Childhood Peer Relationships - Social Acceptance, Friendships and Peer Networks

Journal of School Psychology
41 (2003) 235 284
Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance,

friendships, and peer networks
Mary E. Gifford-Smith a, Celia A. Brownell b,*
b
a
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Received 28 October 2002; accepted 28 October 2002
Abstract
This review addresses several areas of contemporary research in childrens peer relationships
during the elementary and middle school years, with primary foci on childrens peer acceptance, the
ability to make and maintain friendships, and their participation in larger peer networks. Particular
attention is given to research examining the major developments and individual differences in each
of these components of childrens peer relations, how these different aspects of peer functioning
relate to one another, and how they contribute to development more generally, including school
adjustment and achievement. Finally, it is argued that childrens psychosocial development may be
best informed by an integration of these somewhat independent research traditions.
D 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Friendship; Social acceptance; Peer networks
Introduction
The world of children and their peers has captivated developmental psychologists for
more than three decades (Hartup, 1970), and its study over this period has yielded a
number of interesting and important insights. We now know that peer relations change in
systematic ways as children age, and they serve different purposes in childrens lives at
different ages. What happens in childrens peer groups and friendship relations affects
development and functioning in probably every other aspect of childrens lives, including
the family, the school, and the community. And the goings-on in these settings in turn
* Corresponding author. Psychology Department, University of Pittsburgh, 3409 Sennott Square, Pittsburgh,
PA 15260, USA. Tel.: +1-412-624-4510; fax: +1-412-624-4428.
E-mail address: brownell@vms.cis.pitt.edu (C.A. Brownell).
0022-4405/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7
236
M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284
affect childrens functioning in their peer groups. Thus, childrens relationships with their
peers and friends are associated with multiple aspects of development and adjustment,
including their achievement in school.
In this review, we will discuss several primary areas of contemporary research in
childrens peer relationships during the school years, with emphasis on elementary school
and middle childhood. Our goal is not to provide a comprehensive review, but rather to be
representative. We will chart the major developments and individual differences in each of
several components of childrens peer relations, how these different aspects of peer
functioning relate to one another, and how they contribute to development more generally,
including school adjustment and achievement. We will draw primarily from work in
developmental psychology since that is where our own expertise lies.
A number of important changes occur in childrens peer-relevant social worlds during
the primary school years. These shifts produce both new demands and new opportunities
for social and emotional growth. By middle childhood, more than 30% of childrens social
interactions involve peers. Peer groups enlarge and are less closely supervised by adults,
including parents, than was true at prior ages. Peer groups themselves become defined
relative to one another, in the familiar phenomenon of cliques, which emerge in late
childhood and pre-adolescence. Middle childhood peer groups exist in a wide assortment
of settings outside the home and classroom, whereas peer contacts during the preschool
years were typically in home, child-care, or arranged play settings (Rubin, Bukowski, &
Parker, 1998). Contexts for peer interaction also increasingly include remote electronic
contact by computer (e-mail, instant messaging, and on-line chatting), an area that, to
our knowledge, has not yet received focused research attention despite the growing
number of anecdotal reports from parents of the many hours their children spend in such
activities. What children do with their peers also shifts over childhood, from spending
most of their time in active or pretend play in the early years, to engaging in organized
activities such as sports or games, just hanging out, and talking and gossiping in middle
childhood and pre-adolescence (Zarbatany, Hartmann, & Rankin, 1990). Thus, it is during
middle childhood that children can truly be said to participate in a separate social world of
their peers. Although this world is by no means independent from the family, the school,
and other social institutions, there are unique features of peer relationships that set the
world of peers apart from childrens other socialization experiences.
Investigators of childrens peer relationships have conceptualized and studied them in a
number of different ways that are only partially overlapping. One pervasive distinction in
the research literature is between group-based peer interactions and relationships, and
dyadic peer interactions and relationships. At the level of the group, childrens peer
relationships can be characterized in terms of likeability or social acceptance by other
group members (e.g., popularity or rejection), in terms of visibility or salience in the
group, how connected they are to the other children in the group (e.g., network centrality),
their dominance in the group hierarchy (Hawley, 2002), their reputation or how they are
perceived by their peers (e.g., Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993; Waas & Honer, 1990), or
in terms of the larger social networks in which they move and with which they identify
(Cairns, Xie, & Leung, 1998; Farmer & Rodkin, 1996; Gest, Graham-Bermann, & Hartup,
2001). At the dyadic level, researchers have predominantly studied childrens friendships
(Bukowski, Newcomb, & Hartup, 1996; Hartup W.W., 1996). More recently, they have
237
begun to study other dyadic relationships as well, such as bully victim relationships
(Hodges & Card, in press), and mutual antipathies or enemies (Abecassis, Hartup,
Haselager, Scholte, & van Lieshout, in press; Hartup & Abecassis, in press).
In the current review, we focus primarily on childrens acceptance by their peer groups,
the nature and quality of their friendships, and their participation in larger peer networks.
Although childrens day-to-day peer relationships cut across all of these arenas, research
has tended to concentrate on them independently rather than integratively, as does our
review. Research on childrens peer relationships is conducted almost exclusively in
schools, and childrens experiences with peers in school have been linked to other aspects
of their developing social competence as well as to academic success. Hence, we focus
here on school-based peer relations and their associations with social and academic
functioning. Finally, we close by discussing the few empirical efforts to consider childrens
peer experiences more broadly, and how the nature and quality of peer experiences are
both similar and different across these three domains.
Individual differences in childrens social competence: sociometric status and social

behavior
Peer acceptance is distinct from other aspects of peer functioning, most notably
friendship and social network participation. At the most general level, peer acceptance,
or sociometric status, refers to the degree to which children are liked or disliked by the
children in their peer group. Because sociometric status research has grown out of the
tradition of developmental psychology, it has emphasized individual differences in social
experiences. Thus, sociometric classifications (described below) have been used as a tool
to index or describe an individual childs place within the larger peer group rather than to
describe the interpersonal processes or structural characteristics of the peer group itself
(Cairns et al., 1998).
Modern sociometric research has its roots in the work of Jacob Moreno who suggested
that peer experience could be best understood as the product of three distinct interpersonal
forces: attraction, repulsion, and indifference (Moreno, 1934). Reflecting these dimensions,
current sociometric methods solicit information from children regarding their positive and
negative feelings about their peers to derive the now well known sociometric categories:
popular children, who are well liked by many peers and seldom disliked; rejected children,
who are frequently disliked and not well-liked; controversial children who are both liked
and disliked, and neglected children who receive very few liked or disliked nominations. Of
primary interest have been questions addressing why certain children become popular or
well-liked, while others are rejected or neglected by their peers and how a childs social
status can be understood within the broader context of individual development. More
specifically, research on sociometric status has been shaped by four primary aims:
(1) Identifying characteristics of the individual child that contribute to the formation and
maintenance of social status (e.g., behavior and social cognitions);
(2) Identifying features of or processes within the larger peer group that relate to social
status acquisition and maintenance (e.g., reputational bias and group norms);
238
(3) Identifying early experiences that influence childrens social status within the peer
group (e.g., parenting strategies and attachment);
(4) Exploring the link between peer status and other developmental outcomes (e.g., school
success/failure and delinquency).
Historically, the lions share of empirical and conceptual work has focused on the first
of these areas-identifying the correlates of sociometric status. Early work focused on fairly
straightforward, global comparisons across status groups with respect to a variety of
behavioral and social cognitive variables (see Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993 for detailed reviews). More recently, the growing
recognition that status categories are not necessarily homogeneous entities has led to
studies exploring subtypes of children within a particular category (e.g., aggressiverejected versus nonaggressive-rejected children) (Bierman, Smoot, & Aumiller, 1993;
Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997). At the same time, researchers have considered
the behavioral correlates of status on a more molecular level, identifying different forms
and functions of a variety of social behaviors related to status (e.g., proactive and reactive
aggression) (Coie, Dodge, Terry, & Wright, 1991; Crick, 1996).
Concurrent with these trends, researchers interested in the developmental significance
of sociometric status began exploring links between earlier experiences (e.g., parenting
styles and the experience of abuse) and social status (see Ladd, 1999 for review), while
others began to delineate the relations between sociometric status and developmental
outcomes (e.g., delinquency and school failure) (see Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene,
1992; Parker & Asher, 1987). By the mid-1990s, these investigations became still more
complex, involving larger longitudinal data sets, with the goal of building and testing
conceptual models to predict the development of a variety of externalizing and internalizing outcomes (Dodge et al., in press; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997; MillerJohnson et al., 2002). In these studies, sociometric status or peer acceptance is one variable
among many thought to influence social development, and the primary objective is
understanding the complex interplay among these variables. Perhaps not surprisingly, as
the questions and methods for studying sociometric status have become more complex and
time-consuming, the volume and centrality of work concerning status has decreased (J.
Coie, personal communication, September 2002). Nevertheless, sociometric status continues to be an important area of attention for researchers attempting to understand the
development of childrens social and emotional competence.
As a review of the major conceptual and empirical work in each of the research areas
outlined above is beyond the scope of this paper, the remainder of this section will be
devoted to those questions and issues that are currently most salient: (1) methodological
issues concerning the measurement of sociometric status; (2) recent findings concerning
the correlates of social status, focusing particularly on heterogeneity within status
categories; and (3) group processes related to status formation and maintenance. Discussion of links between social status and other developmental outcomes (e.g., school
drop-out and delinquency) will be limited to those outcomes most directly related to
school performance. Readers interested in associations between family experiences and
peer status and/or between peer status and antisocial behavioral outcomes more generally
are directed to recent reviews by Ladd (1999) and Rubin et al. (1998).
239
Methodological issues in studying sociometric status

The veritable explosion of interest in sociometric status over the last several decades
has been driven, in part, by the development of efficient and reliable methods of measuring
childrens status. Most researchers choose one of two widely recognized methods-peer
nominations or peer ratings. As these methods are described in detail elsewhere (Coie &
Dodge, 1983; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983), they will
be reviewed only briefly here. However, understanding how these constructs are
operationalized is important not only for evaluating the sociometric status literature, but
also for exploring how status, social network, and friendship research are interrelated, an
issue that will be taken up later in this paper.
Peer nominations
The most commonly cited procedure for measuring sociometric status via peer
nominations was developed by Coie et al. (1982). Based on the recognition that peer
acceptance and peer rejection were not opposite ends of the same continuum, Coie and
colleagues argued for assessing these dimensions of social experience separately. To
accomplish this, children are typically asked to nominate, from a roster of their peers,
those children whom they most like or like most to play with and those children
whom they most dislike or least like to play with. Peer acceptance is defined, at the
most basic level, as the number of most liked nominations received, while peer rejection is
viewed as the number of least liked nominations.
Childrens raw scores for peer acceptance and peer rejection are typically standardized
either at the classroom or grade level (sometimes within gender, sometimes not) and are then
combined to derive scores for social preference and social impact. Preference refers to the
standardized difference between the number of most liked and least liked nominations,
while impact is conceptualized as the standardized sum of most liked and least liked scores.
Preference and impact are then combined to derive five mutually exclusive sociometric
categories: popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average (for details, see Coie &
Dodge, 1983, 1988). Newcomb and Bukowski (1983) advocate a variation of this method in
which binomial probabilities, rather than standard scores, are used to classify children into
sociometric categories. Here, classification into groups (i.e., popular, rejected, etc.) is based
on the extent to which a childs liked and disliked scores exceed chance levels. Because
Newcomb and Bukowski utilize a more conservative cut-off score, smaller, more homogeneous, and more extreme groups are identified using their procedure. Both procedures have
advantages and limitations. For example, more extreme groups have greater behavioral
discriminability but are less stable and may overlook children that, while not severely
troubled, are nevertheless at risk for negative outcomes (Terry & Coie, 1991).
Regardless of the particular method used, the conceptualization of acceptance and
rejection as separate dimensions of social experience allows researchers to distinguish
children whose low peer acceptance is due to outright rejection from those with mixed
reputations (e.g., controversial) and those who have low visibility within the peer group
(e.g., neglected children). As these different groups of children have been found to have
different behavioral and cognitive profiles as well as different developmental trajectories
(Newcomb et al., 1993), these distinctions have proved critical.
240
Peer ratings
Another widely used method for assessing peer status is childrens ratings of their
peers. In this procedure, children are asked to rate each of their peers on a single scale of
likeability, anchored on one end by a score reflecting acceptance (like very much) and
on the other end by a score reflecting rejection (dislike very much). The mean rating
received across respondents is taken to reflect an individual childs level of social
acceptance within the group.
Because it relies on a unidimensional system for measuring peer acceptance, the
rating scale approach is not typically used to derive the sociometric categories described
above. For this reason, and also because administration puts greater demands on the
respondent, the use of rating scales has become less common (Maassen, van der Linden,
Goossens, & Bokhorst, 2000). However, proponents of this system argue that because
ratings systems allow children to evaluate every member of their peer group as well as
to provide information on the degree of liking or disliking they feel, ratings provide a
more detailed and potentially more valid measure of peer group acceptance than
nominations (Maassen et al., 2000). Additionally, several researchers have developed
techniques for deriving extreme groups from rating scale responses (Asher & Dodge,
1986; Maassen, Akkermans, & van der Linden, 1996; Maassen et al., 2000). This suggests
that the rating method offers a viable alternative to the nomination procedure, particularly
in settings where children know each other well (e.g., small to moderately sized classrooms, schools characterized by stable populations) or where negative nominations are not
permitted.
In sum, while methods based on ratings and nominations differ in important respects,
the findings they produce are reasonably comparable, depending on how the data are
analyzed. While the nomination method appears to be the procedure of choice, especially
in recent years, the ratings method supplements our understanding of social status in
important ways. Additionally, the ratings method, as will be discussed later, overlaps less
with methods for assessing friendship and social networks, allowing a more rigorous
examination of relations among these distinct constructs.
Correlates of sociometric status
Sociometric status, ostensibly a reflection of the peer groups perception of the
individual child, has been most commonly treated by developmental psychologists as
an attribute or characteristic of the child. It is not surprising, then, that the search for
determinants of childrens sociometric status has also concentrated on characteristics of
individual children. In a now substantial empirical literature, sociometric status has been
shown to relate to individual physical characteristics such as attractiveness and athleticism
(Li, 1985); to individual behavioral styles such as propensity to be aggressive versus
prosocial in peer encounters (Coie et al., 1990); to individual social skills including
communicative behavior (Burleson et al., 1986) and group entry skills (Putallaz &
Gottman, 1981); to individual social-cognitive skills such as social problem solving and
evaluating others intent (Dodge & Feldman, 1990); and to individual differences in
emotion regulation (Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992). As this research has been reviewed
extensively elsewhere (Coie et al., 1990; Newcomb et al., 1993), the ensuing discussion
241
will focus on more recent trends within this literature, particularly the growing recognition
of within- rather than between-group differences in the correlates of social status.
Over the past decade, the emphasis of status research has evolved from studies
exploring differences in the behavioral or social profiles of children of varying status
groups (e.g., how rejected children differ from their non-rejected peers) to more fine-tuned
analyses of heterogeneity within the traditionally recognized sociometric categories (e.g.,
subtypes of rejected children). Similarly, rather than simply identifying global categories
of behavior linked to social status (e.g., aggression and withdrawal), researchers have
moved toward more molecular assessments, examining the forms, functions, and meanings
of social behavior within the interactional context. In fact, this more molecular examination of social behavior, particularly aggression, has supplanted, to some extent, the
research on sociometric status as the primary focus of researchers interested in individual
differences in childrens peer relations and their relations to developmental outcomes.
The remainder of this section will provide a very brief review of the behavioral and
social cognitive correlates of each sociometric category (for more detailed review, see
Newcomb et al., 1993), which will be followed by a more detailed analysis of work
examining behavioral heterogeneity within each group (e.g., subtypes of rejection).
Rejection
Rejected children appear to be at greater risk for negative developmental outcomes than
children from other status groups (Ollendick et al., 1992; Parker & Asher, 1987) and, as a
consequence, they have received the bulk of the conceptual and empirical attention. Of
primary interest has been the relatively robust link between rejected status and aggressive
behavior. Children identified as rejected have been shown to engage in higher frequencies
of aggression (Dodge, 1983; Newcomb et al., 1993), to engage in more hostile and
unprovoked aggression (Coie et al., 1991), to use aggression to solve conflict or obtain
desired objects (Coie et al., 1991), and to respond aggressively to ambiguous provocation
(Feldman & Dodge, 1987). These links have been noted both in naturally occurring or
established peer groups and in newly formed, lab-based playgroups, implicating aggression in both the formation and maintenance of peer rejection.
Related to these differences in aggressive behavior, rejected children have been shown
to demonstrate social cognitive biases that likely mediate the relationship between
rejection and aggression. For example, rejected children are more likely than their nonrejected peers to interpret ambiguous overtures as hostile (Dodge et al., in press; Feldman
& Dodge, 1987), to generate and positively evaluate aggressive solutions to social
problems (Crick & Ladd, 1990), and to endorse emotionally reactive and sensationseeking goals (Hinshaw & Melnick, 1995).
While the evidence linking aggressive behavior and social cognitive biases to peer
rejection is both widely replicated and compelling, it does not tell the whole story. First,
only about half of all children identified as aggressive are rejected by their peers (Coie et
al., 1991). This suggests that differences must exist in how aggression is used by children
of different status. The severity of aggression and the reasons for which it is used (e.g.,
proactive versus reactive aggression) have been shown to distinguish between rejected and
non-rejected children (Coie et al., 1991; Price & Dodge, 1989). Second, the fact that the
link between aggression and rejection does not hold equally for boys and girls has led to
242
advances in our understanding of relational or social aggression, a form of aggression that

appears to be more salient in girls groups (Crick, 1996). Finally, the link between
aggression and rejection, while present at each age, changes with development (Coie et
al., 1990). Not only does the relationship weaken with age, but the norms for both the
expression of aggression and its acceptability appear to change with age as well.
Proactive and reactive aggression
Based on the finding not all aggressive children are rejected, Coie et al. (1991)
hypothesized that differences in the frequency of aggression may not be as important as
qualitative differences in the nature and function of aggression used by children of
different status. To test this hypothesis, they formed lab-based play groups of rejected and
non-rejected 7- and 9-year-old boys rated as aggressive by their peers and then examined
the frequency and nature of naturally occurring aggressive episodes. Three types of
episodes were identified-reactive aggression (aggression in response to provocation),
instrumental aggression (aggression to obtain an object or position), and bullying
(unprovoked, person-centered aggression). Results suggested that the relevance of these
different forms of aggression for rejection varied somewhat with age. Among older
children, all three forms of aggression were related to rejection, whereas among younger
children only instrumental aggression significantly related to rejection. These findings
suggest that bullying and reactive aggression have less negative sequelae for younger
children, perhaps because person-oriented aggression is more normative at that age.
Another possibility, according to Coie and colleagues, is that bullying is more adaptive at
younger ages when techniques for establishing social dominance are relatively unsophisticated. As children develop more subtle means for obtaining dominance, bullying and
reactive aggression may be viewed more negatively by peers. These early findings suggest
that examining the different forms and functions of aggression may be helpful in
understanding the relation between aggression and rejection. However, it should be noted
that the high degree of correlation between reactive and proactive aggression (estimates of
r=.70 are typical) makes delineating their differential contributions challenging.
Gender differences in the link between aggression and rejection
One major limitation of the work linking aggression to rejection is that it has been
conducted almost exclusively on boys groups, and boys of low socioeconomic status in
particular, or on groups too small to assess gender differences adequately. In addition, until
fairly recently, the singular focus on overt forms of aggression (e.g., physical and verbal)
appears to have obscured the link between aggression and rejection among girls, in part
because of the relatively low base rates of these behaviors within girls groups (Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1980). Building on the seminal work of Crick & Grotpeter (1995) and
Underwood, Galen, and Paquette (2001), researchers have now begun to investigate
relational or social aggression, a non-physical form of aggression characterized by the use
of exclusion, negative gossip, and verbal threats. While both boys and girls engage in
relational aggression, there is growing evidence to suggest that this form of aggression is
more frequent among girls (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), is perceived by girls to be more
hurtful (Galen & Underwood, 1997; Paquette & Underwood, 1999), and is more likely to
be associated with peer rejection for girls than for boys (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter,
243
1995). Furthermore, the link between relational aggression and rejection has been
demonstrated across developmental periods. These studies suggest that the forms and
frequency of aggression differ in girls groups relative to boys groups and correspondingly, that relations between aggression and social status may differ for boys and girls.
Developmental changes in the link between aggression and peer rejection
The link between aggression and peer rejection has been found at each major
developmental period (preschool, school-age, and adolescence). However, the nature of
this relation changes with development. In preschool and the primary grades, aggression
occurs more frequently than in older groups and is more closely related to both incidental
and chronic rejection (Cillessen, van Ijzendoorn, van Lieshout, & Hartup, 1992; Coie et
al., 1990; Vitaro, Tremblay, & Gagnon, 1992). Normative changes in the expression of
aggression (e.g., from physical to verbal forms) and in the perceived acceptability of
aggression contribute to a weakening of the relationship between aggression and
rejection with age (Coie, Terry, Zakriski, & Lochman, 1995; Luther & McMahon,
1996). For example, in a longitudinal examination of rejected children, Sandstrom and
Coie (1999) report that aggressive fourth grade boys actually experienced greater
increases in social preference over time than their nonaggressive-rejected peers. The
authors suggest that these findings may be due, in part, to increasing acceptability or
even desirability of aggressive behavior in certain types of situations or within certain
populations, for example, among urban adolescents. Importantly, Sandstrom and Coie go
on to suggest that developmental changes in the structure of the peer group, including the
emergence of cliques, may underlie important age shifts in the link between aggression
and rejection.
Just as all aggressive children are not rejected by their peers, not all children identified
as rejected are aggressive (French, 1998). Considerably less is known about rejected, nonaggressive children, in part because this group appears to be quite heterogeneous. While
several studies have suggested that non-aggressive rejected children may be more shy and
withdrawn than their aggressive rejected peers (Cillessen et al., 1992; Rubin, LeMare, &
Lollis, 1990), these behaviors do not consistently differentiate them from non-rejected
children. Another characteristic that may serve to discriminate non-aggressive rejected
children is atypical or non-normative behavior (Bierman et al., 1993). In a sample of
school-age rejected boys, non-aggressive rejected children were described by their peers as
socially awkward and incompetent or prone to strange behaviors. Consistent with these
findings, recent work examining sociometric status differences in childrens teasing
behavior suggests that rejected children are more likely than their non-rejected peers to
be teased for non-normative or unusual behavior (Gifford-Smith, 1998). Finally, there is
some suggestion that non-aggressive-rejected children are less at risk for poor social
developmental outcomes than their rejected aggressive peers, possibly because rejection in
the absence of aggression is a less stable phenomenon, particularly at younger ages
(Bierman & Wargo, 1995; Cillessen et al., 1992; Pettit, Clawson, Dodge, & Bates, 1996).
If, in fact, rejection in the absence of aggression has to do with relatively subtle norm
violations, it would be reasonable to assume that the significance of such deviations for
social status would change as a function of developmental and contextual changes in what
constitutes normative behavior.
244
Related closely to research examining the link between rejection and aggression are
studies of the association between rejection and peer victimization. Although a comprehensive review of the literature on peer victimization is well beyond the scope of this paper
(see Juvonen & Graham, 2001 for a review), it is worth pointing out that the questions that
shape the peer victimization literature are very similar to those that have been asked about
sociometric status. For example, most research in this area is aimed at understanding the
behavioral and social cognitive correlates of bullies and their victims, at exploring
heterogeneity within these categories (e.g., aggressive/provocative victims versus passive
victims), and at examining the psychosocial outcomes for those children who bully or are
bullied by their peers. More relevant to this discussion is research examining the relation
between peer preference and victimization. Given what is known about the relation
between aggression and rejection, it is not surprising that the overlap between peer
victimization and rejection, while significant and larger than for other sociometric
categories, is not perfect (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988). Across
studies, the magnitude of the correlation between these two constructs appears to be
around .50 (Schuster, 2001).
The question of whether peer rejection contributes to victimization or vice versa
remains an issue of debate. Boivin, Hymel, and Hodges (2001) have suggested that peer
rejection may put a child at risk for victimization by virtue of the fact that the child is
perceived as more vulnerable. Whether a low status or rejected child is in fact selected as a
victim depends, according to Boivin, on the childs other behavioral characteristics. For
example, rejected children who are passive or withdrawn may inadvertently reinforce their
bullies through their submission, thereby further marking themselves as easy targets.
Relatedly, Schuster (2001) has indicated that while both rejected and victimized children
are de-valued by their peers, the social behavior of rejected children seems to predict
whether they will become victimized by their peers. For example, in an experimental task
that allowed children to behave either competitively or cooperatively (the Prisoners
Dilemma game), rejected-victimized children were found to demonstrate exceptionally
high levels of cooperation, suggesting an almost submissive stance. Rejected nonvictimized children were characterized by almost the opposite profile, engaging in
behaviors that were highly competitive. While these behaviors suggest one possible root
of their rejected status, Schuster hypothesizes that aggressive, assertive behavior may lead
potential bullies to look elsewhere for their targets.
Taken together, the studies reviewed in this section suggest that the relations between
rejection and aggressive behavior are more complicated than originally assumed, and
further, that studying either aggression or rejection as a global category may lead to
contradictory or misleading results. The forms, functions, and meanings of aggression
change with development and interactional context. Childrens ability to recognize these
changes and behave accordingly appears to be more important predictors of both rejection
and victimization than general levels of aggressive or antisocial behavior.
Popularity
While the majority of work on the behavioral correlates of social status has focused on
negative behaviors such as aggression, researchers have also attempted to isolate correlates
of positive social status. Not surprisingly, prosocial behaviors consistently emerge across
245
developmental periods as predictors of popularity. Popular children are described by their

peers as cooperative, helpful, considerate, and socially outgoing (Coie et al., 1990).
Observational studies reveal that children with high peer acceptance engage in more
frequent positive behaviors such as associative play, friendly approaches, social conversation, and acceptance of peer overtures (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Newcomb et al., 1993).
Finally, popular children have also been shown to demonstrate a pattern of social
information processing that reflects a priority for maintaining harmonious relationships
with peers. Specifically, well-accepted children are more accurate in their encoding of
social cues (Dodge & Price, 1994), more likely to perceive benign intent in the face of
provocation (Nelson & Crick, 1999), to generate and positively evaluate prosocial problemsolving strategies (Chung & Asher, 1996; Erdley & Asher, 1999; Nelson & Crick, 1999)
and to endorse relational goals over instrumental ones (Nelson & Crick, 1999).
The contention that sociometrically popular children are universally nicer, more
cooperative and generally more socially skilled than their less popular peers has rarely
been challenged. However, recently, it has been suggested that popular children may
constitute a less homogenous group than has been commonly assumed. Several studies
have suggested the presence of at least two subtypes of popular children-one characterized
by the prosocial attributes described above and one characterized by a mix of prosocial and
aggressive or socially dominant traits (Luther & McMahon, 1996; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,
1998; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). It should be noted, however, that two
out of these three studies relied on peer or teacher perceptions of popularity rather than
traditional methods of assessing peer status.
There is some evidence to suggest that childrens perceptions of peer acceptance may
differ in important ways from popularity as it is commonly defined among status
researchers (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). For example, children perceived as popular
by their peers are not necessarily well-liked, but rather enjoy positions of social power and
influence with in the larger group (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998; Lease, Kennedy, &
Axelrod, 2002). On the other hand, other researchers have documented that relations
between social status and social dominance increase with age, lending credence to the idea
that among older children, peer acceptance may be associated with assertive behavior
(Lease et al., 2002). As a result, it remains unclear whether the observed heterogeneity
among popular children is truly characteristic of well-liked children or simply a function of
different assessment strategies. Regardless, the finding that children perceived as popular
by their peers may have both prosocial and antisocial tendencies is an important one and
will be taken up in more detail later in this paper.
Neglected children
Neglected children, by definition, have low social impact or visibility in the classroom.
They are neither liked nor disliked by their peers and may, in fact, go unnoticed. It is
perhaps not surprising then, that beyond a general lack of sociability, clear and consistent
correlates of neglected status have not yet been identified. A common finding across
studies is that neglected children are hard to distinguish behaviorally from their popular or
average peers. Complicating matters, neglected children appear to be viewed somewhat
differently by their peers than by their teachers. Based on peer ratings, neglected children
are sometimes characterized as shy or withdrawn (Ollendick et al., 1992), as lacking in
246
prosocial behavior (Harrist et al., 1997; Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996), and as slightly less
likeable than their non-neglected peers (Ollendick et al., 1992). Teachers, on the other
hand, either fail to detect these differences or view neglected children in a more positive
light, especially with respect to school motivation, independent functioning, and appropriate classroom behavior (Wentzel & Asher, 1995). Finally, there is some suggestion that
the stability of peer neglect is lower than that for other sociometric categories (Cillessen,
Bukowski, & Huselager, 2000; Newcomb et al., 1993) and that the use of limited
nominations may artificially inflate the number of children identified as neglected by
their peers (Terry, 2000). Due in part to the relative lack of stability in the classification of
neglected children and the relatively small differences identified between neglected and
average children, some argue that neglect may not be a meaningful sociometric category
(Rubin, Hymel, Lemare, & Rowden, 1989). Minimally, it appears that neglected children
are not at substantially heightened risk for negative developmental outcomes.
Controversial children
Unlike neglected children, controversial children are highly visible members of their
classroom, receiving numerous nominations as both liked and disliked by their peers. Not
surprisingly, their behavioral profiles include features characteristic of both rejected and
popular children. Like popular children, controversial children engage in higher rates of
positive interaction (Newcomb et al., 1993), are rated as more sociable and are often
perceived as leaders, especially with increasing age (Bagwell, Coie, Terry, & Lochman,
2000; Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996). However, like rejected children, controversial children
are also more aggressive (especially boys) and are more likely to be perceived as arrogant
or snobbish (especially girls) (Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996). Interestingly, these negative
correlates are derived more frequently from peer than from teacher ratings, suggesting that
controversial children may use negative behaviors more judiciously or at least away from
the direct supervision of adults. There is also some suggestion that controversial children
have more advanced cognitive abilities than their rejected peers (Newcomb et al., 1993)
and may be somewhat less at risk for negative developmental outcomes, particularly
school drop-out (Ollendick et al., 1992). Interestingly, it has been suggested that with
increasing age, controversial children may play an important role in deviant peer influence.
That is, as deviant behavior begins to become more normative in early adolescence,
controversial children, with their combination of leadership skills, cognitive abilities, and
proclivity for aggressive and risky behaviors, may become increasingly attractive and
influential in the peer group (Bagwell et al., 2000).
Although a fairly consistent behavioral profile of controversial children has begun to
emerge across studies, the controversial classification is less stable than all other sociometric
categories, except neglect (Cillessen et al., 2000; Newcomb et al., 1993). Additionally, given
the small number of students typically identified as controversial, drawing firm conclusions
about their shared characteristics, and more especially about their risk status, is difficult.
Individual-group similarity
Attempts to understand the heterogeneity within sociometric status categories have
been enriched by work examining how the degree of similarity between an individual
247
child and the larger peer group influences the childs acceptance within the group. This
work represents a shift in emphasis from a focus on the child as the primary contributor to
his or her own status to a consideration of how features of the peer group might interact
with child characteristics to influence social status. Building on the work of Wright,
Giammarino, and Parad (1986), Boivin, Dodge, and Coie (1995) demonstrated that the
association between social status and a childs social behavior such as reactive aggression
or solitary play was moderated by the level of these behaviors within the larger group. In
groups where such behaviors were normative, they were not associated with peer rejection.
However, in groups where solitary play and/or reactive aggression were less common,
these behaviors were significantly and negatively related to peer acceptance. Furthermore,
positive social behavior, hypothesized to be related to positive status regardless of group
norms, turned out to be similarly norm bound. That is, positive peer-related behavior was
associated with peer acceptance only in groups where such behavior was relatively
common.
Additional support for the individual-group similarity hypothesis has been reported by
Stormshak et al. (1999). Using hierarchical linear modeling, they examined this hypothesis
on 2895 children in 134 first grade classrooms. Results suggested that individual levels of
aggressive and withdrawn behavior were not significantly related to peer preference in
classrooms where such behaviors were more normative, but did predict lower levels of
peer preference in classrooms characterized by low levels of these behaviors. Contrary to
the findings of Boivin and colleagues, prosocial behavior was related to higher levels of
peer acceptance independent of classroom norms.
As the studies reviewed in this section demonstrate, emphasis on sociometric status as
an attribute or characteristic of the individual child has led to a proliferation of research
examining the behavioral and social cognitive correlates of peer acceptance and rejection.
The more recent and more fine-grained assessment of how the forms and functions of
social behavior relate to social status has made it possible to identify and examine
differences among children within particular status categories (e.g., aggressive rejected
versus non-aggressive rejected children). Additionally, increased emphasis on the fit
between the characteristics of the child and the norms or expectations of the larger group
has underscored the importance of identifying how processes at the group level influence
peer functioning.
Sociometric status and academic functioning
A key reason for the growth of research on sociometric status over the past several
decades is the well-documented link between low peer status and a range of negative
developmental outcomes (e.g., delinquency, school failure, and psychological maladjustment). Although a review of the literature linking peer status to the wide range of
developmental outcomes with which it has been associated is beyond the limits of this
paper, a few words about the relations between sociometric status and academic achievement are warranted. In general, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that
children of lower social status, particularly those who are rejected by their peers, are at risk
for school difficulties such as failure and drop-out (Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996; Ollendick
et al., 1992). Research examining the subtypes of rejected children suggests that those with
248
disruptive or aggressive behavioral styles may be in particular danger of poor outcomes

(Wentzel & Asher, 1995). Some researchers suggest that peer rejection may serve as a
marker of an underlying deficit (or excess) that compromises academic as well as social
competence (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984), while others hold that negative peer experiences
themselves may perpetuate or exacerbate academic difficulties by undermining motivation
to attend school (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). Another possibility is that peer rejection leads to
poor school adjustment by increasing exposure to other marginalized peers who de-value
academic success. Finally, Wentzel and Asher (1995) suggest that the characteristics of
rejected children that lead to their negative status with peers may have a similar influence
on teacher perceptions or feelings and that rejection by teachers may be a key factor in
school failure. While all three of these explanations likely have some merit, our understanding of the relationship between peer status and academic achievement would be
enhanced by work that incorporates recent trends in the study of status discussed in the
previous sections. That is, examining the academic orientations of different subtypes of
rejected children, attending to the different components of academic achievement (e.g.,
attendance, motivation, and performance), and examining the goodness of fit between
the academic motivation of individual children and the values/norms concerning academics in the larger classroom may be an important step to better articulating the link between
social status and academic performance.
Childrens friendships
Within the larger realm of childrens peer relationships, friendship and group acceptance constitute two different domains, and they may contribute in distinct ways to
childrens socioemotional development (Hartup W.W., 1996). Whereas sociometric status
represents an individual childs acceptance within the larger peer group, friendships are
dyadic relations between two children. Friendships are voluntary, intimate, dynamic
relationships founded on cooperation and trust, while group acceptance reflects the
perspective of the childs peer group. Children who are unpopular, rejected, or isolated
in the larger peer group may still have friends, whereas some highly accepted and widely
liked children have few or no reciprocal friendships (Ladd et al., 1997; Parker & Asher,
1993; Vandell & Hembree, 1994). A recent study of second and third graders found that
39% of children rejected by their peer group had at least one mutual friend in that group
and 31% of popular children did not (Gest et al., 2001). Moreover, friends can serve to
buffer the potential ill-effects of group-level processes such as rejection or victimization
(Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999).
Friendships are a primary feature of both adults and childrens lives. As early as age 4,
75% of children in group settings are observed to have frequent, reciprocal, cooperative,
positive interactions with selected peers (Howes, 1996). Friendships also appear to be
universal, cutting across all cultures. Moreover, in every culture, friendship relations are
distinct from other close relationships, for example among kin (Krappman, 1996). Of
particular interest to developmental psychologists, friendships are manifested differently at
different ages (Berndt & Hoyle, 1985; Gottman, 1983; Hartup W.W., 1996), and individual
differences in friendships throughout childhood predict later social competence during
249
both childhood and adolescence, and even potentially into adulthood (Bagwell, Newcomb,
& Bukowski, 1998).
Sullivan (1953) proposed that in late childhood and pre-adolescence, children form
chumships with a single, favored peer. In addition to providing companionship, Sullivan
argued that close, mutual friendships should: promote the development of interpersonal
skills, including sensitivity to others thoughts and feelings and concern for anothers wellbeing; provide validation of the childs developing self-concept and promote self-esteem;
and produce feelings of personal well-being and prevent loneliness. Indeed, Sullivan
contended that without friendships and the opportunities for collaboration and intimacy
they afforded, children would fail to acquire the social skills necessary for later successful
relationships with others as adolescents and adults. More recently, Bukowski (2001) has
suggested two additional functions of friendship: to stimulate skill-acquisition and learning;
and to establish a normative culture that shapes behavior. Finally, friendships can also have
a dark side. Although friendships typically feature reciprocity, commitment, shared positive
affect, and companionship, they can also sometimes include contentiousness, conflict,
coercion, jealousy, and betrayal (Bukowski et al., 1996). Moreover, children may choose
friends with antisocial characteristics. Such friends, in turn, can amplify the childs own
antisocial tendencies (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995), and/or lead to bully victim
relationships (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Bukowski & Sippola, 2001) or perhaps even to
enmity and mutual antipathies (Abecassis et al., in press; Hartup & Abecassis, in press).
Thus, friendships serve as key contexts for social, emotional and cognitive development
(Newcomb, Bukowski, & Bagwell, 1999).
Childrens friendships are distinct from their other relationships, including close
relationships with adults. The social mirror provided by friends is different from that
provided by supportive adults (Sullivan, 1953) and includes reciprocal validation of one
anothers developing self-image (Azmitia, 2002; Franco & Levitt, 1998; Ladd &
Kochenderfer, 1996). Friendships also serve as an important source of emotional security
outside the family, although they do not substitute for child parent attachments (Furman
& Burhmester, 1985; Hartup W.W., 1996). Friends appear to cushion children in perhaps
unique ways from some of the stresses they experience, including those in the family
(Criss, Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Lapp, 2002). These include both normative stresses such as
the transition to a new school (Berndt, Hawkins, & Jiao, 1999; Ladd & Kochenderfer,
1996), and non-normative stresses such as divorce (Hetherington, 1999) or becoming the
victim of a school bully (Hodges et al., 1999; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999;
Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2000). It should not be surprising that children without
friends not only report being lonely and feeling depressed, but also exhibit other forms of
maladaptive behavior (Parker, Rubin, Price, & de Rosier, 1995).
Childrens friendships are also different from other dyadic relationships with peers. In a
comprehensive meta-analysis of studies comparing friends and non-friends, Newcomb and
Bagwell (1995, 1996) concluded that friends engage in more frequent positive interactions, including talking, cooperation, and positive affect than do peers not identified as
friends. These behaviors are presumably a consequence of friends greater proximity,
mutual interest and concern, and they point to the unique affiliative bond they share.
Friends are more similar behaviorally to one another, more egalitarian and less likely to
assert dominance over one another, as well as more and loyal to one another. Finally,
250
although friends engage in conflict at rates similar to those of nonfriends, they are
distinguished from nonfriends in their conflict resolution efforts. That is, research regularly
shows that friends resolve their conflicts quickly and amicably, and remain engaged with
each other following conflicts, unlike nonfriends whose conflicts may be unresolved or
who sever the interaction following conflict (Hartup & Laursen, 1999; Hartup W.W.,
1996). Because friendships are founded on emotional commitments, children have a lot at
stake in their friendships, and failing to resolve conflict puts the friendship at risk. Thus,
children are particularly motivated to reduce conflict with their friends in order to maintain
the relationship (Hartup W.W., 1996; Whitesell & Harter, 1996). In sum, friendships are
unique relationships, distinct from other child child relationships, from peer group
processes, and from parent child relationships. They appear to offer their own resources
or provisions and to serve different functions than do childrens other relationships.
The extant empirical literature on childrens friendships does not begin to compare in
size and breadth to that on sociometric status and group acceptance, but it is nevertheless
too extensive to permit detailed review here. Instead the current review will highlight the
key research traditions and identify continuing issues. The focus includes:
(1) conceptual and methodological issues in defining friendship and identifying childrens
friends, as well as in assessing the quality of friendship relations;
(2) developmental changes in childrens friendships;
(3) individual differences with respect to number of friends, characteristics of friends, and
quality of friendships, and their correlates;
(4) associations between childrens friendships and cognitive and school performance.
Defining and measuring friendships in childhood
Historically, friendship has received less attention than topics like popularity or
rejection, or even peer-directed behavior by the individual child such as aggression versus
prosocial behavior (Hartup, 1970, 1983; Hartup W.W., 1996). However, along with the
declining prominence of research on sociometric status and group acceptance has come a
corresponding increase in the study of childrens dyadic relationships, and friendship in
particular (Bukowski, 2001).
The historically greater emphasis on group-level processes and individual behavior than
on friendships may be because friendship has proven to be more difficult to operationalize
than either sociometric status or peer-directed social behavior. Sociometric methods, as
reviewed above, are relatively easy to implement and are a good fit for classroom-level
data that yield indices of childrens likeability and acceptance by the peer group. Likewise,
observations of individual childrens peer-directed behavior such as aggression and
prosocial behavior, whether they are obtained in naturalistic settings or using laboratory
manipulations, yield relatively straightforward interpretations at the level of the individual
child. Measurement issues for assessing childrens friendships, however, are longstanding
and remain difficult to solve. Because friendships exist between children, and are neither
group nor individual constructs, it is particularly challenging to operationalize them. Thus,
unique assessment techniques have been developed to identify and study childrens dyadic
relationships with one another. Perhaps the most challenging issue is establishing the
251
defining features of childrens friendships (Bukowski & Hoza 1989; Furman, 1996). This
is particularly difficult because the nature of friendship changes with development, even
while fundamentals such as companionship, reciprocity, and shared positive affect remain
constant (Berndt, 1989; Gottman, 1983; Hartup W.W., 1996).
Identifying childrens friends
The most frequent means currently used for identifying childrens friends are sociometric methods. Typically, children who both nominate each other as a best friend or as
one of two or three best friends are considered mutual friends. However, some authors
contend that the measurement issues associated with sociometric methods (discussed
above) may also compromise efforts to define and understand childrens friendships
(Newcomb et al., 1993; Parker & Asher, 1993). Such issues include how the assessments
are worded (friend/best friend, like/dislike, play with/work with, etc.); whether children
nominate or rate their peers as friends; whether children can identify or nominate as many
liked peers as they wish or are limited to naming only 2 or 3; and whether friendships are
limited to reciprocal nominations or not.
The question of whether or not to require that friendship nominations be reciprocated
provides a good example of the complexity involved, since it is rooted in both conceptual
and methodological issues. The use of unilateral or unreciprocated nominations is
complicated by the fact that children will sometimes name peers they would like to be
friends with in addition to naming actual friends. These nominations are usually of the
popular children in the class and they are often not reciprocated. However, unreciprocated friendships may be considered true friendships by the children who identified them.
Moreover, if children are limited in the number of nominations they are allowed, or if the
participating children (those for whom consent was obtained) constitute 75% or less of the
classroom, reciprocated friendships may be under-identified, that is, friendships identified
as unreciprocated by the researcher may, in fact, be reciprocated by one of the nonparticipating children. Some research has suggested that interactions between unilateral or
unreciprocated friends are different from those of nonfriends, even though they do not
appear to be equivalent to reciprocated friendships (Furman, 1996). For example, conflict
tactics are more similar to those of nonfriends, whereas conflict outcomes are more similar
to those of mutual friends (Hartup, Laursen, Stewart, & Eastenson, 1988). Moreover, even
reciprocal friends agree only modestly in their perceptions of the characteristics and
quality of their friendship (Parker & Asher, 1993), suggesting that in some sense each
child has a separate friendship that is perceived as distinct from the others friendship.
Other methods are sometimes used both to identify who childrens friends are and to
ascertain the characteristics of those relationships (Bukowski et al., 1996; Newcomb &
Bagwell, 1995). These include behavioral observations that concentrate on the frequency,
stability, and affective quality of childrens interactions with each other (e.g., Berndt,
Perry, & Miller, 1988; Gottman, 1983; Hartup et al., 1988). Childrens talk, proximity,
mutual reinforcement, self-disclosure, control and dominance, shared affect, cooperation,
aggression, conflict and conflict resolution, and other indices of their relationship are
tallied or rated from naturally occurring interactions. Childrens interactions can then be
compared to determine which features distinguish friends from nonfriends. Teachers or
parents are also sometimes asked to identify childrens friends. Finally, children them-
252
selves are often asked to identify their friends using questionnaires or interviews, as well
as to report on the characteristics and quality of their friendships.
Clearly, varying measurement decisions across studies make it difficult to compare
findings. More important, depending on how the decisions are made, investigators may
conceivably misidentify, or over- or under-estimate childrens friends. One important
weakness in all of these approaches is that they dichotomize friendship (friends/
nonfriends), whereas friendships may actually vary along a continuum from occasional
or casual friend to good friend to best friend (Hartup W.W., 1996). Another particular
drawback in using reciprocal nominations is that researchers often use the same method
to index the childs social acceptance (popularity/rejection) by the peer group, thereby
confounding friendship and group processes. This limitation is especially problematic
when investigators wish to compare friendship and peer group acceptance (Gest et al.,
2001; Parker & Asher, 1993). One final, prominent shortcoming of the reciprocal
nomination method is that it can tell us nothing about the nature and quality of childrens
friendships.
Measuring friendship quality
In addition to the concerns about how best to identify who childrens friends are, issues
arise regarding how best to characterize the nature and quality of childrens friendships.
Children or adult informants are typically asked to rate how frequently particular kinds of
interactions occur with a given friend (e.g., conflict, prosocial behavior, and selfdisclosure), or how true particular descriptions of a given friendship are (e.g., make each
other feel important, care about each others feelings, get over arguments quickly, can
count on each other, help each other out, tell each other problems) (Parker & Asher, 1993).
Because there is no widely accepted theory that generates the empirical study of childrens
friendships, investigators have typically constructed friendship measures by creating items
or features based on their own past empirical work or on their judgments about the most
consistent and important findings in past work by others. Ladd and Kochenderfer (1996)
suggest that it might be useful to distinguish between friendship processes and friendship
provisions in generating measures of friendship quality. Processes refer to observable
features of interactions that may influence the quality of the relationship. These might
include self-disclosure, gossip, affection, prosocial behavior, conflict, and conflict resolution. Provisions, on the other hand, refer to the benefits that friendships provide to
children, including security, trust, intimacy, validation, companionship, support, and so on.
In principle, differences in friendship provisions should be predictable from differences in
friendship processes.
Although such a distinction may serve heuristic purposes, it does not solve the
fundamental tension that underlies these various methodological issues. This is the tension
between objective, observable features of friendships versus subjective, unobservable, but
equally important characteristics such as perceived similarity, closeness, trust, or supportiveness. Some investigators argue that despite the obvious biases in childrens selfreports, childrens own perceptions of their friendships may be the best measure (Furman,
1996). This is because childrens views of the nature and meaning of the affective bond
they share with others provide perspectives that no one else shares. Moreover, childrens
perceptions of their friendships shape their own behavior as well as their interpretations of
253
their friends behavior. Because friendship is a relationship between two children and
exists at the level of the dyad, what children bring to the relationship and what they take
away from it are best known by the children themselves. This dilemma is particularly
thorny because there is increasing evidence that ones perceptions of the social world
depend on characteristics of the individual. For example, rejected, aggressive children
perceive their standing in the peer group as more positive than it actually is (Hymel et al.,
1993; Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Griesler, 1990). Thus, even though children can provide
the insiders view of their friendships via self-report, it may be a unique, incomplete,
even inaccurate picture of friendship. On the other hand, observers and other adults
perspectives on childrens friendships come with their own biases and limitations. We find
ourselves in the uncomfortable position, then, of having no gold standard for measurement in this important domain of social development.
Nevertheless, some methodologies may be better suited to obtaining some kinds of
information about friendships than others. Newcomb and Bagwell (1996), for example,
found in their meta-analysis that observational strategies were predominantly used to
study features of positive engagement such as cooperativeness, shared affect, and
talking, whereas informant reports were more often used to assess relationship properties such as similarity, equality, mutual closeness, and liking. Moreover, differences
between childrens relationships with friends and nonfriends with respect to features of
intimacy such as mutual closeness, liking, and loyalty were significantly more evident
using child reports than using observations or knowledgeable adults reports (Newcomb
& Bagwell, 1996). It is worth recognizing that all relationships possess both objective
and subjective qualities, and that a focus on both is necessary to achieve a complete
understanding.
Development of friendships
A number of models of friendship development were proposed early in the study of
friendship (Selman, 1980; Sullivan, 1953; Youniss, 1980); however, there has been little
theoretical work in recent years. Early theorists all identified similar changes in the nature
of friendships between early, middle, and late childhood. Their differences exist primarily
in terms of the underlying causal mechanisms emphasized, including cognitive-developmental changes, social-cognitive changes such as perspective-taking, or more purely
social changes such as increases in reciprocity. Most empirical work on age-related
changes in childrens friendships has been atheoretical however, so these models have
rarely been tested (Furman, 1996). Nevertheless, empirical research on childrens friendship perceptions, expectations, and behavior as a function of age has generally confirmed
the hypothesized age-related patterns (Berndt & Perry, 1986; Bigelow, 1977; Buhrmester
& Furman, 1987; Furman & Bierman, 1984; Gottman, 1983).
Children begin to distinguish between friends and nonfriends early in childhood
(Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995), although friendships in later childhood have been found
to differ from both preschool and adolescent friendships behaviorally and conceptually.
Descriptively, preschool childrens friendships emerge and are most evident in sustained
bouts of positive, highly charged, coordinated play, especially fantasy play in dyads or
very small groups. By middle childhood, friendships are based on shared norms and
personal qualities as a function of growing interpersonal awareness and are evident in
254
animated conversation, games, and contests. In adolescence, friendships depend on and are
evident in intimate, dyadic exchanges that feature openness, honesty, and affection (Parker
& Gottman, 1989).
The functions of friendship also differ with development, from serving as a means for
achieving mutual enjoyment and entertainment through coordinated play and shared
positive affect in the early years of life, to achieving group identity and acceptance in
middle childhood, to achieving individual identity and self-understanding in adolescence.
The corresponding interactive processes change with age as well, from play negotiation,
emotion regulation, and conflict management in the early years, to social comparison and
shared negative gossip in middle-childhood, to self-disclosure, positive gossip, and shared
intimacy in adolescence (Parker & Gottman, 1989).
Making and keeping friends requires an assortment of socioemotional and socialcognitive skills, including perspective-taking ability, affect recognition, communicative
skills, self-regulation, understanding of intentions, desires, and beliefs in others, social
information processing skills and social problem solving strategies, among others. These
competencies develop over childhood, and friendship characteristics and expectations
change in concert (Rubin et al., 1998). For example, childrens friendships become more
stable and more often reciprocated over development (Epstein, 1986). Children also
participate in a variety of developmental niches that change with age, accompanied by
different demands, roles, and standards for behavior. These are accompanied by a
realignment of childrens friendship preferences and of the needs and concerns that
friendships can address (Parker & Gottman, 1989). Starting school is an example of one
such age-related niche. The transitions into and out of these niches thus correspond to the
primary transitions in the nature of childrens friendships.
Most of the recent work on childrens friendships, however, has concentrated on
individual differences rather than developmental change, particularly in childhood and
adolescence. However, it can be argued that a developmental perspective on individual
differences is critical. For example, relations between friendship quality and childrens
individual characteristics may vary with age, as might the associations between friendship
quality and developmental outcomes in other domains. Similarly, friends effectiveness as
supports, scaffolds or challenges to one another is likely to differ by age.
Individual differences: having friends, choosing friends, and friendship quality

Children differ from one another in whether they have friends and how many they have,
as well as who their friends are and the quality of their friendship relations (Hartup W.W.,
1996). The characteristics of childrens friends affect both the interactions between the
children and the nature and quality of their relationship. Whether a child befriends
prosocial or antisocial peers, for example, can influence the norms, attitudes, and behavior
each of them adopts, as well as their reputation and standing in the larger peer group.
Similarly, because friendships can vary in their companionship and support or in the
conflict and distress they provide, the quality of childrens friendships can make a
difference in childrens feelings of self-worth and well-being, as well as their attitudes
toward other children and toward school. Thus, individual differences in friendship appear
255
to carry far-reaching implications for development and functioning across multiple arenas
in the childs social world.
Having friends or not
Insofar as friendships are thought to contribute to the development of social competence, having friends or not may prove to be a critical determinant of childrens social
adaptation and adjustment. The empirical literature is consistent with this perspective. A
growing number of studies reveals that children with mutual friends are generally better
adjusted and more socially competent than are children without friends. They are more
sociable and prosocial, have higher self-esteem, and are less likely to be lonely (Newcomb
& Bagwell, 1995). They manage difficult transitions more smoothly, and their self-esteem
increases following such transitions if they have mutual friends (Berndt et al., 1999; Ladd,
1990). For children who find themselves victimized by some of their peers, having friends
can reduce the incidence of victimization and friends can provide support and advice about
how to manage the problem (Hodges et al., 1999; Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997). In one
particularly well-controlled recent study, children with a greater number of mutual friends
were found to be more prosocial and good-humored, and less likely to tease others or boss
them around, even after taking into account their group acceptance and peer network
centrality (Gest et al., 2001).
It should be noted, however, that the univariate view that characterizes most of the work
on childrens friendships may over-estimate the importance of friendships in childrens
development (Hartup & Abecassis, in press). First, the role of friendship in childrens social
development is likely to depend on the nature and quality of the childs other close
relationships, the number and kinds of stresses the child confronts, and the childs own
temperament and interaction skills. For example, having friends is more important for
children whose family relationships are less satisfying, supportive, and positive than it is for
children in higher-functioning families, and families contribute more heavily to childrens
adjustment when they do not have close friends (Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan Assee, &
Sippola, 1996). Second, friendships may be more important at some points in development
than at others (Hartup & Stevens, 1997; Parker & Gottman, 1989). Third, having friends may
be less important than other aspects of the childs social behavior in contributing to the
development of social competence. In particular, childrens aggression or their likeability
and acceptance in their peer group are sometimes better predictors of social competence than
how many friends they have (Gest et al., 2001). Finally, the association between friendships
and other aspects of social competence may be driven by features of the childs social
competence rather than vice versa (Hartup W.W., 1996). That is, children who possess the
social, communicative and self-regulatory skills to establish and maintain mutual friendships are also likely to be more sociable and cooperative, better at managing conflict and
disagreement, have higher self-esteem, and endorse the peer groups norms.
Friendship choice
Children tend to choose as friends those peers who are similar to them, and there is
some suggestion that friends increase in their similarity over time (Newcomb et al., 1999).
256
School-age children like and befriend others who are similar to themselves not only with
respect to superficial characteristics like age, gender, and physical appearance (Epstein,
1986), but also in terms of more complex psychological characteristics such as humor,
politeness, sociability, sensitivity, play style, and play complexity (Gest et al., 2001; Rubin
et al., 1998), as well as prosocial behavior, antisocial behavior, shyness, victimization,
group acceptance, and depressive symptoms (Haselager, Hartup, van Lieshout, & RiksenWalraven, 1998; Newcomb et al., 1999; Poulin et al., 1997). Recent research suggests, in
fact, that this general principle operates consistently across contexts as different as school
classrooms and play groups, that it is especially pronounced for aggressive behavior, at
least among boys, and even more specifically, it operates for proactive but not reactive
aggression (Poulin et al., 1997).
How do children decide on which particular similar features to assort themselves?
Hartup W.W. (1996) has proposed that the reputational salience of a given characteristic
is likely to determine its importance in friendship choice. For example, among boys,
physical activity is more similar between friends than between nonfriends, whereas for
girls personality and social network size are more similar between friends than between
nonfriends. Notably, these qualities are also more important for peer group reputation
among boys and girls respectively. According to Hartup, the reputational salience
hypothesis has never been tested. But it provides a particularly interesting potential link
between dyadic and group processes in childrens peer relations.
Childrens friendship choices appear to be important to their continuing adjustment.
When children choose friends who are well-adjusted and socially competent, endorse
conventional social norms, and have few behavior problems, they manage stressful
transitions better (Berndt et al., 1999; Hetherington, 1999). Not surprisingly, such friendships are more harmonious, less conflictual, and less exclusive (Dishion et al., 1995;
Gropeter & Crick, 1996). Perhaps more important, socially skilled friends encourage
adaptive, cooperative, prosocial behavior in one another (Brendgen, Bowen, Rondea, &
Vitaro, 1999; Haselager et al., 1998).
In contrast to this rosy picture, when children assort with antisocial or socially unskilled
friends who endorse non-normative behavior and attitudes, their friendships are more
conflictual and less intimate (Gropeter & Crick, 1996), and more coercive (Dishion et al.,
1995) but they nevertheless serve to reinforce and exacerbate one anothers antisocial
behavior (Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996; Kupersmidt, DeRosier, &
Patterson, 1995). Children who are similar in their aggression and/or withdrawn behavior
are more likely to become friends than children who are dissimilar on these dimensions
(Kupersmidt et al., 1995), and intra-dyad correlations are greater for antisocial behavior
than they are for prosocial behavior or for social isolation (Haselager et al., 1998). This
suggests that troubled children may find their friendship choices limited, hence end up in
more homogeneous friendships than the typical child.
Friendship quality
It should be clear from the foregoing that not all friendships are the same. Among
children who have friends, which is estimated to be about 85% of children by middle
childhood (Hartup & Abecassis, in press), the quality of their friendships varies consid-
257
erably both across children and across different friendships of the same child. Generally,
friendship quality has been described in terms of particular resources or provisions that the
friendship offers and the affective dimensions of the relationship. Friendships have been
distinguished in terms of the amount of support, intimacy, and interdependence versus
coercion, emotional distance, and disengagement, as well as differences in power, status,
exclusivity, conflict, warmth, validation and caring, companionship, commitment, and
conflict resolution (Bukowski et al., 1996). Berndt (1996, 2002) has shown that children
who rate their friendships positively on one feature tend to rate them highly on other
positive features as well. For example, at second, fourth, and sixth grades, the features of
intimacy, loyalty, prosocial behavior, conflict, play, and self-esteem-support loaded on one
primary factor (Berndt & Perry, 1986). This has led Berndt to argue that the various
positive features of friendship quality actually constitute a single dimension from high to
low positivity (Berndt, 2002). Likewise, Berndt notes that negative features occur even in
good friendships-conflict, rivalry, inequality, and dominance attempts occur in all friendships. These features, too, appear to comprise a single dimension of negative quality from
high to low, and this dimension is relatively independent of positive friendship quality
(Berndt, 1996, 2002). Whether it is more informative to characterize friendship quality in a
more differentiated or more global manner remains an issue in this area of study.
An important question is whether the quality of childrens friendships is associated with
other aspects of social, emotional, or cognitive development. Insofar as friends serve as
socialization agents (Hartup W.W., 1996; Sullivan, 1953), it would be reasonable to expect
that high quality friendships would contribute to positive outcomes, whereas troubled
friendships might contribute to less optimal outcomes. Indeed, some investigators have
hypothesized that high quality friendships should amplify friends influence on one
another, whether positive or negative (Berndt, 2002). Children who describe their friendships more positively tend also to possess higher self-esteem, report less loneliness, enjoy
wider peer acceptance, and exhibit better adjustment to school (Furman, 1996). Children
with more friends and more stable friendships are happier at school, their positive attitudes
toward school increase over the year, and they have fewer adjustment problems, whereas
children with conflictual friendships exhibit decreased liking and reduced engagement in
school over a school year, as well as greater loneliness (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman,
1996). More positive friendships are also related to later positive school attitudes, higher
engagement, better achievement, and fewer school-related problems (Berndt et al., 1999).
Friendship supportiveness also relates to popularity, sociability, and more positive attitudes
about classmates (Berndt et al., 1999; Cauce, 1986; Ladd et al., 1996). Interestingly,
several studies have also reported that girls describe their friends more positively than boys
do, although boys and girls do not differ in their reports of the negative features, except
that girls report lower conflict in their friendships than boys do (Furman, 1996), and boys
report less intimacy than girls do (Parker & Asher, 1993).
Correlational data, of course, raise the possibility that children who are more socially
competent are more likely to perceive, value, or report the positive qualities of their
friendships than the negative features. Additionally, Berndt (2002) suggests that the effects
of friendship quality may be specific rather than general. That is, friendship effects may be
especially pronounced for peer social competence, such as promoting positive social
contacts with classmates, but effects may be reduced or non-existent for other aspects of
258
competence such as promoting self-esteem. Other investigators (e.g., Aboud & Mendelson, 1996) have proposed that specific features of the friends involved in a friendship may
shape specific facets of the relationship. For example, one friends empathy may relate to
intimacy in the relationship. Different factors may come into play in different friendshipsunique dimensions of personality, activities or attitudes, or a specific setting might
channel a friendship in a particular direction. One implication is that friendship quality
may be more differentiated and complex than our measures currently can capture.
Research has generally failed to consider the wide variety of friendship experiences that
children have, and the possibility of distinct predictions of these differences in experience
to other aspects of development. For example, friendships in school may predict to
different outcomes than friendships outside of school; same- versus opposite-sex friendships may predict different outcomes; and number of friendships may predict to different
outcomes than quality of friendships (Hartup W.W., 1996). Moreover, friendships tend to
be embedded within larger peer networks (Gest et al., 2001; Lansford & Parker, 1999),
which means that effects on development attributed to friendship may instead be a
function of other experiences in the peer group. More complex research designs are needed
to address these kinds of issues. Because childrens peer relationships are multifaceted, and
include both group and dyadic processes, as we hope we have made clear, several
investigators have recently begun to ascertain the distinct, overlapping, and converging
contributions of friendships and other types of peer relationships to childrens social
competence and adjustment (Gest et al., 2001; Parker & Asher, 1993; Vandell & Hembree,
1994). These will be discussed more fully below. Finally, we do not yet understand how
friends influence one another (Hartup, 1999), but Berndt (1996) suggests three mechanisms of influence between friends that may account for the associations between
friendship and adjustment: (1) social conformity, (2) discussion and negotiation, and (3)
converging similarity. Research has yet to test these possibilities.
Friendships in school
Friends influence problem-solving, achievement, and adjustment in school, and
schools affect childrens opportunities to cultivate healthy friendships. Pellegrini and
Blatchford (2000) argue that characteristics of classrooms themselves may influence both
childrens friendship choices, and the very nature of the friendships formed. For example,
in traditionally organized classrooms, there are more isolated, friendless children,
whereas in less traditional, more open classrooms there are more frequent, more stable,
and more reciprocated friendships. Similarly, whether classrooms are competitive and
grouped by ability versus cooperative and grouped by interest affects whether friends are
chosen on the basis of shared ability versus shared interests. Thus, classroom characteristics appear to affect opportunities for making friends and the contexts in which
friendships develop.
Childrens cognitive development and intellectual performance are also associated with
particular features of their friendships, although the empirical research on this question
remains rather limited. When children collaborate with friends (versus nonfriends), they
are more efficient and productive problem-solvers across a variety of tasks, including
creative and oral tasks as well as more academic tasks such as scientific reasoning
problems or writing assignments (Azmitia & Montgomery, 1993; Zajac & Hartup, 1997).
259
This may be because friends are more cooperative with one another, they engage in more
on-topic conversation with one another, they are less competitive with each other, and their
disagreements are resolved quickly and amicably (Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995).
Indeed, there is growing evidence that conflicts between friends are not only less
intense and more likely to be constructively resolved (e.g., Hartup et al., 1988), but that
conflict between friends working on difficult tasks together may promote more effective
problem-solving. Azmitia and Montogomery (1993) paired fifth grade friends together to
solve a set of deductive reasoning problems. Although friends exhibited proportionally
more conflict than did nonfriend pairs during their collaborations, they also more often
responded to one anothers suggestions and ideas positively, with more frequent justifications and elaborations. Interestingly, their disagreements proved to be constructive as
well, since conflicts appeared to promote more accurate solutions among friends but not
among nonfriends.
Hartup W. (1996) argues that close relationships with other children may contribute
positively to childrens cognitive development because of the emotional qualities of such
relationships, in addition to whatever friends might contribute directly to one anothers
knowledge. Such emotional features might include the uniquely motivating quality of
friendly competition during collaboration, as well as the greater motivation to persist in
the face of difficulty in the context of an emotionally supportive relationship; the mutual
commitment and loyalty between friends which motivates childrens concerted attempts to
comprehend one anothers ideas and perspectives, which may in turn stretch both the
listeners understanding and the speakers communication skills; the safety and security of
airing ones untested ideas in a climate of acceptance, shared positive affect and good
humor, and the corresponding lack of defensiveness that may promote thoughtful
justifications, revisions, and elaborations of ones ideas. Hartup also suggests that
collaboration between friends may be more productive because of friends mutual
knowledge of one anothers needs and goals, their expectations of reciprocity and
egalitarianism in their exchanges, their mutual trust in one another and their corresponding
attributions of sincerity and truthfulness, in addition to their history of effective,
productive, satisfying social interactions. These are all interesting speculations that need
to be evaluated developmentally as well, since we now know that both the qualities and
the functions of childrens friendships change with age.
In sum, current investigators recognize that friendships are multifaceted and study them
accordingly. That is, the contemporary study of friendship goes beyond simply identifying
children with or without friends, or comparing children on the basis of the number of
friends they have. It is now recognized that friendships vary along many dimensions,
including their quality, that they can be deleterious for the childs development as well as
constructive, involve both positive and supportive interactions as well as conflictual and
stressful interactions, and that who a child chooses as friends is as important as whether a
child has friends or not (Bukowski et al., 1996). Nevertheless, our knowledge of the
variations in friendships types, functions, and qualities remains limited, as does our
knowledge of friendship formation and dissolution (Lansford & Parker, 1999) the
determinants of friendship stability and continuity over time, and how friendships differ
in their form, quality and functions in various social contexts and settings, e.g., in school
versus in the childs neighborhood.
260
Social networks
Childrens friendships and social status in the peer group are embedded in a larger
social network of peer relationships and experiences. One consequence of the emphasis on
the individual or dyad as the primary unit of analysis in the study of peer relations has been
the relative neglect of group level factors that shape childrens social experience.
Proponents of social network analysis have long argued for a more detailed examination
of the ecology of childrens groups, of the embeddedness of their social relationships, of
the processes that govern how and why children choose to affiliate with particular peers,
and how these affiliative and interactional patterns influence the course of development.
However, conceptual and empirical work in these areas has only begun to take hold in the
last decade or so. As a result, the scope of work in this area is considerably smaller than
the sociometric status and friendship literatures.
Much of the research on childrens social networks has been influenced by research
in sociology. This is evident not only in the emphasis on the group as the construct of
interest but also in the more basic premise that individuals cannot be understood outside
of the social contexts in which they exist (Cairns et al., 1998). Also important is the
view of the peer group as dynamic rather than static entity, an idea that has its roots in
the work of Moreno (1934). Thus, while both sociometric status and social network
analysis have a common origin in Morenos theories, the aspects of his theories
considered most critical have been shaped in important ways by the larger academic
traditions (psychology and sociology) within which the two research literatures have
developed.
Kinderman (1993, p. 970) has outlined several key assumptions underlying social
network analysis: it is assumed that students develop within a peer context that has a
certain structure, that this structure is perceived similarly by many students in the
classroom, and that this structure has important implications for individual development.
Thus, a primary goal of social network analysis is to identify the patterns of childrens
affiliation within the peer group. According to Cairns, Leung, Buchanan, and Cairns
(1995), this includes both the subsets of individuals within the group (i.e., cliques or
clusters), as well as the relations among these groups within the broader network.
After a brief description of the methods used to measure social networks, the remainder
of this section will be devoted to reviewing the fundamental questions posed by
researchers in this area:
(1) What are the key features and structural characteristics of childrens social networks
(e.g., size, interconnectedness, stability)?
(2) What processes are implicated in the formation of social networks (e.g., proximity,
familiarity, similarity) and how are these processes influenced by contextual variables
(e.g., class size, teacher expectations)?
(3) How does participation in social networks influence developmental outcomes (e.g.,
peer group influences on behavior)?
Throughout, particular attention will be given to developmental and gender differences in
peer interactions as these are relevant to the questions outlined above.
261
Methodological issues in the study of social networks

One reason for the disproportionate emphasis on sociometric status within peer
relations research is that, by contrast, measuring childrens social networks is a complicated task, often involving complex analytical procedures. Additionally, as with the study
of childrens friendships, there is no universally accepted method for measuring peer
networks (Cairns et al., 1998). The variability across studies in how social networks are
operationalized has important implications for how findings are interpreted and integrated,
therefore several of the more prevalent methods will be described briefly.
Probably the most common method for measuring social networks, the composite
social cognitive map (SCM) was developed by Cairns and colleagues (Cairns, Perrin, &
Cairns, 1985; Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gariepy, 1988). In this technique,
students are asked a set of questions about the affiliative patterns in their classroom.
Typically, students are asked to identify students who hang around together a lot at
school. When necessary, follow-up prompts are utilized to ensure that the respondents
include themselves (e.g., What about you? Do you hang around together a lot with a
group?), that they provide information on both boys and girls groups, and that they do
not unintentionally leave some students out (Are there any people who do not have a
group?). It is important to note that respondents are required to answer these questions
without the aid of a roster to ensure that they are only reporting on groups about which
they are most knowledgeable. This constraint has limited the use of this methodology to
older children, typically third graders and above, who can manage the cognitive demands
of the task.
Childrens responses are combined to produce a social cognitive map of the patterns
of affiliation within the classroom based on shared perceptions of these patterns across
respondents. For example, children are typically considered to be part of a group if at least
50% of the students in the classroom have identified them as such (see Cairns et al., 1988
for details), although this cut-off varies somewhat across studies. Additionally, two
measures of centrality-group centrality and individual centralityare derived from
nomination frequency. Group centrality refers to how central a particular subgroup or
clique is within the larger network. It is determined by identifying the two members within
the group who received the highest number of nominations and averaging their scores
this average is referred to as the group centrality index. The group with the highest
centrality index is considered to be the most central or nuclear group. To determine the
relative centrality of other groups within the network, each group centrality index is
compared to that of the nuclear group. Cut-off scores determine whether a group is
classified as nuclear (equal to or greater than 70% of the index of the most central group),
secondary (between 30% and 70%) or peripheral (below 30%). Individual centrality, or an
individuals place within his or her subgroup, is a function of both the individual number
of nominations received and the centrality index of the group to which one belongs. That
is, an individuals nomination frequency is compared to his or her group centrality index
and cut-off scores similar to those described above are used to classify children as central,
secondary, or peripheral within their own group.
As a last step in this procedure, students individual centrality within the larger network
can be determined by considering both their within-group centrality and their groups
262
centrality index. Nuclear members are central members of high centrality groups.
Children are identified as peripheral within the larger network if they are low centrality
members of any group regardless of the groups position, or if they belong to low
centrality groups. Isolates are not nominated as belonging to any group, while
secondary members include students not classified in any other category. While these
categories appear to reflect a measure of visibility or impact within the peer group, they are
sometimes discussed in terms of status. The conceptual and empirical overlap between
these categories and the sociometric status categories outlined earlier has been considered
and will be discussed later.
Other researchers have used self-report data to assess social networks, either through
direct assessment (e.g., who do you hang out with a lot) or through methods involving
peer nominations similar to those used to study status and friendship, in which respondents
are asked to nominate their three closest friends. Typically, clusters are derived on the basis
of reciprocated nominations (Alba, 1972; Hallinan, 1980), although unreciprocated or
unidirectional nominations have also been used. Not surprisingly, methods requiring that
nominations be reciprocated tend to identify smaller, more tightly interconnected clusters,
and may under-identify lower density clusters (Cairns et al., 1998).
While the various approaches yield generally comparable results (Cairns et al., 1995),
several important differences between these techniques should be noted. First, the SCM
method and related procedures are based on students perceptions of any and all peer
clusters in their classrooms. In contrast, nominations and self-report data elicit information
about ones own peer interactions only. As SCM represents the consensus of numerous
members of the peer group, it is less critical to obtain data from every member of the class.
Since participation/consent rates often fall into the 70 75% range for sociometric
assessment, this is an important advantage. Also, some evidence suggests that self-report
data may yield networks that are slightly smaller and less inclusive than those derived by
the SCM method (Cairns et al., 1995). One potential reason for this is the tendency of
respondents to omit from their list classmates who are perceived to be socially undesirable,
even if they regularly associate with them (Leung, 1993, reported in Cairns et al., 1995).
Thus, SCM and related procedures may offer a more complete and accurate method for
identifying social networks.
Structural features of childrens social networks
Once identified, childrens social networks can be distinguished along several structural
dimensions, including their size, interconnectedness, and the stability of peer groups in a
given network. Each of these is reviewed in turn, with particular attention given to
developmental changes and differences between boys and girls groups.
Size
Variations in the size of peer clusters have been reported as a function of development
(Cairns et al., 1995; Kindermann, 1998; Shrum & Cheek, 1987), gender (Benenson,
Apostoleris, & Parnall, 1998; Salmivalli, Arja, & Lagerspetz, 1997), centrality (Cairns et
al., 1995), and context (Hallinan & Smith, 1989). While some variability exists across
studies, there is increasing support for the contention that cluster size is related to age in a
263
curvilinear manner (Cairns et al., 1998). That is, group size appears to increase somewhat
between elementary and middle school, followed by a corresponding decrease over the
high school years. Estimates vary by study, but elementary school cliques are typically
reported to have between four and five members, while middle school cliques tend to have
a mean of five to six members. Importantly, the range in clique size across ages is fairly
stable (from dyads to groups of 8 10 children). Cairns et al. (1998) suggest that these
findings are partly confounded by changes in the nature and structure of school settings
that occur during this period. That is, rather than reflecting a developmental phenomenon,
increases in group sizes between elementary and middle school may reflect greater
opportunities for interaction with a wider range of peers.
Size of peer clusters is also reported to vary as a function of gender. In general, boys are
reported to form larger peer groups than girls, although this difference is modest and not
consistently reported. The difference in size of boys and girls playgroups is often
hypothesized to stem from widely recognized gender differences in play styles. Boys are
reported to engage in more loosely organized, large group games (e.g., soccer), while girls
are more likely to choose smaller, more intimate activities (Hartup, 1983; Thorne, 1986).
However, Benenson et al. (1998) have disputed this interpretation, demonstrating that
gender differences in group size emerge before children reach the age when these activity
differences become common.
Several other variables have shown some relation to group size. Groups that are higher
in centrality within a given classroom are typically larger than groups of moderate
centrality that, in turn, are larger than low centrality groups. Size is related to individual
status as well, with higher status individuals belonging to larger peer cliques than their
lower status peers, especially among boys (Benenson et al., 1998). Finally, contextual
variables such as classroom size and organization can affect group size. According to
Hallinan and Smith (1989), larger classrooms and classrooms structured in a traditional
manner (versus open classrooms) yield peer cliques of larger sizes.
Thus, clique size varies as a function of both contextual and individual variables. Less
is known about how cluster size is related to childrens adjustment, if at all. Additionally,
while it is reasonable to assume that cluster size may influence processes within the group,
such as group cohesion, norms, or leadership, little work exploring such processes has
been conducted on childrens groups.
Interconnectedness
The degree of interconnectedness within a social network refers to the level of cohesion
within individual subgroups as well as the amount of overlap among them. While
interconnectedness has received somewhat less empirical attention than cluster size, there
is some evidence to suggest that interconnectedness, too, is related both to developmental
factors and to gender.
To date, only one study has examined developmental changes in the organization or
degree of connectedness within peer groups. Shrum and Cheek (1987) demonstrated that
in addition to becoming smaller with age, peer cliques become more permeable across the
middle school years. They identified developmental changes in the distribution of three
group-related rolesmember, isolate, and liaison. Liaisons are network members who
have affiliations with more than one clique. Results suggested that the observed reduction
264
in group size beginning in late middle school could be attributed to an increase in the
number of liaisons, rather than an increase in the number of isolates. Thus, rather than
disbanding, peer groups in late middle school and high school become more permeable
with age and can be characterized by a greater number of interconnections across groups.
The evidence for differences in interconnectedness between boys and girls groups is
more difficult to interpret. Studies of both social networks and interactional styles more
generally have suggested that boys are more likely than girls to play in large, less
exclusive groups (Eder & Hallinan, 1978). Benenson et al. (1998) examined interconnectedness in boys and girls groups directly and found that boys groups were characterized
by a greater number of reciprocated friends than girls groups, suggesting that boys
friends are also more likely to be friends with each other. Benenson reported other
organizational differences as well. In particular, boys peer groups were characterized by
one large central cluster with one or two smaller clusters connected peripherally to the
main cluster. Interestingly, social status was significantly related to participation in larger
cliques for boys, suggesting that membership in this central clique may have important
implications for how boys are perceived by their peers. Girls groups were characterized
by different affiliative patterns. Specifically, girls tended to form numerous smaller clusters
that were not interconnected. Peer status was unrelated to clique size for girls. The picture
that emerges, then, is one in which girls form smaller more intimate and probably more
exclusive dyads and triads, while boys interact in larger, more loosely connected, more
inclusive groups.
As is the case with cluster size, more research is needed to understand the implications
of clique interconnectedness for group and individual functioning. One interesting avenue
for future research will be to examine how groups of varying levels of interconnectedness
differ from each other. For example, are highly interconnected groups characterized by less
relational aggression? Does peer influence spread more quickly and/or alter behaviors
more in groups that are more interconnected? These types of process related questions
have yet to be addressed in the developmental literature.
Stability
A key assumption underlying social network analysis is that the peer group is a
dynamic system (Cairns et al., 1998). As a result, a relatively large number of studies have
examined changes in group membership over time. Stability estimates vary widely across
studies, in part due to differences in methodology, but also as a function of changes in
social contexts such as classroom transitions.
Studies of the stability of social groups have been conducted across intervals of varying
lengths. In a review of studies of short-term stability, Cairns et al. (1995) note that across
very short intervals (e.g., 3 6 weeks), group continuity is quite high, with 66 100% of
groups maintaining a high proportion (at least half) of their original members. For studies
at slightly longer intervals, but still less than 1 year, the results are more variable, with
stability estimates ranging from 18% to 76% (Cohen, 1977; Hallinan, 1980). As Cairns
points out, this variability is due largely to differences in the criteria for defining stability.
Hallinan (1980), who reports fairly low stability among middle school groups across 1
year, required that groups maintain a minimum of 3 of their members at each of the 6 data
points across the year. Cohens less conservative criterion, requiring retention of at least
265
50% of the groups members across two time points, found that 75% of the groups of high
school students in his studies were still identifiable a year later. Kinderman (1993) found
only moderate stability, with 50% turnover in group membership in elementary school
students across an 8-month period.
Long-term stability estimates extending over a year or more are considerably lower
(less than 10%) probably due in part to the changes in social context that occur during an
interval of this length, including grade transitions (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Nash, 1973).
Lending support to this speculation, Cairns and colleagues have shown that in school
contexts where an effort is made to keep classroom rosters consistent from year to year,
long-term stability estimates are comparable to those reported across intervals within the
same school year (Cairns et al., 1985).
In sum, while there is sufficient stability in childrens social networks to suggest some
regularity in their temporal structure and organization, children clearly experience a good
deal of change over time in their peer affiliations. Thus, more work is needed to understand
the nature and meaning of these changes. Is a high degree of peer group turnover less
adaptive or more? How does stability interact with other group characteristics such as size
and interconnectedness? Understanding developing norms for group structure and process
may be important for interpreting individual differences in friendship formation and
maintenance or in sociometric status, as well as in other psychosocial outcomes.
Formation of childrens social networks
Considerable theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to determining the
factors or processes that underlie group formation. Peer groups have been shown to form
on the basis of a variety of factors including propinquity, familiarity, and similarity.
Additional research has been aimed at delineating features of the social environment that
might serve to promote or hinder group formation and maintenance, such as class size or
teacher behaviors. Although friendships and peer groups may sometimes be formed on
similar characteristics, they do not share identical determinants. Thus, what follows
concerns those attributes associated with group formation in particular. As discussed later,
a continuing issue in the research on childrens peer relations concerns the overlapping and
unique features of different dimensions of peer experience.
A primary factor underlying peer group formation is propinquity (Cairns et al., 1998).
Children are simply more likely to identify children in their immediate social environments as playmates than those to whom they are less frequently exposed (George &
Hartmann, 1996). While it is possible that the strong relationship between propinquity and
peer affiliation is, in part, an artifact of the methods used to identify peer groups (i.e.,
childrens choices are typically constrained by researcher-identified criteria such as your
classroom), there is considerable evidence to suggest that propinquity plays an important
role in peer group selection even in the absence of this confound. For example, when
children are allowed to include children outside of their classrooms in their nominations,
classmates are still far more likely to be identified as close friends or members of the target
childs group (George & Hartmann, 1996). Not surprisingly perhaps, the proportion of
friends from different classes and age groups increases in later grades as educational
settings become less self-contained (Cairns et al., 1998). A related question that has not
266
received much empirical attention is how more concrete measures of physical propinquity
(e.g., classroom table assignments) might influence peer affiliations.
Another dimension that appears to be important in peer group formation is familiarity.
As peer groups are reshuffled across grades and other transitions, familiarity is likely to
become more important for childrens affiliative choices. For example, Nash (1973)
examined changes in peer network composition among boys groups across the transition
to middle school and found that as former friends were shuffled into different classes or
schools, boys who had belonged to different peer groups in fifth grade became members of
the same group in sixth grade. Importantly, in several cases, boys chose to affiliate with
familiar children who were dissimilar to them in other ways (e.g., academic performance,
SES), over unfamiliar children who shared similar attributes.
One of the most important forces driving peer group formation appears to be similarity
between children. Considerable evidence now exists to suggest that, similar to friendship
choice, children form peer groups or cliques based on a variety of shared qualities,
including demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status,
biophysical characteristics including physical maturation and physical attractiveness, and
more behaviorally based characteristics such as aggressive behavior, perceived popularity,
and academic achievement. Hallinan (1980) suggests a number of reasons why choosing
ones peer group on the basis of similar characteristics might be an adaptive strategy. In
addition to providing a basis for mutual approval, shared characteristics provide a source
of validation for childrens developing social identity. Furthermore, at a point in development when ones interpersonal skills are relatively unsophisticated, grouping on the basis
of shared attributes and interests likely reduces peer conflict and other potential threats to
the groups integrity. Consistent with these hypotheses, research indicates that the
relevance of physical attributes, shared interests, and behavioral predispositions to peer
group formation vary as a function of age, gender, and context.
Demographic characteristics offer children a physically salient means for assessing their
similarity to other peers and there is now quite robust evidence to suggest that these
variables have a strong impact on peer interaction patterns, particularly at young ages.
Voluntary segregation on the basis of gender begins in early childhood and reaches its peak
in middle childhood (Maccoby, 2000). Social norms banning heterosexual friendships in
elementary school, routinely and vociferously enforced through behaviors such as teasing
and taunting (Gifford-Smith, 1998; Thorne, 1986), are so strong that pre-existing friendships between boys and girls will even go underground to avoid detection. Children also
appear to sort themselves into friendship groups on the basis of race, although such
voluntary segregation typically begins later than that based on gender (Hallinan & Smith,
1989). Additionally, the tendency of children to segregate socially on the basis of race
appears to vary as a function of region, context, and racial make-up of the overall group
(Cairns et al., 1998). Given the opportunity, children also tend to sort themselves on the
basis of age, preferring same-age playmates to younger or older peers (George & Hartmann,
1996). However, as many of the formal settings in which children interact with each other
are structured on the basis of age (e.g., classrooms and extracurricular activities), it is
conceivable that age segregation is fueled, to some extent, by propinquity.
A number of other physically salient, albeit arguably less visible, attributes have also
been shown to influence group formation, including socioeconomic status, degree of
267
physical maturation, and physical attractiveness. The evidence on socioeconomic status is

perhaps the most equivocal, suggesting that this variable may be more or less salient in
certain contexts (e.g., schools characterized by significant disparities in SES) or at different
points in development (Cairns & Cairns, 1992; Nash, 1973). In their ethnographic study of
middle school peer groups, Adler and Adler (1998) noted that children whose parents could
afford the expressive equipment of popularity or social status such as name brand clothes
and shoes, or expensive vacations, tended to form fairly exclusive peer groups. It seems
conceivable that these relatively subtle distinctions would be more salient at older ages as
children become more adept at social comparison. Physical maturation does not become a
salient criterion for group formation until pre-adolescence, but evidence does suggest that
especially among girls, age of menarche and other markers of sexual maturation enter into
both friendship and peer group selection. Finally, physical attractiveness appears to be a
factor in peer affiliation, at least among girls (Cairns et al., 1998).
In addition to demographic characteristics and physical attributes, children appear to
form peer groups on the basis of behavioral similarities. Among those most commonly
studied are aggressive behavior and academic achievement. Due in part to the strong link
between peer rejection and aggression, it has sometimes been assumed that aggressive
children play a less central role in the social fabric of their classrooms. Research on social
networks suggests this is not the case, however. Aggressive children have friends and
oftentimes hold central positions within their peer networks (Xie, Cairns, & Cairns, 1999).
Importantly, these networks are typically (although not exclusively) constructed of other
aggressive or deviant children or of children who view aggression as acceptable or
normative. For example, Salmivalli, Arja, et al. (1997) examined the social networks of
children who played different participant roles in bullying episodes (e.g., bully, victim,
assistant of bully, reinforcer of bully, defender of victim, and outsider). They found that
individual childrens behavior in the context of a bullying episode was highly related to
how the members of their social networks behaved in similar situations. More specifically,
bullies formed networks with other bullies, but also with children who supported bullying
behavior, either by joining in or by encouraging the bully through laughter or inciting
comments. While there is evidence to suggest that aggressive children seek out other
aggressive children as early as preschool (Farver, 1996), this phenomenon appears to
become stronger with age, particularly as norms for aggression change (Sandstrom &
Coie, 1999). Similar patterns have been noted for other forms of deviant behavior,
particularly delinquency. In fact, one of the strongest predictions of problem behavior in
adolescence, including substance use, delinquency, and aggression, is affiliation with
deviant peers (Dishion & Skaggs, 2000; Elliott & Menard, 1996; Thornberry & Krohn,
1997). Importantly, peer group affiliation based on aggression is more common among
boys than girls (Farmer & Farmer, 1996), probably because overt aggression occurs at
greater frequencies among boys. It is conceivable that similar patterns may hold for girls
groups on the basis of relational aggression, but this has yet to be empirically examined.
Evidence also suggests that peer groups form on the basis of more prosocial attributes
and this may have positive implications for development. Kinderman and colleagues
(Kinderman, 1993, 1996; Sage & Kindermann, 1999), for example, have suggested that
children form peer groups on the basis of academic achievement or engagement. That is,
children tend to befriend children with levels of school engagement similar to their own.
268
Tracking changes in peer group affiliation on the basis of motivation over the course of the
year provided strong evidence for this phenomenon. Despite considerable turnover and
reorganization in the membership of peer groups, the mean group motivation scores
remained stablechildren reshuffled themselves into new groups, but the motivational
composition remained constant.
This work suggests that childrens peer groups form on the basis of a variety of
characteristics and predispositions. Which characteristics are most salient likely varies as a
function of age and gender. For example, the phenomenon of gender segregation, robust
and universal at younger ages begins to break down with the arrival of adolescence
(Shrum & Cheek, 1987). While same-sex peer affiliation continues to be the norm
throughout high school, the number of mixed-sex peer groups also increases dramatically
during this time (Cairns et al., 1998). There is evidence for gender differences as well. In
addition to different characteristics being salient for boys and girls (e.g., aggression for
boys, physical attractiveness for girls), there is some suggestion that girls tend to consider
a wider range of attributes in their peer affiliations than do boys (Neckerman, 1996). It is
conceivable that other characteristics such as academic motivation, physical attractiveness,
and SES take on added significance as children become more aware of and better able to
assess these attributes.
Finally, the now considerable evidence that children tend to associate with peers who
have interests, characteristics, and predispositions similar to their own has led researchers
to speculate about the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. Farmer and Farmer
(1996) identify two main processes thought to contribute to similarity among peer
associates. The first, homophily, refers to the tendency of like-minded individuals to be
attracted to one another. The second, social synchrony, refers to group level processes that
contribute to greater within-group homogeneity over time. Evidence suggests that such
forces begin operating quite early in the process of group formation, even during the stages
of group entry. For example, Adler and Adler (1998) identified a category of students
called wannabesstudents on the outside of a group who adopt the behavior and
attitudes of group members as a bid for acceptance. While mechanisms of influence within
childrens groups remain little studied, it is generally accepted that children adopt the
behavior and attitudes of peers via imitation and reinforcement. For example, Sage and
Kindermann (1999) have demonstrated that academically based peer groups, once formed,
tend to reinforce relevant academic behaviors such as on-task behavior. Such patterns are
thought to underlie increases in academic achievement over time among group members.
Similarly, Dishion and colleagues (Dishion et al., 1996) have coined the term deviancy
training to describe a pattern of interaction between deviant peers in which discussion of
rule breaking is contingently reinforced with laughter and approving verbalizations. These
patterns of interaction have been linked to increases in substance use (Dishion, Capaldi,
Spracklen, & Li, 1995), aggression and violent behavior (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, &
Yoerger, 2001; Dishion, Eddy, Haas, Li, & Spracklen, 1997), and delinquency (Patterson,
Dishion, & Yoerger, 2000) up to 2 years later. Thus, while children may initially be drawn
to each other on the basis of their perceived similarities, interactions within the peer group
continue to have a strong and lasting effect on individual behavior well beyond the stage
of group formation. Finally, there is some suggestion that increases in member similarity
can emerge as a result of pressures or influences from outside the group as well (Sage &
269
Kindermann, 1999). For example, Hallinan and Smith (1989) report that in classrooms
where teachers place high emphasis on good grades and success on standardized tests, peer
cliques tend to be more homogenous for reading achievement.
The studies reviewed in this section have indicated that multiple factors contribute to
peer group formation. The relative contributions of these factors are difficult to disentangle, in part because they operate simultaneously. It is likely that they are more or less
salient at different points in development. Propinquity might play a more important role in
peer group affiliation at younger ages when classrooms are self-contained and children are
more dependent on adults to create opportunities for interaction. Across ages, propinquity
and familiarity may be more salient early in the life of a group, for example at the
beginning of the school year, until children have had a chance to assess their peers
interests and attitudes more closely.
Related to the question of how these dimensions of propinquity, familiarity, and
similarity interact to influence group formation are questions regarding the specific
processes implicated in group formation. In a review of research on clique formation in
pre-adolescence, Hallinan (1980) identified four potential processes: (1) cliques can
develop from and revolve around a close friendship between two children; (2) cliques
can form by virtue of the influence of a single individual, who possesses skills, talents or
resources valued by the clique; (3) cliques can develop out of some shared formal activity,
such as an athletic team; and (4) cliques can emerge when several students share a
common interest that brings them together and eventually leads to them being identified as
a group (e.g., role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons). Longitudinal analyses
are needed to establish the validity of these processes and to delineate the conditions under
which they operate.
Centrality as a measure of peer networks participation
In addition to examining the processes of group formation, investigators have also been
interested in how childrens positions within the larger peer network are assigned.
Research has focused on the behavioral correlates associated with centrality. It should
be noted that although such research is concerned with questions similar to those
addressed by sociometric status researchers, peer preference and network centrality are
distinct concepts, and are associated with somewhat different behavioral profiles.
The correlates of centrality differ for boys and girls. For boys, high network centrality is
associated with athletic ability (Farmer & Rodkin, 1996), leadership skills (Farmer &
Rodkin, 1996; Gest et al., 2001), aggressive and/or defiant behavior (Bagwell et al., 2000),
and perceived popularity (Farmer & Farmer, 1996; Farmer & Rodkin, 1996). Academic
ability is related to centrality for boys only when accompanied by other valued traits such as
athletic prowess (Farmer & Farmer, 1996). Girls identified as highly central to their peer
network are also higher on perceived popularity, are good at schoolwork, and have strong
leadership skills (Farmer & Farmer, 1996; Gest et al., 2001). While aggressive or deviant
behavior does not relate to centrality for girls, highly central girls may be more relationally
aggressive than their lower centrality peers. Ethnographic researchers have observed that
high status or core girls tend to utilize negative gossip, ostracism, teasing, and coalition
building to negotiate the social pressures associated with high status (Adler & Adler, 1998).
270
Thus, girls with high network centrality may use behaviors associated with relational
aggression to preserve their own status or to shore up boundaries around their cliques.
Considerably less is known about students of peripheral or isolated status. Peripheral
children appear to be more aggressive and disruptive than students from other groups,
particularly among girls. But they lack the more prosocial and socially valued traits (e.g.,
physical attractiveness, athletic ability) that are associated with high centrality (Farmer &
Rodkin, 1996). Isolates, not surprisingly, are characterized as shy and withdrawn (Farmer
& Rodkin, 1996).
In sum, broadening the focus of research on peer relations from emphasizing individual
differences or dyadic relationships to include the larger peer network, has provided a more
complete picture of the social landscape that children must negotiate. Beginning in early
childhood, children sort themselves into groups in a non-random fashion, choosing to
affiliate with children that are similar to themselves in important ways. In turn, the
processes of joining and maintaining membership in these groups influence the behavior
and attitudes of individual members, increasing group cohesiveness and solidifying norms.
The structure, size and stability of peer groups, and the processes that govern group
formation change with development, lending credence to the view of the peer group as a
dynamic, complex entity. While knowledge of individual differences in social behavior
and in childrens ability to make or keep friends is critical to understanding development,
the social network perspective provides a broader context for interpreting and understanding these key features of peer functioning.
Discussion and integration

The burgeoning research in childrens peer relations over the last three decades has
significantly enhanced our understanding of the nature and importance of childrens peer
experiences. The work reviewed in the foregoing sections suggests that childrens peer
acceptance, the ability to make and maintain friendships, and their participation in social
networks each contributes to their development and overall well-being. These aspects of
peer experience, while not completely independent, appear to tap different underlying
interpersonal skills and relate to different psychosocial outcomes. Sociometric status
reflects a childs level of acceptance in the peer group and appears to be related to
childrens affective orientation toward peers as well as the ability to recognize and adapt to
normative expectations for behavior. Forming and maintaining mutual friendships, on the
other hand, taps and fosters skills related to empathy, perspective taking, and intimacy and
may be more closely tied to the development of individual social competence as well as to
the self-system (Gest et al., 2001). Social network participation and centrality are
associated more closely with visibility and social power within the larger peer group
and thus may have implications for peer socialization and influence.
While sociometric status, friendships, and peer network affiliation represent distinct
aspects of peer experience, it is clear that they are also interrelated. The skills and attributes
that underlie more general peer acceptance undoubtedly relate to those associated with
healthy friendship development. Likewise, peer network participation is predicated to some
extent on the ability to form and maintain reciprocated relationships. Finally, the skill with
271
which a child negotiates the challenges associated with multiple, embedded relationships in
the larger network likely has implications for his or her level of acceptance. That is, if
children are able to manage and respond appropriately to the jealousies and rivalries that
attend nested relationships (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996) without resorting to negative
behaviors, it is likely they will be regarded more favorably by their peers.
To some extent, the conceptual overlap of these dimensions is both reflected in and
exacerbated by measurement issues. The high degree of overlap in methods for assessing
these constructs undoubtedly complicates efforts to identify the shared and unique
contributions of each dimension of peer experience to childrens well-being. For example,
the finding that both peer acceptance and number of friendships are related to loneliness
may have less to do with their common underlying correlates, than with the fact that both
are typically assessed via best friend nominations and thus share a significant amount of
method variance. This argues, to some extent, for the use of more independent measures of
the different facets of peer experience. Asher et al. (1996), for example, advocates the use
of rating scales to assess peer acceptance while reserving best friend nominations for
identifying mutual relationships.
Another factor contributing to our limited understanding of how these different
dimensions of peer experience are related to each other is the fact that research in each
of these areas has developed in relative isolation. It is only relatively recently that
researchers have begun examining the empirical relations among these constructs, as we
review briefly below.
Peer acceptance and friendships
In a now-classic study, Parker and Asher (1993) assessed differences in the prevalence
and quality of friendships among grade-school children with low, average, and high peer
group acceptance. They found that nearly a third of high-accepted children did not have a
reciprocal best friend in their classrooms, and that many low-accepted children did have
reciprocal best friendships. Moreover, both having a best friend and friendship quality
were significantly negatively associated with childrens reports of loneliness, even after
controlling for peer group acceptance. Thus, group acceptance and friendship were shown
to make distinct contributions to childrens adjustment and well-being. Nevertheless, the
friendships of low-accepted children evidenced more problems and were of lower quality
than those of average and high-accepted children, pointing to the overlap between group
and dyadic processes as well.
Expanding on this work, Vandell and Hembree (1994) found that mutual friendships
and peer acceptance uniquely and additively predicted social competence, self-esteem, and
achievement in elementary school children. Ladd et al. (1997) further differentiated young
school childrens peer relationships and found both concordant and distinctive associations. For example, children with more mutual friends were more widely accepted by the
peer group (see also George & Hartmann, 1996; Parker & Asher, 1993). When different
types of peer relationships (mutual friendships, best friendships, group acceptance, and
victimization) were considered in the context of the others, it was possible to determine
unique links to affective outcomes like loneliness and social dissatisfaction as well as to
academic outcomes such as school-liking or avoidance and academic performance.
272
Different relationships were important for different socioemotional outcomes. Peer acceptance, mutual friendships, and victimization all predicted feelings of loneliness, consistent
with the findings of past investigators who have studied each predictor separately, but only
victimization was a unique predictor. Likewise, victimization was the only unique
predictor of school-liking and school-avoidance. Peer acceptance, in contrast, was the
only unique predictor (negatively) of increasing social dissatisfaction over the school year.
Group acceptance and friendships each predicted unique variance in academic progress
over the school year, but mutual friendships were the strongest and most consistent
predictors of school performance. Interestingly, scholastic engagement at the beginning of
the school year was a better predictor of the number of mutual friendships children formed
than vice versa. This suggests that the school environment and childrens attitudes toward
it may influence their peer group participation and experiences as much as peer groups
influence school adjustment. Since children participate in many social worlds simultaneously and their multiple relationships are inherently interdependent, this is an important
avenue for continuing research.
Peer acceptance and social networks
As considerably less work has been conducted on childrens peer networks, less is
known about how visibility or centrality in the larger peer group relates to peer acceptance.
There is some suggestion that childrens level of peer acceptance constrains, or is
constrained by, their network participation. Children who are well-liked by their peers
generally participate in larger, more loosely structured social networks, a finding that
seems particularly true for boys (Benenson et al., 1998). The cliques in which rejected
children participate, on the other hand are smaller (Ladd, 1983), more dense, and more
likely to be comprised of other low status children (Bagwell et al., 2000).
Interestingly, while children of lower social status appear to participate in smaller,
potentially more deviant cliques, the evidence linking peer acceptance and centrality is less
clear. While well-liked children are often central members of their peer groups, this is not
always the case (Gest et al., 2001). One possible reason for the relatively small degree of
overlap between peer acceptance and centrality is that maintaining a central position
within the peer group appears to require skills related to social dominance such as
assertiveness and the ability to defend oneself. According to Parkhurst and Hopmeyer
(1998), the emergence of cliques in middle childhood requires that children learn to
balance the sometimes conflicting goals of being liked and having power. While some
well-liked peers appear to manage this without damaging their reputations as nice kids
others may sacrifice one form of status for the other.
Similarly, while there is some evidence suggesting that rejected children are more likely
than their non-rejected peers to occupy peripheral positions in the peer group (Bagwell et
al., 1998), other studies have failed to find differences in centrality between disliked
children and their peers (Gest et al., 2001). One possible explanation is that aggression,
while strongly and negatively related to peer acceptance, appears to be positively related to
group centrality, at least for boys. Ethnographic research suggests that high centrality boys
may use aggression to establish or maintain social dominance, thus enhancing their
position in the group. Another possible explanation is that rejected children play more
273
central roles in peer groups characterized by antisocial or disruptive behavior (Coie &
Dodge, 1988). If these behaviors are particularly salient or visible within the larger peer
group, it is conceivable that such boys social relationships would be more visible to peers
and thus earn them a greater number of hangs with nominations. Whether the higher
centrality of aggressive children stems from a greater degree of social power or simply
from visibility has not yet been fully explored.
Social networks and friendship
As social networks and friendship are both predicated on peer affiliation it seems
reasonable to expect that these constructs would be highly related. In fact, peer networks
are often described as nested or embedded friendship relations. Despite the considerable
conceptual overlap between these two dimensions, however, there is some suggestion that
participation in networks and friendships make different demands on children, and that
success in one domain does not necessarily imply success in the other (Gest et al., 2001).
For example, Asher et al. (1996) have suggested that to negotiate their larger peer
networks successfully, children must not only master the skills necessary to maintain
harmonious dyadic relationships, but also learn to cope effectively with the additional
challenges inherent in nested relationships. According to Asher and colleagues, these
challenges include, but are likely not limited to jealousy, rivalry, envy, and incompatible
loyalties such as sharing gossip about one friend to enhance a relationship with another.
Additionally, conflicts between two members of a social network may have implications
for related members, forcing children to take sides or to reassess their relationships with
involved parties. There is some suggestion that these tensions become greater as a childs
status or centrality increases. Ethnographic researchers (Eder, 1985; Adler & Adler, 1998)
have observed that as children achieve higher status within the group, particularly girls,
they feel pressured to terminate relationships with friends of lower status. Based on these
findings, it seems reasonable to suggest that centrality may affect the nature and quality of
childrens friendships, but there is little research on such links.
Interrelations among sociometric status, friendship, and network affiliation
Only recently have researchers examined the relations among all three of these
dimensions of peer experience. Gest et al. (2001) assessed the sociometric status, number
of mutual friendships, and social network centrality of 205 second and third grade children
(ages 7 8) from twelve different classrooms. Peer nominations for social behavior were
also collected. Results support the contention that these constructs represent distinct but
overlapping aspects of childrens experience. For example, pairwise correlations were in
the moderate range (network centrality and number of friends, r=.49; network centrality
and peer acceptance, r=.49; and peer acceptance and number of friends, r=.46). However,
as Gest and colleagues point out, success on one dimension did not necessarily predict
success on the others. For example, 31% of popular children reported not having a mutual
friend as compared to 39% of rejected children.
Additionally, evidence suggested that each dimension was characterized by a relatively
distinct set of behavioral correlates. Having many mutual friends, high network centrality,
274
and high peer acceptance were all significantly related to prosocial characteristics such as
leadership, good humor, and ability to regulate emotions. However, consistent with prior
research, aggressive behavior was negatively related to peer acceptance and positively
related to centrality. Moreover, multiple regression analyses suggested that each of the
dimensions accounted for unique variance in these social behaviors. For example, network
centrality was uniquely related to both leadership and aggressive behaviors. In fact, the
association between network centrality and aggressive behavior became stronger after
controlling for the effects of peer status and friendships. Mutual friendships accounted for
unique variance in prosocial behaviors such as leadership and sense of humor, and were
uniquely and negatively related to antisocial behaviors such as teasing and bossing.
Finally, peer rejection was uniquely associated with a wide range of antisocial behaviors
including peer-perceived difficulty making friends, peer-perceived social exclusion,
aggressive and disruptive behaviors, and emotion dysregulation.
Thus, recent evidence suggests that peer acceptance, friendship, and social network
affiliation make distinct contributions to childrens social development. However, considering the interrelations among these constructs is also critical. More than increasing the
variance we can account for in different developmental outcomes, a broader, multidimensional approach to childrens peer relations may help researchers to identify important
remaining questions.
One consistent limitation of the peer relations literature discussed here is a failure to
consider developmental change more fully. This is true not only for the primary constructs
themselves, but also for developments in features of the peer environment. Considering
age-related changes in the relative salience of the different dimensions of peer experience
outlined here can inform attempts to build a more complete theory of peer functioning. For
example, generalizing from the available developmental research, it seems reasonable to
expect that friendships represent a relatively constant, universal aspect of the peer
environment for children at every age. Friendships may change in form and function,
but they emerge early in childhood and appear to have important implications for wellbeing in every period of development. Peer acceptance, on the other hand, may be most
critical in the primary grades when classrooms are relatively self-contained and being able
to interact effectively with a variety of peers is important. The fact that sociometric status
becomes increasingly difficult to measure in middle school provides some support for this
speculation. Finally, cliques seem to become increasingly important during middle to late
childhood, potentially reaching their peak in middle school. At this point, adult-identified
boundaries around peer groups become less salient and less clearly defined. As a result,
being well liked by the larger group may be less important to the child than maintaining
close supportive friendships and/or establishing ones position within a tightly knit clique.
Socioemotional competence and healthy adjustment may depend on being able to
recognize these changes and adjust ones goals and behavior accordingly. If this is the
case, change in status and/or in the number or nature of friendships may be viewed as
adaptive rather than maladaptive, signaling growth and a more sophisticated understanding
of the provisions of different types of relationships.
Change that occurs over shorter intervals of time such as a school year (Ladd et al.,
1997) or even the course of a single day is also likely to be a central contributor to
childrens social development. Although a number of theorists emphasize the dynamic
275
quality of peer relationships, most examine childrens peer interaction as a static entity.
Social challenges inherent in the start of a school year are fundamentally different from
those faced later in the year. In their study of short-term changes in childrens friendship,
Parker and Seal (1966) found sufficient change in friendship patterns over a single summer
(in a camp setting) to identify different subtypes of childrensome children made
numerous friends and kept them, some excelled at making friends but had difficulty
maintaining them, and some remained isolated throughout the summer. Importantly, these
subtypes were differentially related to peer acceptance. Similarly, changes in one domain
of peer experience (e.g., loss of a friend) likely lead to changes in another (e.g., network
centrality). Thus, a broader assessment of childrens peer experiences will be necessary to
understand both the transitions in their experiences and the effects of such transitions on
their adjustment and well-being.
Children also move through a variety of social tasks in their peer group within a given
day, from finding someone to sit next to at lunch, to working effectively in a teacher
defined group of peers, to gaining access to limited resources such as balls or swings on
the playground. As a result, children must call on a range of different interpersonal skills to
negotiate even small portions of their everyday peer experiences successfully. While some
skills, such as prosocial behavior, may be universally advantageous, others may be
situation-specific, perhaps even damaging if used at the wrong timefor example,
asserting oneself too strongly in the context of a cooperative project. Having an adequately
developed arsenal and a sense of what is called for in a given situation may be more
critical for healthy peer functioning than any static set of individual social attributes (Crick
& Dodge, 1994; Putallaz & Gottman, 1981; Rubin & Rose-Krasnor, 1992). Thus,
childrens peer experiences represent a complex ever-changing landscape, one that cannot
be adequately captured through a single lens or snapshot.
Finally, a major limitation of studying these domains of peer functioning in isolation is
the incomplete and fragmented picture of social competence that emerges. Rejected social
status means something different for a child with one or two reciprocated, healthy
friendships and secondary centrality than it does for a child with no friends who is
isolated and has peripheral status. These different dimensions could be used to build
profiles of different types of children whose trajectories could then be measured, as has
recently been suggested in person-oriented analyses. Adler and Adler (1998) report a
finding from their ethnographic study of middle school that lends some support for this
suggestion. They observed that cliques were hierarchically organized within the larger
network such that high status children occupied central roles in large cliques that
dominated the social scene. Although these children enjoyed a considerable degree of
influence, often setting trends for fashion and behavior, they spent a large amount of their
time protecting their social positions. As a result, their influence was constraining for
them, and many of these children, although identified by their peers as popular, were not
actually well liked. Secondary members and peripheral members (wannabes) spent
much of their time jockeying for position or searching for ways into the popular crowd.
Another fairly large group of children existed on the outside of the in crowd, forming
smaller, more densely related cliques or groups. These children seemed less concerned
with gaining status in the larger group and spent more time focused on building stable,
harmonious relationships with a smaller number of peers. As a result they were well liked
276
by their close peers but largely irrelevant to the larger social scene. Importantly, teachers
tended to rate this last group of children as the most psychologically well-adjusted. While
these results need to be replicated using more rigorously controlled empirical studies, they
do lend credence to the suggestion that research attending to multiple aspects of the peer
environment at once can produce detailed profiles of distinct developmental trajectories.
Clearly the picture that emerges here is complex. Sociometric status, friendships, and
social networks represent only three dimensions along which childrens peer relations can
be studied. Several other related aspects of peer experience (e.g., bully victim relationships, enemies), although outside the scope of this review, provide additional vantage
points that must be considered. However, much of what we know today about childrens
peer relationships has grown out of work that began in these three areas. We would argue
that much of what we stand to learn in the future can be enhanced by efforts to integrate
these rich research traditions.
References
Abecassis, M., Hartup, W., Haselager, G., Scholte, R., & van Lieshout, C. (in press). Mutual antipathies and their
significance in the middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development.
Aboud, F., & Mendelson, M. (1996). Determinants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood
and adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 87 113). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer Power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Univ. Press.
Alba, R. (1972). COMPLTA program for analyzing sociometric data and clustering similarity matrices.
Behavioral Science, 17, 566 567.
Asher, S., & Dodge, K. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology,
22, 444 449.
Asher, S., Parker, J., & Walker, D. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance: Implications for
intervention and assessment. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they
keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development
(pp. 336 405). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Azmitia, M. (2002). Self, self-esteem, conflicts, and best friendships in early adolescence. In T. M. Brinthaupt
(Ed.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions ( pp. 167 192).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific
reasoning. Social Development, 2, 202 221.
Bagwell, C. L., Coie, J. D., Terry, R. A., & Lochman, J. E. (2000). Peer clique participation and social status in
preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 280 305.
Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as
predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140 153.
Benenson, J., Apostoleris, N., & Parnass, J. (1998). The organization of childrens same-sex peer relationships. In W. M. Bukowski, & A. H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades
of measuring childrens experiences with the peer group: No. 80. New directions for child development
( pp. 5 24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berndt, T., & Perry, T. (1986). Childrens perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships. Developmental
Psychology, 22, 640 648.
Berndt, T., Perry, T., & Miller, K. (1988). Friends and classmates interactions on academic tasks. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 506 513.
277
Berndt, T. J. (1989). Contributions of peer relationships to childrens development. In T. Berndt, & G. Ladd
(Eds.), Peer relationships in child development ( pp. 407 416). NY: Wiley.
Berndt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social development. In W. Bukowski, A.
Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development ( pp. 346 365). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11,
7 10.
Berndt, T. J., Hawkins, J. A., & Jiao, Z. (1999). Influences of friends and friendships on adjustment to junior high
school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 13 41.
Berndt, T. J., & Hoyle, S. G. (1985). Stability and change in childhood and adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1007 1015.
Bierman, K. L., Smoot, D. L., & Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristics of aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) boys. Child Development, 64, 139 151.
Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with aggressive-rejected,
aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 669 682.
Bigelow, B. (1977). Childrens friendship expectations: A cognitive developmental study. Child Development,
48, 246 253.
Boivin, M., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1995). Individual-group behavioral similarity and peer status in
experimental play groups of boys: The social misfit revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 269 279.
Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Hodges, E. (2001). Toward a process view of peer rejection and harassment. In
J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized
( pp. 265 289). New York: Guilford Press.
Boulton, M., & Smith, P. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle school children: Stability, self-perceived
competence, peer perception, and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12,
315 329.
Brendgen, M., Bowen, F., Rondea, N., & Vitaro, F. (1999). Effects of friends characteristics on childrens social
cognition. Social Development, 8, 41 51.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development,
58, 1101 1113.
Buhs, E., & Ladd, G. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young childrens school adjustment: An examination
of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550 560.
Bukowski, W. (2001). Friendship and the worlds of childhood. In D. W. Nangle, & C. A. Erdley (Eds.), The
role of friendship in psychological adjustment: Vol. 91. New directions for child and adolescent development
( pp. 93 106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bukowski, W., & Sippola, L. (2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In
J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized
( pp. 355 377). New York: Guilford Press.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In
T. Berndt, & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development ( pp. 15 45). New York: Wiley.
Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb A. F., & Hartup W. W. (Eds.) (1996). The company they keep: Friendship in
childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Burleson, B., Applegate, J., Burke, J., Clark, R., Delia, J., & Kline, S. (1986). Communicative correlates of peer
acceptance in childhood. Communication Education, 35, 348 361.
Cairns, R., & Cairns, B. (1994). Adolescents in our time: Risks and lifelines. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Cairns, R., Cairns, B., Neckerman, H., Gest, S., & Gariepy, J. L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive
behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815 823.
Cairns, R., Perrin, J., & Cairns, B. (1985). Social structure and social cognition in early adolescence: Affiliative
patterns. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 339 355.
Cairns, R., Xie, H., & Leung, M. (1998). The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward
a new balance. In W. M. Bukowski, & A. H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six
decades of measuring childrens experiences with the peer group: No. 80. New directions for child development ( pp. 5 24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
278
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1992). The sociogenesis of aggressive and antisocial behaviors. In J. McCord
(Ed.), Facts, frameworks, and forecasts. Advances in criminological theory, vol. 3 ( pp. 157 191). New
Brunswick, NJ, USA: Transaction Publishers.
Cairns, R. B., Leung, M., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Child Development, 66, 1330 1345.
Capaldi, D., Dishion, T., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk
young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37, 61 73.
Cauce, A. M. (1986). Social networks and social competence: Exploring the effects of early adolescent friendships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 607 628.
Chung, T., & Asher, S. (1996). Childrens goals and strategies in peer conflict situations. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 42, 125 147.
Cillessen, A., van Ijzendoom, H., van Lieshout, C., & Hartup, W. (1992). Heterogeneity among peer rejected
boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 893 905.
Cillessen, A. H. N., Bukowski, W. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2000). Stability of sociometric categories. In
A. H. N. Cillessen, & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and
rejection in the peer system: No. 88. New directions for child and adolescent development ( pp. 3 11).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, J. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education, 50, 227 241.
Coie, J., & Dodge, K. (1983). Continuities and changes in childrens social status: A five year longitudinal study.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261 282.
Coie, J., & Dodge, K. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status in school: A cross-age
comparison. Child Development, 59, 815 829.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 557 570.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Kupersmidt, J. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. Asher, & J. Coie (Eds.),
Peer rejection in childhood ( pp. 17 59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of
aggression episodes in boys play groups. Child Development, 62, 812 826.
Coie, J., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status of low-achieving, socially
rejected children. Child Development, 55, 1465 1478.
Coie, J., & Kupersmidt, J. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys groups. Child
Development, 54, 1400 1416.
Coie, J., Terry, R., Zariski, A., & Lochman, J. (1995). Early adolescent social influences on delinquent behavior.
In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives ( pp. 229 244). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Crick, N., & Dodge, K. (1994). A review of social information processing mechanisms in childrens social
adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101.
Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social psychological adjustment. Child
Crick, N., & Ladd, G. (1990). Childrens perceptions of the outcomes of aggressive strategies: Do the ends justify
the means? Developmental Psychology, 29, 244 254.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction
of childrens future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317 2327.
Criss, M., Pettit, G., Bates, J., Dodge, K., & Lapp, A. (2002). Family adversity, positive peer relationships and
childrens externalizing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73,
1220 1237.
Dishion, T., Andrews, T., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139 151.
Dishion, T., Capaldi, D., Spracklen, K., & Li, F. (1995). Peer ecology of male adolescent drug use. Development
and Psychopathology, 7, 803 824.
Dishion, T., Eddy, J., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 207 223.
Dishion, T., & Skaggs, N. (2000). An ecological analysis of monthly bursts in early adolescent substance use.
Applied Developmental Science, 4, 89 97.
279
Dishion, T., Spracklen, K., Andrews, D., & Patterson, G. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373 390.
Dodge, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of social status. Child Development, 54, 1386 1399.
Dodge, K., & Feldman, E. (1990). Issues in social cognition and sociometric status. In S. Asher, & J. Coie (Eds.),
Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 119 155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dodge, K., Lansford, J., Burks, V., Bates, J., Pettit, G., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. (in press). Peer rejection and
social information processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child
Development.
Dodge, K., & Price, J. (1994). On the relation between social information processing and socially competent
behavior in early school-aged children. Child Development, 65, 1385 1397.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154 165.
Eder, D., & Hallinan, M. (1978). Sex differences in childrens friendships. American Psychological Review, 43,
237 250.
Elliott, D., & Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental
patterns. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories. Cambridge criminology series
(pp. 28 67). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Epstein, J. (1986). Friendship selection: Developmental and environmental influences. In E. Mueller, &
C. Cooper (Eds.), Process and outcome in peer relationships ( pp. 129 160). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Erdley, C., & Asher, S. (1999). A social goals perspective on childrens social competence. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 156 167.
Fabes, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1992). Young childrens coping with interpersonal anger. Child Development, 63,
116 128.
Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (1996). Social relationships of students with exceptionalities in mainstream
classrooms: Social networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 431 450.
Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: The
social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174 188.
Farver, J. A. M. (1996). Aggressive behavior in preschoolers social networks: Do birds of a feather flock
together? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 333 350.
Feldman, E., & Dodge, K. (1987). Social information processing and sociometric status: Sex, age, and situational
effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 211 227.
Franco, N., & Levitt, M. (1998). The social ecology of middle childhood: Family support, friendship quality and
self-esteem. Family Relations, 47, 315 321.
French, D. (1998). Heterogeneity of peer rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Development, 59, 976 985.
Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Conceptual and methodological issues. In
W. M. Bukowski (Ed.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence ( pp. 41 65).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Furman, W., & Bierman, K. L. (1984). Childrens conceptions of friendship: A multimethod study of developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 20, 925 931.
Furman, W., & Burhmester, D. (1985). Childrens perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016 1024.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 589 600.
Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between family environment
and friendship and associations with self perceived well-being during adolescence. Child Development, 67,
2201 2216.
George, T. P., & Hartmann, D. P. (1996). Friendship networks of unpopular, average, and popular children. Child
Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of
number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10, 23 40.
Gifford-Smith, M. (1998). Developmental, gender, and sociometric status differences in childrens teasing and
aggressive behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
280
Gottman, J. M. (1983). How children become friends. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48(201), 86.
Gropeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328 2338.
Hallinan, M. T. (1980, reprinted 1995). Patterns of cliquing among youth. In H. Foot, & A. T. Chapman (Eds.),
Friendship and Social Relations in Children ( pp. 321 341). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hallinan, M. T., & Smith, S. (1989). Classroom characteristics and student friendship cliques. Social Forces, 67,
898 919.
Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social withdrawal in
early childhood: Sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across four years. Child Development, 68,
278 294.
Hartup, W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Volume Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed.) (pp. 103 198). New
York: Wiley.
Hartup, W. (1996). Cooperation, close relationships, and cognitive development. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb,
& W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence ( pp. 213 236).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Hartup, W. (1999). Constraints on peer socialization: Let me count the ways. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45,
172 183.
Hartup, W., & Abecassis, M. (in press). Friends and enemies. In P. Smith, & D. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook
of childhood social development. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hartup, W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M., & Eastenson, A. (1988). Conflict and the friendship relations of young
children. Child Development, 59, 1590 1600.
Hartup, W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
355 370.
Hartup, W. W. (1970). Peer interaction and social organization. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels manual of child
psychology ( pp. 361 455). NY: Wiley.
Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1 13.
Hartup, W. W., & Laursen, B. (1999). Relationships as developmental contexts: Retrospective themes and
contemporary issues. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Relationships as developmental contexts: Vol. 30. The Minnesota
symposia on child psychology (pp. 13 35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haselager, G. J. T., Hartup, W. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A. (1998). Similarities
between friends and nonfriends in middle childhood. Child Development, 69, 1198 1208.
Hatzichristou, C., & Hopf, D. (1996). A multiperspective comparison of peer sociometric status groups in
childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 67, 1085 1102.
Hawley, P. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource control in preschoolers.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 167 176.
Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Social capital and the development of youth from nondivorced, divorced, and remarried
families. In W. Collins, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts (pp. 177 210). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinshaw, S., & Melnick, S. (1995). Peer relationships in boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder with
and without comorbid aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 627 647.
Hodges, E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an
escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94 101.
Hodges, E., & Card, N. (Eds.) (in press). Enemies and the darker side of peer relations. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Hodges, E. V. E., Malone, M. J., & Perry, D. G. (1997). Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants
of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1032 1039.
Howes, C. (1996). The earliest friendships. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company
they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 66 86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive vs. withdrawn unpopular children: Peer- and selfperceptions across multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879 896.
281
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds.) (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kinderman, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of childrens
motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970 977.
Kindermann, T. (1998). Childrens development within peer groups: Using composite social maps to identify peer
networks and to study their influences. In W. M. Bukowski, & A. H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and
now: Building on six decades of measuring childrens experiences with the peer group: No. 80. New directions
for child development (pp. 5 24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krappman, L. (1996). Amicitia, drujb, shin-yu, philia, freundschaft, friendship: On the cultural diversity of a
human relationship. In W. Bukowski, A. Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships
in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development (pp. 19 40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kupersmidt, J. B., DeRosier, M. E., & Patterson, C. P. (1995). Similarity as the basis for childrens friendships:
The roles of sociometric status, aggressive and withdrawn behavior, academic achievement, and demographic
characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 439 452.
Ladd, G. W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 29, 283 307.
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, Keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom:
Predictors of childrens early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 1081 1100.
Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle childhood. Annual Review
of Psychology, 50, 333 359.
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer, B. J. (1996). Linkages between friendship and adjustment during early school
transitions. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship
in childhood and adolescence (pp. 322 345). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of young childrens
early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103 1118.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to childrens school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181 1197.
Lansford, J., & Parker, J. (1999). Childrens interactions in triads: Behavioral profiles and effects of gender and
patterns of friendships among members. Developmental Psychology, 35, 80 93.
Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Childrens social constructions of popularity. Social
Leung, M. -C. (1993). Social cognition and social networks of Chinese school children in Hong Kong. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Li, A. (1985). Early rejected status and later social adjustment: A 3-year follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child
Luther, S., & McMahon, T. (1996). Peer reputation among inner-city adolescents: Structure and correlates.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 581 603.
Maassen, G., Akkermans, W., & van der Linden, J. (1996). Two-dimensional sociometric status determination
with rating scales. Small Group Research, 27, 56 78.
Maassen, G. H., van der Linden, J. L., Goossens, F. A., & Bokhorst, J. (2000). A ratings-based approach to twodimensional sociometric status determination. In A. H. N. Cillessen, & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent
advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system: No. 88. New directions for
child and adolescent development (pp. 3 11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maccoby, E. (2000). Perspectives on gender development. International Journal of Behavior Development, 24,
398 406.
Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1980). Sex differences in aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755 765.
Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J., Maumary-Gremaud, A., Bierman, K., & CPPR Group (2002). Peer rejection
and aggression and early starter models of conduct disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30,
217 230.
Moreno, J. L. (1934). A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and
Mental Disease Publishing.
282
Nash, R. (1973). Clique formation among primary and secondary school children. British Journal of Sociology,
24, 303 313.
Neckerman, H. J. (1996). The stability of social groups in childhood and adolescence: The role of the classroom
social environment. Social Development, 5, 131 145.
Nelson, D., & Crick, N. (1999). Rose-colored glasses: Examining the social information processing of prosocial
young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 17 38.
Newcomb, A., & Bukowski, W. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of childrens peer
group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856 867.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Childrens friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 306 347.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1996). The developmental significance of childrens friendship relations. In
W. Bukowski, W. Newcomb, & W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and
adolescence (pp. 289 321). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Bagwell, C. L. (1999). Knowing the sounds: Friendship as a developmental context. In W. A. Collins, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts: Vol. 30.
The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 63 84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Childrens peer relations: A meta-analytic review of
popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113,
99 128.
Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and academic,
behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Paquette, J., & Underwood, M. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242 266.
Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low accepted children at risk?
Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357 389.
Parker, J., & Gottman, J. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction
from early childhood to adolescence. In T. Berndt, & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development.
Wiley series on personality processes (pp. 95 131). New York, NY: Wiley.
Parker, J., Rubin, K., Price, J., & de Rosier, M. (1995). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment.
In D. Cicchetti, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation
(pp. 96 161). New York: Wiley.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer
group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29,
611 621.
Parker, J. P., & Seal, J. (1966). Forming, losing, renewing, and replacing friendship: Applying temporal parameters to the assessment of childrens friendship experiences. Child Development, 67, 2248 2268.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct
dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125 144.
Patterson, C., Kupersmidt, J., & Griesler, P. (1990). Childrens perceptions of self and relationships with others as
a function of sociometric status. Child Development, 61, 1335 1349.
Patterson, G., Dishion, T., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macroand micro-peer dynamics. Prevention Science, 1, 3 13.
Pellegrini, A., & Blatchford, P. (2000). The child at school: Interactions with peers and teachers. London, UK:
Arnold.
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating
to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216 224.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. P. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24,
807 814.
Pettit, G. S., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1996). Stability and change in peer-rejected status:
The role of child behavior, parenting, and family ecology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 267 294.
Poulin, F., Cillessen, A., Hubbard, J., Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Schwarz, D. (1997). Childrens friends and
behavioral similarity in two social contexts. Social Development, 6, 224 236.
283
Price, J., & Dodge, K. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood: Relations to peer status and social
context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 455 471.
Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. (1981). Social skills and group acceptance. In S. Asher, & J. Coie (Eds.), The
Development of Childrens Friendships (pp. 116 149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and
prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14 24.
Rubin, K., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, &
N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development
(5th ed.) (pp. 621 700). New York: Wiley.
Rubin, K., Hymel, S., LeMare, L., & Rowden, L. (1989). Children experiencing social difficulties: Sociometric
neglect reconsidered. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 94 111.
Rubin, K., LeMare, L., & Lollis, S. (1990). Social withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to peer
rejection. In S. Asher, & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 217 249). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Rubin, K., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving. In V. Van Hasselt, & M. Hersen (Eds.),
Handbook of social development (pp. 283 323). NY: Plenum.
Sage, N. A., & Kindermann, T. (1999). Peer networks, behavior contingencies, and childrens engagement in the
classroom. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 143 171.
Salmivalli, C., Arja, H., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1997). Peer networks and bullying in schools. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 38, 305 312.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Coie, J. D. (1999). A developmental perspective on peer rejection: Mechanisms of stability
and change. Child Development, 70, 955 966.
Schuster, B. (2001). Rejection and victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in
school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 290 309). New York: Guilford Press.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K., Pettit, G., & Bates, J. (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway
between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology,
36, 646 662.
Selman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.
Shrum, W., & Cheek, N. (1987). Social structure during the school years: Onset of the degrouping process.
American Sociological Review, 52, 218 223.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group (1999). Child Development, 70, 169 182.
Sullivan, H. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Terry, R. (2000). Recent advances in measurement theory and the use of sociometric techniques. In A. H. N.
Cillessen, & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in
the peer system: No. 88. New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 3 11). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Terry, R., & Coie, J. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867 880.
Thornberry, T., & Krohn, M. (1997). Peers, drug use, and delinquency. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. Maser (Eds.),
Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 218 233). New York: Wiley.
Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together. . .but mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary schools. In
W. Hartup, & K. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 167 184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Underwood, M., Galen, B., & Paquette, J. (2001). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression:
Why cant we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248 266.
Vandell, D., & Hembree, S. (1994). Social status and friendship: Independent contributors to childrens social and
academic adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 461 477.
Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R., & Gagnon, C. (1992). Peer rejection from kindergarten to grade 2: Outcomes, correlates,
and prediction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 382 400.
Waas, G., & Honer, S. (1990). Situational attributions and dispositional inferences: Development of peer reputation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 239 260.
Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and controversial
children. Child Development, 66, 754 763.
284
Whitesell, N., & Harter, S. (1996). The interpersonal context of emotion: Anger with close friends and classmates. Child Development, 67, 1345 1359.
Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups: Individual-group similarity
and the social misfit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523 536.
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1999). Social networks and configurations in inner-city schools:
Aggression, popularity, and implications for students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 7, 147 155.
Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zajac, R. J., & Hartup, W. W. (1997). Friends as coworkers: Research review and classroom implications.
Elementary School Journal, 98, 3 13.
Zarbatany, L., Hartmann, D. P., & Rankin, D. B. (1990). The psychological functions of preadolescent peer
activities. Child Development, 61, 1067 1080.

Childhood Peer Relationships - Social Acceptance, Friendships and Peer Networks

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Childhood Peer Relationships - Social Acceptance, Friendships and Peer Networks

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of School Psychology

41 (2003) 235 284

Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance,

Received 28 October 2002; accepted 28 October 2002

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

Individual differences in childrens social competence: sociometric status and social

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

Methodological issues in studying sociometric status

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

advances in our understanding of relational or social aggression, a form of aggression that

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

developmental periods as predictors of popularity. Popular children are described by their

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

disruptive or aggressive behavioral styles may be in particular danger of poor outcomes

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

Individual differences: having friends, choosing friends, and friendship quality

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

Methodological issues in the study of social networks

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

physical maturation, and physical attractiveness. The evidence on socioeconomic status is

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

Discussion and integration

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

M.E. Gifford-Smith, C.A. Brownell / Journal of School Psychology 41 (2003) 235284

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi