on the putative benefits of

peer interactions and relationships. They “speak to” the development of competent behavioral

styles and adaptive extra-familial relationships. The theories offer little with regard to establishing

how insufficient or deficient interactions and relationships can lead to maladaptive behavioral styles or

non-existent or dysfunctional extra-familial relationships.

Peer interactions, relationships, and maladjustment

For at least two decades, researchers have argued that the child who does not have adequate or

“typical” peer interaction and peer relationship experiences may be at risk for later maladjustment.

Such a conclusion is reinforced by a series of studies demonstrating that the experience of peer

rejection in childhood, particularly that caused by the regular display of aggressive behavior, is predictive of

psychopathology, school drop-out, and delinquency in adolescence and adulthood (see Dodge, Coie,

& Lynam, in press; Deater-Deckard, 2001 for relevant reviews). From the purely clinical

perspective, available evidence suggests that poor peer relationships are common reasons for

children’s' referrals to child specialists. For example, Achenbach and Edelbrock (1981) reported that

30-to-75 percent of children (depending on age) referred to child guidance clinics were reported by

their mothers to experience peer difficulties (e.g., poor social skills, aggression). And peer

difficulties are roughly twice as common among clinic children as among non-referred children.

It would be safe to suggest, however, that the group of children generally considered at

highest risk for later psychiatric difficulty is comprised mainly of those whose interactions may best

be described as hostile and aggressive in nature. These children are often described as emotionally

dysregulated, atypical in the ways they think about social interactions and events, inaccurate in the

ways they think about themselves and their social relationships, and behaviorally agonistic in an

often bullying manner. These children are often disruptive in their home and school milieus (see

Dodge et al., in press for a recent review). As it happens, one of the strongest correlates and

predictors of peer rejection is aggressive behavior (indeed, the emotional, cognitive, and self-system

“baggage” that accompanies aggressive behaviors also predicts peer rejection). Thus, there appears

to be a clear link between negative social interaction and negative peer reputation. However,

aggressive children do have friends and they do find themselves in cliques or networks of other

children. The friends of aggressive children tend to resemble them behaviorally; and the networks

they are involved in are likewise comprised of angry, aggressive peers (Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, &

Cairns, 1995; Dishion, Eddy, Haas, Li, & Spracklen, 1997). In these latter regards, aggressive

behavior comes to be reinforced through the process of active deviancy training (Dishion, McCord,

& Poulin, 1999).

In summary, researchers now know that aggressive children who, ostensibly make their peers

miserable through their threats and actions, are rejected by their peer group at-large; yet, they are

known to have friends from whom support may be gleaned for their abhorrent behavior.

Importantly, however, aggressive behavior is not the only reason for children’s rejection by the peer

group at-large. Another reason is social withdrawal.

The Construct of Social Withdrawal

If peer interaction leads to the development of (a) social competence, (b) the understanding of the

self in relation to others, and (c) supportive friendships, it seems reasonable to think about children,

who for whatever reason, refrain from engaging in social interaction and avoid the company of their

peers. This premise “drives” much of the current research on social withdrawal.

Social withdrawal has many “faces,” each of which bring with them different operational

definitions (e.g., Coplan, Rubin, Fox, Calkins, & Stewart, 1994; Rubin, 1982; Rubin & Mills, 1988).

For purposes of this chapter, we refer to social withdrawal as the consistent display of solitude when

in the company of familiar and unfamiliar peers. In using this definition, we recognize that the

discussion that follows does not distinguish between children (and young adolescents) who have (a)

strong social approach and avoidance motivations and predilections; and (b) strong avoidance and

weak social approach motivations and predilections. However, like others who consider social

withdrawal from a developmental perspective, we argue that public and consistent displays of

solitude preclude children and young adolescents from benefiting from peer interaction. In this

regard, withdrawal can be viewed as a “risk factor” in normal development. The risks associated

with social withdrawal are best understood by considering several levels of social complexity --

within individuals, within interactions, within relationships, and within groups (Hinde, 1987).

Individuals, interactions, relationships, and groups. One can imagine a social “world” comprising a

set of concentric circles (see Figure 1). In that world, the innermost circle represents features that

each individual carries with her or him into social company. These features comprise an individual’s

more or less stable social orientations, a disposition that disposes her or him to be more or less

aroused physiologically to social stimuli, and a repertoire of social skills for social perception,

cognition, and social problem-solving. These individual characteristics are brought into play whenever

the child interacts (or fails to interact) with others in her/his social world. Over the short term, their

interactions with other children vary in form and function in response to fluctuations in the

parameters of the social situation, such as the partner's characteristics, overtures, and responses.

One consequence of finding oneself in the company of another person and either interacting or not

interacting with that person is the development of identifiable social relationships. Choosing not to

interact with others may lead to fewer social relationships. If interactions do occur, the type of

relationship that is formed may be influenced by the quality of the interactions. Thus, positive

interactions may lead to the development of meaningful, supportive, and constructive friendships;

negative interactions may result in enmity or bully-victim relationships. In this regard, relationships

are influenced by past and anticipated future interactions. Taken together, the nature of children’s

social relationships is defined partly by the characteristics of its members and its constituent

interactions. From a developmental perspective, the kinds of relationships individuals form depend

on their history of interactions in earlier relationships.

Finally, individual relationships, in turn, are embedded within groups, or networks of

relationships with more or less clearly defined boundaries (e.g., cliques, teams, school classes). At

the highest level of social complexity, groups are defined by their constituent relationships and, in

this sense, by the types and diversity of interactions that are characteristic of the participants in those

relationships.

Individual characteristics and interactions of socially withdrawn children. In our earlier writings, we

have offered a conceptual, etiological model of social withdrawal that begins with newborns who are

biologically predisposed to have a low threshold for arousal when confronted with social (or non-

social) stimulation and novelty (Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2004). We propose that this

dispositional characteristic of hyperarousability may make these babies extremely difficult to soothe

and comfort. Thus, under some circumstances, parents may find these dispositional characteristics

aversive and difficult to handle. Under conditions of stress and strain, parents may react to easily

aroused and wary babies with the belief that the child is vulnerable and needs protection. Such

overprotective and oversolicitous parenting (Rubin, Hastings, Stewart, Henderson, & Chen, 1997),

in concert with the child's disposition of a low threshold for arousal and an inability to be easily

soothed ("emotion dysregulation"; Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins, 1995), are posited to predict the

development of an insecure parent-infant attachment relationship. Indeed, there is some support

for the contention that the individual characteristics described above, when associated with parent-child

interactions that are “insensitive” or unresponsive to the needs of these particular babies, predict the

development of an insecure parent-child relationship (e.g., Calkins & Fox, 1992).

We have also proposed that the infant’s temperament along with feelings of insecurity guide

him or her onto a trajectory toward behavioral inhibition. The consistent expression of inhibition

precludes these children from experiencing those positive outcomes associated with social

exploration and peer play described above. We have found, for example, that an inhibited

temperament during the toddler period predicts socially reticent behavior among peers during the

preschool period (Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002). Given that socially reticent children do not

interact with peers at a normal rate or in a normal way, we have predicted that these children will

develop an impoverished style of interpersonal negotiation skills. In support of these contentions,

we have found, in several studies, that socially reticent and shy preschoolers, when observed in the

company of peers, make few attempts to direct the behaviors of their age-mates, and when they do,

they are met by peer rebuff (e.g., Nelson, Rubin, & Fox, in press; Rubin & Borwick, 1983; Rubin &

Krasnor, 1986). Such negative social experiences are posited to lead the child to withdraw further

from her/his social milieu and begin to develop negative self-perceptions of social skills and peer

relationships (Boivin et al., 1995; Hymel, Woody, & Bowker, 1993; Nelson et al., in press).

Sensing the child's difficulties and perceived helplessness, his/her parents might try to direct

their child's social behaviors in a power assertive fashion by telling the child how to act or what to

do, or by actually solving the child's interpersonal dilemmas for him/her (Mills & Rubin, 1993;

1998). An overcontrolled or overinvolved parenting style then serves to maintain and exacerbate the

socially withdrawn child's inter- and intrapersonal difficulties (e.g., Rubin et al., 2002; Rubin, Cheah,

& Fox, 2001).

In summary, just as aggressive children have been described as relatively unable to regulate

their emotions, the same is true for inhibited, reticent young children. In the case of the latter

group, it is not anger that is dysregulated, it is wariness and fear. And much like aggressive children

whose social cognitions are atypical (e.g., Dodge, et al., 2003), the same is true for socially reticent

and withdrawn young children. For example, they lag behind their typical age-mates in the ability to

understand others’ points of view; and in thinking about ways to solve their interpersonal dilemmas,

they are over-reliant on accessing adult aid rather than on attempting to solve social problems on

their own (e.g., LeMare & Rubin, 1987; Rubin, Daniels-Beirness, & Bream, 1984). Like aggressive

children, those who are socially withdrawn think about themselves in problematic ways. In the case

of aggressive children, there is an overly positive estimation of their social skills and social

relationships; in this regard, their self perceptions are inaccurate. In the case of socially withdrawn

children, their thoughts and feelings may well be entirely accurate; they have poor self esteem, think

that they are socially unskilled, and feel lonely (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995). Finally,

like aggressive children who behave in ways that attract negative peer attention, so too do socially

withdrawn children. Recognizing that social solitude represents behaviors outside the norm, the peer

group begins to view the display of withdrawal as deviant by the mid-elementary school years, if not

well before (Gavinski-Molina, Coplan, & Younger, 2003; Younger, Gentile, & Burgess, 1993).

As noted above, the emotional, social-cognitive, and self-system “baggage” that accompanies

aggressive behaviors predicts peer rejection. Given that socially reticent and withdrawn children also

carry with them negative emotional, social-cognitive, and self-system “baggage,” might it be that

their social relationships with peers are less than positive? Are socially withdrawn children rejected

by their peers? And what happens if they are rejected? What risks are associated with such a

combination of individual and relationship factors? Relatedly, do socially withdrawn children have

friends? If so, who are these friends and what do their friendships look like? And finally, can the

friends of withdrawn children buffer or protect them from subsequent negative “outcomes” and

risks? In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss the relationships of socially withdrawn children.

The functions and provisions of peer relationships and friendship.

It has been suggested (Fine, 1987) that peer groups teach children (1) how to engage in cooperative

activity aimed at collective rather than individual goals; (2) about social structures; (3) the skills

associated with leading and following others; (4) the control of hostile impulses towards fellow

members; and (5) to mobilize aggression in the service of group loyalty by directing it towards

"outsiders". The social connections that children establish and maintain with peers may constitute a

major source of social support for children to cope with stress and adjustment difficulties (Hartup,

1992). Thus, frequent contact, common activities and interpersonal affective connectedness among

group members may make children’s groups a strong socialization influence (Kindermann, 1993).

In contrast with peer relationships which can occur at a group level, friendship reflects the

presence of a close, mutual, and voluntary dyadic bilateral relationship (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989).

This distinguishes friendship from popularity, which refers to the experience of being liked or

accepted by one's peers. A few defining features of friendship include reciprocity and a feeling of

perceived equality between individuals. In its simplest definition, reciprocity refers to the return of like

behavior between partners and is an essential component of any definition of friendship.

Friendships in childhood serve to (1) provide support, self-esteem enhancement, and

positive self-evaluation; (2) provide emotional security; (3) provide affection and opportunities for

intimate disclosure; (4) provide intimacy and affection; (5) offer consensual validation of interests,

hopes, and fears; (6) provide instrumental and informational assistance; (7) promote the growth of

interpersonal sensitivity; and (8) offer prototypes for later romantic, marital, and parental

relationships (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Sullivan, 1953). Generally speaking, perhaps the most

important function of friendship is to offer children an extra-familial base of security from which

they may explore the effects of their behaviors on themselves, their peers, and their environments.

Given the significance of childhood and adolescent peer groups and friendships, one must be

concerned with children who are less likely than the norm, to interact with peers. We review, below,

the literature on the relationships that socially withdrawn children have with their peers.

Peer rejection and social withdrawal

During the early 1980s, there appeared to be a single-minded predilection to assert that the

developmental pathway to peer rejection is definitively imprinted by the display of aggressive

behavior (Hartup, 1983). However, by the mid-1980s, there emerged a literature indicating that

children who refrained from interacting with peers and who were viewed by their age-mates as

extremely shy and withdrawn were likewise rejected by their peers (e.g., Hymel & Rubin, 1985;

Rubin, Hymel, LeMare, & Rowden, 1989). Subsequently, these findings were replicated in

numerous studies (Boivin et al., 1995; French, 1988, 1990; Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit,

1997; Ollendick, Greene, Weist, & Oswald, 1990), and researchers now recognize aggression and

social withdrawal as the two most significant correlates and predictors of peer rejection in childhood

(Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993). However, it is important to note that the findings relating

social withdrawal and aggression to peer rejection differ in two important ways.

First, as noted previously, there are strong associations between aggression and peer

rejection from early childhood through adolescence (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Newcomb, et al, 1993;

Rubin et al., in press). In contrast, unlike their aggressive counterparts, shy and socially withdrawn

young children do not appear to be sociometrically rejected by their classmates (Hart et al., 2000;

Ladd & Burgess, 1999). It is not until mid-to-late childhood that shy, socially withdrawn children

become sociometrically rejected by their peers (Boivin et al., 1995; Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993;

Younger et al., 1993). Given that the relation between social withdrawal and peer rejection

increases with age, it is not too surprising that older socially withdrawn children report greater

feelings of loneliness and feel more poorly about their social worlds than do younger socially

withdrawn children (Asendorpf & van Aken, 1994; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Gazelle & Ladd, 2003;

Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Nilzon & Palmerus, 1998; Rubin, Chen, McDougall,

Bowker, & McKinnon, 1995). Thus, negative psychosocial “consequences” of social withdrawal

appear to increase with age.

Second, it is likely that peers reject aggressive and socially withdrawn children for very

different reasons. For example, it is easy to understand why aggressive children are not well-liked by

their peers; aggressive behaviors inflict harm on others, both physically and emotionally, and the

behaviors are often disruptive and intrusive. To avoid negative and possibly harmful interactions,

children stay away from and reject peers who display aggression. In contrast, socially withdrawn

behaviors do not harm others, yet these behaviors also garner negative peer attention.

Why might this be the case? A young socially withdrawn child who is physically removed

from his or her peers may go relatively unnoticed by his or her peers. But, as peer and friendship

involvement become increasingly important during late childhood, a socially withdrawn child who

spends most of his or her time on the periphery of the social scene is likely to be viewed by his or

her peers as unusual and socially deviant. Simply put, the socially withdrawn child “stands out” in a

negative way because while most other children are busy socializing with their peers, he or she is

not. In this regard, socially withdrawn children are rejected because their behaviors are considered

atypical and unusual by the peer group-at-large.

Finally, it is important to note that researchers have recently reported a great deal of diversity

in the longitudinal outcomes of social withdrawal (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004).

Some socially withdrawn children and adolescents report greater loneliness and depression than do

others. If one considers social withdrawal to be derived from trait-like individual dispositions, one

must begin to question why it is that not all such children develop such internalizing problems.

Clearly, the interactions and relationships that these children have with peers must be influential.

Not all socially withdrawn children are rejected; however, those who are may be at the greatest risk

for subsequent maladjustment. In this regard, a person-by-environment model of adjustment would

suggest that, when socially withdrawn children (individual vulnerability) encounter an adverse

environment replete with rejecting peers who exclude them (environmental risks), they move further

away from their peers and experience increased psychosocial difficulties; their withdrawn

counterparts who do not encounter rejection and exclusion become less withdrawn over time, and

experience fewer adjustment problems. Recently, Gazelle & Ladd (2003) found that anxious

kindergarteners display greater stability in anxious solitude and elevated levels of loneliness, social

detachment, and depression only when they are excluded (rejected) by their peers. And Gazelle and

Rudolph (2004) have shown that over the course of 5th and 6th grade (10 and 11 years of age), high

exclusion by peers led anxious solitary youth to maintain or exacerbate the extent of their social

avoidance and depression; increased social approach and less depression resulted from the

experience of low exclusion. These findings, when taken together, support a diathesis-stress model,

which hypothesizes that individual vulnerability or diathesis such as anxious solitude is activated

when accompanied by such interpersonal adversity such as peer rejection.

Victimization and Social Withdrawal

Approximately 10 percent of the school population experiences victimization by peers (NICHD,

2001; Olweus, 1984). Children who are victimized experience repeated and consistent physical and

verbal abuse from their peers and classmates. Not surprisingly, the “costs” of victimization to the

self-system are significant, including such problems as low self-esteem, depression, loneliness, and

social anxiety (see Juvonen & Graham, 2001 for recent review).

Given the reserved, quiescent, and fearful demeanor of many socially withdrawn children,

this group appears to be at high risk for being bullied by their peers. Specifically, research supports

the contention that socially withdrawn children are often the targets of peer victimization (e.g.,

Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997; Hanish & Guerra, 2004). Aggressive children may “invite” or

encourage peer victimization through peer provocation (e.g., upsetting other children, initiating

fights). In contrast, the shy, timid nature of socially withdrawn children may lead others to perceive

them as “easy” targets. In this regard, it may be the case that bullies perceive socially withdrawn

children as physically and emotionally weak, and as unlikely to retaliate (Hanish & Guerra, 2004;

Kochenderfer-Ladd 2003; Olweus, 1993). Thus, in many respects, socially withdrawn children are

the prototypes for Olweus’ (1993) portrayal of many victimized children as “whipping boys.”

In summary, the relationships that many socially withdrawn children have in the peer group-

at-large appear to comprise rejection and victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2003; Khatri &

Kupersmidt, 2003; Schwartz, 2000). Given the putative provisions of friendship, is it possible that

socially withdrawn children with a close friendship will be immunized against the negative

experiences of peer rejection and victimization? We address this question in the following section.

Friendship and Social Withdrawal

To begin with, it is important to note that most socially withdrawn children do have close

friendships. Indeed, socially withdrawn children appear to be as likely as their non-withdrawn

counterparts to have mutual, stable best friendships, during early (Ladd & Burgess, 1999) and

middle-to-late childhood (Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Burgess, Booth, & Rose-Krasnor, 2005; Schneider,

1999). For example, Rubin and colleagues found that approximately 65 percent of extremely

withdrawn children (M age=10.33 years) had a mutual best friendship in the fall and spring of the

school year. Furthermore, of the socially withdrawn children who had a best friendship, 69 percent

were able to maintain the relationship over the course of the entire school year. These data indicate

that despite their difficulties in the larger peer group, withdrawn children do appear able to form and

maintain close dyadic relationships within the school milieu.

The friends of withdrawn children. On the one hand, it is proposed that friendship

involvement promotes psychological well-being (e.g. Hartup & Stevens, 1996; Bagwell,

Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998). Supporting this contention are findings that involvement

in stable friendships is associated with positive adjustment (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Ladd,

1990). However, not all friendships are necessarily equivalent. Some friendships promote

positive growth and development; others are less than enlightening and growth promoting

(e.g., Dishion et al., 1999). Researchers are only now beginning to discover that the

friendships of socially withdrawn children may be of the latter, maladaptive denomination.

Studies focused on interpersonal attraction and homophily have shown that

children tend to befriend like-minded and like-behaved children (e.g., Haselager, Hartup,

van Lieshout, & Riksen-Walraven, 1998). For example, investigators have found greater

similarities between friends than non-friends in terms of shared internalized distress

(Hogue & Steinberg, 1995), social withdrawal, and shyness (Haselager et al., 1998).

Moreover, the best friends of extremely withdrawn children are more likely to be socially

withdrawn and victimized than the mutual best friends of non-withdrawn children (Rubin

et al., 2005). Thus, it appears as if many socially withdrawn children are involved in

friendships with other children who are experiencing similar psychosocial difficulties.

We propose that a “misery loves company” scenario may exist for many shy,

withdrawn children. Given that many socially withdrawn children are attracted to and

develop friendships with others very much like them, the collective outcomes for these

children may prove onerous. For example, the coping of two shy, victimized children who

both feel poorly about themselves and their social worlds may lead to increases in

internalizing problems, in much the same way that co-rumination within the friendships of

adolescent girls predicts later internalizing difficulties (Rose, 2002). One can imagine two

withdrawn children, who are regularly experiencing victimization by bullies, commiserating

with one other about their psychosocial difficulties; if this occurs in the absence of coping

or resolution, the shared or common difficulties may take on a “larger-than-life” quality.

Recently, Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Burgess, Rose-Krasnor, and Booth (2005) found that

victimized children whose best friends were also victimized experienced increased

internalizing problems across the middle school transition and within the sixth-grade year.

The same may be true for socially withdrawn children; however, no researchers have

explicitly tested this hypothesis.

But what do the friendships of socially withdrawn children actually look like?

Rubin and colleagues (2005) recently found that withdrawn children rated their best

friendships as significantly less helpful and intimate, and in the event of conflict, less likely

to result in resolution and compromise than did non-withdrawn children. Furthermore,

the best friends of withdrawn children also reported their friendships as less fun and helpful

than the friends of non-withdrawn children (Rubin et al., 2005). Both withdrawn children

and their best friends rated their friendships to be lower in overall quality than their non-

withdrawn counterparts.

In a related study, Schneider (1999) found that the friendships of socially

withdrawn children were lower in communicative quantity and quality. These latter

findings may explain why the friendships of these children are marked by less intimate

disclosure. Yet, some researchers who have reported that socially withdrawn children have

friendships that are relatively high in relationship quality (Fordham & Stevenson-Hinde,

1999; Schneider, 1999). This being the case, might it be that the developmental outcomes

for socially withdrawn children with strong friendships are more positive than for those

whose friendships are of lesser quality? This question was recently addressed in a study by

Rubin and colleagues (Rubin, Oh, Burgess, Booth-LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, 2005). In

this study, the investigators longitudinally followed the developmental trajectory of social

withdrawal across five sequential time points over a period of four years (Fall and Spring

of 5th grade; Fall and Spring of 6th grade; Spring of 8th grade). From the outset, it was

revealed that children with a mutual best friend were less withdrawn than those without a

friend. However, children whose reciprocal friends were also socially withdrawn appeared

to become increasingly socially withdrawn as they moved across the transition from

elementary school (5th grade) to middle school (6th grade), supporting the contention that

withdrawn children and their best friends may mutually influence one another’s

maladaptive behavior just as is the case for aggressive children and their best fiends.

Finally, when the quality of the mutual best friendship was taken into consideration,

children whose friends were very supportive, were less likely to become socially withdrawn

over time, suggesting that only a high quality of friendship can ameliorate the degree of

social withdrawal during the transition from elementary-to-middle school.

Summary and Conclusions.

In this chapter, we have examined the peer relationships and friendships of socially

withdrawn children. By-and-large, it has been reported that many socially withdrawn

children experience peer rejection and exclusion as well as victimization. This alone

should place socially withdrawn children at risk for negative psychosocial outcomes.

However, recent research has also shown that the friendships of socially withdrawn

children may contribute significantly to their risk status.

As it happens, most socially withdrawn children are involved in at least one best

friendship. But recent research has shown that these friendships are with others who

share the salient characteristics of the socially withdrawn child; that is, the best friends are

often withdrawn themselves and likewise experiencing victimization in the peer group.

Furthermore, although research suggests that a high-quality friendship may help socially

withdrawn children, many of the friendships of withdrawn children in the mid/late

childhood and early adolescent years appear qualitatively impoverished relative to those of

their non-withdrawn age-mates. Taken together, the peer relationships and friendships of

socially withdrawn children do not augur well for them. This being the case, it seems

appropriate to suggest that prevention and intervention programs be developed for

children who are socially anxious and withdrawn. Thus far, the intervention literature has

proved slim-to-non-existent (see Schneider & Coplan, this volume). This is especially true

in the case of prevention efforts. Yet we now know what it is that predicts socially reticent

and withdrawn behavior (e.g., emotion dysregulation and fearful/inhibited temperament;

overprotective and overcontrolling parenting); we know what accompanies, results in, and

contributes to the maintenance of social withdrawal (rejection, victimization, negative self

regard, loneliness). Clearly, those children who demonstrate early signs of withdrawn

deserve to be targeted for preventative exercises. Prevention should be our collectively

urgent next step.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported

by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs

for the Society for Research in Child Development, 46, 1, 82-

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1994). Traits and relationship status:

Stranger versus peer group inhibition and test intelligence versus peer group

confidence as early predictors of later self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 1786-

1798.

Asher. S.R., & 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, 1, 140-153.

Berndt, T.J. & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school.

Child Development, 66, 1313-1329.

Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential

model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 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.

Bukowski, W.M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and

outcome. In T.J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15-45).

New York: Wiley.

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.

Calkins, S. & Fox, N. (1992). The relations among infant temperament, security of attachment, and

behavioral inhibition at twenty-four months. Child Development, 63, 6, 1456-1472.

Coie, J.D. & Dodge, K.A., (1998). Aggression and anti-social behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed),

Handbook of Child Psychology (5th edition): Social, emotional, and personality development. (pp. 779-

862). New York: Wiley.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner.

Coplan, R.J., Rubin, K.H., Fox, N.A., Calkins, S. & Stewart, S.L. (1994). Being alone, playing alone,

and acting alone: Distinguishing between reticence and passive-and active-solitude in young

children. Child Development, 65, 129-138.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peer

relationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

42, 5, 565-579.

Dishion, T.J., Eddy, M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. (1997). Friendships and violent

behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 2, 207-223.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem

behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 9, 755-764.

Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., & Lynam (in press). Aggression. In N. Eisenberg (Ed), Handbook of Child

Psychology (6th edition): Social, emotional, and personality development. New

York: Wiley.

Dodge, K.A., Lansford, J.E., Burks, V.S., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J.M.

(2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of

aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74, 2, 374-393.

Fine, G.A. (1987). With the boys: Little league baseball and preadolescent culture. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Fordham, K. & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1999). Shyness, friendship quality, and adjustment

during middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied

Disciplines, 40, 5, 757-768.

French, D. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes.

Child Development, 59, 4, 976-985.

French, D. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected girls. Child Development, 61, 6, 2028-2031.

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.

Gavinski-Molina, M.H., Coplan, R.J., & Younger, A. (2003). A closer look at children’s knowledge

about social isolation. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 93-104.

Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G.W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress

model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 1, 257-278.

Gazelle, H., & Rudolph, K. D. (2004). Moving Toward and Away From the World: Social Approach

and Avoidance Trajectories in Anxious Solitary Youth. Child Development, 75 (3), 829-849.

Hanish, L.D. & Guerra, N.G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies:

Developmental continuity or developmental change. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 17-38.

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of

development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.

Harris, J. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Touchstone.

Harrist, A.W., Zaia, A.F., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A., & Pettit, G.S. (1997). Subtypes of

social withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social-cognitive

differences across four years. Child Development, 68, 2, 278-294.

Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L. J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D., Porter, C.L., Jin, S.,

Olsen, S. F., & Wu, P. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of socially

withdrawn behavior in China, Russia, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 24, 73-81.

Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4.

Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 103-196). New York: John Wiley.

Hartup, W.H. (1992). Friendships and their developmental significance. In H. McGurk (Ed.),

Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives, (pp.175-206). East Sussex,

UK: Erlbaum.Hartup, W.H., & Stevens, N. (1996). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.

Psychological Bulletin, 121, 355-370.

Haselager, G.J.T., Hartup, W.H., van Lieshout, C.F.M., & Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A. (1998).

Similarities between friends and nonfriends in middle childhood. Child Development,

69, 4, 1198-1208.

Hawley, P.H. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary

perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 3, 213-235.

Hinde, R.A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hinde, R.R. & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1976). Toward understanding relationships: Dynamic stability.

In P. Bateson & R. Hinde (Eds.), Growing points in ethology (pp. 451-479). Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting

determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1032-1039.

Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized distress in adolescent peer groups.

Developmental Psychology, 31, 897-906.

Hubbard, J. A., Dodge, K. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (2001). The dyadic

nature of social information processing in boys' reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 268-280

Hymel, S. & Rubin, K. H. (1985). Children with peer relationship and social skills problems:

Conceptual, methodological, and developmental issues. In G.J. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of

Child Development (Vol. 2), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hymel, S., Rubin, K., Rowden L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships:

Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late

childhood. Child Development, 61, 6, 2004-2021.

Hymel, S., Woody, E., & Bowker, A. (1993). Social withdrawal in childhood: Considering the child’s

perspective. In K. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in

childhood (pp. 237-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds., 2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the

vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford.

Khatri, P., & Kupersmidt, J.B. (2003). Aggression, peer victimization, and social relationships

among Indian youth. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 87-95.

Kindermann, T.A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of

children’s motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2003). Identification of aggressive and asocial victims and the stability

of their peer victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 4, 401-425.

Ladd, G.W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the

classroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 1081-1100.

Ladd, G.W., & Burgess, K.B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive,

withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child

Development, 70, 910-929.

LeMare, L. J., & Rubin, K. H. (1987). Perspective taking and peer interaction: Structural and

developmental analyses. Child Development, 58, 306-315.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mills, R.S.L. & Rubin, K.H. (1998). Are behavioral control and psychological control both

differentially associated with childhood aggression and social withdrawal? Canadian Journal of

Behavioral Sciences, 30, 132-136.

Mills, R.S.L., & Rubin, K.H. (1993). Socialization factors in the development of social withdrawal.

In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp.

117-148). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nelson, L.J., Rubin, K.H., & Fox, N.A. (in press). Social and nonsocial behaviors

and peer acceptance: A longitudinal model of the development of selfperceptions

in children ages 4 to 7 years. Early Education and Development.

Newcomb, A., & Bagwell, C. (1995). Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306-347.

Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A

meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average

sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Child care and children's peer interaction at

24 and 36 months: The NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 72, 1478-1500.

Nilzon, K., & Palmerus, K. (1998). Anxiety and withdrawal of depressed 9-11 year olds three

years later: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 19, 4, 341-349.

Ollendick, T.H., Greene, R.W., Weist, M.D. & Oswald, D.P. (19900. The predictive validity of

teacher nominations: A five-year followup of at-risk youth. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 18, 6, 699-713.

Olweus, D. (1984). Stability in aggressive and withdrawn, inhibited behavior patterns. In R.M.

Kaplan, V.J. Konecni, & R.W. Novaco (Eds.), Aggression in children and youth (pp. 104-136).

The Hague: Nijhoff.

Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin

& J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-341). New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

Rose, A.J. (2002) Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 73, 6,

1830-1843.

Rubin, K.H. (1982). Social and social-cognitive developmental characteristics of young isolate,

normal and sociable children. In K.H. Rubin & H.S. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social

skills in childhood. (pp. 353-374) New York: Springer-Verlag.

Rubin, K.H., & Borwick, D. (1984). The communication skills of children who vary with regard to

sociability. In H. Sypher & J. Applegates (Eds.), Social cognition and communication. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (in press, 2006). Peer interactions,

relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed), Handbook of Child

Psychology (6th edition): Social, emotional, and personality development. New

York: Wiley.

Rubin, K.H., Burgess, K.B., & Hastings, P.D. (2002). Stability and social-behavioral consequences of

toddlers’ inhibited temperament and parenting. Child Development, 73, 483-495.

Rubin, K., Burgess, K., Kennedy, A., & Stewart, S. (2003). Social withdrawal in childhood.

In E. Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology, (2nd ed., pp.372-406). New York:

Guilford Press.

Rubin, K.H., Cheah, C.S.L., & Fox, N. (2001). Emotion regulation, parenting and display of social

reticence in preschoolers. Early Education & Development, 12, 97-115.

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., Chen, X., Buskirk, A. & Wojslawowicz, J.C. (2005).

Peer relationships in childhood. In M. Bornstein & M. Lamb (Eds.),

Developmental Psychology: An advanced textbook , 5th Edition. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, K.H., Coplan, R.J., Fox, N.A., & Calkins, S. (1995). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and

preschoolers’ social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 49-62.

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., Hastings, P.D., Stewart, S.L., Henderson, H.A., & Chen, X. (1997). The consistency

and concomitants of inhibition: Some of the children, all of the time. Child Development, 68,

3, 467-483.

Rubin, K.H., Hymel, S., LeMare, L., & Rowden, L. (1989). Children experiencing social

difficulties: Sociometric neglect reconsidered. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 94-111.

Rubin, K.H., & Krasnor, L.R. (1986). Social-cognitive and social behavioral perspectives on

problem solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on children's social and behavioral

development. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (vol. 18, pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, N.J.:

Erlbaum.

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., Oh, W., Burgess, K. B., Booth-LaForce, C. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. Social

Withdrawal and the Transition from Late Childhood to Early Adolescence:

The Role of Friendship. Paper to be presented as part of symposium, Contemporary Issues

in the Study of Social Withdrawal. (K. H. Rubin & H. Gazelle, Chairs). Biennial Meeting of

the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA, April 2005.

Rubin, K.H., Wojslawowicz, J., Burgess, K.B., Booth-LaForce, C.L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. The Best

Friendships of Shy/Withdrawn Children: Prevalence, Stability, and Relationship Quality.

Unpublished manuscript under review, University of Maryland.

Rubin, K.H., Wojslawowicz, J., Burgess, K.B., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth-LaForce, C.L.

Victimization, Best Friend Victimization, and Internalizing Problems in Early Adolescence:

A Short-Term Longitudinal Study. Paper to be presented as part of symposium, Risky

Business: Negotiating the Negative Outcomes of Adolescent Close Peer Relationships (J.

Allen, Chair). (Paper Symposium). Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child

Development, Atlanta, GA, April 2005.

Schneider, B. (1999). A multimethod exploration of the friendships of children considered

socially withdrawn by their school peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 2,

115-123.

Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 2, 181-192.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Younger, A. J., Gentile, C., & Burgess, K. B. (1993). Children’s perceptions of social withdrawal:

changes across age. In K. Rubin & J. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness

in childhood (pp. 215-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The writing of this chapter was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant # MH58116

to Kenneth H. Rubin.

Figure 1: The Social Universe (Robert Hinde, 1987)

GROUPS

RELATIONSHIPS

INTERACTIONS

INDIVIDUALS