Position in the perceived peer group organization was assessed using a multidimensional scaling strategy and was compared with measures of social status and mutual friendship in a sample of 404 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students. Perceived organization position was correlated significantly to social preference, like-most nominations, and like-least nominations but not to social impact. Furthermore, peer group members who were marginal in the perceived structure were more likely to have a rejected status and to be friendless, whereas those in a central position were more likely to be popular and have at least one friend. Most rejected students, however, were not marginal in the perceived structure. Marginal-rejected group members, compared with nonmarginal-rejected individuals, had more negative scores on social status measures. It was hypothesized that studying the overlap between position in the group’s perceived organization and social status might be useful for discriminating types of rejected children and adolescents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashby, F. G.
(1992). Multidimensional models of categorization. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 449-483). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Benenson, J. F.
(1990). Gender differences in social networks. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 472-495.
3.
Berndt, T. J.
(1984). Sociometric, social-cognitive, and behavioral measures for the study of friendship and popularity. In T. Field, J. L. Roopnarine, & M. Segal (Eds.), Friendship in normal and handicapped children (pp. 31-52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
Boivin, M.
, Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1995). Individual-group behavioral similarity and peer status in experimental play groups of boys: The social misfit revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 269-279.
5.
Bourne, L. E.
, Dominowski, R. L., Loftus, E. F., & Healy, A. F. (1986). Cognitive processes (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
Bukowski, W. M.
, & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development(pp. 15-45). New York: John Wiley.
7.
Cairns, R.
, Xie, H., & Leung, M. C. (1998). The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In W. M. Bukowski & A. H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring children’s experiences with the peer group (pp. 25-53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Cillessen, T.
, & Ferguson, T. J. (1989). Self-perpetuation processes in children’s peer relationships. In B. H. Schneider (Ed.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 203-221). Boston: Kluwer.
9.
Coie, J. D.
, & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: A fiveyear longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
10.
Coie, J. D.
, Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
11.
Coie, J. D.
, Dodge, K. A., & Kuperschmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Corsaro, W. A.
(1992). Interpretive reproduction in children’s peer cultures. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 160-177.
13.
Crick, N. R.
, & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.
14.
Davison, M. L.
(1983). Multidimensional scaling. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Davison, M. L.
, & Jones, L. E. (1976). A similarity-attraction model for predicting sociometric choice from perceived group structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 601-612.
16.
Forgas, J. P.
(1978). Social episodes and social structure in an academic setting: The social environment of an intact group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 434-448.
17.
Frederickson, N. L.
, & Furnham, A. F. (1998). Sociometric classification methods in school peer groups: A comparative investigation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 921-933.
18.
Goldstone, R. L.
(1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125-157.
19.
Hartup, W. W.
(1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44, 120-126.
20.
Hartup, W. W.
(1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1-13.
21.
Heit, E.
, & Barsalou, L. W. (1996). The instantiation principle in natural categories. Memory, 4, 413-451.
22.
Jackson, D. N.
, Messick, S. J., & Solley, G. M. (1957). A multidimensional scaling approach to the perception of personality. Journal of Psychology, 44, 311-318.
23.
Johnson, J.
, Ironsmith, M., & Poteat, G. M. (1994). Assessing children’s sociometric status: Issues and application of social network analysis. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, and Sociometry, 47, 36-48.
24.
Johnson, J. C.
, Poteat, G. M., & Ironsmith, M. (1991). Structural versus marginal effects: A note on the importance of structure in determining sociometric status. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 489-508.
25.
Jones, L. E.
(1982). Construal of social environments: Multidimensional models of inter-personal perception and attraction. In N. Hirschberg & L. G. Humphreys (Eds.), Multivariate applications in the social sciences (pp. 61-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Jones, L. E.
(1983). Multidimensional models of social perception, cognition, and behavior. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 451-472.
27.
Jones, L. E.
, & Koehly, L. M. (1993). Multidimensional scaling. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 95-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Jones, L. E.
, & Young, F. W. (1972). Structure of a social environment: Longitudinal individual differences scaling of an intact group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 108-121.
29.
Kelly, G. H.
(1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
30.
Kindermann, T. A.
(1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for individual development: The case of children’s motivation in school. Developmental Psychology, 29, 970-977.
31.
Kruskal, J. B.
, & Wish, M. (1978). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Multidimensional scaling (Vol. 11). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Lease, A. M.
, McFall, R. M., Treat, T. A., & Viken, R. J. (1998a). Child and teacher perceptions of peer group social structure: A multidimensional scaling approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
33.
Lease, A. M.
, McFall, R. M., Treat, T. A., & Viken, R. J. (1998b, May). Social structure of children’s peer groups: A multidimensional scaling analysis. “Hot topic” presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
34.
Maassen, G. H.
, van der Linden, J. L., & Akkermans, W. (1997). Nominations, ratings, and the dimensions of sociometric status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 179-199.
35.
Merluzzi, T. V.
, Rudy, T. E., & Krejci, M. J. (1986). Social skill and anxiety: Information processing perspectives. In R. E. Ingram (Ed.), Information processing approaches to clinical psychology (pp. 109-129). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
36.
Newcomb, A. F.
, & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 306-347.
37.
Newcomb, A. F.
, & Bukowski, W. M. (1984). A longitudinal study of the utility of social preference and social impact sociometric classification schemes. Child Development, 55, 1434-1447.
38.
Newcomb, A. F.
, Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A metaanalytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
39.
Parker, J. G.
, & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
40.
Parker, J. G.
, & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95-131). New York: John Wiley.
41.
Purkhardt, S. C.
, & Stockdale, J. E. (1993). Multidimensional scaling as a technique for the exploration and description of a social representation. In G. M. Breakwell & D. V. Canter (Eds.), Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 272-297). New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
Rosch, E. H.
, & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structures of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
43.
Ross, R. T.
(1934). Optimum orders for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 375-382.
44.
Rubin, K. H.
, Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 619-700). New York: John Wiley.
45.
Rudy, T. E.
, & Merluzzi, T. V. (1984). Recovering social-cognitive schemata: Descriptions and applications of multidimensional scaling for clinical research. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy: Vol. 3 (pp. 61-102). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
46.
Rudy, T. E.
, Merluzzi, T. V., & Henahan, P. T. (1982). Construal of complex assertion situations: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 125-137.
47.
Schiffman, S. S.
, Reynolds, M. L., & Young, F. W. (1981). Introduction to multidimensional scaling. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
48.
Smith, K. H.
, Pedersen, D. M., & Lewis, R. E. (1966). Dimensions of interpersonal perception in a meaningful ongoing group. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22, 867-880.
49.
Sprouse, C. L.
, & Brush, D. H. (1980). Assessing a quasi-therapy group by individual differences multidimensional scaling. Small Group Behavior, 11, 35-49.
50.
Sroufe, L. A.
, Bennett, C., Englund, M., Urban, J., & Shulman, S. (1993). The significance of gender boundaries in preadolescence: Contemporary correlates and antecedents of boundary violation and maintenance. Child Development, 64, 455-466.
51.
Stone, L. A.
, & Coles, G. J. (1971). Psychology graduate students’ multidimensional perceptions of their psychology faculty. Acta Psychologica, 35, 364-377.
52.
Stone, L. A.
, Coles, G. J., Sinnet, E. R., & Sherman, G. L. (1971). Multidimensional scaling used to evaluate students residing in a rehabilitation unit. Psychological Reports, 28, 879-886.
53.
Stormshak, E. A.
, Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1999). The relation between behavior problems and preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70, 169-182.
54.
Terry, R.
, & Coie, J. D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867-880.
55.
Wright, J. C.
, Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups: Individual-group similarity and the social “misfit.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 523-536.
56.
Young, F. W.
, & Hamer, R. M. (Eds.). (1987). Multidimensional scaling: History, theory, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
