Behavioral Profiles of Anxious Solitary Children and Heterogeneity in Peer Relations

21 Pages·2008·0.92 MB·English

DevelopmentalPsychology Copyright2008bytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2008,Vol.44,No.6,1604–1624 0012-1649/08/$12.00 DOI:10.1037/a0013303
Behavioral Profiles of Anxious Solitary Children and Heterogeneity
in Peer Relations
Heidi Gazelle
UniversityofNorthCarolinaatGreensboro
Consistentwithaholisticperspectiveemphasizingtheintegrationofmultipleindividualcharacteristics
withinchildsystems,itwashypothesizedthatsubgroupsofanxioussolitary(AS)childrencharacterized
by agreeableness, behavioral normality, attention-seeking–immaturity, and externalizing behaviors
woulddemonstrateheterogeneityinpeerrelationsanddyadicfriendships.Sociometricswerecollected
for 688 3rd-grade children (mean age (cid:1) 8.66 years, 51.5% female), and recess observations were
obtained for a subset of 163 children. Results revealed that agreeable AS children demonstrated
significantlysuperiorrelationaladaptationrelativetootherASchildren,whereasnormative,attention-
seeking–immature, and externalizing AS children demonstrated increasing relational adversity.
Attention-seeking–immatureASchildrenengagedinparticularlyhighratesofdirectedsolitarybehavior
and were most ignored by peers. Externalizing AS children were most often victimized by peers.
Subgroupdifferencesinsociometricpeeradversitywerequalifiedbysex.
Keywords:socialwithdrawal,shyness,socialanxiety,peerrelations,victimization,exclusion
Anxious solitary (AS) children—children who desire peer in- afunctionofbothchildandenvironment.Withregardtoproximal
teraction but often play alone among familiar peers because of environmentalinfluences,onestudyfoundthatchildrenwhoseAS
shynessandsocialanxiety—maydifferfromoneanothersubstan- tendencies predated their entry to elementary school were subse-
tially in the quality of their relations with peers. Although these quently more likely to experience peer rejection in first-grade
children share hallmarks of anxious solitude—shyness (e.g., not classroomsobservedtohavenegativeemotionalclimate(Gazelle,
having much to say to peers) and reticent behavior (onlooking 2006). In regard to distal environmental influences, a number of
solitary behavior or watching peers play without joining in and studies have examined culture as a moderator of risk for peer
unoccupied solitary behavior; Coplan, Rubin, Fox, Calkins, & adversity among shy children (Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1995; Chen,
Stewart, 1994)—when they do interact with peers, the nature of Rubin,Li,&Li,1999;Chen,Rubin,&Li,1995;Chen,Rubin,&
that interaction may nevertheless differ. Even though these chil- Sun, 1992; Hart et al., 2000; Schwartz, Chang, & Farver, 2001).
dren are more rejected and victimized than other children on However, very little is known about individual-level characteris-
average (Cillessen, Van Ijzendoorn, Van Lieshout, & Hartup, tics that may contribute to differential risk for peer adversity
1992; Egan & Perry, 1998; French, 1988, 1990; Gazelle et al., amongASchildren.
2005),recentresearchhasrevealedthatthereissubstantialheter- Previous attempts to use individual characteristics to form
ogeneityamongASchildreninthedegreetowhichtheyencounter meaningful subgroups of solitary children have taken two basic
peer adversity (e.g., exclusion or victimization; Gazelle & Ladd, approaches: identifying children who display different types of
2003; Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004). Moreover, this evidence has solitary behavior and identifying children who display solitary
indicated that the adjustment trajectories of AS children who
behavior in combination with other social behaviors. The first
encounter peer adversity diverge from their nonmistreated coun-
approachisnotanappropriatemethodforidentifyingsubgroupsof
terpartsovertime—excludedASchildrendisplaymorestableAS
AS children because it does not make distinctions among AS
and report more depressive symptoms over time. These findings
children, but rather between AS children and children who play
underscoretheimportanceofunderstandingfactorsthatcontribute
aloneforotherreasons(usuallysocialdisinterest,althoughthisis
toheterogeneityinpeerrelationsamongASchildren.
usuallystudieddimensionallyanditisunclearwhetherthereisa
Consistent with Child (cid:2) Environment models of development
reliable disinterested group with substantial prevalence; Coplan,
(Cairns, Elder, & Costello, 1996; Magnusson & Stattin, 2006;
Prakash,O’Neil,&Armer,2004).Thesecondapproachisholistic
Sameroff,1993),differentialriskforpeeradversityislikelytobe
and person oriented in that it places emphasis on how multiple
characteristicscombinewithinindividualsandhowthesamechar-
acteristic(e.g.,anxioussolitude)mayvaryinadaptationalsignif-
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
icanceinindividualsystemswithdifferentassortmentsofcharac-
GrantK01MH076237toHeidiGazelle.Iextendthankstomembersofthe
teristics (Bergman, Magnusson, & El-Khouri, 2003; Magnusson,
Social Development Lab and the children, teachers, and parents who
1988; Magnusson & Stattin, 2006). The major advantage of this
participatedsogenerouslyinthisresearch.
approach is that it focuses on how individuals with particular
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Heidi
Gazelle, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, 321 combinations of characteristics function and are perceived by
McIverStreet,Greensboro,NC27412.E-mail:[email protected] others as integrated systems. This approach has been more suc-
1604
PROFILESOFANXIOUSSOLITARYCHILDREN 1605
cessful in identifying substantial differences in peer treatment themselves, “How does the child engage with others?” (do they
amongASchildren,butithasbeenlargelylimitedtoidentification support or oppose others’ actions; interpersonal orientation) and
ofASchildrenwithandwithoutexternalizingbehaviors(Feltham, “Howwellisthisengagementexecuted?”(degreeofsocialskill).
Doyle, Schwartzman, Ledingham, & Serbin, 1985; Gazelle & Although AS children are often characterized as being oriented
Ladd, 2003; Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997; Ladd & “away” from others (social disengagement), when they do come
Burgess,1999;Ledingham,Younger,Schwartzman,&Bergeron, intocontactwithotherstheymustinteracttosomeextent,andthe
1982; Lyons, Serbin, & Marchessault, 1988). Other than this nature of this interaction can be characterized by an orientation
distinction between externalizing and nonexternalizing AS chil- towardoragainstothers(collaborativesocialengagementorsocial
dren, child sex is the only major individual difference that has conflict; Caspi et al., 1988; Horney, 1945). In addition to the
received substantial attention in investigations of differential risk externalizingASgroupdescribedabove,whichwouldbecharac-
ofpeeradversityamongASchildren. terized as moving against others in an unskillful manner, and an
Insum,currentknowledgeaboutindividualcharacteristicsthat otherwise behaviorally normative AS subgroup that would be
confer differential risk for peer adversity among AS children is characterizedbyrelativelymoderateinterpersonalorientationand
limited to child sex and co-occurring aggressive behavior. Al- social skill, this framework suggests the existence of two novel
thoughseveralinvestigationshavefoundgreaterpeerrejectionor groups.Thefirstisasubgroupthatisorientedtowardothersand
exclusionamongASboysthanASgirlsinmiddlechildhood(e.g., high in social skill—it will be referred to as agreeable AS. It is
Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Morison & Masten, 1991), observational hypothesizedthatdespitetheirtimidity,theseASchildrendisplay
and sociometric evidence has indicated that AS girls experience behaviorthatpeersdeemhighlysociallydesirable.Thesecondis
peeradversityaswell(French,1990;Gazelleetal.,2005)andmay a subgroup that, again despite their timidity, is oriented toward
experiencemoredepressivesymptomsasaconsequenceofexclu- othersbutisrelativelylowinsocialskill—itwillbereferredtoas
sion in early adolescence (Gazelle & Rudolph, 2004). Thus, AS attention-seeking–immature AS. It is hypothesized that these AS
childrenofbothsexesareatriskforpeeradversityandemotional children display nonexternalizing behavior that peers find unde-
maladjustment,althoughtherelativedegreeofriskvariesaccord- sirable. This group goes against the assumption that an interper-
ingtodevelopmentaltimeperiodandtheoutcomeofinterest. sonal orientation toward others implies successful peer relations.
ChildrenwhodemonstratecombinedASandaggressivebehav- These subgroups populate the center and each quadrant of the
iorshaveconsistentlybeenfoundtobeparticularlymaladjustedin proposed model with one exception—orientation against others
investigationsfrommultiplelaboratories.AggressiveASchildren and high social skill (the upper left quadrant). Although this
areextremelyrejected,highlyexcludedandvictimized,andhave quadrantmayapplytosomenon-ASchildren(e.g.,instrumentally
fewfriends(Felthametal.,1985;Gazelle&Ladd,2003;Ladd& aggressivechildren),asubstantialnumberofASchildrenwerenot
Burgess, 1999; Ledingham et al., 1982; Lyons et al., 1988). In a expectedtodisplaythiscombinationofcharacteristics,andthere-
lowsocioeconomicstatusurbansample,thesechildrenwerealso foreitdoesnotserveasthebasisforanASsubgroup.
atparticularriskforacademicfailure,placementinspecialclasses,
andeventuallyschooldropoutandteenagepregnancy(Ledingham
Agreeable Anxious Solitary Children
& Schwartzman, 1984; Serbin et al., 1998). Consistent with past
investigations, in the present study AS children who display ex- Despitetheirtimidity,agreeableASchildrenmaydisplayhighly
ternalizingbehaviorswereexpectedtoencounterhighpeeradver- responsivesocialbehaviorthatisperceivedasdesirablebypeers.
sity and particularly elevated victimization. But only a moderate Althoughsuchchildrenmaynottaketheinitiativeinmakingsocial
proportionofASchildrenwereexpectedtodemonstrateexternalizing overtures, they may be highly responsive to others’ overtures by
behaviors,leavingmuchvariabilityinpeeradversityunexplained. agreeing to cooperate and share, readily returning a smile, and
listening to others attentively. These behaviors are referred to as
agreeable rather than prosocial to emphasize that they may not
The Present Study
require social initiative but rather sensitive responding to others’
The present study is based on the holistic person-oriented overtures.Althoughagreeablebehaviorshavereceivedlittleatten-
premisethattherearemultiplebehavioralcharacteristicsthatsub- tionintheliteratureonchildhoodsocialwithdrawal,inonestudy
stantiallybufferoraugmentASchildren’sriskforpeeradversity socially inhibited children judged to be globally socially compe-
(Bergman et al., 2003; Magnusson, 1988; Magnusson & Stattin, tentbytheirteachersdemonstratedpositiveadjustmentovertime,
2006). This premise contrasts with the common assumption that including diminished anxious solitude (Asendorpf, 1994). More-
nonaggressive AS children are poorly accepted by peers because over, the compensatory nature of such socially desirable charac-
of an absence of socially desirable behavior rather than the pres- teristics for shy individuals has been proposed by Leary and
ence of socially undesirable behavior. That is, AS children’s low Buckley (2000) in the adult shyness literature. Yet, even in the
rateofpeerinteractionisofteninterpretedtomeanthatwhenthey adult literature, agreeable characteristics in shy individuals have
arewithpeers,they“donothing.”Inthisstudy,itisproposedthat receivedlittleempiricalattention.
this assumption is incorrect for some subgroups of AS children.
From the perspective of peers, children can be conceptualized as
Attention-Seeking–Immature Anxious Solitary Children
occupyingatwo-dimensionalspaceinwhichtheyvaryinregardto
both interpersonal orientation (oriented toward or against social Despitetheirtimidity,asubstantialsubgroupofASchildrenwas
interactionwithothers;Caspi,Elder,&Bem,1988;Horney,1945) expected to display attention-seeking and immature behaviors.
andsocialskill(hightolow;seeFigure1).Insimpleterms,peers Although the coexistence of attention seeking and timidity might
can be conceptualized as evaluating a child’s behavior by asking appear contradictory at first glance, consideration of the motiva-
1606 GAZELLE
Figure1. Peers’perceptionsofachildcanbelocatedontwodimensions:interpersonalorientation(moving
towardoragainstothers)andsocialskill.Thesedimensionsarerelevanttobothsolitaryandnonsolitarychildren.
Althoughsolitarychildren’sinterpersonalorientationisoftencharacterizedas“movingaway”fromothers,when
theycomeintocontactwithotherstheirinteractioncanbecharacterizedasmovingtowardoragainstothers.This
figureisintendedtobeaconceptualtool.Dimensionaldistancesbetweencharacteristicswerenotempirically
determined.
tional underpinnings of AS supports the possibility of this coex- Emphasis on Assets and Risks
istence.ASchildrenareconceptualizedaswantingtointeractwith
peers but being blocked by social anxiety. Asendorpf (1990) has Oneofthewaysinwhichthepresentframeworkforidentifying
characterized this as a social approach–avoidance conflict. Here, ASsubgroupsdiffersfrompastworkisidentificationofsubgroups
we propose that some AS children may manifest social approach on the basis of assets as well as risks. Consequently, this frame-
andavoidancebehaviorsviavacillationbetweenattention-seeking workpermitspredictionsaboutgroupsexpectedtohaverelatively
and AS behavior that is readily observable to peers. Attention positive peer relations (the agreeable AS group) and differing
seekingisbehaviorthatisgearedtowardattractingpeerattention degreesandformsofpeerdifficulty.Thisemphasisonassetsand
but is inappropriate or incongruous with ongoing peer activities risks also lends itself to examination of subgroup differences on
andthereforesociallyunskillful.Forinstance,inapreviousstudy, positive characteristics other than those included in subgroup
after an AS girl was disqualified from a game of Twister, she criteria(e.g.,agreeableness)thatmayplayaroleinbufferingAS
repeatedlyaskedherplaymatesiftheywouldliketoplayanother children from relational difficulty. Specifically, the degree to
game even though they were still clearly engaged in the original which children were perceived as fun and good at being leaders
game and ignored her interruptions. When children display this was examined because these characteristics were expected to be
sortofbehavior,theymayappearyoungerorlessmaturethantheir highly valued by peers. It was unclear whether children who
peers. Although AS children have periodically been described as readily cooperated, listened to, and smiled at peers (agreeable
immature or appearing younger relative to agemates (Rubin & characteristics) would be viewed as fun or having leadership
Mills,1988),thesecharacteristicshaveoftenbeenconflatedwith qualities because these characteristics suggest a degree of social
externalizing behavior, and the relation between variation in this initiative and spontaneity that might or might not accompany
characteristicandpeeradversityamongASchildrenhasnotbeen agreeableness.
systematicallyinvestigated.Peerswereexpectedtofindattention- Additionally, the degree to which children were perceived as
seeking and immature behaviors to be irritating. Consequently, smart by peers was examined because this nonsocial behavioral
attention-seeking–immature AS children were expected to have characteristic is salient in the school environment in which peer
elevated rates of peer adversity and to be particularly prone to relationstakeplace.Althoughanumberofpreviousinvestigations
beingignored. havefoundmildnegativecorrelationsbetweenmeasuresofintel-
PROFILESOFANXIOUSSOLITARYCHILDREN 1607
ligenceandAS(e.g.,Chenetal.,1992;Ludwig&Lazarus,1983; social assertion and having few friends who could come to their
Morison&Masten,1991),itwasexpectedthatASchildrenwould defense.
be heterogeneous in this regard. Furthermore, there is reason to
believe that intelligence may serve as an important buffer for
Hypotheses
behaviorallyvulnerablechildren(Radke-Yarrow&Brown,1993),
although there is more evidence of this to date in children with ASchildrenwereexpectedtodifferwidelyindegreeofsuccess
aggressiveratherthanASprofiles(Luthar&Zigler,1992;Masten and adversity in peer relations depending on how their anxious
etal.,1999). solitudefunctionedinthecontextofthewholesocialpersonthey
Finally,inadditiontoexaminingdifferencesamongsubgroups presented to peers. Specifically, agreeable AS children were ex-
in peer group–level acceptance, examination of prevalence and pected to be moderately successful with peer relations relative to
reciprocityofdyadicfriendshipswasplanned.Becausefriendscan otherASchildren,normativeASchildrentoexperiencelesspeer
protect behaviorally vulnerable children from peer victimization adversity than attention-seeking–immature and externalizing AS
(Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Schwartz, Dodge, children, and attention-seeking–immature and externalizing AS
Pettit, & Bates, 2000), examination of friendship prevalence and children to experience high levels of adversity that would differ
reciprocity are part of the broader picture of differences among somewhatinform.Attention-seeking–immaturechildrenwereex-
subgroups in protection versus risk from peer adversity. Also, pected to experience particularly heightened exclusion relative to
consistent with a focus on assets and risks, examining friendship other AS children because of the potentially irritating nature of
providesamorecompleteviewofthebenefitssomeASchildren their interpersonal behavior, and externalizing AS children were
mayreapfrompeercontact. expected to experience particularly heightened victimization. It
was further expected that both male and female members of the
highest risk AS subgroups would experience peer adversity. Fi-
Developmental Considerations
nally, when children shared the same subgroup characteristics
(agreeableness, attention seeking–immaturity, or externalizing),
TheproposedASsubgroupswereexpectedtobeperceptibleto
AS versus non-AS children were expected to demonstrate more
peers and linked to heterogeneous peer relations by third grade.
interpersonal difficulties and to be perceived by peers as having
Pastinvestigationshaveindicatedthatpeers’perceptionsofASare
fewerpositiveattributes.
reliablebythirdgradebutrelativelyunreliableatyoungerages,in
contrasttopeers’perceptionsofexternalizingbehaviors,whichare
reliable at younger ages (Younger, Schwartzman, & Ledingham, Method
1985,1986).Ithasbeensuggestedthatthisdiscrepancyisbecause
of developmental change in peer social cognition. Because AS Participants
behaviorlacksthedirectimpactandsalienceofaggressivebehav-
Screeningparticipantswere688childrenwithinformedparental
iors,youngpeersmaynotreliablyperceivethisbehavioruntilthey
consent(meanageattheoutsetofthestudy(cid:1)8.66years,SD(cid:1)
become more cognitively mature around third grade. Given the
0.50) drawn from all 46 third-grade public school classrooms in
present focus on linkages between peer perceived behavior and
seven elementary schools in a suburban to rural region of the
peer treatment, this study focuses on the earliest age at which
southeasternUnitedStates.Thissamplerepresents80%(688/856)
evidence suggests reliable linkages between peer perceptions of
ofchildrenintheseclassrooms.Girlsandboyswereapproximately
ASandpeertreatment.
equally represented (51.5% female, n (cid:1) 354; 48.5% male, n (cid:1)
334),andthesamplewasdiversewithregardtoraceandethnicity
Peer Processes Linked to the Co-Occurrence (62% European American, 20% African American, 16% Latino,
of Child Behaviors and 2% Asian American). The majority of children resided in
English-speaking families, and a minority of children resided in
Theprinciplethataparticularbehavioralpattern(anxioussoli- Spanish-speakingfamilies(approximately9.2%,asdeterminedby
tude) can translate into widely different peer relations depending parents having selected the Spanish-language version of the per-
onco-occurringbehaviorsiscentraltotheconceptualframework mission slip to return; these children attended schools in which
that supports a subgroup approach. Specifically, it was expected English was spoken and comprehended English well enough to
that AS behaviors, in and of themselves, would be moderately complete measures in English). The sample was also diverse in
detrimental to children’s peer relations as they limit children’s regard to socioeconomic status, with 30% of children receiving
contacts with peers. However, agreeableness was expected to freeorreduced-costschoollunch.
diminishthenegativeeffectofASchildren’slimitedcontactwith Subgroupanalyseswereconductedwithchildrenwhoreceived
peersbyensuringthatwhenpeersinitiatedcontact,thesechildren sociometricassessmentsinboththefallandspring(661children,
were highly responsive partners. In contrast, attention-seeking– 96% of screening children), and recess observations were con-
immature and externalizing behaviors were expected to be aver- ductedforaselectedsubsetofthesechildren(n(cid:1)163).Approx-
sivetopeers.Althoughaversivebehaviorsarenotalwayslinkedto imately half of observed participants (n (cid:1) 80) were selected
peermistreatment(Rodkin,Farmer,Pearl,&VanAcker,2000),it because they scored at or above 1 standard deviation on the fall
was expected that AS would disinhibit constraints against peer peer-reported AS composite. Approximately an equal number of
mistreatment toward attention-seeking–immature and externaliz- childrenwereselectedasdemographicallymatchedcontrols(n(cid:1)
ing children because peers would perceive them as unable to 83) to eliminate demographics as a confound for any observed
defend themselves because of their poor capacity for effective differences among AS and non-AS children. Controls were se-
1608 GAZELLE
Table1
IntercorrelationsAmongallVariables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Peer-reportsociometrics:groupingvariables
1.Anxioussolitary —
2.Agreeable .01 —
3.Attention-seeking–immature .15(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).54(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
4.Externalizing (cid:5).13(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).59(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .74(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
Peer-reportsociometrics:negative
5.Rejected .21(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).63(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .69(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .63(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
6.Excluded .56(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .61(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .32(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .64(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
7.Victimized .44(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).31(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .62(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .56(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .76(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
8.Can’tdefendself .66(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).15(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .41(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .10(cid:1)(cid:1) .40(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .70(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .65(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
Peer-reportsociometrics:positive
9.Accepted (cid:5).33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .55(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).43(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).29(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).65(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).55(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).43(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).40(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
10.Smart (cid:5).15(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .65(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).42(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).38(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).51(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).40(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
11.Fun (cid:5).31(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .60(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).37(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).26(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).55(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).48(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).40(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
12.Leader (cid:5).26(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .51(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).30(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).16(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).41(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).37(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
Recessobservations
13.Activelyaccepted (cid:5).33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .21(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).15 .02 (cid:5).29(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).25(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
14.Ignored .34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).25(cid:1)(cid:1) .13 (cid:5).08 .29(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .30(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
15.Victimized .02 (cid:5).17(cid:1) .46(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .30(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .31(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .27(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .19(cid:1)
16.Reticent .36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).19(cid:1) .11 (cid:5).08 .24(cid:1)(cid:1) .36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .28(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
17.Alonedirected .16(cid:1) (cid:5).15 .05 (cid:5).08 .16(cid:1) .18(cid:1) .14 .18(cid:1)
Child–peersociometricfriendship
18.Reciprocatedfriends (cid:5).21(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).24(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).19(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).29(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).20(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).22(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
19.Unreciprocatedbid(made) .05 (cid:5).25(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .18(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .11(cid:1) .18(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .18(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .15(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .10(cid:1)(cid:1)
20.Unreciprocatedbid(received) (cid:5).11(cid:1)(cid:1) .35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).24(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).17(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).24(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).19(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).17(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
21.Childsex (cid:5).12(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).33(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .17(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .21(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .14(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).01 .08 (cid:5).03
Note. N(cid:1)661forsociometrics,N(cid:1)657forreciprocatedfriendship,andN(cid:1)163forrecessobservations.Sociometriccompositesarethemeanoffall
andspringassessments.
(cid:1)p(cid:4).05. (cid:1)(cid:1)p(cid:4).01. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)p(cid:4).001.
lectedonthebasisofbeingtheclosestmatchforanASchildwith were assigned to subgroups on the basis of relatively enduring
regard to sex, ethnicity, age, classroom, and free or reduced-cost characteristics (measures used in selection and selection criteria
lunch status. Selected children did not differ from nonselected are described in greater detail below). Using fall to spring com-
childreninthescreeningsamplewithregardtoage(selected:M(cid:1) positesresultedinthesamenumberofAS(n(cid:1)80)andnon-AS
8.70 years, SD (cid:1) 0.55; nonselected: M (cid:1) 8.65 years, SD (cid:1) .48; (n(cid:1)83)childrenobservedatrecess,anddemographicsremained
t(686) (cid:1) .94, ns) or in the rate at which they received free or matched, although 7 children from each group were reclassified.
reduced-cost lunch (selected, 31%; nonselected, 29%; (cid:3)2(1, N (cid:1) Identifying relatively enduring subgroups with criteria from mul-
688)(cid:1)0.23,ns).Therewasahigherfrequencyoffemale(59%) tipletimepointsisconsistentwithpreviousinvestigations(Gazelle
than male (41%) selected children, in comparison to nonselected &Ladd,2003).Also,usingtertilecutoffsisconsistentwithmeth-
screening children (female, 49%; male, 51%; (cid:3)2(1, N (cid:1) 688) (cid:1) ods used in previous investigations of childhood solitude (Ladd &
4.74,p(cid:4).05).Theraceandethnicityoftheselectedsamplewas Burgess,1999;Rubin,Chen,&Hymel,1993;Rubin,Wojslawowicz,
diverse and resembled the composition of the screening sample Rose-Krasnor, Booth-LaForce, & Burgess, 2006). Preliminary
except that marginally more Latino children ((cid:3)2(1, N (cid:1) 688) (cid:1) analysesconfirmedthatusingmeansoffallandspringassessments
3.53,p(cid:4).10)andsignificantlyfewerAfricanAmericanchildren (rather than using one or both time points separately) resulted in
((cid:3)2(1, N (cid:1) 688) (cid:1) 6.19, p (cid:4) .05) were selected (selected vs. theselectionofchildrenwithmorestablecharacteristics.
nonselected,respectively:64%vs.61%EuropeanAmerican,13%
vs.22%AfricanAmerican,21%vs.15%Latino,and2%vs.2%
Measures
AsianAmerican).Becausechildrenwereselectedonthebasisof
elevatedASscores(orhavingdemographicsthatmatchedthoseof A summary of intercorrelations among all primary variables
children with elevated AS scores), demographic discrepancies appears in Table 1. Sociometrics were administered twice in the
betweenthescreeningandselectedsamplesarearesultofdiffer- fall and spring, and recess observations were conducted after
ential prevalence of elevated AS among demographic groups in the end of the fall sociometric until the end of the school year.
thissample. The following sections describe each form of assessment.
Althoughchildrenwereselectedtobeobservedatrecessonthe
basisoffallASpeersociometricnominations(withacutoffof1
Peer Sociometrics: Grouping Variables
standarddeviation),fallandspringanxioussolitudeandotherpeer
sociometricscoresweresubsequentlycombinedincompositesand Peer nominations were administered simultaneously to partici-
usedinanalyses(withatoptertilecutoff)toensurethatchildren pating children in each classroom. Each nomination was read
PROFILESOFANXIOUSSOLITARYCHILDREN 1609
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
—
.46(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
.68(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .60(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
.56(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .59(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .67(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
.39(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .24(cid:1)(cid:1) .29(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .20(cid:1) —
(cid:5).37(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).27(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).30(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).25(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).75(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
(cid:5).25(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).15 (cid:5).12 (cid:5).08 (cid:5).23(cid:1)(cid:1) .00 —
(cid:5).34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).25(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).27(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).24(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).59(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .70(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).02 —
(cid:5).20(cid:1) (cid:5).18(cid:1) (cid:5).17(cid:1) (cid:5).13 (cid:5).55(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .76(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .02 .14 —
.43(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .28(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .41(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .34(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .21(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).23(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).14 (cid:5).20(cid:1) (cid:5).14 —
(cid:5).26(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).20(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).28(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).22(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).14 .12 .09 .06 .08 (cid:5).09(cid:1) —
.42(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .25(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .30(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) .17(cid:1) (cid:5).08 (cid:5).23(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5).09 .00 (cid:5).05 (cid:5).28(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) —
(cid:5).04 (cid:5).09 (cid:5).07 (cid:5).03 (cid:5).09 .04 .23(cid:1)(cid:1) .04 (cid:5).03 (cid:5).05 (cid:5).01 (cid:5).05(cid:1)(cid:1) —
aloudtotheclassandthenchildrenselectedclassmates’nameson annoyingorbotherotherkids”and(b)“actyoungerthanotherkids
their individual class rosters. Nominations were unlimited, and theirage.”Thiscompositedemonstratedadequatereliability((cid:6)s(cid:1)
cross-sex nominations were allowed because these procedures .72–79)andstability(r(cid:1).70,p(cid:4).001).
result in superior psychometric properties (Foster, Bell-Dolan, & Externalizingbehaviors. Peersnominatedclassmateswho(a)
Berler,1986;Terry&Coie,1991).Children’sscoresoneachitem “start fights, call kids bad names, say mean things, and hit other
wereequaltothetotalnumberofnominationstheyreceivedfrom kids,” (b) “make up stories about other kids that aren’t true and
classmates.Thesescoreswerestandardizedbyclassroomtocon- spreadrumorsaboutkidsintheirclass,”and(c)“getoutoftheir
trol for variation in classroom size. Multi-item composites were seatsalot,actwild,andmakealotofnoise.Theybotherpeople
computedasdetailedbelow.
who are trying to work.” This composite demonstrated adequate
Anxious solitude. The AS composite consists of three nomi- reliability((cid:6)s(cid:1).80–.83)andstability(r(cid:1).73,p(cid:4).001).
nations:Peersnominateclassmateswho(a)“actreallyshyaround
Becauseattention-seeking–immatureandexternalizingcompos-
otherkids.Theyseemtobenervousorafraidtobearoundother ites were positively correlated (r2 (cid:1) .54 indicates that although
kidsandtheydon’ttalkmuch.Theyoftenplayaloneatrecess,”(b)
they share about half their variance, half of their variance is
“Watchwhatotherkidsaredoingbutdon’tjoinin.Atrecessthey
unshared), a confirmatory factor analysis was performed to con-
watchotherkidsplayingbuttheyplaybythemselves,”and(c)“are
trast a three-factor model of subgroup characteristics in which
very quiet. They don’t have much to say to other kids.” These
agreeableness, attention seeking–immaturity, and externalizing
nominations are adapted from previous investigations (e.g.,
items were allowed to contribute only to their respective latent
Gazelle & Ladd, 2003). This composite demonstrated adequate
reliabilityateachtimepoint((cid:6)s(cid:1).76–.86)and6-monthstability constructs to an analogous two-factor model in which agreeable-
(r(cid:1).72,p(cid:4).001).Themeanoffallandspringassessmentsfor ness was estimated in the same way but attention-seeking–
immature and externalizing items contributed to a combined fac-
thisandallothersociometriccompositesisusedinanalyses.
Agreeableness. Peers nominated classmates who (a) “are tor. Results indicated that the three-factor model had better fit
friendly and nice. They smile and say ‘Hi’ to everyone” and (b) (comparative fit index (cid:1) .96, goodness-of-fit index (cid:1) .96, stan-
“aregoodathelpingandsharingwithotherkids.Theycooperate dardizedroot-mean-squareresidual(cid:1).03;allitemsloadedsignif-
withotherkids.Forexample,theyletotherkidshaveaturn.”This icantly onto the expected latent constructs (cid:7)s (cid:1) .65–.84). This
composite demonstrated adequate reliability ((cid:6) (cid:1) .59–.84) and resultsupportsthenotionthatalthoughsomeexternalizingbehav-
stability(r(cid:1).56,p(cid:4).001). iorsareperceivedasattentionseeking–immature,nonexternalizing
Attention-seeking–immaturity. Peers nominated classmates behaviors are the primary determinants of attention seeking–
who (a) “try to get attention from other kids in ways that are immaturity.
1610 GAZELLE
Identification of behavioral groups. Children were identified seeking–immature children, had extreme scores on attention-
as AS if they were in the top tertile of the peer-reported AS seeking–immaturity (externalizing AS, M (cid:1) 2.24, SD (cid:1) 1.31;
composite consisting of both fall and spring assessments (n (cid:1) externalizingnon-AS,M(cid:1)0.92,SD(cid:1)0.99).Thus,althoughboth
129). Children scoring below the AS cutoff were classified as attention-seeking–immature and externalizing children were per-
non-AS(n(cid:1)532).Moregirlsthanboyswereabovethethreshold ceived as highly attention seeking and immature by peers, these
for AS (62%; (cid:3)2 (cid:1) 7.45, p (cid:4) .01). Although some investigators groupswereclearlydifferentiatedbytheabsenceversuspresence
havestandardizedsociometricscoresforASandothercharacter- ofexternalizingbehaviors.
istics by sex, it was considered preferable to preserve sex differ-
encessothattheycouldbeexplicitlytestedinanalyses. Peer Sociometrics: Peer Relations and Additional Child
BothASandnon-ASversionsofthefollowingmutuallyexclu- Characteristics
sivegroupswereidentified.Behaviorallynormativechildrenwere
belowthetoptertileinagreeable,attention-seeking–immature,and Negative Peer Nominations
externalizingcomposites(AS,n(cid:1)42;non-AS,n(cid:1)201).Agree-
Rejection. Peersnominatedclassmateswho“youdonotliketo
able children were at or above the top tertile in the agreeable
playwith”(stability:r(cid:1).54,p(cid:4).001).
compositeandbelowthetoptertileinattention-seeking–immature
Exclusion. Peers nominated classmates who (a) “get left out
and externalizing composites (AS, n (cid:1) 39; non-AS, n (cid:1) 169).
when other kids are talking or playing together. They don’t get
Attention-seeking–immature children were at or above the top
invitedtopartiesorchosentobeonteamsortobeworkpartners”
tertileintheattention-seeking–immaturecompositeandbelowthe
and(b)“askiftheycanplayandotherkidssay‘no’andwon’tlet
top tertile in the externalizing composite (AS, n (cid:1) 22; non-AS,
them play.” This composite demonstrated adequate reliability
n(cid:1)23).Externalizingchildrenwereatorabovethetoptertilein
((cid:6)s(cid:1).73–.83)andstability(r(cid:1).68,p(cid:4).001).
theexternalizingcomposite(AS,n(cid:1)26;non-AS,n(cid:1)139).Note
Victimization. Peersnominatedclassmateswho“getpickedon
that externalizing criteria “trump” all other subgroup behaviors
andmadefunofbyotherkids.Theygetteasedorgetcallednames”
becauseexternalizingbehaviorwasexpectedto(a)counteractthe
and“gethit,kicked,orpushedbyotherkids”(theseconditemwas
benefitsofagreeablenessand(b)attractattentionandthereforebe
availableinthespringonly,(cid:6)(cid:1).60;stability:r(cid:1).60,p(cid:4).001).
perceived as attention seeking–immature. Similarly, attention-
Inability to defend oneself. Peers nominated classmates who
seeking–immature criteria trump agreeableness because these be-
“don’tknowhowtostickupforthemselvesordefendthemselves
haviorswerealsoexpectedtocounteractthebenefitsofagreeable-
whenotherkidspickonthem.Theydon’tknowwhattodoorsay
ness.Consistentwithexpectations,fewchildrendemonstratedthe
when other kids pick on them or tease them” (stability: r (cid:1) .55,
combination of high agreeableness and either externalizing or
p(cid:4).001).Single-itemsociometricindices,becauseoftheirmulti-
attention seeking–immaturity (n (cid:1) 5), but the combination of
informant nature, have good psychometric properties (Coie,
externalizingandattentionseeking–immaturitywascommon(see
Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990). As with other sociometric indices,
below).SeeTable2forasummaryofgroupsamplesizesforboth
scoresforthesemeasureswerecalculatedasthemeanoffalland
sociometricandobservationaldata,sex,andidentificationcriteria.
springassessments.
Although there were more girls than boys in the agreeable AS
subgroup ((cid:3)2 (cid:1) 16.03, p (cid:4) .001), there were no significant
Peer Sociometrics: Peer Relations and Additional Child
differencesinthenumberofboysandgirlsinotherASsubgroups.
Attention-seeking–immaturechildrenwereclearlylowinexternal- Characteristics
izing behavior; they not only scored below the top tertile in
Positive Peer Nominations
externalizing behavior by definition, but scored below the mean
forexternalizingbehavioronaverage(attention-seeking–immature Accepted. Peersnominatedclassmateswhothey“liketoplay
AS,M(cid:1)(cid:5)0.22,SD(cid:1)0.42;attention-seeking–immaturenon-AS, with a lot” (stability: r (cid:1) .53, p (cid:4) .001). Consistent with past
M (cid:1) (cid:5)0.06, SD (cid:1) 0.26). Externalizing children, like attention- investigationsthathaveestablishedpeeracceptanceandrejectionas
Table2
BehavioralGroups
Sociometricdata Observationaldata Groupingcriteria
Nonanxious Anxious Nonanxious
Anxioussolitary solitary solitary solitary
Attention
Group n %female n %female N n %female n %female N Agreeable seeking Externalizing
Agreeable 39 82 169 74 22 91 38 71 (cid:1)Toptertile (cid:4)Toptertile (cid:4)Toptertile
Normative 42 62 201 40 28 61 29 52 (cid:4)Toptertile (cid:4)Toptertile (cid:4)Toptertile
Attention-seeking–immature 22 55 23 35 15 53 4 50 (cid:1)Toptertile (cid:4)Toptertile
Externalizing 26 38 139 35 15 33 12 17 (cid:1)Toptertile
Total 129 62 532 49 661 80 63 83 55 163
%ofTotal 20% 80% 100 49% 51% 100
Note. Thesampleofchildrenwithobservationaldataisasubsetofthefullsample.
PROFILESOFANXIOUSSOLITARYCHILDREN 1611
separatedimensionsratherthanoppositeendsofthesamecontinuum, includesacceptance,ignoring,andvictimization.Whenmorethan
peeracceptanceandrejectionweremoderatelynegativelycorrelated onebehaviororpeertreatmentoccurredina30-sinterval,thecode
(r(cid:1)(cid:5).65,p(cid:4).001;Coie,Dodge,&Coppotelli,1982). withthelongestdurationwasrecorded(butsystematicexceptions
Smart. Peers nominated classmates who “do very well at tothedurationruleweremadeforactionsthatcouldbebrief,such
school and earn high grades. They are smart” (stability: r (cid:1) .72, asvictimization).Totestinterraterreliability,24%ofobservations
p (cid:4) .001). This nomination was positively correlated with chil- wereconductedsimultaneouslybytwoobservers.Theoperational
dren’sactualaveragegrades(r(cid:1).39,p(cid:4).001)andend-of-grade definition and interrater reliability (kappa) for each observational
achievementtestscores(r(cid:1).37,p(cid:4).001),whichwereobtained categoryrelevanttothecurrentreportisdescribedbelow.
onlyforobservedchildren.
Fun. Peersnominatedclassmateswho“havegreatideasabout Activeacceptance:Thechildwasengagedinajointactivity
whattoplay.Theyalwaysseemtohavesomethinginterestingto with a single partner or group and participated in verbal or
talkaboutandtohavealotoffun”(stability:r(cid:1).46,p(cid:4).001). gesturalcommunication(giveandtake;(cid:8)(cid:1).84).
Leader. Peersnominatedclassmateswho“aretheleaders,the
kidswhootherslookupto”(stability:r(cid:1).52,p(cid:4).001).Again, Ignore: Peers did not acknowledge the child nor include the
childingroupactivity((cid:8)(cid:1).96).
scoresforthesemeasureswerecalculatedasthemeanoffalland
springassessments.
Victimization: Peers acted negatively toward the child
Closefriends. Peersnominatedanunlimitednumberofclass-
through unfriendly teasing, hitting, or pushing or other neg-
mateswho“areyourclosefriends.”Thisitemdemonstratedade-
ativebehavior((cid:8)(cid:1).95).
quatestability(r(cid:1).51,p(cid:4).001).Norestraintswereplacedonthe
sexoffriendshippairs.Whenchildrenchoseeachotherasaclose Alone directed: The child was alone and engaged in an
friend,theirfriendshipwascountedasa“reciprocalfriend.”When activity(e.g.,playingontheslide,shootingbaskets,orread-
achildchoseafriendwhodidnotchoosehimorherinreturn,this ing;(cid:8)(cid:1).87).
was counted as an “unreciprocated bid made.” When a child
receivedabidthatheorshedidnotreturnthiswascountedasan Reticence: Reticence is a composite of both onlooking and
“unreciprocatedbidreceived.” unoccupied solitary behavior. Onlooking solitary behavior
was coded when the child was alone and placed him- or
Observations of Behavior and Peer Treatment herself within approximately 10 ft of peers and visually
attendedtotheiractivitywithoutmakinganyovertattemptto
Selected children (n (cid:1) 163) were observed during naturalistic join((cid:8)(cid:1).90).Unoccupiedsolitarybehaviorwascodedwhen
free play at school recess. Trained observers recorded the child’s thechildwasaloneandnotinvolvedinapurposefulactivity
behaviorandsimultaneouspeerresponseforfive5-minsessionsonat (e.g.,staringintospaceorwanderingaimlessly;(cid:8)(cid:1).86).
least3differentdaysforatotalof25minofrecessobservation.The
occurrenceofmutuallyexclusivechildbehaviorsandpeerresponses
Results
werecodedlivein30-sobserve,30-srecordintervals.Scoresreported
indicatetheproportionofintervalsthatabehaviororpeerresponse
Preliminary Analyses
occurred(numberofintervalscodeobserved/totalnumberofobser-
vationalintervals).ThePeerInteractionObservationalSystem(PIOS) Before examining hypothesized differences among AS sub-
wascreatedforthisinvestigation.ThePIOSwasadaptedfromtwo groups,continuousvariablesinvolvedinsubgroupdefinitionwere
existingobservationalsystems:thePlayObservationSystem(Rubin, examinedforpropertiesthatwouldsupportasubgroupapproach.
2001) and a system developed by Putallaz and Wasserman (1989). Specifically, hierarchical linear regression analyses were per-
Distinctions between types of solitary behavior (e.g., onlooking, formed to test whether the relations between subgroup character-
unoccupied,anddirected)weredrawnfromthePlayObservation isticsandASinpredictingcriterionsconsistedofmaineffectsonly
System.However,severaladaptationswerenecessarybecausethe orofinteractioneffectsaswell.Thelogicbehindthisanalysisis
Peer Interaction Observational System is intended for live obser- thatiftherelationsconsistedonlyofmaineffects,thenthispattern
vation of naturalistic recess interaction in middle childhood, inthedatacouldbemostefficientlydemonstratedbyananalysis
whereas the Play Observation System has primarily been used in such as multiple regression in which the additive effects of all
laboratory settings with delayed video-coding with younger chil- possiblecombinationsofmultiplevariablescouldbeinferredfrom
dren (i.e., preschool and kindergarten). The Peer Interaction Ob- results. If interaction effects were found, however, this suggests
servationalSystemuseslongercodingintervals(30svs.10s)and thatcertaincharacteristicstakeonspecialsignificancewhenthey
does not distinguish between cognitive levels of play (e.g., con- co-occur with other specific characteristics within individuals.
structive vs. exploratory solitary play are both scored as directed Thus, interaction effects support the utility of a subgroup ap-
solitary play), which are less relevant in this older age group. proach, which is especially efficient at representing differences
Furthermore, PIOS codes capture both child behavior and peer amongandprevalenceofgroupsofchildrenwithspecificpatterns
response, whereas POS codes capture only child behavior. Peer of co-occurring characteristics. Results of hierarchical multiple
treatmentwascapturedbyadaptingasystemdevelopedbyPutal- regressionofcriterionsonsubgroupcharacteristicsdummycoded
laz and Wasserman (1989). This system simultaneously codes to reflect subgroup cutoffs (1 (cid:1) top tertile, 0 (cid:1) bottom two
targetchildbehaviorandpeertreatmentofthetargetchildforeach tertiles) revealed both significant main and interactive effects for
observational interval. The codes within each category (child be- all subgroup variables and all sociometric criterion classes (with
havior or peer treatment) are mutually exclusive. Peer treatment variation in effects by criterion; see Table 3), supporting the
1612 GAZELLE
Table3
MultipleInteractiveEffectsofSubgroupingVariablesinRegressionSupportaSubgroupApproachAcrossMostCriterions
Negativesociometrics(peerevaluation–treatmentandchildresponse)a
Rejected Excluded Victimized Can’tdefendself
Variables (cid:9) t (cid:9) t (cid:9) t (cid:9) t
AS 0.18 3.74(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.39 8.50(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.27 5.35(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.45 9.06(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
Agreeable (cid:5)0.25 (cid:5)6.75(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.11 (cid:5)3.11(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.01 (cid:5)0.22 (cid:5)0.03 (cid:5)0.69
Attention-seeking–immature 0.24 5.24(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.26 5.92(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.26 5.52(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.13 2.80(cid:1)(cid:1)
Externalizing 0.28 6.32(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.07 1.70(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.10 2.24(cid:1) 0.02 0.42
AS(cid:2)Agreeable (cid:5)0.03 (cid:5)0.69(cid:1) (cid:5)0.03 (cid:5)0.73 0.01 0.26 0.03 0.62
AS(cid:2)AttentionSeeking 0.11 2.16(cid:1) 0.20 4.12(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.19 3.70(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.23 4.48(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
AS(cid:2)Externalizing 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.91 0.12 2.72(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.01 (cid:5)0.23
Sex (cid:5)0.06 (cid:5)1.13 (cid:5)0.12 (cid:5)2.42(cid:1) (cid:5)0.04 (cid:5)0.71 (cid:5)0.06 (cid:5)1.13
Sex(cid:2)AS 0.15 2.88(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.19 3.66(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.09 1.71† 0.11 2.02(cid:1)
Sex(cid:2)Agreeable 0.02 0.37 0.04 0.86 0.04 0.83 (cid:5)0.02 (cid:5)0.44
Sex(cid:2)Attention (cid:5)0.07 (cid:5)1.36 (cid:5)0.06 (cid:5)1.28 0.01 0.21 0.02 0.34
Sex(cid:2)Externalizing 0.04 0.74 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.02 (cid:5)0.03 (cid:5)0.52
Sex(cid:2)AS(cid:2)Agreeable (cid:5)0.04 (cid:5)0.81 (cid:5)0.04 (cid:5)0.77 0.04 0.88 0.06 1.20
Sex(cid:2)AS(cid:2)Attention 0.04 0.82 0.00 (cid:5)0.04 0.01 0.26 (cid:5)0.08 (cid:5)1.50
Sex(cid:2)AS(cid:2)Externalizing (cid:5)0.10 (cid:5)2.37(cid:1) (cid:5)0.08 (cid:5)1.86† (cid:5)0.07 (cid:5)1.51 0.07 1.58
Positivesociometrics(peerevaluationandchildresponse)a
Accepted Smart Fun Leader
AS (cid:5)0.33 (cid:5)8.75(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.16 (cid:5)4.36(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.33 (cid:5)9.18(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.27 (cid:5)6.87(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
Agreeable 0.53 14.30(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.63 17.18(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.66 18.54(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.61 15.75(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
Attention-seeking–immature (cid:5)0.20 (cid:5)3.97(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.10 (cid:5)1.94† (cid:5)0.13 (cid:5)2.64(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.18 (cid:5)3.39(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
Externalizing 0.12 2.47(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.04 0.84 0.18 3.71(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.30 5.72(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
AS(cid:2)Agreeable (cid:5)0.07 (cid:5)2.00(cid:1) (cid:5)0.01 (cid:5)0.28 (cid:5)0.12 (cid:5)3.37(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.12 (cid:5)3.14(cid:1)(cid:1)
AS(cid:2)AttentionSeeking 0.03 0.77 0.04 0.88 0.07 1.75† (cid:5)0.08 1.76†
AS(cid:2)Externalizing (cid:5)0.08 (cid:5)1.78† (cid:5)0.04 (cid:5)0.82 (cid:5)0.10 (cid:5)2.39(cid:1) (cid:5)0.13 (cid:5)2.76(cid:1)(cid:1)
Observedpeertreatmentandchildbehaviorb
Activelyaccepted Ignored Victimized Alonedirected
AS (cid:5)0.23 (cid:5)2.25(cid:1) 0.20 1.98(cid:1) (cid:5)0.20 (cid:5)2.01(cid:1) 0.03 0.31
Agreeable 0.22 2.06(cid:1) (cid:5)0.27 (cid:5)2.62(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.05 0.48 (cid:5)0.20 (cid:5)1.83†
Attention-seeking–immature (cid:5)0.06 (cid:5)0.39 0.02 0.16 0.56 3.69(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.02 (cid:5)0.13
Externalizing 0.13 1.07 (cid:5)0.22 (cid:5)1.82† (cid:5)0.02 (cid:5)0.14 (cid:5)0.18 (cid:5)1.39
AS(cid:2)Agreeable (cid:5)0.03 (cid:5)0.28 (cid:5)0.04 (cid:5)0.43 0.03 0.29 (cid:5)0.01 (cid:5)0.12
AS(cid:2)AttentionSeeking (cid:5)0.07 (cid:5)0.50 0.11 0.76 0.09 0.68 0.16 1.07
AS(cid:2)Externalizing 0.06 0.51 (cid:5)0.06 (cid:5)0.51 (cid:5)0.17 (cid:5)1.52 (cid:5)0.09 (cid:5)0.76
Reciprocityofchild–peerfriendshipc
Reciprocatedbid Unreciprocatedbid Unreciprocatedbid
made received
Constant 1.61 33.27(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 1.58 26.55(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 1.48 29.17(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
AS (cid:5)0.30 (cid:5)5.02(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.08 1.15 (cid:5)0.16 (cid:5)2.60(cid:1)(cid:1)
Agreeable 0.43 7.39(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.40 (cid:5)5.60(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.48 7.88(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
Attention-seeking–immature (cid:5)0.09 (cid:5)1.09 0.31 3.28(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:5)0.14 (cid:5)1.73†
Externalizing 0.04 0.48 (cid:5)0.28 (cid:5)2.94(cid:1)(cid:1) 0.14 1.67†
AS(cid:2)Agreeable (cid:5)0.10 (cid:5)1.66† 0.09 1.24 (cid:5)0.03 (cid:5)0.58
AS(cid:2)AttentionSeeking 0.04 0.63 (cid:5)0.16 (cid:5)2.36(cid:1) 0.04 0.67
AS(cid:2)Externalizing (cid:5)0.06 (cid:5)0.89 0.14 1.60 (cid:5)0.13 (cid:5)1.73†
Note. Allbetasarestandardizedexceptforfriendship.AS(cid:1)anxioussolitary.
aN(cid:1)661. bN(cid:1)163. cN(cid:1)657.
(cid:1)p(cid:4).05. (cid:1)(cid:1)p(cid:4).01. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)p(cid:4).001. †p(cid:4).10.
appropriateness of subgroups. Because subgroup comparisons children’s peer relations when they co-occurred versus did not
were considered to be the primary means of analysis, individual co-occurwithheightenedAS.Althoughonlymainbutnointerac-
interactionsarenotgraphedanddescribed.Nonetheless,theover- tion effects emerged for recess observation criterions, subgroup
allpatternofinteractionssupportssubgroupanalysesbyindicating analysesarereportedonthesedatatoillustratedifferencesamong
that heightened subgroup behaviors had an amplified impact on thesamesubgroupsviamultiplemethods(observationandsocio-
PROFILESOFANXIOUSSOLITARYCHILDREN 1613
metrics). Subgroup analyses were particularly efficient at repre- ences between AS subgroups and their same-behavior non-AS
sentingthesedatainwhichmultipleinteractionsoccurred. counterpartsarealsodescribedtoillustratetheeffectsofsubgroup
characteristicsbothincombinationwithandseparatefromAS.
Anxious Solitary Versus Non-Anxious Solitary Children
Agreeable Anxious Solitary Children
Beforeproceedingtoexaminedifferencesamongsubgroupsin
peer relations, initial analyses were conducted to confirm that Consistent with hypotheses, sociometric data indicated that
children identified as AS by their peers demonstrated reticent agreeableASchildren,andagreeableASgirlsinparticular,fared
behavior at recess and perceived themselves as exhibiting such well with peer relations. Agreeable AS children, especially girls,
behavior.AllASsubgroupswereexpectedtodifferfromnon-AS experienced little peer adversity. Agreeable AS children were
subgroups in observed reticent behavior (onlooking and unoccu- significantly less rejected than attention-seeking–immature and
piedsolitarybehavior),asthisisconsideredtobethehallmarkof externalizingASsubgroups(M(cid:1)(cid:5)0.50to(cid:5)0.17vs.0.75to1.63
AS (Coplan et al., 1994). As expected, a 2 (cid:2) 2 (AS or Non-AS SD). Moreover, agreeable AS girls were significantly less ex-
Group (cid:2) Sex) analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that AS cludedandvictimizedthanattention-seeking–immatureandexter-
groups displayed significantly more reticent behavior at recess nalizing AS girls (M (cid:1) (cid:5)0.10 to (cid:5)0.01, 0.98 to 2.28 SD).
thandidnon-ASgroups(Ms(cid:1).14and.07,SDs(cid:1).14and(cid:1).09, AgreeableASgirlswerealsoperceivedbypeersaslessunableto
respectively;F(1)(cid:1)13.01,p(cid:4).001).Thesemeansindicatethat defend themselves than attention-seeking–immature AS girls
AS children were observed to spend twice as many intervals (M (cid:1) 0.39 vs. 1.81 SD). In contrast, agreeable AS boys demon-
engaged in reticent behavior at recess than other children. There stratedmoderateelevationinexclusionandvictimization(M(cid:1).73
was no significant effect for sex (F(1) (cid:1) 0.54, ns) nor of the vs..74SD)butdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromothergroupsinthis
Group (cid:2) Sex interaction (F(1) (cid:1) 0.04, ns). Further analyses regard. Agreeable AS boys, like all other AS boys’ groups, were
revealed that there were no significant differences among AS perceivedassignificantlymoreunabletodefendthemselvesthan
subgroups in reticent behavior. Furthermore, a 2 (cid:2) 2 (AS or boys in all non-AS groups (M (cid:1) 1.40 vs. (cid:5)0.10 to –0.43 SD).
Non-AS Group (cid:2) Sex) ANOVA revealed that AS groups nomi- Agreeable AS and non-AS children were both relatively low on
nated themselves for AS behavior on the sociometric interview peer difficulties, but agreeable AS children were significantly
(M (cid:1) .86, SD (cid:1) .82) significantly more often than did non-AS more excluded (girls only; M (cid:1) (cid:5)0.01 vs. (cid:5)0.46 SD) and per-
groups(M(cid:1).38,SD(cid:1).60,F(1)(cid:1)50.41,p(cid:4).001).Girlstended ceived to be more unable to defend themselves (M (cid:1) 0.39 vs.
to nominate themselves as AS more often than did boys (girls: (cid:5)0.28 SD). See Table 4 and Figure 2. Agreeable AS girls’ and
M(cid:1).55,SD(cid:1).72;boys:M(cid:1).40,SD(cid:1).62;F(1)(cid:1)3.02,p(cid:4) boys’groupsweresignificantlylessexcludedandvictimizedand
.10), but there was no interaction of AS group with sex (F(1) (cid:1) perceivedtobelessunabletodefendthemselves(M(cid:1)(cid:5)0.10to
0.00,ns).Finally,therewerenosignificantdifferencesamongAS 0.39vs.0.73to1.40SD;ts(cid:1)(cid:5)2.06to(cid:5)2.72,ps(cid:4).05;seeTable
subgroups in AS self-nominations. Thus, children identified by 4andFigure2).
peersasASwereconfirmedtodisplayelevatedreticentbehavior Moreover, peers liked agreeable AS children and perceived
at recess and to perceive themselves as more AS than other them to possess positive attributes. Agreeable AS children were
children. Subsequent analyses examined differences among all significantly better accepted than all other AS subgroups (M (cid:1)
subgroups in success and adversity in peer relations, additional 0.06 to (cid:5)0.50 vs. –0.92 SD). Furthermore, peers reported that
childcharacteristics,andprevalenceandreciprocityoffriendships. agreeable AS children were significantly smarter (M (cid:1) 0.54),
fun,andbetterleaders(M(cid:1)0.11to0.14)incomparisontoother
ASsubgroups(M(cid:1)(cid:5)0.57to(cid:5)0.71,oneachpositiveattribute).
Multivariate Analyses
AlthoughagreeableASchildrenwereviewedpositivelyrelativeto
Differencesamongsubgroupswereexaminedwithmultivariate otherASsubgroups,theywereviewedsignificantlylesspositively
analyses of variance (MANOVAs). Separate MANOVAs were than agreeable non-AS children on all positive attributes except
performedforthefollowingcriterioncategories:peersociometrics smart (M (cid:1) 0.06 to 0.54 vs. 0.59 to 0.74 SD). See Table 5 and
(positive and negative nominations were analyzed separately), Figure3.
recess observations, and child–peer friendship bids (also derived Recessobservations,consistentwithsociometrics,indicatedthat
from sociometrics). In each two-way MANOVA, the effects of agreeableASchildrenseldomencounteredpeeradversity.Agree-
behavioral subgroup, child sex, and the interaction between be- able AS children were marginally less often victimized by peers
havioralsubgroupandchildsexwereexamined.EachMANOVA thanexternalizingASchildren(M(cid:1)1%vs.6%ofintervals).See
yielded significant multivariate behavioral subgroup differences Table6andFigure4.Notethatpeertreatmentdoesnotaddupto
and, except for negative sociometrics, no significant Sex (cid:2) Be- 100%ofintervalsinFigure4becauseafewadditionalcategories
havioralSubgroupinteractions(seeTables4–7).Thus,follow-up (passive acceptance, being approached, and rough-and-tumble
Games-Howell multiple comparison tests were conducted to fur- play)thatdidnotresultinsignificantdifferencesamongsubgroups
ther examine subgroup differences for children combined by sex arenotshown.
foralldependentmeasuresexceptnegativesociometrics,forwhich Finally, sociometric friendship nominations indicated that
subgroupdifferencesarereportedseparatelybysex. agreeable AS children also fared quite well with dyadic peer
The next section describes differences among behavioral sub- relationships.Theyenjoyedsignificantlymorereciprocatedfriend-
groups as tested with follow-up Games-Howell multiple compar- ships than did externalizing AS children (M (cid:1) 1.67 vs. 0.88
ison tests. Each AS subgroup is described in turn. The textual reciprocated friends). Interestingly, agreeable AS children also
description emphasizes differences among AS groups, but differ- received significantly more unreciprocated nominations than did