This study examined youths’ perceptions of sociometric assessments, and whether these perceptions were especially negative for youths with low social status. Participants were 598 primary and secondary school students (47% female, Mage = 11.80 years, SD = 1.16) who completed a sociometric assessment and rated their immediate experiences with the assessment and its short-term impact one week later. Participants rated the sociometric assessment as not difficult, enjoyable and useful for improving classroom dynamics. One week later, their reports remained positive, with some nuances. Secondary school students provided lower ratings than primary school students. Least popular nominations were associated with less enjoyment, less perceived usefulness, and more relief one week later. Surprisingly, least liked nominations were associated with less difficulty, and in secondary school, with more enjoyment. The results do not support a negative impact of sociometric assessment on early adolescents in general or on those with low status specifically.
Bell-DolanD. J.FosterS. L.ChristopherJ. M. (1992). Children’s reactions to participating in a peer relations study: An example of cost-effective assessment. Child Study Journal, 22(2), 137–156.
2.
Bell-DolanD. J.FosterS. L.SikoraD. M. (1989). Effects of sociometric testing on children’s behavior and loneliness in school. Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.306
3.
Bell-DolanD.WesslerA. E. (1994). Ethical administration of sociometric measures: Procedures in use and suggestions for improvement. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.25.1.23
4.
CillessenA. H. N.BukowskiW. M. (2018). Sociometric perspectives. In BukowskiW. M.LaursenB.RubinK. H. (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups (2nd ed., pp. 64–83). The Guilford Press.
5.
CrossD. A. (1966). An experimental study of the effects of negative sociometric choices on interpersonal relationships in grade five students. Doctoral thesis. Doctoral thesis, University of Oregon. https://hdl.handle.net/1794/26589.
6.
EttekalI.LaddG. W. (2015). Developmental pathways from childhood aggression-disruptiveness, chronic peer rejection, and deviant friendships to early adolescence rule breaking. Child Development, 86(2), 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12321
7.
GalanakiE. P. (2012). The imaginary audience and the personal fable: A test of Elkind’s theory of adolescent egocentrism. Psychology, 3(6), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.36065
8.
HayvrenM.HymelS. (1984). Ethical issues in sociometric testing: Impact of sociometric measures on interaction behavior. Developmental Psychology, 20(5), 844-849. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.20.5.844
9.
IversonA. M.BartonE. A.IversonG. L. (1997). Analysis of risk to children participating in a sociometric task. Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.104
KilfordE. J.GarrettE.BlakemoreS. J. (2016). The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.016
12.
KimB. K. E.OesterleS.CatalanoR. F.HawkinsJ. D. (2015). Change in protective factors across adolescent development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 40, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.04.006
13.
KiuruN.Salmela-AroK.LaursenB.VasalampiK.BeattieM.TunkkariM.JunttilaN. (2025). Profiles of loneliness and ostracism during adolescence: Consequences, antecedents, and protective factors. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 56(6), 1637–1657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-024-01664-8
14.
LaFontanaK. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x
15.
LandauS.BoyleS. R. (1990). Reactive effects of sociometric testing: Implications for children’s social behavior and affect. National Association of School Psychologists.
16.
LaursenB.VeenstraR. (2021). Toward understanging the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606
17.
MayeuxL.UnderwoodM. K.RisserS. D. (2007). Perspectives on the ethics of sociometric research with children. How children, peers and teachers help to inform the debate. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(1), 53–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23096291
18.
SandstromM. J. (2011). The power of popularity: Influence processes in childhood and adolescence. In CillessenA. H. N.SchwartzD.MayeuxL. (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 219–244). The Guilford Press.
19.
SieglerR. S.SaffranJ. R.GershoffE. T.LeaperC. (2024). How children develop (7th ed.). Worth Publishers.
20.
SomervilleL. H. (2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413476512
21.
StataCorp. (2017). Stata structural equation modeling. In Reference manual release 17. Stata Press.
22.
SumterS. R.BokhorstC. L.MiersA. C.PeltJ. V.WestenbergP. M. (2010). Age and puberty differences in stress responses during public speaking task: Do adolescents grow more sensitive to social evaluation?Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(10), 1510–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.05.004
23.
Troop-GordonW. (2017). Peer victimization in adolescence: The nature, progression and consequences of being bullied within a developmental context. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.012
24.
UnderwoodM. K.MayeuxL.RisserS.HarperB. (2006). The ecstasy and the agony of collecting sociometric data in public school classrooms: Ethical challenges, community concerns, and pragmatic solutions. In BanisterE.BenoitC.LeadbeaterB.JanssonM.MarshallA.RieckenT. (Eds.), Ethical issues in community-based research with children and youth (pp. 93–110). University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442674653
25.
Van HoornJ.Van DijkE.GüroğluB.CroneE. A. (2016). Neural correlates of prosocial peer influence on public goods game donations during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(6), 923–933. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw013
