1993
DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.236
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Children's beliefs about familiar and unfamiliar peers in relation to their sociometric status.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

4
64
2
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
4
64
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings are in line with those reporting that aggressive rejected students tend to overestimate their competence in some domains, such as their social competence (Hymel et al, 1993;Patterson et al, 1990). Other studies have found that some aggressive rejected students are not aware of their social status (Zakriski & Coie, 1996) while nonaggressive rejected students seem to be more realistic about their social situation at school, and consequently, they have less positive beliefs about their peers (Rabiner, Keane, & MacKinnon-Lewis, 1993). Moreover, friends of aggressive rejected students are usually students with the same social status or better (e.g., popular status) (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003), which also contributes to the explanation why they have a good self-perception of their social relationships.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…These findings are in line with those reporting that aggressive rejected students tend to overestimate their competence in some domains, such as their social competence (Hymel et al, 1993;Patterson et al, 1990). Other studies have found that some aggressive rejected students are not aware of their social status (Zakriski & Coie, 1996) while nonaggressive rejected students seem to be more realistic about their social situation at school, and consequently, they have less positive beliefs about their peers (Rabiner, Keane, & MacKinnon-Lewis, 1993). Moreover, friends of aggressive rejected students are usually students with the same social status or better (e.g., popular status) (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003), which also contributes to the explanation why they have a good self-perception of their social relationships.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…The "perception-of-peers" part of the peer-relational schema was assessed with 13 items describing positive and negative qualities of children's peers, such as "They can really be relied on," "They are hostile," or "They really care about what happens to me." Like the similar inventories previously used by Rabiner et al (1993) and Ladd and Troop-Gordon (2003), this measure included items about peers' supportiveness, kindness, and trustworthiness versus their unsupportiveness, hostility, and untrustworthiness: A complete list of the items is 1 For a subset of our sample, the links between social goals and three behavior variables have been reported elsewhere (Ojanen et al, in press): Proactive aggression seems to be concurrently positively associated with agentic goals, whereas prosocial behavior is positively related to communal goals and negatively related to agentic goals, and withdrawal is associated with low levels of both agentic and communal goals. The focus of the present study was not on associations between goals and behavior, and we included the behavior variables in the study mainly for the purposes of testing the mediational model.…”
Section: Peer-relational Schemasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bulk of such studies have looked at the associations between children's self-perception and their social adjustment (e.g., Boivin & Hymel, 1997;Brendgen, Vitaro, Turgeon, Poulin, & Wanner, 2003;Hughes, Cavell, & Grossman, 1997;Salmivalli, 1998;Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999;van Boxtel, Orobio de Castro, & Goossens, in press;Verschueren & Marcoen, 2002). On the other hand, there is a completely different set of studies addressing children's representation of peers in terms of peer beliefs (Rabiner et al, 1993), internal representational models of peers , and attributional biases concerning peers' intentions in hypothetical situations (see Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Vosch, & Monshouwer, 2002). Even in the few studies involving both self-and peer perceptions (e.g., Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003;Rudolph & Clark, 2001;Rudolph et al, 1995), these two constructs are typically treated separately, and their unique, rather than joint, effects on the outcome variables of interest are examined.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations