Social Interaction Patterns of High, Average, and Low Sociometric Status Children

Social Interaction Patterns of High, Average, and Low Sociometric Status Children JAIPAUL L. ROOPNARINE, PH.D.,

AND

GERALD R. ADAMS, PH.D.

Abstract. The phenomenon of "social segregation" was observed in groups of children sociometrically rated as either popular, moderately popular, or unpopular by their classroom peers. Analyses that controlled for availability of peers in the different sociometric groups within classrooms revealed that moderately popular children were more likely to engage in joint positiveplay than popular or unpopular children. Some support was providedfor the notion of social segregation basedon sociometricstatus but only for moderatelypopular children. Tentativerecommendationsare advancedfor the useof moderatelypopular peersas rolemodelswherepsychiatrists may need to provide peer experiences for undersocialized, socially isolated, and unpopular children. J. Amer. Acad. Child Adol. Psychiat., 1987, 26. I:28-32. Key Words: sociometric, status, peer, behavior Child psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are frequently asked to assess and provide therapy for young children with socialization problems. Indeed, DSM-III pinpoints several types of conduct disorders and a schizoid disorder of childhood which are associated with socialization problems of such a magnitude that clinical intervention is thought necessary. For example, the undersocialized child is listed as having a form of conduct disorder associated with weak social bonding, poor or absent peer relations, and dysfunctional forms of atTect and feeling toward others. At the extreme level of functioning, a child may sutTer from a schizoiddisorder where he or she may have no close friends, is socially isolated, and appears aloof, reserved, withdrawn, or seclusive. Further, these symptoms of mental and social disorders can emerge as early as the preschool years, requiring the psychiatrist or psychologist not only to provide direct therapeutic intervention but to make recommendations about additional nursery school, preschool, or peer play group experiences. The importance of the peer group and social relations at even a very early age is reflected in the writing of Rutter (1975) when he comments:

Similar concerns and comments can be found in the writings of other psychiatrists and psychologists (e.g., Ausubel and Sullivan (1970), Geleerd (1967) and Gurian and Formanek (1983», family therapists (e.g., see Nichols (1984», and child guidance specialists (e.g., see Hildebrand (1985» among many others. Thus, a full understanding of social competencies and peer relationships during childhood would seem necessary to make appropriate decisions regarding clinical intervention and to provide sound recommendations regarding additional peer group experiences for children showing evidence of delayed social competence development or manifesting various forms of social isolation or peer rejection. Indeed, developmental psychologists have argued that s0cial competence with peers provides a critical foundation and underpinning for healthy normal social and personality development (Hartup, 1983). Child psychologists draw on animal studies, peer and play research, and clinical or social problems studies to support this notion. For example, deprivation studies with animals have shown that the lack of contact with playmates during the first few months of life atTects subsequent relationships with other animals (Harlow, 1969: Suomi and Harlow, 1975). In humans, correlational studies suggest that social competence with peers during early childhood, as measured by sociometric techniques, is related to mental health problems (Cowen et al., 1973), suicide (Stengel, 1971), dropping out of school (Ullman, 1957), and delinquency (Roff et al., 1972). Therefore, as Rutter (1975) has recommended, given the relationship between social competence with peers and mental health, researchers have begun to examine the nature of the social networks of children who vary in peer popularity and degree of social bonding. Recent research has confirmed, in part, that substantial distinctions can exist between popular and unpopular children (as one perspective in defining individual ditTerences in peer relations) in their type and quality of peer interaction. Benson and Gottman (1975) and Ladd (1983) have, for example, reported that popular and unpopular children ditTer in their interactions with peers and appear to form their own social subsystems. Benson and Gottman (1975) observed the interactions of popular and unpopular children in classroom settings and found that popular children were more likely to initiate and receive positive interactions from other popular peers and that unpopular children showed a preference for unpopular peers during neutral social bids. Likewise, Ladd (1983) found that rejected children, compared with popular and average children, were more likely to play in small groups with children who were younger and/or unpopular. Collec-

Children who arc socially isolated or rejected by other children arc considerahly more likely than other children to have psychiatric prohlems. Sociometricstudies(that is.studiesin whichchildren name those with whom they would most like and least like to play. sit. work. ctc.) show that youngsters with emotional or behavioral disorders are less likely to be chosen by other children as desirable companions and more likely to be named as an undesirable playmate .... The importance of these matters to the psychiatrist lies in the value of learning about a child's peer relationships as one indicator of social and psychological development. of appreciatingthe difficulties of the socially isolated child. of examining the possible influence of peer-group values in shaping the child's behavior and in the need to determine when it may be therapeutic to influence peer-group interactions and when children need specific help in gaining social skills (pp. 213-214). Received .Il1l1. 7. /li85. revised .·ll"~. I, 1985. accepted Aug. I:!. 1985. Dr. Roopnarinc is Assistant Professor or Child Studies and Education, S)'I'lI(,//s(' Univcrsitv, 51'I'lICII.I"£', N£'II' York /3:!10. Dr. Adams is Professor or Family wid IllImall D£'I'c/opm£'1II and Psychology, Utah State L'nivcrsitv. Logan, Utah 843:!:!. Reprints mar be requestedfrom Dr. Roopnarine. This research lI'as supported by the '" 'estern Regional Project '" '144 with fundingtrom tlic Science and Education Administrationf Coopcrutivc Research otthe USDA and Utah State UniversityAgricultural Expenmrnt Station. 0890-8567/87/2601-0028 $02.00/0 © 1987 by the AmericanAcad-

emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 28

29

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND SOCIOMETRIC STATUS

tively, these findings suggest a possible social segregation process associated with sociometric status within the peer group. Indeed, if this is the case, then unpopular children might be excluded from social interactions with their more popular peers who are supposedly more socialIy competent. This "social segregation" phenomenon could have serious implications for intervention strategies since some investigators (e.g., Putallaz and Gottman (I981a, 1981b» believe that improving a child's popularity might involve interactions with peers of higher status and more socialIy effective skills. However, given the dearth of information on the social networks of popular and unpopular preschool-age children in group settings, it is not clear whether the social segregation phenomenon is a stable one. (We found only one published study (Ladd, 1983) that dealt with the phenomenon of "socialsegregation" based on perceived peer status, and this study dealt with school-aged children.) Thus, it may be premature for a child psychiatrist or psychologist to offer a specific recommendation regarding specific peer-group experience intervention for unpopular or socialIy isolated children before further basic data on the interaction patterns and playmate preferences of popular and unpopular children are known. Placing unpopular children into a peer group that results in social segregation with other unpopular children may do little good for social skilI enhancement or emotional development. The present study, therefore, was designed to examine the potential existence of the reported social segregation phenomenon among preschool-aged children. This age group was chosen for two reasons. First, recent evidence indicates that preschool-aged children and young adolescents are most at risk for psychopathological consequences due to social isolation and withdrawal (Bettes and Walker, 1985). Second, there is a basic belief that the preschool years might be the best time to attenuate emerging maladaptive patterns of behaviors that can have long-term negative consequences (Gurian and Formanek, 1983). The focus on social segregation was undertaken because most psychiatric and social intervention programs stress the importance of assisting unpopular children through an integration process into peer groups where social bonding and skilI development can occur. Thus, our observations focused on the social interactions of high sociometric status children with other high, average, or low status peers; average sociometric status children's interactions with high, average, or low status peers; and low sociometric status children's interactions with high, average, and low status peers. Peer status was assessed through sociometric ratings, while playtime peer preferences were observed to determine the nature of children's involvement with each other as a function of peer status. A second goal of the present study was to consider some of the methodological problems of previous research on the interaction of high and low sociometric children. With few exceptions, past research has considered only the target child's sociometric status and his or her interactions with peers in general. As noted earlier, however, children display different patterns of interactions, depending on the sociometric status of their peers. Furthermore, in considering the social participation of high, average, and low status children, the number of intcractants in a given sociometric group that is available to each child may vary considerably within and across c1ass-

rooms. If so, then the social segregation observed among popular and average children in previous studies (e.g., Benson and Gottman (1975) and Ladd (1983» could be due to the greater availability of playmates who are assessed as popular and average compared with low status. The present study sought to rectify some of the limitations of previous research by considering the sociometric status of alI participants and controlIing for the availability of peers of different sociometric statuses during social encounters. Method Subjects

The participants were 60 children ranging in chronological age from 46 to 61 months enrolIed in three classrooms of a university-based preschool program. Classroom I had 10 boys and 10 girls (R 50-61 months; M = 57 months); classroom 2 had 9 boys and II girls (R = 46-60; M = 54 months); and classroom 3 had 9 boys and II girls (R = 49-61; M = 55 months). Five children were dropped from the study because of their high rate of absenteeism. AlI classrooms shared the same traditional child-centered philosophy. Moreover, alI classrooms had the same director. The children attended the preschool program 4 hours a day for 4 days a week. AlI of the teachers were women. The teacher-child ratio in alI three classrooms was 1:5.

Procedure Sociometric Rating. Each child was administered the Asher et al. (1979) sociometric task. Each child sorted a randomly mixed pile of photographs of their peers (from the shoulder up) under stylized drawing cards of "happy," "sad," and "neutral" faces which were verbalIy labeled as "liking to play with a whole bunch," "not at all," and "a little bit," respectively. Each child was presented one picture at a time and was asked to place it under a "happy," "sad," or "neutral" face to designate one of the above criteria. A "happy" face was given a score of 3 points, a "neutral" face a score of 2 points, and a "sad" face a score of I point. Test-retest reliability was conducted by administering the same task to 20 children 5 weeks later. Pearson correlations performed on the average scores children received from alI classmates revealed a significant test-retest coefficient (r = 0.84, p = 0.0 I). Other studies (Asher et al., 1979) have reported similar test-retest correlation coefficients for this sociometric task. Classification

of Children as

High. Average. and Low Sta-

tus. Classification of children into the three different groups was guided by recent work (e.g., Coie et al. (1982) and Ladd (1983». Children's average ratings were transformed into Z scores before group memberships were determined. Scores were transformed within classrooms and group classification made accordingly. High status children had Z scores that were greater than 1.00, average children had Z scores that ranged between -1.00 and 1.00, and low status children had Z scores that were less than -1.00 in each classroom. Classroom I had 6 high, 8 average, and 5 low status children; classroom 2 had 4 high, 10 average, and 2 low status children; and classroom 3 had 2 high, II average, and 7 low status children. The distribution of children in the three sociometric status groups is similar to those reported in other studies (Coie et al., 1982;

30

ROOPNARINE AND ADAMS

Ladd, 1983). There is a tendency for more children to fall into the average than either the popular or unpopular categories. Behavioral Observations. An observational system developed by Furman and Masters (1978) was modified and used to record children's behaviors. Each child was observed for three 6-second intervals at a time by having the observer move through the entire list before cycling back through the list again. After each 6-second interval, the observer spent 6 seconds recording the children's activities on a behavior checklist. One-hundred-twenty-four intervals of observation were made on each child over a 5-week period . After each interval of observation, the observer noted whether a target engaged in mutual interaction with or ignored the social bids of peers, and with whom the interaction occurred. The categories of behaviors defined below were selected because they have been shown to differentiate the interactions of popular from unpopular children (Benson and Gottman, 1975; Conger and Keane, 1981; Ladd, 1983; Wan lass and Prinz, 1982). I . Joint Positive Play. Includes interactive play smiling,

and laughing with, object exchanges during coordinated activities. 2. Fighting. Hitting that involved threats, insults, or yelling at peer. (Fights were quite rare (N = 5) during our observations, and no analysis was performed on this measure. The low incidence of fighting was probably due to the nature of the preschool program. Teachers provided close supervision over the children.) 3. Ignoring. Child ignores the social bids of peer to engage him or her in play activities by gaze aversion or moving away. 4. Social Conversation. Verbal interchanges in the absence of play activities-exchange of information, questions, discussions of television programs and trips .

lnterobserver Agreement. Three graduate assistants, who were blind to the purpose of the study or group membership of the children, shared responsibility for all observations. The observers were trained prior to the start of the study and observed until interobserver agreement on each measure reached 85%. Thereafter, interobserver agreements were checked at equal intervals throughout the study by having

pairs of observers simultaneously code 12% of the total observations across classrooms . Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of exact agreements by agreements plus disagreements for each child assessed for a given day. The percentages of agreement per child per day were averaged across all interobserver assessments. The agreements ranged from 70 to 100% with a X of 91.5%. Cohen's kappa (K) was also calculated to correct for chance agreements (Hollenbeck, 1978).One K statistic (0.80) was calculated across all behaviors. Data Analysis. Before an analysis of the playmate preferences of high, average, and low sociometric status children and the specific nature of their interactions with peers were computed, an adjustment had to be made on each child's interaction scores because the number of children in each of the status groups in each classroom varied. This was achieved by dividing each child's proportion of interaction with peers in each status group by the corresponding proportion of availability of peers in each status group in each classroom. (A similar adjustment was made to correct for the uneven distribution of interactions due to the unequal number of children who fell into each sociometric status group within classrooms.) Results To examine the patterns of social interaction and playmate preferences of the three groups of children, the adjusted scores were subjected to a 3 x 3 (Group x Status of Playmate) repeated measures analysis of variance. The adjusted mean scores for participation in joint positive play, engaging in general conversations, and ignoring peers' activities are presented in Table I. There was a significant group main effect for engaging in joint positive play (F (2, 44) = 3.82, p = 0.030). Post hoc analyses using Scheffe's test revealed that moderately popular children were more likely to engage in joint positive play (X = 11.82) than either popular (X = 4.99) or unpopular children (X = 4.58). The group main effects for engaging in general conversations and ignoring peers' activities were not statistically significant. There were significant playmate status main effects for engaging in joint positive play (F (2,88) = 5.04, p = 0.0004),

TABLE 1. Mean Adjusted Rates of Interaction by Group and Playmate Status Behaviors

Status

Joint Positive Play

Social Conversations

Popular with popular peers Popular with moderately popular peers Popular with unpopularpeers Moderately popular with popularpeers Moderately popular with moderately popular peers Moderately popular with unpopular peers Unpopular with popular peers Unpopular with moderately popular peers Unpopular with unpopularpeers

5.19 5.48 4.30 10.98 15.89

2.88 5.78 4.81 1.44 15.84

.00 1.87 5.25

8.59

1.29

.33

3.62 5.61

3.61 7.35

.00 2.88

4.50

4.62

1.55

Ignoring .34 1.18

31

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND SOCIOMETRIC STATUS

engaging in general conversations (F (2,88) = 24.18, p = 0.000 I), and ignoring peers' activities (F (2,88) = 8.66, p = 0.000 I). Post hoc analyses using Scheffe's test revealed different patterns of playmate preferences among the three groups of children. While popular and unpopular children distributed their interactions evenly across playmates in the three different sociometric groups, moderately popular children showed a good deal of within-group reciprocity. Moderately popular children were more likely to engage in joint positive play, general conversations, and to ignore the activities of peers who were similar in sociometric status. The playmate status main effect for general conversations was qualified by a significant higher order group by playmate status interaction effect (F(4,88) = 4.72, p = 0.002). Children who were moderately popular were more likely to converse with other children who were moderately popular than popular or unpopular. Discussion

Given the findings of previous research on social participation among children of varying sociometric statuses (e.g., Benson and Gottman (1976) and Ladd (1983» and the quest by child psychiatrists and clinical psychologists to develop effective intervention strategies to increase peer acceptance and to ameliorate the potential negative consequences of social isolation or poor social skill development, the present study examined the frequency and quality of children's social interactions in a preschool setting and the notion of "social segregation" based on sociometric status in classroom settings. Some evidence was found for a social segregation process, when adjustments were made as to the availability of playmates of differing sociometric status for each of the three classrooms. However, the findings differ somewhat from prior research. Social segregation was observed in this study for moderately popular or average status children. Not only did moderately popular children tend to segregate into social networks that included primarily other moderately popular children, but they also tended to be the children who engaged in the most joint positive play. As such, it is the moderately popular children who were found to provide the most positive play experiences for peers. This is particularly true for children of similar social status, where joint positive play was also accompanied by relatively high levels of social conversation. One additional noteworthy finding is that within the social segregation process, moderately popular children not only engaged in more joint positive play and more frequent social conversation, but they also showed the highest rate of ignoring behavior with similar social status peers. These findings might suggest that moderately popular children may not only experience more positive play experiences with their same status peers, but also may experience more difficulty in getting same status peer attention. Thus, moderately popular peers may not only have to work harder at getting attention for social bids with same status peers, but also may find it most rewarding when they are successful. Therefore, the challenge to succeed in getting a response to a social bid may be demanding, but the payoff in terms of social conversation and joint positive play may be equally rewarding. The finding regarding the social segregation (or within group play reciprocity) phenomenon is similar to observations

reported by other investigators (e.g., Benson and Gottman (1975». However, our findings sharply contrast with prior reports that indicate social segregation has been observed for popular and unpopular children. There are two possible reasons for the inconsistencies. First, among preschool-aged children, notions regarding popularity are not as consolidated as would be found among grade school children, due in part to the egocentric nature of preschoolers' social-cognitive understanding of peer relationships (see Shantz (1983) for a review). Therefore, as in Ladd's study, one would expect older children to have more well-defined conceptions regarding interpersonal relationships which in turn may influence the likelihood of social segregation. Second, researchers have typically examined the interactions of children at the extreme ends of the popularity continuum-those who are the most preferred and those who are the least preferred. Thus, little is known about the average or moderately popular group. But why were moderately popular children more likely to engage in joint positive play than either popular or unpopular children? One could speculate that it is possible that average status children, given their "middle ground" sociometric status, are better able to make the accommodative shifts necessary for social interactions with peers who are higher or lower than them in perceived sociometric status. Neither group is considerably above or below them in social status. Hence, they are in a good position to engage in play with a greater number of peers and might be approached more often by peers of varying sociometric statuses because their "middle ground" status might be perceived as less threatening than those of children who are more discrepant in status. The findings of this investigation suggest to those child psychiatrists and psychologists who serve as consultants to parent groups, or who use peer play groups to deal with social isolation or social skill development problems with young children, that positive peer experiences do not necessarily have to include interactions with only popular peers as has been occasionally assumed by some. Indeed, average social status children may be more acceptable and comfortable for the low status child to interact with initially. The status distinctions in a peer group may be less threatening and yet clearly positive for the unpopular, rejected, or socially isolated young child. These suggestions should be taken cautiously, however, until more is known about the nature of the social networks, social segregation, and interpersonal behaviors between children of different peer statuses in early childhood social play contexts. References Asher. S.. Odcn, S. & Gottman. J. (1977). Children's friendships in

school settings. In: Curren! Topics in Early Childhood Education. Vol. I. ed. G. Katz. Norwood. N. J.: Ablex. - - Singleton. L.. Tinsley. B. & Hymel. S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Develpm. Psychobiol.• 15:443-44. Ausubel, D. P. & Sullivan. E. V. (1970). Theory and Problems of Child Development, Ed. 2. New York: Grune & Stratton. Benson. G .. & Gottman. J. (1975). Children's popularity and peer social interaction. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana University. Bettes. B. A. & Walker. E. (1985). Positive and negative symptoms and syndromes in childhood psychosis. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. Toronto. Canada (April 25-28).

32

ROOPNARINE AND ADAMS

Coic. J .. Dodge. K. & Coppotclli. H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Devclpm. Psychobiol.. Ill:557-570. Conger. J . C & Keane. S. P. (1981). Social skills intervention in the treatment of isolated or withdrawn children. Psychol . BIIII.• 90:4711495 . Cowen. E.. Pederson. A.. Babigian, H. ct al. (1973). Long-term followup of early detected vulnerable children. J. COIlSIIII. Clin. Psycho!.. 4/. 4311-446. Furman. W. & Masters. J. (1978). in collaboration with D. Rahe & C. Berger. An observational manual for coding reinforcing. neutral. and punishing reactions among children. Minneapolis: Institute of Child Development. Gclccrd, E. R. (1967). TIll' Child Analyst at Work . New York : International Universities Press. Gurian. A. & Formanek. R. (1983). The Socially Competent Child. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin . Harlow. H. F. (1969). Age-mate or peer affectional system. In: Advanccs in the Studv of Behavior, vol, 2. ed. D. S, Lehrman. R. A. Hinde & E. Shaw. 'New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hartup. W. (1983). Peer relationships. In: Carmichael's Manual of Child PSl'clwlogl'. cd. E. M. Hetherington. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hildebrand. V. (19115). Guidin); Youni; Children. New York: Macmillan. Hollenbeck. A. R. (19711). Problems of reliability in observational research. In: Observing Behavior. Vol. 2. ed , G . P. Sackett. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Ladd. G . (19113). Social networks or popular. average. and rejected children in school settings. .vterrill-Palmer Quart.. 29:283-307. Nichols. M. (1984). Family Thcrupv: Concepts and Methods. New York : Gardner Press. Putallaz. M. & Gottman . J . (198Ia). Social skills and group acceptance. In: The Dcvelopmmt ot' Children's Friendships. ed . S. R. Asher & J. M. Gottman. New York : Cambridge University Press. - - - - (1911l b). An interactional model of children's entry into peer groups. Child Develpm .• 52:986-994. RoO: M.. Sells. S. B. & Golden. M. (1972). Social Adjustment and Pcrsonalitv Development in Children. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press. Rutter. M. (1975) . IIelpillg Troubled Children. New York: Plenum. Shantz. C (19113). Social cognition. In: Carmichael 's Manual ofChild P.I.l'dwlogl'. cd. J. Flavell & E. Markman. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Stengel. E. ( 1971). Suicide and Attempted Suicide. Middlesex. Eng .: Penguin. Suomi. S. & Harlow. H. F. (1975). The role and reason of peer relationships in Rhesus monkeys. In: Friendships and PI'('f Rclalions. cd. M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ullman. C. (1957). Teachers. peers and tests as predictors of adjustment. 1. Educ. Psychol., 48 :257-267 . Wanlass. R. L. & Prinz. R. J. (1982). Methodological issues in conceptualizing and treating childhood social isolation. Psychol. /JIIII . 92 :39-55 .