- Email: [email protected]
The relationship between temperament and social adjustment to peers
Early Childhood
Research
Quarterly,
3, 179-192
(1988)
The Relationship Between Temperament and Social Adjustment to Peers Nina
Y. Parker-Cohen University
of Utah
Richard
Q. Bell
University
of Virginia
In recent years, evidence has accumulated indicating that peer relations constitute an essential component of child development. Although investigators have explored a number of factors that affect peer relations, few have considered the impact of temperament. The present study investigated whether temperament is related to a child’s initial reactions to peers in a preschool setting and to changes in social behavior over time. The central hypotheses were confirmed: temperament was related to initial and later social behavior with peers. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.
Traditionally the psychological literature has stressed the importance of parent-child relations to the development of social and intellectual competencies in children. Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of peer relations. In recent years, however, evidence has accumulated indicating that peer relations may in fact constitute an essential contributor to child development (Hartup, 1977). A number of investigations have suggested that satisfactory peer relations are a significant factor influencing a child’s general level of adjustment. Lacking the opportunity to interact with peers, children may exhibit deficits in areas such as communication skills, modulating aggressive feelings, accommodating to social demands, and so forth (Lougee, Goldman, & Hartup, 1977). Although researchers have explored specific factors such as situational characteristics and social skills (Asher, Oden, & Gottman, 1977) that seem to be important determinants of the extent to which children will be successful with peers, few researchers have considered the effect of temperament characteristics on peer relations. Marcus, Chess, and Thomas (1972) found that individuality of temperament had a significant impact on the adaptation of young children to nursery Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Nina Parker-Cohen, ment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.
Depart179
180
Parker-Cohen
and Bell
school. The authors argued that participation in a nursery school program presented children with a variety of new demands from both adults and peers. Troublesome areas depended upon the temperament pattern characteristics of the child. A pilot study by Lewis (1977) explored the relationship between temperament in the home setting and children’s initial adjustment to peers in a preschool setting. The highly active and approaching children were strongly attracted to and active with both children and teachers, whereas the sensitive, low threshold children exhibited a pattern of isolation and social and physical restraint. A study by Billman and Mc,Devitt (1980) also examined patterns of peer interaction and temperament. Activity level, approach-withdrawal, intensity, distractibility, and sensory threshold were significantly correlated with behavioral measures of peer interaction obtained by direct observation. In addition, when temperament patterns were compared with behavioral measures, children with more difficult temperaments were found to exhibit more rough-and-tumble and aggressive play than those with easier temperaments. While both the Lewis (1977) and Billman and McDevitt (1980) studies demonstrate that some aspects of temperament are related to social behavior towards peers, they do not shed light on changes in social adjustment to peers over time. No follow-up data were collected in the Lewis study, and Billman and McDevitt conducted their study over three to five months without differentiating between initial and later social behavior. The purpose of the present investigation was to explore the ways that temperament may be related to a child’s initial reactions to peers upon entrance into a new preschool setting and to later social behavior towards peers. Studying initial responsiveness to peers is of particular interest for two reasons. First, initial experiences may be important in determining the course of subsequent experience. Second, entrance into preschool constitutes a novel and potentially stressful situation, and previous research has demonstrated that temperament may be significantly related to the quality of a child’s reactions to novelty and stress (Rutter, 1982). In addition to the theoretical implications of this study in determining the contribution of individual differences to the course of social development, there are also potentially important practical applications. If relationships among temperament, initial social responsiveness, and later social behaviors are found in this study and others, the findings may ultimately help parents and educators anticipate a child’s reaction to the preschool experience and thus aid in developing effective strategies for facilitating the child’s social adjustment. Partly replicating and extending the previously discussed studies, we focused on how temperament relates to (1) a child’s initial social responsiveness towards peers and (2) to changes in social responsiveness over time. It was hypothesized that children who score high on a temperament composite reflecting high activity, high approach, and low sensitivity would be rated
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
181
by teachers as more socially active toward peers than would children who score low on the temperament composite. We also expected that the three temperament constellations identified by Thomas, Chess, and Birch (1968) would be related to both initial and follow-up teacher ratings. It was expected that the difficult and slow-to-warm-up children would show significantly lower initial scores on teacher’s ratings of social adjustment than easy children. However, these group differences were expected to disappear over the course of time. METHOD Subjects
Preschool children from a small city in central Virginia were the subjects of this study. The city has diversified light industry and a state university. Directors in six local nursery schools were asked to participate in the study. All the directors discussed the project with their staff and 13 out of 16 teachers agreed to participate. Each participating teacher sent the parents of children in her classroom permission slips explaining the study. A total of 150 parents received the permission slips, and 104 of these parents consented to participate. Over the course of the study, none of the subjects was lost. The sample consisted of 52 Caucasian females and 52 Caucasian males ranging in age from 36 to 65 months (X=45 months). Using a modified version of the Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi (1964) prestige scale to index socioeconomic level, we found that 84 subjects were upper class, 20 were middle class, and one was lower class. Procedure
During the third week of the new school year (September, 1982), teachers were asked to complete the Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Rating Scale (Parker-Cohen, 1983) for each child participating in the study from her classroom. During the following month, parents filled out the Behavioral Style Questionnaire (McDevitt & Carey, 1978). Toward the end of the semester, in mid-December, teachers were once again asked to rate each child on the Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Scale. Measures The Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Scale. This scale was designed by the authors to assess the amount of peer interaction that a child engaged in and the child’s general level of adjustment in the preschool setting (see Appendix). The instrument consists of 14 items on which the teacher is required to rate the child on a scale from 1 to 5. In addition, there are two items that require a descriptive response from the teacher. Scoring the instrument takes about 10 min.
182
Parker-Cohen
and Bell
As this was the first time the instrument was employed, no data were available concerning the psychometric properties of the scale. A study was therefore undertaken to establish two aspects of the instrument’s reliability. The first assessment involved interrater reliability. Two independent samples were used. The first investigation was conducted in a Montessori classroom where two experienced teachers independently rated 11 children on the scale during the first two weeks of school. Using the SPSS subprogram for nonparametric correlations (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975), a Kendall rank-order statistic yielded a correlation coefficient of .78 (p = .OOl) between the two teachers. The second sample consisted of 20 children rated by two graduate-level student teachers after the first month of school. The Kendall coefficient yielded in this analysis was .80 (p = .OOl). The next step in investigating the characteristics of the scale was to determine whether the instrument demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. This analysis was conducted using the SPSS reliability program (Nie et al., 1975). The sample consisted of 100 children from six classrooms rated by their teachers. The result was an alpha coefficient of .77 (standardized item alpha = .78) for the full 16item scale. Although there is no formal method to determine the level of significance for this coefficient, it is generally considered that a coefficient of .70 or higher indicates satisfactory internal consistency for basic research (Nunnally, 1978). Temperament Measures. The instrument used to assess temperament in this study was the Behavioral Style Questionnaire developed by McDevitt and Carey (1978). The instrument was standardized on a sample of 304 children from suburban Philadelphia. The questionnaire is self-administered and can be filled out by parents in 20 to 30 min. Scoring takes about 15 min. The instrument was designed to assess temperament characteristics of children aged 3 to 7 years. The items are based on the observed behavioral functioning that reflects individual styles of coping with the environment. One hundred items were chosen by the authors to measure the nine temperament categories outlined by Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, and Korn (1963) in the New York longitudinal study. RESULTS
Each child in the sample was characterized by a temperament composite score in which the subscale scores for approach-withdrawal and sensory threshold were subtracted from the activity subscale score. The children were also characterized by a composite score for each application of the Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Scale. The score was calculated by combining values for the 14 items on the scale. The Pearson correlations between the temperament composite, the individual temperament subscales, and the initial and follow-up teacher ratings are shown in Table 1. The re-
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
183
to Peers
Table 1. Correlations Between the Temperament Composite, Individual Temperament Subscales, and Initial and Follow-Up Teacher Ratings Teacher Initial Temperament
composite
.20* .07 - .26**
AcIivityn Approach-withdrawalb ThresholdC
.Ol
Rating Follow-up .23** .15* - .26**
.03
* p-z.05 ** p< .Ol a High b High ’ High
activity = high level of activity. approach-withdrawal =greater threshold = low sensitivity.
tendency
to withdraw.
suits confirm the hypothesis that children who were high on the temperament composite would also be rated as more responsive toward their peers on both the initial rating, r= -20, p< .05; and on the follow-up rating, r= .23, p< .Ol). In addition, analyses of individual subscale scores showed that high levels of peer responsiveness on the initial and the follow-up ratings correlated with low withdrawal, r= - .26, p< .Ol, and r= - .26, p< .Ol, respectively. Children who were more active were also seen by teachers as being more socially responsive on the follow-up rating, r = .15, p< .05. The next set of analyses explored the relationship between a child’s temperament constellation group and the teacher ratings of peer responsiveness. Each child’s scores on the Behavioral Style Questionnaire subscales were plotted on a profile sheet. The children were then assigned by visual inspection to one of five temperament groups arranged on a continuum (difficult, intermediate high, slow-to-warm-up, intermediate low, and easy), using criteria outlined by McDevitt (1976). Children rated as difficult had two or more of the following traits that were more than one standard deviation above the mean: very active, arrhythmic, nonapproaching, slow to adapt, intense in reactions, and negative in mood. Intermediate highs exhibited some of these traits, but to a lesser degree. In the middle were the slow-towarm-up children who had a low activity level, were nonapproaching, slow to adapt, negative in mood, but mild in intensity. In between this group and the easy group were the intermediate lows. Easy children were rhythmic, approaching, adaptable, mild in intensity, and positive in mood. To ensure an adequate number of subjects in each group for statistical analyses, the difficult and intermediate high groups were combined, and the easy and intermediate low groups were combined. This procedure has been used in previous studies for similar purposes (Feinman & Lewis, 1982). The number of subjects in each temperament constellation group was as follows: easy = 78, difficult = 15, and slow-to-warm-up = 11.
184
Parker-Cohen
Table 2. Temperament Constallation Group Initial and Follow-Up Teacher Ratings
Means and Standard
lnilial Temoerament
Grow
Difficult Slow-to-warm-up Easy
.Y
50.53 45.18 52.61
and
Bell
Deviations
Follow-up
S-11 9.61 9.26 8.98
.Y 52.66 48.90 53.93
SLI 10.20 8.51 9.14
The means and standard deviations of each group on the initial and follow-up teacher ratings are shown in Table 2. An analysis of variance conducted among the three groups on the initial teacher ratings indicated that the groups were significantly different, F(2,lOl) =3.37, p = .03. Individual contrasts revealed that easy children were significantly more sociable than slow-to-warm-up children, t(101) = 2.56, p = .Ol . The analysis of variance conducted among the groups on the follow-up teacher ratings revealed that the groups were no longer significantly different from one another, F(2,lOl) = 1.45, p> .05. The individual contrasts among the groups were all nonsignificant as well. In addition, a series of I-tests revealed that changes from the initial to the follow-up ratings in each group were also nonsignificant. The next set of analyses explored the changes in teacher ratings of peer responsiveness over time. Following McCall and Appelbaum (1973), we need a multivariate analysis of variance to analyze the data from this repeatedmeasure design. The results were nonsignificant: for the group main effect, F(2,lOl) = 2.69, p> .05; and for group by time interaction, F(2.101) = .66, p> .05. However, as indicated by higher teacher ratings in all three groups, the time main effect revealed that the entire sample changed significantly, F(1,101)=5.90, p= .Ol. Finally, a chi-square analysis was conducted to assess any differences between the three temperament constellation groups and the direction of change (positive, negative, no change) from the initial to the follow-up teaching rating. The results indicated no significant relationship between group and change, X’(4) = 1.19, p > .05. The sample for age group comparisons consisted of 52 3-year-olds, 47 4-year-olds, and 5 5-year-olds. Because there were so few 5-year-olds, the analyses reported below compared only the 3- and the 4-year-old groups. The correlations between the temperament composite, the individual temperament subscales, and the initial and follow-up teacher ratings are shown in Table 3. The results indicate that only the 3-year-olds exhibited a significant positive relationship between the temperament composite and the initial teacher rating, r= .24, p .04. In addition, 3-year-olds who were less withdrawn were more socially responsive on the initial teacher rating, r = - .34, p = .006.
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
185
Table 3. Comparison Between 3-Year-Old and 4-Year-Old Correlations Temperament Composite, Individual Subscales, and Teacher Ratings Teacher Initial
on the
Rating
Follow-UD
3-Year-Olds .24’
Temperament composite Activity” Approach-withdrawalb Thresholdc
.03 - .34** .03
.I7 .09 - .21 .02
4-Yew-Olds Temperament composite Activitya Approach-withdrawalb Threshold’ * n b ’
p< .05 +* p< .Ol High activity = high level of activity. High approach-withdrawal = higher High threshold = low sensitivity.
.I8 .16 - .I3
.35** .30* - .32**
- .09
-.04
withdrawal.
The follow-up correlations indicate significant relationships only in the 4-year-old group. As can be seen in Table 3, the temperament composite is correlated with the teacher rating, r= .35, p = .008. Social responsiveness is related to high activity level, r = .30, p = .02; and to low withdrawal, r = - .32, p = .Ol. The next set of analyses compared age differences between the temperament constellation groups and the teacher ratings. The number of subjects in the 3-year-old groups were as follows: easy = 39, difficult = 8, and slowto-warm-up = 4. The means and standard deviations of each group on the initial and follow-up teacher ratings for 3- and 4-year-olds are shown in Table 4. An analysis of variance conducted on the initial ratings revealed a significant difference between the 3-year-old groups, F(2,49) = 4.96, p = .Ol. Individual contrasts showed that the easy and the slow-to-warm-up groups were significantly different, r(49) = 2.83, p = .007. No significant overall difference was found for the 4-year-old group on the initial rating, F(2,44) = .24, p> .05; and none of the individual contrasts was significant. The overall analysis of variance for 3-year-old follow-up teacher ratings was not significant, F(2,49) = 2.7 1, p > .05. However, it should still be noted that the individual contrast between the easy and the slow-to-warm-up groups was significant, ((49) = 2.29, p = .02. The 4-year-old follow-up ratings were not significantly different, and neither were any of the individual contrasts. A series of f-tests on changes from initial to follow-up ratings within each group found no significant changes for the 3- or 4-year-olds.
186
Parker-Cohen
and Bell
Table 4. Comparison Between 3- and 4-Year-Old Temperament Constellation Group Means and Standard Deviations on the Initial and Follow-Up Teacher Ratings Initial Temperament
Conslclinlion
Group
Follow-up
.Y
SD
.Y
SD
45.87 40.60 51.28
6.77 6.34 8.27
50.25 43.00 53.00
I I .58
55.85
IO.15
51.50
11.23
54.02
9.79
55.42 53.00 54.72
8.34 9.89 9.45
3-Year-Olds Difficult Slow-to-warm-up Easy
4.94 9.05
4-Year-Olds Difficult Slow-lo-warm-up Easy
Multivariate analyses of variance exploring changes in teacher ratings of peer responsiveness over time for 3-year-olds resulted in a significant group main effect, F(2,49) =4.05, p = .02; and a significant time main effect F(1,49) = 7.52, p = .008. However, the interaction was not significant, F(2.49) = .70, p> .05. The same analyses for the 4-year-olds were all nonsignificant. In light of the above findings indicating important age group differences, further analyses were conducted to clarify the above results. One variable that might mediate age group differences would be previous peer group experience in a preschool setting. A chi-square analysis between age and experience revealed a significant relationship between the two variables, X2(6) = 42.20, p< .OOl. Twenty-eight 3-year-olds had no previous experience, 24 had one year of experience, and none of the 3-year-olds had two years of experience. This is contrasted with 11 4-year-olds with no previous experience, 25 with one year of experience, and 11 with two years of experience. To explore the possibility that heterogeneity relative to previous experience might affect the relationship between the teacher ratings and temperament, Pearson Product Moment correlations were computed between the teacher ratings and the temperament composite for 3- and 4-year-olds with no previous experience. In Table 5 the correlations obtained in the previous correlational analysis are compared to the present analysis that restricts the sample to those without previous experience. The results indicate that previous experience mediates the relationship between peer responsiveness and temperament and that it partly explains the age differences that emerged in this relationship in previous analyses. In every case, the magnitude of the correlations increased when the samples were restricted to those without previous experience.
Temperament
and Social
Table 5. Correlations for 3- and 4-Year-Olds
Adjustment
to Peers
187
Between the Temperament Composite and Teacher Ratings With and Without Previous Peer Experience Teacher Rating
r: not
controlling
for
previous
3-year-olds 4-year-olds r: no previous 3-year-olds 4-year-olds * p<
.05
Initial
Follow-up
.24* .I8
.I7
.52**
.36* .53*
experience .35**
experience .27 +* p<
.Ol
Only one significant sex difference and two socioeconomic status differences appeared in twelve contrasts. The number of differences is so near chance levels that they are not reported. The pattern of relationships for the variables involved indicated that neither sex nor socioeconomic status differences could have mediated the relations between temperament and teacher ratings. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether temperament is related to childrens’ initial reactions to peers in a new preschool setting and to changes in social behavior over time. On the basis of previous research findings (Billman & McDevitt, 1980; Lewis, 1977), we predicted that children with high scores on a temperament composite reflecting high activity, high approach, and low sensitivity (threshold) would be more socially responsive toward peers than would children with low composite scores. This hypothesis was confirmed. Of particular interest were the findings that emerged when the individual temperament scales that composed the composite were analyzed. The results indicated that only the approach-withdrawal scale was significantly related to the initial teacher ratings; children who were more approaching, as rated by parents, were rated by teachers as more socially responsive toward peers. On most of the items on this temperament scale, parents were asked to assess how the child typically responds to new persons, places, and things. The follow-up teacher ratings of peer responsiveness showed a relationship to both the activity and approach-withdrawal scales. One explanation for the failure of the activity scale to show a relationship to the initial ratings, and then to emerge as a significant factor on the follow-up rating, could be
188
Parker-Cohen
and
Bell
that activity level was depressed in response to novelty or stress (Bolles, 1970). Because entrance into preschool is a novel situation, we would expect children to initially exhibit low activity levels. However, as the children become more familiar with school and feel comfortable, differences in activity levels among children should become more apparent. The finding that threshold did not relate to either the initial or the followup ratings raises the possibility that this dimension of temperament is not an important contributor to peer relations. However, this seems unlikely in light of previous findings. One possibility is that the threshold scale may not be a reliable measure of the temperament construct it purports to measure, thus leading to erratic results from one study to another. The results of the normative study for the Behavioral Style Questionnaire (McDevitt & Carey, 1978) lend support to this explanation. The authors report that the threshold scale had both the lowest retest stability (.67-corrected with the K-20 formula) and the lowest alpha coefficient (.47) of all the scales on the instrument, indicating psychometric difficulties that limit the utility of the scale. Further support for the role of temperament in mediating initial adjustment to peers comes from the relationship between the temperament constellation groups and peer relations. As expected, the three groups initially showed significant differences in social responsiveness to peers. Easy children were the most responsive, difficult children were intermediate, and slow-to-warm-up children were the least responsive. However, over the course of time these differences between the groups were no longer significant. Significant age group differences emerged in the relationship between temperament and peer relations. Correlational analyses revealed that, whereas the temperament composite was related to the initial teacher ratings for 3-year-olds, it was only related to the follow-up rating for 4-year-olds. The key to understanding this differential pattern lies in the fact that the groups differed in the amount of previous peer group experience: the older children had more experience than the younger ones. Since the 3-year-olds had less experience with peers, we can assume that entrance into school and interaction with peers was a more novel experience for them than for the older children. This interpretation is supported by the fact that, of the three scales composing the temperament composite, only the approach-withdrawal scale (measuring response to novelty) was significantly related to the initial teacher rating for 3-year-olds. Over the course of time, as the children became familiar with their peers, this scale (and the composite) was no longer significantly related to the teacher ratings. Entrance into school appears to be a less novel experience for the older children, as indicated by the lack of a relationship between the initial teacher ratings and the approach-withdrawal scale. It is somewhat surprising that this scale should emerge as a significant part of the relationship between
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
189
temperament and peer responsiveness on the follow-up ratings for older children. The explanation for this is unclear. If confirmed in further research and if the predictive power reaches a level that permits practical application, the finding of a relationship between temperament and peer relations had important implications for parents and teachers of young children. Knowledge of temperament and sensitivity to it could help parents and educators anticipate a child’s reactions to the preschool experience and thus aid in developing effective strategies for facilitating social adjustment. The present study demonstrates that temperament had a particularly important role in determining childrens’ initial reactions to the social environment in a preschool setting. However, differences among children with varying temperament patterns tended to disappear over time. One of the issues that needs to be addressed in future research is the process of change, specifically what aspects of the environment interact with temperament to determine how the child adapts to school and peers. For example, preschools guided by different educational philosophies might also differ with respect to the social environment created in the classroom. In the present study, we did not consider the effect of program structure and the way that this aspect of the environment interacts with temperament. An investigation such as this would have important theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, it would shed light on the nature of interaction between temperament and environment. Thomas and Chess (1977) have consistently emphasized this interactive process as the key to understanding development. This notion, which they have labeled “goodness-of-fit,” is a central feature in their theory of temperament.
REFERENCES Asher,
S.. Oden, S., & Gottman, J. (1977). Children’s friendships in school settings. In L. Katz (Ed.), Curre,r/ lopics iu ear/>~ childhood edltca!ion (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Billman, J.. & McDevitt, S. (1980). Convergence of parent and observer ratings of temperament with observations of peer interaction in nursery school. Child Developmen/, 51, 395-400.
Belles,
R. (1970). Revielv,
Feinman,
Species-specific
defense
reactions
and
avoidance
learning.
Psychological
77, 32-48.
S., & Lewis, M. (1982, March). Infan/ temperament and social referencing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Austin, TX. Hartup, W. (1977). Peer relations: Developmental implications and interaction in same- and cross-age situations. Young Children, 32, 4-13. Hodge, R.W., Siegel, P.M., & Rossi, P.H. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 70, 268-292. Lewis, J. (1977). The relation of individual temperament to initial social behavior, In R.C. Smart & M.S. Smart (Eds.). Readings in child developrneni and relationships. New York: Macmillan.
Parker-Cohen
190
Lougee.
M.. Goldman, J.. & Hartup. W. (1977. March). Gronp social behavior of children. Paper presented at the biennial Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA.
co/rrposi/io!r: Effec/s on rhe meetings of the Sociely for
Marcus,
J.. Chess, S.. & Thomas, A. (1972). TemperamenIal individuality in group young children. Ear1.v Child Developtnenr and Care, 1. 313-330. McCall, R., & Appelbaum, M.K. (1973). Bias in the analysis of repeated-measures Some
alternative approaches. McDevirt, S. (1976). A longitudinal cl~aracreritricsfrotrt infancy
care of designs:
Child Developtnent, 44. 401-415. assesstnent q/ conrinuitv and stability in retnperatnenral to ear/y childhood. Unpublished dissertation. Temple Uni-
versity. S., & Carey, W. (1978). The measurement of temperament Journal of Child Psvcho1og.v and Psychiatry, 19, 245-253. N., Hull. H., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., &Bent. D. (1975).
McDevitt, Nie,
and Bell
in 3-7-year-old
children.
Stafis!icalpackageforrhe
social
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psvchottrerric lheorv (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Parker-Cohen, N. (1983). The e/feel of letnperatnent on peer relations. Unpublished dissertalion, University of Virginia. Rutter. M. (1982). Temperament: Concepts, issues and problems. In R. Porter & M. Collins Thomas, Thomas, Thomas,
(Eds.), Tetnperatnenlal dijferences in infants and .voung children. London: Pitman. A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. A., Chess, S.. & Birch, H. (1968). Tetnperatnenr and behavior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press. A., Chess, S., Birch, H.. Hertzig, M., Ear/r Childhood. New York: New York
& Korn, University
S. (1963). Press.
Eeliaviora/Individua/if.v
in
A PPEND IX The Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment
Name of rater Child’s birthdate
Scale
Child’s name Date completed
Child’s prior school experience This questionnaire is designed to gather information on the child’s responses to the preschool peer group. Each question asks you to judge the child’s standing on a continuum of 5 points. Please try to make these judgments to the best of your ability, based on how you think this child compares to ofher children in the classroom.
In relation to the other children, circle the number which best reflects your estimate of how frequently a child engages in the following: 1. Occupied in isolated activity very frequently sometimes 5 4 3 2. Watching peers but not participating sometimes very frequently 5 4 3
2
very infrequently 1
2
very infrequently 1
Temperament
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. 12.
13.
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
191
Interacting with peers very frequently sometimes very infrequently 5 4 3 2 1 Interacting with teachers sometimes very frequently very infrequently 5 4 3 2 1 How curious and exploratory is this child with respect to the physical environment and objects in the classroom? very exploratory average little exploration 5 4 3 2 1 How frequently does the child seek out and initiate interactions with peers? very frequently sometimes very infrequently 5 4 3 2 1 How does the child usually respond when approached by a peer? positive: neutral: negative: withdraws or doesn’t engages in activity sometimes engages sometimes withdraws respond to peer with peer 4 3 2 1 5 How interesting or attractive would you say this child is to his or her peers? very interesting neutral very uninteresting 5 4 3 2 1 a. If you circled numbers 4 or 5 above, what do you think makes this child interesting to his or her peers? b. If you circled numbers 1 or 2 above, what do you think makes this child uninteresting to his or her peers? Rate how well you expect this child’s social adjustment to be over the course of the school year. very satisfactory satisfactory very unsatisfactory 2 1 5 4 3 How would you rate the child’s predominant mood? average very negative very positive 3 2 1 5 4 How would you rate the child’s level of physical activity? average very inactive very active 5 4 3 2 1 How quickly do you think this child will become adjusted to school in general? average slowly quickly 2 1 5 4 3 How comfortable does the child generally seem to be at school? average very uncomfortable very comfortable 5 4 3 2 1
Parker-Cohen
192
14.
and
Bell
How would you characterize the child’s typical interaction with peers? mixed: negative: positive: cooperative uncooperative 5 4 3 2 1
Additional
comments:
Research
Quarterly,
3, 179-192
(1988)
The Relationship Between Temperament and Social Adjustment to Peers Nina
Y. Parker-Cohen University
of Utah
Richard
Q. Bell
University
of Virginia
In recent years, evidence has accumulated indicating that peer relations constitute an essential component of child development. Although investigators have explored a number of factors that affect peer relations, few have considered the impact of temperament. The present study investigated whether temperament is related to a child’s initial reactions to peers in a preschool setting and to changes in social behavior over time. The central hypotheses were confirmed: temperament was related to initial and later social behavior with peers. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed.
Traditionally the psychological literature has stressed the importance of parent-child relations to the development of social and intellectual competencies in children. Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of peer relations. In recent years, however, evidence has accumulated indicating that peer relations may in fact constitute an essential contributor to child development (Hartup, 1977). A number of investigations have suggested that satisfactory peer relations are a significant factor influencing a child’s general level of adjustment. Lacking the opportunity to interact with peers, children may exhibit deficits in areas such as communication skills, modulating aggressive feelings, accommodating to social demands, and so forth (Lougee, Goldman, & Hartup, 1977). Although researchers have explored specific factors such as situational characteristics and social skills (Asher, Oden, & Gottman, 1977) that seem to be important determinants of the extent to which children will be successful with peers, few researchers have considered the effect of temperament characteristics on peer relations. Marcus, Chess, and Thomas (1972) found that individuality of temperament had a significant impact on the adaptation of young children to nursery Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Nina Parker-Cohen, ment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.
Depart179
180
Parker-Cohen
and Bell
school. The authors argued that participation in a nursery school program presented children with a variety of new demands from both adults and peers. Troublesome areas depended upon the temperament pattern characteristics of the child. A pilot study by Lewis (1977) explored the relationship between temperament in the home setting and children’s initial adjustment to peers in a preschool setting. The highly active and approaching children were strongly attracted to and active with both children and teachers, whereas the sensitive, low threshold children exhibited a pattern of isolation and social and physical restraint. A study by Billman and Mc,Devitt (1980) also examined patterns of peer interaction and temperament. Activity level, approach-withdrawal, intensity, distractibility, and sensory threshold were significantly correlated with behavioral measures of peer interaction obtained by direct observation. In addition, when temperament patterns were compared with behavioral measures, children with more difficult temperaments were found to exhibit more rough-and-tumble and aggressive play than those with easier temperaments. While both the Lewis (1977) and Billman and McDevitt (1980) studies demonstrate that some aspects of temperament are related to social behavior towards peers, they do not shed light on changes in social adjustment to peers over time. No follow-up data were collected in the Lewis study, and Billman and McDevitt conducted their study over three to five months without differentiating between initial and later social behavior. The purpose of the present investigation was to explore the ways that temperament may be related to a child’s initial reactions to peers upon entrance into a new preschool setting and to later social behavior towards peers. Studying initial responsiveness to peers is of particular interest for two reasons. First, initial experiences may be important in determining the course of subsequent experience. Second, entrance into preschool constitutes a novel and potentially stressful situation, and previous research has demonstrated that temperament may be significantly related to the quality of a child’s reactions to novelty and stress (Rutter, 1982). In addition to the theoretical implications of this study in determining the contribution of individual differences to the course of social development, there are also potentially important practical applications. If relationships among temperament, initial social responsiveness, and later social behaviors are found in this study and others, the findings may ultimately help parents and educators anticipate a child’s reaction to the preschool experience and thus aid in developing effective strategies for facilitating the child’s social adjustment. Partly replicating and extending the previously discussed studies, we focused on how temperament relates to (1) a child’s initial social responsiveness towards peers and (2) to changes in social responsiveness over time. It was hypothesized that children who score high on a temperament composite reflecting high activity, high approach, and low sensitivity would be rated
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
181
by teachers as more socially active toward peers than would children who score low on the temperament composite. We also expected that the three temperament constellations identified by Thomas, Chess, and Birch (1968) would be related to both initial and follow-up teacher ratings. It was expected that the difficult and slow-to-warm-up children would show significantly lower initial scores on teacher’s ratings of social adjustment than easy children. However, these group differences were expected to disappear over the course of time. METHOD Subjects
Preschool children from a small city in central Virginia were the subjects of this study. The city has diversified light industry and a state university. Directors in six local nursery schools were asked to participate in the study. All the directors discussed the project with their staff and 13 out of 16 teachers agreed to participate. Each participating teacher sent the parents of children in her classroom permission slips explaining the study. A total of 150 parents received the permission slips, and 104 of these parents consented to participate. Over the course of the study, none of the subjects was lost. The sample consisted of 52 Caucasian females and 52 Caucasian males ranging in age from 36 to 65 months (X=45 months). Using a modified version of the Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi (1964) prestige scale to index socioeconomic level, we found that 84 subjects were upper class, 20 were middle class, and one was lower class. Procedure
During the third week of the new school year (September, 1982), teachers were asked to complete the Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Rating Scale (Parker-Cohen, 1983) for each child participating in the study from her classroom. During the following month, parents filled out the Behavioral Style Questionnaire (McDevitt & Carey, 1978). Toward the end of the semester, in mid-December, teachers were once again asked to rate each child on the Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Scale. Measures The Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Scale. This scale was designed by the authors to assess the amount of peer interaction that a child engaged in and the child’s general level of adjustment in the preschool setting (see Appendix). The instrument consists of 14 items on which the teacher is required to rate the child on a scale from 1 to 5. In addition, there are two items that require a descriptive response from the teacher. Scoring the instrument takes about 10 min.
182
Parker-Cohen
and Bell
As this was the first time the instrument was employed, no data were available concerning the psychometric properties of the scale. A study was therefore undertaken to establish two aspects of the instrument’s reliability. The first assessment involved interrater reliability. Two independent samples were used. The first investigation was conducted in a Montessori classroom where two experienced teachers independently rated 11 children on the scale during the first two weeks of school. Using the SPSS subprogram for nonparametric correlations (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975), a Kendall rank-order statistic yielded a correlation coefficient of .78 (p = .OOl) between the two teachers. The second sample consisted of 20 children rated by two graduate-level student teachers after the first month of school. The Kendall coefficient yielded in this analysis was .80 (p = .OOl). The next step in investigating the characteristics of the scale was to determine whether the instrument demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. This analysis was conducted using the SPSS reliability program (Nie et al., 1975). The sample consisted of 100 children from six classrooms rated by their teachers. The result was an alpha coefficient of .77 (standardized item alpha = .78) for the full 16item scale. Although there is no formal method to determine the level of significance for this coefficient, it is generally considered that a coefficient of .70 or higher indicates satisfactory internal consistency for basic research (Nunnally, 1978). Temperament Measures. The instrument used to assess temperament in this study was the Behavioral Style Questionnaire developed by McDevitt and Carey (1978). The instrument was standardized on a sample of 304 children from suburban Philadelphia. The questionnaire is self-administered and can be filled out by parents in 20 to 30 min. Scoring takes about 15 min. The instrument was designed to assess temperament characteristics of children aged 3 to 7 years. The items are based on the observed behavioral functioning that reflects individual styles of coping with the environment. One hundred items were chosen by the authors to measure the nine temperament categories outlined by Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig, and Korn (1963) in the New York longitudinal study. RESULTS
Each child in the sample was characterized by a temperament composite score in which the subscale scores for approach-withdrawal and sensory threshold were subtracted from the activity subscale score. The children were also characterized by a composite score for each application of the Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment Scale. The score was calculated by combining values for the 14 items on the scale. The Pearson correlations between the temperament composite, the individual temperament subscales, and the initial and follow-up teacher ratings are shown in Table 1. The re-
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
183
to Peers
Table 1. Correlations Between the Temperament Composite, Individual Temperament Subscales, and Initial and Follow-Up Teacher Ratings Teacher Initial Temperament
composite
.20* .07 - .26**
AcIivityn Approach-withdrawalb ThresholdC
.Ol
Rating Follow-up .23** .15* - .26**
.03
* p-z.05 ** p< .Ol a High b High ’ High
activity = high level of activity. approach-withdrawal =greater threshold = low sensitivity.
tendency
to withdraw.
suits confirm the hypothesis that children who were high on the temperament composite would also be rated as more responsive toward their peers on both the initial rating, r= -20, p< .05; and on the follow-up rating, r= .23, p< .Ol). In addition, analyses of individual subscale scores showed that high levels of peer responsiveness on the initial and the follow-up ratings correlated with low withdrawal, r= - .26, p< .Ol, and r= - .26, p< .Ol, respectively. Children who were more active were also seen by teachers as being more socially responsive on the follow-up rating, r = .15, p< .05. The next set of analyses explored the relationship between a child’s temperament constellation group and the teacher ratings of peer responsiveness. Each child’s scores on the Behavioral Style Questionnaire subscales were plotted on a profile sheet. The children were then assigned by visual inspection to one of five temperament groups arranged on a continuum (difficult, intermediate high, slow-to-warm-up, intermediate low, and easy), using criteria outlined by McDevitt (1976). Children rated as difficult had two or more of the following traits that were more than one standard deviation above the mean: very active, arrhythmic, nonapproaching, slow to adapt, intense in reactions, and negative in mood. Intermediate highs exhibited some of these traits, but to a lesser degree. In the middle were the slow-towarm-up children who had a low activity level, were nonapproaching, slow to adapt, negative in mood, but mild in intensity. In between this group and the easy group were the intermediate lows. Easy children were rhythmic, approaching, adaptable, mild in intensity, and positive in mood. To ensure an adequate number of subjects in each group for statistical analyses, the difficult and intermediate high groups were combined, and the easy and intermediate low groups were combined. This procedure has been used in previous studies for similar purposes (Feinman & Lewis, 1982). The number of subjects in each temperament constellation group was as follows: easy = 78, difficult = 15, and slow-to-warm-up = 11.
184
Parker-Cohen
Table 2. Temperament Constallation Group Initial and Follow-Up Teacher Ratings
Means and Standard
lnilial Temoerament
Grow
Difficult Slow-to-warm-up Easy
.Y
50.53 45.18 52.61
and
Bell
Deviations
Follow-up
S-11 9.61 9.26 8.98
.Y 52.66 48.90 53.93
SLI 10.20 8.51 9.14
The means and standard deviations of each group on the initial and follow-up teacher ratings are shown in Table 2. An analysis of variance conducted among the three groups on the initial teacher ratings indicated that the groups were significantly different, F(2,lOl) =3.37, p = .03. Individual contrasts revealed that easy children were significantly more sociable than slow-to-warm-up children, t(101) = 2.56, p = .Ol . The analysis of variance conducted among the groups on the follow-up teacher ratings revealed that the groups were no longer significantly different from one another, F(2,lOl) = 1.45, p> .05. The individual contrasts among the groups were all nonsignificant as well. In addition, a series of I-tests revealed that changes from the initial to the follow-up ratings in each group were also nonsignificant. The next set of analyses explored the changes in teacher ratings of peer responsiveness over time. Following McCall and Appelbaum (1973), we need a multivariate analysis of variance to analyze the data from this repeatedmeasure design. The results were nonsignificant: for the group main effect, F(2,lOl) = 2.69, p> .05; and for group by time interaction, F(2.101) = .66, p> .05. However, as indicated by higher teacher ratings in all three groups, the time main effect revealed that the entire sample changed significantly, F(1,101)=5.90, p= .Ol. Finally, a chi-square analysis was conducted to assess any differences between the three temperament constellation groups and the direction of change (positive, negative, no change) from the initial to the follow-up teaching rating. The results indicated no significant relationship between group and change, X’(4) = 1.19, p > .05. The sample for age group comparisons consisted of 52 3-year-olds, 47 4-year-olds, and 5 5-year-olds. Because there were so few 5-year-olds, the analyses reported below compared only the 3- and the 4-year-old groups. The correlations between the temperament composite, the individual temperament subscales, and the initial and follow-up teacher ratings are shown in Table 3. The results indicate that only the 3-year-olds exhibited a significant positive relationship between the temperament composite and the initial teacher rating, r= .24, p .04. In addition, 3-year-olds who were less withdrawn were more socially responsive on the initial teacher rating, r = - .34, p = .006.
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
185
Table 3. Comparison Between 3-Year-Old and 4-Year-Old Correlations Temperament Composite, Individual Subscales, and Teacher Ratings Teacher Initial
on the
Rating
Follow-UD
3-Year-Olds .24’
Temperament composite Activity” Approach-withdrawalb Thresholdc
.03 - .34** .03
.I7 .09 - .21 .02
4-Yew-Olds Temperament composite Activitya Approach-withdrawalb Threshold’ * n b ’
p< .05 +* p< .Ol High activity = high level of activity. High approach-withdrawal = higher High threshold = low sensitivity.
.I8 .16 - .I3
.35** .30* - .32**
- .09
-.04
withdrawal.
The follow-up correlations indicate significant relationships only in the 4-year-old group. As can be seen in Table 3, the temperament composite is correlated with the teacher rating, r= .35, p = .008. Social responsiveness is related to high activity level, r = .30, p = .02; and to low withdrawal, r = - .32, p = .Ol. The next set of analyses compared age differences between the temperament constellation groups and the teacher ratings. The number of subjects in the 3-year-old groups were as follows: easy = 39, difficult = 8, and slowto-warm-up = 4. The means and standard deviations of each group on the initial and follow-up teacher ratings for 3- and 4-year-olds are shown in Table 4. An analysis of variance conducted on the initial ratings revealed a significant difference between the 3-year-old groups, F(2,49) = 4.96, p = .Ol. Individual contrasts showed that the easy and the slow-to-warm-up groups were significantly different, r(49) = 2.83, p = .007. No significant overall difference was found for the 4-year-old group on the initial rating, F(2,44) = .24, p> .05; and none of the individual contrasts was significant. The overall analysis of variance for 3-year-old follow-up teacher ratings was not significant, F(2,49) = 2.7 1, p > .05. However, it should still be noted that the individual contrast between the easy and the slow-to-warm-up groups was significant, ((49) = 2.29, p = .02. The 4-year-old follow-up ratings were not significantly different, and neither were any of the individual contrasts. A series of f-tests on changes from initial to follow-up ratings within each group found no significant changes for the 3- or 4-year-olds.
186
Parker-Cohen
and Bell
Table 4. Comparison Between 3- and 4-Year-Old Temperament Constellation Group Means and Standard Deviations on the Initial and Follow-Up Teacher Ratings Initial Temperament
Conslclinlion
Group
Follow-up
.Y
SD
.Y
SD
45.87 40.60 51.28
6.77 6.34 8.27
50.25 43.00 53.00
I I .58
55.85
IO.15
51.50
11.23
54.02
9.79
55.42 53.00 54.72
8.34 9.89 9.45
3-Year-Olds Difficult Slow-to-warm-up Easy
4.94 9.05
4-Year-Olds Difficult Slow-lo-warm-up Easy
Multivariate analyses of variance exploring changes in teacher ratings of peer responsiveness over time for 3-year-olds resulted in a significant group main effect, F(2,49) =4.05, p = .02; and a significant time main effect F(1,49) = 7.52, p = .008. However, the interaction was not significant, F(2.49) = .70, p> .05. The same analyses for the 4-year-olds were all nonsignificant. In light of the above findings indicating important age group differences, further analyses were conducted to clarify the above results. One variable that might mediate age group differences would be previous peer group experience in a preschool setting. A chi-square analysis between age and experience revealed a significant relationship between the two variables, X2(6) = 42.20, p< .OOl. Twenty-eight 3-year-olds had no previous experience, 24 had one year of experience, and none of the 3-year-olds had two years of experience. This is contrasted with 11 4-year-olds with no previous experience, 25 with one year of experience, and 11 with two years of experience. To explore the possibility that heterogeneity relative to previous experience might affect the relationship between the teacher ratings and temperament, Pearson Product Moment correlations were computed between the teacher ratings and the temperament composite for 3- and 4-year-olds with no previous experience. In Table 5 the correlations obtained in the previous correlational analysis are compared to the present analysis that restricts the sample to those without previous experience. The results indicate that previous experience mediates the relationship between peer responsiveness and temperament and that it partly explains the age differences that emerged in this relationship in previous analyses. In every case, the magnitude of the correlations increased when the samples were restricted to those without previous experience.
Temperament
and Social
Table 5. Correlations for 3- and 4-Year-Olds
Adjustment
to Peers
187
Between the Temperament Composite and Teacher Ratings With and Without Previous Peer Experience Teacher Rating
r: not
controlling
for
previous
3-year-olds 4-year-olds r: no previous 3-year-olds 4-year-olds * p<
.05
Initial
Follow-up
.24* .I8
.I7
.52**
.36* .53*
experience .35**
experience .27 +* p<
.Ol
Only one significant sex difference and two socioeconomic status differences appeared in twelve contrasts. The number of differences is so near chance levels that they are not reported. The pattern of relationships for the variables involved indicated that neither sex nor socioeconomic status differences could have mediated the relations between temperament and teacher ratings. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether temperament is related to childrens’ initial reactions to peers in a new preschool setting and to changes in social behavior over time. On the basis of previous research findings (Billman & McDevitt, 1980; Lewis, 1977), we predicted that children with high scores on a temperament composite reflecting high activity, high approach, and low sensitivity (threshold) would be more socially responsive toward peers than would children with low composite scores. This hypothesis was confirmed. Of particular interest were the findings that emerged when the individual temperament scales that composed the composite were analyzed. The results indicated that only the approach-withdrawal scale was significantly related to the initial teacher ratings; children who were more approaching, as rated by parents, were rated by teachers as more socially responsive toward peers. On most of the items on this temperament scale, parents were asked to assess how the child typically responds to new persons, places, and things. The follow-up teacher ratings of peer responsiveness showed a relationship to both the activity and approach-withdrawal scales. One explanation for the failure of the activity scale to show a relationship to the initial ratings, and then to emerge as a significant factor on the follow-up rating, could be
188
Parker-Cohen
and
Bell
that activity level was depressed in response to novelty or stress (Bolles, 1970). Because entrance into preschool is a novel situation, we would expect children to initially exhibit low activity levels. However, as the children become more familiar with school and feel comfortable, differences in activity levels among children should become more apparent. The finding that threshold did not relate to either the initial or the followup ratings raises the possibility that this dimension of temperament is not an important contributor to peer relations. However, this seems unlikely in light of previous findings. One possibility is that the threshold scale may not be a reliable measure of the temperament construct it purports to measure, thus leading to erratic results from one study to another. The results of the normative study for the Behavioral Style Questionnaire (McDevitt & Carey, 1978) lend support to this explanation. The authors report that the threshold scale had both the lowest retest stability (.67-corrected with the K-20 formula) and the lowest alpha coefficient (.47) of all the scales on the instrument, indicating psychometric difficulties that limit the utility of the scale. Further support for the role of temperament in mediating initial adjustment to peers comes from the relationship between the temperament constellation groups and peer relations. As expected, the three groups initially showed significant differences in social responsiveness to peers. Easy children were the most responsive, difficult children were intermediate, and slow-to-warm-up children were the least responsive. However, over the course of time these differences between the groups were no longer significant. Significant age group differences emerged in the relationship between temperament and peer relations. Correlational analyses revealed that, whereas the temperament composite was related to the initial teacher ratings for 3-year-olds, it was only related to the follow-up rating for 4-year-olds. The key to understanding this differential pattern lies in the fact that the groups differed in the amount of previous peer group experience: the older children had more experience than the younger ones. Since the 3-year-olds had less experience with peers, we can assume that entrance into school and interaction with peers was a more novel experience for them than for the older children. This interpretation is supported by the fact that, of the three scales composing the temperament composite, only the approach-withdrawal scale (measuring response to novelty) was significantly related to the initial teacher rating for 3-year-olds. Over the course of time, as the children became familiar with their peers, this scale (and the composite) was no longer significantly related to the teacher ratings. Entrance into school appears to be a less novel experience for the older children, as indicated by the lack of a relationship between the initial teacher ratings and the approach-withdrawal scale. It is somewhat surprising that this scale should emerge as a significant part of the relationship between
Temperament
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
189
temperament and peer responsiveness on the follow-up ratings for older children. The explanation for this is unclear. If confirmed in further research and if the predictive power reaches a level that permits practical application, the finding of a relationship between temperament and peer relations had important implications for parents and teachers of young children. Knowledge of temperament and sensitivity to it could help parents and educators anticipate a child’s reactions to the preschool experience and thus aid in developing effective strategies for facilitating social adjustment. The present study demonstrates that temperament had a particularly important role in determining childrens’ initial reactions to the social environment in a preschool setting. However, differences among children with varying temperament patterns tended to disappear over time. One of the issues that needs to be addressed in future research is the process of change, specifically what aspects of the environment interact with temperament to determine how the child adapts to school and peers. For example, preschools guided by different educational philosophies might also differ with respect to the social environment created in the classroom. In the present study, we did not consider the effect of program structure and the way that this aspect of the environment interacts with temperament. An investigation such as this would have important theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, it would shed light on the nature of interaction between temperament and environment. Thomas and Chess (1977) have consistently emphasized this interactive process as the key to understanding development. This notion, which they have labeled “goodness-of-fit,” is a central feature in their theory of temperament.
REFERENCES Asher,
S.. Oden, S., & Gottman, J. (1977). Children’s friendships in school settings. In L. Katz (Ed.), Curre,r/ lopics iu ear/>~ childhood edltca!ion (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Billman, J.. & McDevitt, S. (1980). Convergence of parent and observer ratings of temperament with observations of peer interaction in nursery school. Child Developmen/, 51, 395-400.
Belles,
R. (1970). Revielv,
Feinman,
Species-specific
defense
reactions
and
avoidance
learning.
Psychological
77, 32-48.
S., & Lewis, M. (1982, March). Infan/ temperament and social referencing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Austin, TX. Hartup, W. (1977). Peer relations: Developmental implications and interaction in same- and cross-age situations. Young Children, 32, 4-13. Hodge, R.W., Siegel, P.M., & Rossi, P.H. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United States. American Journal of Sociology 70, 268-292. Lewis, J. (1977). The relation of individual temperament to initial social behavior, In R.C. Smart & M.S. Smart (Eds.). Readings in child developrneni and relationships. New York: Macmillan.
Parker-Cohen
190
Lougee.
M.. Goldman, J.. & Hartup. W. (1977. March). Gronp social behavior of children. Paper presented at the biennial Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA.
co/rrposi/io!r: Effec/s on rhe meetings of the Sociely for
Marcus,
J.. Chess, S.. & Thomas, A. (1972). TemperamenIal individuality in group young children. Ear1.v Child Developtnenr and Care, 1. 313-330. McCall, R., & Appelbaum, M.K. (1973). Bias in the analysis of repeated-measures Some
alternative approaches. McDevirt, S. (1976). A longitudinal cl~aracreritricsfrotrt infancy
care of designs:
Child Developtnent, 44. 401-415. assesstnent q/ conrinuitv and stability in retnperatnenral to ear/y childhood. Unpublished dissertation. Temple Uni-
versity. S., & Carey, W. (1978). The measurement of temperament Journal of Child Psvcho1og.v and Psychiatry, 19, 245-253. N., Hull. H., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., &Bent. D. (1975).
McDevitt, Nie,
and Bell
in 3-7-year-old
children.
Stafis!icalpackageforrhe
social
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psvchottrerric lheorv (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Parker-Cohen, N. (1983). The e/feel of letnperatnent on peer relations. Unpublished dissertalion, University of Virginia. Rutter. M. (1982). Temperament: Concepts, issues and problems. In R. Porter & M. Collins Thomas, Thomas, Thomas,
(Eds.), Tetnperatnenlal dijferences in infants and .voung children. London: Pitman. A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. A., Chess, S.. & Birch, H. (1968). Tetnperatnenr and behavior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press. A., Chess, S., Birch, H.. Hertzig, M., Ear/r Childhood. New York: New York
& Korn, University
S. (1963). Press.
Eeliaviora/Individua/if.v
in
A PPEND IX The Peer Responsiveness and Social Adjustment
Name of rater Child’s birthdate
Scale
Child’s name Date completed
Child’s prior school experience This questionnaire is designed to gather information on the child’s responses to the preschool peer group. Each question asks you to judge the child’s standing on a continuum of 5 points. Please try to make these judgments to the best of your ability, based on how you think this child compares to ofher children in the classroom.
In relation to the other children, circle the number which best reflects your estimate of how frequently a child engages in the following: 1. Occupied in isolated activity very frequently sometimes 5 4 3 2. Watching peers but not participating sometimes very frequently 5 4 3
2
very infrequently 1
2
very infrequently 1
Temperament
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. 12.
13.
and Social
Adjustment
to Peers
191
Interacting with peers very frequently sometimes very infrequently 5 4 3 2 1 Interacting with teachers sometimes very frequently very infrequently 5 4 3 2 1 How curious and exploratory is this child with respect to the physical environment and objects in the classroom? very exploratory average little exploration 5 4 3 2 1 How frequently does the child seek out and initiate interactions with peers? very frequently sometimes very infrequently 5 4 3 2 1 How does the child usually respond when approached by a peer? positive: neutral: negative: withdraws or doesn’t engages in activity sometimes engages sometimes withdraws respond to peer with peer 4 3 2 1 5 How interesting or attractive would you say this child is to his or her peers? very interesting neutral very uninteresting 5 4 3 2 1 a. If you circled numbers 4 or 5 above, what do you think makes this child interesting to his or her peers? b. If you circled numbers 1 or 2 above, what do you think makes this child uninteresting to his or her peers? Rate how well you expect this child’s social adjustment to be over the course of the school year. very satisfactory satisfactory very unsatisfactory 2 1 5 4 3 How would you rate the child’s predominant mood? average very negative very positive 3 2 1 5 4 How would you rate the child’s level of physical activity? average very inactive very active 5 4 3 2 1 How quickly do you think this child will become adjusted to school in general? average slowly quickly 2 1 5 4 3 How comfortable does the child generally seem to be at school? average very uncomfortable very comfortable 5 4 3 2 1
Parker-Cohen
192
14.
and
Bell
How would you characterize the child’s typical interaction with peers? mixed: negative: positive: cooperative uncooperative 5 4 3 2 1
Additional
comments: