Social impact and social preference as determinants of children's peer group status.

Abstract

Three sociometric procedures, which utilize a two-dimensional social-impact and social-preference framework, were evaluated on three independent samples of fourthand fifth-grade children (N = 334, 173, 89). The stability and distribution of classification, the relationship between dimensions, the validation of dimensions, and the validation of classification groups were considered. Overall, the Peery (1979) method appeared most problematic, due to both conceptual and practical drawbacks. The Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982) procedure was found to have nonexhaustive groups and had the potential of misrepresenting children's social networks when standardized scores were used. Furthermore, little support was found for the proposed controversial group in the Coie et al. classification system. An alternative two-dimensional sociometric model based on probability theory was proposed and was found to have excellent performance characteristics while still providing a constant frame of reference across social networks. The social reputational correlates of the impact and preference dimensions and the sociometric groups proposed by each model were also investigated. Although social impact and social preference are found to be reliable and valid determinants of peer group status, the need for alternative indicators of children's social standing in the peer group is discussed.

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

“…For each item, the program summed the number of nominations received by each child and transformed them into z-standardized scores. In the calculation of these scores, the program took into account how many nominations a student could maximally receive given the class size (Newcomb and Bukowski 1983). (3) Teacher ratings: teachers rated for each child how many times the child bullied other children in their class this school year on a five-point scale, ranging from "never" to "several times a week" (Olweus 1989).…”

Sociometric Status and Social Drinking: Observations of Modelling and Persuasion in Young Adult Peer Groups

“…Nevertheless, few attempts have been made to assess sociometric status in young adult leisure groups. We applied the nomination method described by Newcomb and Bukowski (1983) ("Which three persons in the group do you like most/least") to assess social impact (a sum of like and dislike nominations received) and preference (a subtraction of like and dislike nominations received) (items 1 and 2, see Table 1), and combined this with 12 items to assess six more constructs we regarded potentially relevant in terms of social influence (both in terms of influence exerted or received), which are all displayed in Table 1. Some of these items arose from a consideration of the Revised Class Play (Masten et al 1985), but were adapted to fit the assessment sociometric status of young adults in a friendship group.…”

“…A second reason for the lack of findings on the role of sociometric status would be 4 that we applied sociometric measures on a continuous scale, instead of combining scores to classify people in groups (like Newcomb and Bukowski 1983). Combining continuous scores into twodimensional categories might have revealed certain combinations of sociometric scores that are predictive of social influence.…”

The Significance of Reciprocal and Unilateral Friendships for Peer Victimization in Adolescence

“…For each participant, scores on each of these three items were determined by summing all received nominations from classmates on that item. These three raw scores were transformed into within-class probability scores (p-scores) assuming a generalized binomial distribution, thus correcting for unequal numbers of nominations made among children and differences in class size (Newcomb and Bukowski 1983). The p-scores were then z-standardized across all participants.…”