Gender-Specific Linkages of Affective Social Competence With Peer Relations in Preschool Children
29
This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla] On: 24 November 2014, At: 02:55 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Early Education and Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20 Gender-Specific Linkages of Affective Social Competence With Peer Relations in Preschool Children Julie C. Dunsmore a , Ryoichi J. P. Noguchi a , Pamela W. Garner b , Elizabeth C. Casey c & Naureen Bhullar d a Department of Psychology , Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University b New Century College, George Mason University c Department of Psychology , Kent State University d Department of Psychology , Widener University Published online: 23 Apr 2008. To cite this article: Julie C. Dunsmore , Ryoichi J. P. Noguchi , Pamela W. Garner , Elizabeth C. Casey & Naureen Bhullar (2008) Gender-Specific Linkages of Affective Social Competence With Peer Relations in Preschool Children, Early Education and Development, 19:2, 211-237, DOI: 10.1080/10409280801963897 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280801963897 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
Transcript of Gender-Specific Linkages of Affective Social Competence With Peer Relations in Preschool Children
This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]On: 24 November 2014, At: 02:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Early Education andDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20
Gender-Specific Linkages ofAffective Social CompetenceWith Peer Relations inPreschool ChildrenJulie C. Dunsmore a , Ryoichi J. P. Noguchi a ,Pamela W. Garner b , Elizabeth C. Casey c & NaureenBhullar da Department of Psychology , Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State Universityb New Century College, George Mason Universityc Department of Psychology , Kent State Universityd Department of Psychology , Widener UniversityPublished online: 23 Apr 2008.
To cite this article: Julie C. Dunsmore , Ryoichi J. P. Noguchi , Pamela W. Garner ,Elizabeth C. Casey & Naureen Bhullar (2008) Gender-Specific Linkages of AffectiveSocial Competence With Peer Relations in Preschool Children, Early Education andDevelopment, 19:2, 211-237, DOI: 10.1080/10409280801963897
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280801963897
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIPDUNSMORE ET AL.
Gender-Specific Linkages of AffectiveSocial Competence With Peer Relations
in Preschool Children
Julie C. Dunsmore and Ryoichi J. P. NoguchiDepartment of Psychology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Pamela W. GarnerNew Century College
George Mason University
Elizabeth C. CaseyDepartment of Psychology
Kent State University
Naureen BhullarDepartment of Psychology
Widener University
Research Findings: We examined whether affective social competence, or the abilityto effectively send and receive emotional signals and to manage one’s own emotionalexperience, contributes to preschool children’s peer relations. Forty-two previouslyunacquainted preschoolers were observed while participating in a week-long play-school. Greater nonstereotypical emotion knowledge was related to girls’ popularityand boys’ likelihood of having a reciprocal friendship. Girls with greater skill atsending emotional communications and managing emotions were more likely tohave a reciprocal friendship. Boys who were better at managing emotions comparedto others in their group were less popular. The role of social context in the influenceof affective social competence on children’s peer relations is discussed. Practice or
EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 19(2), 211–237Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-9289 print / 1556-6935 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10409280801963897
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Julie C. Dunsmore, Department ofPsychology, Virginia Tech, Mail Code 0436, Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Policy: Results have implications for early childhood educators’ promotion of chil-dren’s socioemotional skills.
Affective social competence (ASC), a recently developed construct hypothesizedto predict preschool children’s formation of peer relations (Halberstadt, Denham,& Dunsmore, 2001), is the ability to effectively send and receive emotional signalsand to manage one’s own emotional experience. Both research and theory supportthe role of ASC in children’s peer relations. Theorists have suggested that emo-tions underlie the development of moral behavior, problem-solving ability, behav-ioral adjustment, and social interactions and relationships (Eisenberg & Fabes,1998; Izard, 2002). Understanding the role of ASC in children’s development ofpeer relations is important for researchers and practitioners in the area of earlychildhood education because social and emotional competence and peer relationsare linked to children’s school adjustment and performance (Blair, 2002; Buhs &Ladd, 2001; Denham et al., 2003; Gumora & Arsenio, 2002; Izard et al., 2001;Ladd, 1990; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996; Linares et al., 2005; Miller,Gouley, Seifer, Dickstein, & Shields, 2004; Miller, et al., 2003, 2005; Shields et al.,2001).
The primary purpose of the present study was to investigate whether behavioralinstantiations of ASC within a naturalistic context contribute to preschool chil-dren’s development of peer relations. We did so by providing previously unac-quainted preschool children with a week-long playschool experience, duringwhich their naturally occurring social behaviors were videotaped for coding ofASC and subsequently assessed for peer relations. Because research employingbehavioral observations of children’s socioemotional competencies within a natu-ralistic context remains sparse (see Chisholm & Strayer, 1995, and Walter &LaFreniere, 2000, for exceptions), our corollary purpose was to develop a codingsystem for naturalistic observation of children’s sending, receiving, and experienc-ing skills within the social context. We anticipated that such a coding systemwould be useful to educators, as well as researchers, in order to better appraise stu-dents’ performance of affectively and socially competent behaviors within theclassroom.
ASC AND PEER RELATIONS
Sending Emotional Communications
Numerous studies have demonstrated an empirical linkage between emotionalcompetence and various aspects of children’s peer relationships. With regard to thesending component of ASC, communicating one’s feelings is important to interac-tion success and overall social adjustment (Ambady & Gray, 2002). For example,
212 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
children who have difficulty sending emotional cues to others may be less able todevelop a competent response to an emotion-eliciting event and may be unable toprovide important information to their partner about how the interaction is pro-ceeding (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). This hypothesis is supported by research thatshows that preschoolers who are accurate at sending emotional signals tend to bemore sociable and have more friends and overall better peer relations than otherchildren (Boyatzis & Satyaprasad, 1994; Buck, 1977; Denham, 1986; Nowicki &Duke, 1994; Philippot & Feldman, 1990).
Receiving Emotional Communications
The ability to receive others’ emotional communications is based on children’sknowledge about emotions (e.g., facial expressions indicative of sadness, anger,happiness, etc.; prototypical emotional responses to particular situations). Re-ceiving others’ emotional communications also includes paying attention to oth-ers’ emotional cues and being able to apply emotion knowledge in a dynamic man-ner within a particular social context. In other words, though children’s capacity toreceive others’ emotional messages may increase along with their emotion knowl-edge, their performance also depends on their attention, motivation, and dynamicintegration of receiving with sending and experiencing. Thus, receiving may not beisomorphic with emotion knowledge. A great deal of work has demonstrated thatchildren with better receiving skills are more likely to have better peer relationsthan other children (Arsenio & Cooperman, 1996; Denham, 1986; Denham &Grout, 1993; Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, & Holt, 1990; Fabes, Eisenberg,Hanish, & Spinrad, 2001; Garner, 1996; Garner & Estep, 2001; Nowicki & Duke,1994; Smith, 2001).
Experiencing One’s Emotions
There is less research linking children’s experiencing of emotion to their peer rela-tions compared to sending and receiving, perhaps because it is difficult to be-haviorally observe how individuals experience emotion. That is, how an individualexperiences emotion may or may not be related to that person’s current affectivestate (Buck & VanLear, 2002). Research that has indexed experiencing emotion asthe understanding and awareness of one’s own emotions has shown that childrenwith a better understanding of their own emotions and who are better able to regu-late their emotions tend have greater peer-related social competence than otherchildren (Cassidy, Parke, Butkovsky, & Braungart, 1992; Eisenberg et al., 1997;Fabes et al., 1999; Smith, 2001), whereas children who have difficulty regulatingtheir emotions experience problems in social functioning (Eisenberg et al., 1995).
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 213
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Abilities Within Each Component
Each ASC component is further subdivided into four abilities needed for social in-teractions: (a) awareness, (b) identification, (c) understanding within the socialcontext, and (d) management within the ongoing flow of the interaction. Aware-ness comprises the child’s recognition that an emotional message needs to be sentor has been sent, or that he or she is experiencing an emotion. Identification in-volves the child’s recognition of the valence (positive/negative, pleasure/displea-sure) of the emotional message or experience.
More fine-grained selection of emotional message or experience, given the dis-play rules of the social context, is encompassed within the ability of understandingwithin the social context. For example, a child who is not yet ready to share a desir-able toy and wants to maintain harmonious relations needs to send a mildly nega-tive emotional message to a peer’s request for the toy—too positive, and the toywill be taken; too negative, and the peer will become distressed or a teacher mayintervene.
The fourth and final ability, management within the ongoing flow of the interac-tion, involves the recognition of process: Strategies may need to be adjustedthroughout the course of an interaction. To continue with the previous example, thechild who is not ready to give up his or her turn with a desirable toy may need to in-tensify the expression of negative emotion if a peer persists or may need to send afollow-up positive message if a peer’s feelings are hurt.
We found it useful in our thinking to combine the first two abilities, awarenessand identification, because both reflect the child’s recognition of emotion. Behav-iors that indicate identification of an emotional message also demonstrate aware-ness of the message. Likewise, we found it useful to combine the third and fourthabilities, understanding within the social context and management of emotion, be-cause both reflect the child’s fine-tuning of emotional messages or emotional ex-perience based on the social context. The distinction between behaviors exhibitingunderstanding of the social context and behaviors signifying simple identification,however, seemed to us important to maintain. For example, a child who boundsover to another with a big smile and says “Look at this!” shows recognition that posi-tive emotional messages facilitate initiation of play, or correct identification. The de-gree of understanding of the social context and management within the ongoing flowshown by this behavior may vary, though, showing a high degree of skill if the otherchild has just arrived and appears eager to play and the class is engaged in free play;and a low degree of skill if the other child is upset, or talking seriously with a parentor teacher, or the class is engaged in a more structured activity.
Dynamic Interplay Among the Components of ASC
Prior studies linking components of emotional competence to peer relations havetended to focus on isolated emotion-related processes even though there are sub-
214 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
stantial associations among the various components. Experiencing of emotion isnot solely the end result of sending and receiving affective messages, and receivinganother’s emotional communication does not necessarily elicit one’s own emo-tional experience. Likewise, individuals may send affective messages that are re-flective of or in opposition to their emotional experience. Thus, sending is not nec-essarily isomorphic with emotional experience, and it may involve masking ofemotional experience (lack of expression) or expression of emotions that are notcurrently experienced (Halberstadt et al., 2001). Nonetheless, despite the possibil-ity of disconnection among the three components, it is likely that most of the timethe three components work together in social interactions. Children often sendemotional messages in response to others’ emotional messages they have received.Receipt of an affective message hinges upon how efficacious the sender is in con-veying his or her message (Halberstadt et al., 2001). One’s emotional experiencemay influence and be influenced by interpretation of others’ emotional communi-cation. That is, the three components of ASC—sending, receiving, and experienc-ing—are mutually dependent and dynamically activated in social interactions.Therefore, it is important to examine all three components within the same contextin order to fully understand how ASC is linked to peer relations in children’s every-day interactions.
PEER RELATIONS
In this article we focus on two types of peer relations: peer acceptance and dyadicfriendships. Although both constructs have common features, they also haveunique aspects and so may be associated with different domains of the ASC con-struct. Peer acceptance (also referred to as popularity) is defined as being liked oraccepted by most of one’s peers and is a group-oriented global construct, whereasfriendship is a specific, bilateral construct that is defined as a mutual and closedyadic relation involving much social interaction, communication, and expressionof emotion (Bukowski & Newcomb, 1984; Ladd, 2005; Masters & Furman, 1981).There is an association between peer acceptance and friendship; however, they aregenerally considered to be distinct constructs (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Ladd,2005; Parker & Asher, 1993; Schneider, Wiener, & Murphy, 1994). Research onpeer relations in early childhood has tended to focus on peer acceptance, perhapsbecause the existence of a friendship may be especially difficult to determine inyoung children. However, establishing friendships is an important developmentaltask of early childhood (Parker, Rubin, Price, & DeRosier, 1995), and most chil-dren begin using the word friend sometime during the preschool years (Hartup,1989). Nevertheless, linkages between emotion constructs and dyadic friendshipformation have not previously been investigated, even though theorists describefriendship as embodying positive affective ties (Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999).
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 215
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
As described above, an important ability within each component of ASC involvesunderstanding within the social context. Briefly put, effective behaviors within onecontext might not be effective in another. This suggests that the most affectivelyand socially competent children will flexibly adjust their sending, receiving, andexperiencing to most efficaciously meet their short-term and long-term goalswithin changing social contexts. Children’s peer groups form a social context thatboth is created by the individuals in the group and reciprocally socializes each par-ticipant in the group (Cairns & Cairns, 1990). Accordingly, we thought that chil-dren’s level of ASC in comparison to their playschool peers, rather than their abso-lute level of ASC (in comparison to the entire sample), might be associated withtheir popularity and friendship formation. Thus, we examined linkages with peerrelations in regard to both children’s absolute ASC scores, and their ASC scoresadjusted for comparison with their playschool group’s averages.
A second factor relevant to the social context is children’s sex. As with Hall’s(1978, 1984) earlier work, McClure’s (2000) meta-analysis indicated an advantagefor girls compared to boys in discriminating, recognizing, or identifying facial ex-pressions that is small in effect size but consistent from infancy through adoles-cence. Also, despite finding no differences in European-American girls’ and boys’mean scores on emotion understanding subscales, Martin and Green (2005) founddifferent patterns of correlations among the subscales for girls compared to boys,suggesting that knowledge about facial expressions of emotions, prototypicalemotion-eliciting situations, and emotion-related role taking were less tightly re-lated for girls than for boys. These findings suggest the importance of testing fordifferences according to children’s sex not only in children’s scores but also inlinkages between children’s ASC and their peer relations.
OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT STUDY
The design of the current study included an emotion knowledge pretest, children’sparticipation in the Friendship Playschool, and a sociometric posttest. Because thestudy design was longitudinal, and children were not acquainted before their par-ticipation, we are able to suggest causal links between ASC and peer relations inpreschoolers. Furthermore, our reliance on naturalistic observation to measurechildren’s ASC extends previous research focusing on laboratory and interviewtasks and teacher ratings (Brown, Odom, & Holcombe, 1996; Coie, Dodge, Terry,& Wright, 1991; Crockett, Losoff, & Petersen, 1984; Denham et al., 2001;Eisenberg, 2004; Hayes, Gershman, & Bolin, 1980; Pepler, Craig, & Roberts,1998).
216 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Because emotion knowledge bears the most similarity to the receiving compo-nent of ASC (Hubbard & Dearing, 2004), we were curious whether children withgreater emotion knowledge at the pretest would have higher observed ASC in gen-eral and higher receiving in particular. Regardless, we thought it important to in-clude emotion knowledge as an aspect of children’s ASC.
On the basis of the previous research discussed above, we hypothesized thatchildren with higher ASC scores would be more popular. In light of friendship’sdistinction from peer acceptance, there may be particular value to examining howthe individual components of ASC are related to young children’s formation of re-ciprocal friendships. For example, observing children in interactions with friendsoffers the opportunity to examine affective competencies that may be more or lessapparent than when they are observed with children with whom they are less famil-iar. Research with adults indicates that individuals may be more accurate at receiv-ing the emotional signals of friends than those of strangers, perhaps because aclose friendship allows significant practice and experience with viewing thefriend’s emotional displays. On the other hand, less close friends are better at re-ceiving each other’s deceptive emotions than are close friends (Sternglanz &DePaulo, 2004). Although there is limited research on this topic in children, we de-veloped several predictions based on this earlier research. Specifically, we antici-pated that, in particular, children with reciprocal friendships would have highersending and receiving abilities than children without reciprocal friendships. Our fi-nal hypothesis was that more links between ASC and peer relations would befound when ASC scores were adjusted for comparison with the playschool group’snorm rather than when absolute ASC scores (based on comparison to the entiresample) were used.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 42 children (22 boys and 20 girls) between the ages of 3½ and5 years (M = 51.90 months, SD = 4.84). Children primarily came from middle- andupper-middle-class families; 2 children were Asian and 40 were White. The chil-dren, recruited through distribution of flyers, newspaper advertisements, and let-ters sent home through elementary schools, participated in a 1-week summer play-school program. Nine playschool groups were formed. Each playschool groupconsisted of 3 to 6 children (median = 5) who did not know one another prior to theplayschool. All groups had at least 2 girls and at least 2 boys, except for one 3-childgroup for which a family opted not to participate at the last minute. Past researchhas supported the use of such small groups of young children (e.g., Arsenio &Killen, 1996; Rende & Killen, 1992; Strayer & Roberts, 2004).
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 217
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Materials
Emotion knowledge pretest. Children’s emotion knowledge was assessedusing Denham et al.’s (1990) procedure. This procedure yields four subscales: ex-pressive knowledge, receptive knowledge, stereotypical knowledge, and non-stereotypical knowledge. To measure expressive knowledge, or the child’s abilityto provide a verbal label for facial expressions of emotion, the interviewer placedfour popsicle-stick puppets in front of the child. Each puppet’s drawn face repre-sented happiness, sadness, anger, or fear. The interviewer pointed to one face at atime and asked, “How does she feel?” The child received 2 points for identifyingthe proper emotion, 1 point for identifying the proper valence (e.g., feeling goodvs. feeling bad), and 0 points for a response of improper valence or no response.The highest score a participant could receive for expressive knowledge was 8points.
To measure receptive knowledge, or the child’s ability to recognize facial ex-pression when given a verbal label, the interviewer then picked up the faces andplaced them down in front of the child in a different order. The interviewer in-structed the child to “point to the (sad) face.” The interviewer asked this questionfor each of the four emotions: happy, sad, angry, and scared. The child received 2points for pointing to the puppet showing the proper emotion, 1 point for pointingto a puppet showing an emotion of the same valence (e.g., pointing to sad insteadof scared), and 0 points for a response of improper valence or no response. Thehighest score a participant could receive for receptive knowledge was 8 points.Due to a ceiling effect for this type of emotion knowledge, receptive knowledgescores were not used in analyses.
Then the interviewer took out sock puppets for eight puppet show vignettes totest the child’s stereotypical emotion knowledge. The interviewer had the puppetact out vignettes expressing happy, sad, angry, and scared emotions. The childagain received 2 points for identifying the correct emotion, 1 point for naming anemotion of the correct valence, and 0 points for a response of improper valence orno response. The highest score a participant could receive for stereotypical knowl-edge was 16 points.
The interviewer presented 12 additional puppet show vignettes to test thechild’s nonstereotypical emotion knowledge. Prior to the puppet show, the child’sparent indicated on a questionnaire how the child would feel in certain situations.Each vignette presented a situation in which the puppet felt differently from howthe child would have normally felt in a particular situation. The child received 2points for identifying the correct emotion, 1 point for naming an emotion of thecorrect valence, and 0 points for a response of improper valence or no response.The highest score a participant could receive for nonstereotypical knowledge was24 points. Children’s expressive, stereotypical, and nonstereotypical emotionknowledge scores were then standardized to ease interpretation of findings.
218 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Procedure
The emotion knowledge pretest was administered during an initial visit by the re-searchers to the child’s home within the week prior to participation in the play-school. During this visit, parents completed the brief questionnaire necessary forthe emotion knowledge assessment, the demographics form, and other question-naires not used in this study. The Friendship Playschool ran for 5 days and tookplace in a playroom with video cameras behind one-way mirrors to record the chil-dren’s interactions. Curriculum for the playschool was similar to that of other localprograms, including a mix of structured activities (circle time; crafts; books; activ-ities exploring themes such as shapes, colors, etc.) and unstructured play. Eachplayschool day ran for two and a half hours. Three cameras positioned at differentangles videotaped the interactions through one-way mirrors, and three ceiling mi-crophones provided synchronized audio with the video. Social exchanges outsidethe room were not recorded. The videotaped playschool sessions were first codedto identify interactions between children. These interactions were then coded forchildren’s ASC. The coding is described in further detail later.
Within the week after completion of the playschool, researchers visited the chil-dren’s homes to conduct the sociometric interview. This interview yielded fourmeasures: liking ratings, liked most nominations, liked least nominations, andpresence/absence of a reciprocated friendship. For liking ratings, interviewers firstshowed the children how the rating system worked by using pictures of SesameStreet characters as examples. Children were asked to point at the smiling face ifthey liked the peer, point at the frowning face if they did not like the peer, and pointat the neutral face if they thought the peer was “ok.” Each child saw photographs ofthe other children in his or her playschool one at a time in alphabetical order andrated peers as like (2 points), neutral (1 point), or dislike (0 points). Ratings foreach child were summed and prorated to take into account the number of childrenin each group.
Next, an interviewer showed each child the photographs of all the children whohad participated in his or her playschool. Children were asked to nominate onepeer who they liked the most, and one who they liked the least. Again, the numberof liked most and liked least nominations were summed and prorated to take intoaccount the number of children in each playschool group. Children’s liked most,liked least, and liking scores were standardized to ease interpretation of findings. Asingle composite (with liked least nomination reverse scored) was then formed toreflect the child’s peer acceptance with his or her playschool peers.
Finally, within each playschool group, children’s liked most nominationswere compared, and children were scored as having a reciprocated friendship inthe group if the child they nominated as liked most in turn nominated them asliked most. Otherwise, children were scored as not having a reciprocated friend-ship in the group. Using this stringent approach, among the 42 preschoolers in
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 219
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
this study, 16 children (38% of the sample; 8 girls, 8 boys) had a reciprocatedfriendship.
Behavioral Coding of ASC
Videotapes for the second, third, and fourth days of the playschool weeks werecoded for children’s naturally occurring ASC-related behaviors. Because the firstand fifth days, as the beginning and end of the week, tended to be filled with excite-ment, children’s behavior for those days might have been less representative oftheir typical behavior and were not coded. Coding three playschool days stillyielded approximately 9 hours of videotape observations for each child. Observa-tional coding was divided into two phases. The first phase consisted of identifyingsocial interactions of interest, and the second phase involved coding those interac-tions for the children’s ASC. The full coding scheme and training materials areavailable from Julie C. Dunsmore.
Phase 1: Identifying conflicts and initiations. We chose to focus on twocategories of social interactions, initiations of play and conflicts, because chil-dren’s ASC may be especially clear in these interactions (Halberstadt et al., 2001).Initiations were operationalized as a child initiating contact with a peer or a groupthat included peers. Initiations directed solely toward the researchers were notcoded. An initiated event was identified as the initial behavior of one child (sender)leading to the response or lack of a response from another child or children (re-ceiver[s]). The event had to occur when there had been no prior verbal or nonverbalcommunication between the parties for at least 3 seconds. Coding began at the startof the initiated behavior and ended when the receiver finished his or her first re-sponse to the initiation, or when 3 seconds had passed without a response.Hovering was not included unless the hovering child interfered with a peer’s per-sonal space and forced a behavioral response from the peer. An interaction inwhich the initiator was not aware of sending a message (e.g., child accidentallybumping into a peer and beginning to interact with a peer) was not coded as an ini-tiation because the interaction was not purposefully initiated.
In addition to initiations, conflicts among children were coded. Coding of con-flict episodes was similar to that in past research (e.g., Rende & Killen, 1992; D.W. Shantz, 1986). Specifically, we used two subcategories for conflicts: disputeover a physical resource and taking exception to another child’s behavior. Conflictover physical resource was classified as a situation in which two or more childrensought the same physical resource, often a toy. Taking exception occurred when achild objected to or resisted the behavior of another child either verbally ornonverbally. These two conflict types resembled the conflict coding used by C. U.Shantz and Shantz (1985), who categorized conflict as object related or personcontrol, in which a child attempts to influence another child’s actions and behav-
220 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
iors. Conflict coding began at the start of the conflict and was recorded until one oftwo criteria was met: (a) a research assistant intervened and ended the conflict, or(b) the conflict dissipated or was resolved by the children. Following the end ofeach conflict, a 1-min refractory period followed such that neither conflicts nor ini-tiations that occurred within this period were coded.
Instances of initiations and conflicts were identified by trained coders who in-dependently coded an overlapping 25% of the videotapes for reliability. Reliabilitywas satisfactory (80% overlap in initiations and conflicts identified).
Phase 2: ASC during initiations. After the initiations and conflicts wereidentified, each interaction was coded to score the ASC of each child involved inthe interaction. Although the theoretical model of ASC comprises three compo-nents—sending, receiving, and experiencing—the coding for initiations includedonly sending and receiving. The experiencing component was not coded becauseinitiations were generally brief positive interactions and did not offer identifiablebehaviors indicative of the child’s experiencing of affect. In a prolonged interac-tion, both sending and receiving can be coded for each child involved in the inter-action. However, because not all initiations led to a prolonged interaction, childreninvolved in an initiation were coded for either sending or receiving, but not both.For each initiation, the child initiating play was coded for a sending score, and therecipient(s) of the initiation were coded for their receiving score(s).
As mentioned previously, Halberstadt et al. (2001) identified four abilities thatcompose each ASC component: awareness, identification, understanding withinthe social context, and management within the ongoing flow of the interaction.These four abilities were blocked together to form two clusters: awareness/identi-fication and understanding/managing. The ASC scores were based on observedbehaviors that reflected the child’s recognition of emotion (awareness/identifica-tion) and modification of emotion (understanding/managing). The ASC codingwas hierarchically constructed so that the awareness/identification section wascoded first and understanding/managing second. If the child showed no behaviorsindicating awareness/identification of emotion, then understanding/managing wasnot coded because it was not applicable.
As shown in Table 1, a child either received a yes (1 point) or a no (0 points) forthe awareness/identification category. By default, the child initiating an interactionreceived a point in this category for sending because initiations were defined as aninteraction in which the child was aware that he or she was sending a message. Ifthe child(ren) who were the recipients of the initiation exhibited any behavior indi-cating awareness/identification, then the child(ren) were given 1 point and the un-derstanding/managing section was coded, but child(ren) not exhibiting any signsof awareness received 0 points and their understanding/managing section was notcoded.
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The understanding/managing section contained options to classify behaviors inthe initiation as showing a high degree of skill (2 points), a medium degree of skill(1 point), or a low degree of skill (0 points). As shown in Table 1, high scores werecharacterized by behaviors that were mature, socially acceptable, and appropriatewithin the ongoing social context. Medium scores were characterized by age-ap-propriate, common behaviors. Low scores were behaviors that were ambiguous,lacked clarity, or were improper within the ongoing social context. Examples areprovided in Table 2.
Awareness/identification and understanding/managing scores were summed tocomprise each child’s overall sending or receiving score for the initiation episode.The total sending and receiving score for each initiation could range from 0 to 3.Children’s sending and receiving scores across all initiations were then summed.Because children sent and received varying numbers of initiations, their summed
222 DUNSMORE ET AL.
TABLE 1Sample Items From the Affective Social Competence Initiation
Coding Checklist
Abilities Sending Receiving
Awareness & identification Child makes verbal statement orquestion to peer
Child shows some sign ofhearing or seeing the sender
Exhibits nonverbal behaviordirected specifically at a peeror peers
Properly interprets a peer’smessage
Yes No Yes NoUnderstanding & managing
High Refers to another child’spreferences
Fixes a mistake or makes anadjustment to ease theemotions of a peer
Uses sophisticated formality(e.g., saying “excuse me” toinitiation a conversation)
Exhibits understanding of theother child’s preferences ordesires upon receipt of aninitiation
Mid Smoothly integrates himself orherself into the group or joinsanother child in play
Acknowledges receipt of amessage either verbally ornonverbally
Verbalizes a clear request orquestion to a peer
Either physically makes room forintegrating peer or verballyaccepts a peer’s initiation
Low Fails to send any message afterreceiving one
Fails to acknowledge messagefrom peer
Attempts to send an initiation ina confusing manner
Fails to understand a messagethat is clearly sent
High Mid Low High Mid Low
Note: The scoring criteria for initiations were as follows: yes = 1, no = 0, high = 2, mid = 1, low = 0.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
scores were divided by the number of initiations they had sent (for sending) or re-ceived (for receiving).
Phase 2: ASC during conflicts. The conflict coding was similar to the ini-tiation coding, as the four abilities were clustered into two blocks and the scoringsystem for the sending and receiving components was similar. As shown in Table3, behaviors indicative of awareness/identification abilities and understanding/managing were different from those in initiations, because the children’s behaviorduring conflicts was qualitatively different than during initiations. We coded bothsending and receiving for each child involved in a conflict. In addition, conflictcoding included the experiencing component because it was possible to observebehavioral indications of the child’s experience of emotions during conflicts. Forexample, children may show on their face or through body language that they areexperiencing negative or positive emotion, but then pause for a moment before re-sponding to a peer and/or keep their verbal responses and physical actions within
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 223
TABLE 2Examples of High and Low Understanding/Managing Scores for Initiations
Scenario Coding
Sending Scenario A: Sara asks Mark if she canplay with the toy car, but Mark ignores her. Afew moments later, George, who has sinceacquired the toy car, says to Sara, “I think I’llgive it to you,” and slides the car over to her.
ASC Sending Score: HighExplanation: George acted upon Sara’s initial
desire to play with the toy car by sliding itto her when he gained possession. If theinteraction between Sara and Mark had notoccurred, then George’s action would notwarrant a high sending score.
Sending Scenario B: Adam is finishing up hisarts-and-crafts work at the play table. Jack,who was talking to his peers about animals,comes up to Adam and starts to say loudly,“Tiger! Tiger,” then gets in front of Adam’sface and continues to loudly say, “Tiger!Tiger!” Adam backs off, but Jack persists.
ASC Sending Score: LowExplanation: In trying to initiate play with
Adam, Jack invaded Adam’s personalspace by getting in his face and loudlysaying “Tiger! Tiger!” Furthermore, Jackdid not change his sending strategy even asAdam tried to back off.
Receiving Scenario A: Mark reaches over for theorange paint that Sara is using. Seeing this,Sara says, “Oh here, let’s share it right here,”and places the paint between them.
ASC Receiving Score: HighExplanation: Sara makes an adjustment to
her behavior by placing the paint whereboth children can reach it in order toaccommodate Mark’s desires.
Receiving Scenario B: Jack goes over to Adamwho is playing with a toy car and says, “Can Ihave a turn?” Adam gives a cursory looktoward Jack but keeps on playing with the car.
ASC Receiving Score: LowExplanation: Adam showed awareness by
glancing at Jack but did not acknowledgeJack’s message.
Note: Children’s names have been changed to protect confidentiality. The name of the child beingcoded is in bold. ASC = affective social competence.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
an appropriate range. Thus, the manner in which the child responded to his or heremotional state was considered to be reflective of the child’s management of his orher experience. However, for experiencing we coded only understanding/manage-ment. Because awareness and identification of the experience of emotions are in-ternal processes, we were unable to locate behavioral markers of awareness andidentification that were separate from the more advanced abilities of understand-ing within the social context and management within the ongoing flow of the inter-action. In principle, experiencing of emotion denotes a broader construct thatincludes emotion regulation. However, due to our reliance on behavioral observa-tion, our measurement of experiencing focused on emotion regulation within theongoing peer interaction context. Thus, the experiencing score ranged from 0 to 2points. Examples are provided in Table 4. Again, because children were involved
224 DUNSMORE ET AL.
TABLE 3Sample Items From the Affective Social Competence Conflict
Coding Checklist
Abilities Sending Receiving Experiencing
Awareness &identification
Child exhibits nonverbalbehavior in responseto a peer’s action
Child shows some signof hearing or seeingthe sender
Sends messageconsistent withemotion
Recognizes anotherchild’s negativeemotions
Yes No Yes NoUnderstanding &
managingHigh Takes action towards
resolving conflictwithout adultintervention
Fixes a mistake ormakes an adjustmentto ease the emotionsof a peer
Expresses positiveemotion and elicitspositive emotionfrom a peer
Mid Verbally states ornonverbally shows adesire for the samephysical resource ortake exception to apeer’s behavior
In a conflict overphysical resource,shows understandingthat other the child isalso seeking theresource
Lets conflict go orforgets about conflictby moving on toanother activity
Low Exhibits little controlover negative orpositive emotions
Fails to recognize that apeer has desires thatconflict with his orher own
Tries to get way in afight or conflictthrough inappropriatephysical action orverbal response
High Mid Low High Mid Low High Mid Low
Note: The scoring criteria for conflicts were as follows: yes = 1, no = 0, high = 2, mid = 1, low = 0.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
in varying numbers of conflicts, their summed scores for sending, receiving, andexperiencing across all conflicts were divided by the number of conflicts in whichthey were involved.
For analyses, children’s sending scores were aggregated across initiations andconflicts, as were their receiving scores. Because there was no experiencing scorefor initiations, experiencing scores for conflicts alone were used in analyses. Twochildren did not engage in conflicts and therefore did not receive an experiencingscore. We standardized sending, receiving, and experiencing scores across the en-tire sample to ease interpretation of findings. Finally, because we were interestedin children’s scores in comparison with the norm for their playschool group, wecalculated the difference between each child’s sending, receiving, and experienc-ing scores and the mean for sending, receiving, and experiencing for the child’sgroup. In subsequent sections, we call children’s absolute ASC scores sending–ab-solute, receiving–absolute, and experiencing–absolute. We call children’s ASCscores in comparison with their playschool group sending–within group, receiv-ing–within group, and experiencing–within group.
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 225
TABLE 4Examples of High and Low Understanding/Managing Scores for Conflicts
Scenario Coding
Scenario A: Mark is buildinga block tower and Sarabegins to play next to himwith the blocks. Mark says,“Stop, those are mine!”Sara looks at Mark andsays, “Let’s play together.”Mark then smiles at Sara,who smiles back, and theybegin playing.
ASC Sending Score: HighExplanation: Sara saw Mark’s negative reaction and offered a
compromise that allowed both her and Mark to continueplaying with the blocks.
ASC Receiving Score: HighExplanation: In response to Mark’s reaction, Sara changed her
behavior by making an adjustment to ease Mark’s emotions.ASC Experiencing Score: High
Explanation: After receiving Sara’s message to play together,Mark expressed positive emotion and elicited positiveemotion from Sara.
Scenario B: Adam and Jackare sending a toy car backand forth, when Adam sayshe does not want to playanymore, picks up the car,and walks away. Jack getsin front of Adam, grabs thetoy, and screams at him.
ASC Sending Score: LowExplanation: Jack expressed his dissatisfaction with Adam’s
actions by trying to physically grab the toy out of Adam’shand and exhibited little control over his negative emotions.
ASC Receiving Score: LowExplanation: Jack failed to recognize Adam’s desires to not
want to play and proceeded to take the toy awayASC Experiencing Score: Low
Explanation: Jack used physical force and got into a fight in anattempt to get the toy back from Adam.
Note: Children’s names have been changed to protect confidentiality. The name of the child beingcoded is in bold. ASC = affective social competence.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Throughout the coding process, coders achieved and maintained interrater reli-ability to ensure consistent coding of the interactions and avoid observer drift. Re-liability checks were conducted weekly, with coders always overlapping on at least25% of the interactions coded. Final reliability was satisfactory (Ês = 0.64–1.00for all components across initiations and conflicts).
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
We first conducted correlations to test for age effects. Children’s age was signifi-cantly correlated with two of the variables: peer acceptance scores (r = .34, p < .05)and sending–within group (r = .36, p < .05). We controlled for children’s age insubsequent analyses.
Next, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance to test for differences inthe variables according to the playschool week. There was no main effect for play-school week, F(8, 31) = 0.72, p = ns, but univariate tests showed significant effectsof the playschool week on four variables: children’s stereotypical knowledge, F(8,31) = 2.25, p = .05; children’s engagement in conflict, F(8, 31) = 2.65, p < .05; chil-dren’s receiving, F(8, 31) = 3.04, p < .05; and children’s experiencing skill duringconflicts, F(8, 31) = 2.53, p < .05. Post hoc comparisons showed that, for all thesevariables, no one playschool group was responsible for the differences. Thus, play-school week was not included in subsequent analyses.
Third, t tests showed no significant sex differences in any of the variables (all ps> .08). However, partial correlations, controlling for children’s age, between (a)peer acceptance and two of the three ASC–within group scores and (b) peer accep-tance and nonstereotypical knowledge did differ according to child sex (zs > 1.96,ps < .05). Table 5 shows partial correlations, controlling for children’s age, sepa-rately for girls and boys. We tested for main effects and interactions with child sexin subsequent analyses.
Finally, we examined partial correlations, controlling for children’s age, sepa-rately for girls and boys to determine whether children’s frequency of initiating in-teractions, receiving interactions, and engaging in conflict were associated withtheir peer acceptance scores and reciprocal friendship status. They were not (all ps> .15). Thus, frequency of initiating and receiving interactions and engaging inconflict were not included in subsequent analyses.
Associations With Reciprocal Friendship Status
Our limited power precluded conducting logistic regressions to predict children’sreciprocal friendship status. Instead, we conducted point-biserial correlations
226 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
227
TAB
LE5
Par
tialC
orre
latio
nsA
mon
gE
mot
ion
Kno
wle
dge,
Affe
ctiv
eS
ocia
lCom
pete
nce,
and
Pee
rR
elat
ions
Mea
sure
sW
ithin
Gen
der,
Con
trol
ling
for
Chi
ldre
n’s
Age
Vari
able
12
34
56
78
910
11
1.E
xpre
ssiv
ekn
owle
dge
—.5
6*.1
8.1
0.1
2.1
4–.
07.2
3–.
02.0
5.2
72.
Ster
eoty
pica
lkno
wle
dge
.22
—.3
5–.
07.0
1.0
9–.
09.2
3–.
03.1
8.4
4†
3.N
onst
ereo
typi
calk
now
ledg
e.5
7**.6
7**—
.15
.06
.21
.11
.24
.00
.55*
.16
4.Se
ndin
g–ab
solu
te–.
29–.
10–.
22—
.05
.74**
.88**
–.01
.46†
.24
.50*
5.R
ecei
ving
–abs
olut
e–.
12–.
19.0
9.3
3—
.15
–.18
.87**
.63*
–.03
.06
6.E
xper
ienc
ing–
abso
lute
.03
–.08
.02
–.10
.14
—.5
4*.1
1.6
7**.2
2.4
8*
7.Se
ndin
g–w
ithin
grou
p–.
04–.
07–.
03.8
9**.2
3–.
10—
–.17
.31
.32
.47†
8.R
ecei
ving
–with
ingr
oup
.03
–.02
.27
.00
.74**
.44*
.10
—.5
2*.2
4.2
69.
Exp
erie
ncin
g–w
ithin
grou
p.1
6.0
0.1
8.0
0.1
9.8
4**.1
1.4
2†—
.25
.30
10.P
eer
acce
ptan
ce–.
23–.
08–.
13–.
21–.
06–.
35–.
34–.
18–.
57**
—.4
5†
11.R
ecip
roca
lfri
ends
hip
stat
us–.
03.3
5.4
4*.0
6–.
19–.
28.0
2–.
27–.
23.3
8†—
Not
e:C
orre
latio
nsfo
rgi
rls
are
abov
eth
edi
agon
al,t
hose
for
boys
are
belo
wth
edi
agon
al.
† p<
.10.
*p<
.05.
**p
<.0
1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
within children’s sex, partialing children’s age, to examine whether children’semotion knowledge and ASC scores were related to children’s reciprocal friend-ship status. These are presented in Table 5. For girls, greater sending–absolute andexperiencing–absolute scores were associated with having a reciprocal friendship.For boys, greater nonstereotypical knowledge was so associated.
Predicting Children’s Peer Acceptance
We examined the partial correlation matrices for girls and boys to select likely pre-dictors of children’s peer acceptance. As Table 5 shows, for girls, nonstereotypicalknowledge was significantly associated with their peer acceptance score; for boys,experiencing–within group was so associated. Thus, we conducted a mixed-modelanalysis of variance to test examine whether interactions between child sex andnonstereotypical knowledge, and between child sex and experiencing–withingroup, predicted children’s peer acceptance scores. Predictor variables includ-ed children’s age, sex, nonstereotypical knowledge, experiencing–within groupscore, and the two interactions. The omnibus model was significant, F(6, 35) =3.64, p < .01, R2 = .38. As Table 6 shows, both interactions were significant.
We followed up these interactions by conducting stepwise multiple regressionanalyses separately for girls and boys (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Children’s age wasentered on the first step. Their nonstereotypical knowledge and experiencing–within group scores were entered on the second step. Results of these gender-spe-cific analyses are reported in Table 7. For girls, greater nonstereotypical knowl-edge predicted greater peer acceptance. For boys, greater experiencing–withingroup scores predicted less peer acceptance.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of this study was to investigate whether children’s ASC, mea-sured through behavioral observation in a naturalistic context, would lead to pre-
228 DUNSMORE ET AL.
TABLE 6Predictors of Children’s Peer Acceptance
Variable Type III Mean Square F
Age 2.68 7.65**Gender 0.09 0.25Nonstereotypical knowledge 1.65 4.70*Experiencing–within group 0.47 1.33Gender × Nonstereotypical Knowledge interaction 1.51 4.30*Gender × Experiencing–Within Group interaction 2.29 6.52*
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
school children’s peer acceptance and formation of reciprocal friendships. We ex-pected that the social context would matter in the linkages between ASC and peerrelations, and we addressed this in two ways. First, we investigated within-groupASC scores (children’s experiencing, receiving, and sending scores adjusted forcomparison to their playschool group norm) as well as absolute ASC scores (chil-dren’s demonstration of skill in experiencing, receiving, and sending in compari-son to the entire sample). Second, we tested for differences in interrelations amongemotion knowledge, ASC, and peer relations according to children’s gender. Thesmall sample size limited our power, especially in regard to investigating recipro-cal friendships. However, this study expands the current literature by showing thatemotional constructs are linked to children’s dyadic friendship formation as wellas their peer acceptance. Furthermore, the short-term longitudinal nature of thestudy, coupled with children’s lack of previous acquaintance, allowed us cautiouspresumption of causal links between children’s emotion knowledge prior to theplayschool and ASC during the playschool, and their peer relations measured fol-lowing the playschool week, though of course other variables (e.g., previous childcare experiences, sibling relations, etc.) also influence children’s emotional skillsand social competence.
A predominant theme in our results is the gender-specific nature of the linkageswe found. We found no significant sex differences in children’s scores but ratherdifferent patterns of association between emotion knowledge, ASC, and peer rela-tions for girls and boys. This is consonant with Martin and Green’s (2005) findingsof greater interrelations among components of emotion knowledge for preschoolboys compared to preschool girls, and of greater contributions of maternal explan-atory emotion talk to boys’ emotion talk and emotion knowledge compared togirls’. Looking to an older age group, gender-specific linkages have also beenfound between relational aggression in early adolescence and later peer relations(Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). These findings may suggest different pathways for
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 229
TABLE 7Standard Coefficients and Standard Errors for Predictors of Girls’
and Boys’ Peer Acceptance
Girls Boys
Step and Variable a SE R2 a SE R2
Step 1Age .31 .03 .10 .38 .03 .14†
Step 2Nonstereotypical knowledge .50* .19 .30* –.02 .12 .28*Experiencing–within group .25 .18 –.54* .17
aStandardized regression coefficient.†p < .10. *p < .05.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
girls’ and boys’ development of ASC and different linkages of various instan-tiations of ASC to girls’ and boys’ peer relations.
For girls, adjusting ASC scores for playgroup norms mattered little in linkagesto peer relations. Girls’ greater nonstereotypical knowledge, which is theoreticallyrelated to the receiving aspect of ASC, was associated with their greater peer ac-ceptance. Girls’ better sending–absolute and experiencing–absolute scores wererelated to greater likelihood of forming a reciprocal friendship. We note that weconsidered children to have a reciprocal friendship only if both nominated theother as most liked, which meant children could have no more than one reciprocalfriendship in their group. Thus, for girls, there was some evidence that all three as-pects of ASC were linked to their development of peer relations.
For boys, greater nonstereotypical knowledge was associated with their greaterlikelihood of forming a reciprocal friendship. Thus, for both boys and girls,nonstereotypical knowledge— the ability to identify emotions even when they aredifferent than one’s own would be in the same situation—was important in form-ing peer relations.
With boys, we also found evidence that adjusting ASC scores for playgroupnorms assisted in understanding linkages to peer relations. Contrary to our hypoth-eses, boys’ higher experiencing skill in comparison to playgroup peers was associ-ated with lower peer acceptance. We believe this finding highlights the importanceof examining ASC skills within the social context. In the playgroups, conflicts didnot escalate beyond mild levels of distress. All of these groups were, overall, ratherharmonious—initiations outnumbered conflicts by at least a 3:1 ratio in all of theplayschool groups. Given the low child-to-adult ratio in each playschool group, of-ten an adult was directly involved with the children’s play or immediately next tothem. Thus, redirection or intervention, when necessary, was rapid.
In retrospect, the social context within the groups minimized demands on chil-dren’s experiencing skills such that relative lack of skill in management of experi-encing during conflicts was unlikely to lead to disruptive behavior that children’speers would find unpleasant to be around. In contrast, high skill in managing expe-riencing during conflicts was indicated by either well-modulated communica-tion—which would also be captured in the child’s sending score—or an absence ofcommunication and withdrawal from the conflict. Thus, high relative skill in expe-riencing, if not accompanied by a sent message, might be perceived by peers aslack of engagement or disinterest, thereby leading to lower peer acceptance. Be-cause preschool-age boys tend to be less verbally adept and engage in more physi-cally active play than preschool-age girls (Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, 2004;Pellegrini & Smith, 1998), high experiencing might be more likely to be perceivedas disengagement by boys compared to girls. Indeed, girls’ sending–absolute andexperiencing–absolute scores were correlated, whereas boys’ were not. We againnote that it was not experiencing per se, but rather experiencing compared to peerswithin the social context of each particular group, that led to boys’ lower peer ac-
230 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
ceptance. Future work with larger samples that allow comparison of same-sex andmixed-sex initiations and conflicts may further illuminate how child sex, as part ofthe social context, influences which skills lead to successful peer interactions andhow they do so.
The importance of the social context in children’s outcomes has long beenknown; however, we believe this is the first study to demonstrate that the socialcontext in regard to emotional skills influences children’s peer relations. Still,these findings may be considered largely consistent with the extant literature be-cause many studies relying on sociometrics employ large samples that share a so-cial context (classrooms, schools). We believe our findings have important impli-cations for early childhood educators, who play a significant role in children’sdevelopment of empathy and emotional competence (Kienbaum, 2001; Shields etal., 2001). Though assessing children’s socioemotional development in regard tomilestones and universal norms remains important, it may also be important forearly childhood educators to consider their students’ socioemotional developmentin regard to the classroom or peer group norm in order to best help children growtoward optimal social and emotional development.
Our corollary goal in this study was to develop an observational coding schemefor assessing children’s ASC within a naturalistic context and to see how predic-tion of children’s peer relations with such a scheme compares to prediction usingstandard emotion knowledge measures. Despite the highly labor-intensive natureof the coding, we thought it critical to advance the study of children’s ASC by us-ing a dynamic, naturalistic measure of their skill in context. Children’s observedASC, whether absolute scores or in comparison to their playschool group norm,was unrelated to their emotion knowledge, and both observed ASC and emotionknowledge were predictive of children’s peer relations. Our findings highlight theimportance of including measures of children’s observed behavioral performanceas well as their more static emotion-related capacities to understand children’s de-velopment of peer relations.
For early childhood educators, the coding scheme may also provide a useful ru-bric for in vivo evaluation of students’ emotional skills. Using the behavioralchecklists may assist in identifying with which aspects of ASC a child has particu-lar skill and particular difficulties. For example, if a child consistently acknowl-edges receipt of other children’s emotional messages, but his or her own attemptsto initiate play with other children are confusing, assistance with learning how tosend clear emotional messages is called for, whereas additional practice in identi-fying others’ facial expressions of emotion is unnecessary. Assessment of each as-pect of a child’s ASC thus has clear advantages compared to a global evaluationthat does not identify specific patterns of strengths and weaknesses. We also notethat, in addition to finding specific linkages of each aspect of ASC with girls’ andboys’ peer relations outcomes, we found that children’s scores on the three aspectsof ASC were, for the most part, only modestly related, especially for boys. The so-
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 231
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
cial context for our small groups, with high adult-to-child ratios and an orderly at-mosphere, made identification of subtle behavioral skills easier and may have fos-tered greater connection between the three ASC components than may typically befound in naturalistic classroom environments. However, the guidelines we devel-oped may also be beneficial in naturalistic classroom environments, because theywill enable educators to identify and target especially meaningful behaviors. Also,it is possible that disconnection between ASC components may be more apparentin naturalistic classroom environments because of the more complex social con-text,1 further enhancing the applicability of our coding scheme for educationalpractice.
In this study, previously unacquainted children, with 1 week to get to knowone another, used their peers’ emotion-related behavior in making judgmentsabout their peers’ acceptance and in forming reciprocal friendships. A limitationof our work was the low power provided by our small sample size. Nonetheless,we found that, though initiating play and being involved in conflict provided op-portunities to see children’s ASC, it was children’s ASC skill during those epi-sodes that mattered in their peer relations, not the frequency with which they en-gaged in such episodes. The observed components of ASC that emerged asimportant predictors of the quality of children’s peer relationships were the abil-ity to effectively send emotional signals and skill in managing one’s own emo-tional experience.
It is interesting that the receiving component of behavioral ASC did not emergeas an important predictor of children’s peer relationships. Nonstereotypical emo-tion knowledge was a predictor, consistent with previous research showing thatskill in receiving emotion messages, measured using a social–cognitive problemsolving approach, is essential to the development of positive peer relationships(e.g., Denham, 1986). It may be that more subtle behaviors indicating receipt ofpeers’ emotional communications were not included in our coding scheme, ormaybe these would even be difficult to observe in any behavioral coding scheme. Itmay also be that young children have difficulty picking up on their peers’ receivingabilities unless those abilities lead to more noticeable behaviors, such as sendingan emotional message following receipt of one, or toning down a conflict. Becausethe components of ASC are theorized to be dynamically intertwined, it would beexpected that children’s emotion knowledge might be related to their sending andexperiencing, as well as receiving, skills. In this sample, the components of ASCwere at most weakly correlated with one another; future research with older chil-dren and adolescents will be useful in determining whether, as predicted, the com-ponents and manifestations of ASC become more highly related as children ma-ture (Halberstadt et al., 2001). Further research that includes a combination of
232 DUNSMORE ET AL.
1We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
behavioral and social–cognitive approaches to the measurement of ASC may like-wise help to consolidate these seemingly different results.
In future work, we are also interested in following the trajectory of children’speer relations over time. After the initial phase in which they get to know one an-other, does ASC remain important in children’s popularity and friendships, or doesit fade in importance as children form cliques and reputations (Coie, Dodge, &Kupersmidt, 1990; Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003)? Furthermore, researchdemonstrates reciprocal influences of peer relations on children’s developing emo-tion knowledge (Dunsmore & Karn, 2004). We might find similar reciprocal peersocialization on one another’s ASC. The peer group social context was importantin this study in determining how children’s level of skill influenced their peer rela-tions. Over time, the peer group social context might also influence how children’sASC develops, perhaps enhancing rate of change as children are scaffolded to liveup to a higher peer group norm, perhaps hindering rate of change when childrenrepresent the ceiling for their peer group. Whether components of ASC also pre-dict other aspects of children’s peer relationships, such as bullying and victimiza-tion, should also be considered (see Garner & Lemerise, 2007). The results of thisstudy provide the first empirical evidence that ASC can be reliably coded from be-havioral observations and that indices of this construct promote positive peer rela-tionships among young children. We hope our results will spark new directions forresearchers and educators interested in children’s socioemotional development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this manuscript were presented at the meeting of the Society for Re-search in Child Development, April 2003, in Tampa, Florida. We gratefully ac-knowledge Ellen Cook-Jamison’s leadership, and we thank Jamie Abaied, MariaArellano, Francesca Balada, Erin Crosby, Kellen Fladger, Anna George, JenniferGiacomino, Pa Her, Graciete Lo, Anisha Mahesh, Brandon Nichols, HollandOmar, Colleen Quigley, Megan Robinson, Arden Ruttan, and Bradford Wiles forassistance with data collection and coding.
REFERENCES
Ambady, N., & Gray, H. M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy ofthin-slice judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961.
Arsenio, W., & Cooperman, S. (1996). Children’s conflict-related emotions: Implications for moralityand autonomy. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & M. Killen (Vol. Ed.), New directions for child develop-ment: Children’s autonomy, social competence, and interactions with adults and other children: Ex-ploring connections and consequences (No.73, pp. 25–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 233
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Arsenio, W. F., & Killen, M. (1996). Conflict-related emotions during peer disputes. Early Educationand Development, 7, 43–57.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycholog-ical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptual-ization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C., & Haynes, O. M. (2004). Specific and general language performanceacross early childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First Language, 24, 267–304.
Boyatzis, C. J., & Satyaprasad, C. (1994). Children’s facial and gestural decoding and encoding: Rela-tions between skills and with popularity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 37–54.
Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., & Holcombe, A. (1996). Observational assessment of young children’s so-cial behavior with peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 19–40.
Buck, R. (1977). Nonverbal communication of affect in preschool children: Relationships with person-ality and skin conductance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 225–236.
Buck, R., & VanLear, C. A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic,spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of Communication, 52, 522–541.
Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children’s school adjustment:An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550–560.
Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement andoutcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relations in child development (pp. 15–45). NewYork: Wiley.
Bukowski, W. M., & Newcomb, A. F. (1984). The stability and determinants of sociometric status andfriendship choice: A longitudinal perspective. Developmental Psychology, 20, 265–274.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1990). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Cassidy, J., Parke, R. D., Butkovsky, L., & Braungart, J. M. (1992). Family-peer connections: The rolesof emotional expressiveness within the family and children’s understanding of emotions. Child De-velopment, 63, 603–618.
Chisholm, K., & Strayer, J. (1995). Verbal and facial measures of children’s emotion and empathy.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 299–316.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes inthe association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R.Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: Ananalysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826.
Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer group and friendship in earlyadolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 155–181.
Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextualvalidation. Child Development, 57, 194–201.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003).Pre-school emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74,238–256.
Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1993). Socialization of emotion: Pathway to pre-schoolers’ emotional andsocial competence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 205–227.
Denham, S. A., Mason, T., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Hackney, R., Caswell, C., et al. (2001). Pre-schoolers at play: Co-socialisers of emotional and social competence. International Journal of Be-havioral Development, 25, 290–301.
234 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Denham, S., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavior predictors ofpreschool peer ratings. Child Development, 61, 1145–1152.
Dunsmore, J. C., & Karn, M. A. (2004). The influence of peer relationships and maternal socializationon kindergarteners’developing emotion knowledge. Early Education and Development, 15, 39–56.
Eisenberg, N. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: An emerging construct. Merrill Palmer Quarterly,50, 236–259.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp.701–778). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emo-tionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development,66, 1360–1384.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., et al. (1997). Con-temporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and emo-tionality. Child Development, 68, 642–664.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Hanish, L. D., & Spinrad, T. L. (2001). Preschoolers’ spontaneous emotionvocabulary: Relation to likability. Early Education and Development, 12, 11–27.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., et al. (1999). Regulation, emo-tionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70, 432–442.
Garner, P. W. (1996). The relations of emotional role-taking, affective/moral attributions, and emo-tional display rule knowledge to low-income school-age children’s social competence. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 17, 19–36.
Garner, P. W., & Estep, K. M. (2001). Emotional competence, emotion socialization, and young chil-dren’s peer-related social competence. Early Education and Development, 12, 29–48.
Garner, P. W., & Lemerise, E. (2007). The roles of behavioral adjustment and conceptions of peers andemotions in preschool children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 57–71.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance,friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284.
Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance inmiddle school children. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 395–413.
Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social competence. Social De-velopment, 10, 79–119.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University Press.Hartup, W. W. (1989). Behavioral manifestations of children’s friendships. In T. J. Berndt & G.W. Ladd
(Eds.), Peer relations in child development (pp. 46–70). New York: Wiley.Hayes, D. S., Gershman, E., & Bolin, L. J. (1980). Friends and enemies: Cognitive biases for pre-school
children’s unilateral and reciprocal relationships. Child Development, 51, 1276–1279.Hubbard, J. A., & Dearing, K. F. (2004). Children’s understanding and regulation of emotion in con-
text of their peer relations. In J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations:From development to intervention (pp. 81–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-ation.
Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interventions. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 128, 796–824.
Izard, C. E., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A. J., Ackerman, B. P., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emo-tion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in children at risk. Psy-chological Science, 12, 18–23.
Kienbaum, J. (2001). The socialization of compassionate behavior by child care teachers. Early Educa-tion and Development, 12, 139–153.
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 235
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in theclassroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 1081–1100.
Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children’s peer relations and social competence: A century of progress. New Ha-ven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten:Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of youngchildren’s early school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103–1118.
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition insocial information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.
Linares, L. O., Rosbruch, N., Stern, M., Edwards, M. E., Walker, G., Abikoff, H. B., et al. (2005). De-veloping cognitive-social-emotional competences to enhance academic learning. Psychology in theSchools, 42, 405–417.
Martin, R., & Green, J. (2005). The use of emotion explanations by mothers: Relations to preschoolers’gender and understanding of emotions. Social Development, 14, 229–249.
Masters, J. C., & Furman, W. (1981). Popularity, individual friendship selection, and specific peer inter-action among children. Developmental Psychology, 17, 344–350.
McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing andtheir development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424–453.
Miller, A. L., Gouley, K. K., Seifer, R., Dickstein, S., & Shields, A. (2004). Emotions and behaviors inthe Head Start classroom: Associations among observed dysregulation, social competence, and pre-school adjustment. Early Education and Development, 15, 147–165.
Miller, A. L., Gouley, K. K., Seifer, R., Zakriski, A., Eguia, M., & Vergnani, M. (2005). Emotionknowledge skills in low-income elementary school children: Associations with social status and peerexperiences. Social Development, 14, 637–651.
Miller, A. L., Gouley, K. K., Shields, A., Seifer, R., Dickstein, S., Magee, K. D., et al. (2003). Brieffunctional screening for transition difficulties prior to enrollment predicts socio-emotional compe-tence and school adjustment in Head Start preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 173,681–698.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual difference in non-verbal communication of affect: Thediagnostic analysis of non-verbal accuracy scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 9–35.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links withpeer acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29,611–621.
Parker, J., Rubin, K., Price, J., & DeRosier, M. (1995). Peer relationships, child development, and ad-justment. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder,and adaptation (pp. 96–161). New York: Wiley.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglectedaspect of play. Child Development, 69, 577–598.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., & Roberts, W. L. (1998). Observations of aggressive nonaggressive childrenon the school playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 55–76.
Philippot, P., & Feldman, R. S. (1990). Age and social competence in preschoolers’ decoding of facialexpression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 43–54.
Rende, R. D., & Killen, M. (1992). Social interactional antecedents of conflict in young children. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 7, 551–563.
Schneider, B. H., Wiener, J., & Murphy, K. (1994). Children’s friendships: The giant step beyond peeracceptance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 323–340.
Shantz, C. U., & Shantz, D. W. (1985). Conflict between children: Social-cognitive and sociometriccorrelates. New Directions for Child Development, 29, 3–21.
236 DUNSMORE ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Shantz, D. W. (1986). Conflict, aggression, and peer status: An observational study. Child Develop-ment, 57, 1322–1332.
Shields, A., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Giusti, L., Magee, K. D., & Spritz, B. (2001). Emotional compe-tence and early school adjustment: A study of preschoolers at risk. Early Education and Develop-ment, 12, 73–96.
Smith, M. (2001). Social and emotional competence: Contributions to young African-American chil-dren’s peer acceptance. Early Education and Development, 12, 49–72.
Sternglanz, R. W., & DePaulo, B. M. (2004). Reading nonverbal cues to emotions: The advantages andliabilities of relationship closeness. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 245–266.
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and aggression in five-year-olds. SocialDevelopment, 13, 1–13.
Walter, J. L., & LaFreniere, P. J. (2000). A naturalistic study of affective expression, social competence,and sociometric status in preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 11, 109–122.
AFFECTIVE SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND FRIENDSHIP 237
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
idad
de
Sevi
lla]
at 0
2:55
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
