Unlike rejected-aggressive children, popular-antisocial children

Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: the assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(8), 973–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00226.
Article Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination: four essays. (Trans: Emerson, C. & Holquist, M.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Google Scholar
Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection. Developmental processes and intervention strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Bierman, K. L., & Furman, W. (1984). The effects of social skills training and peer involvement on the social adjustment of preadolescents. Child Development, 55, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00280.x.
Article Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2014). Pragmatic language impairment: a correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In D. V. M. Bishop & L. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children. Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 99–113). London: Psychology Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2017). Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 52(6), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12335.
Article Google Scholar
Black, B. (1992). Negotiating social pretend play: communication differences related to social status and sex. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 38(2), 212–232.
Google Scholar
Black, B., & Hazen, N. L. (1990). Social status and patterns of communication in acquainted and unacquainted preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.379.
Article Google Scholar
Black, B., & Logan, A. (1995). Links between communication patterns in mother-child, father-child, and child-peer interactions and children’s social status. Child Development, 66(1), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00869.x.
Article Google Scholar
Braza, F., Azurmendi, A., Muñoz, J. M., Carreras, M. R., Braza, P., García, A., Sorozabal, A., & Sánchez-Martín, J. R. (2009). Social cognitive predictors of peer acceptance at age 5 and the moderating effects of gender. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(3), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008X360666.
Article Google Scholar
Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L. K., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Pages from a sociometric notebook: an analysis of nomination and rating scale measures of acceptance, rejection, and social preference. In T. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the study and measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 11–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Bukowski, W. M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Velasquez, A. M. (2012). The use of peer ratings in developmental research. In B. Laursen, T. Little, & N. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 211–228). New York: Guilford.
Google Scholar
Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B. P., & Rubin, K. H. (2018). Peer relations. Past, present and promise. In W. M. Bukowski, B. P. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Burleson, B. R., Della, J. G., & Applegat, J. L. (1992). Effects of maternal communication and children's social-cognitive and communication skills on children’s acceptance by the peer group. Family Relations, 41(3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/585189.
Article Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar
Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Social, emotional, and personality development in context. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsday, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499739.006.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557.
Article Google Scholar
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Salzer Burks, V., 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402004.
Article Google Scholar
Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2004). The next 50 years: considering gender as a context for understanding young children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0017.
Article Google Scholar
French, D. C., & Conrad, J. (2001). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00011.
Article Google Scholar
Galejs, I., Dhawan, G., & King, A. (1983). Popularity and communication skills of preschool children. The Journal of Psychology, 115(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9923601.
Article Google Scholar
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7.
Article Google Scholar
Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development, 46(3), 709–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128569.
Article Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). A sociosemiotic perspective on language development. In M. A. K. Halliday (Ed.), (pp. 90–113). New York: Continuum.
Google Scholar
Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00308.x.
Article Google Scholar
Hazen, N. L., & Black, B. (1989). Preschool peer communication skills: the role of social status and interaction context. Child Development, 60(4), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb03519.x.
Article Google Scholar
Henry, D. B. (2006). Associations between peer nominations, teacher ratings, self-reports, and observations of malicious and disruptive behavior. Assessment, 13(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287668.
Article Google Scholar
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley.
Book Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00572.x.
Article Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Jiang, X. L., & Cilessen, A. H. N. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: a meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.008.
Article Google Scholar
Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status from toddler and preschool problem behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(4), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000030294.11443.41.
Article Google Scholar
Kemple, K., Speranza, H., & Hazen, N. (1992). Cohesive discourse and peer acceptance: longitudinal relationships in the preschool years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(3), 364–381.
Google Scholar
Ladd, G. W. (1981). Effectiveness of a social learning method for enhancing children's social interaction and peer acceptance. Child Development, 52(1), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129227.
Article Google Scholar
Laws, G., Bates, G., Feuerstein, M., Mason-Apps, E., & White, C. (2012). Peer acceptance of children with language and communication impairments in a mainstream primary school: associations with type of language difficulty, problem behaviors and a change in placement organization. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659011419234.
Article Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. (1981). Language and cognition. New York: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E. (2002). Gender and group process: a developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(2), 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00167.
Article Google Scholar
Markell, R. A., & Asher, S. R. (1984). Children’s interactions in dyads: interpersonal influence and sociometric status. Child Development, 55, 1412–1424. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130010.
Article Google Scholar
Masters, J. C., & Furman, W. (1981). Popularity, individual friendship selection, and specific peer interaction among children. Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.3.344.
Article Google Scholar
Menting, B., van Lier, P. A. C., & Koot, H. M. (2011). Language skills, peer rejection, and the development of externalizing behavior from kindergarten to fourth grade. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2010.02279.x.
Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student aggression: a prospective study of transactional influence and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6), 661–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.006.
Article Google Scholar
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(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015198612049.
Article Google Scholar
Moreno, J. L. (1934). A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.
Book Google Scholar
Murphy, S. M., & Faulkner, D. (2000). Learning to collaborate: can young children develop better communication strategies through collaboration with a more popular peer. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172983.
Article Google Scholar
Murphy, S. M., & Faulkner, D. (2006). Gender differences in verbal communications between popular and unpopular children during an interactive task. Social Development, 15(1), 82–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00331.x.
Article Google Scholar
Nelson, D. A., Burner, K. C., Coyne, S. M., Hart, C. H., & Robinson, C. C. (2016). Correlates of sociometric status in Russian preschoolers: aggression, victimization, and sociability. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.054.

Article Google Scholar
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(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99.
Article Google Scholar
Nowicki, S., & Oxenford, C. (1989). The relation of hostile nonverbal communication styles to popularity in preadolescent children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 150(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1989.9914572.
Article Google Scholar
Nærland, T. (2011). Language competence and social focus among preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 181(5), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004431003665780.
Nærland, T., & Martinsen, H. (2011). Child–child interactions and positive social focus among preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 181(3), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903387701.
Article Google Scholar
Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S. A., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk, A. A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: a developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and method (pp. 419–493). Hoboken: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. (2007). The timing of middle-childhood peer rejection and friendship: linking early behavior to early-adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 78(4), 1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01051.x.
Article Google Scholar
Place, K. S., & Becker, J. A. (1991). The influence of pragmatic competence on the likeability of grade-school children. Discourse Processes, 14(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544783.
Article Google Scholar
Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social Development, 17(4), 908–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00473.x.
Article Google Scholar
Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of adolescent girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: a 6-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.1.103.
Article Google Scholar
Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children’s sociometric status from their behaviour. Child Development, 54(6), 1417–1426. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129804.
Article Google Scholar
Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. M. (1981). An interactional model of children’s entry into peer groups. Child Development, 52(3), 986–994. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129103.
Article Google Scholar
Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children’s naturalistic entry behavior and sociometric status: a developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.297.
Article Google Scholar
Rabiner, D. L., & Gordon, L. V. (1992). The coordination of conflicting social goals: differences between rejected and nonrejected boys. Child Development, 63(6), 1344–1350. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131560.
Article Google Scholar
Redmond, S. M. (2011). Peer victimization among students with specific language impairment, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and typical development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(4), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0078).
Article Google Scholar
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009.
Article Google Scholar
Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1984). Assessing the pragmatic abilities of children: Part 1. Organizational framework and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4901.02.
Article Google Scholar
Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. Greene & P. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 637–684). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
Shonkhoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000) From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of early childhood development. National Research Council, Washington, DC; Institute of Medicine (NAS), Washington, DC.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08314117.
Article Google Scholar
Troesch, L. M., Keller, K., & Grob, A. (2016). Language competence and social preference in childhood: a meta-analysis. European Psychologist, 21(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000262.
Article Google Scholar
Vallotton, C., & Ayoub, C. (2011). Use your words: the role of language in the development of toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.09.002.
Article Google Scholar
van der Wilt, F., van Kruistum, C., van der Veen, C., & van Oers, B. (2016). Gender differences in the relationship between oral communicative competence and peer rejection: An explorative study in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(6), 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1073507.
van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2018a). Why can’t I join? Peer rejection in early childhood education and the role of oral communicative competence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.007.
van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2018b). Popular, rejected, neglected, controversial or average: Do young children of different sociometric groups differ in their level of oral communicative competence? Social Development, 27(4), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12316.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. Including the volume thinking and speech (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.
Google Scholar
Whitebread, D., Pino-Pasternak, D., & Coltman, P. (2015). Making learning visible: the role of language in the development of metacognition and self-regulation in young children. In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding (pp. 199–214). London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draper, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics for preschool children: cross-informant concordance, temporal stability, and reliability. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(3), 416–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0018.
Article Google Scholar

Page 2

From: Why Do Children Become Rejected by Their Peers? A Review of Studies into the Relationship Between Oral Communicative Competence and Sociometric Status in Childhood

Study/country	Research aim	Operationalization	Research design	Main outcomes
van der Wilt et al. (2016)/The Netherlands	To examine gender differences in the relation between oral communicative competence and peer rejection	Nijmegen Test for Pragmatics, assessing productive pragmatic skills individually in a standardized manner	N = 54 children (age range 3.83 to 6.25 years); correlation analyses; cross-sectional design	Oral communicative competence was associated with peer acceptance (although only for boys), but not with peer rejection.
Peer nomination procedure: amount of received positive nominations indicated acceptance; amount of received negative nominations indicated rejection
van der Wilt et al. (2018a)/The Netherlands	To examine the relation between oral communicative competence and peer rejection, as well as gender differences in this relation	Nijmegen Test for Pragmatics, assessing productive pragmatic skills individually in a standardized manner	N = 447 children (age range 3.83 to 6.50 years); multiple regression analyses; cross-sectional design	After controlling for gender, age, and SES, oral communicative competence accounted for unique variance: children with poorer oral communicative competence experienced higher levels of peer rejection.
Peer nomination procedure: amount of received negative nominations minus amount of received positive nominations indicated level of peer rejection
van der Wilt et al. (2018b)/The Netherlands	To examine whether children who differed in their sociometric status also differed in their level of oral communicative competence	Nijmegen Test for Pragmatics, assessing productive pragmatic skills individually in a standardized manner	N = 570 children (age range 3.99 to 7.08 years); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Children who were rejected or neglected by their peers exhibited lower levels of oral communicative competence than average children; popular and controversial children did not differ from average children in their level of oral communicative competence.
Peer nomination procedure resulting in five groups: (1) popular, (2) rejected, (3) neglected, (4) controversial, and (5) average
Bierman and Furman (1984)/USA	To examine the effects of conversational skills training and peer involvement on the peer acceptance of disliked children	Observations of peer interactions and a written questionnaire measuring different aspects of communication	N = 56 children (fifth- and sixth graders); comparative analyses; quasi-experimental, longitudinal design	Conversational skills training promoted social skill acquisition and increased skillful social interaction in both dyadic and small-group interactions; peer involvement increased peer acceptance
Rating scale resulting in a measure of peer acceptance
Black (1992)/USA	To examine the communication strategies that children use to negotiate episodes of social pretend play as a function of social status and sex	Observations of peer interactions in which one child enters the play of others	N = 68 children (age range 3.58 to 5.08 years); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Disliked children used higher proportions of suggestions and demands, were more likely to negotiate pretense in terms of their own activity, and were more likely to reject a theme or role; liked children provided explanations about ongoing play, requested clarifications, and included the ideas of peers in their negotiations.
Peer nomination procedure resulting in three groups: (1) liked, (2) disliked, and (3) low-impact
Black and Hazen (1990)/USA	To examine the relation between social communication skills and sociometric status	Observations of peer interactions in which one child enters the play session of two peers he or she did or did not know	N = 66 children (age range 3.50 to 5.33 years); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	With unacquainted peers, disliked children were less responsive to peers and more likely to make irrelevant comments; with acquainted peers, disliked children were also less likely to clearly direct their communication.
Peer nomination procedure resulting in three groups: (1) liked, (2) disliked, (3) low-impact
Black and Logan (1995)/USA	To examine links between specific aspects of communication in the family and peer system and children’s sociometric status	Observations of peer interactions in which one child enters the play session of two peers	N = 43 children (age range 2.00 to 5.00 years); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Rejected children demonstrated turn-taking styles that included irrelevant turns, interruptions, simultaneous talking, and non-contingent responding; popular children alternated turns, provided explanations to peers, and were more likely to display coherent discourse
Teachers provided peer nominations, resulting in four groups: (1) popular, (2) rejected, (3) neglected, and (4) controversial
Burleson et al. (1992)/USA	To examine four of children’s socio-cognitive skills and three of their communication skills as potential predictors of peer acceptance	Coding of children’s responses to hypothetical situations, resulting in a general communication skill index	N = 51 children (first- and third graders); multiple regression analyses; longitudinal design (year 1 and year 2)	During year 1, persuasive communication predicted social preference; during year 2, persuasive communication and listener-adapted communication predicted social preference
Peer nomination procedure: amount of received positive nominations minus amount of received negative nominations indicated social preference
Galejs et al. (1983)/USA	To examine the relation between popularity and communication skills	Dickson’s Notebook Communication Game, assessing listening and describing skills	N = 60 children (age range 3.20 to 6.60 years); correlation analyses; cross-sectional design	A significant and positive correlation was found between popularity and listening skills; a non-significant correlation was found between popularity and describing skills
Teachers rank-ordered all children from most popular to least popular
Gottman et al. (1975) / USA	To examine the relations between social skills, social interaction, and popularity	Observations of peer interactions in the classroom	N = 198 children (third- and fourth graders); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	High-friend children received more positive reinforcement compared to low-friend children
Peer nomination procedure (nominating unlimited amount of friends) resulting in two categories: low-friends children and high-friends children
Hazen and Black (1989)/USA	To examine the relation between social status and discourse skills	Observations of peer interactions in which one child enters the play session of two peers	N = 48 children (age range 3.58 to 5.50 years); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Liked children were more likely to direct their initiations clearly, speak to both interaction partners, respond contingently to others, acknowledge others, reinitiate when rejecting, and adapt to the differing social demands of different contexts than disliked children
Peer nomination procedure resulting in three groups: (1) liked, (2) disliked, and (3) low-impact
Kemple et al. (Kemple et al. 1992)/USA	To examine relations between social status and communication behaviors contributing to cohesive discourse longitudinally	Observations of peer interactions in which one child enters the play session of others	N = 25 children (age range 3.50 to 4.50 years); correlation analyses; longitudinal design (two measurements: year 1 and year 2)	Acceptance of peers’ initiations during play at year 1 predicted social status at year 2; social status at year 1 predicted use of non-directed initiations and non-contingent responding at year 2
Peer nomination procedure; amount of received positive nominations indicated acceptance; amount of received negative nominations indicated rejection
Ladd (1981)/USA	To examine the effect of a social skills training on the behavior and acceptance of low-accepted children	Observations of children’s peer interactions during 30-min free-play periods	N = 36 low-accepted children (third graders); comparative analyses; quasi-experimental, longitudinal design	Trained children spent a significantly greater percentage of tune engagement in two of the three trained skills whereas control group children remained the same or declined; trained children also evidenced significant and lasting gains in classroom peer acceptance
Rating scale resulting in a selection of low-accepted children
Markell and Asher (1984)/USA	To examine whether popular and unpopular children differ in their interaction style in a problem-solving situation	Observations of peer interactions during a problem-solving situation	N = 208 children (third- and fourth graders); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Pairs of unpopular and average children showed greater asymmetry in influence and less cohesiveness and comfort than pairs of popular-average children
Peer nomination procedure and peer rating scale
Masters and Furman (1981)/USA	To examine the role of specific peer interactions in children’s sociometric status and friendship choices	Observations of peer interactions during free-play periods	N = 94 children (age range 4.00 to 5.00 years); correlation analyses and comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Popularity was associated with receiving and dispensing reinforcing and neutral acts; children’s interactions with disliked peers did not differ from those with peers who were neither liked nor disliked
Peer nomination procedure; amount of received positive nominations indicates popularity and amount of received negative nominations indicates unpopularity
Murphy and Faulkner (2000)/UK	To examine whether pairing unpopular children with a popular peer would promote more effective communication	Observations of peer interaction while children were playing a collaborative game	N = 72 children (age range 4.00 to 6.00 years); comparative analyses; quasi-experimental design	Collaboration between popular children and popular peers was more successful and less disputational than collaboration between unpopular children and unpopular peers; unpopular children were more successful when collaborating with popular peers.
Peer nomination procedure and peer rating scale
Murphy and Faulkner (2006)/UK	To examine gender differences in communication effectiveness between pairs of popular and unpopular children	Observations of peer interactions while children were playing a game	N = 48 children (age range 5.00 to 7.00 years); comparative analyses; quasi-experimental design	Popular girls used a greater incidence of speech forms associated with successful collaboration than unpopular girls; there was no difference between popular boys and unpopular boys.
Peer nomination procedure and peer rating scale
Nærland (2011)/Norway	To examine the relation between social focus and pragmatic skills	Observations of peer interactions during free-play	N = 64 children (age range 0.91 to 5.08 years); correlation analyses and regression analyses; cross-sectional design	Pragmatic skills had an independent contribution to social focus when the variance of age was removed.
Observations of the amount of positive and neutral contacts children received from their peers
Nærland and Martinsen (2011)/Norway	To examine the extent to which the social focus children receive from their peers can be explained by aspects of peer interaction	Observations of peer interactions during free-play resulting in a contact score (reflecting the content, manner and social function of the interactions)	N = 64 children (age range 0.92 to 5.08 years); correlation analyses and regression analyses; cross-sectional design	Twelve out of 16 contact categories were significantly correlated with social focus; combined, they predicted children’s social focus to a large extent
Observations of the amount of positive and neutral contacts children received from their peers
Nowicki and Oxenford (1989)/USA	To examine the relation between communication styles and popularity	Observations of peer interactions while children were planning a daytrip together	N = 62 children (fifth- and sixth graders); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Compared with popular children, unpopular children had communication styles characterized by non-verbal visual hostility; no differences were found in verbal communication styles between popular and unpopular children.
Peer nomination procedure: the number of times a child was chosen as most preferred minus the number of times a child was chosen as least preferred indicated popularity
Place and Becker (1991)/USA	To examine the impact of pragmatic skills on likeability	Audiotapes of a girl using four different pragmatic skills either appropriately or inappropriately in a conversation with a school librarian	N = 91 girls (third- and fourth graders); comparative analyses; experimental design	Children saw the girl of the audiotape as more likeable when she displayed pragmatic competence than when she requested inappropriately, interrupted and failed to maintain the logic of the conversation.
Rating scale indicating how much children would like to play with the girl of the audiotape
Putallaz (1983)/USA	To examine the relation between children’s communicative behavior and their sociometric status	Observations of children’s entry behavior in serval game situations	N = 22 boys (first graders); multiple regression analyses; experimental design	The tendency of subjects to fit into the group they entered by contributing to relevant conversation was predictive of their sociometric status (after controlling for intelligence).
Rating scale indicating how much children liked to play with a target child
Putallaz and Gottman (1981)/USA	To examine differences between the dyadic interactions of popular versus unpopular children	Videotaped observations of children’s peer interactions while they were playing a game	N = 60 children (second- and third graders); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Unpopular children were more disagreeable and less likely to provide a general reason or rule for their disagreement or to suggest a constructive alternative when criticizing a peer.
Peer nomination procedure resulting in two groups: popular and unpopular children
Putallaz and Wasserman (1989)/USA	To examine the relation between children’s entry behavior and sociometric status	Observations of children’s naturalistic entry behavior over a 15-week period	N = 72 children (first- third-, and fifth graders); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Low-status children engaged in more passive entry attempts and less sustained group interaction than high-status children
Combination of peer nomination procedure (only positive nominations) and rating scale resulting in three groups: high-status child, average-status child, low-status child
Rabiner and Gordon (1992)/USA	To examine differences between rejected and non-rejected boys in their social interaction strategies	Six short vignettes describing children in potentially conflictual interactions were used and children were asked to respond and tell what social interaction strategies they would use in the social dilemma	N = 58 boys (fourth- and fifth graders); comparative analyses; cross-sectional design	Aggressive rejected boys and residual rejected boys provided less integrated responses than non-rejected boys.
Peer nomination procedure resulting in three groups: popular, average, and rejected

Q&a Popular

Unlike rejected-aggressive children, popular-antisocial children

Page 2

Postagens relacionadas

Publicidade

ÚLTIMAS NOTÍCIAS

Toplistas

Publicidade

Populer

Publicidade

Sobre

Jurídica

Ajuda

Social