Children experiencing social difficulties: Sociometric neglect reconsidered

Children experiencing social difficulties: Sociometric neglect reconsidered KENNETH H. RUBIN, SHELLEY HYMEL, LUCY LEMARE AND LYNDA ROWDEN University of Waterloo ABSTRACT

In recent years, sociometric data have been used to categorize children with regard to difficulties in their peer relationships. The primary purpose of the present report was to critically evaluate an oft-used sociometric procedure, the peer nomination technique. Sociometric nomination data have allowed a distinction to be made among different subgroups of children thought to be unpopular. For example, rejected children have typically been characterized as unpopular and aggressive; neglected children have been viewed as unpopular and shy or withdrawn. An examination of the data extant reveal support for the assumption that some rejected children are aggressive; however, the data concerning the behavioural characteristics of neglected children are equivocal. In this study we examined whether children who were identified as sociometrically neglected in grade 4 were unpopular and evidenced shyness, withdrawal, and other characteristics conceptually associated with "internalizing" problems such as loneliness and negative self-perceptions. The data revealed that neglected children could not be distinguished from their average counterparts on any dependent measure. Rejected children were found to be more unpopular, aggressive, as well as withdrawn than the other sociometric groups. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the use of sociometry to identify children "at risk" for social and emotional difficulties.

In recent years, researchers have relied increasingly on sociometric data to categorize children with difficulties in their peer relations (e.g., Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). Emphasis on the identification and classification of children with regard to social difficulties emanates from suggestions that the quality of a child's relationships within the peer group is predictive of later academic and socioemotional adjustment problems (for reviews see Coie, 1985; Hymel & Rubin, 1985). Given the relatively widespread use of sociometric classification procedures, it is encumbent upon researchers to ascertain whether these techniques are conceptually and psychometrically strong. With this in mind, the primary purpose of the present report was to critically evaluate a sociometric procedure that, itself, has been gaining acceptance and popularity in recent years — the peer nomination technique. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Fourth Biennial University of Waterloo Conference on Child Development, Waterloo, Ontario, May 1986. This research was supported by grants from Health and Welfare Canada and The Ontario Mental Health Foundation. Preparation of this manuscript was aided by a Killam Research Fellowship to author Rubin. We are grateful to the teachers and children in The Waterloo County Board of Education for their cooperation in this project. Thanks also go to Laurie Addis who coordinated all data gathering aspects of the study. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Kenneth H. Rubin, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. CANAD. J. BEHAV. SCI./REV. CANAD. SCI. COMP. 21(1), 1989

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

95

A particular focus of the present report is the category of sociometric neglect, as defined by nomination procedures. We focus on this category in response to an ongoing debate concerning the behavioural characteristics of sociometrically neglected children, and whether these children are, in fact, at risk (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, in press; French, in press; French & Waas, 1985; Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis, in press). In this context, we begin with a critical review of nomination sociometric procedures used to categorize children. Next, we consider research in which the behavioural characteristics of sociometrically neglected children have been examined. Finally, we present additional data bearing on the issue of whether sociometric neglect constitutes a distinct category of social risk. Within the literature on sociometric status, researchers have come to distinguish between two groups of poorly accepted children — those who are rejected versus those who are neglected within the peer group. Interestingly, the neglected-rejected distinction appears to have evolved in response to methodological rather than conceptual concerns. The nomination technique requires children to identify a given number of peers according to some specified positive and/or negative criteria (e.g., "Name three classmates with whom you like/don't like to play (work)."). Two different scores can be derived from the number of nominations each child receives from peers: (1) acceptance scores, based on the number of positive nominations received, and (2) rejection scores, based on the number of negative nominations received. Given research indicating that acceptance and rejection scores are, at best, only moderately and negatively correlated (e.g., Gottman, 1977; Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972), or not related at all (Goldman, Corsini, & deUrioste, 1980; Hartup, Glazer, & Charlesworth, 1967) researchers have advocated the simultaneous use of positive and negative nomination scores to identify sociometric subgroups of children. This procedure permits several distinctions to be made. Popular children are those who receive many positive and few negative nominations, while rejected children receive few positive and many negative nominations from peers. Neglected children receive few positive or negative nominations while controversial children receive many negative as well as positive nominations. Finally, children considered average in sociometric status typically include those who receive moderate numbers of positive and negative nominations. These five sociometric categories (or various subsets of them) are used by virtually all researchers employing the nomination technique as a way of categorizing children, with particular emphasis on the distinction between neglected and rejected children. The use of identical sociometric classification labels across studies may lead to the erroneous assumption that a single classificatory scheme is commonly accepted in the literature; this, however, is not the case. The specific criteria used to classify children into the various sociometric subgroups have varied considerably across studies. For example, Roff et al. (1972) used relatively straightforward distinctions between the raw number of positive versus negative

96

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

nominations received from peers to dintinguish "star" (popular), rejected, controversial, and "isolated" (neglected) children. More recently, both social impact (acceptance plus rejection) and social preference (acceptance minus rejection) scores have been used to classify children (e.g., Coie et al., 1982; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983; Peery, 1979), although the specific criteria employed vary considerably. For instance, Newcomb and Bukowski (1983) have utilized a probability model to determine rare or extreme levels of acceptance, rejection, impact, and preference, whereas Coie et al. (1982) advocated criteria based on standardized acceptance, rejection, impact, and preference scores. Variations in classification criteria are found not only across studies carried out by different researchers but also across studies authored by the same individuals. For example, the standardized score approach popularized by Coie and Dodge and their colleagues (e.g., Coie et al., 1982) has been most often employed in recent sociometric research, yet the specific criteria used to identify sociometric subgroups differs from one research report to the next. This is particularly true in the case of neglected children where criteria appear to vary, in part, as a result of efforts to increase sample size. For example, Coie et al. (1982) originally identified sociometrically neglected children as those whose standardized social impact scores were less than one standard deviation below the mean and whose raw acceptance score was equal to zero. Later, in studies by Coie and Dodge (1983) and by Asher and Dodge (1986), neglected children were identified as those whose standardized social impact scores were less than one standard deviation below the mean and whose standardized acceptance as well as rejection scores were each below the mean. Minor variations of this sort produce very different frequencies of identified neglected children. For example, Stein (1985) compared the frequencies of neglected children identified by the Coie et al. (1982) versus the Coie and Dodge (1983) criteria. In a sample of 81 fourth-grade children, the former classification scheme yielded only one neglected child, while the latter scheme identified 12 neglected children. Thus, even minor classification variations may make crossstudy comparisons extremely difficult. Despite the aforementioned classification variations, it is nevertheless the case that considerable effort has been made to characterize and distinguish the two groups of low-accepted children: sociometrically neglected and rejected children. Rejected children have been described as hostile and aggressive, whereas neglected children have been labelled as shy and withdrawn (see Bierman, 1986; Krehbiel & Milich, 1986 for recent reviews). These associations between sociometric status and behavioural profiles are consistent with the notion of rejected and neglected children as two groups "at risk" for differential outcomes (Hymel & Rubin, 1985). For example, if peer rejection is associated with aggression, then we might assume that rejected children are "at risk" for externalizing disorders such as hostile-aggressive (acting out) behaviours (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1982).

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

97

Similarly, if peer neglect is associated with social anxiety, shyness, and withdrawal, the assumed "risk" factor may be of an internalizing nature (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1982), for example, negative self-perceptions, loneliness and/or depression. Although a link between sociometric and psychopathological classification is intuitively appealing, a careful review of recent literature indicates that this may be premature, especially with regard to the category of sociometric neglect. The most consistent finding emerging from recent research on the behavioural correlates of sociometric status has been that rejected children (in particular, rejected boys) are more aggressive and disruptive with peers than any other status group. This finding emerges regardless of whether peer evaluations (Cantrell & Prinz, 1985; Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984; Coie et al., 1982), teacher ratings (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982) or direct observations (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge et al. 1982) are used to evaluate children's social behaviour. Neglected children, in contrast, are seldom, if ever, aggressive in their peer interactions, even in response to aggressive overtures from their peers (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge et al., 1982). Aside from their lack of aggressiveness, there has been little consistency in the data characterizing neglected children. Some researchers have suggested that neglected children can best be characterized as shy and socially withdrawn (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983; Dodge et al., 1982), yet close inspection of the relevant data reveals that support for this premise is rather weak. For example, several researchers have concluded that peers perceive neglected children as "shy." Yet Coie et al. (1982) found that neglected children were perceived by peers to be shy only relative to rejected children and did not differ from average children in this regard. Coie and Kupersmidt (1983) also reported that neglected boys were perceived by peers as shy, but only in familiar peer groups. Among unfamiliar peers, popular and neglected children were equally likely to be viewed as shy. Dodge (1983), as well, suggested that sociometrically neglected children were perceived by peers as shy, but in his own data set, statistically non-significant sociometric status differences were found on the dimension of shyness. Cantrell and Prinz (1985) found no differences among rejected, neglected and average children in terms of peer perceptions of shyness. The data on withdrawn behaviour are equally equivocal. It is often the case that rejected, not neglected children are perceived as exhibiting withdrawn behaviour by peers (Cantrell & Prinz, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1983), teachers (Cantrell & Prinz, 1985), and parents (French & Waas, 1985). However, in a recent review of this literature, Coie, Dodge and Kupersmidt (in press) have noted that many researchers who have examined status differences in peer evaluations of withdrawn behaviour have relied on global factor scores and have not adequately considered more specific behaviours that may define the construct of withdrawal.

98

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

For example, one measure commonly used to assess peer perceptions of social withdrawal is the Revised Class Play (Masten, Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985). The items that define the Sensitivity-Isolation factor of this measure include statements centring on peer exclusion or rejection ("often left out," "can't get others to listen"), emotionality or sensitivity ("usually sad," "feelings easily hurt") as well as social anxiety and withdrawn behaviour ("would rather play alone," "shy"). It may be that if specific peer evaluation items concerning withdrawn behaviour were considered alone the equivocal findings could be more easily interpreted. Indeed, rejected children may prove to be isolated by the peer group and neglected children isolated from the peer group. When direct observations of withdrawn behaviour are made, the picture becomes even more confused. Dodge (1983) found neglected boys to engage in more solitary play than boys from other status groups. Coie & Kupersmidt (1983) were able to confirm these results only in groups of familiar (and not unfamiliar) peers. Moreover, both Coie and Kupersmidt (1983) and Dodge et al. (1982) found that neglected children were more likely to engage in solitary but appropriate on-task behaviour, while rejected children actually engaged in more solitary, inappropriate, or off-task behaviour. In sum, given the variety of schemes used to classify neglected children and the equivocal data concerning a behavioural profile, at present no conclusion can be reached as to the risk associated with sociometric neglect. The primary purpose of the present investigation was to clarify this situation. To this end, we aimed to replicate and extend previous research on socometrically neglected versus rejected children, with emphasis on the social behaviours, peer perceptions, and, especially, the self-perceptions associated with sociometric neglect. Given our concern that the findings regarding observed behavioural, peer assessment, and self-perception differences across status groups are often difficult, if not impossible, to compare across studies (due to the use of different classification schemes as well as different assessment procedures), we sought to include a wide variety of commonly used, dependent measures while maintaining the use of a single classification system. Thus, insofar as replication is concerned, we examined variations in social behaviour as a function of sociometric status. Unlike much of the previous research, however, our assessment of social behaviour included both observational and peer evaluation data. Furthermore, in contrast to several published reports (e.g., Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983) the present sample included both males and females, rather than males only. With reference to extending previous research, first, we responded to recent suggestions (Coie et al., in press) by considering status differences in peer perceptions of withdrawn behaviour both in terms of global factor scores derived from peer nominations (e.g., aggression, sociability, isolation) as well as more specific peer evaluations of social withdrawal. Accordingly, we hoped to discover whether some descriptors commonly associated with the construct of social withdrawal (e.g., "plays alone,"

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

99

"shy," or "sad") were more characteristic of neglected children than any other sociometric group, whereas other descriptors (e.g., "often left out") were more characteristic of rejected children. In the present study, we also sought to examine status differences in children's •^//"-perceptions of their own peer relationships. With the exception of research by Asher and Wheeler (1985) indicating that rejected, not neglected children report greater feelings of loneliness, little is known about the self-perceptions of the various sociometric subgroups (see Hymel & Franke, 1985). Relevant to the contention that neglected children are withdrawn and ostensibly more shy and socially anxious, it has been discovered that behaviourally withdrawn youngsters as well as those perceived by peers as socially isolated and fearful view themselves as less competent than their more sociable counterparts (e.g., Rubin, 1985; Rubin, Hymel, & Mills, in press). If sociometrically neglected children are, indeed, shy, anxious, and withdrawn, one might also expect them to perceive themselves as less socially competent than their "average-status" age-mates. METHOD Subjects Participants included 81 grade four children (35 boys, 46 girls; mean age = 8.6 years, SD = 4.41 months) who attended public schools in a Southwestern Ontario community of 215,000 people. All children had received parental permission to participate in the project. Procedure All children were group administered, in regular classroom settings, sociometric measures of peer acceptance and peer assessments of social behaviour. In addition, self-report measures of loneliness and perceived competence (self-concept) were administered to each child in individual testing sessions conducted by adult female experimenters in a research trailer situated on school grounds. Finally, all children were observed in quartets in a series of four (15-min) play sessions conducted in a laboratory play room. Each measure is described in detail below. Throughout testing, subjects were assured of the confidentiality of their responses to all research questions. Measures Sociometric assessment. Three different sociometric measures were administered in order to evaluate the social status and overall popularity of each child: positive and negative nomination measures, and a rating-scale measure. For the nomination measures, administration procedures followed those outlined by Coie and Dodge (1983). This particular procedure was used because it appeared to us to be the most commonly accepted and most often used sociometric classification scheme in the current literature. First, children were presented with lists of all participating classmates and were asked to circle the names of three classmates with whom they "most liked" (positive nominations) and "least liked" (negative nominations) to play at school. Subsequently, the total number of positive and negative nominations received from peers was computed for each child. These "like most" (LM) and "like least" (LL) scores were then standardized within each class and gender group. Standardized LM and LL scores were then used to compute social preference (SP = LMz —LLz) and social impact (SI = LMz + LLz) scores for each child. On the basis of these scores, subjects were classified into one of five sociometric groups as follows: (a) Popular (SP > 1.0, LLz < 0; LMz > 0), (b) Rejected (SP < - 1 . 0 ; LMz < 0; LLz > 0; (c) Neglected (SI < -1.0); LMz < 0; LLz < 0);

100

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

(d) Controversial (SI > 1.0; LMz > 0; LLz > 0) and (e) Average (all remaining children). For the rating-scale measure, the children were asked to rate each classmate on a 1 to 5 scale according to how much they "liked to be with" that person at school. Subsequently, the average rating received from classmates was computed as an index of overall preference or acceptability by peers. Average ratings were then standardized within classroom and sex groups in order to permit comparisons of subjects across classes which differed in size and gender composition. Standardized average ratings, then, provided an index of overall acceptability by peers with higher scores indicative of greater acceptance or popularity. Peer assessment of social behaviour. Peer perceptions of the social behaviour which typified each subject were assessed using the Revised Class Play (Masten et al., 1985). On this measure, children were asked to nominate classmates who would best fit each of 30 behavioural descriptors. Subsequently, nominations received from peers1 were used to compute each of three factor scores for each child, following procedures outlined by Masten et al. (1985): Sociability-Leadership, AggressionDisruption, and Sensitivity-Isolation. Although these factor scores provide reliable indices of global peer perceptions of social behaviour, they do not adequately reflect specific aspects of behaviour, especially in the case of the SensitivityIsolation factor which includes withdrawal (e.g., "rather play alone"), social exclusion ("often left out"), and sensitivity (e.g., "feelings easily hurt," "sad") items within a single factor. As Coie et al. (in press) have argued, consideration of specific withdrawal behaviours is needed within this literature. Accordingly, several items from the Sensitivity-Isolation factor of the Revised Class Play were examined individually, as these items were thought, a priori, to be particularly relevant to the foci of the present study. These items included "rather play alone," "feelings easily hurt," "shy," "often left out," and "usually sad." For both individual items and each of the three summary scores, the number of nominations received by each child were standardized within class and gender groups in order to permit comparisons across classrooms differing in size and gender composition. For both factor scores and individual item scores, higher scores were indicative of stronger peer perceptions of the identified behaviour. Social self-perceptions. Two self-report questionnaires, designed for use with children at this age level, were administered in order to assess children's perceptions of their own social situations: the Loneliness Scale (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984) and the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985). Following procedures described by Asher et al. (1984), relevant responses to the 24-item loneliness scale were summed to compute a single index of loneliness and social dissatisfaction for each child (range 16-80), with higher scores indicative of greater loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Previous research has demonstrated the reliability and validity of this measure in assessing children's feelings of loneliness (Asher et al., 1984; Hymel & Franke, 1985). The Self-Perception Profile for Children is a domain-specific self-concept scale developed by Harter (1985) which assesses children's perceptions of their own competence in six different domains: academic, athletic, social, behavioural (conduct), appearance, and general self-worth. Of particular interest in the present study were children's perceptions of their own competence and in the social domain. Accordingly, although the measure was administered in its entirety, only scores for perceived social competence were considered in subsequent analyses. Specifically, children's responses to the seven social competence items included in the scale were averaged, following procedures outlined by Harter (1985), to compute a single index of perceived social competence (range 1-4), with higher scores indicative of more positive social self-concept. Previous research has demonstrated the psychometric "Although several researchers have advocated use of ratings from only same-sex classmates in peer behavioural assessments, sociometric nominations and sociometric ratings from all peers were considered in the present study since categorizations of children on the basis of positive and negative peer nominations have typically been based on both-sex nominations (e.g., Coie et al., 1982; Coie & Dodge, 1983).

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

101

strength of this scale (Harter, 1982, 1985) in assessing children's self-perceptions of competence in the social domain. Behavioural observations. Each child was invited to play with three same-sex age-mates for four 15-min free play sessions in a laboratory playroom. The child's playmates differed in each of the four sessions, thus allowing observations to be made with 12 different playmates, some of whom were students in different classrooms. In each case, an effort was made to include one playmate from the target child's classroom and two children from a second classroom. During each play session, the children were observed, from behind one-way mirrors, following the procedures described in detail by Rubin (1982). Each child was observed for 42 10-sec time intervals during each session. Thus, a total of 28 minutes of data (or 168 time samples) was available for each child. Behaviours were coded on a pre-determined checklist that included the cognitive social participation categories of solitary, parallel, and group activity in addition to aggression, and conversations with peers. Also coded, but not included in this report, were the cognitive categories of functionalsensorimotor, constructive and dramatic play, and games-with-rules, all of which were nested along with exploratory activity, within the aforementioned social participation categories (see Rubin, 1986 for a thorough description). In addition, unoccupied and onlooker activities were coded. Observers (undergraduate students) were trained in the use of the observational scoring scheme prior to actual data collection using randomly chosen videotaped segments of children's free play as well as naturalistic observations during a laboratory school play period. During training, reliability was assessed by pairing each observer with the trainer for several hours of observation time, at the end of which reliability estimates were obtained for a 15-20-min observation period for each observer. The percentage of agreement (i.e., number of agreements/agreements plus disagreements) exceeded 85% for each behavioural category at this time. A second 15-20 min reliability check was also conducted immediately prior to onset of actual data collection for each observer and, again, reliability exceeded 85 % for each behavioural category. Reliability spot checks were conducted blind in the latter quarter of data collection, constituting approximately 8-10% of all observational data. Reliability, as assessed during these spot checks, exceeded 85% for all behavioural categories. Given the focus of the present study, the frequency of three general categories of observed behaviour were considered particularly relevant: (1) positive social or interactive behaviour, (2) solitary or noninteractive behaviour, and (3) aggressive (negative) behaviour. Observed social behaviour was indexed by the number of observation intervals which included all neutral or positive forms of group interaction or conversation with peers. Solitary behaviour was computed as the number of intervals comprised of observed solitude. Finally, all observation intervals including aggressive (negative) interactions or play were summed to compute an index of aggressive behaviour for each child. The overall frequency of observed aggression, however, was extremely low in the present sample (M = 1.65 intervals, SD = 3.04, out of 168 intervals) and was therefore omitted from consideration in subsequent analyses. Thus, the observational data were used to provide two indices of behaviour for each child: social behaviour and solitary behaviour.

RESULTS

Children in the present sample were first categorized on the basis of positive and negative nomination data into one of five groups, following procedures outlined by Coie and Dodge (1983): (1) Popular children (7 males, 10 females), (2) Rejected children (7 males, 10 females), (3) Neglected children (7 males, 7 females), (4) Controversial children (1 male, 2 females), and (5) Average-status children (13 males, 17 females). Given the small number of children classified as Controversial (N = 3), this category was dropped from subsequent analyses. Two

102

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

additional subjects (1 Popular, 1 Average) were omitted from some analyses due to incomplete data. Differences as a function of social status were examined using a single multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) which included four levels of status (Popular, Rejected, Neglected, and Average) as the independent variable.2 The dependent variables included overall peer acceptance or popularity (rating scale sociometric measure), peer perceptions of Sociability-Leadership, AggressivenessDisruptiveness, and Sensitivity-Isolation (Revised Class Play factor scores, Masten et al., 1985), self-perceptions of loneliness (Asher et al., 1984) and social perceived competence (Harter, 1985), and observed social and solitary behaviour. Means and standard deviations for each variable as a function of status group are presented in Table 1. Results indicated significant differences across status groups overall, Wilks = 0.30, Approximate F(24,192) = 4.14, p < .001. An examination of univariate tests for each of the dependent variables indicated significant status differences for four of the dependent variables: Peer-acceptance, FQ,73) = 28.92, p < .001; peer perceptions of Sociability-Leadership, F(3, 73) = 17.10, p < .001; Aggressive-Disruptive behaviour, F(3,73) = 11.93,/? < .001; and SensitivityIsolation, F(3, 73) = 12.55, p < .001. Post-hoc comparisons (Scheffe) were conducted to examine the pattern of results obtained for each of these four peer assessment measures (denoted by different superscripts in Table 1). For peer acceptance, the Rejected children were significantly more disliked than the remaining three sociometric groups. Average children were less well liked than Popular children but did not differ significantly from Neglected children in terms of overall popularity. The Rejected children were viewed also as more Aggressive/Disruptive and Sensitive/Isolated than all other groups on the Revised Class Play. The remaining three sociometric groups did not differ from each other. As for peer-perceived Sociability/Leadership, the Rejected children were less likely than all other groups to be nominated for roles on this factor, whereas the Popular group was more likely than all others to be regarded as highly sociable and able to take on leadership roles. No differences were found between the Neglected and Average children. 2

A similar Sex by Status MANOVA was also conducted in order to examine possible gender influences. Results indicated a non-significant sex by status interaction, overall, and subsequent univariate analysis revealed no significant sex by status interactions for any of the dependent variables considered in the present study. A significant main effect for gender was obtained, but examination of univariate analyses revealed that this effect was only significant for one of the dependent variables considered: observed solitary behaviour. Male subjects exhibited more solitary behaviour, overall, than did females. Status effects were significant and replicated those reported in the text. In light of the absence of sex by status interactions as well as the reduction of cell size when both gender and status were considered as independent variables, the MANOVA reported herein includes only a single independent variable: sociometric status groups.

103

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

TABLE 1 Variations as a function of sociometric status classifications

Peer Assessments (Standardized scores): Peer acceptance* Sociable -Leadership* Aggressive -Disruptive* Sensitive -Isolated* Observed Behaviour: Social Behaviour Solitary Behaviour Self-Perceptions: Loneliness Social Perceived Competence

Popular (N = 16)

Status Groups Rejected Neglected (N = 17) (N=14)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

0.80 a d (0.44) 0.83" (0.78) -0.58" (0.71) -0.51" (0.53)

-1.24b (0.65) -0.93b (0.43) 0.84 b (0.83) 1.09b (0.99)

0.14" (0.76) -0.11c (0.69) -0.40" (0.75) -0.10" (0.94)

-0.16" (0.79) -0.19" (0.80)

M (SD) M (SD)

72.94 (23.44) 21.69 (17.39)

72.18 (24.42) 26.88 (21.46)

79.43 (25.29) 17.50 (13.82)

82.38 (23.06) 17.90 (11.95)

M (SD) M (SD)

24.44 (7.12) 3.43 (0.68)

29.29 (11.09) 2.91 (0.69)

34.64 (13.46) 3.06 (0.63)

29.86 (9.19) 3.12 (0.71)

Average (N=29)

0.06 a c (0.70) 0.10 c (0.87)

*p < .001 on univariate F tests. Note: Significant differences between status groups, as reflected in post-hoc comparisons, are denoted by different superscripts.

In order to examine, in depth, status group differences in sensitive-isolated social behaviours, particular items included on the Sensitivity-Isolation factor of the Revised Class Play were selected a priori for further analysis. More specifically, a second MANOVA was conducted to examine status group differences across five individual Class Play items: "rather play alone," "shy," "often left out," "feelings easily hurt," and "usually sad." Means and standard deviations for these variables (standardized) as a function of status group are presented in Table 2. Results of the MANOVA indicated a significant effect for status group overall (Wilks = 0.49, approximate F(15,194) = 3.76, p < .001). Examination of univariate tests for each of the five variables revealed that significant differences as a function of status were obtained for only three of the five selected items: "rather play alone," F(3,72) = 11.53,/? < .001; "often left out," F(3,74) = 12.79,p < .001; and "usually sad," F(3,74) = 5.65,p < .01. For these three variables, post-hoc comparisons (Scheffe) of means indicated the following pattern of results. Rejected children were significantly more likely to be viewed as "rather play alone" than were Popular or Neglected children. Popular children

104

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

TABLE 2 Variations in individual class play items as a function of status group Popular (N=17) Class Play Items: Rather Play Alone** Shy Often Left Out** Feelings Easily Hurt Usually Sad*

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

-0.73"c (0.52) 0.02 (0.84) -0.62" (0.43) -0.02 (0.81) -0.12" (0.99)

Status Groups Rejected Neglected (N = 17) (N=14) 0.86 b (1.12) 0.18 (1.07) 1.06b (1.11) 0.40 (1.03) 0.83 b (1.00)

-0.20" (0.55) 0.23 (0.97) -0.15" (0.77) 0.13 (1.39) -0.04" (0.99)

Average (N=30) 0.27" d (0.87) 0.06 (1.08) -0.07" (0.83) -0.30 (0.86) -0.28" (0.80)

*p < .01 **p < .001 Note: Significant differences between status groups, as assessed by post-hoc comparisons, are denoted by different superscripts.

were significantly less likely than Average status children to be nominated for the "rather play alone" item. Rejected children were also significantly more likely to be nominated as "often left out" than were Popular, Average, or Neglected children, the latter three groups not differing significantly from one another. Finally, Rejected children were significantly more likely than Popular or Averagestatus children to be viewed by peers as "usually sad." Popular, Average, and Neglected children did not differ significantly from one another in terms of perceptions of being "usually sad." It should be noted, further, that Popular, Average, Neglected, and Rejected children did not differ significantly from one another in terms of the remaining two items: "feelings easily hurt" and "shy." In short, the present results provided no evidence to suggest that Neglected children are shy or withdrawn in their peer relationships. Finally, non-significant status effects were obtained for the measures of loneliness and perceived social competence (p's > .10). Thus, neither Neglected nor Rejected children expressed significantly greater loneliness or significandy poorer perceived social competence than Popular or Average children. DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to examine, systematically, the contention that children who do not often receive positive or negative friendship nominations from peers deviate, in a number of significant ways, from their sociometrically "Average" counterparts. For a number of years, psychologists

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

105

have asserted that sociometrically Neglected children represent that group best described as withdrawn and shy (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983; Dodge, 1983). Others have argued that extremely withdrawn and socially anxious children become a salient reference group to their peers only by mid-childhood (Younger, Schwartzman, & Ledingham, 1986) and, as a consequence of their deviance from the social norms for their age group they become actively disliked (i.e., "rejected") rather than neglected by their peers (Hymel & Rubin, 1985; Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis, in press). These latter authors contend also that sociometric Neglect does not imply risk and that those children who are rarely chosen to be among the top three friendship choices of their classmates are not conceptually dissimilar from those who are neither actively disliked nor highly liked. That is, sociometric Neglect is simply another convenient label for "average" (French & Waas, 1985; Rubin et al., in press). We expected, therefore, that the sociometrically Neglected children in this study would not differ from their sociometrically Average counterparts on any behavioural or self-report index. We did expect, however, that sociometrically Rejected children would be described by peers and observed as more aggressive and withdrawn than all other sociometric groups; we expected further that Popular children would be perceived by peers and observed to be sociable and unaggressive. Consistent with results reported by French and Waas (1985), we found that Rejected children were significantly less well liked than all other groups. Average children were less well liked than Popular children, while Neglected children did not differ significantly in overall acceptance from the Average or Popular groups. Indeed, the mean of the standardized rating-scale socres for Neglected children (see Table 1) was approximately zero, o r ' 'average" for the entire group. Although these data indicate that Neglected children, as a group, are average in overall peer acceptance, there was considerable variance in the sociometric ratings received by Neglected children, suggesting that some are relatively well liked by peers and some are relatively disliked. The fact that some Neglected children are indeed disliked within the peer group may in part account for findings in some studies that Neglected children as a group exhibit socially inappropriate behaviour. Some "Neglected" children, then, may indeed be experiencing social difficulties. Nevertheless, it appears that the relative peer acceptance of Neglected children, as a group, is not a factor that should place them "at risk" for any negative outcomes. The finding that many sociometrically Neglected children were relatively well liked by their peers may initially appear to be contradictory. After all, Neglected status is defined, in part, on the basis of not being nominated by peers as well liked. However, the nomination procedure allows children to select only a very few peers on extreme criteria (e.g., liked most and liked least). As a result, Neglected children are not necessarily those for whom peers indicate a lack of acceptance. Instead, given that they do not meet the extreme nomination criteria, these are children about whom peers simply do not provide information. As such, our data highlight how misleading the label sociometric "neglect" can be.

106

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

In addition to overall acceptance, we compared Neglected and Rejected children in terms of their social behaviour. Childhood aggression has been demonstrated to be both concurrently and prospectively indicative of adjustment problems as well as peer rejection (Parker & Asher, 1987). Due to very low frequencies of observed aggression in the present sample, comparisons among sociometric groups on this variable could not be made. Aggressive behaviour, however, was assessed by peer perceptions. Results indicated that Rejected children were significantly more likely to be perceived as aggressive and disruptive by their classmates than were all other groups. In contrast, Neglected children did not differ from their Average and Popular age-mates regarding peer-perceived aggression. These results are consistent with previous findings concerning the relative «o«-aggressiveness of Neglected children as compared with Rejected children and replicates previous studies demonstrating the association between sociometric Rejection and an aggressive behavioural profile (see Coie et al., in press). As noted earlier, a conceptual link, albeit somewhat controversial, has been drawn between sociometric Neglect and a shy, withdrawn behavioural profile. In the present study, no empirical evidence emerged in support of this link. Non-significant differences were found among status groups in terms of observed solitary and social behaviour. Further, Neglected children did not differ significantly from Average or Popular children in terms of peers' overall perceptions of their sensitive-isolated behaviour; instead, it was the Rejected group which was perceived as significantly more sensitive-isolated than any other status group. It is important to note, however, that on each of the four observational sessions, recordings of children's social behaviours were made when they were interacting with one classmate and with two children from another classroom. Researchers have demonstrated that social context is associated with those behaviours that distinguish between sociometric subgroups. Neglected children are reported to exhibit more solitary behaviour than Rejected children when observed with familiar peers; no such differences are found for Neglected children when observed with unfamiliar peers (Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983). It is possible, therefore, that behavioural differences between the sociometric groups may have emerged had we observed the children in settings comprised only of those who had provided the sociometric nominations. It is also possible that behavioural differences may have been found had we had access to a larger number of participants. An examination of Table 1 reveals that Neglected children evidenced the least solitary and Rejected children produced the most solitary activity relative to the other comparison groups. At any rate, the peer assessment data support the earlier findings of Cantrell and Prinz (1985), who also found no evidence that Neglected children were perceived by peers as shy or withdrawn. The results, however, are inconsistent with suggestions made in previous studies by Coie and his colleagues (Coie et al., 1982; Coie & Kupersmidt, 1983).

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

107

The results concerning children's self-perceptions bear some similarity to those reported by Asher and Wheeler (1985). These authors assessed loneliness in thirdthrough sixth-grade children and found, as we did, that neglected children did not differ significantly in self-reported loneliness from their higher status peers. However, the results reported herein depart from those reported by Asher and Wheeler regarding Rejected children. Asher and Wheeler found that Rejected children were the most lonely group, differing significantly from all other status groups including the Neglected group. In the present study Rejected children were not found to report any greater loneliness than their Average, Popular, or Neglected counterparts. Indeed, although non-significant, there was a marginal trend obtained in the present study in regard to status group differences in reported loneliness. An examination of mean scores on the Loneliness measure (see Table 1), indicated that Popular children, as a group, reported the least loneliness while Neglected children, as a group, reported the greatest loneliness. Given that Asher and Wheeler (1985) used a classificatory scheme for sociometric groups very similar to that employed in the present study, it is unclear why the discrepancies between our and their results exist. To our knowledge there are no other published studies in which loneliness and sociometric status have been examined. Future research should aim to resolve these differences. In summary, our findings do not support the contention that sociometrically neglected children are withdrawn, shy, sad, or unpopular, nor do they express social self-doubt or extreme loneliness. Neglected children in the present study did not differ from their Average status peers in terms of general peer acceptance or popularity, nor in terms of peer perceptions of either aggression or withdrawal. In fact, the present results clearly indicated that Rejected, not Neglected children were perceived as exhibiting both aggressive and withdrawn behaviour. Moreover, even when more specific indices of withdrawal were considered, as recommended by Coie et al. (in press), it was the Rejected, not Neglected child who was viewed as preferring to "play alone," as "left out," and as "usually sad" relative to other status groups. Finally, results of the present study did not indicate that Neglected children reported significantly greater feelings of loneliness or significantly less positive perceptions of their own social competence relative to Average status children. Despite earlier inferences that Neglected children, as a subset of unpopular children, may be experiencing social difficulties, the present study provides no data to support this premise. Taken together, there appears to be a growing body of research which is not consistent with the notion that Neglected children are "at risk" in terms of their social relationships. First, no clear behavioural profile has been found which characterizes Neglected children (Coie et al., in press). Even social withdrawal, initially believed to be the primary behavioural characteristic of sociometrically Neglected children, has been found to be more clearly descriptive of Rejected children.

108

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

Second, researchers have noted that the social behaviours of Neglected children appear to be most sensitive to variations in the composition of the peer group, relative to other status groups (see Coie et al., in press for a review). For example, as noted earlier, Coie and Kupersmidt (1983) found the behaviour of Neglected boys differs in groups of familiar and unfamiliar peers. Such flexibility is not indicative of a deficit in social skills, and is inconsistent with a characterization of social risk. Third, perhaps as a result of such behavioural flexibilty, neglected status has not been found to be stable over time, especially relative to rejected status (Coie & Dodge, 1983; Newcomb & Bukowski, 1983). Moreover, when their status does change, Neglected children are likely to achieve average or popular status over time (Coie & Dodge, 1983). Such positive changes do not support a conclusion that neglected children are socially "at risk." Finally, results of this and several other recent studies indicate that, relative to rejection, sociometric neglect is not necessarily associated with other indices of social or emotonal difficulties. Relative to average-status peers, neglected children do not report greater feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction (Asher & Wheeler, 1985; present study), and they are not less popular among their classmates, as indicated by rating scale sociometric measures (French & Waas, 1985; present study). Moreover, neglected children are not perceived by their parents to exhibit any more problem behaviours than are popular or average status children (French & Waas, 1985). Thus, there appears to be no clear evidence to support the view that sociometrically neglected children, as a group, are experiencing extreme social difficulties. With regard to Rejected or unpopular children, our results have several important implications. In the present study, Rejected children were perceived by peers as both more aggressive and as more isolated in terms of their social behaviour. With concern for more specific indices of withdrawal, Rejected children were perceived as preferring to "play alone," "often left out," and as "usually sad." Greater perceived aggressiveness on the part of Rejected children is clearly consistent with the findings of previous research. Moreover, researchers have increasingly reported that Rejected rather than Neglected children exhibit withdrawn behaviour (see Coie et al., in press for a review). Thus, several studies, including the present one, have indicated that peer rejection is associated with both aggression and withdrawal. It is not clear, at this point, whether Rejected children should be characterized as both aggressive and withdrawn or whether some Rejected children are aggressive while others are withdrawn. A number of psychologists have argued that Rejected children do not comprise a homogeneous group sharing similar characteristics (e.g., Bierman, 1986; French, in press; Rubin et al., in press); rather, it may be that some children are rejected because they are hostile and aggressive and that others are rejected because they display non-normative frequencies of non-social and anxious behaviour. In other words, aggression may

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

109

not be the only pathway to peer rejection (see Rubin et al., in press for an extended discussion of this point). Furthermore, sociometrically rejected children may constitute a heterogeneous group, "at risk," in some cases for problems of an "externalizing" nature and, in others, for "internalizing" problems (Rubin et al., in press). As other researchers have pointed out, then (e.g., Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Coie & Dodge, 1983), it is the Rejected group and not the Neglected group that warrants remedial attention. Sociometric rejection, however, may be too broad a category to make specific predictions as to what children so classified are "at risk'' for. In a recent review, Parker & Asher (1987) discovered that the more specific the predictor variable, the more strongly related it was to the conceptually relevant outcome. For example, childhood assessments of aggression were more strongly predictive of later delinquency and crime than more general childhood measures of peer acceptance. This suggests that in addition to identifying "Rejected" children, psychologists should also determine the more specific problems that these children experience. The data reported herein indicate that it might be important to distinguish between rejected children who are aggressive and those who are withdrawn or both. Thus one might predict that aggressive/rejected children are "at risk" for externalizing disorders, whereas withdrawn/sensitive/rejected children are "at risk" for internalizing difficulties (see also French, in press for a related discussion). These suggestions are certainly worth examining in future prospective studies of children's peer relationships and social skills. RESUME Au tours des dernieres annees, des donnees obtenues a partir de grilles sociometriques ont etc utilisees, afin de categoriser les enfants selon leurs difficultes dans leurs relations avec leurs pairs. Le but principal de cet article consiste a evaluer de facon critique une technique sociometrique fort utilisee, soit la nomination par les pairs. Cette technique a permis de faire une distinction entre les differents groupes d'enfants juges non-populaires. Par exemple, les enfants rejetes ont typiquement ete caracterises comme etant non-populaires et agressifs alors que les enfants negliges sont vus comme etant non-populaires et genes ou retires. Une analyse des donnees cxistant a cet effet apporte un soutien pour la premisse voulant que certains enfants rejetes soient agressifs. Par contre, les donnees concernant les caracteristiques des enfants negliges sont equivoques. Dan la presente etude, nous avons etudie si des enfants de quatrieme annee, indentifies par la technique sociometrique comme etant negliges, etaient nonpopulaires et demontraient de la gene, du retrait, ou d'autres caracteristiques conceptuellement associees avec des problenies interiorises, tels la solitude et des perceptions negatives de soi. Les donnees revelerent que les enfants negliges ne pouvaient etre distingues de leurs confreres moyens sur aucune des variables dependantes. Par contre, les enfants rejetes etaient moins populaires, plus agressifs et plus retires que les autres groupes sociometriques. On discute des resultats en termes de leurs implications pour l'utilisation de la sociometrie comme moyen de depistage des enfants a risque en ce qui concerne des difficultes sociales et emotionnelles. REFERENCES Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1982). Behavioural problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Societyfor Research

110

RUBIN, HYMEL, LEMARE, & ROWDEN

in Child Development, 46, (serial no. 188). Asher, S.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449. Asher, S.R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P.D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456-1464. Asher, S.R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children's loneliness: A comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500-505. Bierman, K.L. (1986). The relation between social aggression and peer rejection in middle childhood. In R.J. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children and families. Vol. 2 (pp. 151-178). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cantrell, S., & Prinz, R.J. (1985). Multiple perspectives of rejected, neglected, and accepted children: Relationship between sociometric status and behavioral characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 884-889. Carlson, C.L., Lahey, B.B., & Neeper, R. (1984). Peer assessment and the social behavior of accepted, rejected and neglected children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12(2), 187-198. Coie, J. (1985). Fitting social skills intervention to the target group. In B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 141-156). New York: Springer-Verlag. Coie, J., & Dodge, K. (1983). Continuities and changes in children's social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282. Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-571. Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Kupersmidt, J. (in press). Peer group behavior and social status. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press. Coie, J., & Kupersmidt, J. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416. Dodge, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399. Dodge, K., Coie, J., & Brakke, N. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents. The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 389-410. French, D. (in press). Heterogeneity of peer rejected boys: Aggressive and non-aggressive subtypes. Child Development. French, D., & Waas, G. (1985). Behavior problems of peer-neglected and peer-rejected elementaryage children: Parent and teacher perspectives. Child Development, 56, 246-252. Goldman, J.A., Corsini, D., & deUrioste, R. (1980). Implications of positive and negative sociometric status for assessing the social competence of young children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 209-220. Gottman, J. (1977). Toward a definition of social isolation in children. Child Development, 48, 513-517. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97. Harter, S. (1985). Manualfor the self-perception profile for children. Unpublished manuscript. University of Denver. Hartup, W., Glazer, J., & Charlesworth, R. (1967). Peer reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Development, 38, 1017-1024. Hymel, S., & Franke, S. (1985). Children's peer relations: Assessing self-perceptions. In B.H. Schneider, K.H. Rubin, & J.E. Ledingham (Eds.) Children's peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 75-91). New York: Springer-Verlag. Hymel, S., & Rubin, K.H. (1985). Children with peer relationships and social skills problems: Conceptual, methodological, and developmental issues. In G.I. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of child development, Vol. 2 (pp. 251-297). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

SOCIOMETRIC NEGLECT

111

Krehbiel, G., & Milich, R. (1986). Issues in the assessment and treatment of socially rejected children. In R.J. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children andfamilies, Vol. 2 (pp. 249-270). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Masten, A., Morison, P., & Pelligrini, D. (1985). A revised class play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 3, 523-533. Newcomb, A., & Bukowski, W. (1983). Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status. Developmental Psychology, 19, 856-867. Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R., (1987). Peer acceptance and later personal adjustment: Are low accepted children "at risk"? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389. Peery, J.C. (1979). Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: A reconceptualization of sociometric status in preschool children. Child Development, 50, 1231-1234. Roff, M., Sells, S., & Golden, M. (1972). Social adjustment and personality development in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rubin, K.H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53, 651-657. Rubin, K.H. (1985). Socially withdrawn children: An "at risk" population? In B. Schneider, K.H. Rubin, & J. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 125-140). New York: Springer-Verlag. Rubin, K.H. (1986). Play, peers, and social development. In A.W. Gottfried & C. Caldwell Brown (Eds.), Play interactions: The contribution of play materials and parental involvement to child development (pp. 163-174). Lexington, MA: Heath. Rubin, K.H., Hymel, S., & Mills, R.S.L. (in press). Sociability and social withdrawal in childhood: Stability and outcomes. Journal of Personality. Rubin, K.H., LeMare, L., & Lollis, S. (in press). Social withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to peer rejection. InS. Asher&J. Coie(Eds.), Children's status in the peer group. New York: Cambridge University Press. Stein, E.L. (1985). Neglected versus rejected children: Differences in self and peer perceptions. Unpublished undergraduate honours thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Younger, A.J., Schwartzman, A.E., & Ledingham, J. (1986). Age-related differences in children's perceptions of social deviance: Changes in behavior or perspective? Developmental Psychology, 22, 531-542. Date received 11 August 1987 Final revision 25 May 1988