Understanding the Link Between Social and Emotional Well-Being and Peer Relations in Early Adolescence: Gender-Specific Predictors of Peer Acceptance

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Understanding the Link Between Social and EmotionalWell-Being and Peer Relations in Early Adolescence:Gender-Specific Predictors of Peer Acceptance

Eva Oberle • Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl •

Kimberly C. Thomson

Received: 26 September 2009 / Accepted: 19 November 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Past studies have investigated relationships

between peer acceptance and peer-rated social behaviors.

However, relatively little is known about the manner in

which indices of well-being such as optimism and positive

affect may predict peer acceptance above and beyond peer

ratings of antisocial and prosocial behaviors. Early ado-

lescence—roughly between the ages of 9 and 14—is a time

in the life span in which individuals undergo a myriad of

changes at many different levels, such as changes due to

cognitive development, pubertal development, and social

role redefinitions. The present study investigated the rela-

tionship of self-reported affective empathy, optimism,

anxiety (trait measures), and positive affect (state measure)

to peer-reported peer acceptance in 99 (43% girls) 4th and

5th grade early adolescents. Because our preliminary

analyses revealed gender-specific patterns, hierarchical

regression analyses were conducted to investigate the

predictors of peer acceptance separately for boys and for

girls. Girls’ acceptance of peers was significantly predicted

by higher levels of empathy and optimism, and lower

positive affect. For boys, higher positive affect, lower

empathy, and lower anxiety significantly predicted peer

acceptance. The results emphasize the importance of

including indices of social and emotional well-being in

addition to peer-ratings in understanding peer acceptance

in early adolescence, and urge for more research on gen-

der-specific peer acceptance.

Keywords Peer acceptance � Social and emotional

well-being � Empathy � Optimism � Gender differences

Introduction

Understanding the role that peer acceptance and peer

rejection play in the social and emotional development of

children and adolescents has been a burgeoning concern of

parents, educators, and researchers who share an interest in

the promotion of positive development and the prevention

of psychological and educational problems. This concern

has spurred research on the consequences of peer accep-

tance vs. rejection over the past few decades (Dougherty

2006; Pepler and Craig 1998). Half a century ago, Sullivan

(1953) posited that experiences with peers in childhood and

early adolescence, in contrast to experiences with adults,

provide learning opportunities for important social skills

such as cooperation, altruism, and empathy. Moreover,

feelings of relatedness with, and belonging to peers are

believed to be significantly associated with early adoles-

cents’ adjustment to school, self-worth, and self-esteem

(Connell and Wellborn 1991). Peers are of central impor-

tance in children’s and adolescents’ academic develop-

ment, social functioning, and psychological well-being

(e.g., Nangle and Erdley 2001; Wentzel 2009). In partic-

ular, peer acceptance—that is the degree to which an

individual is liked or disliked by his or her peers—is not

E. Oberle (&) � K. A. Schonert-Reichl � K. C. Thomson

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology,

and Special Education, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, BC, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

K. A. Schonert-Reichl

e-mail: [email protected]

K. C. Thomson

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Youth Adolescence

DOI 10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9

only a correlate of early adolescents’ well-being; peer

rejection has been found to forecast adjustment problems in

later adolescence and adulthood (e.g., Parker and Asher

1993; Rubin et al. 2006).

Much of the past empirical research examining the

correlates and consequences of peer relationships during

early adolescence has been primarily focused on under-

standing the negative dimensions of peer relationships such

as bullying, peer victimization, and rejection, and their

long term consequences including school withdrawal,

mental illness, and behavioral problems (e.g., Dijkstra et al.

2007; Gazelle and Druhen 2009; Georgiou and Stavrinides

2008; Mercer and DeRosier 2008; Nesdale and Lambert

2007; Trentacosta and Shaw 2009). Although these studies

have furthered the understanding of the negative effects of

peer relationships on the well-being of early adolescents,

knowledge of the positive underpinnings of peer relation-

ships is somewhat limited.

Recently researchers have argued for taking a

strengths-based approach in investigating child and ado-

lescent development by including positive dimensions of

social and emotional skills and well-being when exam-

ining young adolescents’ peer relationships. One such

approach has been identified as ‘‘positive youth develop-

ment’’ (Benson et al. 2006; Damon 2004). As posited by

Damon (2004), ‘‘The positive youth development per-

spective emphasizes the manifest potentialities rather than

the supposed incapacities of young people…’’ (p. 15).

The positive youth development movement aligns with

the paradigm shift occurring in psychology that is

reflected in a growing interest among researchers to study

the positive aspects of human nature rather than its neg-

ative aspects. The positive psychology movement, as it

has been called, aims to examine the positive features of

human development including the study of personal traits

such as, ‘‘subjective well-being, optimism, happiness, and

self-determination’’ (Seligman and Csikszentimihalyi

2000, p. 9). Recent work within this area has been

expanding to include younger populations (Clonan et al.

2004; Huebner and Gilman 2003; Terjesen et al. 2004).

Shifting away from a focus of human dysfunction to a

strengths-based approach, the recent years have been

marked by a growing body of research and literature on

conditions that explain, promote, and foster well-being

in children and adolescents. Indeed, rather than focusing

solely on aspects of psychopathology and deviance, we

are following the call for a positive approach to psy-

chology through the study of human potential and well-

being. Accordingly, the purpose of this current research

was to further elucidate the positive correlates of peer

relationships by examining multiple dimensions of self-

reported well-being in predicting peer acceptance during

the early adolescent age-period.

Peer Relationships and Well-Being in Children

and Early Adolescents

Peer relationships can be important sources of affection,

intimacy, reliable alliance, feelings of inclusion, and

enhancement of self-worth (Erdley et al. 2001), and have

been linked to both the current and future well-being of

children. Research studies have demonstrated that having

positive peer relationships in the early elementary school

years is associated with an increase in social compe-

tence and acceptance throughout the later school years

(Kuperschmidt and Coie 1990), whereas poor peer rela-

tionships are known to forecast negative outcomes later

in life such as early school withdrawal, delinquency,

substance abuse, and mental health problems (McDougall

et al. 2001; Woodward and Fergusson 1999). Children

who engage positively with their peers also tend to be

more motivated in school and perform better on aca-

demic tasks (Wentzel 2003, 2009). In addition to its

relationship to academic outcomes, peer acceptance also

has been found to be significantly associated with self-

reported well-being. Engaging in positive relationships

with peers has been linked to higher levels of emotional

well-being, increased adoption of values for prosocial

behaviors, and more positive beliefs about the self (Rubin

et al. 2006). Additionally, peer acceptance has been

found to be related to other indices of social and emo-

tional competences such as moral reasoning (Schonert-

Reichl 1999). Although far from conclusive, emerging

evidence suggests that positive psychological traits such

as happiness and optimism are significantly and posi-

tively associated with supportive relationships with both

peers and parents in early adolescence (Schonert-Reichl

et al. 2008).

Compared to research with early elementary school

students, there exist relatively few empirical studies that

have investigated peer relationships in early adolescence.

This paucity of research is surprising given that the early

adolescent age-period has been characterized as a time of

critical transitions (e.g., from elementary school to middle

school) and tremendous developmental changes in the

social, biological, and cognitive domains (Eccles 1999;

Eccles and Roeser 2009). The phrase early adolescence is

commonly used to refer to the developmental period of

children between the ages 9 and 14, a period marked by a

desire for autonomy (Steinberg 1990) and a move away

from parental influence to an increasing focus on peers and

social acceptance (Steinberg 2005; Wigfield et al. 2006).

The nature and pace of changes during this critical period

makes early adolescence an important time during which to

study human development.

Research is in accord in suggesting that there is a

heightened importance of peer group inclusion during the

J Youth Adolescence

123

early adolescent years. For instance, studies on friend-

ships in early adolescence have shown that being socially

accepted and having friends in middle school is posi-

tively related to academic achievement (Wentzel et al.

2004), and more prosocial behavior and less antisocial

behavior at school (Claes and Simard 1993). Addition-

ally, early adolescents who have friends report higher

levels of well-being (Berndt and Keefe 1995), lower

levels of emotional distress (Wentzel and Caldwell 1997),

and better school adjustment (Wentzel et al. 2004).

Conversely, there is also evidence for the power of a

mutual reciprocated friendship, with adjustment benefits

being the same for those children who report having only

one reciprocated best friend compared to those who

report multiple reciprocated friendships (Wentzel et al.

2004; Vitaro et al. 2009). In this vein, research has

shown that it is not enough to merely determine whether

or not an early adolescent has friends, it is the quality of

those friendships that needs to be considered when pre-

dicting early adolescents’ present and future adjustment

problems (for a review, see Hartup 1996).

Predictors of Peer Acceptance

Well-liked children tend to be kind, cooperative, friendly

and helpful, whereas rejected children tend to show

heightened levels of aggression, disruptive behaviors,

withdrawal and submissive behaviors (Asher and

McDonald 2009). Decovic and Gerris (1994), for exam-

ple, reported that besides having social cognition skills

(i.e., differentiation of perspectives and perspective tak-

ing), being perceived as helpful, cooperative, empathic,

and sympathetic by peers significantly predicted popu-

larity in the peer group for 5th grade students. Similarly,

Greener (2000) found that 8- to 12-year-old children who

were rated as more prosocial by their peers had fewer

social adjustment problems (i.e., were less rejected or

neglected) than children who were perceived to be less

prosocial. Empirical studies have found that anxious

youth also perceive themselves as being rejected by their

classmates and report fewer friendships than do non-

anxious youth (Inderbitzen et al. 1997; Juvonen and

Graham 2001). Additionally, social anxiety has been

found to be a positive predictor of peer victimization and

a negative predictor of acceptance (Flanagan et al. 2008).

Taken together, these research findings indicate that

children’s peer acceptance is positively associated to

psychological adjustment and prosocial behaviors and

negatively associated with aggression and maladjustment,

and hence underline the significance of further examining

peer acceptance and its correlates.

Gender Differences in Peer Relationships

Findings on peer relationships do not always apply simi-

larly to girls and boys. Gender differences have been

reported both in the structure and content of peer rela-

tionships (Rose 2007; Rose and Smith 2009), and theorists

have suggested that girls more so than boys have a need to

establish harmonic relationships (Maccoby 1990). Consis-

tent with this theory, displays of anger and disappointment

in interactions have been found less frequently in girls than

in boys (e.g., Davis 1995) whereas girls, more frequently

than boys, display emotions of sadness and pain (Zeman

and Garber 1996). Girls also have been found to score

higher than boys on the affective component of empathy,

while this gender difference has not been found on the

cognitive component of empathy (Lafferty 2004), with

both impacting social interactions and relationships.

Nonetheless, there is little consensus about the exact nature

of gender differences (Erdley et al. 2001) as some studies

have either failed to find differences between boys and girls

(e.g., Walker 2004) or have found effects in the opposite

direction (e.g., Walter and LaFreniere 2000). Overall, there

has been a call for research studies that are specifically

designed to investigate and explain gender differences in

friendships and peer relationships (Erdley et al. 2001; Rose

and Smith 2009; Rubin et al. 2006).

Measuring Peer Acceptance and Social Behaviors

with Peers

A range of different strategies for measuring peer accep-

tance and peer social behaviors in children and early ado-

lescents have been reported in the literature, ranging from

self-reports, peer-reports, and teacher-reports to parental

measures and observations of children’s acceptance and

social interactions in the peer group (see Cillessen 2009;

Hymel et al. 2002; Pepler and Craig 1998 for reviews

regarding the measurement of peer acceptance and peer

behaviors). In the present study, rather than rely on

teachers’ or other adult informants’ reports of children’s

peer acceptance and peer social behaviors, we gathered

data via the reports of early adolescents’ peers. Accord-

ingly, to assess early adolescents’ social behaviors, we used a

peer nomination and behavioral assessment method whereby

participants nominated their classmates who fit particular

behavioral characteristics associated with prosocial charac-

teristics (e.g., ‘‘Circle the names of your classmates who are

kind.’’), prosocial behaviors (e.g., ‘‘Circle the names of your

classmates who share and cooperate.’’), and antisocial

behaviors (e.g., ‘‘Circle the names of your classmates who

start fights.’’). Moreover, to access levels of peer acceptance,

we asked early adolescents to nominate their classmates with

J Youth Adolescence

123

whom they would like to be in school activities—this is an

approach commonly used to assess the degree to which an

individual is liked or disliked by his or her peer group. Taken

together, such approaches offer peer–rated assessments from

multiple raters instead of a rating from just one teacher or

adult. As well, peer nominations and behavioral assessments

may also provide information regarding a wider range of

observations of a child’s behaviors in settings beyond the

classroom. That is, peer reports increase the power of the

assessment procedure because many peers are involved in

the evaluation rather than just a single observer such as a

teacher or parent. In this sense, peers can act as ‘‘participant

observers,’’ and as such are in a particularly advantageous

position to provide assessment information to the researcher

about the social behaviors of their classmates (Younger

et al. 2000).

Emotionality and Peer Relationships

To date, as reflected by the previously cited findings, self-

reported social and emotional well-being is frequently

considered as an outcome of peer relationships in research

studies rather than as a predictor. Traditionally, research on

peer acceptance focuses on social and emotional skills and

prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping, cooperating) as predictor

variables. Well-being (e.g., optimism), in contrast, is fre-

quently considered to be an outcome of having friends

and being accepted by peers. However, the relationship

between peer status and emotional well-being needs to be

seen as bidirectional, with both well-being impacting social

status and social status impacting well-being concurrently

(Dougherty 2006). Although the impact of self-perceived

social competence and emotional well-being on relation-

ships is apparent, relatively few studies have included these

dimensions together in research studies aimed at explaining

acceptance by peers. Notwithstanding, Dougherty, in a

recent meta-analysis of children’s emotionality and social

status, reported evidence for a stable negative relationship

between negative emotionality (e.g., anger, aggression) and

social status and a positive relationship between positive

emotionality (e.g., happiness) and social status with a small

to medium effect size. Additionally, she reported that

positive affect positively predicted peer group social status

(even though reliability indices were low). In his conclu-

sion, Dougherty called for more studies to investigate the

relationship between children’s positive emotionality and

peer acceptance. In one of the most recent studies con-

ducted to date, Schultz et al. (2009) investigated the rela-

tionship of positive and negative emotionality to peer

acceptance in a sample of 1st and 2nd grade children.

These researchers found that children more frequently

nominated their peers who had high scores of happiness

and interest as ‘‘liked,’’ whereas nominations of anger and

sadness significantly predicted disliking. Nonetheless, the

question remains as to the extent to which these findings

generalize to a sample of early adolescents.

The impact of positive emotions on relationships also

has been reported in a number of empirical studies with

adult samples (e.g., Achat et al. 2000; Diener and Seligman

2002). Lyubomirsky et al. (2005), in their meta-analysis on

the benefits of happiness in adult populations, for example,

concluded that emotional well-being and positive emotions

such as happiness, self-confidence, and optimism are stably

linked to successful life outcomes valued by society, such

as reaching out socially instead of withdrawing, and ulti-

mately forming more and better relationships with close

friends. In their article, the authors defined happiness as the

experience of high average levels of positive affect, which

they also described as chronic happiness or trait positive

affect. Some researchers have also suggested that this kind

of happiness may be rooted in personality predispositions

(Lyubomirsky et al. 2005b).

Summary and Hypothesis

In summary, although past research has investigated the

relationship between peer acceptance and peer-rated pro-

social and antisocial behaviors, relatively little is known

about the degree to which self-reported measures of social

competence and well-being predict peer acceptance above

and beyond peer nominations of social behaviors.

Accordingly, we designed our study to examine several

predictors of peer acceptance, including empathy, opti-

mism, positive affect, and anxiety as indicators of social

and emotional well-being. Our rationale for choosing these

particular variables was informed from previous research

findings in which a positive link has been found regarding

the association of peer relationships and optimism

(Schonert-Reichl et al. 2008), empathy (Decovic and

Gerris 1994), positive affect (Dougherty 2006), and a

negative association between peer acceptance and anxiety

(Flanagan et al. 2008). In addition to the generally limited

research on social and emotional well-being as a predictor

of peer acceptance, gender-specific associations have been

understudied to this point—therefore in the present study

we examined the degree to which peer-rated acceptance by

girls, and peer-rated acceptance by boys differ. Finally, our

study examined peer acceptance from a positive psychol-

ogy perspective. Clonan et al. (2004) posit that research

from a positive psychology framework focuses on one or

more of three pillars: (1) positive subjective experience, (2)

positive individual traits, and (3) positive institutions. In

light of this research, in our study we chose to focus on the

first two pillars by investigating not only early adolescents’

J Youth Adolescence

123

subjective experiences with regard to positive affect, but

also the manner in which positive individuals traits—

namely optimism and empathy—predict peer acceptance.

We designed our study to examine one primary

hypothesis. Specifically, we expected to find that higher

levels of empathy, optimism, and positive affect, and lower

levels of anxiety would predict higher levels of peer

acceptance after taking into consideration the effects of

peer-nominated prosocial and antisocial behaviors. To

address the issue of differences between boys and girls in

relationship to peer-rated acceptance, we explored gender-

specific patterns for peer-rated acceptance by boys and by

girls in our model.

Method

Participants

Participants were students in their early adolescence who

were part of a larger study examining the effects of a

school-based social and emotional competence promotion

program. Data were drawn from pre-test measures admin-

istered prior to the implementation of the intervention.

Participants included 56 boys and 43 girls in four 4th and

5th grade classrooms attending public elementary schools

in middle class neighborhoods in a large city in Western

Canada. The students’ ages ranged from 9.00 to 11.16 years

(M = 10.23 years, SD = 0.53). As to participants’ family

compositions, 84% reported living in two parent homes

(including both biological and step-parent families), 9%

reported living with mother only, and the remainder

reported living in dual custody arrangements (i.e., 1/2 time

mother, 1/2 father). With regard to language, 66% of the

early adolescents reported that English was their native

language. For the remaining ones, the majority reported that

their language at home was of East Asian origin (27%; e.g.,

Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese) and 10% indicated a range

of other languages (e.g., Spanish, Russian, Polish). This

range of language backgrounds in the sample is reflective of

the cultural and ethnic diversity of the Canadian city in

which this research took place. Classroom teachers reported

that all students were competent in English to participate

and complete the study measures.

After university and school board permission had been

provided to conduct the research, parental permission

forms, along with a letter from the school principal

describing the research, were given to students. Prior to

providing students with the parental permission slips, either

a trained research assistant or the Principal Investigator of

the research project provided a 15-min presentation to each

participating class describing the study in age-appropriate

language and answering questions. Afterwards, consent

forms were handed to all of the students in the classroom.

Parents were told that the purpose of the project was to gain

understanding about the role well-being plays in early

adolescents’ relationships with their peers. The research

project was seen as important by school district personnel

because it offered the opportunity to provide information to

them regarding students’ well-being and competence. This

resulted in our receiving strong support from school district

administrators, school principals, and participating class-

room teachers, which in turn resulted in the achievement of a

high participation rate. Specifically, of the early adolescents

recruited for participation, approximately 98% received

parental consent and gave assent themselves.

Procedure

Questionnaires were administered to students in their

classroom during a 45-min class period in the spring of the

school year. The students were informed that the project

was both about understanding early adolescents’ peer

relationships and their understanding of themselves. Each

item was read out loud to students by a trained research

assistant while students completed the measures. Students

were assured that all of their answers were strictly confi-

dential and that peers, parents, or teachers would not be

able to access their responses. To insure privacy and to

prevent students from talking or reading their neighbors’

answers, students were asked to move their desks apart.

Teachers stayed in the classroom during administration and

they were advised not to walk around and look at the

students’ surveys.

Measures

Peer nominations were used to ascertain peer acceptance

and to assess prosocial behavior and characteristics as well

as antisocial behaviors. Self-reports were used to assess the

remaining variables.

Empathy

To measure early adolescents’ empathy, we used the

Empathic Concern subscale from the Interpersonal Reac-

tivity Index (IRI; Davis 1983). The Empathic Concern

subscale assesses the general tendency to feel compassion

and concern for others and is comprised of seven items.

The items assess the affective dimension of empathy (e.g.,

‘‘I often feel sorry for people who don’t have the things I

have’’). Items are rated from 1 = Not at all like me, to

5 = Always like me. The mean score for all items was

calculated after reversing items, if appropriate. Higher

scores were indicative of a higher level of affective

empathy. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the

J Youth Adolescence

123

Empathic Concern subscale of the IRI was found to be

adequate (a = .80).

Positive Affect

To measure positive affect we used the Positive Affect sub-

scale from the 30-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al. 1999). Fifteen emo-

tion words are rated according to how much the respondent

has felt that emotion over the last few weeks. Because

respondents to the PANAS-C are asked to respond to items

with regard to a specific time frame, the PANAS-C assesses

states rather than the trait of positive and negative affect. The

positive affect subscale measures children’s general interest,

engagement, and energy. Sample items on the positive affect

scale include ‘‘Interested,’’ ‘‘Calm,’’ and ‘‘Energetic.’’ Note

that none of the items refer to a specific domain in an early

adolescent’s life. Each item requires children to rate how

frequently they experience a specific feeling state, from 1

Very slightly or not at all to 5 A lot. Higher scores are

indicative of higher levels of positive affect. The PANAS-C is

similar to the original PANAS, but includes only words that a

sample of 4th to 8th graders consistently understands. Internal

consistency was found to be satisfactory in the present study

(Cronbach’s alpha = .86).

Anxiety

Anxiety was assessed with the Seattle Personality Ques-

tionnaire for Children (SPQC; Kusche et al. 1988). The

SPQC is a self-report measure designed to assess the

general personality characteristics of children. The SPQC

is comprised of four subscales: Conduct Problems,

Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety, and Somatization. For the

purposes of the present investigation only one of these

subscales, Anxiety, was utilized in our analyses. The

Anxiety factor includes seven items related to anxiety (e.g.,

‘‘Do you feel afraid a lot of the time?’’). Items are rated on

a scale from 1 = Not at all to 4 = Always. Higher scores

indicate higher levels of anxiety. The anxiety subscale of

the SPQC assesses anxiety as a general personality char-

acteristic and not as a temporary state in response to a

specific situation. In the present study, internal consistency

was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha = .69).

Optimism

We assessed early adolescents’ optimism with the Opti-

mism subscale from the Resiliency Inventory (RI; Noam

and Goldstein 1998; Song 2003). The RI was designed to

assess six dimensions of resilience: Optimism, Self-effi-

cacy, Relationships with adults, Relationships with peers,

Interpersonal sensitivity, and Emotional control. For the

purposes of our study, only the Optimism subscale was

used. The Optimism subscale is comprised of nine items

and assesses respondents’ positive perspective on the world

and the future in general (sample item: ‘‘More good things

than bad things will happen to me’’). Students were asked

to rate each item on a five point Likert-type scale ranging

from 1 = Not at all like me, 2 = A little bit like me,

3 = Kind of like me, 4 = A lot like me, 5 = Always like

me. For the present research study Cronbach’s alpha for

the Optimism subscale was acceptable (a = .69).

Peer Acceptance

Early adolescents’ level of acceptance by peers was asses-

sed using a nomination sociometric procedure. Students

were provided with a roster of all participating classmates’

names and were asked to circle the names of all of their

classmates with whom they ‘‘would like to be in school

activities.’’ For peer acceptance, the percentage of nomi-

nations received was computed by dividing the number of

nominations received by the number of participating stu-

dents in the classroom. For statistical analysis, we computed

three nomination proportion scores per student for each

item analyzed: an overall peer acceptance score, a score for

acceptance by boys, and a score for acceptance by girls. The

gender specific nominal proportion score was used for

analyzing girls’ vs. boys’ acceptance of peers.

Prosocial Behaviors and Characteristics, and Antisocial

Behaviors

Unlimited same- and cross-gender peer nominations were

used to assess early adolescents’ prosocial behaviors and

characteristics, and antisocial behaviors (Schonert-Reichl

1999; Wentzel 1994). Three types of social behaviors/

characteristics were assessed in the present study, namely,

prosocial behaviors (‘‘shares and cooperates,’’ ‘‘helps other

kids when they have a problem’’), prosocial characteristics

(‘‘who are kind,’’ ‘‘who you can trust,’’ ‘‘who understand

others’ points of view’’), and antisocial behaviors (‘‘start

fights,’’ ‘‘break the rules and do things they’re not supposed

to do’’). Those behaviors/characteristics correspond to

positive and to negative interactional qualities that correlate

with peer liking and disliking among young adolescents

(Parkhurst and Asher 1992). Young adolescents received a

list of all of their classmates (male and female) along with a

roster of seven different nomination categories of prosocial

and antisocial behaviors and characteristics that were

described above. We distinguished between prosocial

behaviors and prosocial characteristics for conceptual rea-

sons, reasoning that students who are nominated by their

peers as ‘‘being trustworthy’’ (prosocial characteristic),

for example, are not necessarily also nominated as

J Youth Adolescence

123

‘‘cooperating’’ (prosocial behavior). Students were asked to

circle the names of those classmates who displayed the given

behavior/characteristic most of the time. Students were

instructed to circle as many or as few names as they liked.

Because data collection took place in the Spring semester

and students were in intact classrooms, it was reasonable to

assume that all of the students knew each other well enough

to make valid nominations. As well, all early adolescents

had been in the class with each other since the beginning of

the school year. Similar to the peer acceptance ratings

procedure, for each behavior/characteristic, the percentage

of nominations received was computed by dividing the

number of nominations received by the number of partici-

pating students in the classroom. Scores on the prosocial

behavior items were significantly correlated (r = .78,

p \ .001), as were scores on the prosocial characteristic

items (r’s = .60–.82, p’s \ .001), and the antisocial

behavior items (r’s = .84, p \ .001). Therefore, scores

were averaged to form composite scores for each dimension

resulting in three nominations scores: Prosocial Behaviors,

Prosocial Characteristics, and Antisocial Behaviors.

Background Information

Students completed a general information sheet that asked

them their sex, grade level, family composition, date and

year of birth, and first language learned.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

We conducted analyses to ensure that the data did not

violate any of the assumptions for hierarchical regression

analysis. Normality, linearity, multicollinearity, hetero-

scedacity, normality of error distribution, and indepen-

dence of errors assumption were not violated.

Correlations

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among

all variables included in the analysis of peer acceptance by

girls and peer acceptance by boys are presented in Table 1.

As can be seen, a number of significant correlations

emerged among several of our variables. For example, peer

acceptance by girls was positively and significantly related

to prosocial behaviors (r = .70, p \ .001), prosocial

characteristics (r = .70, p \ .001), empathy (r = .37,

p \ .001), and optimism (r = .30, p \ .001), and nega-

tively related to antisocial behaviors (r = -.43, p \ .001).

Peer acceptance by boys was positively and significantly

related to positive affect (r = .21, p \ .05), and negatively

related to anxiety (r = -.22, p \ .05) and empathy (r =

-.26, p \ .01). There were positive and significant corre-

lations between prosocial behaviors and empathy (r = .31,

p \ .01) and prosocial behaviors and optimism (r = .34,

p \ .01), and negative and significant correlations between

antisocial behaviors and prosocial behaviors (r = -.66,

p \ .001), and between antisocial behaviors and optimism

(r = -.22, p \ .05). Analyses revealed that peer accep-

tance by girls was significantly negatively correlated to

acceptance by boys. The reader should note here that we

are referring to peer acceptance by girls and peer accep-

tance by boys (i.e., both boys and girls could be accepted

by boys, just as students of both genders could be accepted

by girls.) In this case, students who were accepted by girls

were more likely to not be accepted by boys and vice versa.

To further investigate the gender specificity of peer

acceptance, we next examined whether girls were nomi-

nated by a higher proportion of girls than boys, and boys by

a higher proportion of boys than girls on the peer accep-

tance item. We conducted two independent sample t-tests

with gender as an independent variable, and peer accep-

tance by girls/peer acceptance by boys as dependent vari-

ables. Findings revealed no significant difference between

the peer acceptance scores girls received by same-gender

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among variables

Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. Peer acceptance by boys .331 .279 –

2. Peer acceptance by girls .318 .292 -.393*** –

3. Peer-rated prosocial behavior .451 .153 .002 .703*** –

4. Peer-rated antisocial behavior .094 .147 .006 -.428*** -.657** –

5. Peer-rated prosocial characteristics .446 .145 .054 .703*** .822*** -.652*** –

6. Empathy 3.680 .711 -.262** .373*** .307** -.060 .244* –

7. Positive affect 3.748 .668 .208* -.160 -.040 .081 -.30 .271** –

8. Optimism 3.758 .599 .038 .297** .344*** -.223* .311** .296** .348*** –

9. Anxiety 2.258 .652 -.215* .120 .033 .092 .019 .153 -.029 -.366***

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

J Youth Adolescence

123

classmates (M = .30, SD = .27) versus cross-gender

(M = .34, SD = .31) classmates, F(1, 97) = .691, ns. The

same was true for boys in that there were no differences

between levels of acceptance from girls (M = .38,

SD = .29) versus boys (M = .29, SD = .26), F(1, 97) =

-1.681, ns. These findings are in accord with other

research that found that 90% of early adolescents report

having a cross-gender friend (McDougall and Hymel

2007). We therefore preceded the analyses by developing

two gender-specific regression models of peer acceptance

to investigate overall, what predicts being accepted by

girls, and what predicts being accepted by boys.

Regression Analyses

We investigated the gender-specific predictors for peer

acceptance, by conducting two separate hierarchical mul-

tiple regressions, one using girls’ acceptance by peers and

one using boys’ acceptance of peers as the dependent

variables, respectively. In both analyses, we regressed peer-

rated prosocial behaviors, prosocial characteristics, and

antisocial behaviors on peer acceptance in Step 1. In Step 2

we added gender and self-rated empathy, positive affect,

optimism, and anxiety as predictors in the model. Results

are presented first for girls’ (see Table 2), followed by boys’

peer acceptance (see Table 3). Controlling for English

Second Language (ESL) and age did not alter the overall

results. To increase the power of the analyses, we therefore

did not include age or ESL as predictors in the model.

Predictors for Peer Acceptance by Girls

Overall, Model 1 was statistically significant explaining

55.4% of the variance in peer acceptance by girls [adjusted

R2 = .540, F(3, 94) = 38.45, p \ .001]. Peer-rated pro-

social behaviors and characteristics were both significant

positive predictors of peer acceptance, whereas peer-rated

antisocial behaviors did not predict peer acceptance

Table 2 Hierarchical regression analysis of girls’ acceptance of their peers

Model B Standard error b t-value Sig.

1 Peer-rated prosocial behavior .835 .244 .446 3.495 .001**

Peer-rated antisocial behavior .295 .189 .148 1.562 .122

Peer-rated prosocial characteristic .871 .235 .432 3.438 .001**

2 Peer-rated prosocial behavior .539 .236 .282 2.281 .025*

Peer-rated antisocial behavior .210 .179 .106 1.172 .244

Peer-rated prosocial characteristic .899 .237 .447 3.803 .000***

Gender -.066 .038 -.112 -1.724 .088

Empathy .071 .030 .173 2.349 .021*

Positive affect -.113 .031 -.257 -3.607 .001**

Optimism .079 .040 .161 1.950 .054*

Anxiety .051 .033 .113 1.550 .125

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analysis of boys’ acceptance of peers

Model B Standard error b t-value Sig.

1 Peer-rated prosocial behavior -.269 .345 -.148 -.779 .438

Peer-rated antisocial behavior .061 .267 .032 .229 .820

Peer-rated prosocial characteristics .383 .358 .200 1.096 .288

2 Peer-rated prosocial behavior .178 .330 .098 .540 .591

Peer-rated antisocial behavior .224 .250 .129 .976 .332

Peer-rated prosocial characteristics .351 .330 .184 1.066 .290

Gender .078 .053 .140 1.467 .146

Empathy -.132 .042 -.338 -3.133 .002**

Positive affect .143 .044 .342 3.276 .002**

Optimism -.056 .056 -.121 -.998 .321

Anxiety -.093 .046 -.217 -2.037 .045*

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

J Youth Adolescence

123

significantly. After entering gender and self-report mea-

sures of empathy, optimism, positive affect, and anxiety in

the next step, Model 2 explained 64.3% of the variance in

peer acceptance, [adjusted R2 = .611, F(8, 89) = 20.08,

p = .001]. The change in explained variance between

Model 1 and Model 2 was significant, R2 change = .089,

F(5, 89) = 4.46, p = .001.

In Model 2, again, peer rated prosocial behaviors

(b = .282, p = .025) and characteristics (b = .437, p \.001), but not antisocial behaviors were significant pre-

dictors of peer acceptance by girls. In addition, self-

reported empathy and optimism were positive significant

predictors of peer acceptance whereas positive affect neg-

atively predicted girls’ peer acceptance. Gender, anxiety,

and peer rated antisocial behaviors were not significant

predictors in the model (see Table 2).

Predictors for Peer Acceptance by Boys

In contrast to the girls’ model, the overall Model 1 for

boys’ acceptance of peers was not statistically significant

[adjusted R2 = -.019, F(3, 94) = .382, ns], explaining

only 1.2% of the variance in peer acceptance. None of the

three predictors were significant. After entering gender and

the self-report measures, Model 2 explained 23% of the

variance in peer acceptance by boys, [adjusted R2 = .164,

F(8, 89) = 3.39, p = .002]. There was a significant change

in explained variance from Model 1 to Model 2, R2

change = .221, F(5, 89) = 5.14, p \ .001. In Model 2,

empathy and anxiety both negatively predicted, and posi-

tive affect positively predicted, peer acceptance. Optimism,

gender, and peer-rated antisocial and prosocial behaviors

and characteristics were not significant predictors in the

model (see Table 3).

Discussion

This is one of the first studies to explore the relationships

among self-reported empathy, optimism, positive affect

and peer acceptance in early adolescence, and one of the

few studies conducted to investigate peer acceptance as

opposed to peer rejection. We believe the most important

findings of this research to be that positive dimensions of

well-being are significantly and importantly related to peer

acceptance, and that predictors of peer acceptance differ

across genders. In the following sections, we discuss our

findings in light of theory and research on the social and

emotional dimensions of peer relationships and the role of

gender, and we raise some of the methodological issues

regarding the measurement of peer acceptance that need to

be considered when interpreting our findings. We end our

discussion with directions for future research in this area.

A negative correlation between peer acceptance by boys

and peer acceptance by girls was revealed in our pre-

liminary analyses, a finding which aligns with theoretical

considerations (Maccoby 1990; Rose 2007) and empirical

findings (Davis 1995; Zeman and Garber 1996). This

finding also builds on past research by identifying predic-

tors for with whom girls and boys want to play. This

pattern could not be explained by the occurrence of pre-

dominately same-gender relationships (i.e., girls only

wanting to be involved in activities with girls and boys

only with boys) because both boys and girls were equally

nominated by same- and cross-gender peers. Thus, given

this significant negative correlation, we developed two

gender-specific models investigating predictors of peer

acceptance by boys separately from predictors for peer

acceptance for girls.

The two gender-specific models tested for peer accep-

tance resulted in very different predictors for what explains

peer acceptance by girls and by boys. As expected, we

found general empathy and optimism to positively predict

peer acceptance by girls (note that both constructs were

measured as general traits in participants, instead of

assessing them in within a specific context or time span).

This is no surprise considering the abundance of literature

with stable findings on the positive relationship between

prosociality and peer acceptance as well as positive emo-

tions and peer acceptance, accordingly (e.g., Asher and

McDonald 2009; Decovic and Gerris 1994; Erdley et al.

2001; Schultz et al. 2009; Wentzel 2003). Discussing

empathy as a predictor of peer acceptance in particular, it

has been found that children with general high levels of

empathy respond to others’ emotional needs in a congruent

and affective manner (Eisenberg and Fabes 1990). Fur-

thermore, our results are consistent with the detailed review

provided by Eisenberg et al. (2006), describing the sig-

nificant positive association that has been found between

empathy and positive, harmonic peer relationships. In a

larger framework, our finding that optimism positively

predicts peer acceptance by girls is in accord with the

finding that an optimistic attitude towards life and the

future is an essential component of being resilient

(Kumpfer 1999). Furthermore, it aligns with previous

findings of a positive, significant relationship between trait-

optimism and positive relationships with peers and adults

in early adolescence (Schonert-Reichl et al. 2008).

Unexpectedly, we found that positive affect negatively

predicted peer acceptance by girls. This contradicts with

previous research findings that have indicated that being

happy is associated with more frequent socializing and

better self- and other-rated relationships (e.g., Diener and

Seligman 2002; Lyubomirsky et al. 2005a, b). We explain

our surprising result, in part, by the nature of the measure

that we used in our study to assess positive affect. First, we

J Youth Adolescence

123

assessed positive affect differently than in previous studies.

Specifically, whereas Diener and Seligman, and Lyubo-

mirsky have assessed happiness/positive affect as a stable,

trait-like characteristic, our measure of positive affect

assessed feelings within the past few weeks and thus did

not reflect participants’ positive affect as a personality

characteristic or trait but as a state. Second, our measure of

peer acceptance was based on an indirect measure of peer

acceptance—that is, we did not directly ask our partici-

pants to indicate whom they like and dislike in their class

(i.e., the direct approach to peer acceptance, see Hymel

et al. 2002), but instead we used an indirect approach by

asking our participants to nominate their classmates with

whom they would like to be in school activities. It is

possible that an individual with low self-rated positive

affect could be rated as less popular on a direct measure yet

girls could still nominate that individual to be in activities

with out of feelings of compassion and empathy. Further-

more, peer-rated prosocial behaviors and characteristics

positively predicted peer acceptance by girls, a replication

of the numerous findings described above.

Also contrary to what we expected, antisocial behaviors

did not significantly and negatively predict peer acceptance

by girls. Because we took a positive approach to peer

acceptance, the construct for antisocial behavior used here

was designed as a control variable that consisted of two

items, namely ‘‘breaking rules’’ and ‘‘starting fights.’’ In

previous research studies with a primary focus on peer-

rated antisocial behavior and its subcategories in relation to

peer acceptance and rejection have distinguished between

multiple forms of antisocial behaviors such as overt

aggression (e.g., hitting, fighting) and relational aggression

(e.g., spreading rumors, excluding peers intentionally)

(Cillessen and Mayeux 2004; Vaillancourt and Hymel

2006). The more general measure we used may explain

why antisocial behaviors did not negatively predict peer

acceptance. Furthermore, although previous research has

shown evidence for a negative relationship between anti-

social behaviors (e.g., aggression) and peer liking, a

number of recent research studies have revealed that

despite the finding that antisocial children are often dis-

liked by their peers, they are often perceived as powerful

and popular in their classrooms (e.g., Cillessen and May-

eux 2004; Vaillancourt and Hymel 2006). These findings

are a potential explanation for why girls in our study did

not necessarily refrain from nominating peers with whom

to be involved in activities, even if they perceived them to

exhibit antisocial behaviors.

Another finding that we found to be of interest in our

study was that higher levels of peer acceptance by boys

was significantly predicted by lower empathy and lower

anxiety scores. Boys in the time period of early adoles-

cence also start to take on gender-roles in terms of their

socialization, and being emotionally expressive in the form

of empathy or displaying anxiety could be considered

undesirable or ‘‘uncool.’’ This finding seems almost ste-

reotypical with boys wanting to be involved with peers

who are ‘‘tough,’’ have low anxiety, and are less empathic,

but display high positive affect. Support for this hypothesis

comes from previous research that has found high trait-

anxiety to be related to children being less liked (Flanagan

et al. 2008). Similarly, the positive link between positive

affect and peer acceptance aligns with previous findings

(Dougherty 2006). None of the control variables we used

(i.e., peer- reported antisocial and prosocial behaviors, and

prosocial characteristics) significantly predicted peer

acceptance by boys. Given these findings, our main con-

clusions from this study are that future research needs to

continue to include positive dimensions of well-being

when examining peer relationships, that there is a need to

thoroughly investigate gender-specific predictors of peer

acceptance during early adolescence, and that self-reports

of social and emotional skills and well-being need to be

included as predictors in research studies on peer accep-

tance, rather than exclusively viewing them as outcomes.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although the present study illuminates some of the

important predictors of peer acceptance in a sample of

early adolescents, it is not without its limitations. First, in

this study we assessed peer acceptance via peer nomina-

tions rather than a roster-and-rating procedure, so we were

therefore not able to create acceptance level subcategories

(e.g., ‘‘rejected,’’ neglected’’). Nominations per se do not

allow for ratings and sub-categorization of participants

(e.g., least liked, average liked, most liked). The use of

sociometric ratings could have provided us with additional

information about the specific peer status in the classroom,

and differences in predictors for the least, average, and

most popular adolescents could have been investigated.

Furthermore, nominations do not allow for drawing con-

clusions about peer rejection. Not being nominated can not

be seen equal to actively being rejected. Many ethical

review committees speculate about the risks of sociometric

measures, such as leading peers to view rejected children

as more negative than they already do (Hymel et al. 2002).

Bell-Dolan and Wessler (1994) provide a detailed discus-

sion about the ethical administration of sociometric mea-

sures. Due to restrictions given by our university ethics’

board, we were limited in the ways that we could assess

peer rejection actively.

Furthermore, our study was cross-sectional as it focused

solely on only one time point in the developmental period

of early adolescence, a period of critical transitions and

J Youth Adolescence

123

dramatic social, cognitive, and biological developments

(Eccles and Roeser 2009). Therefore, research that follows

early adolescents over the course of several years is needed

to determine the extent to which the nature of the rela-

tionships that we found are fleeting or have significant

impact beyond the early adolescent period. It is likely that

this gender-specific pattern is at the same time age-specific.

For instance, an overall decline in optimism and well-being

has been reported to occur throughout the early adolescent

years, with children becoming less egocentric and more

aware of the perspectives others hold of them (Eccles

1999). It is unclear at this point how this age-specific

development impacts peer relationships. Considering a

much earlier stage of development, Hinnant and O’Brian

(2007) found that there is a significant difference in

empathic skills between 5-year-old boys and girls. We can

therefore not assume that empathy has the same predictive

power in young children as it has in early adolescents.

Finally, it is important to consider that there are develop-

mental periods in which children tend to engage in same-

sex relationships (e.g., preschool) (Bukowski et al. 1993;

Pellegrini 2004). During these periods, we can assume that

the general nature of peer relationships significantly differs

from that in early adolescence, resulting in a different

overall model of what predicts being accepted by peers.

Future research on peer acceptance should be conducted

to include self-reported ratings of social and emotional

well-being. Ideally, studies need to be designed longitudi-

nally based on a large sample size in order to investigate

the impact of self-perceived well-being on peer acceptance

across different developmental periods. In addition, the

role of ethnic background and gender need to be investi-

gated in more detail. Despite these limitations, the findings

reported here add to a growing literature aimed at exam-

ining the positive role of peers in adolescent development,

and thus can provide information on the design and

implementation of interventions designed to foster positive

relationships in schools. As Jaffe et al. (2004) note, there is

a paucity of interventions in schools fostering the ‘‘Fourth

R’’ (relationships) besides the first three, almost exclu-

sively dominant ‘‘Rs’’ in the curriculum (reading, ‘riting,

and ‘rithmetic).

Despite some limitations, the findings reported herein

add to the growing literature on the relationship between

peer acceptance and social and emotional skills and well-

being, and thus to the movement of positive youth psy-

chology. We found that for girls, self-reported optimism

and empathy were significant positive predictors for

acceptance by peers, whereas positive affect was a negative

predictor. For boys, acceptance by peers was significantly

and positively predicted by positive affect, and negatively

by self-reported anxiety and empathy. Particularly, our

findings contribute to the understanding of gender-specific

peer acceptance and resulting differences between boys

and girls. Although a great deal needs to be learned about

the manner in which dimensions of positive human quali-

ties, such as empathy and positive affect serve to promote

peer acceptance during early adolescence, the current state

of the research supports the claim that this area may prove

to be fertile in shedding light on the underlying processes

and mechanisms of peer relationships. In turn, as stated

above, these insights may provide much needed direction

for the design and implementation of prevention and

intervention programs aimed at fostering positive devel-

opment. Surely, there is no single route to fostering peer

acceptance in children and adolescents. Our research sug-

gests that considering the positive predictors of peer

acceptance provides insights into the ways in which we

understand and address this complex phenomenon.

References

Achat, H., Kawachi, I., Spiro, A., de Moles, D. A., & Sparrow, D.

(2000). Optimism and depression as predictors of physical and

mental health functioning: The Normative Aging Study. Annalsof Behavioral Medicine, 22, 127–130.

Asher, S. R., & McDonald, K. L. (2009). The behavioral basis of

acceptance, rejection, and perceived popularity. In K. H. Rubin,

W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peerinteractions, relationships, and groups (pp. 232–248). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Bell-Dolan, D., & Wessler, A. E. (1994). Ethical administration of

sociometric measures: Procedures in use and suggestions for

improvement. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,25, 23–32.

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. L., Sesma, A., Jr., Hong,

K. L., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2006). Positive youth develop-

ment so far: Core hypotheses and their implications for policy

and practice. Search Institute Insights and Evidence, 3, 1–13.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’

adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.

Bukowski, W. M., Gauze, C., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (1993).

Differences and consistency between same-sex and other-sex

peer relationships during early adolescence. DevelopmentalPsychology, 29, 255–263.

Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin,

W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peerinteractions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York:

The Guilford Press.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to

reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association

between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75,

147–163.

Claes, M., & Simard, R. (1993). Friendship characteristics of

delinquent adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence &Youth, 3, 287–301.

Clonan, S. M., Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., & Riley-Tillman,

T. C. (2004). Positive psychology goes to school: Are we there

yet? Psychology in the Schools, 41, 101–110.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and

relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In

J Youth Adolescence

123

M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes anddevelopment: The Minnesota symposia on child development(Vol. 23, pp. 43–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 13–24.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy:

Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Person-aliy and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

Davis, T. (1995). Gender differences in masking negative emotions:

Ability or motivation? Developmental Psychology, 31, 660–667.

Decovic, M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1994). Developmental analysis of

social, cognitive and behavioral differences between popular and

rejected children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,15, 367–386.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people.

Psychological Science, 13, 81–84.

Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender

and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their

relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Com-

paring predictors from gender-homophily and goal-framing

approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1377–1389.

Dougherty, L. R. (2006). Children’s emotionality and social status: A

meta-analytic review. Social Development, 15, 394–417.

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. TheFuture of Children: When School is Out, 9, 30–44.

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation,

and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.),

Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 404–434).

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization,

measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation andEmotion, 14, 131–149.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial

development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology. Social, emotional, and personality development(Vol. 3, pp. 646–718). New York, NY: Wiley.

Erdley, C. A., Nangle, D. W., Newman, J. W., & Carpenter, E. M.

(2001). Children’s friendship experiences and psychological

adjustment: Theory and research. In D. W. Nangle & C. A.

Erdley (Series Eds.) & W. Damon (Volume Ed.), New directionsfor child and adolescent development. The role of friendship inpsychological adjustment (Vol. 91, pp. 5–24). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Flanagan, K. S., Erath, S. A., & Bierman, K. L. (2008). Unique

associations between peer relations and social anxiety in early

childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,39, 759–769.

Gazelle, H., & Druhen, M. J. (2009). Anxious solitude and peer

exclusion predicts social helplessness, upset affect, and vagal

regulation in response to behavioral rejection by a friend.

Developmental Psychology, 45, 1077–1096.

Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2008). Bullies, victims, and bully-

victims: Psychosocial profiles and attribution styles. SchoolPsychology International, 29, 574–589.

Greener, H. S. (2000). Peer assessment of children’s prosocial

behavior. Journal of Moral Education, 29, 47–60.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their

developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.

Hinnant, J. B., & O’Brian, M. (2007). Cognitive and emotional control

and perspective taking and their relations to empathy in 5-year-old

children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168, 301–322.

Huebner, E. S., & Gilman, R. (2003). Toward a focus on positive

psychology in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly,18, 99–102.

Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., & Renshaw, P. D. (2002).

Peer acceptance and rejection in childhood. In P. K. Smith &

C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood socialdevelopment (pp. 265–284). Oxford: Blackwell.

Inderbitzen, H. M., Walters, K. S., & Bukowski, A. L. (1997). The

role of social anxiety in adolescent peer relations: Differences

among sociometric status groups and rejected subgroups.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 338–348.

Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D., Crooks, C., Hughes, R., & Baker, L. L. (2004).

The fourth ‘‘R’’: Developing healthy relationships through

school-based interventions. In P. G. Jaffe, L. L. Baker, & A. J.

Cunningham (Eds.), Protecting children from domestic violence(pp. 200–218). New York: Guilford Press.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2001). Peer harassment in school: Theplight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford.

Kumpfer, K. L. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to

resilience: The resilience framework. In M. Glantz & J. Johnson

(Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations(pp. 179–224). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Kuperschmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status,

aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing

problems in adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350–1362.

Kusche, C. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Beilke, R. (1988). Seattlepersonality questionnaire for young school-aged children. Seattle,

OR: University of Washington, Department of Psychology.

Lafferty, J. (2004). The relationships between gender, empathy, and

aggressive behaviours among early adolescents. DissertationAbstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineer-ing, 64(12), 6377B.

Laurent, J., Cantanzaro, S., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I.,

Lambert, S., et al. (1999). A measure of positive affect for

children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psy-chological Assessment, 11, 326–338.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005a). The benefits of

positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? PsychologicalBulletin, 6, 803–855.

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005b). Pursuing

happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 9, 111–131.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental

account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.

McDougall, P., & Hymel, S. (2007). Same-gender versus cross-

gender friendship conceptions: Similar of different? MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 53, 347–380.

McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The

consequences of childhood peer rejection. In M. Leary (Ed.),

Interpersonal rejection (pp. 21–53). London: Oxford University

Press.

Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer

rejection, and student aggression: A prospective study of

transactional influence and independent contributions to emo-

tional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46,

661–685.

Nangle, D. W., & Erdley, C. A. (2001). Editors’ notes. In D. W.

Nangle & C. A. Erdley (Series Eds.) & W. Damon (Volume

Ed.), New directions for child and adolescent development. Therole of friendship in psychological adjustment (Vol. 91, pp. 1–4).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nesdale, D., & Lambert, A. (2007). Effects of experimentally

manipulated peer rejection on children’s negative affect, self-

esteem, and maladaptive social behavior. International Journalof Behavioral Development, 31, 115–122.

Noam, G. G., & Goldstein, L. S. (1998). The resiliency inventory.

Unpublished Protocol.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality

in middle childhood: Links between peer group acceptance and

feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. DevelopmentalPsychology, 29, 611–621.

J Youth Adolescence

123

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.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2004). Sexual segregation in childhood: A review of

evidence for two hypotheses. Animal Behaviour, 68, 435–443.

Pepler, D. J., & Craig, M. W. (1998). Assessing children’s peer

relationships. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 3, 176–182.

Rose, A. J. (2007). Structure, content, and socioemotional correlates

of girls’ and boys’ friendships. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 53,

489–506.

Rose, A. J., & Smith, R. L. (2009). Sex differences in peer

relationships. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups(pp. 379–393). New York: The Guilford Press.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions,

relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology: Social, emotional and personality develop-ment (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (1999). Relations of peer acceptance, friend-

ship, adjustment, and social behavior to moral reasoning during

early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 249–279.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Buote, D., Jaramillo, A., & Foulkes, K.

(2008). Happiness, optimism, and positive psychological traits

during pre and early adolescence: Relations to parents, peers,

and after school time. Paper presented at the biennial meeting ofthe Society for Research and Adolescence, Chicago, IL.

Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., Stapleton, L. M., Buckingham-Howes, S., &

Bear, G. A. (2009). Children’s social status as a function of

emotionality and attention control. Journal of Applied Develop-mental Psychology, 30, 169–181.

Seligman, E. P., & Csikszentimihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-

ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Song, M. (2003). Two studies on the resiliency inventory (RI):Toward the goal of creating a culturally sensitive measure ofadolescent resilience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Har-

vard University.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family

relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At thethreshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in

adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 69–74.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New

York: Norton.

Terjesen, M., Jacofsky, M., Froh, J., & DiGiuseppe, R. (2004).

Integrating positive psychology into schools: Implications for

practice. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 163–172.

Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2009). Emotional self-regulation,

peer rejection, and antisocial behavior: Development associa-

tions from early childhood to early adolescence. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 30, 356–365.

Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status:

The moderating roles of sex and peer valued characteristics.

Aggressive Behavior, 32, 396–408.

Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., & Bukowski, W. M. (2009). The role of

friendship in child and adolescent development. In K. H. Rubin,

W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peerinteractions, relationships, and groups (pp. 568–585). New

York: Guilford Press.

Walker, S. (2004). Teacher reports of social behavior and peer

acceptance in early childhood: Sex and social status differences.

Child Study Journal, 34, 13–28.

Walter, J. L., & LaFreniere, P. J. (2000). A naturalistic study of

affective expression, social competence, and sociometric status.

Early Education & Development, 11, 109–122.

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social

acceptance, classroom behavior, and social support. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 86, 173–186.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). School adjustment. In W. M. Reynolds & G. J.

Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology(Vol. 7, pp. 235–258). New York: Wiley.

Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Peers and academic functioning at school. In

K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbookof peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 531–547).

New York: The Guilford Press.

Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C., & Caldwell, K. (2004). Friendships in

middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. A. (1997). Friendships, peer

acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic

achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198–

1209.

Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during

early and middle adolescence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 87–113).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Woodward, L. J., & Fergusson, D. M. (1999). Childhood peer

relationship problems and psychosocial adjustment in late ado-

lescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 87–104.

Younger, A. J., Schneider, B. H., Guirguis, M., & Bergeron, N.

(2000). A behavior-based peer-nomination measure of social

withdrawal. Social Development, 9, 544–564.

Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and

pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67,

957–973.

Author Biographies

Eva Oberle is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Educational and

Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at the University of

British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She received her Diploma

degree in psychology (equivalent to MA) from the Ruprecht Karls

Universitat Heidelberg in Germany in 2007. Her major research

interests are social and emotional development and peer relations in

early adolescence, and their correlates with biomarkers of stress (e.g.,

cortisol) and cognitive functioning (e.g., executive functioning).

Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl is an Associate Professor in the

Department of Education and Counselling Psychology, and Special

Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver,

Canada. She received her Ph.D. in Educational psychology from the

University of Iowa. Her major research interests are developmental

processes and mechanisms associated with positive development

(e.g., social and emotional development and learning) across child-

hood and adolescence.

Kimberly C. Thomson is an MA student in the Department of

Education and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education at the

University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She received

her B.A.hon. degree from Queen’s University. Her research interests

include social and emotional development in early adolescence linked

to contextual factors such as neighborhood and community.

J Youth Adolescence

123