... -'-

BEHAVIORAL. consume 05
WI~UMHRIC STATUS} AMGNG HRST
AND SECOND G CH-E‘LDREN

 

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY'
LEON L SCHOFIELD. 3R.,

1. 9 70

 

 

rumm-

LIBRARY

Michigan State
" University

 

 

 

    
  
 

L Income av ' ;
1 mm; 5 SMS' \
>5 800K BINDERY INC. '

LI'R‘RY BINDEs
QIIIIBIIIIV IIIMII

 

ABSTRACT

BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF SOCIOMETRIC STATUS
AMONG FIRST AND SECOND GRADE CHILDREN

BY

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

The purpose of the present study was to assess the
relationship between sociometric status and various behav-
ioral indices of social and academic effectiveness in the
classroom.

Following an extensive review of the literature,
the design and hypotheses of the study were outlined. It
was anticipated that low status §§ would present a complex
picture of ineffective behavior in the classroom. Specifi-
cally, it was predicted that sociometric status would be
positively correlated with academic performance, appropriate
behavior in the classroom and teacher ratings of classroom
adjustment and negatively correlated with absence rate and
inappropriate behavior in the classroom.

The §§ for the present study were 28 boys drawn from
15 classrooms in four different elementary schools located
in a middle-sized, generally lower-middle class Michigan

town. Sociometric status was determined through a group

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

procedure in the classroom. Twelve weeks following the
first administration, a second identical sociometric proce-
dure was carried out and one year following the first ad-
ministration, a third identical sociometric procedure was
carried out, to determine the short term and long term
stability of sociometric status. The sociometric scores
obtained during the first administration were correlated
with: (l) absence rate; (2) academic performance at mid-
year and for the entire year; (3) a set of teacher ratings
of §§_which included self sufficiency, self control,
achievement motivation, sociability and physical ability;
and (4) behavior observations of gs.

Sociometric status was highly stable over a twelve
week interval and over a one year interval, in spite of
about a 75% turnover rate in class members between the first
and third administrations. Status was negatively but not
significantly correlated with rate of absence; higher status
§§ had fewer absences than lower status §§° Status was
positively and significantly correlated with academic per-
formance (GPA) both at mid-year and at the end of the year.
Additionally, status was positively and significantly cor—
related with teacher ratings of self sufficiency, self con-
trol, achievement motivation and overall classroom adjust-
ment (three scales combined). Also, status was positively
but not significantly correlated with teacher ratings of

physical ability and sociability. Finally, status was

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

negatively and significantly correlated with the number of
inappropriate behaviors observed and positively, but non-
significantly correlated with the number of appropriate be-
haviors observed. A more detailed correlational analysis
and a subsequent exploratory factor analysis found that
generally only the self control and non-self control items
were significantly related to sociometric status.

The main conclusion was that low sociometric status
is more closely associated with a wide range of inappropri-
ate and maladaptive behaviors than with a few specific be-
haviors or classes of behavior. The behavior observation
data, along with the more global and indirect measures of
social and academic effectiveness (absence, GPA, and teacher
ratings) indicated that sociometric status is determined by
a wide range of behaviors which interact in a complex man-
ner. Further research was suggested, particularly directed
at the specific behaviors engaged in by §§ of high and low
status and the manner in which the behaviors affect social

interaction.

Approved by l/LMUVI )4 Qfiwm

Chéirman ’

Date MM lq; ”(70

 

 

BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF SOCIOMETRIC STATUS

AMONG FIRST AND SECOND GRADE CHILDREN

BY

Leon J. Schofield, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1970

To Pat and my parents,
for their patience, assistance and love.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Lucy R.
Ferguson, for her guidance and assistance during my graduate
program. More importantly, through her excellent example of
deep respect and concern for her clients, colleagues and
students, she has considerably aided my personal and profes-
sional development.

Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Charles
Hanley and Dr. Martha Karson for their cooperation and as-
sistance.

I would also like to thank the following students for
their assistance in the construction of the Behavior Observ-
ation Instrument, and for their assistance in carrying out
the observations themselves: Bonnie Berg; Julie Betwee; Art
Bliss; Loretta Bustos; Kathy De Sautal; Jodi Engelhardt; Jim
Ferguson; Sharon Kahn; Rita Larson; Susan St. Pierre; Craig
Turner; Carol Walton; and Tom Whalen.

Finally, I would like to warmly acknowledge the
complete cooperation of the teachers and students of the
participating schools. This study certainly would not have
been possible without their considerable and enthusiastic

cooperation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . .

The Emergence and Stability of Sociometric

Status . . . . .

Characteristics Associated with High and

Low Sociometric Status

Mental Health and Sociometric Status
A Model for Conceptualizing the

Previous Findings . .

The Design and Hypotheses

METHOD 0 O O O O C 0

Subjects . . . .

Sociometric Status Measure

Behavior Observation .

Reliability- -Behavior Observation

Self Esteem Inventory
Other Measures . . .

RESULTS . . . . . .

Sociometric Measure .
Absence . . . . .
Academic Performance .
Teacher Ratings . .
Behavior Observations

DISCUSSION . . . . .

Purpose . .

Variables and Predictions
Findings and Interpretations

Sociometric Status
Absence . . . .
Academic Performance
Teacher Ratings .

Behavior Observations'

iv

Categories

Page

11
15

22
34

36

36
4O
46
47
51
52

54

54
56
56
56
59

65

65
65
66

66
67
67
68
70

Page

Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Instruments . . 78
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

SLIM-MARY O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O 85
Findings 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 87
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

The Population from Which the Subjects
were Drawn . . . . . . . . .

The Distribution of the Subjects . .

Absence and Invalid Nominations for
the Sociometric Procedures . . .

Inter-Observer Reliability for the
Behavior Ratings . . . . . . .

Temporal Consistency in the Behavior
Observation Instrument . . . . .

Internal Consistency of the Behavior
Rating Scale . . . . . . . .

Stability of Sociometric Status . .

Correlations between Sociometric Status
and Teacher Ratings of Achievement
Motivation, Self Sufficiency, Self
Control, and Classroom Adjustment .

Correlations between Sociometric Status
and the Eight Major Categories of
the Behavior Observation Instrument

Correlations between Sociometric Status
and the Factor Scores of §§ for
Each of the Eight Factors . . . .

Correlations between Sociometric Status

and Each of the Items of the Behavior
Observation Instrument . . . . .

vi

Page

37
38

46

49

50

51

55

58

60

61

63

INTRODUCTION

The nature of peer acceptance and the consequence of
failing to achieve this acceptance will be considered in
this study. Following a review of the literature, a model
will be proposed in which peer acceptance is intimately
related to the develOpment of social behaviors in the
classroom. Evidence supporting this model will then be
presented and several hypotheses consistent with the
model will be offered. Finally, the present study de-
signed to examine this model will be outlined.

The Emergence and Stability of
Sociometric Status

 

A natural consequence of most interaction within a
group is the emergence of a social structure in which some
children are highly evaluated by the group, others are
moderately evaluated by the group, and still others are
poorly evaluated by the group. A great deal is already
known about the nature and development of such social
structures. 7

An early study by Ausubel, Schiff and Gasser
(1952) explored the development of "sociempathy," or an

"individual's awareness of his own and other's sociometric

1

status in a given group of which he is a member." School
children were asked: (1) to rate each person in the class
indicating their desire to have that person as a friend,
(2) to predict how each person in the class would rate
them, and (3) to indicate how popular he thought each per-
son was in the class. Using third, fifth and seventh
grade pupils, Ausubel gt_§1. found very high positive cor-
relations between measures of actual and predicted socio-
metric status at all grade levels; the pupils were able to
perceive accurately their own and others' sociometric
status (p < .01). Split-half reliabilities for the cor-
respondence between actual sociometric ratings and individ-
ual predictions of sociometric ratings averaged .67 for
"own status" and .65 for "others' status," indicating a
high degree of consistency over persons. Their data indi-
cated a slight trend toward increased sociempathic ability
with age. Thus, there is good evidence that an individual
child is well aware of the existence of a social structure
and the position of himself, as well as others, in it.
Social structures (sociometric status in the group)
apparently develop very quickly at all age levels. For
example, Campbell and Yarrow (1961) found that a sample of
260 eight- to twelve-year-old lower class boys at a two
week summer camp session "were generally easily and quickly
placed by their peers after only a few hours of contact."

These assessments remained relatively stable during the

two week session. Hunt and Solomon (1942) also reported
rapid development of social structure with a sample of 23
five- to eight-year-old upper middle class boys during an
eight week summer camp session. Additionally, using a
picture sociometric technique McCandless and Marshall
(1957) have also found rapid development of social struc-
tures among preschool children.

There are apparently considerable fluctuations in
individual friendship and sociometric choices of children.
The work of Horrocks and others indicates a trend toward
greater stability in friendship choices with increasing
chronological age (Horrocks & Thompson, 1946; Thompson &
Horrocks, 1947; Horrocks & Buker, 1951; Skorepa, Horrocks,
& Thompson, 1963; McKinney, 1968).

Earlier, Criswell (1939) also noted considerable
shifts in friendship or sociometric choices of children. A
group of 238 predominantly Negro children in grades one
through eight of a New York City school served as the sam-
ple. They were asked to identify two children beside whom
they would like to sit. After six weeks they were asked
the same question and considerable change in choices was
found. Children were more inclined to change second choices
than first, and reciprocated choices were changed less of—
ten than non-reciprocated choices, with reciprocated first
choices changed less often than reciprocated second

choices. The correlation between age and instability

(fluctuation) of choice was moderately negative (r =
-.33). Finally, of the total number of choices (460), 41
per cent were changed, with a change usually consisting

of shifting from one child to another, rarely omitting

the original choice on the second test. This suggests
that status probably fluctuated less than friendship
choices. In fact, in later research the stability of the
social structure itself, that is the stability of the as-
signment of status or popularity among the individuals of a
group, has been demonstrated extensively in various set-
tings and at all age levels (Jennings, 1937; Kerstetter &
Sargent, 1940; Bonney, 1943a, b, 1947; Bronfenbrenner,
1944; Newstetter, Feldstein, & Newcomb, 1938; McCandless &
Marshall, 1957; Lippitt & Gold, 1959; Campbell & Yarrow,
1961; Feinberg, 1964; Hartup, Glazer, & Charlesworth,
1967). A few of these studies will now be reviewed.

Bonny (1943a,b) measured the social acceptance, in-
telligence, and academic achievement of 48 children in the
second through eighth grade, by asking the children to se-
lect companions for various activities and to select
classmates to whom they would like to give cards, gifts,
etc. Intelligence and achievement tests were also adminis-
tered. The children were again tested for social accept-
ance, intelligence, and academic achievement one year
later. The correlations between the first and second ad-

ministrations of the social acceptance items were high for

all grade levels and for each school (.68 to .90) and were
usually at least as high as the correlations between the
first and second administrations of the intelligence and
academic achievement tests. This was true despite a mod-
erate to large “turnover" rate (children moved) of up to
30% which could have upset the stability of this measure
somewhat. Bonney concluded that, "a child's social posi-
tion from grade to grade in elementary school is approxi-
mately as constant as his position in degree of brightness
and academic achievement" (Bonney, 1943a).

In a more recent study, Lippitt and Gold (1959)
examined the stability of the social structure in 39 ele-
mentary school classrooms. In each classroom, children
were asked to rate all of their classmates on a four point
scale indicating the degree to which the ratee was per-
ceived as able to get the others to do what he wanted them
to do. Over the same academic year, the correlations be-
tween the social structure in early October and May were
.63 for early elementary children and .75 for late ele-
mentary children. Ratings of "who was liked most," "who
was liked least,“ and "expertness" in classroom activi-
ties were also obtained. Lippit and Gold report that,
"the structures concerning who is liked and disliked and
who is regarded as expert and inexpert in classroom activ-
ities have an even higher stability, with most of the cor-

relations being above .80." Also they found that there is

a considerable degree of consensus among the group members
concerning who belongs in the top or bottom third of the
social system, while the consensus is even greater among
the later elementary grades (4,5,6).

Feinberg (1964) found somewhat contradictory evi-
dence in another study with adolescents age thirteen to
fifteen from two New York City schools. They were asked to
list the four boys they would like to sit next to through
the following term, who in their opinion would make the
most desirable friends, and also the four boys with whom
they would feel uncomfortable (uneasy, annoyed). In one
school, 246 boys in 10 classrooms were asked to repeat the
rating procedure five months later: the correlation be—
tween the two sociometric scores was .69 (p < .01). How—
ever, in the second school, 52 boys in two classrooms were
asked to repeat the rating procedure two years later; the
correlation between the two sociometric scores was .22 (p
> .05). Feinberg concludes that, although there is a high
degree of consistency in choice patterns over a five month
span, "significant shifts in choice pattern can develop
over a two year span." Interpretation of the results must
be made with caution chiefly because of the reported dif-
ference in economic levels of the two schools and the con-
siderably smaller sample size of the second study. Fur-
thermore, it will be shown later that the teacher can

readily influence the development of social structure in

the classroom. Since the classroom sample (two) is far too
small to represent teacher techniques randomly and since no
information is offered about the intervening experiences

(2 years) of the boys in the two classrooms, the conclusions
drawn from the data must be termed suggestive at best, cer-
tainly not conclusive.

Coleman (1961) has also studied adolescent social
structures. Students of ten midwestern high schools varying
in size from 150 to 1850 students and varying in setting
from farming regions to large cities, served as the sample.
There was a considerable degree of consensus among the
students as to who was in the "leading crowd." Furthermore,
the students' choices of whom they would like to emulate or
be friends with were also (but somewhat less) narrowly dis-
tributed. More than one-third of the students not in the
leading crowd expressed a desire to be in it. Those not
among this "elite" much more often expressed a desire to
change themselves, to be someone else, than those among the
"elite." Unfortunately, no questionnaire items were re-
peated. Therefore, no measures of reliability are avail-
able and the stability of the social structure cannot be
conclusively determined. The data are quite provocative,
however, and seem to show the existence of a readily visible
social structure to which very many of the low status

adolescents aspire.

Hartup, Glazer, and Charlesworth (1967) more
recently studied sociometric status among preschool child-
ren who ranged in age between 4-1 and 4-9. Using a picture
sociometric technique, which will be described in detail in
the method section, they asked 15 children to give three
positive choices, indicating someone they especially liked
at nursery school. They also asked them to give three
negative choices, indicating someone they didn't like very
much at nursery school. The sociometric procedure was
given in the fall and spring of the same academic year.

The correlation between the fall and spring sociometric
scores for acceptance was .68 (p < .01) and the correlation
between the fall and spring sociometric scores for rejec-
tion was .29 (p > .05). Hartup, gt_a1. attributed the lack
of stability of the rejection score to "school experience;"
teachers are more likely to attempt to intervene and change
the socially undesirable pattern of rejection than the
socially desirable pattern of acceptance. In an earlier
study using a picture sociometric technique, McCandless and
Marshall (1957) also found that preschool children's socio-
metric scores were stable over ten to thirty day intervals
in three newly formed groups of 19 children each.

The few sociometric studies that were conducted in
nursery schools prior to 1957 failed to provide any sub-
stantial evidence that sociometric scores of preschool

children were stable over periods ranging from one to nine

months; these early findings can be largely attributed to
inappropriate procedures which relied too heavily upon
verbal report and did not use the picture sociometric pro-
cedure of more recent studies (Marshall, 1957; McCandless
& Marshall, 1957).

There is some evidence to contradict the findings
of Hartup, Glazer, and Charlesworth (1967) that rejection
scores are less stable than acceptance scores. In a sample
of 597 thirteen year old boys in a British school, Harper
(1968) found that the measure of sociometric rejection was
much more reliable than the measure of acceptance. Harper
hypothesized that the attributes of the individual that
lead to social rejection are more clearly defined than
those that lead to acceptance; as evidence, he notes that
all the negative feeling in the group was concentrated on a
few members, while positive feelings were much more widely
distributed. Of course, the extreme differences in the
samples may well explain the contradictory findings. For
example, it is quite possible that in Harper's sample, con-
sisting of early adolescents from middle class (clerical
and professional) and "working class" (manual work) fami-
lies, some aggressiveness (manifestation of rejection) is
encouraged and expected as a part of "manliness" both by
teachers and classmates. In such a case, Hartup's gt_al.~
explanation of "school experience" as the determinant of

the relative stability of acceptance and rejection would

10

account for both findings. The children in the two samples
could easily have been differentially reinforced for cer-
tain social behaviors.

Finally sociometric studies conducted prior to 1955

are reviewed by Mouton, Blake, and Fruchter (1955). A
total of 53 studies were reviewed, including a few of those
cited above, and it was concluded that it is possible for
group members to make consistent sociometric judgments.
They also noted that there are factors that seem to be
associated with the magnitude of the reliability of these
judgments:

(1) The longer the time interval between test and
retest the less the consistency of sociometric
judgments.

(2) The closer the age of the subjects the more the
test, retest consistency of sociometric judg-
ments.

(3) The longer the subjects have known one another
prior to the first test the greater the con-
sistency in sociometric judgments between test
and retest.

(4) The more relevant the criteria of choice by
which judgments are made to the activity of the
group the greater the consistency of sociometric
responses between test occasions.

(5) The larger the number of discriminations re-
quired by the techniques of choosing the greater
the consistency of sociometric judgments between
the test and retest.

(6) The larger the group from which choices are made
the greater the consistency in sociometric

judgments between test occasions.

(7) The larger the number of discriminations elic-
ited by the measurement technique the greater

11

the correlation between the measures derived
from those techniques on a single occasion.

(8) Where strength of choice preference is indi-
cated by the ordering of choices, the stronger
the choice the less the change in choices given
between test occasions.

(9) The greater the similarity of criteria of
choosing in terms of social-psychological con-
siderations the larger the correlations between
them.

Lippit and Gold (1959) best summarize the literature on the
development of social structure in the classroom:

The evidence is clear that the interpersonal social
structure of the classroom forms rapidly and main-
tains a high degree of stability throughout the
school year. The same children remain in positions
of low power and isolation or dislike throughout
the year, and the same children stay at the top of
the totem pole.

Characteristics Associated with
High and Low SociometrIc Status

 

A brief examination of the characteristics of high
and low status individuals will now be undertaken to des-
cribe more accurately the development of "status" and to
provide the basis for the model to be presented.

Many studies have been carried out to assess the
characteristics of high and low status children. Among
them, a study by Bonney (1947) is one of the earliest and
most comprehensive. Brief case study reports were pre-
sented on five of the most popular and five of the most
unpopular children observed in an earlier research project

involving 150 elementary school children (Bonney, l943a,b).

12

The children were then analyzed on ten personality trait
syndromes developed by Bonney after considering his own re-
search data and the reports of earlier research. He re-
ported that the popular children as a group scored higher
than the unpopular children on each of the ten trait syn-
dromes: (1) physical health and vigor, (2) conformity and
group identification, (3) emotional stability and control,
(4) arousing admiration, (5) social aggressiveness, (6)
adaptability and tolerance, (7) dependability, (8) depend-
ence on others for assistance and emotional support, (9)
providing new experiences for others, and (10) social
service motivation and an attitude of good will toward
others. Although there were significant differences between
the popular and unpopular children as a group, Bonney re-
ported considerable overlapping between individuals in the
two groups. This led to the conclusion that "the picture
is one of unique patterns rather than one of types . . . a
person is liked or disliked, not because of particular
traits, but because of his whole personality structure and
the total impression he makes on others.“ It was also
noted that there was a low positive correlation between
socioeconomic level (as determined by the Minnesota Home
Status Index) and social status, and there was a low nega-
tive correlation between family size and social status.
Many other studies have been conducted to identify

the characteristics of popular and unpopular children.

13

Recent reviews of these studies have noted that peer status
has been positively (but often not significantly) corre-
lated with intelligence, academic achievement, friendli-
ness, sympathy, sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of
others, acceptance of others, cooperation and conformity,
physical attractiveness, socio-economic class, and simply
propinquity (Frankel & Potashin, 1944; Campbell, 1964;
Glidewell, gt_al., 1966; Hartup, 1969). Recently the effect
of birth order has also been examined (Schachter, 1964;
Alexander, 1966), but with conflicting results.

Schachter (1964) proposed that a sociometric choice
is the conceptual equivalent of an opinion, with group
standards about the desirability of particular persons and
with social influence processes affecting sociometric
choice. Since earlier research has shown first borns to be
more dependent and manipulatable, he expected first borns
to evaluate their friends in terms of what other people
think of them more than later borns. His expectation that
first borns would concentrate their sociometric choices on
fewer more well-regarded individuals than later borns, was
confirmed with a sample of 599 college fraternity and
sorority members. Schachter also suspected that first
borns would be less popular than later borns, since he had
earlier (Schachter, 1959) found that first borns and only

children are more likely to choose to be with others in

14

high anxiety situations than later borns. His expectations
were confirmed.

Alexander (1966) investigated the relationship be-
tween birth order and sociometric status with a sample of
1410 male seniors in 30 high schools. Holding socioeconomic
status constant, he found that first borns received more
sociometric choices and reciprocations of choices than later
borns. Holding own status constant, first borns also tended
to choose relatively less popular persons as friends than
do later borns. The results, directly in conflict with
those of Schachter (1964), were explained by Alexander in
terms of the differences in the sample. The discrepancy
was hypothesized to be explicable “in terms of the charac-
teristics of first and later borns who attend college as
compared with their characteristics in the general popula-
tion. Later borns who attend college exceed later-born
non-attenders in both popularity and social-economic status,
and the extent of the differences are greater than corres-
ponding differences between first born attenders and non-
attenders." The explanation by Alexander is certainly
plausible; however, it is clear that further study is needed
before the relationship of birth order and sociometric

status can be conclusively established.

15

Mental Health and Sociometric
Status

 

Other research has examined the relationship between
social status and various indices of mental health. Low
sociometric status has been associated with poor adjustment,
(Frankel & Potashin, 1944; Wigdor, 1947; Grossman &
Wrighter, 1948; Baron, 1951; Thorpe, 1955; Lippitt & Gold,
1959; Commoss, 1962), deviant behavior (Lippitt & Gold,
1959; Gooch & Pringle, 1968), poor self concept (Bower,
1957; Coleman, 1961; Horowitz, 1962), anxiety (McCandless,
Castaneda, & Palermo, 1956; Trent, 1957; Coopersmith, 1959;
Horowitz, 1962), and a desire to change oneself (Bower,
1957; Rosen, Levinger, & Lippitt, 1960; Coleman, 1961).
Although there is some dissent (Northway, 1944; Northway &
Wigdor, 1947; Greenblatt, 1950; Horowitz, 1967), the con-
sensus seems to be that sociometric status is quite signifi-
cantly related to the mental health of the child. Several
of the studies cited above will now be reviewed.

Kuhlen and Bretsch (1947) asked 692 ninth grade
children to choose partners for six activities, such as
watching a movie, playing, studying, etc. and to complete
the junior high form of the Mooney Problem Checklist, which
is a listing of the 235 problems of all kinds which 4,000
students most often reported as "bothering" them. He found
that those who were least acceptable to fellow classmates,

ranking in the bottom quartile of the social structure as

l6

determined by the sociometric procedure, had significantly
more personal problems serious enough to be checked as
"often present" on the Mooney Problem Checklist, than those
who were the most acceptable to fellow classmates, ranking
in the tOp quartile of the social structure. There were
no significant differences, however, in the frequency with
which children of the top and bottom quartile checked
problems as occurring "sometimes."

Northway and Wigdor (1947) studied the Rorschach
Ink Blot protocols of forty-five eighth grade children
assigned to three experimental groups of low and high socio-
metric status. The three groups were matched for age, IQ,
race, religion, and socioeconomic background. The major
findings were that children of the high status group showed
greater participation, greater awareness of the feelings
of others, and a conscious striving for the approval of
others. There yum; greater deviation from the "normal“ in
both the high and low status groups than in the intermediate
status group. However, the disturbances in the low status
group were more serious, particularly among recessives who
showed more schizophrenic patternings, while the disturb-
ances in the high status group were mostly psychoneurotic
in nature. The average status group was more shallow and
less introspective than the other groups, but "they were
able to see situations as others do to a sufficient extent

to be accepted to a degree that satisfies their needs in

17

terms of social interaction." Northway (Northway, 1944;
Northway & Wigdor, 1947) cautions that it should not be as-
sumed that strength of personality and increase in socio-
metric status co-vary directly:

The findings are that very low status usually is

accompanied by distortions in personality growth,

but there is no reason to suppose that beyond this,
increased goodness of personality and increased
social acceptance follow a single continuum.

Grossman and Wrighter (1948) obtained the socio-
metric status of 117 sixth grade children in four different
classes. Twenty children with the highest sociometric
score were given the California Personality Test. They
found a clearly significant difference between the average
total adjustment score of the two groups, with the high
sociometric status group scoring considerably higher in
total adjustment than the low sociometric status group.
They also found that generally children of high sociometric
status were more intelligent, had better reading ability
and came from a higher socioeconomic background than child-
ren of low sociometric status.

Greenblatt (1950) administered a sociometric proce-
dure and a mental health inventory to 65 seventh grade
children in a public school. The California Mental Health
Analysis, Intermediate Series Form A, was administered to
all children. A .37 correlation was found between both

measures. Greenblatt concluded from this "low" correlation

that, "a child's standing in the classroom is in no way

18

indicative of his mental health status.“ This conclusion
seems somewhat extreme for two reasons. First, the corre-
lation itself is high enough to suggest that there is some
relationship, perhaps a weak or complex one, between socio-
metric status and mental health. Second, unlike Northway
(Northway, 1944; Northway & Wigdor, 1947), who was also
critical of those proposing a direct relationship between
sociometric status and mental health, Greenblatt failed to
examine the differences in mental health scores between
children of low sociometric status, and children of high
sociometric status. Since the relationship between status
and mental health may not be linear, a correlational approach
could considerably weaken and mask any significant differ-
ences between various levels of status and indices of mental
health, resulting in possibly an erroneous conclusion that
"a child's standing in the classroom is in no way indicative
of his mental health status" (Greenblatt, 1950).

Deviant behavior has been related to sociometric
status. Gooch and Pringle (1968) followed the total popu-
1ation of two elementary schools over a four year period
and concluded that withdrawn and aggressive behavior as
reported by the teacher, was significantly and negatively
correlated with popularity; a similar relationship was
found between deviant behavior and academic progress. How-
ever, withdrawn and aggressive behavior was not signifi-

cantly related to IQ or perserverance.

19

With a sample of 965 first through sixth grade
children Lippitt and Gold (1959) found that unfriendly be-
havior patterns (aggressive-assertive, passive-hostile)
occurred significantly more often among "low power" child-
ren (bottom third of the sociometric status scale) than
among other children (upper two-thirds of the sociometric
status scale) and that friendly-assertive behavior occurred
significantly less often among low power children than
among other children. They found no significant difference
in the frequency of friendly-passive behavior or neutral
behavior between the low power children and other children.
In the same study they cite the doctoral research of
Echelberger to support their finding.

In a study of seven classrooms Echelberger (1959)
found that more popular children show significantly fewer
behavior problems, greater social adjustment and more stable
emotionalitytflmulless popular children. The adjustment
scores were obtained from teacher ratings on the Haggerty-
Olson-Wickman Behavior Rating Schedule. The correlations,
although significant, were generally low; the highest cor-
relation was between popularity and behavior problems,
-.46.

Horowitz has examined the relationship of anxiety,
self concept, and sociometric status among upper elementary
school children. The sample consisted of 40 fourth graders,

51 fifth graders and 20 sixth graders. Teachers administered

20

the Children's Manifest Anxiety scale, the Children's Self
Concept Scale and a ranking sociometric procedure. All
measures were highly reliable (p < .025) over a one week
interval; correlations between the two administrations of
the ranking sociometric procedure ranged between .83 and

.96 among fourth and fifth grade subjects; through an error,
the sixth grade subjects did not take the sociometric

twice. The results indicated that "more anxious children
tended to hold poorer self concepts and tended to be less
popular than less anxious children." He expressed a concern
that since the correlations were low, though often signifi-
cant, "either other variables must be added to the pool, or
the present ones must be broken down and measured more ac-
curately."

The work of Bower (1957) and Coleman (1961, cited
earlier) support the finding that self concept and socio-
metric status are positively correlated; they have also
concluded that there was a greater desire to change oneself
among children of low sociometric status than among children
of high sociometric status.

Rosen, Levinger, and Lippitt (1960) have also ex-
plored the desire to change oneself or others; They inter-
viewed 64 lower class boys twelve to fourteen years of age
at a summer camp and found that the:

desire for change in one's own or in other members

properties is partly contingent on one's relative
lack of resources. Moreover, the desire by the

21

group for change in any given member is contingent

on his relative lack of attributed resources. A

positive relationship was found between a person's

desire for change in himself and other members'
desire for change in him. However, a person's de-
sire for change in others was not significantly re-
lated to his desire for change in himself nor to
other members' desire for change in him . . . rela-
tive "resourcelessness" is not simply a correlate
but an important determinant of the desire for
change in self and others.

Evidence is available to further support Horowitz's
finding that anxiety and sociometric status are negatively
correlated (Trent, 1957; Coopersmith, 1959). Trent (1957),
for example, administered the Children's Manifest Anxiety
Scale and a sociometric procedure to a sample of 63 lower
class delinquent adolescents, twelve to sixteen years of
age, at the New York State Training School for Boys. The
major findings were that there was a significant negative
correlation between anxiety and popularity, but no signifi-
cant relationship between anxiety and rejection.

Thus, studies generally conclude that there is a
strong relationship between sociometric status and mental
health indices (Lippitt & Gold, 1959):

Children in low positions in the socioemotional

structure of the classroom tend to have mental

health difficulties which are reflected both in
inner psychological processes, in interpersonal
relationship difficulties, and in behavior patterns
which disrupt the life of the classroom group.

In a review of the literature, Glidewell, et al. (1966) con-

clude that "the key finding in the area is that position in

the classroom social structure is significantly related to

22

mental health." The relationship is particularly signifi-
cant when children of lowest sociometric status (isolates
or near isolates) are compared with others in the classroom.
It is apparent from the research presented that
self concept, anxiety, various behavioral characteristics,
various indices of mental health, and sociometric status
are complexly inter-related. A model will now be presented
which will bring some order to these research findings.

A Model for Conceptualizing
the Previous Findings

 

 

It is becoming increasingly evident that mental ill-
ness does not occur in a vacuum, it is developed and main—
tained through interpersonal processes. Tagiuri (1952)
states that the development of good interpersonal relations
is an indicator of adequate personality adjustment and
cites the works of Moreno, Freud, Horney, Sullivan, and
White to support his contention. We continually are shaping
our Opinions and actions (presumably reflected in self con-
cept ratings and behavior ratings) in the presence of the
reactions of others (presumably reflected in sociometric
procedures and behavior ratings). The degree to which an
individual will be affected by negative evaluation from
others will depend on various temporary (e.g. fatigue, ill-
ness) and permanent (e.g. insecure, self-degrading) factors.
Since negative evaluation is normally threatening to one's

self-image, the affect aroused is predominantly anxiety and

23

apprehension and the behavioral response frequently is de-
fensive, symptomatic behavior. The response of others to
symptomatic behavior is usually even greater negative
evaluation or rejection, which further lowers the individ-
ual's self-image and increases his anxiety, creating still
more defensive, symptomatic behavior, until a vicious circle
is formed.

Similarly, the degree to which an individual will
be affected by positive evaluation from others will depend
on various temporary (e.g. rest, good health) and permanent
(e.g. secure, self accepting) factors. Since positive eval-
uation is normally enhancing to one's self image, the affect
aroused is predominantly pride and assurance and the behav-
ioral response usually is a posture of confidence, poise.
The response to such a posture by others is usually an effort
to continue the relationship; others find the interaction
rewarding (e.g. no tension, responds to their own needs,
etc.) and communicate this to the individual which further
enhances his self-image.

The evaluations of others occur continuously, but
often subtly. Straightening up in a chair and gazing upon
an individual intently may be quite effective in communi-
cating interest in him and in what he is saying (worth),
while slouching and glancing away from an individual may
be quite effective in communicating boredom in him and in

what he is saying (worthless). Obviously, however, the

24

individual is not completely helpless and subject to the
whims of the reactions of others, or behavior would be
erratic and totally unpredictable. The interaction model
assumes that a mechanism, self concept, maintains the in-
dividual's self-evaluation or self esteem, in the face of
shorter periods of relatively mild negative evaluation.
Self concept is an "abstraction that an individual develops
about the attributes, capacities, objects, and activities
which he possesses and pursues" (Coopersmith, 1967). Ex-
periences which oppose and contradict the negative evalua-
tion can be "called up" to minimize the threat to an in-
dividual's security and to minimize anxiety arousal. Under
prolonged or particularly severe negative evaluation, how-
ever, the vicious circle process described above can be
activated.

The exchange theory of attraction (Secord & Beckman,
1964) provides a more empirical model for describing the
interaction between the child and his peers. Briefly,
whether or not one is popular with one's peers depends upon
the degree to which the reward of the interaction exceeds
the cost of the interaction. Thus, a child's verbal and
physical behaviors must be rewarding for others if he is
to be popular with his peers. The exchange model correctly
emphasizes the importance of reinforcement in interpersonal
relationships; however, it is somewhat static and fails to

capture the continuing, dynamic quality described in the

25

interactionist model above. Considerable evidence is
available to support such a reinforcement-interactionist
model.

Although Hartup (1969) notes some contradictory
evidence and advises further study of the question, par-
ticularly noting the method and context of assessment as
well as noting the possibility of more complex interactions,
self acceptance and peer acceptance have been reported to
be significantly correlated in many recent studies (Helper,
1955, 1958; Manis, 1955; Miyamoto, 1955; Perkins, 1958;
Sears, 1960; Reese, 1961; Horowitz, 1962).

In addition to correlational studies relating self
esteem and peer acceptance, several experimental studies
have demonstrated that reactions of "significant others"
are necessary antecedent conditions to self ratings
(Videbeck, 1960; Maehr, §E_31., 1962; Hass & Maehr, 1965;
Ludwig & Maehr, 1967). In each study, positive and nega-
tive evaluation expressed by "significant others" (an expert
in the tested field) resulted in a significant increase in
the §L§ self evaluation for positively evaluated §§ and a
significant decrease in the Sig self evaluation for nega-
tively evaluated §§° A "spread of effect" was also found;
areas more remotely related to the evaluated area were less
affected by the E's positive or negative evaluation. It
was also found that changes in self concept showed the

effects of dosage; the degree of changed self evaluation

26

was found to vary with the degree of positive or negative
evaluation. Finally, all of these findings were found to
be reasonably stable, although somewhat mitigated, over
several weeks (3 to 6 weeks). In the studies by Maehr and
his associates, seventh and eighth grade boys were "tested"
in various physical activities, such as doing a few exer-
cises, dribbling a basketball, walking a straight line,
etc.; the positively and negatively evaluated groups were
matched for grade, previous self evaluation of physical
ability and teachers' judgments of actual physical ability.
In the Videbeck (1960) study, students rated as superior by
their speech class instructors were "tested" in oral com-
munication ability; students were randomly assigned to
positively and negatively evaluated groups and there were
no differences in the initial pre-evaluation self concept
ratings of the two groups.

Several other recent studies provide further direct
or indirect evidence supporting the interaction model.
When children experienced success, in the form of rein-
forcement from adults while in the presence of their peers,
the other children altered their attitudes and behaviors
toward the child in the direction of increased acceptance
(Heber & Heber, 1957; Flanders & Havumaki, 1960). Hartup
(1969) also cites several experimental studies in which
greater attraction was shown for those who were reported

to "like" the individual (Keislar, 1961) and greater

27

acceptance was shown for those with consensual attitudes
(Griffitt, 1966), and for those children "giving" greater
rewards (candy, toys, pennies) (Karen, 1965). In a some-
what related study, Lott and Lott (1960) with a sample of
48 third and fifth grade children, confirmed their hy-
pothesis that positive attitudes toward persons can be
formed by experiencing reward in their presence. Rewarded
(by the teacher) subjects chose significantly greater pro-
portions of play-group members on a sociometric test than
did non-rewarded subjects; thus, success experience appears
to alter behavior, or at least sociometric responding.
Also, studies of various child rearing practices
and parental attitudes offer support for the interaction
model. Hartup (1969) notes that:
The distinctive aspects of the high status boy's
socialization included parental discouragement of
antisocial behavior, low amounts of frustration and
punishment, and supportive reinforcement.
Parents of low sociometric status children tend to be dis-
satisfied with their child (Elkins, 1958), tend to exhibit
less affection (Hoffman, 1961) and tend to communicate less
frequently with the child (Wyer, 1965). Coopersmith (1967)
also has investigated parental attitudes and practices and
their effect on self esteem:
The most general statement about the antecedents of
self esteem can be given in terms of these condi-
tions; total acceptance of the children by their
parents, clearly defined and enforced limits, and

the res ect and latitude for individual action that
exist w1thin the defined limits.

 

28

Studies of teacher influence in the classroom also support
the interaction model. Glidewell, gt_al. (1966, pp. 231-
234) have reviewed the literature concerning the effects of
teacher attitudes and behaviors. They conclude that dis-
persion of the teacher's social power and his or her emo-
tional acceptance of the children results in increased self-
sufficiency, reduced inter—pupil conflict and anxiety,
wider dispersion of peer power and more frequent pupil-to-
pupil interaction. Thus, the teacher's evaluation (often
subtle) seems to result in increased mutual and self esteem
and other positive effects on the classroom social structure.

The data cited above certainly supports the inter-
action model. Evaluations of others seems to affect the in-
dividual's behavior, under the mitigating influence of self
concept. However, little has yet been said about the
actual behaviors of individuals varying in sociometric
status. Some studies have concerned themselves with this
matter, either directly or indirectly, either systematically
or rather casually (Northway, 1944; Potashin, 1946; Bonney,
1947; Marshall & McCandless, 1957; Lippitt & Gold, 1959;
Commoss, 1962; Hartup, Glazer, & Charlesworth, 1967;
Charlesworth & Hartup, 1967).

Several studies have noted that children of low
sociometric status seemed to engage in self defeating be-
haviors which repel rather than attract others, in an effort

to gain acceptance in the peer group (Northway, 1944;

29

Bonney, 1947). Northway (1944) noted that what he called
the "socially ineffective child" often made "effortful,
conspicuous and often foolish and futile attempts to be
recognized and accepted by the social group." Some sys-
tematic data are now available to support these observa-
tions.

In an early study, Potashin (1946) examined the
interaction of twenty-one pairs of friends and ten pairs of
non-friends. Friends were defined as a pair of children in
which each gives to the other his highest choice on a socio-
metric test. Non-friends were defined as a pair of children
in which one gives the other his highest choice but the lat—
ter does not reciprocate with any of his choices. The
sample of fifth and sixth graders was observed in an experi-
mental discussion technique in which pairs of friends and
pairs of non-friends were asked eight questions about plan—
ning a class picnic. The major results were that friends
stayed longer, talked more freely with less adult prompting
or direction, talked in a freer and lighter tone, and were
more relaxed than non-friends. Furthermore, the “poorly
accepted children in the group of non-friends carry a de-
gree of tension to the situation, often seeming awed by it
and by the chosen partner . . . often they acquiesce to the
latter or try to impress him by showing off or agreeing

forcefully with whatever he may suggest."

30

Marshall and McCandless (1957) observed two groups
of 19 three- to five-year-old preschool children. They em-
ployed three measures of positive social participation:
associative play; friendly approach; and conversation.

Each was significantly and positively correlated with social
acceptance (teachers judgment and the child's sociometric
score). They also used a measure of negative social par-
ticipation: hostile interaction. It was not significantly
correlated with social acceptance. No measure of social
rejection was obtained. The picture sociometric technique
devised by McCandless and Marshall (1957) was used to assess
sociometric status.

Lippitt and Gold (1959), in a study previously cited,
have found that children of low sociometric status tend to
resort significantly more frequently to unfriendly behavior
and less frequently to friendly behavior, than other child-
ren. Their sample was a group of children from 39 elemen-
tary school classrooms, grades one through six.

Commoss (1962) used projective doll play to assess
the skills of low status children in an indirect manner.

He administered a sociometric procedure to ten second grade
classrooms. Children were asked to rank in order of prefer-
ence the classmates they would like to sit beside, play
with at recess and invite home after school; first, second,

and third choices were weighted 5, 3, and 1 respectively.

31

Twenty children from the upper quarter and twenty children
from the lower quarter of the sociometric status scale
served as the subjects for the study. Both groups were
roughly matched for socioeconomic status and intelligence.
The following projective measures were obtained: certainty
of interpersonal relationships (defined as willingness to
commit oneself to a story outcome or character reaction),
ability to communicate verbally (defined as the number of
words spoken per minute in the story), and eye-hand coordin-
ation (defined as the quality of the writing of a sample
sentence as judged by teachers). The high status children
scored significantly higher on each of these measures than
the low status children. This represents a certain facility
which might be expected to carry over to "real" interper-
sonal situations, particularly since the experimental situ-
ation itself was a real and probably rather stressful inter-
personal situation.

Attempts to measure social reinforcement behavior
have more recently been made by Charlesworth and Hartup
(1967) and Hartup, Glazer, and Charlesworth (1967) with
samples of three- and four-year-old preschool children. In
the first study, (Charlesworth & Hartup, 1967) an observa-
tional method was devised for obtaining normative informa-
tion on the amount and kinds of positive social reinforce-
ment dispensed. Observation protocols were coded using the

following categories: (1) giving affection and personal

32

acceptance (physical and verbal); (2) giving positive atten-
tion and approval (attending, offering praise and approval;
offering help smiling and laughing, verbal help, informing
another of a third person's needs, and general conversa-
tion); (3) submission (passive acceptance, imitation, shar-
ing, compromise, accepting another's idea or help, follow-
ing an order or request with pleasure and cooperation); and
(4) token giving (giving tangible physical objects such as
toys or food, spontaneously). They found children in the
older groups reinforced their peers more often than children
in the younger groups (p < .01). Also, the amount of rein-
forcement given was positively related to the amount re-
ceived (r = .79, p < .01). Half of the reinforcements were
given in response to overtures from recipients and half
spontaneously. Finally, the consequence of reinforcement
usually (58% of the time) was the continuation of the re-
cipient's activity at the time of reinforcement.

In the second study (Hartup, Glazer, & Charlesworth,
1967) the relationship between peer reinforcement and socio-
metric status was examined. In addition to the positive
social reinforcement categories used previously, negative
reinforcement categories were also included in the coding
of the observation protocols; the negative reinforcement
categories were (1) non-compliance (refusing to submit or
c00perate, withholding of positive reinforcement, ignoring

overtures from "others"); (2) interference (taking property,

33

disrupting or interfering with ongoing activity); (3)
derogation (ridicule, disapproval, blaming, tattling); and
(4) attack (aversive physical attacks, threats thereof,
threatening demands). The picture sociometric technique
devised by Marshall and McCandless (1957) was used to assess
sociometric status. The major findings were that social
acceptance was significantly correlated with the frequency
of giving positive reinforcement but not with the frequency
of giving negative reinforcement; rejection was signifi-
cantly correlated with giving negative reinforcement, but
not with giving positive reinforcement. Also, children
received more positive reinforcement from liked peers than
from disliked peers, but did not receive more negative rein-
forcement from disliked than liked peers. Positive rein-
forcement was received more frequently than negative rein-
forcement from both children of low and high sociometric
status.

Another body of evidence supports an interaction
model. On a discrimination task children with high need
for approval generally make greater errors and show more
physiological signs of stress (increased GSR and heartrate)
than children with low need for approval; anxiety level is
hypothesized to disrupt attention to the dimensional as-
pects of the stimuli (Crowne, gt_al., 1968). Censure leads
to faster performance but more errors than praise in the

execution of a psychomotor task (Gounard, 1969), and censure

34

results in considerably worse performance than praise on an
intelligence test (Bornstein, 1968). Also, anxiety seems
to facilitate simple learning but interferes with complex
learning in both children and adults (Palermo, gt_al.,
1956). In all of these learning situations there seems to
be an "activation process" (impulsivity, faster performance)
operating, along with a decline in the S's discrimination

ability.

The Design and Hypotheses

 

As was noted earlier, specific analysis of the be-
haviors of children high and low in sociometric status has
only recently begun, particularly in the classroom setting.
More must be known about the kinds of classroom behaviors
high and low status children engage in before any coherent
plan of therapeutic intervention in the classroom can be
developed. Therefore in the present study, the sociometric
status of a large sample of first and second grade boys was
determined and related to various social and work behaviors
which were observed and coded by pairs of raters in the
classroom. Other measures, such as self concept, school
school grades, absentee rate, and teacher ratings, will be
considered because of the importance of obtaining as com-
plete a picture of the child's functioning as possible.
Consistent with the interaction model presented above, it

is predicted that low sociometric status children will

35

present a complex but consistent picture of failure, ex-
hibiting more socially inappropriate behaviors, performing
more poorly academically, being absent more often, and
being negatively evaluated by themselves as well as by
teachers and peers--more often than high sociometric status
children. Another major purpose of the present study will
be to contribute to the development of research instruments
(behavior rating, sociometric procedure, self esteem inven-
tory) for use with elementary school populations, particu-

larly first and second grade children.

METHOD

Subjects

A sample of 28 boys served as the subjects for this
study. They were drawn from a population of 394 first and
second grade children from fifteen classrooms (varying in
size from 22 to 29 pupils), in four different elementary
schools in a middle-sized generally lower middle class
Michigan town (Tables 1 and 2). Because the present study
was conducted within the context of a larger study,1 SS
were chosen on the basis of teacher ratings of classroom
adjustment (collected during November, 1968), not on the
basis of sociometric status.

Teachers were asked to rate all of the boys in

their class on five scales: self-control, physical ability,

self-sufficiency, achievement motivation, and sociability.

 

1The present study was carried out within the con-
text of a larger study conducted by Dr. Lucy Ferguson
and Dr. Gary" Stollak of the Department of Psychology,
Michigan State University. Their purpose was to relate
changes in patterns of communication within the family as
a result of family play therapy, to improvements in the
deviant social behavior of first and second grade boys
(Ferguson & Stollak, 1968). The methodological procedures
of the present study were somewhat restricted by the re-
quirements of the larger study.

36

37

 

Asamvmma : mum "mamuoa Hamum>o

 

 

 

lamavom as lamvma mm 1mmflvmm we lmsvmm as mamuoa Hooaom
ma as 0 NH ma m
NH «a 2 HH ma 6
NH ma 2 m an m on an o mmmao
ma NH a on an s OH AH m ma ma m
OH ed M a ma H ma «H a ma ma 4
w m U m 0 m U m
a m N H
Hooaom

 

_.momum oncomm mumz mchHmEmH map can momum umnwm mums 0 one .2 .M .b .m .9 .m .« mom
Immau .Ao canons» «V mEooummmao nmmumam may no sumo CH mauflm cam mmon mo mumnfisc map
ucommummn monsmflm one. .czmuo mums muownnam may soanz Bonn GOHumHsmom m£BII.H manna

38

 

Ammva u m .mHmuos HHmum>o

 

 

 

Amvn H Amvm m Amvn m onm m mHmuoa Hoonom
N H O H o m
N o z N o O
H o E H o m H H U mmMHU
H o H H H b H o m H H m
H o M H N H N m a H H d
Hm Sm Hm Sm Hm 2m Hm 2m
v m N H
Hoosom

 

H.6Umnm ocoomm who? mchHmEmu may one momum
umHHm mnm3 0 one .2 .M .b .m .0 .m .¢ mommmHU .Ao smsoucu «V mEooummMHo cmeMHm esp
mo some cH muomflQSm mm UmuomHmm whoa AHmv ousumEEH MHHMHOOm can AEmV enzyme mHHMHoom

mo madness map ucmmmnmmu mouanm m£B_ .muomnndm on» mo SOHHDQHHHch wcall.m mHnme

39

They were urged to rate the boys independently on each
scale; it was pointed out that a boy may be rated low on
one scale and medium-high on another, since it wasn't ex-
pected that a boy would necessarily receive the same score
on each scale. To further insure independent rating the
teachers were asked to rate all the boys on self control,
then physical ability, etc., rather than rating each boy on
all five scales at one time. Definitions and descriptions
of each scale were provided in order to insure a more con-
sistent and uniform application of the rating system among
teachers (Appendix A). A forced distribution method was
used to ensure that ratings would be as equivalent as pos-
sible across classes. Teachers were asked to place each of
their boys along a four-point continuum for each scale; low,
medium-low, medium-high, and high. They were asked to rate
the highest and lowest boys on each scale first and then to
rate the remaining boys in roughly a normal distribution.
Only three of the five rating scales (self sufficiency,
achievement motivation, and self control) were considered
critical for assessing classroom adjustment. A boy was con-
sidered to be high in classroom adjustment if he fell in
the highest category of the rating continuum for at least
two of these three categories and above the mid-point on
the third; nine of the §§ of the present study were rated
high in classroom adjustment. Similarly, a boy was con-
sidered to be low in classroom adjustment if he was rated

in the lowest category on at least two of the three scales

40

and below the midpoint on the third; the remaining nineteen
of the gs of the present study were rated low in classroom

adjustment.l

Sociometric Status Measure

Sociometric status has been measured in a variety
of ways in the past. In many studies children were asked
to select companions for several school or play activities
(Bonney, l943a,b, 1947; Northway, 1944; Northway & Wigdor,
1947; Kuhlen & Bretsch, 1947; Grossman & Wrighter, 1948;
Greenblatt, 1950; Baron, 1951; Commoss, 1962). However, in
some studies, particularly more recent ones, children were
asked a single, often more general question such as, “Who
is (are) your best friend(s)?" or "who would you like to be
with the most?" (Criswell, 1939; Bronfenbrenner, 1944;
Thorpe, 1955; McCandless & Marshall, 1957; Marshall &
McCandless, 1957; Harper, 1960; Lippitt & Gold, 1959; Rosen,
Levinger, & Lippitt, 1960; Hartup, Glazen & Charlesworth,

1967). This methodological difference reflects an

 

lSixty boys were identified through the teacher
ratings as being low in classroom adjustment, and only nine
of these families participated in the larger study. Be-
havior observations were conducted on (randomly chosen)
boys rated low in classroom adjustment. Also, behavior
observations were conducted on nine other boys (randomly
chosen) rated high in classroom adjustment. Fewer boys
rated as high in adjustment were observed, because of the
limited availability of the raters and the greater impor-
tance of the low adjusted gs (therapy, non-therapy control),
for the larger study.

41

important issue: to what extent is sociometric status
"generalizable;" to what extent is sociometric choice "situ—
ation specific?"

Several studies have examined the generality of
sociometric status and some degree of positive correlation
has been found between all criteria of sociometric status,
general or specific (Gronlund, 1955; Bjerstedt, 1956;
Harper, 1960; Mouton, Blake, & Fruchter, 1960; Meyer &
DeJung, 1963; Meyer& Barbour, 1968). Using a nomination
technique with a sample of 1258 sixth grade pupils in 40
classes, Gronlund (1955) found significant generality
(Pearson intercorrelations of .76, .80, and .86, all p <
.01) over three sociometric criteria: seating companion,
play companion, and work companion. Using a rating tech-
nique (everyone in the class ranked along some continuum)
Meyer and DeJung (1963) and Meyer and Barbour (1968) have
found that the intensity of social attractiveness of in-
dividuals varies considerably but that the relative attrac-
tiveness of individuals varies very little over four very
different situations, each reflecting a particular social-
psychological need.

Since all sociometric criteria seem to be positive-
ly related and since single, general criterion sociometric
procedures have usually resulted in reliabilities as high
as multiple criteria sociometric procedures, the use of the

simplified technique was considered to be justified and

42

even desirable. The technique was also considered to be
desirable, given: the short attention span of the subjects
(particularly the first grade children), the limited class
time available to the E, and the assistance which would
have been needed in order to interview the 394 children in-
dividually within a reasonable length of time.

Sociometric procedures with young children are not
new. Several early attempts were made to determine the
sociometric status of preschool children and met with
minimal success (Marshall, 1957). Supplementation of verbal
questions with photographs of children in a given group has
increased the successful application of sociometric proce-
dures among preschool children.

Polansky, Lippitt, and Redl (1950) were the first
to use a picture sociometric technique; their subjects were
10 to 15 year old emotionally disturbed children. Biehler
(1954) was the first investigator to use a picture socio-
metric technique with very young (kindergarten) children.
Biehler had children draw a stick figure body to the photo—
graphed faces of their preferred playmate; the photographs
of their classmates were spread out on a table before them.
A clear relationship was found between the actual and socio-
metric playmate choices. McCandless and Marshall (1957)
refined and extended the technique to three-year-old nurs-
ery school children. Pictures of all of their classmates

were presented to each subject. The E made sure the child

43

could give the name of each child pictured, before his
choice of playmate was requested. The sociometric choices
and teacher judgments of sociometric status were signifi-
cantly related. Also, sociometric choices were shown to be
stable over ten to thirty day intervals in the newly formed
groups of nursery school children. Although sociometric
procedures have been successfully administered with young
children a group administered sociometric procedure has not,
to the author'sknowledge, been used with first and second
grade children.

In the present study, the name of every member of
the class, alphabetically arranged, was printed on the
blackboard. A mimeographed list of the class members cor-
responding exactly to the list on the blackboard was then
distributed to each child. Each child was asked to raise
his hand when his name was read by the E (also in alpha-
betical order) and to come forward and point to his name on
the blackboard. When a child was absent, the E asked the
children where he or she normally sat. The purpose of this
preliminary exercise was threefold: (l) to arouse interest
and group participation; (2) to provide roughly equal ex-
posure for everyone (even absent members as far as it was
possible), "reminding“ every child of the entire composi-
tion of the class and hopefully minimizing the tendency to

select only the nearest child; (3) to proVide training in

44

the recognition of each child's name and the association of
that name with the child.

Next, the children were asked to write their own
names on the tops of their class lists and to raise their
hands if they had any difficulty in doing this. Only a few
children were unable to write at least their first names.
Then they were given the following instructions:

I'd like to see how well you can name those who
you'd like to have as a friend. Please circle the
name of the person you'd like MOST TO HAVE AS YOUR
FRIEND on the sheet that I have just passed out.

If anybody needs help in recognizing the name of

the person you'd like MOST TO HAVE AS YOUR FRIEND,
please raise your hand and the teacher cu: I will
help you. DON'T circle your own name. Does anybody
have any questions?

After everyone had finished and the papers were collected,

another list of class members was distributed to each child

and after they had written their names on the list the fol-

lowing instructions were given:
This time, I'd like you to circle the name of
ANOTHER person you'd like to have as your friend.
Don't circle the same name you did the first time,
Circle somebody ELSE, YOU'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE AS
YOUR FRIEND. If you need any assistance in recog-
nizing the name of ANOTHER person you'd really like
to have as your friend, please raise your hand and
the teacher or I will help you. DON'T circle your
own name. Does anybody have any questions?

After this was completed and the papers were collected, a

third list of class members was distributed to each child

and after they had written their names on the list the

following instructions were given:

45

This time I'd like you to circle the name of an-

other person you'd really like to have as your

FRIEND. DON'T circle the same names you did the

first two times. Circle a name you haven't

circled before, somebody ELSE YOU'D REALLY LIKE TO

HAVE AS YOUR FRIEND. If you need any help please

raise your hand and the teacher or I will help you.

DON'T circle your own name. Does anybody have any

questions?

Only a few of the second grade children needed help in
finding their choices, but more (15 to 20%) of the first
grade children required help. There appeared to be no re-
luctance to seek help since the situation was not defined as
a "test." The entire procedure was completed in 25 to 30
minutes for the first grade classrooms and in about 15
minutes for second grade classrooms, the difference primarily
being in the time required for giving assistance to the
children. The children generally enjoyed this procedure and
cooperated enthusiastically.

The sociometric procedures were conducted in the
classrooms after the behavior ratings had been obtained
(February 27-28, 1969). Identical procedures were carried
out twelve weeks later in nine of the fifteen classrooms
and one year later in six of the fifteen classrooms, to de-
termine the short—term and long-term stability of socio-
metric status.

The absentee rate was quite low in each administra-

tion and the number of invalid nominations (failure to

select three different names) was also very low (Table 3).

 

Teachers were asked to obtain the sociometric choices of

46

Table 3.--Absence and invalid nominations for the socio-
metric procedures. [The mean number of absences and invalid
nominations per classroom for the initial and two subsequent
administrations (12 weeks, one year) are noted. There were
15 classrooms involved in the first administration, 9 in the
second and 6 in the third.]

 

 

First Second Third
Administration Administration Administration
(12 weeks later) (one year later)
Absence 1.27 1.67 1.17
Invalid 0.20 0.00 0.17

 

these children at their convenience within a week following
the group administration, using essentially the instruc-

tions given above.

Behavior Observation

 

A behavior observation instrument was developed
specifically for this project. During November and December
of 1968 four psychology graduate students made extensive
observations of the behavior of first and second grade boys.
Categories were refined and developed until they were con-
sidered representative of the wide range of behaviors ex-
hibited by these boys in various school settings. A time
sampling procedure with pairs of raters was utilized.

Raters checked all categories of behavior a boy engaged in
during each of eight consecutive two-minute intervals. The
26 categories were rationally grouped under the 8 major

headings of: sociability, non-sociability, self sufficiency,

47

non-self sufficiency, self control, non-self control, ap-
propriate aggression and inappropriate aggression (Appendix
B). The initial observations and training were not carried
out in any of the classrooms used in the present study,
eliminating any possibility of a bias being formed towards
any of the boys prior to the actual ratings.

The behavior observations were obtained during
three weeks of observations by pairs of raters (February
5-26, 1969), following the training phase. Each child was
observed for sixteen minutes on four different occasions
(twice in the morning, twice in the afternoon) and in a
variety of play and work situations. Thus the observation
data for each boy represented 64 minutes of sampled class-
room behavior.

The scores were derived in the following manner.
The frequencies of each behavior observed by rater A and
rater B during a single period of observation (16 minutes)
were averaged, with "rounding" always to the even number,
preventing any systematic overestimating or underestimating
of the frequencies of the behavior. The score for a par-
ticular behavior was the sum of the averaged frequencies
for the behavior over the four observations (64 minutes).
Reliability-Behavior Observa-
tion Categories

The number of times each of the twelve observers

was paired with each of the other observers, was not

48

strictly controlled. Also, the number of times each rater
observed a particular child, was not strictly controlled.
However, every attempt was made by the E within limitations
of the observers' schedules to ensure that each of the
twelve was equally often paired with each of the others and
that each observer equally often observed each of the 28 Si.

Observer reliability for the behavior categories
was calculated in the following manner. Raters for a par-
ticular observation were arbitrarily designated as "rater
A" or "rater B" and the number of behaviors noted by rater
A or rater B were correlated for each of the eight major
categories during the four observations (summed) for a par-
ticular S. All of the eight correlations were highly sig-
nificant (Table 4).

Behavior observations on 15 of the 28 S5 of the
present study were conducted again about three months later
as part of another study (Ferguson & Stollak, 1968). Once
again, the interrater reliabilities for the eight major be-
havior rating categories were highly significant (mean r =
.933).

The temporal consistency of the eight major cate-
gories over a twelve week interval was generally high; only
two of the eight major categories failed at least to ap-
proach significance (Table 5). Only the self control, non-
self control, and "total inappropriate" behavior categories

were actually significant, however.

49

Table 4.--Inter-observer reliability for the behavior rat-
ings. [The figures represent the Pearson product moment
correlations calculated on the raw number of behaviors
noted by rater A and B during the four observations of a

S for each of the eight major behavior categories. The
mean of the eight correlations is also noted. All correla-
tions are highly significant (p < .001), two tailed.]

 

Behavior Categories

 

1 3 5 7
Self Self Appropriate

Soc1ab111ty Sufficiency Control Aggression

 

.970 .945 .947 .968

 

SE= .965

 

Behavior Categories

 

2 4 6 8
Non Non-Self Non-Self Inappropriate
Sociability Sufficiency Control Aggression

 

.969 .977 .971 .977

 

The internal consistency of the behavior observa-
tion categories was determined by finding the mean of the
intercorrelations of the items in each of the eight major
categories (Table 6). Only two of the eight means of the
intercorrelations were moderately positive. The items of
sociability and non-self control categories were moderately
intercorrelated, while the items of the other six major
categories were generally uncorrelated or even negatively
correlated. Because of the low internal consistency, an

exploratory factor analysis was calculated on the behavior

50

.Ho. v msata .mo. v mesa .OH. v aha .mH. v me

 

.«.mm>m.+ «.mHHG.+ «.mmom.+ .waesm.+ mmmm.+ mHHH.- loanzv.mm
ammumCHlmCH

ICDHOXO mm HHN

 

 

 

 

..¢mma.+ ...mmmm.+ .moo¢.+ ...ommm.+ ..-¢a.+ ammo.u lmHuzv.mm Haa
oHMHnmoummm oHMHHmoummm mmmwmmwwmmw HonuCou MOCmHOHHHCm muHHHQmHoom
ICH ICH . ICH HHmmlCoz HHomICoz ICoz
mmMHCmoumm Hmuoe m w v N
mmHHommumo HoH>mnmm
*«emmbm.+ mth.+ m¢oH.+ hamNmm.+ mmmN.| mmmm.+ AOHHZV mm
ammumCHIWCH
ICCHoxo mm HHC
«.amme.+ mmHo.+ Hmo~.+ ....Hmmo.+ .mm~¢.+ .owae.+ Amauzv_mm Haa
Coammwnmmfl HOHHCOO woCoaoammCm
mHMHumoummm mumHHmoummC . . . mHHHHQmHoom
mmmquouwm Hmuoa wHMHumoummfl mmmm mmmm H

 

mmHHommumu H0H>mnmm

H.AUoHHmulo3uv mCOHumeHHoo map Ho HHm

How moHuHHHmmnonm oCu CHH3 mCOHm .omHOC ome mum wdmumCu CH poummHOHuHmm 0C3 mm mmonu
mCHoCHoxm mm mCu mo mCOHHMHmHuoo one .mpsum umCHOCm mo Humm mm mmCHumu 03H mCu Cmmzu
Ion ammumnu MMHQ MHHEMH CH pmummHoHHHmm_mm mCH Ho m>Hm .mnsum HCmmmHm on» CH mm mN
mCu mo mH Mom H0H>mnmn mo mCoHum>Hmmno AHmHmH mxmo3 NHV UCoomm UCm pmHHm oCH Cmmzumn
mCOHHmHmHHOOH .quECHumCH COHum>HomQO H0H>mnmm mCu CH NUCoumHmCoo HmuomEoBI|.m oHQme

51

Table 6.--Internal consistency of the Behavior Rating Scale.
[Means of the intercorrelations of the items in each of the
eight major behavior rating categories.)

 

Behavior Category

 

 

3 5 7
l .
. . . Self Self Appropriate
Soc1ab111ty Sufficiency Control Aggression
3 items 2 items 3 items 3 items
.3090 .1771 -.0616 .0312

 

Behavior Category

 

 

2 4 6 8
Non Non-Self Non-Self Inappropriate
Sociability Sufficiency Control Aggression
4 items 2 items 6 items 3 items
.0005 -.2856 .2726 .0466

 

observation categories; the results are noted in the next

section.

Self Esteem Inventory

 

A brief self esteem inventory was designed for use
in the present study (Appendix C). The child is asked to
identify "which boy he is" by pointing to a stick figure
on a sheet of paper which will be described on the basis
of a certain quality or attitude or characteristic on a
scale ranging from "loves to“ or "always" to "hates to" or
"never." To avoid the development of a "set" the descrip-

tions of the figures are read alternately from left to

52

right and from right to left. Also, figures with positive
and negative self esteem each appear equally often on the
left and right of the “stick figure continuum." The ex-
aminer verifies the accuracy of the response by indirect
questioning ("what kind of boy is that?"; pointing to the
figure the S selected) or by reflecting the quality of the
chosen figure in a questioning manner ("you don't like
candy?"). The inventory consists of ten questions; the
first, and the second are designed only to allow the child
to "get acquainted“ with the task, and the other eight are
designed to tap such areas as his attitude towards tasks
(3,6,8), his sociability as seen by others (5,7), his
sociability as seen by himself (4,9), and his general sat-
isfaction or dissatisfaction with himself (10).
Unfortunately because the inventory was inconsist-
ently and improperly administered, the results (not report-

ed) were incomplete and inclusive.

Other Measures

 

The grade records of the §§ of the present study
were also obtained. Grades were obtained for reading,
mathematics and handwriting for the first grade children.
In addition to these, grades for spelling and English were
also obtained for second grade children. All grades were
converted to a "four point scale" in the following manner:
F = 0; PS- = .5; PS = 1.0; PS+ or S- = 1.5; S = 2.0; 5+ =

2.5; G- = 3.0; G = 3.5; G+ = 4.0; A = 4.5.

53

In addition to grades, absentee records were also
considered. The total number of days each child was ab-

sent from class during the school year was obtained.

RESULTS

Sociometric Measure

 

The stability of the obtained sociometric status of
the §§ was determined by taking a second sociometric measure
twelve weeks later and a third sociometric measure one
year later and correlating the sociometric status of the §§
on the first and second administrations and on the first
and third administrations.1 The sociometric status was de-
termined by weighting the first, second, and third choices,
three, two, and one, respectively, summing these scores for
each pupil and dividing the sum by the N of the class. The
obtained correlations for both short-term and long term
consistency were highly significant (Table 7).

Although the class composition remained very stable
between the first and second administrations, with only a
total of six students added and nine students dropped in
the nine classrooms given both administrations, the compo-

sition between the first and third administrations was

 

1Because of limited assistance, a smaller number of
classrooms were given the second and third sociometric ad-
ministrations; the classrooms were arbitrarily chosen and
presumably reflect the sociometric stability of the larger
original sample.

54

55

Table 7.--Stability of sociometric status. [The sociometric
status of 83 was obtained 12 weeks and again one year after
the original administration. Correlations are noted for
various groupings of the population tested, along with the
probabilities for each correlation.]

 

 

 

 

12 Weeks One Year
N r N r

All 83 (boys and 216 .7190*** 114 .6050***

girls)
First grade (boys

and girls) 132 .7216*** 77 .6520***
Second grade

(boys and girls) 75 .7149*** 35 .4642*
All girls 95 .7577*** 49 .6060**
All boys 121 .7230*** 65 .5410**
All boys observed

twice 20 .6180* 13 .8170**
A11 boys observed

twice excluding

therapy SS 15 .7580** 8 .8370*

 

*p < .01 (two tailed).
**p < .001 (two tailed).

***p < .0001 (two tailed).
considerably altered, since no class is transferred as a
block to another teacher. Children are assigned individu-
ally to the available teachers (usually three per grade) in
the schools of the present study, making it probable that
about 1/3 of a particular child's classmates would be

transferred along with him to the same teacher for the fol-

lowing school year. The stability of the class composition

56

is further reduced by students moving in and out of the
school district in this mobile, "near-university" communi-
ty. This turn-over in class composition renders the sta-

bility of sociometric status more impressive.

Absence

Sociometric status was correlated with rate of ab-
sence, the number of days absent during the school year.
The correlation was moderately negative, but not signifi-

cant (r = -.2049, p > .15).

Academic Performance

 

Sociometric status was correlated with academic
performance, defined as the over-all grade-point-average
(GPA), at mid-year and at the end of the year. First grade
§§ received grades in reading, mathematics and handwriting,
while second grade §§ received grades in reading, mathe-
matics, handwriting, spelling and English. Both correla-
tions were positive and very significant (mid-year:

r = +.5267, p < .01; end of the year: r = +.5535, p <

.01).

Teacher Ratings

 

Correlations were obtained between sociometric

status and teacher ratings for each of the five scales

III ‘111 11.1 111‘} ill. 1“

57

rated in 14 classrooms (Table 8).1

Additionally, correla-
tions were obtained between sociometric status and teacher
ratings for the three scales (combined) which were used to
determine classroom adjustment of §§ (Table 8): self suf-
ficiency, self control, and achievement motivation. Many
of the individual correlations were significant in spite of
the small Ns. When all sociometric scores and teacher
ratings are combined across classes, undoubtedly the cor-
relations would be moderately positive, but significant
(because of the increased N, N = l95)-—with the exceptions
of sociability and physical ability. Teachers' ratings of
sociability seem to be only slightly positively correlated
with sociometric status, while teaChers' ratings of phys-
ical ability seem to be generally uncorrelated with socio-
metric status. There is also considerable variability in
the correlations across classes for each of the scales,
including at least one teacher where ratings are consist-

ently negatively related to sociometric status.2

 

lOne classroom, a combined second and third grade
classroom, was not included because the teacher did not
rate the third grade boys in her class on the five scales,
making the N too small to be meaningful in the correlation-
al analysis.

2It's possible that the teacher incorrectly com-
pleted the rating forms, which would change the sign of each
correlation; unfortunately the teacher moved from the area
after the data collection and this possibility could not be
confirmed.

58

.lemHHmpnozuv Ho. v a...
.AGOHHMHIO3HV mo. v m«s
.HomHHMHuozuv OH. v m.

 

 

ammo. HHhH. Nth. 55mm. mNMN. NHom. M
aavvmm.l «OHNm.I atommm.l mvmw.l HmoN.I mmmm.l vH O
0000. OHON. .ONom. mth. wono.l «flmm. vH z
««OHNm. **omom. «too¢o. ammow. momv. .thhmHm. mH E
ommo.l omHH. «eeowom. seamNHh. assmmmn. «heaven. NH H
«Oth. «ommv. «ova. mmmH. «momw. mmHm. 0H M
eammmm. *omvw. «xomvm. hammmv. ammov. vmhm. mH b
bva. ommo. «400mm. asahHhh. ashmmm. «hHmv. MH H
mono.l ONHN. ommH. ammo. HmNo.I Hehm. mH m
ommN.I omNH. ovmo.l mHHH. m¢NM.I tho.l mH O
somm¢. onmm. aeomom. «aamomm. «*mmHm. «asmomm. 5H m
mmvm.l Oth.I ovhH.I «Nva. thN.I wth.l 5H m
mmwN. omvv. ovmw. mev. Nmom. mONw. vH Q
mH U
o¢m0.I CNNm.I omhm. hamHhm. mHhm. mmom. mH m
moom. «aooom. CNNv. vbmo.l mva. thm. mH H
wuH>HHoC muHHHanoom HCmEHmCflUd HOHHCOO SUCmHOHmmCm COHum>Huoz Anyway mmMHO

HCOHmSCm EooummMHO HHmm HHmm quEm>mHC0¢ z

 

H.Cm>Hm OmHm mum mCOHHmHmHHOU wmoCu Ho mCmmE may @Cm mEOOH

Immeo vH How Cw>Hm mum mCOHHMHmHHOU .MHHHHQM HMOHthm @Cm muHHHQMHoom mo mmCHumu
HmCommu UCm msumum OHHHmEoHUOm Cmozumn mCOHHMHmHHOU mum onOC OmHCH A.mmHmom mmHCH
mmonu Ho ECmV .quEuanUm EOOHmmMHo UCm .HOHHCOU HHmm .SOCmHoHHHCm HHmm .CoHum>HuoE
HCmEm>oHCUm Ho mmCHHmH HmCommH ow msumum UHHumEoHOOm Cowsumn mCOHHmHmHHOOII.m mHQMB

59

Behavior Observations

 

Sociometric status was significantly negatively
correlated with the total number of inappropriate behaviors
observed (r = -.4812; p < .02) and positively, but not sig-
nificantly correlated with the number of appropriate be-
haviors observed (r = .2613; p > .20). Also, sociometric
status was significantly negatively correlated with the
percentage of negative behavior observed (r = -.5075; p <
.01). Correlations were also obtained between status and
the eight major behavior categories (Table 9). Sociometric
status was positively correlated with sociability (p >
.15), self control (p < .15), and appropriate aggression
(p > .15), and negatively correlated with non-sociability
(p > .15), self sufficiency (p > .15), non-self sufficiency
(p < .15), non—self control (p < .02), and inappropriate
aggression (p > .15).

A factor analysis was calculated because of the low
internal consistency of the major behavior categories.
Factor scores for each S were obtained for the eight fac—
tors of the best solution (Appendix E) and correlations be-
tween sociometric status and the factor scores for the
‘eight factors were calculated (Table 10). Sociometric
status was positively correlated with attentiveness (p <
.15), assertiveness (p < .15), and activity (p < .05), and
negatively correlated with independence (p > .15) and at-

tention seeking (p > .15). Sociometric status was

60

 

 

 

 

 

.Ho. v mesa
.No. v mag
.3. v 9.
**amnom.l hamHmv.l ommN.I «amonv.l hvam.l mHoo.I
ConmmHmm¢ HOHHCOU SUCmHoHHHCm MHHHHQMHoom
m>HHmmmz m>HHmmmz oHMHHQOHQQMCH HHmmICoz HHmmlCoz ICOZ
mmmHCmonm Hmuoe . m m w N
muommumo HOH>MCmm
MHmN.+ OHHo.+ «HmmN.+ mHNN.I mmOH.+
COHmmmHmmC HOHHCOO NUCmHoHHHCm
m>HHHmom mHmHHmoumma Hme HHmm NHHHHanoom
Hmuoa h m m H

 

huommumo H0H>mnmm

 

H.C0HHMHmHHoo Comm How ApmHHmu

Iozuv mmHuHHHanoum CHHB mCOHm .pmHOC OmHm mum HOH>MCwQ Ho monsmmma Honon omHCu

UCm msumum OHHumEOHoom Cmm3umn mCoHHMHmHHOOH

.HfimghflmGH GOHHMNVHOWQO .HOHNVMSOQ OS».

Ho mmHHommumo HOnmE quHm oCH pCm msumum UHHumEoHUOm Com3umn mCoHHMHmHHOOII.m mHQme

61

.mo. v m.«

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mH. v ma
mooo.+ «amnHv.+ «ONHm.+ m>ON.I
COHummHOHuHmm mCoumlCoz Hm>oH wuH>HHoC mmmCo>HHHmmm¢ mCmemm CoHquuHC
w h m m
mnouomm
Humo.| hmmo.| «osmN.+ ONHN.|
HCmEm>Ho>CH mmMHO NUCoHOHHmCm HHom mmmCo>HquHuC moCoUCmmmUCH
v m N H
muouomm

 

H.AUmHHmuI03HV COHOC omHm mum mmHHHHHQMQOHmH

.muouomm quHm mCu mo some

now mm Ho mouoom HOHOMH mCH UCm msumum OHHHoEoHoom CmmBHmQ mCoHumHmHHOOII.OH mHQMB

62

essentially uncorrelated with non-group participation, self
sufficiency and class involvement.

Finally, sociometric status was correlated with each
individual behavior category (Table 11). Rejection of the
approach of others was significantly positively correlated
with status (r = .493, p < .01), while motoric restless-
ness was significantly negatively correlated with status
(r = -.448, p < .02). Also, attending to the teacher or
ongoing activity (r = .326, p < .10) tended to be positive-
ly correlated with status, while seeking help, praise or
assurance from the teacher (r = -.315, p < .15), disobeying
the teacher (r = -.332, p < .10), distraction from a task
(r = -.337, p < .10) and inappropriate going off on another
activity (r = -.337, p < .10) tended to be negatively cor-
related with status. No other correlations between behavior
and status were significant or indicative of a trend towards
significance. Correlations were not calculated for two of
the behavior items, because of the extremely low number of
incidents of behavior. Only two §§ engaged in any inci-
dents of non-participation in a group activity or in hos-
tility towards objects; both of these §§ had sociometric

status scores well below the overall mean.

63

Table ll.--Correlations between sociometric status and each
of the items of the Behavior Observation Instrument.

[Probabilities are also noted (two-tailed).]a

 

 

 

Item E
(l) Approaches one or more peers -.120
(2) Accepts or continues interaction +.134
(3) Active peer group participation +.149
(4) Rejection of peer's approach +.493****
(5) Is rejected by others -.104
(6) No interaction in a free play period -.l66
(7) Non-participation in a group activity
(8) Initiates new tasks when appropriate -.015
(9) Voluntarily contributes answers or
suggestions in class -.021
(10) Seeks help, praise, assurance from
the teacher -.315*
(11) Copies work or work behavior of peers -.096
(12) Complies with adults' orders +.098
(13) Maintains attention to own work or task +.002
(l4) Attends to teacher or ongoing activity +.326**
(15) Disobeys teacher's direct verbal order -.332**
(16) Disruptive behavior -.059
(17) Delays obeying orders -.181
(18) Easily distracted -.337**
(19) Motoric restlessness -.448***
(20) Inappropriate going off on own
activity -.338**

 

64

Table ll.--Continued

 

 

Item

 

 

E

(21) Aggression in the service of rules or

authority (prosocial) -.l7l
(22) Stands up for rights +.128
(23) Appropriate aggression, rough—housing,

or competitive games +.049
(24) Hostile verbal -.241
(25) Hostile physical -.l47

(26) Hostile towards objects

 

aOnly two of the 28 Ss engaged in any "non partici-
pation in a group activity" TItem 7) and both of these §§
had status scores of "0." Only two of the 28 §§ engaged in
any "hostility towards objects" (item 26); one had a status
score of .0385 and the other had a status score of .0700--
both well below the mean sociometric status score, .2412.

*p < .15.

** < .10.
*** < .02.
****p < .01.

DISCUSSION

P11132058

The purpose of the present study was to assess as
completely as possible how boys of high and low sociometric
status differed on various behavioral indices, so that
several of the hypotheses of the circular process model
could be more directly evaluated. Specifically, it was the
purpose of this study to determine the validity of the hy-
pothesis that boys of low sociometric status exhibit a
general syndrome of ineffectiveness in school, even at the

first and second grade level.

Variables and Predictions

 

It was anticipated that sociometric status could be
accurately assessed by a group administration procedure and
that the status of S§_would remain stable over short term
intervals and long term intervals. The teacher ratings,
as well as the index of academic performance (GPA) and at-
tendance record, all represent more global, indirect indi-
cators of behavior, while the behavior observation cate-
gories provided a more specific and direct measurement of
SS} behaviors. Consistent with the assumptions of the

circular process model, it was expected that classroom

65

66

adjustment, academic performance and appropriate behavior
would be positively and significantly correlated with so-
ciometric status, while absence rate and inappropriate be-
havior would be negatively and significantly correlated
with sociometric status. In short, sociometric status was
expected to be positively and significantly correlated with
several behavioral indices of effectiveness in the class-

room.

Findings and Interpretations

 

 

Sociometric status.--Perhaps the most important
finding was that, using a group administration procedure,
sociometric status was found to be highly stable over both
short periods of time and long periods of time, among first
and second grade children. The long-term stability of socio-
metric status is even more remarkable when it is remembered
that the composition of the class had altered considerably
at the time of the final administration, one year after
the first administration, with about 75% "turnover rate"
in classmates. Also, the reliability estimates were prob-
ably somewhat low because of some subject error in select-
ing classmates (e.g. failure to circle the name desired on
the class lists), which would have resulted in greater
randomization and a flattening in the distribution of
choices. Thus, sociometric status seems to be a highly

stable variable among first and second grade children, in

67

spite of considerable change in the composition of the peer
group and in spite of the method of determining sociometric

status.

Absence.--The correlation obtained between rate of
absence and sociometric status was -.2049 (p < .15), indi-
cating that $3 with low status tended to be absent more
frequently than Ss with high status. The correlation was
lower than anticipated, however. Perhaps the social de-
mands placed upon the first and second grade children are
not yet great enough and the social failure experiences not
yet frequent enough to result in physical withdrawal from
school. As the children become older, years of accumulated
social failure will probably interact with new and pressing
demands to belong to social clubs or cliques and with great-
er personal freedom to decide whether or not to attend
school and result in a greater tendency to withdraw from

the defeating situation.

Academicgperformance (GPA).--The correlations ob-

 

tained between sociometric status and grade-point average
for the first half of the year and for the entire year,
were both highly significant, .5267 and .5535, respectively.
Thus, academic performance and status were very highly
correlated. It appears that students either use the same
criteria as the teacher in their assessments (e.g. ability

to do things well) or they are strongly influenced by the

68

quality of the teachers' interaction with the child, which
implicitly carries with it the tone of approval or disap-
proval. Of course, both alternatives are probably operat—

ing to some degree.

Teacher ratings.--Intercorrelations were calculated

 

between sociometric status and the five scales rated by the
teachers to determine: (1) the degree to which the teach-
ers' estimates of SS' classroom adjustment (3 scales com-
bined) were related to status; (2) the degree to which each
of the three scales used for estimating classroom adjust-
ment was related to status; (3) the degree of correspond-
ence between the teacher's estimate of sociability and the
obtained status; and (4) the degree to which teachers' es-
timates of physical ability were related to status.
Classroom adjustment and each of the three scales
used to estimate adjustment--were generally moderately and
positively correlated with sociometric status in each
classroom, although the correlations were lower in some
classrooms. With all classrooms combined (more than 200
§2) the correlations would undoubtedly be quite signifi-
cant for each of the three adjustment scales and for the
combined scale. Self control was particularly highly cor-
related with status and self sufficiency was less highly
correlated with status. Thus, the teacher's estimate of a
S's effectiveness in the classroom is highly related to the

status assigned the S by the peer group. Again, this

69

suggests that either pupils use the same criteria as the
teacher in their assessments or they are influenced by the
teacher's implicit (occasionally explicit) approval or dis-
approval of a child's behavior, or both.

Correlations between teachers' estimates of child-
ren's sociability and actual sociometric status were gen-
erally positive, but lower than expected; the mean of the
correlations between status and sociability (.1711) was
lower than the mean of the correlations between status and
the three adjustment scales. However, the term "sociabil-
ity" defined in the teacher ratings was somewhat different
than the term as defined in the sociometric procedure.
Sociability in the context of sociometric status generally
refers to the popularity of a child or the number of friends
of a child. Sociability in the context of the teacher rat-
ings (Appendix A) generally refers more to the process of
seeking and entering social interaction. It is quite pos-
sible, and consistent with the circular process model, that
many children low in sociometric status engage in consider-
able attempts at social interaction, although they may fre-
quently be rather self defeating attempts. Thus, it can
not be concluded that teachers are unable to assess the
popularity of their pupils from the relatively low correla-
tion between teacher ratings of sociability and sociometric

status.

70

Finally, teachers' estimates of children's physical
ability (perhaps the most "objective" scale) were essen-
tially uncorrelated with actual sociometric status; the
mean of the correlations between status and teacher ratings
of physical ability was .0839. This finding seems quite
reasonable, since at this grade level the peer groups have
not formed as solidly as they do later around sporting and
athletic activities. It is anticipated that physical abil-
ity and sociometric status would be more highly positively
correlated at later grade levels, when physical ability
undoubtedly becomes more important for acceptance in the

peer group.

Behavior Observations.--First, inappropriate behav-

 

ior in general was significantly and negatively correlated
with sociometric status, as expected, while appropriate be-
havior in general was positively but not significantly
correlated with sociometric status.

More specific analysis of the eight major behavior
rating categories revealed that non-self control was quite
significantly and negatively correlated (r = -.4709, p <
.02) with sociometric status, while self control was slight-
1y but positively correlated (r = .2891, p < .15) with
sociometric status. This finding provides evidence that §§
lacking self control are likely to have low status among

their peers, while SS_with high self control tend to have

71

high status among their peers. There was also a tendency
for non-self sufficiency to be negatively correlated with
status, indicating that §§ engaging in dependent behaviors
(e.g. copies others, seeks the attention, praise, and ap-
proval of the teacher) are also likely to have low status
among their peers. The other correlations between major
categories and sociometric status were non-significant and
no "trends" were indicated. However, the correlation be-
tween inappropriate aggression and status was moderately
negative (r = -.2630), indicating that aggression is some-
what negatively related to status among first and second
grade children.

The correlation between self sufficiency and socio-
metric status was moderately negative. This finding can be
readily accounted for by examining the differences on the
individual items of the two major behavior rating cate-
gories. On the self sufficiency category, low adjusted §§
engaged more frequently, but non significantly, than high
adjusted §§ in "initiating new tasks" and "contributing
answers or suggestions;" this is understandable when it is
noted that: (l) §§ low in sociometric status were more
restless and distractible with shorter attention spans than
.§§ high in classroom adjustment; and (2).§§ low in class-
room adjustment more frequently than high adjusted §§.
raised their hands in class without knowing correct an-

swers or contributing very relevant suggestions, probably

72

as an attention seeking maneuver or as an imitation of
others in class. This finding may also be interpreted in
other ways. It is quite possible that poorly adjusted
children have adapted to experiences of rejection and lack
of support with a posture of self sufficiency and independ-
ence which may not be supported by the teacher in the
classroom because of the disruptive character of the be-
haviors. This is unlikely, however, in view of the nega-
tive correlation between "non-self sufficiency" and status.

Sociability showed a slightly positive, but far
from significant correlation (r = .1055) with status; this
indicates that low sociometric status has very little rela-
tionship to the amount of "sociability" expressed. One
note of caution should be introduced; the items of the
major category of sociability are primarily quantitative,
concerned with the number of times a child approaches an-
other or interacts with another, and are not qualitative,
concerned with the quality or "success" of the approach or
interaction.

The major category of non-sociability was uncorre-
lated with status. Again, the social withdrawal measured
by this category is a quantitative, not qualitative factor;
for example, high status S§_may "withdraw" to work on a
project of interest and of importance to them and seek out
social interactions shortly thereafter, while low status SS

may withdraw to avoid social rejection and be very reluctant

73

to seek out social interaction later. Of course, it is
very possible that first and second grade children have not
experienced sufficient social failure to interfere with the
frequency of attempts at social interaction, the frequency
of participation in an interaction, or the frequency of
social withdrawal.

Finally, "appropriate aggression" was uncorrelated
with status, although it was expected to correlate posi-
tively with sociometric status. It is quite posSible that
high status children are more sensitive to the social and
peer codes and tend to consider all aggression as inappro-
priate.

Because an intercorrelation matrix of the 26 be-
havior rating categories indicated a general lack of in-
ternal consistency in all but two of the eight major behav—
ior rating categories, an exploratory factor analysis of
the behavior rating data was calculated and SS] factor
scores were obtained for the best solution, the eight
factor solution. Correlations were calculated between the
factor scores and status. The correlation between activity
level and sociometric status was significantly positive
(r = .4173, p < .05) indicating high status children are
more socially active in the classroom than low status
children. Also, attentiveness tended to be positively cor-
related (r = .2870, p < .15) with status; this supports the

previous observations that self control was quite related

74

to adjustment and status. Also assertiveness tended to be
positively correlated (r = .3120, p < .15) with status, in-
dicating that high status children were more dominating
than low status children. The correlations between the re-
maining factors and sociometric status were not significant,
or even indicative of a trend; independence, self suffi-
ciency, class involvement, and attention seeking behaviors
were all slightly negatively correlated with status, while
non-group participation was uncorrelated with status.

Finally, each of the individual items of the behav-
ior rating scale was correlated with sociometric status to
determine which specific behaviors were contributing most
to sociometric status. The item "rejects others" was quite
significantly correlated with status (r = .493, p < .01).
This originally was not predicted, but is certainly under-
standable when it is considered that: (l) the setting was
predominantly work oriented and high status children are
likely to be more concerned with completing a task (GPA x
sociometric status, r = .52) than with social interaction
in such a setting, and (2) high status children are more
frequently the target of social approach and have the least
to lose by occasionally rejecting others, particularly
those classmates already assigned low status.

Self control categories consistently differentiated
high and low status children; all self control categories

were positively correlated with status and all non-self

75

control categories were negatively correlated with status.
Motoric restlessness was negatively correlated with status.
Disobeys teacher's orders, easily distracted and inappropri-
ate going off on own activity all tended (p < .10) to be
negatively correlated with status, while attends to the
teacher or on going activity tended (p < .10) to be posi-
tively correlated with status. There was a slight tendency
(p < .15) for "seeks help, praise or assurance of teacher"
to be negatively correlated with status. Although there
were no other significant correlations, most of them were
in the predicted direction.

Only five of the 26 behavior rating items were cor-
related with status in a direction Opposite to that ori-
ginally predicted. The item "rejects others“ has been
discussed above. In addition, "approaches peers“ was
negatively correlated with status. This is understandable
when it is remembered that high status children less often
need to initiate social interaction, since they are the
center of the social system and the frequent target of the
approach of others. "Initiates new tasks" and "voluntarily
contributes in class" (self sufficiency), as well as pro-
social aggression were negatively correlated with status;
the rationale for these findings has already been outlined.

Thus, inappropriate, maladaptive behavior in gen-
eral and lack of self control in particular, appears to be

quite consistently and negatively correlated with adjustment

76

and sociometric status, while appropriate and adaptive be-
havior in general and self control in particular, appears
to be somewhat positively correlated with adjustment and

sociometric status.

Experimental Design

 

The primary purpose of the present study was to
identify more specifically the behavioral correlates of so-
ciometric status. There were two difficulties in the pres-
ent design which were unavoidable because of the require-
ments of the larger study.

One of these restrictions required that the selec-
tion of the §§ for behavior observations be based on class-
room adjustment rather than sociometric status. Although
high and low adjusted §§ differed significantly in socio-
metric status, the differentiation was not perfect. Three
high adjusted boys had a status score below the mean status
score for the boys of their classroom, and three low ad-
justed boys had a status score above the mean status score
for the boys of their classroom. §§ certainly did not per-
fectly represent the extremes in status so correlational
analyses were considered more appropriate than direct com-
parisons between "high" and "low" status groups.

A second restriction was that the procedure resulted
in a sampling of primarily low status S§_who were also low

in classroom adjustment and high status §§ who were also

77

high in classroom adjustment. There were other S§_who were
very low in status but about average or occasionally even
higher than average in classroom adjustment, and still
other SS_who were very high in status but about average or
occasionally even below average in classroom adjustment; in
the first case a child probably is quite unpopular, but is
quiet (perhaps withdrawn) and cooperative enough to be con-
sidered reasonably well adjusted in the classroom, while in
the second case, a child has a particularly attractive
quality (i.e., clever, skillful, amusing, etc.) which is
unrelated to or even interferes with classroom adjustment.
The behavior observation instrument was designed to measure
the behavior of the high adjusted-high status and low ad—
justed-low status SS, not the behavior characteristic of the
more complex types of children noted above who have made some
marginal adjustment in spite of social and/or academic dif-
ficulties. Although the purpose of the present study was
to assess the classroom behaviors of §§ more blatantly mal-
adjusted, the behaviors of these more complex types are
presumably amenable to the same kind of behavior rating
method, with certainly different and perhaps more subtle,
less overt items.

Another serious difficulty was the small number of
SS, particularly in the high adjusted group, and the limited
observation time allowed for each S. In order to ensure

reliable and valid ratings of behavior, four separate

78

observations sixteen minutes in length were conducted by a
pair of raters for each S. This procedure limited the
number of §§ that it was possible to observe and limited
the length of the observation of each S. Many of the dif-
ferences in the behavior ratings of high and low adjusted
SS, and many of the correlations between behavior ratings
and sociometric status were highly suggestive, but not sig-
nificant, due in large part to the small number of S§_and
particularly to the small numbers of behaviors noted on
many of the individual items and even some of the major be-
havior rating categories (e.g. appropriate aggression and

inappropriate aggression).

Instruments

 

Another major purpose of the present study was to
contribute further to the development of research instru-
ments for use with early elementary school populations
(sociometric, behavior rating, self concept).

The group sociometric procedure was quite effective
with very high short-term reliability (12 weeks) and also
very high long-term reliability (one year) for all SS’com-
bined and for various subgroups of the §§° This is con-
sistent with previous research which has found that socio-
metric status is quite stable among very young children.
However, this is the youngest population in the research

literature reviewed given a group sociometric procedure.

79

The simplicity and the effectiveness of the procedure make
it a useful tool for teachers to adopt in the classroom set-
ting, particularly since: (1) teachers are often unable to
assess accurately the social structure; (2) sociometric
status is so stable over time, unlikely to change spontan-
eously; and (3) sociometric status is so highly related to
poor academic and social adjustment. Effective intervention
programs (Glidewell, EE_El°r 1966) can be developed by the
teacher to redistribute sociometric status once an aware-
ness of the actual distribution of status is achieved.

It must be noted that the sociometric procedure was
administered to first and second grade §§ during February,
after considerable group "testing“ experience had undoubt-
edly been acquired and after their ability to recognize the
names of their classmates had undoubtedly improved. Group
administration of the sociometric procedure probably would
not be very practical at any earlier time for first grade
SS, unless specific training in the recognition of class-
mates' names were given prior to the administration.

The Behavior Observation Instrument contributed a
great deal to the identification of behaviors associated
with classroom adjustment and sociometric status, although
the discrimination power of the eight major categories was
no doubt severely curtailed by their lack of internal con-
sistency, which suggests that specific categories should be

differently combined in the future. The results would have

80

undoubtedly been more productive if the number of §§ ob-
served and the amount of time each S was observed had been
greater. It should be noted, however, that inappropriate,

maladaptive behaviors were more heavily represented on the

gag...

'scale than appropriate adaptive behaviors. This could
have accounted for the finding of less significant differ-
ences in appropriate behavior than in inappropriate behaviu
ior among high and low adjusted SS. Also, consistent with
the setting of the ratings, the majority of the behavior
rating items were academic in orientation and fewer were
directly concerned with peer social interactions. The ratij

1..
ing scale should be expanded to include more of the behav- 5(le

1 J i

iors identifiable in these peer interactions (e.g. indicat-i $3}
ors of anxiety and social ineptness--restlessness, distrac-E t
tibility, criticism by others, etc.), and the observation
setting should be expanded to include more recess and "free'k
play" periods, providing more opportunity to observe social
interaction.

Among the academically oriented items, the major
behavior rating category of self sufficiency should be ex-
panded to include a wider range of items (e.g. praise for
a task or project by teacher or peers; organizes peers in
an academic project or playground activity, etc.) and the
present items should be changed to represent self sufficient

behavior realistically (e.g. the criteria for "volunteers"

in class could be changed from simply raising a hand, to

81

correctly giving an answer when and if called on and offer-
ing a suggestion which is accepted by teachers and/or
peers).

The main features of the Self Concept Inventory
(Appendix C) were its directness, simplicity, and brevity
(only ten items) which are considered by the author as es-
sential in the testing of early elementary children, par-
ticularly first grade children. The items were concerned
with attitudes towards tasks, sociability as seen by others,
sociability as seen by himself and general satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with himself.

Unfortunately, the inventory was inconsistently and
improperly administered and the results were incomplete and
inconclusive. The inventory was designed for individual
administration. However, in a recent group administration
of the Self Esteem Inventory (Turner, 1970) in one of the
second grade classes of the present study, it was found
that sociometric status and self esteem were positively and
significantly correlated (r = +.4271; N = 26; p < .05).
Thus, the instrument appears to successfully differentiate
§§ of high and low sociometric status and also appears to

be amenable to group1 as well as individual administration.

 

1A group administration probably would not be pos-
sible among first grade children, however, because of their
limited reading skills, difficulty in following directions,
and short attention span.

82

Conclusion

 

The major objective of the present study, identifi-
cation of the behavioral correlates of sociometric status,
was fulfilled to a considerable extent. Several observa-
tions can be made about the behavior rating data. Although
it can not be conclusively established, it appears that:

(1) low status SS seek the attention and approval of the
teacher more than high status SS, probably reflecting the
former's lack of self esteem and dependence on external re-
inforcement as well as continued dependence on adults rather
than the shift to the peer group, characteristic of more
mature boys at this age level; (2) high status §§ have
greater self control and are more able to work on a task
than low status SS, who show signs of anxiety (e.g. rest-
lessness, distractibility) in the classroom setting; and
(3) low status §§ generally show more ineffective, inappro-
priate and maladaptive behavior in the classroom than high
status SS, but high status SS generally show only slightly
more effective, appropriate and adaptive behaviors in the
classroom than do low status §§3

From the final point, it can be concluded that low
sociometric status is more closely associated with a wide
range of inappropriate and maladaptive behaviors than with
a few specific behaviors or classes of behaviors. Thus, it
is likely that there is no single behavior or class of be-

haviors which determines sociometric status. Rather, status

83

is probably determined by many behaviors and classes of be-
haviors in complex interaction.

Grade-point average (GPA) and absence rate, more
global and indirect behavioral measures of classroom ef-
fectiveness, appear to be related to sociometric status.
Higher grades undoubtedly act to increase poise and self
confidence and result in more effective social and academic
behavior in the classroom, while lower grades undoubtedly
diminish poise and self confidence and result in less ef-
fective social and academic behavior in the classroom.
Higher absence rate results in less opportunity for the es-
tablishment of continuous, stable social relationships and
reflects the reluctance to enter a setting which brings
continuous academic and social failure.

The teacher ratings of classroom adjustment also
are moderately but significantly correlated with socio-
metric status. This suggests that either children are in-
fluenced by the teacher's implicit (or explicit) evaluation
of a Slor they use similar criteria as the teachers in as-
signing sociometric status. Undoubtedly both possibilities
operate to some degree, but it is also apparent that socio-
metric status is determined by other criteria (e.g. non-
academic) and/or other forces of influence (e.g. a leader
in the peer group).

Thus, the data of the present study offer consider-

able support for the circular process model outlined in the

84

introduction. An analysis of both direct and indirect
measures of social and academic effectiveness indicates
that sociometric status is determined by a wide range of
behaviors which interact in a complex manner. Further re-
search is needed, particularly directed at the specific be-
haviors engaged in by SS of high and low status and the

manner in which the behaviors affect social interaction.

S UMMARY

The purpose of the present study was to assess the
relationship between sociometric status and various behav-
ioral indices of social and academic effectiveness in the
classroom.

An extensive review of the literature was presented.
First, the development and stability of sociometric status
were considered. The evidence clearly indicated that socio-
metric status is established quickly and is quite stable
among peer groups of all ages in a variety of settings, in-
cluding the classroom. Second, many of the previous studies
which were concerned with the characteristics of children
with high and low sociometric status, were reviewed. A
variety of social, academic and socio-economic factors were
found to be related to sociometric status. Third, many of
the previous studies which were concerned with the mental
health of children with high and low sociometric status,
were reviewed. The evidence suggests that there is a
strong, positive relationship between a variety of indices
of mental health and sociometric status. Next, a model was
presented to provide some integration of the findings ob-

served in the literature. Finally, the design and hypotheses

85

86

of the study were outlined. It was anticipated that low
status §§ would present a complex picture of ineffective
behavior in the classroom. Specifically, it was predicted
that sociometric status would be positively correlated with
academic performance, appropriate behavior in the classroom
and teacher ratings of classroom adjustment and negatively
correlated with absence rate and inappropriate behavior in
the classroom.

The SS for the present study were 28 boys drawn from
15 classrooms in four different elementary schools located
in a middle-sized, generally lower-middle class Michigan
town. Sociometric status was determined through a group
procedure in the classroom. S§_were asked to note whom they
would select among their classmates as the person they would
"most like to have as their friend." Second, and third
choices were also obtained. Twelve weeks following the
first administration, a second identical sociometric proce-
dure was carried out and one year following the first ad-
ministration, a third identical sociometric procedure was
carried out, to determine the short term and long term
stability of sociometric status. The sociometric scores
obtained during the first administration were correlated
with: (l) absence rate; (2) academic performance at mid-
year and for the entire year; (3) a variety of teacher

ratings of S§_which included self sufficiency, self control,

87

achievement motivation, sociability and physical ability;
and (4) behavior observations of SS.

The instrument for conducting behavior observations
was developed especially for the present study; the final
instrument consisted of 26 individual categories grouped
rationally into eight major categories: sociability; non-
sociability; self sufficiency; non-self sufficiency; self
control; non-self control; appropriate aggression; and in-
appropriate aggression. The inter-observer reliability was
very high, above .94 for each of the eight major categories.
The temporal consistency of the eight major categories over
a twelve week interval was generally high; only two of the
eight major categories failed at least to approach signifi-
cance. However, the internal consistency of the eight
major categories was generally low; the items of only two
of the eight major categories were positively and moderately

intercorrelated.

Findings

First, sociometric status was highly stable over a
twelve week interval (r = .72) and over a one year inter-
val (r = .60), in spite of about a 75% turnover rate in
class members between the first and third administration.
Status was negatively but not significantly correlated with
rate of absence (r = -.205); higher status §§ had fewer ab-

sences than lower status SS. Status was positively and

88

significantly correlated with academic performance (GPA)
both at mid-year (r = .528) and at the end of the year
(r = .554). Additionally, status was positively and sig-
nificantly correlated with teacher ratings of self suffi-
ciency, self control, achievement motivation and overall
classroom adjustment (three scales combined). Also, status
was positively but not significantly correlated with teach-
er ratings of physical ability and sociability. Finally,
status was negatively and significantly correlated with the
number of inappropriate behaviors observed and positively,
but non-significantly correlated with the number of appro-
priate behaviors observed. A more detailed correlational
analysis and a subsequent exploratory factor analysis found
that generally only the self control and non-self control
items were significantly related to sociometric status.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the behavior
observations; it appears that: (1) low status §§ seek the
attention and approval of the teacher more than high status
SS, probably reflecting the former's lack of self esteem
and dependency on external reinforcement; (2) high status
§§ have greater self control and are more able to work on a
task than low status SS, who show signs of anxiety (e.g.
restlessness, distractibility) in the classroom setting;
and (3) low status §§ generally show more ineffective, in-
appropriate and maladaptive behavior in the classroom than

high status SS, but high status §§ generally show only

89

slightly more effective, appropriate and adaptive behaviors
in the classroom than do low status SS. From the final
point, it can be concluded that low sociometric status is
more closely associated with a wide range of inappropriate
and maladaptive behaviors than with a few specific behav-
iors or classes of behaviors. This data, along with the
more global and indirect measures of social and academic
effectiveness (absence, GPA, and teacher ratings) indicate
that sociometric status is determined by a wide range of
behaviors which interact in a complex manner. Further re-
search is needed, particularly directed at the specific be-
haviors engaged in by the §§.°f high and low status and the

manner in which the behaviors affect social interaction.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alexander, A. Ordinal position and sociometric status.
Sociometry, 1966, 29, 41-51.

Ausubel, D.P., Schiff, H.M., & Gasser, E.B. A preliminary
study of developmental trends in socioempathy:
accuracy of perception of own and others' status.
Child Development, 1952, 23, 111-128.

Baron, D. Personal-social characteristics and classroom
social status. Sociometry, 1951, 14, 32-42.

 

Biehler, R.F. Comparison choice behavior in the kinder-
garten. Child Development, 1954, 25, 45-50.

Bjerstedt, A. The methodology of preferential sociometry.
Sociometry Monographs, 1956, no. 37.

Bonney, M.E. The relative stability of social, intellec-
tual, and academic status in grades II and IV and
the interrelationships between these various forms
of growth. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1943, 34, 88-102.(a)

. The constancy of seciometric scores and their
relationship to teacher judgements of social success
and to personality self-ratings. Sociometry, 1943
(b), 6, 409-424.

 

. Popular and unpopular children: a sociometric
study. Sociometry Monographs, 1947, no. 9.

Bornstein, A. The effects of examiner approval and disap-
proval upon the performance of subjects on the per-
formance scale of the WISC. Dissertation Abstracts,
1968, 28 (17-B), 3047.

 

Bower, E.M. A process for identifying disturbed children.
Children, 1957, 4, 143-147.

90

91

Brittain, C.V. Adolescent choices and parent-peer cross
pressures. American Sociological Review, 1963, 28,
385-391.

Bronfenbrenner, U. A constant frame of reference for
sociometric research. Sociometry, 1944, 7, 40-75.

 

Campbell, J.D. Peer relations in childhood, In Hoffman &
Hoffman, Review of Child Development Research, New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.

Campbell, J.D., & Yarrow, M.R. Perceptual and behavioral
correlates of social effectiveness. Sociometry,
1961, 24, 1-20.

 

Charlesworth, R., & Hartup, W.W. Positive social rein-
forcement in the nursery school peer group. Child
Development, 1967, 38, 993-1002.

 

Coleman, J.S. The Adolescent Society. New York: Free
Press, 1961.

 

Commoss, J.H. Some characteristics related to social iso-
lation of second grade children. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 1962, 53, 38-42.

 

Coopersmith, S. A method for determining types of self es-
teem. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1959, 59, 87-94.

. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman and Co., 19671

Criswell, J. Social structure revealed in a sociometric
retest. Sociometry, 1939, 2, 69-75.

 

Crowne, D.P., Holland, C.H., & Conn, L.K. Personality
factors in discrimination learning in children.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
10 (4), 420-430.

Echelberger, E. Relationships between personality trials
and peer status. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1959.

Elkins, D. Some factors related to the choice status of
ninety eighth grade children in a school society.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1958, 58, 207-272.

Feinberg, M.R. Stability of sociometric status in two
adolescent class groups. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 1964, 104, 83-87.

 

92

Ferguson, L.R., & Stollak, G.E. Family play therapy and
changes in deviant child behaviors: a research
proposal. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University, 1968.

Flanders, N.A., & Havumaki, S. The effect of teacher-pupil
contacts involving praise on the sociometric choices
of students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1960, 51, 65-68.

Frankel, E.B., & Potashin, R. A survey of sociometric lit-
erature on friendship and social acceptance among
children. Sociometry, 1944, 7, 422-431.

 

Glidewell, J.C., et a1. Socialization and social structure
in the classroom. In Hoffman & Hoffman, Review of
Child Development Research (vol. 2), New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1966.

 

 

Gooch, S., & Pringle, M. The association of attainment and
sociometric status with reported deviant behavior
in a progressive and a traditional junior school.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
1968, 7(3), 184-193.

 

Gounard, B. Effects of praise and censure on normal 85'
performance on a psychomotor task. PsychonomIE
Science, 1969, 15(2), 99-100.

Greenblatt, E.L. Relationship of mental health and social
status. Journal of Education Research, 1950, 44,
193-204.

 

Griffitt, W.B., & Byrne, D.A. A developmental investiga-
tion of the law of attraction. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 699-703.

 

Grossman, B., & Wrighter, J. The relationship between se-
lection, rejection and intelligence, social status,
and personality amongst sixth grade children.
Sociometry, 1948, 11, 346-355.

 

Harper, D.G. The reliability of measures of sociometric
acceptance and rejection. Sociometry, 1968, 31
(2), 219-227.

Hartup, W.W. Peer interaction and social organization. In
Mussen (ed.) Manual of Child Psychology. New York:
Wiley, 1969.

 

93

Hartup, W.W., Glazer, J.A., & Charlesworth, R. Peer rein-
forcement and sociometric status. Child Develop-
ment, 1967, 38, 1017-1024.

 

Hass, H.I., & Maehr, M.L. Two experiments of the concept
of self as the reaction of others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 100-105.

 

 

Heber, R.F., & Heber, M.E. The effect of group failure and
success on social status. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1957, 48, 129-134.

 

 

Helper, M. Learning theory and the self concept. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 184-
194.

 

Horrman, L.W. The father's role in the family and the
child's peer group adjustment. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 1961, 7, 97-105.

 

 

Horowitz, F.D. The relationship of anxiety, self concept,
and sociometric status among 4th, 5th, and 6th
grade children. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1962, 65, 212-214.

 

 

Horrocks, J.E., & Buker, M.E. A study of friendship fluc-
tuations of preadolescents. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 1951, 78, 131-144.

 

Horrocks, J.E., & Thompson, G.G. A study of friendship
choices of rural boys and girls. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 1946, 69, 189-198.

 

 

Hunt, J. McV., & Solomon, R.L. The stability and some
correlates of group status in a summer camp of young
boys. American Journal of Psychology, 1942, 55,
33-45.

 

Jennings, H.H. Structure of leadership development and
sphere of influence. Sociometry, 1937, 1, 99-143.

 

Karen, R.L. Operant conditioning and social preference.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State
University, 1965.

Keislar, E.R. Experimental development of "like" and "dis-
like" of others among adolescent girls. Child De-
velopment, 1961, 32, 59-66.

 

 

94

Kerstetter, L.M., & Sargent, J. Re-assignment therapy in
the classroom as a preventive measure in juvenile
delinquency. Sociometry, 1940, 3, 293-306.

 

Kuhlen, R.G., & Bretsch, H.S. Sociometric status and per-
sonal problems of adolescence. Sociometry, 1947,
10, 122-132.

 

Lippitt, R., & Gold, M. Classroom social structure as a
mental health problem. Journal of Soc. Issues,
1959, 15 (1), 40-49.

 

Lott, B.E., & Lott, A.J. The formation of positive atti-
tudes towards group members. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 297-300.

 

Ludwig, D.J., & Maehr, M.L. Changes in self concept and
stated behavioral preferences. Child Development,
1967, 38, 453-467.

 

Maehr, M.L., et a1. Concept of self and the reactions of
others. Sociometry, 25, 1962, 353-357.

 

Manis, M. Social interaction and the self concept. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 362-
370.

 

Marshall, H.R. An evaluation of sociometric-social behavior
research with preschool children. Child Develop-
ment, 1957, 28, 131-137.

 

Marshall, H.R., & McCandless, B.R. A study in prediction
of social behavior in preschool children. Child
Development, 1957, 28, 149-159.

 

McCandless, E.R., Castaneda, A., & Palermo, D.S. Anxiety
in children and social status. Child Development,
1956, 27, 385-391.

 

McCandless, E.R., & Marshall, H. A picture-sociometric
technique for preschool children and its relation to
teacher judgements of friendship. Child Develgp-
ment, 1957, 28, 139-148.

 

McKinney, J.P. The development of choice stability in
children and adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology, 1968, 113 (1), 79-83.

 

Miyamoto, S.F., & Dornbush, S.M. A test of interactionist
hypotheses of self conception. American Journal of
Sociology, 1955, 399-403.

 

 

95

Newstetter, W.I., Feldstein, J.J., & Newcomb, T.M. Group
Adjustment: A Study in Experimental Sociology.
Cleveland: Western Reserve University Press,
1938.

Northway, M.L. Outsiders. Sociometry, 1944, 7, 10-25.

 

Northway, M.L., & Wigdor, B.T. Rorschach patterns related
to sociometric status of school children. Soci-
ometry, 1947, 10, 186-199.

Perkins, H.V. Teachers' and peers' perceptions of child-
ren's self concepts. Child Development, 1958, 29,
203-220.

 

Mouton, J.S., Blake, R.R., & Fruchter, B. The reliability

of sociometric measures. Sociometry, 1955, 18, 7-
48.

 

Meyer, W., & Barbour, M. Generality of individual and
group social attractiveness over several rating
situations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1968,
113 (1), 101-108.

Meyer, W., & DeJung, J. The consistency of pupil rating
behavior over two socio—psychological need situa-
tions. Child Development, 1963, 34, 791-798.

 

Polansky, N., Lippitt, R., & Redl, F. An investigation of
behavioral contagion in groups. Human Relations,
1950, 3, 318-348.

 

Potashih, R. A sociometric study of children's friend-
ships. Sociometry, 1946, 9, 48-70.

 

Reese, H.W. Relationship between self acceptance and socio-
metric choice. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1961, 62, 472-474.

 

 

Rosen, S., Levinger, G., & Lippitt, R. Desired change in
self and others as a function of resource owner-
ship. Human Relations, 1960, 13, 187-193.

 

Schachter, S. The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford:
Stanford UnIversity Press, 1959.

 

Schachter, S. Birth order and sociometric choice. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 453-
456.

96

Sears, P.S. Pursuit of self esteem: the middlechildhood
years. Address presented at meetings of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, 1960.

Secord, P.F., & Beckman, C.W. Theories of interpersonal
attraction, in Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill,
1964, pp. 247-265.

 

Skorepa, C.A., Horrocks, J.E., & Thompson, G.G. A study
of friendship fluctuation of college students.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1963, 102, 151-157.

 

Taguiri, R. Relational analysis: an extension of socio-
metric method with emphasis upon social perception.
Sociometry, 1952, 91-103.

 

Thompson, G.G., & Horrocks, J.E. A study of friendship
fluctuations of urban boys and girls. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 1947, 70, 59-63.

 

Thorpe, J.G. An investigation into some correlations of
sociometric status within school classes. Sociom-
etry, 1955, 18, 49-61.

Trent, R.D. The relationship of anxiety to popularity and
rejection among institutionalized delinquent boys.
Child Development, 1957, 28, 379-384.

 

Turner, C. Color preference and self esteem among first
and second grade children. Unpublished manuscript,
Michigan State University, 1970.

Videbeck, R. Self conception and the reation of others.
Sociometry, 1960, 23, 351-359.

 

Wellman, B. The school child's choice of companions.
Journal of Education Research, 1926, 14, 126-132.

 

Wyer, R.S. Effect of child rearing attitudes and behavior
on children's responses to hypothetical social
situations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1965, 2, 480-486.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Teacher Rating Scales

 

Instructions to teachers:

Please rate all of the boys in your class on the
five scales for which definitions and rating sheets are
provided. These are: self-control; physical ability; self-
sufficiency; achievement motivation; and sociability. The
majority of your boys should fall readily into one of the
four boxes on each of the rating sheets. It is not expected
that a boy will necessarily fall in the same square on all
five scales. That is, a boy may be rated low on one scale,
medium-high on another, etc. So that the ratings on each
scale will be relatively independent of each other, please
rate all your boys on self-control, then proceed to physical
ability, etc. AlthOUgh only the end groups are defined for
each scale, the scales should be seen as more or less con-
tinuous dimensions ranging from "low" through "medium low"
and "medium high" to "high." The definitions of the scales
are:

l. Self-control
Poor self-control - This boy shows relatively

little self-control. He has difficulty following
rules, sitting still, and keeping his mind on his work.
He may get out of his seat and move about the room, talk
when he is supposed to be working, or bother others in
'the room. He may show angry outbursts, tantrums, or
whining when he is displeased. Generally he appears to
act on impulse, with little regard for the consequences
of his acts.

 

 

Good self-control - this boy shows a relatively
large degree of self-control, but he is not so control-
led or rigid but what he can be socially outgoing with
his peers and show aggressive behavior appropriate to
boys. He respects rules, pays attention, concentrates
on his work, and does not bother others. He shows re-
straint in his behavior, seems to think before acting.
However, he can still be spontaneous and act or express
himself when it appears appropriate to do so.

 

97

98

Physical abiligy

Poor physical ability - This boy tends to be
awkward and clumsy. He seems to lack the physical coor-
dination you would expect of a boy his age. He may be
interested in sports, but is not good at those which
require physical coordination. He does not seem to have
the makings of an athlete.

 

Good physical ability - This boy is agile,
graceful and well-coordinated in his movements. He does
well at games which require physical coordination; he
will probably be a good athlete. He seems to enjoy
physical activities and is often chosen for teams on the
basis of his skill.

 

Self-sufficiency

In rating on this scale it should be kept in
mind that some boys, because the content of the work is
more difficult for them, need more help than others.
Consideration of each boy's relative ability for doing
school work should help on these ratings. For example,
a boy of relatively low ability who asks for a moderate
amount of help should be rated higher on self-suffi-
ciency than a boy of high ability who asks for the same
amount of help.

 

Low self-sufficiency - This boy does not gener-
ally do things on his own. He seeks an unusual amount
of help from his teacher and/or peers, much more so
than his abilities would suggest was necessary. When-
ever things become difficult, he looks to others to tell
him what to do or to do his work for him. He has diffi-
culty starting things and carrying them through by him-
self. He may seek a lot of reassurance and affection
from his teacher.

High self-sufficiency - This boy generally goes
ahead on his own and does his work without seeking an
unusual amount of help from his teacher and/or peers.
He can fall back on himself when the going gets rough,
and he tends to carry things through to their end. He
does not seek a lot of reassurance or affection from
others. But he can ask for help or information when it
is appropriate to do so.

 

Achievement motivation - These ratings should take into
consideration the boy's relative ability for school
work. A boy of lesser ability who aspires to the same
heights as a more capable boy should be rated higher on
achievement motivation.

 

99

Low achievement motivation - This boy shows lit-
tle motivation to do well in his school work. He does
not seem to be very concerned about his performance and
does not put forth his best effort. He shows little
persistence, giving up easily on a job when diffi-
culties are encountered. His poor motivation does not,
however, keep him from being active in class.

 

High achievement motivation - This boy is highly
motivated to do well in his school work. He often shows
concern about his performance and tries to do his best.
He is persistent, sticking to a job until it is com-
pleted, even though he encounters difficulties. He does
not appear to be afraid of failing, entering actively
into competitive situations.

 

Sociability

Low sociabiligy - This boy is not very interested
in spending time with other children. He often chooses
to be by himself, and does not seem to have many friends.
He may be shy and somewhat of a "loner," or just be in-
terested in things he can do by himself.

 

 

High sociabiligy - This boy is always doing
things with other children and seems to have many
friends. He will always choose to be with a group
rather than by himself and always enters enthusiastical-
ly into group activities. He is socially out-going and
gregarious. '

 

100

.muHHHnm
HMUHmMCm UCm .NHHHHQMHOOm .HouuCoo MHmm .moCmHOHHHCm HHmm HOH poms mEHOm HCOHquUH«

.mmCOHm

mmmCu CH mumnECC qumemHo mHquHHm m>mC MME mmMHo “Cow .Ho>o30C H3OH CH m .30H ECHpmz
CH v .CmHm ECHCmZ mCu CH m .mCoum CmHm mCu CH CGHUHHCO m mHmumEonummm on UHCO3 mHCu
.maon mH Cqu mmMHo m Mom .mHmom =mmon Hng mCu mo muHm mCu MHCmCOH one CUHC3 mmsoum
v on“ CH OmHm CmHUHHCU mCu Ho ummu on» momHm CmCu .mHmom uCo» Co Ems» Ham .mHmom
mmMHo “Com Ho mUCm may on HHH3 mmmCu “won ummCmHC H50» UCm won umm30H HCOH Ho xCHCB
.mHmom mHCu Co Csoc no as on woe HH anCH EOHH quHmHHHU on mmE mmMHo HMHCoHuHmm HCow

 

woe mHme mo msom HHC
smHm thmussHemz zoqnssHumz 30H

 

 

 

 

/////_ / //// g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmfiHU mDON m0 mwom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HmCommB
Hooaom
ocmuw
mumo

 

eCOHHm>HHoE HCmEm>oHCo¢

mUZHfifim m0 ZOHBDmHMBmHQ

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Behavior Observation Instrument

 

Behavior Category

 

Sociability

Approaches peer(s)

Accepts or continues
interaction

Active peer group par-
ticipation

Non-Sociability

Active physical or
verbal rejection of
peer's approach

101

Definition and Examples

 

S makes verbal or physical con-
tact with peer(s). Ex:
greetings; requests; ques-
tions; holding; hitting; join-
ing a game or activity with
peer(s), etc.

(a) S responds favorably to
the approach of another. Ex:
smiles, hits peer(s) play-
fully; joins peer(s) in their
activities or follows their
suggestions or warnings. (b)
S continues an interaction
Beyond a two minute time
sampling interval; Ex: con-
tinue talking, playing, etc.

S actively participates in
some group activity (more than
three children) with consider-
able attention and enthusiasm.
Ex: gym period games or exer-
cises; baseball or football at
recess; singing; etc.

.§ actively or passively re-
jects another(s)' attempt at
interaction. Ex: hits an-
other, asks or tells other(s)
to leave; threatens other(s);
ignores other(s) when the ap-
proach is persistent and in-

Is rejected by others

No interaction in a
free play period

Non-participation in a
group activity

Self Sufficiency

Initiates new tasks
when appropriate

Voluntarily contrib-
utes answers or
suggestions

102

tense enough to he obviously
noticeable to the S, etc.

S attempts an interaction with
another, but is rejected. Ex:
S is hit, told to leave,
threatened, ignored, etc.

S does not engage in a single
Interaction during a two minute
period in a free period such

as recess. Ex: S walks alone;
plays alone, etc.--when oppor-
tunities for interaction are
readily available.

S does not participate in some
group activity (more than 3
children) with any degree of
attention or enthusiasm. Ex:
listless, difficulty in fol-
lowing the group in a gym,
recess or singing exerCise,
etc.

When S has finished an assign-
ment he goes on to another
task without prompting from
the teacher or when he is in
need of materials--he obtains
them. Ex: Open another book
or draws after completing an
assignment; sharpens pencil

or obtains paper.

S raises his hand, for any
reason, during a teacher di-
rected task. Ex: teacher
asks for the answer to a prob-
lem; S makes a suggestion.a-
bout a problem; S raises his
hand while the teacher is
demonstrating or talking; S
does not have to know the cor-
rect answer when and if he is

called upon.

. i '1 (I .III (I. I 1‘ .
I All ‘Ialullull ll! 1'

Non-Self Sufficiency

Seeks help, praise or
assurance from the
teacher for a task

Copies work or work
behaviors of peer(s)

Self Control

Complies with
adult(s)' direct
verbal order

Maintains attention
to own work or task

Attends to teacher or
ongoing activity

103

S approaches the teacher for
any reason. Ex: S asks per-
mission to do something; S
asks for help or says he can
not do a task; S shows the
teacher his work; S talks a-
bout a personal experience;
etc.

S glances at the work of an-
other or glances at another and
imitates his behavior exactly
during a lesson or test. Ex:
S takes the materials out of
his desk, copying the actions
of another; S stares for sev-
eral seconds at peer(s)‘ pa-
per then writes quickly on his
own paper; S asks to see an-
other's paper or takes it from
him and writes on his own pa-
per following this--the at-
tempt to copy is scored, whe-
ther or not it is successful.

S follows the directions of an
adult (teacher, librarian,
principal, etc.). Ex: sits
down, obtains materials, be-
gins work, cleans up, etc.--
when he or the class is in-
structed to do so.

‘S looks at his work (and may
also write) for more than one
minute of two minute time
sampling interval; Ex: works
on a test; art project, reading
lesson, etc.--either at the
teacher's direction or volun-
tarily on a task of his own
choosing when appropriate (no
other tasks to be completed).

‘S looks at the teacher when
she is explaining or demon-
strating or at an activity

104

conducted by other adults or
children, live or on film--
for more than one minute of a
two minute time sampling in-
terval. Ex: observes teach-
er giving directions or demon-
strating; observes TV lecture
or film; watches other child-
ren demonstrating (e.g. show
and tell), etc.

Non-Self Control

Disobeys teacher's ‘S does not follow an order to

direct verbal order him or to the class. Ex: ‘S
fails to sit down, clean up,
open book, go outside, etc.--
when told to do so, often with
teacher repeating the order to
him.

Disruptive behavior S'is reprimanded by the teach-
er for disrupting the class.
Ex: S is told to keep quiet,
to stand outside the room, to
go to the office, to stop an
activity which is interfering
with others, etc. Punishment
or threat or punishment usu-
ally but not always present.

Has delayed obeying 'S delays but finally obeys an

an order, but does so order, Ex: ‘S is the last to
clean up, sit down, open a
book, etc.--when told to do
so, but is not asked a second
time or reprimanded by the
teacher.

Easily distracted ‘S looks away from his assigned
work or task for more than one
minute of a two minute time
sampling interval. Ex: S
daydreams, stares out the win-
dow or at the walls; S glances
around the room; S attempts an
interaction during an assign-
ment or engages in any activ-
ity other than the assigned
activity.

 

 

 

l I'llll’llll'll‘f’ldll‘!

105

Motoric restlessness

Inappropriate going off
on own activity

Appropriate Aggression

Aggression in the
service of rules or
authority (prosocial)

Stands up for his
rights.

Roughhousing or com-
petitive games

S engages in any random motor
behavior during more than one
minute of a two minute time
sampling interval. Ex:
rocking in a chair; pulling an
ear; scratching head; tapping
foot; drumming fingers; suck-
ing or biting fingers, etc.

S engages in a task other than
the assigned task. Ex: S
plays with a game during an
assignment; does another as-
signment rather than the cur-
rent one; plays with tools or
materials (e.g. makes a game
out of rolling a pencil, pul-
ling his shoe string, throwing
a piece of paper); writes on
the desk during an assignment
or instructions from the teach-
er, etc.

‘S acts aggressively as the
agent of the teacher, parents
or society. Ex: S threatens
(or actually does) exposure of
another's errors or transgres-
sions. ‘S reminds others of
the rules and what is expected
of them, etc.

S makes sure he has what is
rightfully his and is treated
fairly. Ex: asks for paper
if he is accidentally not
given a sheet; insists on hav-
ing his turn in a game or
activity in which he has been
skipped; etc.

S participates willingly in an
aggressive game or unorganized
play. Ex: wrestling; foot-
ball; soccer; snowball fights;
etc.

 

f

Inappropriate Aggression

Hostile verbal

Hostile physical

Hostile towards
objects

106

S is verbally abusive or_
threatening. Ex: S threatens
another verbally or with ges-
ture; mimicks others mocking-
ly; cursing; spitting; etc.

S is excessively and inap-
propriately aggressive phys-
ically. Ex: hitting; push-
ing, slapping; tripping, etc.--
to the point of obvious dis-
tress by peer(s) (e.g. they
cry, yell "Stopl", etc.).

S damages an object or handles
an object in such a way that
damage to the object is prob-
able. Ex: slam a book to

the floor; breaks a pencil or
ruler; throws his clothes
down; hits an object with his
fists or another object, etc.

 

 

lilll‘lt‘llll‘lffl‘l‘lll“!

107

Behavior Observation Scoring Sheet

 

Approaches one or more peers

 

Accepts or continues inter-
action

 

Active peer group partici-
pation

 

Active physical or verbal
rejection of peer's ap-
proach

 

No interaction in any free
play in a 2 min. scoring
period

 

Non-participation in group
activit

  

propriate (e.g. obtains own
materials)

 
 
 

Iniiiates new tasks when ap-M”_

 

Voluntarily contributes an-
swers or suggestions

 

Seeks help, praise or assur-
ance from teacher for a task

 

Copies work or work behav-
iors of oeers

CompIiES W1th aduit s
rect verbal order

 

 

 
   

 

Maintains attention to own
work or task (for at least
1 min. or for 4 or fewer

distractions during 2 min.)

 

Attends to teacher or on-
going activity (for at
least 1 min.)

 

Disobeys teacher's direct
verbal order

 

Disruptive behaviors

 

Has delayed obeying order
but does so

 

Easily districted (5 or more
times looking up or for at
least 1 min.)

 

Motoric restlessness (5 or
more incidents or for at
least 1 min.)

 

Inappropriate going off on
own activity (leaving as-
si ned task)

Aggre551on 1n the serv1ce of
rules and authority (pro-
social)

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

Stands up for rights

 

Appropriate aggression
(e.g. rough-housing or
competitive games)

 

 

Hostile-verbal (including
mimicking and/or hostile
gestures)

 

Hostile-physicalgiand
verbal)

 

Hostile-toward objects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

APPEND IX C

Self Esteem Measure

 

Administer following the first and last therapy sessions or
interviews.

In each case, give the child a scoring sheet (stick figures),
and after reading the instructions to him, (below), ask
"Which boy are you?"

Each figure is described on the basis of a certain quality
or attitude or characteristic on a scale ranging from "loves
to" or "always" to "hates to" or "never." To avoid the de-
velopment of a "set" the descriptions will be read alter-
nately from left to right and from right to left. Also,
figures with positive and negative self esteem each appear
equally often on the left and on the right for the non-
practice questions (3 through 10).

Instructions:

 

1. This boy (pointing to figure Al) loves to eat candy.

This boy (pointing to figure B) likes to eat candy.

This boy (pointing to figure C) sometimes likes to eat
candy.

This boy (pointing to figure D) usually doesn't like to
eat candy.

This boy (pointing to figure E) never likes to eat
candy.

Which boy are you? (S points, S_circles figure he pointed

to and verifies the accuracy of the response: make sure the

figure circled is the one the child intended, had the quali-
ties he intendedz).

1"A" is always in the first position (left side), "B" is al-
ways in the second position,...."E" is always in the last
position (right side).

2After the S has made his response, verify the accuracy of

the response (whether the figure has the qualities the S

intended) by questioning ("What kind of boy is that?"

pointing to the figure the S selected) or by reflecting
the quality in a questioning manner ("You don't like
candy?" for example).

109

 

110

2. This boy (pointing to figure E) loves to play.

This boy (pointing to figure D) likes to play.

This boy (pointing to figure C) sometimes likes to play.

This boy (pointing to figure B) usually doesn't like to

play.

This boy (pointing to figure A) never likes to play.
Which boy are you? (S_points, E circles and questions as
above). '—

3. This boy (pointing to figure A) never shows people what
he's made.
This boy (pointing to figure B) usually doesn't show
people what he's made.
This boy (pointing to figure C) sometimes shows people
what he's made.
This boy (pointing to figure D) often shows people what
he's made.
This boy (pointing to figure E) always shows people what
he's made.
Which boy are you? (S points. S_circles and questions as
above).

4. This boy has (pointing to figure E) many friends.
This boy has (pointing to figure D) a few friends.
This boy has (pointing to figure C) some friends.
This boy has (pointing to figure B) one friend.

This boy has (pointing to figure A) no friends.

Which boy are you? (S points, E circles and questions as

above). —

5. This boy (pointing to figure A) is never yelled at.
This boy (pointing to figure B) once in a while is
yelled at.
This boy (pointing to figure C) sometimes is yelled at.
This boy (pointing to figure D) often is yelled at.
This boy (pointing to figure E) always is yelled at.
Which boy are you? (S points, S_circles and questions as
above).

6. This boy (pointing to figure E) always makes mistakes.
This boy (pointing to figure D) often makes mistakes.
This boy (pointing to figure C) sometimes makes mistakes.
This boy (pointing to figure B) usually doesn't make

mistakes.
This boy (pointing to figure A) never makes mistakes.

Which boy are you? (S_points, S_circles and questions as

above).

111

The other boys (pointing to
this boy.

The other boys (pointing
with this boy.

The other boys (pointing
with this boy.

The other boys (pointing
this boy.

The other boys (pointing
this boy.
Which boy are you?

above).

to
to
to

to

8. This boy (pointing to
things.

This boy (pointing to
help doing things.
This boy (pointing to

doing things.
This boy (pointing to figure
things.
This boy (pointing to
things.
Which boy are you?
above).

figure
figure

figure

figure

9. This boy (pointing to figure
with the other boys.

This boy (pointing to figure
the other boys.

This boy (pointing to figure
with the other boys.

This boy (pointing to figure
play with the other boys.
This boy (pointing to figure

the other boys.
Which boy are you?
above).
10. This boy (pointing to figure
somebody else.
This boy (pointing to figure
somebody else.
This boy (pointing to
somebody else.
This boy (pointing to
was somebody else.
This boy (pointing to
somebody else.
Which boy are you?
above).

figure
figure
figure

(S points, E

(S points, S

(S_points, S

(S points, S

If you had one wish ana

figure A) never play with

figure B) usually don't play

figure C) sometimes play

figure D) often play with

figure E) always play with

circles and questions as

E) never needs help doing

D) usually doesn't need

C) sometimes needs help

B) often needs help doing

A) always needs help doing

circles and questions as

A) always wants to play

B) often wants to play with

C) sometimes wants to play

D) usually doesn't want to
E) never wants to play with

circles and questions as

E) always wishes he was

D) often wishes he was
C) sometimes wishes he was
B) usually doesn't wish he
A) never wishes he was

circles and questions as
you could be somebody else,

112

who would you want to be? (Note response on blank sheet of
paper.) Why? (Note response).

This question was included to provide the examiner with
information concerning the child's understanding of "be
somebody else," as well as for useful diagnostic purposes.

APPENDIX D

\DGJQONU'Ioh-wNH

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

1.0000
0.5457
0.1971
0.0611
0.1351
-0.3666
-0.0115
0.2444
-0.3663
0.1255
0.1815
-0.3545
0.1635
-0.4737
-0.0207
0.5192
0.4483
-0.0331
0.3219
-0.0390
0.2159
-0.0207
0.3913
-0.0207
0.2847
0.0000

1.0000
0.1842
0.2259
0.0566
-0.1070
-0.1289
0.1064
-0.3829
-0.2875
0.1402
-0.3449
0.0454
-0.4004
0.1446
0.3721
0.2666
0.2075
0.1277
-0.0645
0.3796
0.2388
0.3807
0.0504
0.2960
0.0000

1.0000
0.1812
-0.3087
-0.1359
-0.1637
0.2834
0.1429
-0.0485
-0.0682
-0.2280
0.1443
-0.2008
-0.2947
-0.2035
-0.2359
-0.2021
-0.3519
-0.2841
0.0513
0.0641
-0.1l70
0.3032
-0.3001
0.0000

1.0000
0.0214

1.0000

-0.1667 -0.1286

-0.0786

0.4343

0.0292 -0.0564
-0.0177 -0.1572

-0.2675

0.1788

0.0485 -0.2028
-0.0993 -0.3746
0.2389 -0.2457
0.1654 -0.1006

-0.1414 0.1030

0.0761 0.0930
-0.1132 -0.l892
-0.3247 0.1561
-0.3265 0.3257
-0.2657 0.3212
-0.1132 0.2184

0.1886 0.2727
-0.0430 0.3541
-0.1414 -0.0667
-0.1903 0.5041

0.0000 0.0000

114

Behavior Observ

APPEN

Intercorrel
6 7
1.0000
-0.0786 1.0000
0.0292 0.0138
0.2303 -0.2422
-0.2675 0.0504
-O.1213 -0.0572
0.3642 -0.1561
-0.0796 0.3003
0.3197 -0.2859
-0.1414 -0.0667
-0.1903 -0.0897
-0.1132 -0.0534
0.0706 -0.0133
-0.1689 -0.0796
-0.2657 -0.1253
0.2831 -0.0534
-0.1414 -0.0667
-0.0430 0.4057
-0.1414 -0.0667
-0.l903 0.4128
0.0000 0.0000

DIX D

ation Categories
ation Matrix

\OCDQQU‘IQWNH

N hJ N ha N to H F4 H +4 H r4 H +4 H F-
cn n-c» kzta c>xo aa-q Oxtn h»£u m P- o

26

8

1.0000
0.1771
0.0688
0.0213
0.5111
0.3352
-0.2185
-0.4383
0.0334
0.0199
-0.1337
0.0296
-0.2144
0.2979
0.0248
-0.1510
-0.2067
-0.1536
0.0000

9

1.0000
0.1706
-0.3018
0.2112
-0.3047
0.4934
-0.2956
-0.1335
-0.1805
0.0810
-0.0180
-0.1073
-0.1805
0.1253
-0.3568
0.1253
-0.4735
0.0000

10

1.0000
-0.2856
-0.0354
-0.1022
-0.2714
-0.l917

0.2363
-0.0969
-0.0665

0.3783

0.0114
-0.0969
-0.1917

0.1566
-0.0504

0.2363

0.0000

11

1.0000
-0.1736
0.1391
-0.0369
0.4736
0.3270
0.6100
0.0370
-0.0311
0.1316
-0.0824
-0.1030
-0.0752
0.0892
0.3270
0.0000

115

12

1.0000
-0.2531
0.5739
-0.0187
-0.1664
-0.0675
0.0224
-0.1163
-0.3062
-0.2250
-0.2810
-0.0855
0.1124
-0.2723
0.0000

13

1.0000
-0.5057
-0.0901

0.0000

0.1082
-0.4587
-0.3442
-0.2031
-0.0000
-0.0901

0.0822
-0.1802
-0.1455

0.0000

14

1.0000
-0.0780
-0.2695
-0.0974

0.0542
-0.1139
-0.0316
-0.0974

0.0094
-0.4156
-0.1653
-0.3400

0.0000

 

uoooxlowmthH

+4 H r4 H +4 H F4 H +4 H
\o m ~4 m Ln n 00 N P4 o

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

15

1.0000
0.1400
0.3523
0.1997
0.1242
0.4059
-0.0961
-0.1200
-0.1217
0.2533
0.4415
0.0000

16

1.0000
0.5948
0.0581
0.4552
0.0364
-0.1293
0.1400
0.2949
-0.1615
0.2696
0.0000

17

1.0000
0.1151
0.2065
0.3250
-0.0769
-0.0961
-0.0292
-0.0961
0.2328
0.0000

116

18

1.0000
0.5856
0.2071
0.1151
-0.1358
-O.1094
0.1997
0.3290
0.0000

19

1.0000
0.2836
0.2065
-0.1433
0.0581
-0.0541
0.3832
0.0000

20

1.0000
0.0722
0.1954
-0.2607
-0.0150
0.2064
0.0000

\DmflmU'lubUJNH

N no N no N no N +4 H F- H F4 H +4 F'F- H
m Ln 9 care F‘CD 0 03-4 01th butu N +4 o

21

1.0000
-0.0961
-0.0292
-0.0961

0.2328

0.0000

22

1.0000
0.2191
-0.1200
-0.1615
0.0000

23

1.0000
0.0487
0.4325
0.0000

117

24

1.0000
0.1400
0.0000

25

1.0000
0.0000

26

 

 

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

The eight factor solution of a factor analysis of the 26

items of the behavior rating scale.

The items most heavily

loaded on each of the factors and their respective loadings
are presented. Item numbers are in parentheses.

(8)
(21)
(13)

(l)

(3)
(12)
(14)
(15)

(13)
(4)
(3)

(19)

(18)

(25)

(20)
(5)

(21)

(10)

(15)

(9)
(10)
(23)

(6)

Factor 1: Independence

Initiates new tasks when appropriate
Prosocial aggression

Maintains task attention

Approaches peers

Active peer group participation

Complies with orders
Attends to teacher or ongoing activity
Disobeys teacher's order

Factor 2: Attentiveness

Maintains attention to task
Rejects others
Active peer group participation

Motoric restlessness

Easily distracted

Hostile physical

Inappropriate going off on own activity

Is rejected

Prosocial aggression

Seeks help, praise or attention from
teacher

Disobeys teacher

Factor 3: Self Sufficiency
Contributes in class
Seeks help, praise, attention from teacher

Prosocial aggression
No interaction

118

.7174
.4045
.3766
.3133
.3129

-.6898
-.4487
-.2278

.6067
.4594
.3211

-.7411
-.7079
-.4280
-.4056
-.3916
-.2702

-.2538
-.2295

.3547
.2847
.2278
.2116

u _;_‘1_—H
l

 

 

.‘l'llllll
Illfr! All

(3)
(ll)
(l5)
(17)
(20)
(25)
(16)

(9)
(14)
(12)

(3)

(7)
(25)
(23)

(5)
(13)

(1)

(10)
(16)
(6)
(2)
(21)

(22)
(5)
(4)

(20)
(2)

(12)
(6)

(16)
(l)
(2)

(17)

(23)

(19)

119

Active peer group participation

Copies work of peers

Disobeys teacher

Delays obeying

Inappropriate going off on own activity
Hostile physical

Disruptive

Factor 4: Class Involvement

Contributes in class

Attends to teacher

Complies with orders

Active peer group participation

Non participation in group activity
Hostile physical

Appropriate aggression

Is rejected

Maintains attention to task
Approaches peers

Factor 5: Attention Seeking

Seeks help, praise, attention from teacher
Disruptive

No interaction in free play
Accepts or continues interaction
Prosocial aggression

Factor 6: Assertive

Stands up for his rights

Is rejected

Rejects approach of others
Inappropriate going off on own activity
Accepts the approach of peers

Complies with orders
No free play interaction

Factor 7: Activity

Disruptive

Approaches peers

Accepts the approach of peers
Delays obeying

Appropriate aggression
Motoric restlessness

.2101

-.7393
-.6734
-.6477
-.4579
-.2735
-.2267

.5916
.5257
.2492
.2120

-.6599
-.6306
-.6108
-.5129
-.2530
-.2081

.5858
.2100

-.4595
-.4523
-.4766

.6207
.4625
.3338
.3267
.2325

-.3967
-.2902

.7457
.7028
.5887
.4610
.4070
.3291

(ll)
(14)
(9)
(6)
(20)

(14)
(6)
(16)
(17)
(24)
(3)
(2)

120

Copies work of peers

Attends to teacher

Contributes

No interaction

Inappropriate going off on own activity
Factor 8: Non Group Participation

Attends to teacher or ongoing activity

No interaction in free play

Disruptive

Delays obeying

Hostile verbal
Active peer group participation
Accepts or continues interaction

.2024

-.3113
-.1918
-.1886
-.1832

.3058
.2539
.2257
.2121

-.6140
-.5029
-.2412

 

121

 

 

oooo.o oooo.o oooo.o oooo.o oooo.o oooo.o oooo.o oooo.o
mNmo.OI mmmH.o mHHo.OI Hmoo.OI momm.0I mmnm.ot ova.OI wmoo.ot
ova.ol mhml.01 momo.OI meo.o mHoo.OI mome.ou HmHH.OI fimVH.0I
ONmo.OI Ohov.o mmmo.o Hmoo.OI mOHw.OI mHNN.o H¢mo.o HmmH.oI
mnvo.o mmmo.o homm.o vMNo.OI mmmo.o mmmo.o NOHH.o Nooo.o
vmvo.o NmNo.o Nm¢o.OI mmhv.0I «ONH.OI NmOH.o N0HN.OI mqov.o
mHho.o NmmH.OI HmNm.o vmoH.o omoo.o mhmv.OI mmov.ou NNOH.o
mwvH.o HmNm.o Hmwo.OI mHhH.o m¢vo.OI HHNo.OI HH¢>.OI OHOH.o
mHNH.OI mnmo.o ¢VHO.OI omMH.OI omvo.o ¢¢mo.OI bach.0I mmmo.OI
HNHN.o 0Hm¢.o omVH.on vmvo.o vhho.o HH¢¢.OI mmmo.ot vao.o
HmNN.o Hmvb.o mhho.o OOHN.o mmmo.OI thN.OI vaH.OI tho.OI
vmmH.OI NHmo.OI Hmmo.o ¢mNo.OI HmmH.0I fiMhm.0I mmNN.0I mHNN.oI
mmom.o MHHm.OI mmmo.o mmmH.0I mem.o mmho.o mHho.OI hmvv.OI
mmmo.o HNvo.o HmmH.OI vmmo.o ommm.ou mMNH.OI Hmom.o mmwm.o
Hmmo.o NmNH.OI hmmm.01 NNHo.OI vaN.o HHmH.o vmmo.o momm.0I
mmoo.0I vNom.o MHHH.OI wwwo.on «Noo.o mmmh.0I HOOH.o NmHo.o
movo.o wVNH.o momH.OI mmmm.o mmNH.0I vaN.o mmmN.o1 Hmwo.o
tho.o mHmH.OI vMHo.o Hme.o mHmm.o hvmm.o HHOH.OI HHmO.OI
hovH.o HMNH.o Nmbo.OI mmmo.OI HHvH.o meH.o HmNH.o vHHH.o
meH.o mmvH.0I Homo.OI hmmo.o mmmm.OI mHmo.o mowo.o Nvmo.o
mmmN.o mmmH.OI NomN.0I mmmv.0I HmMH.o mHHN.o mmNo.OI mmMH.OI
mmnH.o mmmo.ou mva.o vao.o mNHm.OI mHNH.o mHmm.0I vao.o
mHNo.o mHmH.o mmmm.o HmMH.OI Ohmo.o o¢mo.o vmmv.o oomo.0I
mNom.OI Nmmo.o mmNo.o mmmo.0I OHHN.o HoHN.o HHNm.o mNHm.o
NH¢N.0I hmmm.o mNMN.o mmmv.0I HMHH.OI OMHH.0I mmmo.ol mth.o
NvOH.OI mNOH.o mMNO.o HmNo.o Hmom.0I OHmo.OI mwNo.OI mmHm.o
m H m m w m N H

.moHHommumo C0HHM>Hmm
Ino H0H>msmn may Co UmHMHCono mHmmHmCm HOHUMH oCu Ho COHHCHOm HOHOMH HCOHMII.HIm mHQma

m NHQmenHHw

RIES

11

 

"'11111111111119113111[1111111111111111111111