The Academic Lives of Neglected, Rejected, Popular, and Controversial Children

Author(s): Kathryn R. Wentzel and Steven R. Asher

Source: Child Development, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Jun., 1995), pp. 754-763
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131948
Accessed: 02-11-2015 03:49 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131948?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Academic Lives of Neglected, Rejected,

Popular, and Controversial Children
Kathryn R. Wentzel
University of Maryland, College Park

Steven R. Asher
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

R. TheAcademicLivesof Neglected,Rejected,PopuSTEVEN
WENTZEL,
R., andASHER,
KATHRYN
DEVELOPMENT,
lar, and ControversialChildren.CHILD
1995,66, 754-763. The purposesof this
relevantcharacteristics
of differentsociometricstatusgroups
studywereto examineacademically
of behavioralsubgroupsof rejectedchildren.Results
andto learnaboutthe academicorientations
froma sampleof 423 sixth and seventh graders(ages 11-13) suggestedthat sociometrically
neglectedchildrenhave quite positiveacademicprofiles.Whencomparedwith averagestatus
children,these studentsreportedhigher levels of motivation,were describedby teachersas
more self-regulatedlearners,as more prosocialand compliant,and as being better liked by
teachers.Analysesof two behavioralsubgroupsof rejectedchildrenindicatedthataggressivechildrenhave problematicacademicprofiles.Relationsof
rejectedbut not submissive-rejected
statusto academicadjustmentin youngadolescents'lives is
neglectedand aggressive-rejected
discussed.
Research on sociometric status and peer
acceptance has consistently shown that peer
relationships are related to children's academic lives at school. Elementary-aged children who are not accepted by their classmates tend to do less well academically than
more popular children (Austin & Draper,
1984; Li, 1985; Muma, 1965) and appear to
be at risk for dropping out during the high
school years (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt,
1990; Parker& Asher, 1987). Sociometrically
neglected and controversial children have
been studied less frequently. However, recent evidence suggests that during early adolescence neglected children tend to earn
higher grades than those of their average status peers (Wentzel, 1991a).
In the present study we extend the work
on sociometric status and school adjustment
by examining academically relevant characteristics of rejected, neglected, controversial, and popular children. By definition,
sociometrically rejected children are those
who are infrequently nominated as someone's best friend and are actively disliked
by their peers, whereas neglected children

are those who are infrequently nominated as

a best friend but are not disliked by their
peers. Controversial children are those who
are both frequently nominated as someone's
best friend and as being actively disliked,
whereas popular children are frequently
nominated as a best friend and rarely disliked by their peers. We explored the possibility that these sociometric status groups
differ from average status students along
four dimensions related to academic success: motivation to achieve academically,
tendencies to be self-regulated learners, displays of prosocial and compliant classroom
behavior, being liked by teachers, and academic reputations among peers.
Young adolescents were the focus of this
research. Given that students' identification
with and conformity to peers increases dramatically during early adolescence (Berndt,
1979), it is likely that peer relationships
would have a particularly strong relation to
school adjustment during this period of development. Moreover, in contrast to a large
literatureon the bases of peer acceptance in
childhood, much less is known about this

This research was funded in part by training grant HD07025 from the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. Special thanks are due to Phillip Smith and the staff

of NorthRidgeMiddleSchoolin Danville,Illinois,fortheircooperationandhelp in conducting

this study.Correspondence
concerningthis researchshouldbe addressedto KathrynWentzel,
3304BenjaminBuilding,Departmentof HumanDevelopment,Universityof Maryland,College
Park,MD 20742.
1995,66, 754-763.? 1995by the SocietyforResearchin ChildDevelopment,Inc.
[ChildDevelopment,
All rightsreserved.0009-3920/95/6603-0007$01.00]

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wentzel and Asher

aspect of social competence during early adolescence (see Parkhurst& Asher, 1992, for
a recent exception).
Little is known about the processes that
link peer relationships to school adjustment.
Therefore, a major objective of this study
was to examine reasons why sociometric status and academic competencies might be
related. One reason to expect a relation
between sociometric status and academic
adjustmentis that being accepted or rejected
by peers might differentially influence children's desire to achieve academically and
participate in learning activities. Having
friends and a supportive peer group might
be especially important for understanding
motivation to achieve during the middle
school years (Savin-Williams & Berndt,
1990), a time when gaining a sense of belonging and group identity becomes an increasingly important concern (Gottlieb,
1991).
Along these lines, Connell and Wellborn (1991) have suggested that a sense of
relatedness contributes to the adoption of
goals defined by social groups or institutions, whereas a lack of relatedness or disaffection is characterizedby a rejection of such
goals. With respect to sociometric status, it
would follow that young adolescents who
are well accepted by their peers might have
higher levels of motivation to engage in
classroom activities than those who are rejected.
Therefore, we examined motivation to
achieve as a function of sociometric status.
Motivation was conceptualized broadly, to
include children's commitment to schoolwork, interest in school, effort expended in
the classroom, and concern with earning
positive evaluations of work. Each of these
general aspects of motivation reflects active
engagement in the educational process and
the pursuit of valued classroom goals
(Maehr, 1984; Sivan, 1986; Wentzel, Weinberger, Ford, & Feldman, 1990).
A second reason to expect links between
sociometric status and academic competencies is that the self-regulatory skills and
types of social behavior associated with sociometric status also appear to be related to
academic success. With respect to selfregulatory skills, children who display mature and independent behavior, who are
self-confident, and who demonstrate high
levels of impulse control when interacting
with their peers also experience higher levels of peer acceptance than those who do not

755

(Coie et al., 1990; Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis,

1990). Students who display independence
by mastering subject matter on their own,
who are self-assured and confident, and who
demonstrate high levels of impulse control
in the classroom also do better academically
than those who do not (Wentzel, 1991b).
As with self-regulatory skills, specific
forms of social behavior that predict sociometric status have also been linked to academic competence in elementary-schoolaged children. In particular, children who
display helpful and cooperative behavior
tend to be well liked by their peers and to
earn high academic grades. Conversely,
children who act aggressively and violate social norms tend to be rejected by their peers
and also tend to be relatively poor students
(see Coie et al., 1990; Wentzel, 1991b).
Relations of self-regulatoryskills and social behavior to sociometric status and academic outcomes have not been studied extensively beyond the elementary school
years. However, we expected that independence, self-confidence, and impulse control,
and displays of prosocial and nonaggressive
classroom behavior might also be important
for explanations of links between sociometric status and academic outcomes during
early adolescence.
A third reason why sociometric status
and academic adjustment might be related
is that the quality of students' relationships
with teachers might parallel those they have
with their classmates. For instance, previously reported findings indicate that teachers tend to dislike children who are also disliked by their peers (Taylor, 1989). This is
important for understanding academic adjustment because children who are rejected
by teachers also tend to receive less help
and more criticism from teachers and perhaps, as a consequence, earn lower grades
than children who are not disliked by their
teachers (Brophy & Good, 1974). Because
little is known concerning teachers' preferences for students in other status classifications, we included this variable in our study.
Finally, we examined the possibility
that students' academic reputations might
be related to their social acceptance by
peers. This is especially likely during early
adolescence, when children are more likely
to categorize their peers according to academic performance (Brown, 1990). We studied this issue by examining how children of
different status groups were perceived academically by their classmates.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

756

Child Development

To summarize thus far, a majorpurpose

of the present study was to extend the work
on school adjustment and sociometric status
by creating a richer portraitof rejected, neglected, controversial, and popular children's academic lives at school. Of interest
in this research were sociometric status differences in children's motivation to achieve,
self-regulatoryskills, social behavior, the degree to which they are liked by teachers, and
academic reputations in comparison to average status peers.
A second objective of our study was to
examine academically relevant characteristics of two distinct subgroups of rejected
children, those who are behaviorally aggressive and those who are behaviorally submissive (Rubin et al., 1990). Evidence suggests
that these two subgroups differ in their feelings of loneliness and in their interpersonal
concerns (Boivin, Thomassin, & Alain, 1989;
Parkhurst& Asher, 1992; Williams & Asher,
1987), with the submissive-rejected group
reportinggreater loneliness and more worry
about their peer relationships.
Research has not yet examined whether
aggressive-rejected and submissive-rejected
children differ in levels of achievement or
with respect to other academic characteristics. However, given the consistent findings
relating aggressive behavior as well as rejected status to academic failure, we expected that the aggressive-rejected subgroup might be at greater risk for academic
problems than submissive-rejected children
(Parker& Asher, 1987; Wentzel, 1991b).

and seventh-grade population). All students

in these 21 classrooms participated unless
parental permission was denied (n = 3).
Special education students in self-contained
classrooms were excluded from the study.
Data were collected from teachers and students in late spring.
Procedure
All measures were administered by the
first author during regular class sessions.
Students were told that all of their answers
would be confidential and that they did not
have to answer any of the questions if they
did not want to. All instructions and questions were read to the students. Teachers remained in their classrooms while students
filled out the questionnaires.

Measures
Sociometric status.-Status
among
peers was determined from best friend nominations and peer acceptance ratings (Asher
& Dodge, 1986). To obtain best friend nominations, students were given a list of their
same-sex classmates participating in the
study and asked to circle the names of their
three best friends. Students were told they
could circle up to three names but if they
had fewer than three best friends on the list
they did not have to circle three. To assess
peer acceptance, students were given lists
of 25 randomly selected names of same-sex
classmates from their team or grade for each
name. Children were asked to respond on a
five-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very
much): "How much would you like to be
in school activities with this person?" (see
Method
Wentzel, 1991a). School activities were defined broadly for students, including social
Subjects
as well as academic activities. Students were
Data for this research were drawn from instructed to cross out the names of classa larger project designed to examine social mates
did not know. The random selecand intellectual adjustmentat school in early tion they
resulted in each student ratprocedure
adolescence (Wentzel, 1991a). In all, 423
a unique set of names and in each
ing
sixth- and seventh-grade students from a student
receiving an average of 25 ratings.
sixth through eighth grade middle school
Based on Asher and Dodge's (1986) variparticipatedin the study. The school was in
a predominantly working-class, midwestern ation of the Coie and Dodge (1983) procecommunity. The average student age was dure, five sociometric status groups were
11.87 years and 13.08 years for sixth and sev- formed, identifying 66 popular, 64 rejected,
enth graders,respectively. Fifty-two percent 65 neglected, 40 controversial, and 80 averof the sample were males and 48% were fe- age children. Two aspects of our procedure
males, with 68% of the sample Caucasian, are worthy of note. First, the Asher-Dodge
23% African-American, 5% Hispanic, and procedure tends to identify a smaller subset
7% members of other minority groups. Par- of neglected children than is identified by
ticipating classrooms (N = 21) were chosen the Coie-Dodge procedure (see Asher &
by the school principal to represent a wide Dodge, 1986; Terry & Coie, 1991). Howrange of student ability (these students con- ever, Asher and Dodge (1986) found that all
stituted 76% of the middle school's sixth- those children identified as neglected using

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wentzel and Asher

their method were also identified as neglected using the Coie-Dodge method.
Second, our sociometric rating-scale
procedure differs from the procedure typically used with younger children. In research on elementary-aged-students, children are usually asked to rate all of their
peers in their classroom. However, because
middle school students do not stay with one
group or in one classroom all day and therefore come into contact with a large number
of peers, it was necessary to create a list of
names that did not require them to rate all of
the children with whom they share classes.
Therefore, randomly generated lists of 25
names of same-sex peers were used for the
rating scale measure of peer acceptance.
Seventh graders were provided with lists of
25 students randomly selected from all participating students in their grade. Because
sixth-grade students were organized into
two instructional teams (Ns = 131 and 96)
and attended classes consisting only of team
members, these students were given lists of
25 names of classmates randomly selected
from their team. Previous research suggests
that, for elementary-school-aged children,
same-sex rating scale scores correlate highly
with both-sex ratings (Asher & Hymel, 1981)
and that a high percentage of students' best
friend nominations are same sex (DanielsBierness, 1989; Karweit & Hansell, 1983).
Peer nominations of social behavior.Parkhurst and Asher's (1992) peer assessment items were used to identify aggressive and submissive subgroups of rejected
children. Students were asked to nominate
classmates on two behavioral characteristics:
"starts fights" and "easy to push around."
For each behavior, each student was given
a list of 25 randomly generated names of
same-sex classmates from their grade or
team. The random selection procedure resulted in each student rating a unique set of
names for each behavior that was assessed
and in each student receiving an average of
25 ratings for each behavior from a random
set of classmates. As such, randomly assigned and distinct sets of informants assessed peer acceptance and classroom behavioral style.
Students were asked to circle the names
of the classmates on each list who fit the behavioraldescription; students could circle as
many or as few names as they wanted. Students crossed out the names of classmates
they did not know well enough to make a
judgment. On the average, students were

757

"not known" by one of their raters. Not being known was unrelated to status or other
backgroundvariables. Similarly, the number
of classmates someone knew was unrelated
to his or her sociometric status.
For each student, two behavioral nomination scores were calculated, one for "starts
fights" and the other for "easy to push
around."For each peer assessment item, the
percentage of nominations each child received was computed by dividing the number of nominations each child received by
the total number of times the child's name
appeared on nomination lists for that item
and was not crossed out as someone unknown to the nominator.Then, to correct for
non-normal distributions, arcsine transformations were computed. Finally, scores
were standardized within team (for sixth
graders)and within grade level (for seventh
graders).
Parkhurstand Asher's (1992) procedure
was used to classify rejected children into
behavioral subgroups. Thirteen aggressiverejected children (those scoring high on
"starts fights" and low on "easy to push
around") and 17 submissive-rejected children (those scoring high on "easy to push
around" and low on "starts fights") were
identified.
Peer perceptions of achievement.- Using the peer nomination procedure described above, students were asked to nominate classmates who were "good students,"
that is, classmates who perform well academically. The procedure used to compute
behavior nomination scores was also used to
compute "good student" scores.
School motivation.-School motivation
was assessed using both teacher ratings and
student self-reports. Teachers were asked to
respond to the following questions for each
of their students: "How often does this student show an interest in schoolwork?" and
"How often does this student show concern
with evaluation?" Ratings were made on a
five-point scale: 1 = not at all, 5 = almost
always. Scores were standardized within
classroom and grade level.
The two teacher motivation items were
correlated .67, p < .001. However, given the
conceptual distinction in the achievement
motivation literature between interest in
schoolwork and concern with evaluation
(see Dweck & Leggett, 1988), we report the
results separately for each item.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

758

Child Development

Students completed the Satisfaction

with School and the Commitment to
Classworksubscales of the Quality of School
Life Scale (QSL; Epstein & McPartland,
1978). Satisfactionwith School is a five-item
scale that measures students' general satisfaction with school. Sample true-false items
are: "I like school very much"; "I am very
happy when I am in school"; and "Most of
the time I do not want to go to school" (reverse scored). Commitment to Classwork is
an 11-item scale that measures students'
general interest in schoolwork. Sample truefalse items are: "I hardly ever do anything
exciting in class"; "I daydream a lot in
class"; and "Most of the topics we study in
class can't end soon enough to suit me"
(each of these items is reverse scored). For
both subscales, responses are summed to
yield "satisfaction" and "commitment"
scores (positive responses = 1, negative responses = 0).

class again next year?" Ratings were made

on a five-point scale: 1 = not at all, 5 =
very much. Teacher preference scores were
standardized within classroom.
Teachers were also asked to assess each
student on four types of classroom behavior:
"How often does this student help other
children learn?" "How often is this student
considerate of others?""How often does this
student follow classroom rules, act responsibly?" and "How often does this student fight
with others, lose his or her temper?" Ratings
were made on a five-point scale: 1 = rarely,
5 = almost always. Each of these behavior
rating scores were standardized within
classroom.

Results
Sociometric Status Differences
The first question we addressed was
whether
rejected, neglected, popular, and
Satisfaction with School and Commitment to Schoolwork Ms/SDs were 1.90/1.83 controversial children differ from average
and 3.94/3.01, respectively.
Kuder- children with respect to academic characterRichardsonreliabilities are reported by Ep- istics. Table 1 shows the results of a series
stein and McPartland (1978) to be .79 and of one-way ANOVAs that compared motiva.80 for the Satisfaction with School and the tion, self-regulated learning, classroom beCommitment to Classwork scales, respec- havior, teacher preference, and academic
scores as a function of sociometric
tively. Information concerning the factor reputation
status.
Follow-up
planned contrasts comstructureof the two scales, and their concurmean scores of rejected, neglected,
pared
and
rent, discriminative,
predictive validity
is reported in Epstein and McPartland popular, and controversialgroups with those
of average status groups.
(1978). In the present study, the two scales
were correlated .79, p < .001. However, reNeglected children differed signifisults are reported separately given the cantly from average students on almost evunique factor structureof each scale and the ery academic characteristic we examined.
fact that correlates of each scale were dif- Specifically, when compared to average chilferent.
dren, neglected children reported higher
levels of school motivation, were perceived
Self-regulated learning.-Teachers re- by teachers to be more independent, less imsponded to the following questions for each
with respect to
of their students: "How often does this stu- pulsive, more appropriate
classroom
and
were
behavior,
preferred
dent work independently?" "How selfmore by teachers.
assured is this student?" and "How often
does this student act impulsively, without
Rejected students differed from average
thinking?" Ratings were made on a five- students on several academically relevant
point scale: 1 = rarely, 5 = almost always. characteristics. Rejected children were perScores were standardized within classroom ceived by teachers to be less self-assured
and grade level. Correlations were .32, p < and to start fights more often than average
.01, -.52, p < .001, and -.14, p < .01, for status students. Rejected students were also
independence and self-assurance, indepen- preferred less by teachers and perceived by
dence and impulsivity, and self-assurance their classmates as not being good students.
and impulsivity, respectively.
Controversial status children were perTeacher preference for students and ceived by teachers to be less independent,
less likely to follow rules, and more likely
ratings of classroom behavior.-Teachers
were asked to respond to the following ques- to start fights than average children. They
tion for each of their students: "How much were also preferred less by teachers than
would you like to have this student in your were average students.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wentzel and Asher

759

Popularchildren were different fromav- tations (i.e., "good student" nominations)

erage students on two variables. They were among peers.
perceived by teachers to be more helpful to
The identification of distinct academic
others and they were more often nominated
characteristics
as a function of rejected subtheir
classmates
as
students.
by
being good
groups raises interesting questions concernSubgroup Differences among Rejected
ing the long-term academic outcomes for
Children
each of the subgroups. In their review of the
Next, we examined whether aggressive- long-term risk literature, Parker and Asher
rejected and submissive-rejected students (1987) concluded that children who are undiffered in their academic characteristics. popular among their peers are at risk for
Table 2 shows the results of one-way ANO- dropping out of high school.
from
VAs that compared levels of motivation, self- the present study might lead toFindings
a furtherconregulation, classroom behavior, teachers' clusion that it is the aggressive-rejected but
preferences for students, and academic rep- not submissive-rejected children who are at
utations as a function of rejected status sub- risk for early withdrawal from school. Howgroups.
ever, high school dropouts are frequently
Whereas previous analyses comparing described as feeling isolated, alienated, and
all rejected children to average status chil- emotionally withdrawn from the schooling
dren showed relatively few differences (see process (Finn, 1989). Given that submissiveTable 1), results of planned comparisons of rejected children tend to report high levels
each subgroup with average status children of loneliness (Boivin et al., 1989; Parkhurst
suggested that one subgroup of rejected chil- & Asher, 1992; Williams & Asher, 1987),
dren, those who are highly aggressive, had they might be especially prone to drop out
problematic academic profiles. Compared to of school for these reasons rather than beaverage status children, aggressive-rejected cause of academic failure. Clearly, the subchildren reported being significantly less in- group differences identified in this research
terested in schoolwork, were perceived by reinforce the need for continued study of
teachers to be less independent and more these behaviorally distinct groups of reimpulsive learners, were perceived as being jected children and the need to track their
less considerate, compliant, and more likely academic progress over time.
to start fights. The aggressive-rejected chilA second majorfinding of this study was
dren were also less likely to be preferred by
that
socially neglected young adolescents
teachers and less likely to be nominated by
their classmates as being good students. In appear to be a highly distinct group with regardto certain aspects of classroom functioncontrast, the submissive-rejected students
ing.
Perhaps because sociometric neglect in
did not display any characteristicsthat were
and elementary-aged children has
preschool
significantly different from those of average not been related
consistently to socially unstatus students.
desirable outcomes (Rubin, 1985; Rubin,
Hymel, LeMare, & Rowden, 1989), this
Discussion
group has not been of great concern in research on social status and achievement.
Our findings replicate and extend previpresent data suggest the posous work in this area in several important However, the at
least with respect to acasibility that,
as
in
research
on younger chil- demically relevant
ways. First,
sociodren, rejected students generally were less metrically neglectedcharacteristics,
children develop
self-confident, more disruptive, and more competencies not found in
average or even
disliked by their teachers. However, in the
popular children.
present study these academically relevant
characteristicsvaried as a function of behavOne question that might be raised is
ioral subgroup in that only the highly aggres- whether these children are sociometrically
sive, rejected children showed a distinct neglected because their classmates recogacademic profile. These children were per- nize their high levels of achievement. Interceived by teachers to be significantly less estingly, the results do not suggest this to be
interested in school, less independent and the case. Neglected children were not permore impulsive learners, and to display un- ceived by their peers as particularly "good
desirable forms of classroom behavior more students." Thus, it does not seem reasonable
often than average students. Further, these to conclude that neglected children's status
children were not as well liked by teachers in the peer group is the consequence of their
and did not have positive academic repu- academic reputations.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

0
0O

* * ****

IV IVIV

**o
0 m000

*o*
( 00
00
m C

Cq 00 m
O ? t-- t--00-.

10 ?c CY)00

00 0

0 L 00 mC Y)

t-I)00

Hz
"

~~

0000(
C,6,

>L

00 O~O 00CO
OO
t- 00 t- - 00c

c
00

C
-

~~)II

v?
0

cei

nc

CV Y) 10
10
0
0
mxm000O
- x00
--0

00d
. .~C

C"

V3

0
00C
-- --)
,1 m400
,1 ,-0

CY)

04 o

[_

000
"Y

0-

9
Q
u

I0

L..

MXMN

Q)

4c0-

"-q

PL4V.II

000

cqC(n
..
v

? . .

0v0
-q
vInIn

xtmmu

so

L3
u

C,

(
I

I~-f

IeC

t -00

ui0

3:

'

: : : :

IInI

.3
Q)II)
H

o>IcQ

. :.:.

:...

m0

000

P4

C9
M

Ox

UO

1-4~ 0

0 oD~0Oc
CD~
I~0
> ~0OOO~O0
LW4 as

0~

lu

4mi16
0
> 0
4
-4 0 p4
.00Q
P--4
.P4 C
0

0 1-4

ii

b;%

U)

i0

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

761

Wentzel and Asher

TABLE 2
MEANSANDSTANDARD
DEVIATIONS
OF ACADEMIC
CHARACTERISTICS
AS A FUNCTION
OF REJECTED
STATUSSUBGROUPS
GROUP

AggressiveRejected

(n = 13)

STUDENT
CHARACTERISTICS

Motivation:
- .89a
Interest in schoolwork .....................
-.29
Concern with evaluation .................
3.52
Commitmentto schoolwork ............
1.92
Satisfactionwith school ...................
Self-regulatedlearning:
-.70a
Independent learner ........................
- .12
Self-assured .....................................
1.13a
Impulsive .............................................
Classroombehavior:
-.34
Helps others .....................................
- 1.30a
Considerate of others ......................
Follows rules ....................................... -.99a
1.51a
Startsfights .....................................
- 1.19a
Teacher's preference ...........................
- 1.31a
"Good student" rating ........................

SubmissiveRejected

(n = 17)

Average

(n = 80)

SD

SD

SD

F(2, 107)

.94
1.17
2.11
1.66

- .02
.19
2.88
1.47

1.11
1.49
2.60
1.88

- .09
-.05
3.66
1.71

.85
.86
2.83
1.68

4.56*
.83
.58
.27

1.17
1.06
.45

.22
- .52
-.11

1.15
.88
1.04

.07
.01
.05

.88
.90
.97

4.08*
2.39
8.38**

1.06
.67
.63
.74
.89
.64

-.03
.15
.30
-.09
.16
-.38

1.08
1.03
.97
1.24
.98
.81

-.18
-.07
-.01
-.08
.06
-.07

.86
.90
.95
.88
.98
.93

.35
11.79**
8.05**
16.60**
9.71**
11.42**

aGroup mean is significantly different from Average group mean as determined by planned contrasts.
* < .01.
p
** p < .001.

Other possible explanations of neglected status, however, deserve attention.

Young adolescents show a dramaticincrease
in conformity to peer group values and
norms and a corresponding decline in respect for adult authority, especially in the
classroom (Berndt, 1979; Eccles & Midgley,
1989). It might be that children become neglected by their peers because of their
higher than average levels of compliance
and the fact that they are liked by teachers
more than others. Alternatively, neglected
children might simply be more inclined to
pursue academic or other solitary interests
without being particularly interested in social interactions with either adults or peers
(see Daniels & Oliver, 1993). Research on
neglected children's goals with regardto establishing and maintaining close relationships would be a first step in examining
these possibilities.
In light of our initial expectations concerning a sense of social relatedness and
school motivation, the present findings are
intriguing in that being liked by one's peers
was not associated with school motivation in
a consistent manner. Specifically, sociometrically neglected children, those who re-

ceive few friendship nominations but are not

actively disliked by their peers, showed the
highest levels of school motivation. In contrast, aggressive-rejected children, those
who receive few friendship nominations and
are actively disliked by their peers, displayed lower than average levels of interest
in school. However, popular children and
submissive-rejected children did not show
levels of motivation significantly different
from their average status classmates.
One explanation for these findings is
that being liked by teachers is more important for the adoption of school-related goals
than is a high level of acceptance among
peers. Indeed, the highly motivated neglected students were also those most preferred by teachers, whereas the aggressiverejected students who displayed lower than
average levels of interest in school were
liked least by teachers. Recent evidence
linking perceived social support from teachers to classroom effort and achievement
(Goodenow, 1993; Midgley, Feldlaufer, &
Eccles, 1989; Wentzel, 1994) provides additional support for this conclusion. Based on
Connell and Wellborn's (1991) perspective,
these findings suggest that school-based in-

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

762

Child Development

terventions to improve academic motivation

might profit from a greater focus on developing positive student-teacher relationships
as a way to offset the potentially negative
motivational effects of being rejected by
one's peers.
Finally, a note of caution concerning the
direction of effects is warranted. The purpose of this study was to identify academically relevant characteristics that are associated with sociometric status. Our design
does not allow causal claims to be made
about the links between academic variables
and sociometric status. Research that systematically examines causal mechanisms between social and academic functioning is
clearly needed to understand more fully the
role of sociometric status in children's academic lives.

References
Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying
children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449.
Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children's social
competence in peer relations: Sociometric
and behavioral assessments. In J. D. Wine &
M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp.
125-157). New York:Guilford.
Austin, A. B., & Draper, D. C. (1984). The relationship among peer acceptance, social impact, and academic achievement in middle
school. American Educational ResearchJournal, 21, 597-604.
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in
conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 608-616.
Boivin, M., Thomassin, L., & Alain, M. (1989).
Peer rejection and self-perception among elementary school children: Aggressive rejectees vs. withdrawn rejectees. In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg
(Eds.), Social competence in developmental
perspective (pp. 392-393). Boston: Kluwer.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacherstudent relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.),
At the threshold: The developing adolescent
(pp. 171-196). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities
and changes in children's social status: A
five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
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.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system precesses. In
M. R. Gunnar& L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota symposium on child development (Vol. 23, pp.
43-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daniels, T., & Oliver, S. (1993, March).A look
at the world outside: The out-of-school social
interactions of neglected and rejected children. Paperpresented at the biennial meeting
of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.
Daniels-Bierness, T. (1989). Measuring peer status in boys and girls: A problem of apples and
oranges? In B. H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 107120). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A socialcognitive approach to motivation and
achievement. Psychological Review, 95,
256-272.
Eccles, J., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stageenvironment fit: Developmentally appropriate classroomsfor young adolescents. In C.
Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New
York:Academic Press.
Epstein, J. L., & McPartland,J. M. (1978). The
Quality of School Life Scale. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawingfrom school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging
among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 13, 21-43.
Gottlieb, B. (1991). Social supportin adolescence.
In M. Colten & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent
stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 281306). New York:Aldine.
Karweit,N., & Hansell, S. (1983). Sex differences
in adolescent relationships: Friendship and
status. In J. L. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.),
Friends in school: Patterns of selection and
influence in secondary schools (pp. 115-130).
New York:Academic Press.
Li, A. K. F. (1985). Early rejected status and later
social adjustment:A 3-year follow-up.Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 567-577.
Maehr,M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation:Toward a theory of personal investment. In R.
Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 115-144). New
York:Academic Press.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer. H., & Eccles, J. (1989).
Student/teacher relations and attitudes to-

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wentzel and Asher

ward mathematicsbefore and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981-992.
Muma,J. R. (1965). Peer evaluation and academic
performance. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, 405-409.
Parkhurst,J. T., & Asher. S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences
in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal
concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28,
231-241.
Parker,J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations
and later personal adjustment: Are lowaccepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Rubin, K. H. (1985). Socially withdrawn children:
An "at risk" population? In B. H. Schneider,
K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children's peer relations: Issues in assessment
and intervention (pp. 125-139). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., LeMare, L., & Rowden,
L. (1989). Children experiencing social difficulties: Sociometric neglect reconsidered.
CanadianJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 21,
94-111.
Rubin, K. H., LeMare, L. J., & Lollis, S. (1990).
Social withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to peer rejection. In S. R.
Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in
childhood (pp. 217-249). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T. J. (1990).
Friendship and peer relations. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold:
The developing adolescent (pp. 277-307).
Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

763

Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21,

209-233.
Taylor, A. R. (1989). Predictors of peer rejection
in the early elementary grades: The roles of
problem behavior, academic achievement,
and teacher preference. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 18, 360-365.
Terry, R., & Coie, J. D. (1991). A comparison of
methods for defining sociometric status
among children. Developmental Psychology,
27, 867-880.
Wentzel, K. R., (1991a). Relations between social
competence and academic achievement in
early adolescence. Child Development, 62,
1066-1078.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991b). Social competence at
school: Relations between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1-24.
Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior,
and perceived social support.Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173-182.
Wentzel, K. R., Weinberger, D. A., Ford, M. E., &
Feldman, S. S. (1990). Academic achievement
in preadolescence: The role of motivational,
affective, and self-regulatoryprocesses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
11, 179-193.
Williams, G. A., & Asher, S. R. (1987, April). Peer
and self-perceptions of peer rejected children: Issues in classification and subgrouping. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Baltimore.

This content downloaded from 141.225.112.53 on Mon, 02 Nov 2015 03:49:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions