Opposites Do Not Attract: Social Status and Behavioral-Style Concordances and Discordances Among Children and the Peers Who Like or Dislike Them

Nangle, Douglas W.; Erdley, Cynthia A.; Zeff, Karen R.; Stanchfield, Lora L.; Gold, Joel A.

doi:10.1023/b:jacp.0000030295.43586.32

Cited by 48 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Early work by Nangle, Erdley, and Gold (1996) indicated that rejected, disruptive children tend to associate at school with peers who are similarly disruptive; these peers are not likely to provide much reinforcement for prosocial behaviors and, in fact, may punish them. Although a later study by the same research group (Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004) only partially replicated this earlier finding (i.e., the tendency to associate with others similar to oneself was found for girls but not boys), both studies by colleagues (1996, 2004) found that in terms of disliking, more rejected, disruptive children tended to be disliked by more popular, prosocial children-those most likely to display adaptive social skills. The end result may be that rejected disruptive children rarely associate with, or receive reinforcement from, children most likely to value the social skills they have been taught.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Peer-Assessed Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Hoza¹,

Gerdes²,

Mrug³

et al. 2005

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Self Cite

227

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer-assessed outcomes were examined at the end of treatment (14 months after study entry) for 285 children (226 boys, 59 girls) with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who were rated by their classmates (2,232 classmates total) using peer sociometric procedures. All children with ADHD were participants in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA). Treatment groups were compared using the orthogonal treatment contrasts that accounted for the largest amount of variance in prior MTA outcome analyses: Medication Management + Combined Treatment versus Behavior Therapy + Community Care; Medication Management versus Combined Treatment; Behavior Therapy versus Community Care. There was little evidence of superiority of any of the treatments for the peer-assessed outcomes studied, although the limited evidence that emerged favored treatments involving medication management. Post hoc analyses were used to examine whether any of the four treatment groups yielded normalized peer relationships relative to randomly selected-classmates. Results indicated that children from all groups remained significantly impaired in their peer relationships.Despite the widely accepted premise that children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have problematic peer relationships, the mechanisms underlying these peer difficulties remain poorly understood. Deficits in social skills knowledge, performance, and selfcontrol all have been postulated as important factors (for reviews, see Mrug, Hoza, & Gerdes, 2001;Wheeler & Carlson, 1994). Whereas earlier studies (e.g., Cunningham, Siegel, & Offord, 1985) suggested that inattentiveness may be a factor limiting opportunities for observational learning of social skills in children with ADHD, more recent work focuses on performance deficits (Barkley, 2000). Further, it is now widely accepted that a major contributing factor to the peer problems of children with ADHD is their largely unrestrained, overbearing interaction style, characterized by hyperactivity, aggression, bossiness, and other forms of controlling behavior that make them highly aversive to peers (see Mrug et al., 2001;Whalen & Henker, 1992, for reviews).Stimulant medication is useful for reducing rates of these negative and controlling behaviors (Cunningham et al., 1985) but typically yields few corresponding increases in positive behaviors (see Landau &Moore, 1991, andHenker, 1991, for reviews). Nonetheless, laboratory studies requiring normal peers to rate videotaped behavior of children with ADHD in both medicated and unmedicated states suggest that medication-related improvements in behavior are quite apparent to nondeviant peers even after short periods of observation (e.g., 15 min; Whalen, Henker, Castro, & Granger, 1987). Such findings suggest that medication may be an important part of any intervention for the peer problems of children with ADHD but that additional interventions are needed.Most psychological interventions for childhood peer problems are based on the social sk...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Peer-Assessed Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Hoza¹,

Gerdes²,

Mrug³

et al. 2005

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Self Cite

227

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Journal Of Research On Adolescencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few of these studies related sociometric popularity to disliking relations (cf. Nangle, Erdley, & Gold, 1996;Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004), although status measurements that combine liking and disliking ties are readily available (Bonacich & Lloyd, 2004). …”

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Status competition and the resulting status perceptions in particular are important drivers of the formation of relational ties and peer influence (e.g., Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011;Faris & Ennett, 2010;Faris & Felmlee, 2011; Faris, 2012). Only few studies attempted thus far to explain how status is responsible for the emergence of disliking ties (e.g., Berger & Dijkstra, 2013;Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004).Status competition has been understood in several different ways in the literature, just as status itself has various conceptualizations. Sociometric popularity (Nangle, Erdley, & Gold, 1996) and an aggregated status attribution measure, which was constructed as the difference between "popular" and "not popular" nominations by peers, have previously been (Berger & Dijkstra, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Status Perceptions Matter: Understanding Disliking Among Adolescents

Pál

Stadtfeld

Grow

et al. 2015

J of Research on Adolesc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The emergence of disliking relations depends on how adolescents perceive the relative informal status of their peers. This notion is examined on a longitudinal sample using dynamic network analysis (585 students across 16 classes in 5 schools). As hypothesized individuals dislike those who they look down on (disdain) and conform to others by disliking those who they perceive as being looked down on by their peers (conformity). The inconsistency between status perceptions also leads to disliking, when individuals do not look up to those who they perceive to be admired by peers (frustration). No evidence is found that adolescents do not dislike those who they look up to (admiration). Results demonstrate the role of status perceptions on disliking tie formation. Interpersonal relationships among adolescents play a central role in their social development. Recent research suggests that although disliking ties are reported less frequently than liking relations, they are present in adolescents' everyday life and therefore drive their development in fundamental ways (Card, 2010). Compared to positive emotional relationships, such as friendship or liking, disliking ties are relatively rare (e.g., Baldwin, Bedell, & Johnson, 1997; Card, 2010; Gersick, Dutton, & Bartunek, 2000; Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998). Although disliking ties are scarce, they are very powerful: studies that successfully measured them found that disliking relations have a disproportionally greater effect on satisfaction, mood, performance and stress than liking relations, which has been described as a "negative asymmetry" (Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998; Labianca & Brass, 2006;Moerbeek & Need, 2003). Journal of Research on AdolescenceDisliking relations should be studied in a network context, given that they are not independent from each other (Huitsing et al., 2012). Disliking nominations depend on each other in various ways. They are often reciprocated (e.g., Berger & Dijkstra, 2013; Card, 2010) and balanced in triadic relations (Cartwright & Harary, 1956;Hummon & Doreian, 2003;Ludwig & Abell, 2007; Marvel, Kleinberg, Kleinberg, & Strogatz, 2011;Wang & Thorngate, 2003). Moreover, heterophobia exists as people dislike dissimilar others (Flache & Mäs, 2008). Going beyond these elementary structural processes, we argue that a crucial factor that requires particular attention for the explanation of the emergence of disliking relations is status.Gaining status among peers represents a major goal for adolescents (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; Pellegrini & Long, 2002), and high status adolescents are more influential than their low status peers as they have a major role to set the norm in a class (Rambaran, Dijkstra, & Stark, 2013). Status competition and the resulting status perceptions in particular are important drivers of the formation of relational ties and peer influence (e.g., Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011;Faris & Ennett, 2010;Faris & Felmlee, 2011; Faris, 2012). Only few studies attempted thus far to explain how status is responsible fo...

show abstract

“…Beyond organizations, researchers have found sex-specific homophily effects in recruitment to Injection Drug Use (IDU) (Heckathorn 2002), in telephone usage (Smoreda and Licoppe 2000), and in socializing behavior among school-aged children (Hanish et al 2005;Kiesner, Poulin and Nicotra 2003;Nangle et al 2004). 18 The choice of which is the result of addition and which of subtraction is unimportant.…”

Section: Tipping Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tipping Points: Referral Homophily and Job Segregation

Rubineau

Fernández

2010

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does referral recruitment contribute to job segregation? Current theory emphasizes the segregated nature of job-seekers' information and contact networks. The job-seeker perspective characterizing most research on network effects in the labor market leaves little role for organizational influence. But referrals are necessarily initiated within a firm by referrers. This paper focuses on the neglected half of the referring dyad and seeks to explain the segregating effects of referring from the referrer's perspective. Our main finding is that if a firm can get its under-represented group to refer more, referral recruitment can be made neutral to job segregation, or even integrative. Our analysis reveals a tipping point in referring dynamicsprecisely how much more the under-represented group needs to refer to neutralize the segregating effects of referring. We build upon previous research to generate a formal model of referring dynamics as a regular Markov population process. We use this model to build theory regarding the segregating effects of referring, and the role of organizations in this process. In so doing, we show the prevailing wisdom fails to explain how referring contributes to job segregation. We reveal the conditions necessary for referring to segregate and identify policy levers for firms to mitigate this effect.

show abstract

Opposites Do Not Attract: Social Status and Behavioral-Style Concordances and Discordances Among Children and the Peers Who Like or Dislike Them

Cited by 48 publications

References 9 publications

Peer-Assessed Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Peer-Assessed Outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Status Perceptions Matter: Understanding Disliking Among Adolescents

Tipping Points: Referral Homophily and Job Segregation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About