The social status-socioempathy relationship among mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped children: Analysis of the person × environment fit

Copyright

0270.3092/85 c 1985 Pergamon

53.00+ .ofl Press Lid.

The Social Status-Socioempathy Relationship Among Mildly Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Children: Analysis of the Person x Environment Fit Gale M. Morrison University

of

Calilornia

Santa Barbara

The notion of person x environment fit was explored as a framework for understanding the relationship between the social status and socioernpathy abilities of 234 nonhandicapped and 85 mildly handicapped children in special- and regulareducation settings. The results revealed that the amount of discrepancy between actual and estimated social status varied according to child characteristics and the classroom placement settings in which those measurements were taken. Additionally, the person x environment fit model was found to be appropriate for describing the relationship between socialstatus and socioempathy. That is, accurate estimators of social status were significantly more popular than underestimators or overestimators. In turn, underestimators were more popular than overestimators. The same relationships were found for estimates of rejection. The above relationships were examined for integrated and segregated classroom settings.

Researchersstudying the social status of mildly retarded children have compiled evidence suggesting that these children are not popular with their nonhandicapped peers (Corman & Gottlieb, 1979; MacMillan & Morrison, 1984; Semmel, Gottlieb, & Robinson, 1979). Efforts to determine this lack of acceptance or rejection have been focused on two major areas: (a) personal “traits” of mildly retarded children and (b) critical characteristics of the child’s environment. Personal traits that have been explored as correlates of the social status of mildly handicapped children (a general term used to include mildly retarded and learning disabled) include behavioral and cognitive characteristics and Address reprint requests to: Gale M. Morrison, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. I

2

Gale hf. Morrison

patterns (Gottlieb, Semmel, & Veldman, 1978; Morrison & Borthwick, 1984) and social cognitive abilities (Greenspan, 1979) such as role taking (Bruck & Herbert, 1982; Kitano, Stiehl, & Cole, 1978), social perception (Gerber & Zinkgraf, 1982), and socioempathy (Bruininks, 1978; Morrison, 1981). It is apparent, in the study of these characteristics in mildly handicapped children as they occur in school settings, that patterns of social characteristics must be interpreted in light of the critical people and arrangements in the children’s environment (MacMillan & Morrison, 1980). Peers and teachers are important mediators in the perception of the abilities and behavior of these children as well as determiners of their acceptance or rejection (Morrison, Forness, & MacMillan, 1983; Victor & Halverson, 1980). The arrangement of instructional delivery systems, (i.e., placement in a regular classroom resource room, a special day class or a combination of both) also provides for variance in important social psychological variables (Stangvik, 1979). These arrangements may vary on several important dimensions: (a) amount of time spent in regular versus special-classroom settings, (b) number of peersin each setting, (c) curricular emphasis, (d) type of peer (handicapped or nonhandicapped) in each setting, and, of course, (e) teacher. These variables probably affect the nature of the social interactions and acceptancethat a mildly handicapped child experiences. The importance of considering effects of classroom or administrative arrangementson individual social outcomes is evident in socioempathic abilities, which is the focus here. Socioempathy “refers to an individual’s awareness of his own and others’ sociometric status in a given group of which he is a member” (Ausubel, Schiff, & Gasser, 1952, p. 111). The skill of accurate selfappraisal could be an important prerequisite for positive changes in a child’s behavior (Garrett & Crump, 1980). Early research literature pertaining to socioempathy suggestedthat mildly handicapped children overestimate their social status; that is, they think they are more popular than they really are (Bruininks, 1978). However, in a 1981 study, Morrison found that these abilities varied according to the classroom administrative arrangement. Although mildly handicapped children in this study overestimated their popularity in regular-classroom situations, they could accurately assesstheir social status in special-class environments among their handicapped peers. Aside from the contextual implications of variations in socioempathic abilities, questions arise about the effects of being poor assessorsof their own social status or poor perceivers of social situations in general. It has been assumed, but not proven, that socioempathic ability can affect individual adjustment, that is, it might be a prerequisite for positive change in behavior (Garrett & Crump, 1980). The major question addressedpresently is whether the discrepancy that exists between how mildly retarded children perceive their social status and how it is actually rated by their peers is ultimately related to their social acceptance.

Social Status-Socioempathy Relationships

3

In order to addressthis question, a model is neededthat accounts for child perceptions, those of significant others in their environment, and how these two act in concert. A theoretical framework that helps to examine and explain these concepts and that incorporates both trait and environmental influences is the model of person-environment fit described by Feather (1975) and Pervin (1968). The concept of person-environment (P-E) congruence focuseson the extent to which characteristics of the person match those of the environment to which she or he is exposed. The assumption is that the better the fit, the more favorable the consequences. Specific to the socioempathy issue, one might hypothesize that a child who accurately perceives his or her social status situation would “fit” better in that environment than in one where the perception was not as accurate. Further, it would be expected from this hypothesis that the child would be more popular in the environment where his or her perceptions were congruent with “reality.” The general model for the hypothesized person-environment fit curve is presented in Figure 1. It should be noted that in this application of the person-environment fit model, the social patterns in a child’s classroom are defined as the relevant situation or environment and the child’s perception of those patterns as they relate to herself or himself, as the subjective measure of the person. A symbolic interactionist point of view is adopted in the consideration that an important determinant of behavior is the situation and the individual’s perception of that situation (Forgas, 1979). When this is applied to the educational situations in which mildly mentally retarded children are typically found, an important determinant of how well they adjust to a particular classroom en-

UnderEstimators SOCIAL

FIGURE

1. Hypothesized

Accurate Estimators

OverEstimators

STATUS-SOCIOEMPATHY DISCREPANCY person-environment

fit curve.

4

Gale M. Morrison

vironment would be how they perceive the environment regarding roles and expectations, their impact on the environment, and how they adjust their behavior accordingly. The following investigation explores the notion of person-environment fit as it applies to the socioempathy-social status relationship for mildly handicapped children in mainstreamed and special class settings. METHOD Subjects

Subjects were 85 mildly learning handicapped (LH) and 234 nonhandicapped children from six schools located in three southern California counties. Of the 85 LH children, 27 attended self-contained special day classes (LH/Day Class-Integrated), 12 attended resource room programs (LH/ Resource Room) and 46 were not integrated from their special-education settings (LH/Day Class-Segregated).Sex and age distributions for these groups can be found in Table 1. Learning handicapped, as used in this report, is a term used in California, specified by a master plan for special education (California Master Plan for Special Education, 1980). LH children are placed in either resource room or special day-class settings. Included in these settings are children who more traditionally have been labeled educable mentally retarded (EMR), learning disabled (LD), or behavior disordered (BD). Eligibility criteria for identification as LH, as established by the state, are separately delineated for EMR and LD “type” learning handicapped children and closely follow definitions set forth in P.L. 94-142 (California Administrative Code, 1980). Becauseof the difficulty of identifying “true” categorical membership in this type of system, results of studies of LH children can at best be generalizedto those mildly handicapped children who experience learning difficulties to such an extent that special education services are deemed necessary(MacMillan, Meyers, & Morrison, 1980).

TABLE Age and Sex Distributions

for Subjects

1.

According

IO Major

Group LH/Day Class-Integrated LH/Resource Room-Integrated LH/Day Class-Segregated Regular Class

Grouping

Variables

Age (Months)

Sex

N

M

F

x

SD

27 12 46 234

12 9 28 107

15 3 18 128

121.63 126.08 121.82 122.79

22.95 17.11 17.56 18.03

Social Status-Socioempathy

Relationships

5

Participating schools were chosen from a pool of schools involved in a larger longitudinal research project on the basis of the existence of attempts to integrate their LH children into regular classrooms. The types of integration practices varied from school to school but seemedto fall into two major categories. Under one system, the LH children were educated for the majority of their school day in a self-contained, special-education classroom. These children were then “integrated” for a limited amount of time into a regular classroom for academic (rarely) or nonacademic instruction. The LH/Day Class-Integrated children in this study were primarily integrated for music or physical education, averaging about 3-5 hours per week in the regular classroom. Under the second system of integration, LH children were placed for the major portion of the school day in a regular classroom and attended a resource room or special-education classroom for academicinstruction. As opposed to the special day-class group, the LH children attending resource room programs in this study spent an average of 5-6 hours per day in a regular classroom. The latter group of LH children probably differed on some important dimensions, leading to the alternative administrative arrangement. For example, the LH children attending self-contained special classeswere a lower functioning group both cognitively and socially (seeMorrison, 1981). Procedure The social status instruments that will be described were administered in both regular and special-class environments. In the regular-class situation, questionnaires were filled out by handicapped and nonhandicapped children about each other. In the special-classenvironment, questionnaires were completed by the handicapped children about each other. In other words, social status instruments were completed twice by some of the LH children, once in the regular classroom and once in the special classroom. Instrumentation and Scoring How I feel toward others (HIFTO). The HIFTO scale (Agard, Veldman, Kaufman, & Semmel, 1978)is a sociometric technique that requires each child to respond to every other child in the classroom in terms of how much she or he likes each child. The following four responsesare available: a question mark indicates that the respondent is not acquainted with the child, a happy face indicates that the respondent likes this particular child and considers him or her a friend, a neutral face indicates that the respondent does not care one way or the other about the child, and a sad face indicates that the respondent does not like the child and does not consider him or her a friend. The children

6

Gale M. Morrison

in our study were assured that there were no right or wrong answers and that their answers would be kept secret. They were given five examples using animal names, to ensure that the procedures were understood. Scores used throughout the analyses were calculated for each of the four responseswith the following formula: number of nominations/number of nominators minus 1. Thus, each child had a percentage score for acquaintance, acceptance toleration, and rejection that reflected the ratings received from other children in the class. Socioempathy HIFTO. In order to measure each child’s perception of his or her own social status, a socioempathy form of the HIFTO sociometric technique was created. The HIFTO format of “face” responsesto each classmember was used. Children were instructed to “guess” how every child in the class felt about them. A question mark indicated nonacquaintance; a happy face indicated that the respondent thought the child considered her or him a friend; a neutral face indicated that the respondent thought the child did not care one way or the other about her or him; and a sad face indicated that the respondent thought the child did not consider her or him a friend. A mnemonic expression was provided on the form to assist subjects in responding to the socioempathic frame of reference (e.g., “I think Johnny gave me a happy face”). The scores used to compare the social status and socioempathy HIFTO scaleswere the weighted averageof the acceptance-through-rejection responses for each individual on the separate social status and socioempathy forms. In other words, a 3 was assigned to acceptance responses, a 2 to toleration responses, and a 1 to rejection responses. Two weighted averages were calculated for each subject, one for social status and one for socioempathy. The HIFTO socioempathy score was then subtracted from the HIFTO social status score, to get a discrepancy score between relative perceived and actual social status. RESULTS

In order to explore the notion of person-environment fit, the subjects in this study were divided into three groups according to the social statussocioempathy discrepancy scores just described. This division was accomplished through the use of a cluster analysis, a multivariate technique designed to develop groupings of individuals with similar profiles on a number of variables (Engelman & Hartigan, 1981). Subjects were characterized as underestimators, accurate estimators, or overestimators according to the nature and direction of the discrepancy score mean for each group. The mean weighted averages for each estimator group are at the bottom of Table 2. The percentages for each of these groups for the regular and special-

Social Status-Socioempathy Relationships TABLE Distribution

7

2.

of Cluster Membership Over Social Status-Socioempathy for Regular-Class and Special-Class Environmenls

Accurate”

Under” Group Setting Regular Class LH/Day Class- Integrated LH/Resource Room Integrated Regular Class Special Class LH/Day Class- Integrated LH/Resource Room Integrated LH/Day Class-Segregated

Categories

Over’

n

%

n

%

n

%

Total n

6

22

II

41

10

37

21

2 68

17 29

4

33 47

6 55

50 24

12 234

5

17

20

76

2

7

27

1 8

8 17

5 35

42 74

6 3

50 7

12 46

Ill

“Underestimators: HIFTO social status mean weighted average (M.W.A.) = 2.47; HIFTO socioempathy M.W.A. = 2.21. bAccurate estimators: HIFTO social status M.W.A. = 2.68; HIFTO socioempathy M.W.A. = 2.61. ‘Overestimators: HIFTO social status M.W.A. =2.08; HIFTO socioempathy M.W.A. =2.52.

classroom environments are presented in Table 2. The most obvious change in perception accuracy from one environment to the next is for the LH children enrolled in special day classesand mainstreamed into regular classrooms at a minimal level. The percentage of accurate estimators increases from 41% in the regular classes to 76% in the special-class settings. The percentage of overestimators, in turn, decreasesfrom 37% to 7%. The number of underestimators decreases slightly. In other words, these children perceive their special-classsetting more accurately than their regular-class setting, that is, the fit between their perceptions and the actual situation is better in the special classroom. In fact, the fit seemsto be better than that of most other group situations. For the LH children who attended resource rooms, there was a slight increase in the number of accurate estimators in the resource room situation and a decreasein the number of underestimators; however, the number of overestimators remained the same as it was in the regular-class setting. Thus, even in a situation with reduced numbers of peers to know and interact with, 50% of the resource room group were still overestimating their social status. Finally, it should be noted that a good number of regular-class children were also underestimating and overestimating their social status (29% and 24070, respectively). To determine the relationship of the mismatch between socioempathy and actual social status to level of acceptance or rejection, the socioempathy groups were compared on the indexes of acceptance and rejection within the two classroom environments. The results of these comparisons are graphed

8

Gale M. Morrison

in a format that approximates the hypothesized model of person-environment fit. Separate graphs are presented for groups in each classroom setting (see Figures 2 and 3). In addition, 3 x 3 (group times socioempathy-social status discrepancy category) analyses of variance for unbalanced designs (BMDP2V) (Jennrich, Sampson, & Frane, 1981)were performed with sociometric indexes as dependent variables, to determine main effects for groups and socioempathy-social status discrepancy categories and the possible interactions between these two factors. The analyses for the social acceptance variable are illustrated in Figure 2. Initial visual inspection confirms the hypothesized relationship according to a person-environment fit model. That is, those children who were accurate estimators of their own social status were more popular than children who either underestimated or overestimated their social status. This pattern is evident in both regular- and special-class settings. In the regular-classroom setting, the main effect for the socioempathysocial acceptance variable was significant (F= 37.57, 2/264 df, p< .OOl). Tukey’s tests for unequal sample numbers (Kramer, 1956) revealed that accurate estimators were more popular than underestimators or overestimators (t = 6.1 and 17.0 respectively, 2/264 dJ p < .Ol). Underestimators were more popular than overestimators (t= 9.9, 2/264 df, p< .Ol). The same pattern was found in the special-classroom setting (F= 19.16, 2/76 df, p< .OOl). That is, accurate estimators were more popular than underestimators or overestimators (t = 2.90 and 7.35 respectively, 2176 df, p < .Ol) and underestimators were more popular than overestimators (t = 3.85, 2/76 df, p< .Ol). Concerning the main effect for group placement differences in the regularclass setting (F= 3.19,2/264 df, p< .05), the overall level of acceptance was higher for the nonhandicapped children than for either of the LH Day Class or LH Resource Room children (t =4.64 and 2.44 respectively, 2/264 df, p< .Ol), possibly due to the greater number of LH children falling into the underestimator and overestimator categories, with the associated decreasein popularity. Examination of the means in the accurate group reveals that LH children who give accurate socioempathy estimatesare almost as well accepted as their nonhandicapped counterparts. Thus, accurate social perception could be a critical ability for these children if they are to succeed socially in mainstreamed environments. Group placement differences were not found in the special-education classroom setting. Figure 3 indicates that a similar, but inverted, pattern is evident for social rejection. Analysis of variance procedures revealed main effects for the socioempathy-social status groups in both the regular- and special-classsettings (F= 39.93 and 2367.93 respectively, 2/264 df and 2/76 df respectively, p< .OOl). In the regular classrooms, accurate estimators were less rejected than either underestimators or overestimators (t = 4.63 and 14.7 respectively, 2/264

FIGURE 2. Graph environments.

lo0 I Under

of relationship

loo90 80 -

ClassC

Reqular 57.04

43.00

Room-Int.b

TI

under

between

I Accurate

68.60

64.25

62.55

TT

accurate

****

cluster

z

l

I Over

33.95

37.33

29.40

x

over

CLUSTER MEMBERSHIP

LH/Res.

Settinq

46.83

Class

LHI@ay Class-lnt.a

GROUP

Reqular Class

Room-Int.b

50 40 30 20 10 o-

membership

and social

acceplance

aLH/Day Class-lnt. bLli/Res. Room-lnt. CReg. Class and LH/Day

Responses Received

LHIDay Class-Seqr.c

LH/Res. 70.50

50.00

73.80

x

for regular-

Class-Segr.

I Over

45.30

51.17

56.00

x

over

and special-class

I Accurate

81.06

74.40

83.00

x

accurate

CLUSTER MEMBERSHIP under

' Under

Settinq

LHIDay Class-lnt.a

GROUP

Special

IX

IX

8 d

10

Social Status-Socioempathy Relationships

II

df, p < .Ol). Underestimators were less rejected than overestimators (t = 9.13, 2/264 df, p c .Ol). Similarly, in the special-classsettings, accurate estimators

were lessrejected than either underestimators or overestimators (t = 3.20 and 8.49 respectively, 2/76 df, p < .Ol), and underestimators were less rejected than overestimators (t = 4.58, 2/76 df, p< .Ol). One might hypothesize that how well children know each other affects how accurately they can estimate their own social status. However, differences across socioempathy groups were not significant for the HIFTO question mark variable. Although the LH Day Class group was not as well known to their regular-class peers(and probably vice versa), this factor was not a significant one in terms of differentiating groups on the basis of their socioempathic accuracy. DISCUSSION

The person-environment fit framework is potentially useful for describing the association between social status and socioempathy. An examination of social status-socioempathy discrepancies across regular and special-education settings revealed a pattern of better fit in the special-class setting for LH/Day Class children who also attended regular classes.This fit was reflected in the decreaseof overestimators and underestimators and in the increase in numbers of accurate estimators of social status. In contrast with this group were the LH/Resource Room children, who did not show great changes in their estimations from one environment to the next. One possible explanation for this difference between the LH groups is related to curricular emphasis. Resourcerooms can generally be characterized as providing individual remediation on academic subjects. In contrast, the special day-class arrangement provides greater opportunity for a broader, integrative approach to instruction. The resource room children might get less opportunity to interact with their resource room peers on a group or interactive basis, perhaps explaining their less accurate perceptions. Of interest was the finding that a good number of regular-class children were also underestimating and overestimating their social status. Often when nonhandicapped children are used as comparisons, we assume nonexistence of a problem, or “perfection.” This is not the casefor the children in this sample, who generally showed somewhat better social perception abilities, but some of whom were nof accurate perceivers. In other words, LH children are not alone in their inaccurate social perceptions. Similarly, LH children’s perceptions are not always inaccurate; 41% in the regular classesand 76% in the special classeswere accurate. To fully understand the socioempathy concept, it will be necessaryto examine accurate and inaccurate perceivers across groups.

I2

Gale M. Morrison

Although the patterns just described are evident from visual inspection, more definitive statements await empirical verification with a larger subject pool. Concerning the association between social status and socioempathy, inaccurate estimators of social status were unpopular. The fit between their perceptions and reality was poor and was related to decreasedacceptance or increased rejection. The lack of fit occurs when children (LH and nonhandicapped alike) either underestimate or overestimate their popularity. Further, children who overestimate are significantly less popular than children who underestimate their status. Apparently, it is not advantageous to be either overly modest or overly confident, but the latter is worse. Further research is needed to clarify these findings. In addition to the relationship between person-environment fit and popularity, it should be noted that similar patterns are evident in both classroom settings, indicating similar reward systemsfor accurate perceptions of the social situation. The main difference between settings is the overall elevation of the pattern in the special-class setting, representing the increased level of social acceptancein that setting. Thus, the chancesfor a good fit for LH children are greater in the special-classenvironment than they are in the regularclass setting, although less so for resource room children. Although intuitively it seemslikely that children with an accurate perception of their impact on fellow classmates would be more successful in their subsequentinteractions, evidencefor the association between social status and socioempathy has not been demonstrated to be causal. Future research focusing on the viability of the person-environment fit application to the social status-socioempathy relationship should attempt to eliminate alternative explanations such as methodological and instrument artifacts that might contribute to these patterns. For example, methods of scoring used in this study might increase the probability of finding the pattern resembling the personenvironment fit curve. Thus, future investigations could utilize alternative methodology relating the social status-socioempathy relationship to other indexes of social adjustment. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that use of the personenvironment fit model, which considers characteristics of both the child and the social environments in which he or she functions might provide a useful alternative for characterizing, as well as understanding, the dynamics of the social relationships of mildly handicapped children in integrated and segregated settings. Further investigation should be aimed at determining what the effects on social adjustment are of the amount of time spent in particular classroom arrangements, the curricular emphasis in these arrangements, and the quantity of different arrangements a child experiences in one day (Stangvik, 1979). If social acceptance is related to perception of social cues in a child’s en-

Social Status-Socioempathy

Relationships

13

vironment, what are the effects of having children switch among several environments daily? Typically LH children might spend time in a regular classroom, a resource room, and a designated instructional service (e.g., speech therapy, counseling, or adaptive P.E.), thereby exacerbating adjustment problems. Future research and practice related to the social relationships of mildly handicapped children should consider not only the children but also the environments they are exposed to and the fits or adaptations they are making. Acknowledgemenr-This study was supported in part by Grants No. HD-04612 and HD-05540 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

REFERENCES Agard, J. A., Veldman, D. J., Kaufman, M. J., & Semmel, M. I. (1978). How Ifeel toward others: An instrument of the prime instrument battery. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped. Ausubel, D. P., Schiff, H. M., & Gasser, E. B. (1952). A preliminary study of developmental trends in children’s accuracy of perception of own and others’ sociometric status. Child Development, 23, I1 l-128. Bruck, M., & Herbert, M. (1982). Correlates of learning disabled students’ peer-interaction patterns. Learning Disabilily Quarterly, 5, 353-362. Bruininks, V. L. (1978). Actual and perceived peer status of learning-disabled students in the mainstream programs. Journal of Special Education, 12, 51-58. California Administrative Code, Title 5, Article 3. I 3030, Eligibility Criteria, 1980. California Master Plan for Special Education (California Senate Bill 1870).(July 28, 1980).Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Publication. (Available from California State Department of Education, 721 Capital Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814.) Corman, L., & Gottlieb, J. (1979). Mainstreaming mentally retarded children: A review of research. (pp. 251-275) In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardufion (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press. Engelman, L., & Hartigan, J. A. (1981). BMDPKM. In W. J. Dixon & M. B. Brown (Eds.), BMDP statistical software 1981. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Feather, N. T. (1975). Values in educofion and society. New York: Free Press. Forgas, J. P. (1979). Social episodes: The study of interaction routines. New York: Academic Press. Garrett, M. K., & Crump, W. C. (1980). Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-appraisal of social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disubilify Quorferly, 3, 42-48. Gerber, P. J., & Zinkgraf, S. A. (1982). A comparative study of social-perceptual ability in learning disabled and nonhandicapped students. Leorning Disability Quarterly, 5, 374-378. Gottlieb, J., Semmel, M. I., & Veldman, D. J. (1978). Correlates of social status among mainstreamed mentally retarded children. Journal of Educafional Psychology, 70, 396-405. Greenspan, S. (1979). Social intelligence in the retarded. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency: Psychological theory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jennrich, R., Sampson, P., & Franc, J. (1981). BMDPZV. In W. J. Dixon & M. B. Brown (Eds.), BMDP sfofisfical software 1981. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kitano, M. K., Stiehl, J., &Cole, J. T. (1978). Role-taking: Implications for special education. Journal of Special Education, 12, 59-74.

14

Gale M. Morrison

Kramer, C. Y. (1956). Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics, 12, 307-3 10. MacMillan, D. L., Meyers, C. E., & Morrison, G. M. (1980). System-identification of mildly retarded children: Implications for conducting and interpreting research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 108-I 15. MacMillan, D. L., & Morrison, G. M. (1980). Correlates of social status among mildly handicapped learners in self-contained special classes. Journal of Educutional Psychology, 72,437444. MacMillan, D. L., & Morrison, G. M. (1984). Sociometric studies. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), AItifude and afritude change in special education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota/LTI. Morrison, Cl. M. (1981). Perspectives of the social status of learning handicapped and nonhandicapped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 243-25 I. Morrison, G. M., & Borthwick, S. (1984). Patterns of behavior, cognitive competence, and social status for educable mentally retarded children. Journal of Special Education, 17, 441-452. Morrison, G. M., Forness, S. R., &MacMillan, D. L. (1983). Influences on the sociometric ratings of mildly handicapped children: A path analysis. Journal of Educafional Psychology, 75, 63-74. Pervin, L. A. (1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bullerin. 69, 56-58. Semmel, M. I., Gottlieb. J., & Robinson, N. (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives on educating handicapped children in the public schools. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Stangvik, G. (1979). Se/f-concept and schoolsegregation. Goteborg 5, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgenis. Victor, J. B.. & Halverson, C. F. (1980). Children’s friendship choices: Effects of school behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 409-414.