Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Nomination procedures for assessing peer behaviors are in wide use, and mixed-sex peer nominations are often utilized under the assumption that combined same- and opposite-sex nominations yield a representative picture of children's behaviors and relationships to other variables. Analyses of nominations made by 457 Turkish third and fifth graders for 14 peer behaviors and for liked-/disliked-a-lot illustrate the productiveness of separately assessing same-sex and opposite-sex nominations, showing that: (a) a bias toward more nominations for same-sex peers is not consistent over all behaviors; and (b) although same-sex and combined same-/opposite-sex nominations are strongly related, the agreement between same- and opposite-sex nominations is substantially lower. The outcome is that (a) sociometric status classification depends on the nominating population and (b) the relationship between peer-assessed behaviors and peer acceptance/peer sociometric status can differ, depending upon whether the reference group is same- or opposite-sex peers. Findings bring into question the routine use of mixed-sex nominations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bower, E. M. (1969). Early identification of emotionally handicapped children in schooL Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Bracken, B. A. , & Crain, R. M. (1994). Children's and adolescents' interpersonal relations: Do age, race, and gender define normalcy? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 14-32.

Chen, X. , Rubin, K. H. , & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 63, 1336-1343.

Chimienti, G. (1996). Peer behaviors valued by Turkish 3rd, 5th, and 7th graders. Poster presented at the Turkish Psychology Congress, Istanbul, Turkey.

Chimienti, G. , & Trilivas, S. (1995). Cognitive and behavioral effects of social skills training on Greek and Lebanese elementary school children. International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 53-68.

Cohen, R. J. , Swerdlik, M. E. , & Smith, D. K. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Coie, J. D. , Dodge, K. A. , & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-571.

Coie, J. D. , Dodge, K. A. , & Kupersmidt, 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.

Coie, J. D. , & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys' groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.

10.

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.

11.

Dubow, E. F. (1988). Aggressive behavior and peer social status of elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior 14, 315-324.

12.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1995). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Kagitcibasi, C. , & Sunar, D. (1992). Family and socialization in Turkey. In J. P. Roopnarine & D. B. Carter (Eds.), Parent-child relations in diverse cultural settings: Socialization for instrumental competency (pp. 75-88). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.

14.

Krispin, O. , Sternberg, K. J. , & Lamb, M. E. (1992). The dimensions of peer evaluation in Israel: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 299-314.

15.

Kupersmidt, J. B. , Griesler, P. C. , DeRosier, M. E. , Patterson, C. J. , & Davis, P. W. (1995). Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development, 66, 360-375.

16.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships, a developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.

17.

Masten, A. S. , Morison, P. , & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class play method of peer analysis. Developmental Psychology, 21, 523-533.

18.

Newcomb, A. F. , Bukowski, W. M. , & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.

19.

Ollendick, T. H. , Weist, M. D. , Borden, M. C. , & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80-87.

20.

Parker, J. G. , & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

21.

Schneider, B. (1992). Didactic methods for enhancing children's peer relations. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 363-382.

22.

Terry, R. , & Coie, J. D. (1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 867-880.

23.

Williams, B. , & Gilmour, J. D. (1994). Sociometry and peer relationships. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 997-1013.

Assessing the (In-)Consistency of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Peer Nominations among Turkish Elementary-School Children

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References