Peer Group Rejection in Childhood: Effects of Rejection Ambiguity, Rejection Sensitivity, and Social Acumen. (Report)(Author Abstract)
Journal of Social Issues, March, 2014, Vol.70(1), p.12(17)[Peer Reviewed Journal]
Abrams, Dominic; Killen, Melanie; Nesdale, Drew; Zimmer-Gembeck, Melanie J.; Roxburgh, Natalie
This article displays the study of children between the ages of 6 and 12 toward peer group members who have either accepted or rejected them provided the children 's reactions were influenced by the reaction sensitivity (RS) or social acumen (SA). The study is based on simulated peer groups with children who are either accepted, ambiguously rejected, or unambiguously rejected. In conclusion, the children were able to perceive if …show more content…
The 144 Anglo-Australian children experimented on were from grades two through five at two different elementary schools in the same lower middle class district with equal numbers of boys and girls. Older and younger children were sampled in order to allow for age comparisons. One group ranged from six to nine while the other group ranged from nine to twelve years old. Each child participated with parental approval. The study is said to have a "2 (age: 7, 10) × 2 (gender: boys, girls) × 3 (peer status: accepted, ambiguous rejected, rejected) component between task design. It contains balanced numbers of male and female adolescents at each age level randomly dispersed in one of the three peer status circumstances." In addition to being integrated into one of three peer statuses, the children were studied based on their reactions concerning their reaction sensitivity and their social acumen. Three (RS) reaction sensitivities were tested: anxiety, anger, and rejection expectations. Children with increased angry and rejection expectations were not as positive about their in-group members where on the other hand, children with greater (SA) social acumen were more positive towards their in-group …show more content…
Seven days later each child was told separately by the analyst that he or she would be asked a few questions about themselves and play a game. All individuals then began to practice their unipolar and bipolar scales completing their SAS tests on social intelligence and emotional empathy as well as a CRSQ ( Child Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire). In other words, the tests were created much like adult questionnaires similar to filling out : Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither, Agree, or Strongly Agree. These tests examined the children 's reactions whether happy, sad, mad, or nervous on different levels as to the written "pretend" situations on their sheets. After the children had finished their tests and questionnaire they were asked to play in a pretend drawing competition involving the portrait they drew of themselves. It was explained to each child that they were put into a team of drawers just like themselves and that each picture was judged by an artist. Separately each child would have a head and shoulders photo taken and placed between two randomly chosen photos of their portrayed team members. The random photos of children to be on the child 's team were picked out of same-aged, gender, and ethnicity members. This guidance was to encourage the children to categorize themselves into his or her team. Participants of the accepted group were asked to play a role where the other
Journal of Social Issues, March, 2014, Vol.70(1), p.12(17)[Peer Reviewed Journal]
Abrams, Dominic; Killen, Melanie; Nesdale, Drew; Zimmer-Gembeck, Melanie J.; Roxburgh, Natalie
This article displays the study of children between the ages of 6 and 12 toward peer group members who have either accepted or rejected them provided the children 's reactions were influenced by the reaction sensitivity (RS) or social acumen (SA). The study is based on simulated peer groups with children who are either accepted, ambiguously rejected, or unambiguously rejected. In conclusion, the children were able to perceive if …show more content…
The 144 Anglo-Australian children experimented on were from grades two through five at two different elementary schools in the same lower middle class district with equal numbers of boys and girls. Older and younger children were sampled in order to allow for age comparisons. One group ranged from six to nine while the other group ranged from nine to twelve years old. Each child participated with parental approval. The study is said to have a "2 (age: 7, 10) × 2 (gender: boys, girls) × 3 (peer status: accepted, ambiguous rejected, rejected) component between task design. It contains balanced numbers of male and female adolescents at each age level randomly dispersed in one of the three peer status circumstances." In addition to being integrated into one of three peer statuses, the children were studied based on their reactions concerning their reaction sensitivity and their social acumen. Three (RS) reaction sensitivities were tested: anxiety, anger, and rejection expectations. Children with increased angry and rejection expectations were not as positive about their in-group members where on the other hand, children with greater (SA) social acumen were more positive towards their in-group …show more content…
Seven days later each child was told separately by the analyst that he or she would be asked a few questions about themselves and play a game. All individuals then began to practice their unipolar and bipolar scales completing their SAS tests on social intelligence and emotional empathy as well as a CRSQ ( Child Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire). In other words, the tests were created much like adult questionnaires similar to filling out : Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither, Agree, or Strongly Agree. These tests examined the children 's reactions whether happy, sad, mad, or nervous on different levels as to the written "pretend" situations on their sheets. After the children had finished their tests and questionnaire they were asked to play in a pretend drawing competition involving the portrait they drew of themselves. It was explained to each child that they were put into a team of drawers just like themselves and that each picture was judged by an artist. Separately each child would have a head and shoulders photo taken and placed between two randomly chosen photos of their portrayed team members. The random photos of children to be on the child 's team were picked out of same-aged, gender, and ethnicity members. This guidance was to encourage the children to categorize themselves into his or her team. Participants of the accepted group were asked to play a role where the other