Psychology in the Schools Volume 32, April I995

THE MEDIEVAL KINGDOM TOPOLOGY: PEER RELATIONS IN KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

ANDREW BENNETT AND JEFFREY DEREVENSKY

McCill University

This research examined the applicability of the Medieval Kingdom social role topology (Adcock & %gal, 1983) with kindergarten children and assessed the association between the social roles children assumed and seven nonbehavioral variables. One hundred and seventy-three children from 10 kindergarten classes in two schools participated. Hypotheses that the Medieval Kingdom topology could be distilled from a sample of kindergarten children and that specific nonbehavioral variables including cognitive ability, physical attractiveness, self-esteem, and chronological age were related to the assumption of leadership roles within the topology were confirmed. Children’s gender, birth order, and number of siblings were not found to influence the status within the social hierarchy. The findings suggest that the Medieval Kingdom is a potentially useful heuristic for understanding the peer relationships of young children.

The processes through which children are transformed from relatively helpless and demanding individuals into socially competent, contributing members of society are long and complex. Most research has been concerned with examining how parental behavior supports children’s learning to inhibit aggressive actions, which simultaneously influences the acquisition of positive social behaviors and skills that subsequently foster successful adult functioning.

Over the last two decades it has become increasingly apparent that parents are not the only important influence on the socialization of the child (Burleson, Applegate, Burke, Clark, Delia, & Kline, 1986; Grusec & Lytton, 1988). It is now widely accepted that the relationships that individuals develop outside the family also have a powerful effect upon the development of social and cognitive skills.

Access to other children and opportunities to learn from them is an almost univer- sal characteristic of development (Bandura, 1977; Bronfenbrenner 1979). As children develop, their exposure to peers becomes more extensive and the socializing influence of this group becomes more pervasive (Grusec & Lytton, 1988). Peer relationships are distinguished by the developmental equivalence of the participants and the egalitarian nature of their interaction (Hartup, 1983) and are distinctively different from those en- countered in interactions with adults or children of different ages.

Peers remain indispensable to the development and rehearsal of sex-role adoption and courting behavior (Fagot, 1977; Mannarino, 1978), social perception (Grusec & Lytton, 1988), dimensions of cooperative, prosocial, and competitive behavior (Zahn- Waxler, Iannotti, & Chapman, 1982), moral reasoning (Damon & Miller, 1982; Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1932). and expressions of aggression and dependency (Patterson, Littman, & Bricker, 1967). Similarly, the peer group supplies important confirmation and discon- firmation of self-judgments of competence and self-esteem (Bandura, 1977). As such, children define their status in relation to others and learn both “follower” and “leader- ship” roles within the context of equality.

Clearly, the peer relationships of children and adolescents are of considerable

The authors would like to thank Mr. Ken Cassidy and Mr. Tony Buccongello, and the kindergarten teachers

Requests for reprints should be sent to Jeffrey Derevensky, Department of Educational Psychology, McGill and children at St. John Fisher and St. Paul’s elementary schools.

University, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1Y2. 130

Medieval Kingdom 13 1

developmental and clinical importance. However, the best methodological approach to assess these relationships has not been well established (Connolly & Doyle, 1981). The most common approach has been to use indices of children’s peer group acceptance or rejection based on sociometric techniques (Hymel, 1983). Such techniques offer the ad- vantages of being relatively simple procedures for gathering information on a large number of children and of providing an evaluation of a child’s social status from a peer perspective (Hymel, 1983). Yet this approach has relatively low short-term reliability and long-term stability of sociometric classifications of young children (Bukowski & Newcomb, 1984; Hartup, 1983). Other researchers (e.g., Connolly & Doyle, 1981; Gresham & Reschly, 1987) have begun to utilize alternative methods for assessing children’s peer relationships. One of the more innovative and detailed conceptualiza- tions proposed for understanding this interactional process is that proposed by Adcock and Segal (1983).

Adcock and Segal (1983), using young children (ages 2-6), created a social status topology that considers what individuals bring to both social interactions (relationship history, behavioral skills and competencies, and personality traits) and peer relations (acceptance/rejection). They further enhanced the descriptive power of their social status hierarchy by metaphorically delineating it as a Medieval Kingdom. This analogy suc- cinctly encompasses both the importance of leadership and the limited range of social roles in the preschool classroom, factors perceived to be crucial in understanding the social interactions of preschoolers. Children’s personality, temperament, attachment behavior, motives, feelings, behaviors, and the reactions of their peers are included in one gestalt.

Each child has a distinct, personal style of meeting and playing with others. Given the unique qualities of each child’s personality, no two styles are ever identical. However, the social style that a child adopts remains a function of the limited range of roles available in a preschool class. Adcock and Segal (1983) reported that social styles fall into five distinct types and children who adopt similar roles display broad similarities in their behavior.

The backbone of Adcock and Segal’s Medieval Kingdom are the Lords, children who mold the miniature society into different cliques. Their status is maintained through hard work, and success is determined by diligence and the need to control, rather than by a preponderance of natural talent. The Lord has mastered both complementary- reciprocal play and cooperative social pretend play skills that have been found to affect social status positively (Howes, 1987). Other children recognize Lords as individuals who initiate and maintain play and are drawn to them (Segal, Peck, Vega-Lahr, & Field, 1987). Lords use their popularity as a means of maintaining control, confer status on certain props (e.g., a playhouse), and manipulate children by limiting access to these objects. Lords require flexibility and versatility since to maintain their retinue they must judiciously blend commands, compliments, and humor. The archetypal Lord is the domineering mother in a pretend family. Lords are not always successful or positive influences. Unsuccessful Lords tend to disrupt rather than organize play. Their attempts at interaction can create tension, resulting in conflict. They lack direction in their play and appear unable to interpret social situations accurately, a shortcoming that has been shown to predict rejection (Putallaz, 1983).

The trusted lieutenant to the Lord is the Vassal, who follows the Lord’s every lead and is in turn favored with special attention. Their relationship is reciprocal-each elicits the full range of the other’s personality attributes. Vassals are in the middle of the social

132 Bennett and Derevensky

hierarchy, preferring to be followers and confidants of Lords. Lower-status children occasionally look to them for leadership. Their social role is marked by adaptability, and they often assume the alternating roles of favored follower and leader during the same play episode. Their strengths lie in their ability to assume the frame of reference of another and in their perceptual accuracy, skills that have been found to influence social status significantly (Dodge, 1983; Putallaz, 1983). While seeking to be favored subordinates, Vassals seem to be trying to create a peer bond similar to the parent-child attachment relationship (Erikson, 1977; Sroufe, 1983). In essence, they are like infants receiving special recognition and protection from adultlike Lords. The Vassal’s need for support and reassurance, paired with the ability to lead, is somewhat evocative of an ambivalently attached child (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Unsuccessful Vassals can be conceptualized as either attention seeking or aggressive. Attention-seeking Vassals are treated as a nuisance because they lack the cognitive ability to read social situations accurately. Aggressive Vassals are marked by an inability to self-regulate, leading to multiple conflicts.

Although the term Serf invokes images of helplessness and servitude, Adcock and Segal did not intend it to be disparaging. The Serf is not unhappy or disliked, the role fitting the child’s personality and needs. Serfs are distinguished by two primary characteristics: (a) they are at the bottom of the social scale, being followers with the least power, and (b) their positions within the social system are generally tenuous because they are on the periphery of group activities in which they participate only sporadically. Serfs are frequently found to engage in solitary play (Segal et al., 1987). their profile resembling that of neglected children (Bukowski & Newcomb, 1985). In preschool, where the social system is in constant flux, most Serfs wander from one activity to another. They are not true members of any social clique and lack the peer group entry tactics (Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken, & Delugach, 1983) that would allow them more control over group inclusion. The role of Serf is not trivial, however, because for the social system to work there has to be submission. Serfs are generally good followers and pro- vide ballast for the system.

Three types of Serfs exist. The happy Serf is satisfied with a low level of social in- volvement and status. The shy Serf makes no attempts at leadership and does not de- mand reasonable treatment in interactions with peers. Shy Serfs appear fortunate merely to be included in anyone’s play. The frustrated Serf doesn’t want to be excluded but lacks the behavioral skills necessary to join. Like rejected children (e.g., Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984; Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982), frustrated Serfs disrupt games and engage in attention-seeking behavior.

Bishops are generally children of distinction having status among peers. Whereas most children are preoccupied with playing, Bishops are attuned to a higher plane. They tend to look down on the classroom, monitoring and supervising like adults, while at the same time remaining children, occasionally overcome with the vitality of youth. In many ways, Bishops resemble little teachers. They remind other children about the rules of the classroom and report improprieties when they occur. Their behavior is not malicious, but the result of a strong identification with the teacher’s role. In fact, dur- ing play, Bishops usually adopt the role of teacher or some other equally directive adult. Their language is sophisticated, vocabulary advanced, and they often demonstrate an unusually good understanding of discourse rules. These strong verbal skills are necessary prerequisites for assuming adult orientations and have been found to be associated with high social status (Burleson et al., 1986; Rubin & Borwick, 1984).

Medieval Kingdom 133

Bishops try to find common ground with their play partners and seek compromise in conflict situations. They defend themselves with skilful verbal reasoning, and if that fails they defer to a higher authority, the teacher. Bishops are not generally aggressive, nor are they easily intimidated. They model ways of resolving conflicts that are ap- propriate and mature. Their behavior helps to teach important discussion techniques to other children. Bishops possess interesting play ideas, and are willing to compromise and share, which makes them successful leaders in dyadic situations. They play equally well with members of either sex and with a wide range of children. Their leadership, however, tends not to be as effective in larger groups. Bishops often have difficulty with rough-and-tumble play because the wild humor and physical exuberance is too far removed from the sedate world of adults to which they aspire. Their leadership is also too timid and flexible to control a large group of children.

Kings and Queens are the unquestioned masters of the preschool society. They rule by virtue of their wit and charm and by their commitment to vigorous but peaceful play. These “monarchs” are socially gifted children who assume their position without any special effort. They are extremely highly regarded by peers and constantly sought after. This level of popularity is a somewhat rare occurrence, and not every classroom will have a King or Queen. The most striking characteristic of Kings and Queens is their supreme confidence. Instead of seeking permission to join or hovering around the periphery of the action, they enter a group with boundless enthusiasm and immediately adopt its frame of reference. No social opportunities are unrealistic, and they accept rejection without feelings of recrimination or self-pity. They do not disrupt, call atten- tion to themselves, or antagonize, which distinguishes them from children of low social status (Dodge et al., 1983). Their intentions are honorable, and they are confident that their contributions will be acceptable. Their attitude is “let me join and I’ll make it more fun for all of us.” Natural leadership ability rather than an insistence on controlling everything propels them to dominance. Being self-confident, they accept this dominance openly, without making other children feel demeaned or oppressed. They play frequently with both sexes and interact with everyone.

Whereas the leadership of Lords tends to be restricted to select groups of cliques, a monarch’s orientation is toward inclusion rather than exclusion. Kings and Queens enjoy and direct broad play themes that include many children and seem especially trusting of their classmates. They readily share toys and in turn trust others to share with them. In order to preserve peace, monarchs must possess great conflict-resolution skills. They seek compromise but, unlike Bishops, try to do so using a child’s, rather than an adult’s, frame of reference. They are adept at using imaginative play to resolve children’s conflicts. Kings and Queens often use their power to create pretend settings in which real conflict and violence become acts of play. They possess great skill at play fighting and will initiate it even when there is no conflict just to make the interaction more entertaining. They are talented entertainers whose good-natured temperaments and enthusiasm can become contagious.

Adcock and %gal (1983) have provided a conceptualization for understanding the nature of peer relations and the composition of social competence in preschoolers. The Medieval Kingdom classification topology is distinctive both in its descriptive charm and because it considers and encompasses the behaviors that other researchers have iden- tified as being essential to successful social adaptation.

Despite these strengths, there are limitations to the Medieval Kingdom paradigm. Foremost among these limitations is the fact that this topology has been assessed only

134 Bennett and Derevensky

with small samples of preschool children. It remains to be demonstrated whether the topology is observable in the peer relationships of older children on whom the school environment has the effect of restructuring behavior. Characteristics such as a child’s cognitive ability, physical attractiveness, self-esteem, and birth order have been demonstrated to affect children’s social status in other studies (e.g., Dion & Berscheid, 1974; Hartup, 1983; In-Sub & Hatti, 1984; Maccoby, 1980; Zajonc, 1976) but as yet have not been included in this type of topology.

The present study was designed to determine whether Adcock and Segal’s (1983) topology would be applicable in a relatively more structured setting with a group of older (kindergarten) children, while attempting to evaluate the possible influence of cognitive ability, self-esteem, physical attractiveness, chronological age, gender, birth order, and the number of siblings on the social roles that children assume.

METHOD

Subjects One hundred and seventy-three kindergarten children (83 males, 90 females) from

10 classes in two suburban Montreal public elementary schools participated. The children were English-speaking Caucasians, from middle to upper-middle class socioeconomic backgrounds, and had a mean age of 74 months (SD = 3.5 months) at the initial time of testing.

Instruments Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test (CCA T) - Primary Battery. The CCAT (Thorn-

dike, Hagen, & Wright, 1984) was used to assess children’s cognitive abilities related to verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning and problem solving.

Behavioral Academic self-Esteem (BASE) Test. The BASE (Coopersmith & Gilberts, 1982) assessed the child’s academic self-esteem on five factors: self-initiative, social at- tention, success/failure, social attraction, and self-confidence.

Procedure Two naive research assistants observed each of 10 classes for a 3-week period. Prior

to the observation period, each observer was given a global qualitative description (see Adcock & Segal, 1983, pp. 55-133) of the five social styles (KingIQueen, Bishop, Lord, Vassal, Serf‘) and an abbreviated delineation of each social role (see Table 1).

Research assistants were trained to an interobserver reliability level of .90 on the social role topology. Observations were conducted during the free-play sessions within each classroom in the latter part of the school year to ensure children’s familiarity with each other and the solidification of their social roles. Over the 3-week observation period each child was assessed daily for a minimum of 5 minutes during free play. In the initial phase of the observation (week l), research assistants completed physical attractiveness ratings of each child and focused on conspicuous play episodes involving group activities. During the latter phase (weeks 2 and 3) they observed the social interactions of specific children. Peer interactions were later transcribed, and the name of each child’s playmate@) and instances of conflict techniques were recorded. At the completion of the observa- tion period, each child’s predominant affective behavior (happy, sad, or serious), the child’s most frequent playmates, and general impressions of the primary role that each

Medieval Kingdom 135

Table 1 Characteristics of Social Roles in Medieval Kingdom Topology

Role Characteristics

Kings/Queens - - - -

Bishops

Lords

Vassals

Serfs

Socially dominant children but will not necessarily be found in every class. Socially gifted, highly regarded, and sought after by peers. Extremely confident, creative, and enthusiastic natural leaders. Oriented toward inclusion and direct broad play themes that involve many children. Equally proficient in highly verbal intimate activities and rambunctious free play.

High status among peers yet somewhat old-fashioned. Prefer intimate dyadic play where their advanced verbal and creative skills can be used to full advantage. Highly oriented toward adults and often seem like “little teachers” within classroom. Language and vocabulary are sophisticated. Good conflict resolution skills, favor compromise.

Organizers who mold the class into cliques. High status maintained through diligence and hard work rather than through a preponderance of natural talent. Motivated toward control, and use popularity and access to certain objects as a means of achieving it. Favor social pretend play in small groups, with the domineering mother or squadron leader being their favored role. Unsuccessful lords tend to disrupt play, and their attempts at organization usually lead to conflict.

Positioned in the middle of the social hierarchy. Prefer to be the favored followers of Lords or Bishops but occasionally assume leadership role with lower-status children. Enjoy social pretend play and often assume the role of favorite child to Lord‘s domineering parent. Unsuccessful Vassals are either attention seeking or aggressive.

Positioned at the bottom of the social scale. Followers with very little power. Their position within the social system is tenuous, and they are generally on the periphery of group activities and participate only sporadically. Frequently engage in solitary play. Can be divided into three types depending on their level of acceptance of their social status: happy, shy, or frustrated.

Note. These characteristics were gleaned from the descriptive information provided by Adcock and %gal (1983, pp. 55-133).

child and playmates assumed were recorded. The CCAT and BASE scores were recorded at the completion of the observation phase. Parents completed a questionnaire address- ing biographic variables pertaining to their child.

Physical attractiveness was appraised based on a global assessment by two indepen- dent raters using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unattractive, 5 = very attractive). When disagreements between raters occurred, the mean of the two scores was taken.

136 Bennett and Derevensky

Agreement between the two observers was .61. Discrepancy between the ratings of the two observers did not exceed 1 point on the Likert scale for any given child.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION All 173 children in the sample were classified into a single social role based upon

the Medieval Kingdom topology. Interobserver agreement occurred for 91 070 of the children (156/173), and where there was a conflict (n = 17) a conference with the primary investigator led to a mutually agreed upon classification.

The distribution and classification of social styles indicated that 35% of the children assumed “leader” social roles (King/Queen, Bishop, and Lord). KingdQueens composed 6.4% of the sample; Bishops 17.9%; and Lords 10.4%. The “follower” social roles of Vassal and Serf accounted for 28% and 37%, respectively. There was a slightly higher but nonsignificant percentage of males in leadership roles (55% vs. 45%) caused by the greater number of boys in the Bishop category. Although the role of Serf was evenly distributed by gender, more females assumed the role of Vassal, accounting for the higher percentage of females in “follower” roles.

Whereas previous studies (Adcock & Segal, 1983; Segal et al., 1987) demonstrated the applicability of the Medieval Kingdom social role topology with preschoolers, the present results suggest its applicability with kindergarten children. Independent observers were consistent in their categorizations, and the proportions of children assigned to each social role were similar to those obtained by Adcock and Segal (1983) and Segal et al. (1 987).

Certain behaviors were found to typify each of the five different social roles included in the topology. KingdQueens exhibited extremely high levels of self-confidence, organizational ability, and conflict-resolution skills. Bishops were less outgoing than KingdQueens but also enjoyed great popularity within their smaller circles. Adult- orientation and high verbal ability/creativity were the predominant characteristics of the Bishops in this sample.

Lords were found to be the children who were the most directed toward social in- itiation and organization of their peers. They were not as talented as KingdQueens or Bishops but their determination to direct others enabled them to assume leadership over their less-assertive peers. Once their leadership had been attained, they were very con- scious of their ability to control others and were dedicated toward its maintenance.

The majority of Vassals epitomized the ideal of a “best friend” becoming closely attached to a child with social power. Having developed this relationship, they became dependable playmates who happily followed their chosen leader’s direction. Most of the Vassals were very responsive interaction partners who understood what was expected of them in social exchange.

Although the Serfs were characterized by low social status and power, there ap- peared to be a dichotomy within the group regarding children’s reactions to their low- peer status. One group of Serfs were quite content with peripheral involvement in group activities and seemed to enjoy quiet solitary play. The other group appeared dissatisfied with their limited social experiences. Unhappy being the secondary playmate to a higher- status child, these Serfs aspired to greater social involvement and seemed to covet the Vassal’s role. Unfortunately, these children generally lacked the requisite social skills necessary to achieve this goal.

Medieval Kingdom 137

The present findings are not only consistent with those of Adcock and Segal(l983) and Segal et al. (1987) but also with other research (e.g., Howes, 1987; Sroufe, 1983) and suggest that leadership, social facility, and self-confidence are predominant characteristics of children with higher social status. Leadership ability was found to be the most salient feature in differentiating children. Whereas KingdQueens, Bishops, and Lords had the ability to lead their peers, Vassals and Serfs exhibited few if any leadership skills and tended to adhere to those who did.

A correlation matrix reveals moderate correlations between children's social role and cognitive ability (r= .40, p < .001) and chronological age (r= .34, p < .001) were found to be significant. No significant correlations were found for birth order or family size. Mean scores and percentile ranks on the dependent variables for the five social roles are presented in Table 2. The data illustrate that the mean score for the kindergarten children exceeds that of the standardization sample on both the CCAT and BASE tests. Although the cognitive ability, academic self-esteem, and physical attractiveness levels of the children tended to cluster above their age-normative means, differences between the five social roles were still identified.

A Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance revealed significant main effects for cognitive ability, ~'(166) = 62.26, p < .001, physical attractiveness, ~'(173) = 40.73, p < .001, and

Table 2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Social Roles by Dependent Measures

~~~~~~~ ~ ~

Role Dependent King/ Bishop Lord Vassal Serf Total Measure Queen

CCAT' M SD n percentile rank

Self-esteemb M SD n percentile rank

Physical M attractiveness' SD

n

Age M SD n

Number of siblings M SD n

63.00 4.40

I 1 92

63.73 5.31

11 79

3.82 0.75

1 1

77.45 2.07

I 1

I .45 1.13

1 1

60.90 6.75 31 86

62.00 7.43 31 72

3.53 0.69 31

75.39 3.52 31

I .48 0.93 31

56.00 9.73 17 68

59.17 7.07 18 59

3.08 0.96 18

75.06 3.93 18

1.44 0.70 18

55.47 8.99 47 65

57.90 6.50 49 56

3.19 0.83 49

73.37 3.09 49

1.60 0.91 49

51.20 55.50 10.19 9.71 60 166 50 68

49.14 59.94 8.71 9.24 63 172 27 63

2.57 3.05 0.68 0.86 64 173

73.19 74.10 3.45 3.53 64 173

1.45 1.49 0.78 0.85 64 173

~~

'Standardization population mean = 51.0 (range = 0-84). bStandardization population mean = 56.4 (range = 16-80). 'Expected sample mean = 2.5 (range = 1-5).

138 Bennett and Derevensky

self-esteem, ~ ~ ( 1 7 2 ) = 62.26, p< .001. Further post hoc analyses utilizing t tests or in- dependent samples indicated that children in leadership social roles significantly exceeded children classified as followers in their cognitive ability, t(164)=4.57, p< .001, self-esteem t(170)=6.38, p< .001, physical attractiveness, t(171)=4.69, p < .W1, and were somewhat older, t(171)=4.48, p< .001.

The finding that cognitive ability is related to social status within the Medieval Kingdom is not surprising given the existing body of research. Cognitive and intellec- tual abilities have long been found to correlate with peer social standing (Hartup, 1983). Roff et al. (1972) demonstrated that popular children were significantly brighter than less-popular children within each of four socioeconomic levels. Specific cognitive skills such as interpersonal problem-solving ability (Conger & Keane, 1981; Rubin & Daniels- Beirness, 1983), communication ability (Burleson, 1986; Putallaz, 1983), and moral reasoning (Sullivan, 1953) have also been associated with social status.

It seems reasonable to assume that children with heightened cognitive abilities, relative to their peers, are in a better position to assume social leadership roles and that leadership itself may be an ability that is important in identifying children with high potential for success. In fact, the combination of cognitive skills and leadership ability exhibited by KingdQueens in this study parallels that which has been proposed as be- ing reflective of “giftedness” (Renzulli, 1978).

The present results indicating that there is a significant relationship between self- esteem and social status are consistent with the work of Russell (1989), Withycombe (1973), and Wylie (1979). However, in contrast to the finding that positive self-esteem scores were strongest for children with the highest social status, some researchers (e.g., Reese, 1961) have found the relationship between the two variables to be curvilinear.

It is difficult to address these somewhat contrasting findings because of the dis- crepancy between the manner in which self-esteem was assessed in this study compared to other research. Nonetheless, it seems plausible that a relationship exists whereby high self-esteem enhances leadership ability and successful leadership augments self-esteem.

Of the possible correlates of social status, physical attractiveness is the most widely supported. There is a consistent and diverse body of evidence demonstrating this relation- ship. Consistent with the present findings is evidence that preschoolers more frequently attribute friendliness and nonaggressiveness to physically attractive children but more readily attribute negative social behaviors to those viewed as unattractive (Adams & Crane, 1980; Dion & Berscheid, 1974). Further, attractive kindergarten children are rated by peers as smarter and more prosocial than unattractive children (Langlois & Stephan, 1977). Attractive individuals were also judged by preschool children (Langlois & Stephan, 1977). elementary school children, and adolescents (Cavior & Dokecki, 1973) as being more likely to be “good” friends. Thus, it is not surprising that children perceived as physically attractive were found to be more likely to assume positions of social leader- ship within the Medieval Kingdom topology.

Chronological age was also found to be significantly correlated with social status. A trend in the data suggested that the eldest children tended to assume more leadership roles. Although this finding is consistent with Segal et al. (1987), who reported that a greater proportion of leadership styles were found in older children, the age differences in both studies are relatively small and thus limit interpretation.

Several factors including gender, birth order, and number of siblings were found not to be significantly related to social status within the Medieval Kingdom. Neither

Medieval Kingdom 139

Adcock and Segal (1983) nor Segal et al. (1987) reported significant sex differences in behavior relating to social success. Although differences in leadership ability and/or social status were not statistically related to gender, there was a trend in the data wherein a higher proportion of boys assumed the leadership role of a Bishop and a higher percentage of girls were classified as Vassals.

A number of researchers (Miller & Maruyama, 1976; Sells & Roff, 1964) have demonstrated that the youngest child in the family is chosen more consistently as friend and playmate. Yet the present results demonstrate no significant relationship between birth order and social status that is consistent with other findings (Baughman 8z Dahlstrom, 1968; Ernst & Angst, 1983; Neetz, 1974).

Similarly, the proposed effects of family size previously reported (Zajonc, 1975, 1976) were not supported by these results. Zajonc’s work has recently come under substan- tial criticism (e.g., Ernst & Angst, 1983), and the influence of family size on a number of factors including social status is brought into doubt.

In conclusion, the present study provides evidence that Adcock and Segal’s (1983) method of conceptualizing the peer relationships of preschoolers can be applied to a sample of somewhat older children. The results further suggest that cognitive ability, self-esteem, and physical attractiveness are significantly associated with the outcome of the Medieval Kingdom topology and the adoption of social roles. Children’s social net- works become increasingly more important as they mature. This change, coupled with their evolving emotional, psychological, and physical development, significantly affects the acquisition of social roles. The Medieval Kingdom metaphor provides a useful framework for understanding the young child’s social status and behavior. Although the metaphor is both interesting and indicative of the child‘s social status at an early age, its long-term predictive validity remains to be addressed. Furthermore, implica- tions for the pairing of children to promote social developmental growth, interpersonal skill refinement, and the solidification of friendship patterns remain unanswered and require examination.

REFERENCES ADAMS, G., & CRANE, P. (1980). An assessment of parents’ and teachers’ expectations of preschool children’s

social preference for attractive or unattractive children and adults. Child Development, 51, 224-23 1. ADCOCK, D., B SEOAL, M. (1983). Making friends. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. AINSWORTH, M., BLBHAR, M., WATERS, E., & WALL, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological

study of strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. BANDURA, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. BAUOHMAN, E. , DAHLSTROM, W. (1968). Negro and White children: A psychological study in the rural

BRONFENBRBNNBR, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cam-

BUKOWSKI, W., ~r NEWCOMB, A. (1984). Stability and determinants of sociometric status and friendship

BUKOWSKI, W., & NEWCOMB, A. (1985). Variability in peer group perceptions. Developmental Psychology,

BURLBSON, B. (1986). Communication skills and children’s peer relationships. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Com-

BURLESON, B., APPLEOATB, J . , BURKE, J., CLARK, R., DELIA, J . , & KLINE, S. (1986). Communication cor-

C ~ O N , C., LAHBY, B., & NEEPER, R. (1984). Peer assessments of the social behavior of accepted, re-

south. New York: Academic Press.

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

choice. Developmental Psychology, 10, 941-952.

21, 1032-1038.

munication yearbook (Vol. 9, pp. 143-180). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

relates of peer acceptance in childhood. Communication Education, 35, 358-361.

jected, and neglected children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 187-198.

140 Bennett and Derevensky

CAWOR, N., & DOKECKI, P. (1973). Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude similarity, and academic achieve- ment as contributors to interpersonal attachment among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 9,4454.

Con, J., DOWE, K., a COPPOTELLI, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspec- tive. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.

CONOER, J., B KEANE, A. (1981). Social skills intervention in the treatment of isolated or withdrawn children. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 478-495.

CONNOLLY, J., & Done, A. (1981). Assessment of social competence in preschoolers: Teachers versus peers. Developmental Psychology, 17, 454-462.

COOPERSMITH, S., & GEBSRTS, R. (1982). Behavioral and academic self-esteem: A rating scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

DMON, W., &MILLER, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347-367.

&ON, K., B BERSCHEID, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness and peer perception among children. Sociometry, 37, 1-12.

Dows, K. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386-1399. Dowe, K., SCHLUNDT, D., SCHOCKEN, I., & DELUOACH, K. (1983). Social competence and children’s

sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 309-355. ERIKSON, E. (1977). ERNST, C., B ANOST, J. (1983). Birth order: Its influence on personality. New York: Springer-Verlag. FAOOT, B. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in preschool children. Child Develop-

ment, 48, 902-907. GRESHAM, F., & R E S C ~ Y , D. (1987). Dimensions of social competence: Method factors in the assessment

of adaptive behavior, social skills, and peer acceptance. Journal of School Psychologv, 25, 367-381. GRUSEC, J., B LYTTON, H. (1988). Social development: History, theory and research. New York:

Springer-Verlag. HARTUP, W. (1983). Peer relations. In P. Mussen & E. Hetherington (Eds.), Manual of childpsychology

(4th ed.). New York: Wiley. HOWES, C. (1987). Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 53 (1, Serial No. 217). HYMEL, S. (1983). Preschool children’s peer relations: Issues in sociometric assessment. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 29, 237-260. IN-SUB, S. , B HATTI, J. (1984). The home environment, self-concept and academic achievement: A causal

modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1269-1281. KOHLBBRO, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development of socialization. In D. G o s h (Ed.),

Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. LANOLOIS, J., a STEPHAN. C. (1977). The effects of physical attractiveness and ethnicity on children’s behavioral

attributions and peer preferences. Child Development, 48, 1694-1968. MACCOBY, E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. MANNARINO, A. (1978). Friendship patterns and self-concept development in preadolescent males. Journal

of Genetic Psychologv, 133, 105-1 10. MILLER, N., a MARWAMA, G. (1976). Ordinal position and peer popularity. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 33, 123-131. NEETZ, V. (1974). Birth order and leadership in elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 6,409-415. PATTERSON, G. , L I T T ~ V , R., a BRICKER, W. (1967). Assertive behavior in children: A step toward a theory

of aggression. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 32, ( 5 , serial no. 113). PIAOET, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. PUTUUZ, M. (1 983). Predicting children’s sociometric status from their behavior. Child Development. 54,

REESE, H. (1961). Relationships between self-acceptance and sociometric choice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 472-474.

RENZULLI, J. (1978). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184. ROW, M., SELLS, S., a GOLDEN, M. (1972). Socialadjustment andpersonality development in children. Min-

RULIIN, D., a BORWICK, D. (1984). Communicative skills and sociability. In H. Sypher & J. Applegate (Eds.),

Toys and reasons. New York: Norton.

1386-1399.

neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Communication by children and adults. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Medieval Kingdom 141

RUBIN. K., & DANIELS-BE~ESS, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive correlates of sociometric status in

RUSSELL, A. (1989). Selfesreem. Winnipeg: Peguis Publishers. SEGAL, M., PECK, J., VEOA-LAHR, N., & FIELD, T. (1987). A Medieval Kingdom: Leader-follower styles

of preschool play. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychologv, 8, 79-95. SELL, S., I ROFF, M. (1964). Peer acceptance-rejection and birth order. Psychology in the SchooLs, 1, 156-162. SROLTE, L. (1983). Infantcaregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of maladap-

tation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Minnesota symposia in child psychologv (Vol. 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

kindergarten and Grade 1 children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 337-351.

SULLIVAN, H. (1953). THORNDIKE, R., HAOEN, E., & WRIOHT. E. (1984). The Canadian Cognitive Abilities Test. Chicago: Riverside. WITHYCOMBE, J. (1973). Relationships of self-concept, social status, and racial differences. Journal of Social

WYLIE, R. (1979). The selfconcept (Vol. 2): Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln: University

ZAHN-WAXLER, C., IANNOTTI, R., & CHAPMAN, M. (1982). Peers and prosocial development. In K. Rubin

ZNONC, R. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development. Psychological Review, 82, 74-88. ZAJONC, R. (1976). Family configuration and intelligence. Science, 192, 227-236.

The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

PSyChOlOgy, 91, 337-338.

of Nebraska Press.

& H. Ross (Eds.), Peer relationships and social skills in childhood. New York: Springer-Verlag.